City of Sultan Comprehensive Plan by zhouwenjuan

VIEWS: 26 PAGES: 412

									PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                       AUGUST 2007




           City of Sultan
         Comprehensive Plan


                 Adopted March 31, 2004
                  (Revised August 2007)
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007




                                     City of Sultan

The following officials, Staff and citizens contributed to this Comprehensive Plan update:

SULTAN CITY COUNCIL                                   PLANNING BOARD
Ben Tolson, Mayor                                     Kurt Latimore
Bruce Champeaux                                       Sarah Davenport-Smith
Kristina Blair                                        George Schmidt
Steve Slawson                                         Jeff Cofer
John Seehuus                                          Charles VanPelt
Jim Flower
Ron Wiediger
Derek Boyd

CITY STAFF
Deborah Knight, City Administrator
Rick Cisar, Director of Community Development
Donna Murphy, Grants Coordinator
Craig Bruner, CFM, Building Official
Laura Koenig, Clerk/Treasurer
Connie Dunn, Public Works Director
Jon R Stack, PE, City Engineer
Cyd Donk, Permit Assistant

CITIZENS & NEIGHBORHOODS OF SULTAN
Loretta Storm                                         Jeff & Elizabeth Kirkman
Clifford Morris                                       Ray Kistenmacher
Wendall Smith                                         Gordon MacDonald
Hans de Beer                                          Ron Kraut
Steve Gohl                                            Michael Kelly
Ray & Kay George                                      Barbara McPherson
Steven Fox                                            Tim Albers
Jean Roberts                                          Kelly Korn
Bob Ostrom                                            Garth York
Janie Botting                                         Mark & Josie Fallgatter
Bart Dalmasso                                         Merlin Halverson
Cole Auckland                                         Courtney Flora
Paul Tortorice                                        Marion Hamilton

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
Wayne Fjelstad, Skyridge Developent LLC               Brenda Fodge, Stanton Properties
Craig Sears, Taylor Development Group                 Frank Lemos, LDC Inc.
Steve Anderson, Group 4 Inc.                          Neil Latta, WEB Engineering
Dennis Jordan, Dennis Jordan & Associates




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page ii
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                       AUGUST 2007




                                                    Table of Contents


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1
 Sultan Since 1994................................................................................................................... 5
 Comprehensive Planning History ........................................................................................... 6
   The 2007 Comprehensive Plan .......................................................................................... 6
   Public Involvement.............................................................................................................. 6
 Environmental Summary ........................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER II: LAND USE ................................................................................................... 9
 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9
 Physical Setting ...................................................................................................................... 9
 Population Growth Trends .................................................................................................... 10
    Population Growth ............................................................................................................ 10
    Population Density............................................................................................................ 12
 Land Use Trends .................................................................................................................. 12
    Future Land Use ............................................................................................................... 13
    Residential Land Supply ................................................................................................... 13
    Commercial and Office Areas........................................................................................... 15
    Industrial ........................................................................................................................... 15
    Future Land Use Designations ......................................................................................... 15
      Low/Moderate Density Residential .......................................................................... 15
      Moderate Density Residential.................................................................................. 16
      High Density Residential ......................................................................................... 16
      Urban Center Zone.................................................................................................. 16
      Highway-Oriented Development Zone .................................................................... 16
      Economic Development Zone ................................................................................. 16
 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................ 17
 Environmental Summary ...................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER III: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 25
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 25
 Base/Service/Population Multiplier ....................................................................................... 26
 Economic Development Planning in Sultan.......................................................................... 27
 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................ 28
 Environmental Summary ...................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER IV: HOUSING.................................................................................................. 32
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 32
 Population and Housing Profile ............................................................................................ 33
    Projected Housing Needs ................................................................................................. 34
    Housing Types.................................................................................................................. 35
 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................ 35
 Environmental Summary ...................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER V: TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................. 39
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 39
 Existing Transportation Conditions ....................................................................................... 39
    Overview of the City Street System .................................................................................. 39


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                       Page iii
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                       AUGUST 2007




      Street Functional Classifications....................................................................................... 40
      Traffic Levels of Service ................................................................................................... 41
      Existing Bus Service Coverage ........................................................................................ 45
      Rail Transit........................................................................................................................ 46
      Non-motorized Transportation .......................................................................................... 46
        Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................ 46
        Trails ........................................................................................................................ 48
        Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................... 48
        Freight Transportation ............................................................................................. 48
   Forecasting Future Travel Demand ...................................................................................... 50
      Future Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 50
      Future Traffic Levels of Service ........................................................................................ 53
      Forecasts for Other Modes ............................................................................................... 56
        Transit...................................................................................................................... 56
        Non-motorized ......................................................................................................... 56
        Freight ..................................................................................................................... 57
   Transportation Improvement Plan ........................................................................................ 57
      Arterial System Improvements.......................................................................................... 57
      Arterial Street Design Standards ...................................................................................... 64
      Transit System Improvements .......................................................................................... 66
      Non-motorized System Improvements ............................................................................. 68
      Freight System Improvements.......................................................................................... 71
   Transportation Demand Management .................................................................................. 71
   State Owned Transportation System Facilities..................................................................... 71
   Intergovernmental Coordination ........................................................................................... 78
   Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................ 78
   Environmental Summary ...................................................................................................... 82
CHAPTER VI: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 83
 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 83
 The City of Sultan’s Natural Environment in 2007 ................................................................ 85
    The Physical Environment ................................................................................................ 85
      Soils ......................................................................................................................... 85
      Topography ............................................................................................................. 85
      Water ....................................................................................................................... 86
      Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 89
    Fish and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................... 89
      Animals.................................................................................................................... 89
      Fisheries .................................................................................................................. 90
 Protection Measures............................................................................................................. 91
 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................ 91
 Environmental Summary .................................................................................................... 100
CHAPTER VII: PARKS AND RECREATION ................................................................. 101
 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 101
 Existing Facilities ................................................................................................................ 101
 Other Facilities.................................................................................................................... 105
 Level of Service .................................................................................................................. 106
 Goals and Policies .............................................................................................................. 112
 Environmental Summary .................................................................................................... 117


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                       Page iv
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                     AUGUST 2007




CHAPTER VIII: CAPITAL FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES................................ 118
 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 118
    Capital Facilities Concurrency ........................................................................................ 119
    Essential Public Facilities ............................................................................................... 120
    Financial Considerations ................................................................................................ 120
    Capital Facilities in Sultan............................................................................................... 121
      Water Facilities ...................................................................................................... 121
    North Snohomish County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) ............................. 121
      Future Water Conditions........................................................................................ 123
    Sewer Facilities............................................................................................................... 123
      Future Sewer Conditions ....................................................................................... 125
    Treatment Plant Upgrade ............................................................................................... 125
    Surface Water Management........................................................................................... 126
      Future Conditions and Stormwater Protections..................................................... 128
    Solid Waste Services...................................................................................................... 130
    Transportation................................................................................................................. 131
      Transportation Mitigation Fees .............................................................................. 131
    Parks & Recreation Facilities.......................................................................................... 132
 General Government Services and Facilities ..................................................................... 132
    Sultan Police Department ............................................................................................... 132
    City of Sultan Facilities ................................................................................................... 133
    Non-City Facilities........................................................................................................... 135
      Fire District No. 5................................................................................................... 135
      Visitor Information Center...................................................................................... 136
      Library Services..................................................................................................... 136
      Sultan School District Facilities ............................................................................. 137
      Puget Sound Energy (PSE)................................................................................... 137
      Electric Power........................................................................................................ 138
      Verizon Telephone ................................................................................................ 139
      Cellular Systems.................................................................................................... 139
    Capital Facility Plan ........................................................................................................ 140
 Reassessment Strategy...................................................................................................... 145
    Transportation Funding................................................................................................... 145
 Goals and Policies .............................................................................................................. 148
 Environmental Summary .................................................................................................... 158


LIST OF MAPS
Map II-1: Sultan Urban Area Vicinity Map ......................................................................11
Map II-2: Future Land Use Map......................................................................................14




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                       Page v
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                  AUGUST 2007




LIST OF FIGURES
Figure V-1: 2007 Arterial Functional Classifications .......................................................42
Figure V-2: 2007 Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT)......................................................43
Figure V-3: 2007 Arterial Level of Service (LOS) ...........................................................44
Figure V-4: Sultan 2006 Public Transit Routes ..............................................................47
Figure V-5: 2005 Freight and Goods Transportation System .........................................49
Figure V-6: 2025 No Action Arterial Scenario – Average Weekday Traffic
         Volumes.............................................................................................................51
Figure V-7: Sultan 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario – Average Weekday Traffic
         Volumes.............................................................................................................52
Figure V-8: Sultan 2025 No Action Arterial Scenario LOS .............................................54
Figure V-9: Sultan 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario LOS ..............................................55
Figure V-10: Recommended Arterial Improvements ......................................................63
Figure V-11: Three-Lane Arterial with Bike Lanes..........................................................65
Figure V-12: Three-Lane Arterial with Multi Purpose Trail..............................................65
Figure V-13: Sultan 2025 Recommended Transit Streets ..............................................66
Figure V-14: Sultan 2025 Recommended Transit Streets ..............................................67
Figure V-15: Future Bike Lanes and Trails .....................................................................70
Figure V-16: US-2 RDP Draft Recommended Safety Improvements .............................74
Figure V-17: US-2 RDP Draft Recommended Capacity Improvements .........................75
Figure VI-1: Critical Areas 2006 .....................................................................................84
Figure VII-1: Parks and Recreation Facilities ...............................................................104
Figure VIII-1: Water Facilities .......................................................................................122
Figure VIII-2: Sewer Facilities.......................................................................................124
Figure VIII-3: Comprehensive Storm System ...............................................................129
Figure VIII-4: General Government Facilities ...............................................................134


LIST OF TABLES
Table II-1: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Summary (2005).................................................12
Table III-1: Employment Holding Capacity .....................................................................26
Table IV-1: Average Annual Income (2000 Census) ......................................................34
Table IV-2: New Housing Units Needed 2004-2025.......................................................35
Table V-1: US-2 2006 Intersection LOS .........................................................................41
Table V-2: US-2 2025 Intersection LOS .........................................................................53
Table V-3: Recommended Existing Street Deficiency Projects ......................................59
Table V-4: Recommended Arterial System Capacity Projects .......................................59
Table V-5: Recommended Arterial System Enhancement Projects ...............................60
Table V-6: Transportation Projects Beyond 2025...........................................................62
Table V-7: Recommended Arterial Street Design Standards .........................................64
Table V-8: Recommended Non-motorized Improvements .............................................69
Table V-9: Planning Level Costs (Est. for Recommended Improvements) ....................76
Table VII-1: Park and Recreation Facilities ..................................................................105
Table VII-2: Level of Service for Parks .........................................................................107
Table VIII-1: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan Summary............................................140
Table VIII-2: City of Sultan Capital Facilities Plan ($ Millions) 2007-2012....................141
Table VIII-3: Comparison of Forecasted 2007 – 2025 Transportation Revenues
          and Projected Costs ........................................................................................147


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                  Page vi
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                        AUGUST 2007


LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
Appendix B: Level of Service (LOS)
Appendix C: Definitions
Appendix D: Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Appendix E: Comprehensive Plan Survey
Appendix F: Comprehensive Plan Checklist: A Technical Assistance Tool from
            the Washington State Office of Community Development Growth
            Management Services
Appendix G: City of Sultan Transportation Element
Appendix H: Industrial Park Master Plan and Final SEIS
Appendix I: Documents Adopted by Reference
                City of Sultan Transportation Element, June 2007
                City of Sultan Water System Plan, December 2005
                City of Sultan Final EIS Comprehensive Plan Update 2003
                City of Sultan Presentation of the Sewer Rate Study Update
                Preliminary Results, July 2007
                Snohomish County Wide Planning Policies
                Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan
                2004 Sewer Rate & General Facilities Charge Analysis
                2006 City of Sultan General Sewer Plan, as amended
                2006 WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report
                2006 WWTP Upgrade Report General Sewer Plan
                Sewer Rate & General Facilities Charge Analysis




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                              Page vii
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                                  CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION



CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

This     introductory    section     explains    what a
comprehensive plan is, why this update is being
undertaken, the State planning laws under which it
falls, and what vision of the City the citizens have.

This Comprehensive Plan was developed in
accordance with the Growth Management Act1 (GMA)
to address growth issues in the City of Sultan and the
adjacent Urban Growth Area (UGA). It represents the
community’s policy plan to guide decision making for growth over the next 20 years. It will
assist the management of the City by providing policies to guide decision making for growth,
development and public services. Cities are required to update their plans every ten years.
The original Sultan GMA Plan was adopted in 1994 and planned through the year 2015.
The update adopted in 2004 will carry the community forward through 2025. This 2007
update addresses certain issues raised by the Growth Management Hearings Board, but
upon adoption will represent the 10-year update of the original 1994 Plan.

The Growth Management Act has 13 planning goals that must be addressed in any city’s
comprehensive plan:

1. Urban Growth: “Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
   and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.”

    Chapter VIII (Capital Facilities and Public Services) discusses these service issues.
    Chapter III (Economic Development) discusses how urban growth over the coming
    decades will occur.

2. Reduce Sprawl: “Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
   sprawling, low-density development.”

    Chapter II (Land Use) discusses how growth will be accommodated in an orderly, quality
    manner.

3. Transportation: “Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based
   on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.”

    Chapter V (Transportation) summarizes the Sultan Urban Area Transportation Plan
    2025 and how transportation will serve future land uses and population.




1
    RCW 36.70A.070

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 1
Introduction
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                   CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

4. Housing: “Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
   the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
   and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.”

   Chapter IV (Housing) discusses the current housing situation in Sultan and future
   affordable housing needs through 2025 based on population projections.

5. Economic Development: “Encourage economic development throughout the state that
   is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all
   citizens of the state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
   encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the
   capacities of the state’s natural resources, public services, and public facilities.”

   Chapter III (Economic Development) addresses economic development challenges and
   opportunities for the community.

6. Property Rights: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
   compensation having been made. The property right of landowners shall be protected
   from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.”

   The Sultan Comprehensive Plan has been developed over the years as a policy
   document that aims to achieve a quality community while respecting the rights of each
   business owner and property owner to develop his or her land to the fullest extent within
   those policies. The public has been very accepting of the balance. As with other GMA
   communities, Sultan has an annual review process where adjustments can be made to
   the Plan based on changing circumstances.

7. Permits: “Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed
   in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.”

   An up-to-date comprehensive plan, and the updated regulations to follow, offer the best
   opportunity for a predictable permitting process. The updated Plan strives to be as
   specific as possible to avoid the ambiguities that create controversy and delay.

8. Natural Resource Industries: “Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,
   including productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries. Encourage the
   conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and
   discourage incompatible uses.”

   Cities and counties must identify “resource lands” with long-term commercial
   significance. The City works closely with Snohomish County in the coordination of
   planning efforts so that the growth that often encroaches on our natural resource
   industries is accommodated within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City is
   supportive of Countywide Planning Policies intended to protect our local resource
   industries.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 2
Introduction
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                    CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

9. Open Space And Recreation: “Encourage the retention of open space and development
   of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to
   natural resource lands and water, and develop parks.”

   Chapter VII of the Plan (Parks and Recreation) addresses Sultan’s parks and
   recreational opportunities, as contained in the City’s Parks and Recreation Plan.

10. Environment: “Protect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life,
    including air and water quality, and the availability of water.”

   The Natural Environment section of the Plan (Chapter VI) speaks to these issues.

11. Citizen Participation And Coordination: “Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
    planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
    reconcile conflict.”

   Sultan is cooperating with Snohomish County to coordinate development of their
   respective Plan updates. The City’s updated 2004 Plan involved significant public
   involvement through workshops and citizens surveys. This 2007 update was publicized
   in newspapers and on the web site as it worked its way through the Planning Board and
   City Council. The revised format has made for a more readable, citizen-friendly
   document.

12. Public Facilities And Services: “Ensure that those public facilities and services
    necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the
    time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current
    service levels below locally established minimum standards.”

   Chapter VIII discuss capital facilities and public services and how they will be expected
   to serve increasing growth in the Sultan area.

13. Historic Preservation: “Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
    structures that have historical or archaeological significance.”

   Policies are provided in Chapter II (Land Use), which discuss the historic preservation
   implications of future housing growth.

According to the Growth Management Act (GMA), all of the planning elements must be
integrated into a single, internally consistent plan that balances the goals in each element.
While each element is focused on its’ specific topic, it must be done within the context of the
whole plan. Done correctly the Comprehensive Plan should be an effective tool in
achieving the community’s vision.

In addition to the required components of the Plan, the City has defined particular objectives
based on the unique quality of the Sultan community and its regional setting:

1. Comply with state laws: Comply with all state planning and community development
   requirements including Chapter 35.63 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 3
Introduction
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                   CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

   concerning public planning and the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA)
   Chapter 35.60A of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Ensure minimum
   standards are maintained, that local properties may be insured, and that Sultan may be
   eligible for development grants, loans, and other borrowings.

2. Guide decisions: Provide logical, reasoned goals, policies, plans and proposed
   programs, regulations and implementation devices that Sultan's elected and appointed
   administrative officials may use to make public decisions.

3. Resolve problems: Identify major social, economic, and environmental problems and
   opportunities that future plans and programs may resolve or take advantage of.

4. Promote understanding: Describe and explain the nature, relationship, choices,
   implications, and opportunities involved in urban development so that Sultan residents
   may evaluate and select preferred future conditions.

5. Encourage participation:   Incorporate citizen input to determine issues, obtain
   preferences, make decisions and provide support for the implementation of proposed
   plan contents.

6. Implement desired consequences: Identify required actions, programs, projects, control
   and management devices, costs and consequences, time schedules, and
   responsibilities necessary for the effective implementation of preferred plan contents.

7. Determine the future: Describe and select the sequence, pattern, location, and
   characteristics of desired future development conditions and probable impacts on
   environmental, economic, and social conditions.

8. Update products:       Continuously review the contents of the selected plan and
   implementation devices, including inter-local agreements with Snohomish County,
   Sultan School District, and other agencies, to revise or expand the contents to ensure
   consistency with Sultan's needs and to reflect changes in conditions or desires. When
   City Council determines it appropriate and necessary, amend the Comprehensive Plan,
   Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), and any other supporting documents to comply with an
   emergency situation not covered in annual update procedures outlined in RCW
   36.70A.130 and WAC 365-195-630(2).

9. Coordinate efforts:       Monitor other agency activities, including actions within
   unincorporated areas by Snohomish County, Washington Departments of
   Transportation, Wildlife, Ecology, and others that concern the Sultan Urban Growth Area
   (UGA) and coordinate local efforts to realize practical consequences and to make
   effective use of mutual resources and interests.

10. Involve the private sector: Include the private sector in future Sultan area planning
    events and involve private market resources to the maximum extent possible in plan
    implementation tasks to create efficiencies, realize beneficial relationships and promote
    the common good.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 4
Introduction
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                     CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

11. Ensure equal opportunity: Adopt ordinances and promote measures that will ensure
    equal access and opportunity regardless of race, sex, socioeconomic status or physical
    capability.

GMA does not intend that communities “start over” with their plans. The Act encourages
continuity from one planning period to another and requires only that communities update
information and confirm their planning goals. That is the thrust of this 2007 Plan update.


SULTAN SINCE 1994

Comprehensive Plan updates are intended to keep the community’s growth strategy and
vision current. To ensure that Sultan’s plan adapts to changes without affecting its vision, a
look at the key changes to the community since the original comprehensive plan was
adopted in 1994 is helpful:
•   Population within Sultan's municipal limits - increased from about 2,227 persons in 1990
    to an estimated 3,344 persons in 2000 averaging an annual rate of 3.2 percent over the
    past ten years. This rate is above what was projected in the 1994 plan – not accounting
    for possible annexations.
•   Commercial and industrial land potentials - increased significantly with the adoption of
    the Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan.
•   Pending changes in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and FEMA floodplain
    designation - could affect riverfront buffer, open space allocations, park lands and trails,
    and other habitat issues.
•   Possible improvements to SR-2 - could affect downtown access and development
    opportunities.
•   Implementation of any of the above - could affect future City fiscal resources and
    budgetary planning.

The City of Sultan has begun to evolve from a primarily resource-based economy into a
more diversified economy. Early residents were employed in fishing, agriculture, forestry
and some manufacturing activities located in Sultan and the adjacent Skykomish Valley
area. Current residents are employed increasingly in manufacturing, retail, service, and
government and educational sectors in Sultan and locations elsewhere in Snohomish and
King Counties. The construction of SR-522 from Bothell to Monroe has caused Sky Valley
to emerge as a commuter route to the central Bellevue and Seattle centers. In summary,
more and more, Sultan serves as home to King and Snohomish County commuters, as a
stop-off for travelers on US-2 and as a destination point for people enjoying recreation in
and around the community.

In 2007, the City comprises 2,557 acres.        The City occupies about 80% of the Urban
Growth Area (UGA).




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 5
Introduction
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                                 CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING HISTORY

As the City moves forward on updating its Comprehensive Plan, it is helpful to review past
planning efforts. This gives context and continuity to the current effort.

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan

The 2007 Sultan Plan includes the following elements:
      Land Use (Chapter II)
      Economic Development (Chapter III)
      Housing (Chapter IV)
      Transportation (Chapter V)
      Natural Environment (VI)
      Parks and Recreation (Chapter VII)
      Capital Facilities and Public Services (Chapter VIII)

This Plan updates those chapters from the 2004 Plan. The chapter on Economic
Development and Critical Areas Protection was not a part of the Plan in 1997. The Critical
Areas Protection element was added in 2007 to address “Best Available Science”
requirements of GMA. (A critical areas ordinance has also been adopted by the City.)

Public Involvement

Public involvement opportunities and meetings were held as follows during the adoption
process for the Plan:

    Date     Opportunity/Meeting Description
   07/11/06 Sultan Planning Board Meeting (SPBM)-Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Overview
   08/01/06 SPBM- Plan Task & Schedule Amendments
   08/15/06 SPBM- Prioritization of Tasks for Plan Updates/Amendments
   09/05/06 SPBM- Plan Amendment, Tasks & Schedule
   10/03/06 SPBM- Reid Shockey Plan Amendments, Tasks & Schedule Presentation
   10/17/06 SPBM- Reid Shockey Draft Capital Facility Plan Presentation
   11/14/06 SPBM- Reid Shockey Draft Capital Facility Plan Presentation
   11/28/06 SPBM- Approval of Capital Facilities Plan
   12/05/06 SPBM- Review of Capital Facilities Plan Revisions
   02/08/07 Staff meeting in Sultan
   02/20/07 SPBM-Eric Ireland Plan Traffic Information Plan Revisions & Project Overview
            Presentation
   02/20/07 SPBM- Reid Shockey Review of Plan - Parks, Capital Facilities Plan, and Land
            Use Element Presentation
   03/07/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan
   03/13/07 Open House
   03/16/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 6
Introduction
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                     CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

  03/20/07 SPBM
  03/28/07 Public Meeting in Sultan
  03/28/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan
  05/01/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan
  05/02/07 Staff Meeting in Everett
  05/15/07 Public Meeting and Open House in Sultan
  05/15/07 Planning Board Meeting
  05/24/07 City Council Meeting
  05/29/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan
  06/11/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan
  06/26/07 Planning Board Meeting
  07/18/07 Staff Meeting in Sultan
  07/31/07 Public Meeting in Sultan
  07/31/07 Planning Board Meeting




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                              Page 7
Introduction
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                    CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

This Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 2004 was created as an integrated Growth
Management Act (GMA)/State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document. SEPA requires
all State and local agencies to use an interdisciplinary, integrated approach to include
environmental factors – both natural and built – in its long-range planning and day-to-day
decision-making. Conducting the environmental review at the planning stage allows the
City to effectively integrate the goals and requirements of SEPA and GMA, while
coordinating individual development decisions as the Plan is implemented.

The SEPA review of the Plan is a “planning-level” analysis as opposed to a “project-level”
analysis. The latter is done for specific projects on specific sites and is much more detailed.
A planning-level analysis is more general in nature. SEPA requires that analysis be as
specific as the information available. Because the Comprehensive Plan is more general in
its discussion of topics, so will the analysis be more general than what might be found in a
project-level SEPA review. It is assumed that as specific projects or decisions are made in
the future, more detailed information will be provided, and that the policies of this Plan will
be considered in decision-making. This is referred to as “Phased Review” and will be a part
of future decision-making using this 2007 updated Plan.

The 2004 Plan was adopted after conclusion of the environmental review process. The
reformatted 2007 Plan provides the same information regarding how development trends
through 2025 will be addressed and mitigated to meet the goals of SEPA. It differs only to
the extent that changes were made to respond the Growth Management Hearings Board
directives. Again, the technical background supporting the mitigation measures can be
found in the documents adopted by reference as part of the 2007 Plan (see Appendix I).




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 8
Introduction
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                        CHAPTER II – LAND USE



CHAPTER II: LAND USE

INTRODUCTION

The Land Use Element is one of the six mandatory
elements required by the Growth Management Act2:

    [The City must adopt a] Land Use element
    designating the proposed general distribution and
    general location and extent of the uses of land,
    where     appropriate,     for   agriculture,   timber
    production,     housing,       commerce,      industry,
    recreation, open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities, and
    other land uses. [It] shall include population densities, building intensities and
    estimates of future population growth. The land use element shall provide for
    protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies.
    Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and storm
    water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective
    actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state…

This section establishes the framework for the City’s future land use development. It
represents the community's policy plan for growth over the next 20 years in a very tangible
way. It considers the general location, intensity and density of land uses, how traffic,
drainage, community services, etc. will be affected and controlled by regulating
development. It has a high emphasis on how citizens will be able to use their land and
therefore is among the most sensitive topics of government regulation.

Throughout this Plan there is discussion of groundwater, drainage, flooding, stormwater
run-off and other elements mandated by GMA. These, along with traffic, community
services, etc. are all related to land use. So, while there may not be extensive discussion of
these issues within this Land Use section, they are basic considerations in developing the
Land Use Map for the City.


PHYSICAL SETTING

Sultan is located at the confluence of the Sultan and Wallace Rivers with the Skykomish
River in the Skykomish River valley. Old Sultan is located at an elevation 100 feet above
Puget Sound on the north bank of the Skykomish River and east bank of the Sultan River.

The eastern limits of the City and UGA are located on top of one of the bluffs that extend
south defining the eastern edge of the Sultan River valley and the north edge of the
Skykomish River valley. The bluff overlooks the valley floors, old town, and Cascade
Mountains.

2
    RCW 36.70A.070(1)

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 9
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                                          CHAPTER II – LAND USE


The City and its UGA are affected by floodwaters from the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers.
Two other surface water bodies – Wallace River and Wagleys Creek – run through the City,
but do not pose significant flood risk.

Sultan lies along State Highway 2 (US-2), a major east-west cross-state highway. While
providing large traffic volumes served by the Sultan economy, the increasing volumes have
created concerns throughout the Sky Valley communities regarding traffic safety on access
to local streets. (See Chapter V – Transportation.)


POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS

The City of Sultan and the Urban Growth Area (UGA) (see Map II-1 – Sultan Urban Area
Vicinity) will be discussed throughout this section as the two main boundaries of study in
this update. Population projections are important to planning for future public service needs
such as roads, parks, schools, infrastructure (transportation, utility services, etc.), and social
services. It also identifies needs for new facilities and services for the growing population of
different age groups, from school-age students to workforces and retirees.

The population projections for Snohomish County are based on forecasts by the
Washington State Office of Financial Management. The County and its cities, through
Snohomish County Tomorrow, allocate population estimates to each city, school district and
the unincorporated area. Population projections for Sultan are taken from these estimates.

Population Growth

Sultan was incorporated as a municipal jurisdiction in 1905 with a resident population of 576
persons. The resident population increased on a gradual basis averaging 1.5 to 1.8% per
year from 1910 to 1940. The population declined by 1.6% between 1940-1950 and
increased 0.1% from 1950-1960 as a result of World War II and the economic adjustments
thereafter. The population gradually increased in the decades since averaging 3.1 to 4.1%
from 1960-2000 resulting in an estimated population of 3,473 by the year 2002 in the City
limits. An estimated 2,683 persons resided within the 1990 Sultan UGA. 83% of those
resided within the city limits. In 2000, 3,344 persons resided within the Sultan UGA of
which 95% resided within city limits.

The resident population increased at a rate considerably higher than the surrounding county
between 1960 and 2000 as corporate boundaries expanded to include and allow suburban
development of the Skykomish Valley and the original downtown business district.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                 Page 10
Land Use
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                                        CHAPTER II – LAND USE

The estimated 1970 population for the Skykomish Valley area3 was 4,375 persons of which
1,119 persons or 26% resided within Sultan city limits. The estimated 2000 population of
the Skykomish Valley area was 11,400 persons of which 3,344 persons or 29% resided
within Sultan city limits – the balance located in Gold Bar, Index, or surrounding
unincorporated Snohomish County.

The Puget Sound Regional Council expects the Skykomish Valley area will eventually
support 17,026 persons by the year 2010, 20,549 persons by the year 2020, and 23,977
persons by the year 2030.

By the year 2012, Snohomish County Tomorrow expects 5,148 persons will reside in the
UGA of which 90% will reside in city limits, as shown in Table II-1. Snohomish County
Tomorrow expects the current UGA will eventually support a population of 11,119 persons
at build-out in 2025. It is assumed that the entire UGA will be a part o the City by that time.
                       Table II-1: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Summary (2005)
                                                                            Unincorporated   Total UGA
                                                     City of Sultan
                                                                                 Area
             1990 Population                                  2,227             456              2,683
             2000 Population                                  3,344             187              3,532
          2012 Population (Est.)                              4,633             515              5,148
          2025 Population (Est.)                             11,119                             11,119
    *   Source: Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, June 28, 2005.


Population Density

Population density is the average number of people occupying an area relative to the area’s
size. Density is an important factor in determining how much land will be needed to
accommodate the estimated 2025 population. Historical trends help to understand how
Sultan has developed in the past as an indicator of how it will develop in the future.

The 2000 population was officially 3,344 persons. As indicated below, the total residential
land use when the original Plan update was prepared in 2004 was 1,622 acres. The gross
population density is therefore calculated to be about two persons per acre. As the
population grows over the next 20 years to its projected total of 11,119 the density of
development will increase, in both the single-family residential neighborhoods (3-4 dwellings
per acre; and the multiple family areas (8 units per acre and more).


LAND USE TRENDS

Availability of land resources in the community affects the location and nature of new
development, as well as opportunities for redevelopment of existing areas. Existing land
use directly impacts the community’s future growth, transportation and public facility needs.

The current Sultan city limits encompass 2,557.0 acres of which:
   1,622.0 acres or 63% is devoted to residential land use,

3
    CT 538.00 or FAZ 8910

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                             Page 12
Land Use
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                          CHAPTER II – LAND USE

    272.3 acres or 11% is used for manufacturing, utilities, retail, services, and institutional
    land uses;
    646.5 acres or 25% is devoted to agriculture, forest, undeveloped, vacant, and water,
    and
    16.2 acres or 1% is uncategorized.

The total UGA contains 3,236.0 acres of which:
   2,079.2 acres or 64% is devoted to residential land use,
   272.3 acres or 8% to manufacturing, utilities, retail, services, and institutional land uses,
   867.1 acres or 27% to agriculture, forest, undeveloped, vacant, and water, and
   17.4 acres or 1% unknown.

Future Land Use

The Future Land Use Map for the City balances these existing land use distributions against
the projected population and economic growth to ensure that there will be sufficient lands to
accommodate growth through 2025. The Future Land Use Map (see Map II-2) shows the
proposed distribution and location of various land uses anticipated during the next 20 years.
The Map serves as a guide for development and land use planning and outlines where
development is expected to occur. The Land Use Map adopted in 2004 remains
unchanged for this 2007 update except as modified during the annual docket (amendment)
process. The UGA boundary was amended in 2007 and is slightly larger than that shown in
the original 2004 Plan.

The Future Land Use Map proposes long-range general use of property for the next 20
years. In contrast, the City of Sultan Zoning Map indicates the specific type of land use that
the property is currently suited for based on existing conditions. The Zoning Map is subject
to continuous amendments so that land, over time, will gradually and systematically be
rezoned to be consistent with the planning policies and long-range objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. There may be more than one appropriate zoning category within a
particular area if it meets environmental and other regulations and if it fits the needs for that
area as well as the betterment of the community. If the Future Land Use Map indicates a
land use that current zoning in that area does not allow, a rezone may be considered
appropriate. Upon adoption of the 2007 revised Plan, there will be an evaluation to
determine when and if any rezoning of land will be necessary.

Residential Land Supply

In updating its Comprehensive Plan, the City must show that it has adequate buildable land
to accommodate the projected population through 2025. The City has determined that
based on past population trends, population density, projected housing demand and its land
use survey, there will be sufficient land to accommodate the population (and employment)
growth through 2025. The City has added two expansion areas to its UGA boundary4 to
ensure that the residential land inventory is sufficient.


4
    As part of the 2007 Snohomish County annual amendment (docket) process.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 13
Land Use
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          112TH ST SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       City of Sultan




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     329T H SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        WA S HI NG TON
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                116TH ST SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              FUTURE LAND USE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Comprehensive Plan
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       118TH PL SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        336TH D R SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  327TH AVE SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     120TH ST SE


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  121ST ST SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     331ST AVE SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            336TH PL SE
                                              11
                                                 9   TH
                                                          P
                                                              L
                                                                  S
                                                                      E
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              124TH ST SE


                                                                             T   SE
                                                                      5T H S




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 329TH AVE SE
                                                              12




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      SULTAN BASIN ROAD
                                                                                                                                         307TH AVE SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ±
                                                                                        302ND DR SE



                                                                                                        303RD DR SE




                                                                                          131ST PL SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            132ND ST SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                D
                                                                                                                                                                                             OA
                                                                                                                                                                                          R
                                                                                                                                        TROUT FARM ROAD




                                                                                                                                                                                         HR
                                                                                                                                                                                    GO




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        135TH ST SE


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Legend
                                                                                                                                                                                  D
                            13




                                                                                                                                                                               OA
                               3




                                                                                                                                                                              R
                             RD




                                                                                                                                                                         HR




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     9TH ST
                               PL




                                                                                                                                                                      GO




                                                                                                                                                                             135TH ST SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        City Boundary
                                  SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        UGA Boundary
                                                                                                                                                                                          4TH ST SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  343RD AVE SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Zoning & Land Use
                                                                         SE
                                                              302ND AV E




                            138TH PL SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     339TH AVE SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          138TH ST SE                                                                                           138TH ST SE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Low/Moderate Density
                                                                                                                                          1S T ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    140TH ST SE                                                         D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Moderate Density
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               R
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            JUNCTION LANE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        High Density
                     O AD




                                                                                                                                                                                                                        HIGH AVE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Highway Oriented Development
                    ER R




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     LARSEN LANE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Y2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Urban Center
                   REIN




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 US HW
                                                                                                                                                                                                              7TH ST
                                                                                                                                                                                         5TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                             BELL AVE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     330T H AV
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PUD 04-001
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           9T
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              H




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Economic Development
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              WALNUT AVE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               2 A VE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              PL




                                                                                                                                                                                                                           FIR AVE                                                                                                                                                                                                                      S HW Y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     8TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    U
                                                                                                                                                                                                         6TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ROAD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            9TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       MURPHY WAY




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              E SE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        UNZONED
                                                                                                                                                                                4TH ST
                                                                                                                                                                    3RD ST




                                                                                                                                                   DATE AVE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             TIMBER LANE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Feet
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            0                1,000               2,000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 D




                                                                                                                                                                   CEDAR AVE
                                                                                                                                                                                                  5TH PL




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ROA




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ROAD                                                      ROAD
                                                                                                                                                          2ND ST




                                                                                                                                                                     BIRCH ST
OLD OWEN ROAD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         E ST                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               UGA Boundary -Adopted: December 21, 2005
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -Effective Date: February 1, 2006
                                                         SU




                                                                                                                                                                                                           6TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                              ALDER ST
                                                            L




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             FOUNDRY DR




                                                                                                                                         ASH ST
                                                          TA




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              11                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     E RO A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        7TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 T                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            REES
                                                             N




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     H
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            All non-zoning data, including parcel information, easements,
                                                                      -W




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         MAIN ST                                                         ST
                                                                                                                                                                                          5TH ST
                                                                          OO




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            city limits, and stream locations, is from the Snohomish County
                                          299TH AVE SE




                                                                              DS




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              10TH ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Assessor (2005), Snohomish County Planning and Development
                                                                              CR




                                                                                                                            ALBIO
                                                                                 EE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Services (2005), or other sources, has not been verrified, and is
                                                                                    K




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 R
                                                                                      RO




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            subject to change. No warranty is made concerning the accuracy,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            D
                                                                                                                      MAR



                                                                                                                                 N ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       LL
                                                                                        AD




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              DYER ROAD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  YW
                                                                                                                      CUS
                                                                                                  MAPLE ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                SK
                                                                                                                       ST




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            MAP DATE: AUGUST 2007
                                             OLD OWEN




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            P:\Mapping\Maps_Generated\Sultan\Projects\Planning\
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Zoning&Landuse_Feb2006\FutureLandUse_Update_82007.mxd
                                                                                                                                                                                          311TH AVE SE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       BHC Consultants LLC
          Y 2 AD                                                                                                                                                                  DR                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    720 Third Avenue, Suite 1200
        HW RO                                                                                                                                                              W
     US UF F                                                                                                                                                           VI E                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Seattle, WA 98104-1820
       BL                                                                                                                                                            KY
    RN                                                                                                                                                             NS
  FE                                                                                                                                                                                                        156TH ST SE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 T 206 505 3400
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        F 206 505 3406
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        www.bhcconsultants.com
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                       CHAPTER II – LAND USE

The Sultan Comprehensive Plan provides a slight range of housing choices with some
provisions for higher density, more innovative products. Higher density housing ranges are
located adjacent to the existing downtown district and transit corridor along US-2 that
presently have access to regional transit bus routes in Snohomish and King Counties.
Higher density housing of 5-7 dwellings per acre is also a part of the planned Industrial Park
Master Plan east of the City.

The zoning ordinance was recently amended to allow cluster development with a lot
reduction of 20% to allow for the protection of sensitive environmental areas and open
space systems. A proposed amendment to allow planned unit development will also allow
clustering and an increase in density to accommodate the buffering of sensitive
environmental areas and a mixing of different housing products.

Commercial and Office Areas

The City’s commercial land needs will continue to be heavily oriented to US-2, as well as
the commercial needs of its citizens. The Sultan Comprehensive Plan defines a
commercial and service along the US-2 corridor and in the downtown district. In 2007 the
regulations for commercial areas will be updated with possible revisions to the types of land
uses (e.g. mixed use, etc.) and development standards (e.g. buffers, access, etc.). New
designations may be adopted as discussed below (Future Land Use Designations).

Industrial

The City has set a goal of developing its industrial base through a master planned area in
the eastern portion of the City. In 2002, an Industrial Park Master Plan (See Appendix H)
was adopted for a 290-acre area east of Sultan Basin Road extending to Rice Road. The
Master Plan contains land use designations, a transportation plan and development policies
for the area. The Master Plan has been adopted by reference as part of this
Comprehensive Plan. Relevant elements of the Master Plan have been added to the Land
Use Map, the transportation plan, Capital Facilities Plan, etc.

Future Land Use Designations

Following is a brief description of each designation on the Future Land Use Map. Again,
these are land use designations, not zoning districts. For a zoning designation or district to
be allowed on a piece of land, it must be compatible with these land use designations on
the Future Land Use Map. Conversely, once the FLUM is adopted, it can be assumed that
zoning will be applied that results in land being developed as described below.

Low/Moderate Density Residential

Located primarily on the outskirts of the City where residential densities have traditionally
been lower than in other areas of Sultan. This zone is intended to accommodate residential
neighborhoods with active and passive recreational facilities and neighborhood-oriented
commercial activities.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 15
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                      CHAPTER II – LAND USE

Moderate Density Residential

Includes areas that are at the present time, largely served by municipal sewer and water
lines. This district is intended to accommodate medium density residential development,
active and passive recreational facilities, small office development, as well as
neighborhood-oriented commercial enterprises.

High Density Residential

Includes moderately to densely developed areas that are located primarily in the heart of
the City. This zone is intended to accommodate higher density residential development and
a wide range of commercial activities.

Urban Center Zone

Encompasses downtown Sultan. This zone is proposed to provide high-density residential,
commercial, office, and other central business district functions to provide a full range of
pedestrian-oriented activities and urban services. This zone does not include highway-
oriented activities that would be counter-productive to the development of a pedestrian
district.

Highway-Oriented Development Zone

Includes areas that have the potential to accommodate moderate to dense highway-
oriented development along US-2. This zone will provide for higher intensity residential
uses, as well as commercial and office uses.

Economic Development Zone

Includes the industrial, warehousing, and major office development areas of the City as well
as the major utility areas. This zone will provide for major employment related economic
activities.

Certain uses are allowed in more than one land use designation or land use zone. The
performance standards applied to those uses may vary however. For example:
   Manufactured homes are allowed in the two lower density residential zones ranging
   from 4.0-5.0 dwelling units per acre in the Low/Moderate Density zone to 7.0 in the
   Moderate density zone (Md).
   Detached single-family residential uses are allowed in the three lower density residential
   zones ranging from 4.0 dwelling units per acre in the Low/Moderate Density Zone
   (Lmd), 6.0-8.0 in the Moderate Density Zone (Md), and 9.5-12.0 in the High Density
   Zone (Hd).
   Attached single and multifamily uses are allowed in the three higher density residential
   zones ranging from 8.0-10.0 dwelling units per acre in the Moderate Density Zone (Md),
   12.0-20.0 in the High Density Zone (Hd), and 14.0-24.0 in the Urban Center (Uc).




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 16
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                       CHAPTER II – LAND USE

Personal, government, business services, and retail services are allowed in all zones with
the most intense uses permitted in the Highway-Oriented Development Zone (Hod).
Manufacturing uses are only permitted in the Economic Development Zone (Ed).

Historically, the zoning ordinance specifies minimum performance standards including lot
size, height, coverage, setback, side yards, required public services, and other regulated
issues. These will affect uses differently depending in which zone they are located. The
City has adopted urban design standards and has an appointed Design Review Board to
advise City Council on how these standards should be implemented for specific projects.


GOALS AND POLICIES

GOAL:

   2.1      Effectively manage future development by designating appropriate areas
            for new growth that do not comprise environmental integrity, is responsive
            to market needs, and is consistent with sound land planning policies and
            lifestyle choices.
Policies:

         2.1.1 Private development near environmentally sensitive areas shall protect such
               areas from impacts, or shall mitigate impacts according to City critical areas
               policies, standards and regulations.
         2.1.2 The City shall implement a program of incentives to encourage creative site
               design and development that achieves project-level measures that meet or
               exceed the standards. These incentives include, but are not restricted to,
               transfer of development rights and buffer averaging.
         2.1.3 Development within the Industrial Park subarea shall comply with specific
               environmental protection and enhancement measures adopted in the Master
               Plan.

GOAL:
   2.2      Provide an opportunity for commercial and industrial development to aid in
            the economic growth of Sultan without degrading the natural environment
            or existing residential areas.
Policies:

         2.2.1 Implement a comprehensive approach to integrating all aspects of existing
               and planned open space within the Industrial Park to create a system of
               protected natural/critical areas, enhance buffers, trails, and active and
               passive recreational spaces and facilities. Strategies to be employed in this
               approach will include critical areas regulations, development project
               incentives, and public/private partnerships for financing land or conservation
               easement acquisition and related improvements.
         2.2.2 Create open space principles and guidelines for the Industrial Park for site
               design and landscaping using best management practices, stormwater

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 17
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                        CHAPTER II – LAND USE

               management standards, and other provisions of City code and standards,
               supplemented with site specific requirements as established in the Master
               Plan.
         2.2.3 Add a new Strategy 2 under Policy C: Adopt Transfer Development Rights
               (TDR) provisions for projects impacted by critical areas in the update of Title
               16 of the Unified Development Code. The TDR program will be intended to
               provide relief to project proponents by allowing development rights to be
               transferred to other receiving properties within the Industrial Park and/or to
               enable flexibility in the application of the development standards within single
               parcels in order to protect critical areas.

GOAL:
   2.3      Manage growth potentials by maintaining a realistic balance between the
            land’s capable, suitable potentials and Sultan’s ability to provide urban
            services.
Policies:

         2.3.1 Capable areas: Allocate urban development onto lands that are capable of
               supporting urban uses and/or that pose fewest environmental risks. To the
               extent necessary, locate urban uses away from lands or soils that have
               severe environmental hazards - such as the Sultan and Skykomish River
               floodways.
         2.3.2 Suitable areas: Allocate urban development onto lands that are suitable for
               urban use and/or that have at least social value in an undeveloped state. To
               the extent necessary, locate urban uses away from site that have significant
               archaeological, historical, cultural or other special significance.
         2.3.3 Service areas: Allocate urban uses onto capable, suitable lands that Sultan
               can provide sewer, water, storm, and other basic urban utilities. Delineate
               boundaries between areas that will always be rural and transition or reserve
               areas that may be included within the future expansion of the Sultan urban
               area- such as the lands north along Sultan Basin Road.

GOAL:
   2.4      Create identity by defining a pattern of urban development that is
            recognizable, provides an identity and reflects Sultan values and
            opportunities.
Policies:

         2.4.1 Urban form: Create a recognizable urban pattern that distinguishes between
               urban and rural, and establishes a harmonious relationship with the natural
               and man-made environment. Protect area difference in architecture, physical
               and social composition, visual character, and other features that make each
               part of the Sultan urban form unique and valuable - such as downtown
               Sultan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 18
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                         CHAPTER II – LAND USE

GOAL:
   2.5      Create an effective land use management process by establishing a
            planning and review document and process that recognizes Sultan’s
            needs, and that effectively coordinates development efforts.
Policies:

         2.5.1 Planning unit boundaries: Define planning units that are based on similar
               uses and activities. Delineate planning unit boundaries using natural
               features, road or other physical improvements. Identify critical transition
               areas or points of conflict with adjacent or incompatible planning units to be
               resolved in neighborhood planning processes, and respected in future
               development reviews.
         2.5.2 Institutional master planning: Establish an institutional planning review of
               land uses that may be conditionally allowed within residential area or in public
               facility zone including schools, churches, home occupations, incubator
               businesses, clubs and similar activities. Review proposed expansion plans
               including height, mass, traffic, noise, and other characteristics for residential
               neighborhood compatibility. Disallow or disapprove proposals that violate the
               original conditional uses intent, that do not fit the scale of the neighborhood,
               that will do harm to the residential integrity of the area.
         2.5.3 Official land use plan: Maintain a coded map overlay designating the
               preferred future developed state of the Sultan corporate limits and UGA.
               Define suitable/capable/serviceable areas, urban forms, neighborhoods and
               special districts, planning units and special institutions, and proposed
               categories of land use. Coordinate all implementing ordinances, programs,
               proposals and projects to conformance with the intentions of this official land
               use plan. Periodically update the plan to reflect changes, opportunities and
               desires.
         2.5.4 Performance based zoning ordinance: Consider amending the zoning
               ordinance to utilize performance rather than dimensional standards. Define
               density based on the land’s capable or environmentally suitable acreage
               rather than on the land’s gross size or unqualified characteristics.
         2.5.5 Environmental zoning designation: Amend the zoning ordinance to include
               an environmental zoning designation for sensitive lands and soils that should
               not be developed for urban use. Base the new environmental zone on
               performance standards that will allow uses that will not cause hazard or risk
               conditions. Include the buffer and transitional protections that are now
               defined in the Sultan, Snohomish County, and Washington State Office of
               Community Development sensitive areas ordinance in accordance with the
               requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act.
         2.5.6 Clustering and planned unit development provisions: Amend the zoning
               ordinance to allow clustering and planned unit residential developments
               where the objective is to allow for a variety of housing products, create
               common open space and/or conserve significant social characteristics of the
               land- like wooded and scenic areas.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 19
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                                          CHAPTER II – LAND USE

         2.5.7 Urban/rural transition area: Jointly create an urban/rural transition area with
               Snohomish County to preserve the existing, undeveloped character of the
               lands adjacent and north of the UGA. The purpose of the urban/rural
               transition area will be to prevent properties from being subdivided or
               otherwise altered into a use or pattern that:
                  • Could not be developed for additional urban uses should there ever be
                      a need.
                  • Would detract from the rural, agricultural character and productivity of
                      existing activities.
         2.5.8 Inter-local agreements with Snohomish County: Enter into an inter-local
               agreement with Snohomish County to jointly agree upon and coordinate the
               proposed boundaries of the Sultan UGA and suitable zoning protection of the
               lands within the proposed urban/rural transition area.

GOAL:
   2.6      Protect valuable features of the man-made environment.
Policies:

         2.6.1 Blend new land uses with the features and characteristics that have come to
               be valued from past developments of Sultan’s manmade environment.
         2.6.2 Enforce exacting performance standards governing possible land use
               developments on lands or sites, or possible conversions of existing buildings
               or sites that have unique social value.
         2.6.3 Use standards that guarantee into perpetuity the set-asides or protection
               methods that are selected to further the intent of this goal.
         2.6.4 Historical/cultural sites: Protect lands, buildings or other site features that are
               unique archaeological sites, historic areas, publicly designated landmark
               districts or buildings. Develop a historical plaque system identifying sites and
               buildings of interest in Sultan- particularly within the downtown district.
               Consider establishing special tax incentives or other financial assistances to
               help with historical building restoration and exhibition costs.
         2.6.5 Special social or visual interest: Enforce exacting performance standards
               governing possible land use development or possible alteration of existing
               building or sites that have socially valued, interesting or unique facilities or
               characteristics, including visual values. Identify acceptable adaptive reuse
               concepts and design and/or financial incentives that can be used to help with
               building or site modification costs - particularly within the downtown and
               floodway zones. Create a program that allows architecturally pleasing, older
               buildings to be relocated to other, more compatible sites when the structures
               can not be accommodated at present locations.
         2.6.6 Scenic assets: Protect lands, natural features or related activities, including
               agricultural structures like barns, sheds, fences, and other features that
               provide unique landmarks in the natural landscape. Protect lands or sites
               that have unique views or vistas or natural landforms, particularly of the
               Wallace, Sultan and Skykomish Rivers and Cascade Mountains.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                 Page 20
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                                          CHAPTER II – LAND USE

         2.6.7 View corridors: Enforce exacting performance standards governing possible
                alterations of existing buildings or sites that provide unique or special
                landmarks, horizon references, or other interesting visual values. Enforce
                exacting performance standards governing possible land use development of
                lands or sites that have natural views or vistas of interesting scenic assets or
                features.
         2.6.8 Buffer corridors: Maintain pleasing visual corridors along major roads to
                reflect natural beauty and a semi-rural atmosphere. Provide landscape
                screens, earth berms, and other natural material or design buffers,
                particularly about urban commercial or industrial uses that front or are visible
                from adjacent residential areas or roads or US-2.
         2.6.9 Open Spaces: Protect lands, sites or improvements that have been or may
                be held in trust or common for parks, conservancies, recreation, or other
                open space preserves within Sultan’s developing area. Enforce exacting
                performance standards governing possible alternations of existing sites that
                provide unique open or natural space buffers to more urban land use
                developments. Preserve, where possible and desirable, the open or natural
                space features within potential future land use developments - especially
                along the shorelines, bluffs, and wetlands.
         2.6.10 Institutional lands: Protect lands, sites or improvements that have been
                improved for cemeteries, old farm, or military fortifications or similar public or
                pioneering purposes. Enforce exacting performance standards governing
                possible developments adjacent to sites that house schools and other
                institutional activities that may be sensitive to use intrusion and that provide a
                special physical place within Sultan’s developed area.

GOAL:
   2.7      Create visual interest. Create local visual identities and interests, retain
            natural landscape features, and generally develop a quality urban
            environment.
Policies:

         2.7.1 Visual identity: Create special identities for unique districts or places,
               particularly of the Sultan downtown business district. Work with property
               owners to establish standards coordinating informational and advertisement
               signing, street trees, landscape materials, streetscape furnishings, building
               materials or styles, even colors to create visual images that organize the
               disparate elements of the special district into a cohesive, pleasing identity.
         2.7.2 Landscape: Retain the natural landscape as much as possible in land
               development projects, including trees, site contours, natural drainage
               features, and other characteristics.        Enforce replanting schemes and
               landscaping requirements, particularly along buffer or dividing zones with
               different uses, major arterial roads, and within parking lots and other large
               improved areas - especially along US-2.
         2.7.3 Architectural quality: Where appropriate, and when downtown property
               owners desire, establish special overlay zones providing an architectural


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                 Page 21
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                                          CHAPTER II – LAND USE

               design review process. Provide illustrations of preferred concepts, solutions,
               material, styles, and other particulars affecting quality architectural solutions
               within the downtown.
         2.7.4 Coordinate preservation efforts: Coordinate the land and financial resources
               that are available of Sultan, Snohomish County, Washington State and other
               preservation oriented agencies within the Sultan planning area in order to
               realize a more effective, balanced local system of historical and cultural
               heritage resources. Work with land trust and other preservation groups to
               acquire and protect development rights on sensitive lands, environments,
               viewpoints, habitats, and other important resources.
         2.7.5 Historical/cultural impact assessment methodology: With the participation of
               the Snohomish County and Washington State Historical Office, develop a
               methodology for determining the design and historic impact of proposed
               development projects on sensitive heritage sites within the Sultan planning
               area. The methodology could determine the potential facility design impacts
               that will be caused by a proposed urban development project, and an
               equitable design performance that is in accordance with the objective of the
               overlay design district standards.

GOAL:
   2.8      Create identity by defining a pattern of urban developments that is
            recognizable, provides an identity and reflects Sultan values and
            opportunities.
Policies

         2.8.1 Define and protect the integrity of small planning areas, particularly residential
               neighborhoods that have common boundaries, uses and concerns using
               transition land use areas and landscape buffers. Encourage neighborhood
               property owners, including residents of lands that may annex to Sultan, to
               participate in the creation of local plans that may detail public improvements,
               zoning issues, and other planning concerns.
         2.8.2 Establish zoning districts that may distinguish land use concerns and utilize
               special or extra planning and design reviews. Special districts could be
               established for a Sultan downtown business district.
         2.8.3 Establish special planning procedures to govern the review and approval of
               innovative land use developments. Establish special planning development
               procedures for industrial or business parks, mixed density residential
               developments, special business district projects, or other proposals that may
               be submitted and considered.

GOAL:
   2.9      Development and design standards for Sultan subareas




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 22
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                      CHAPTER II – LAND USE

Policies:

      2.9.1 Designate downtown Sultan - for mixed-use office, commercial, and
             residential uses to maximize local services and the historical pedestrian-
             oriented village center.
      2.9.2 Designate the north side of US-2 between Sultan Basin Road and 339th Ave –
             for office and business use because these lands provide the most amenities
             but the least accessible traffic patterns.
      2.9.3 Designate the south side of US-2 and Cascade View Drive between 10th
             Street and Sultan Cemetery – for lower density industrial uses to reflect
             current land use patterns.
      2.9.4 Designate the land between US-2 and Cascade View Drive, and Sultan Basin
             Road and 330th Ave – for commercial and retail uses because this site has
             the most visibility and flexible access.
      2.9.5 Designate the north side of US-2 between 339th and 140th Street – for
             commercial and retail uses because this site has the most flexible access to
             the plateau and US-2.
      2.9.6 Designate the north side of US-2 between 339th and 140th Street – for
             commercial and retail uses because this site has the most flexible access to
             the plateau and US-2 and the greatest retail development capacity.
      2.9.7 Designate the south side of US-2 and Sultan Startup Road – for commercial
             and business uses because this site has the most visibility and flexible
             access.
      2.9.8 Designate land on upper Sultan Basin Road – for a small mom-and-pop or
             neighborhood commercial use to service residential areas on the plateau.
      2.9.9 Designate land on US-2 at 299th Ave – for commercial services as this site
             has visibility and could have back-door access.
      2.9.10 Develop major gateways on US-2 at 299th Street and Sultan Startup Road –
             to indicate the edge of the developed Sultan urban area and establish a City
             identity.
      2.9.11 Install landscaping along US-2 through the developed downtown and
             commercial areas – to control parking and access, and improve visual
             appearances.
      2.9.12 Develop minor gateways into the downtown from US-2 to indicate entry into
             the historic City center and establish a downtown identity.
      2.9.13 Develop a downtown streetscape – creating on-street parking areas,
             consolidating off-street parking lots, installing street trees, lights, benches,
             paving areas, and other design amenities.
      2.9.14 Establish downtown design standards – to govern and help create storefront
             and building character and amenities.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 23
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                     CHAPTER II – LAND USE



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for this Plan is found in
Appendix A. It evaluates changes made to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan update. From a
Land Use standpoint, significant changes between this 2007 Comprehensive Plan update
and the adopted 2004 integrated SEPA/GMA Comprehensive Plan document include:
   Population estimates have been confirmed for consistency both internally in the 2007
   Comprehensive Plan chapters and externally in the facilty plans.
   Land use distribution is based on the current projection of 11,119 persons in the UGA in
   2025.
   Two expansion areas have been added to the UGA since 2004 to ensure that a
   residential land supply is sufficent. Land use plans will channel development into
   specific zones and limit the types of uses for each zone.
   Greater buffering of incompatible uses provide protection against potentially
   incompatible uses in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update.
   The implementation of Best Management Practices minimize impacts to the
   environment in the 2007 update.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 24
Land Use
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                       CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT



CHAPTER III: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

The 1990 Washington State Growth Management
Act (GMA) established the following statewide
economic development goal:

     Encourage        economic       development
     throughout the state that is consistent with
     adopted comprehensive plans; promote
     economic opportunity for all residents of the
     state, especially for unemployed and
     disadvantaged persons; and encourage
     growth in areas experiencing insufficient
     economic growth all within the capacities of
     the state’s natural resources, and local
     public services and facilities.

Among other things, the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan
establishes an economic vision for the community and expresses support for the core goal
of the local and State planning principles.

In 2006, there were about 1,450 jobs in the Sultan area. About 1,600 of the community’s
residents were employed. This reflects the relatively higher number of non-working family
members and more elderly, childless, and potentially retired age groups than is common of
the population profiles within the surrounding county and region.

Jobs were divided among “basic” jobs and non-basic service jobs. Basic industries create
products in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, construction or manufacturing. Basic jobs
generally produce the local business and personal incomes necessary to sustain urban
area growth. The percent of all employed persons who were employed in basic industries
in 1998 was 43% in the Skykomish Valley area and 32% in Snohomish County.

Service industries produce the communication, wholesale and retail trade, finance,
professional, and governmental services necessary to sustain urban areas, or the resident
population created by basic industries. Unlike basic industries, service employment is
typically located within the local urban area where services must be provided.
Consequently, the percent of the workforce that is employed in service industries increases
the more urbanized the area becomes. The percent of all employed persons who were
employed in service industries in 1998 was 57% within the Skykomish Valley area and 68%
in Snohomish County. See Table III-1: Employment Holding Capacity for a summary of
employment capacity in Sultan.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 25
Economic Development
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                      CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

                          Table III-1: Employment Holding Capacity
           Acreage                                          Adopted Plan
           Gross                                                  2,669.5
           Unbuildable                                              794.2
           Gross buildable                                        1,424.8
           Surplus buildable                                        437.2
           Population
           Existing dwelling units                                  1,504
           Population existing                                      3,814
           Dwelling unit capacity                                   4,438
           Dwelling units occupied                                  4,222
           Population holding capacity                             11,122
           Difference – numbers                                     7,308
           Difference – percent                                     192%
           Employment
           Existing                                                 1,449
           Additional – pending projects                                30
           Additional – vacant                                      1,555
           Additional – infill (partial use)                        1,242
           Additional – redevelopment                                 196
           Additional – City overwrite                                151
           Subtotal additional employment                           3,112
           Less public infrastructure                               2,837
           Less market availability                                 2,346
           Total existing and additional                            3,796
           Differences – numbers                                    2,347
           Differences – percent                                    162%
           Employment/population multiplier
           Existing – base                                            702
           Existing – service                                         747
           Existing – total                                         1,449
           Existing – % base/all employment                          48%
           Existing – ratio employ/pop                                 2.8
           Capacity – base                                          1,933
           Capacity – service                                       1,863
           Capacity – total                                         3,796
           Capacity – % base/all employment                          51%
           Capacity – ratio employ/pop                                 2.9


BASE/SERVICE/POPULATION MULTIPLIER

Basic and service industrial employment and local population growth are integrally related.
Total basic employment is a reflection of the area's ability to sell goods and products
outside the area and to import the income necessary for the area to survive. Any change in
basic employment prospects directly affects the number of workers and dependents that the
area can support.

In turn, the local area population directly determines the requirements for service industry
employment. The larger the area grows, the greater the number of service jobs that are



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 26
Economic Development
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                      CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

necessary to sustain the area. In turn, service workers bring dependents that must also be
provided services.

Increases in population growth create an increase in service employment that creates more
population, which induces more service employment and so on. The growth effect 'ripples'
or 'multiplies' through the local economy until a relative balance is achieved between basic
and service employment totals and the resulting population size.

This relationship can be expressed as a multiplier between the number of persons who will
be employed by basic industries and the number of persons who will eventually be added to
the population as a result of the generated increases in service industrial employment and
resident households. For example, an urban area in Washington State of about 10,000 will
require about 236 basic employed persons, who will generate an additional service industry
employment of 825 persons and an ultimate resident population of about 2,418 persons.
Consequently, the ratio of population per every basic industrial worker is about 10.2,
meaning every additional basic employment job opportunity will generate an ultimate
increase of about 10.2 persons to the total population.

Local areas can control overall population size somewhat by controlling the amount of land
made available for industrial and/or residential development. Employment trends in
Snohomish County may determine basic industrial prospects in Sultan more than any local
action, especially if local residents continue to commute to outside job locations. Sultan
may decide whether basic industry locates within the UGA, but generally can not forestall
the effects of larger area economic trends and impacts. As mentioned earlier, the fact that
commuters are traveling to jobs in Seattle and Bellevue from their homes in Sky Valley is
evidence of this.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN SULTAN

Historically, forest and mineral resources, manufacturing and associated industries have
provided the “primary jobs” for the community. It is recognized, however, that long-term
strength of a local economy is built upon diversification of a community’s business base and
establishment of a planning process that allows for timely and efficient response to
changing market conditions and demands. Stabilization of the employment base is very
important to the stability and quality of life in the Sultan community.

Consequently, the Sultan community has pursued a policy of developing an industrial base
for basic manufacturing and business, while building a service industry for local residents
and travelers along US-2. The City adopted its Industrial Park Master Plan for the area
between Sultan Basin Road and Rice Road. This Master Plan is incorporated by reference
into the Comprehensive Plan. Mixed-use commercial areas (allowing various levels of
commercial and residential activity) have been designated along US-2 and in the historic
downtown area. The City is actively pursuing development in these economic centers.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 27
Economic Development
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                        CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GOALS AND POLICIES

The following goals and policies include some policies adopted as part of the Industrial Park
Master Plan adopted by reference into this Comprehensive Plan, as well as other goals and
policies affecting other parts of the community.

GOAL:
   3.1      Develop a sound fiscal base. Help market local socioeconomic resources
            to increase employment opportunities, develop office and industrial park
            properties, and provide Sultan a sound tax base.
Policies:

         3.1.1 Help create employment opportunities within the Sultan economy, particularly
               for residents who now commute to other distant employment areas within
               Snohomish and King Counties. Participate with other public agencies and
               private interests in marketing development projects, labor force training
               programs, and other efforts to attract new business to the Sultan area.
         3.1.2 Work with other public agencies and private interests to identify and promote
               sites that can be suitably developed for a variety of local employment projects
               including business and industrial parks, office and professional centers,
               specialized commercial and entertainment centers - as proposed within the
               recently adopted Sultan Industrial Master Plan.
         3.1.3 Work with property owners to determine the effective development capacity of
               sites having employment center possibilities. Determine the cost involved
               with providing sewer, fire and police protection, access roads, recreational
               area, and other Sultan services and amenities versus the public benefits that
               may be realized by the creation of local jobs and tax potentials.
         3.1.4 Rank possible sites using a priority system that reflects the possible
               cost/benefits associated with providing Sultan services, sewer in particular, to
               sites that provide the greatest possible returns, unless private property
               owners can assist with the cost involved in extending or providing service.
         3.1.5 Withhold Sultan service, sewer in particular, unless potential property
               developers agree to annexation and the payment of local property or other
               revenue taxes, and associated road, school, and park impact fee
               assessments.

GOAL:
   3.2      Increase local economic opportunities by supporting local business
            development efforts, property investment projects and programs, and
            protecting Sultan economic opportunities.
Policies:

         3.2.1 Encourage local business development opportunities, particularly for small
               start-up business concerns that may be owned or employ Sultan residents.
                3.2.1.1 Promote the local use of special small business financing and
                          management assistance programs.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 28
Economic Development
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

                   3.2.1.2     Help identify facilities that may be used for small business start-ups
                               including older structures that may be suitably reused for business
                               purposes particularly within the downtown area.
         3.2.2    Assist with special planning and development efforts to reuse older buildings,
                  redevelop vacant properties, and revitalize existing downtown business
                  district within Sultan.
                    3.2.2.1 Help structure local market efforts, physical improvement
                               programs, parking and building improvements, special
                               management organizations, and other actions that will revitalize
                               opportunities.
         3.2.3    Help local private groups to structure special improvement districts including
                  parking and business improvement authorities, local improvement districts, or
                  other programs necessary to the effective revitalization of the existing
                  downtown business district of Sultan.
         3.2.4    Participate in special public/private ventures when such ventures provide
                  public benefits and are appropriate to Sultan’s long range goals.
         3.2.5    Monitor proposed urban zoning designations and developments elsewhere
                  within the Skykomish River Valley. Determine market requirements and
                  potentials for commercial, office, and industrial uses to protect Sultan’s
                  interests in the allocation of future developments within the Sultan area from
                  over-zoning.
         3.2.6    Reserve certain capable lands and sites for employment-related
                  developments as proposed within the Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan.
         3.2.7    Provide a suitable supply of commercial, retail, business, office, and industrial
                  lands that will provide for all Sultan area business requirements.
         3.2.8    Reduce commuting requirements to outside areas for basic industry
                  employment opportunities.
         3.2.9    Create local employment, shopping, and other urban service activities that
                  will reduce Sultan’s dependence upon and local resident travel requirements
                  outside the area.
         3.2.10   Establish a local marketing strategy for Sultan’s downtown and industrial
                  business district.
         3.2.11   Develop a detailed strategy for marketing and promoting the development of
                  Sultan’s commercial and industrial land opportunities.

GOAL:
   3.3      Actively support the retention of commerce and industry and encourage
            diversification of the economy.
Policies:

         3.3.1 Implement a comprehensive subarea planning and development program
               within the Industrial Park. The program should include: land use and zoning
               changes to encourage the development of job-producing businesses; project
               permit approval producers designed to expedite compatible development;



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                    Page 29
Economic Development
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                           AUGUST 2007
                                                CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

            infrastructure improvement phasing to maintain area concurrency; and a
            marketing strategy.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                  Page 30
Economic Development
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                      CHAPTER III – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

Significant changes between this 2007 Comprehensive Plan update and the adopted 2004
integrated SEPA/GMA Comprehensive Plan document include confirmation of population
estimates internally in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan chapters and externally in the facility
plans. Land use distribution is based on a current population projection of 11,119 persons
in the UGA in 2025. Two expansion areas have been added to the UGA since 2004 to
ensure that residential land inventory is sufficient.

Increases in population growth create an increase in service employment that creates more
population, which induces more service employment and so on. The growth effect 'ripples'
or 'multiplies' through the local economy until a relative balance is achieved between basic
and service employment totals and the resulting population size.

The Sultan community has pursued a policy of developing an industrial base for basic
manufacturing and business, while building a service industry for local residents and
travelers along US-2. The City adopted its Industrial Park Master Plan for the area between
Sultan Basin Road and Rice Road. This Master Plan is incorporated by reference into the
Comprehensive Plan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 31
Economic Development
      PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                          CHAPTER IV – HOUSING



CHAPTER IV: HOUSING

INTRODUCTION

The future demand for housing is a crucial element of
this plan. There is a need for additional affordable
housing units to accommodate current and future
population demands. Countywide planning policies
establish a countywide framework from which county
and municipal comprehensive plans are developed and
adopted. The term “affordable housing” applies to the
adequacy of the housing stock to fulfill the housing needs of all economic segments of the
population. The underlying assumption is that the marketplace will guarantee adequate
housing for those in the upper economic brackets, but that some combination of
appropriately zoned land, regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, and innovative planning
techniques will be necessary to make adequate housing provisions for the needs of middle
and lower income persons.

According to the Growth Management Act, a Housing Element must, at a minimum, include
the following:
(a)      an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs;
(b)      a statement of goals, policies and objectives for the preservation, improvement and
         development of housing;
(c)      identification of sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to, government-
         assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multi-
         family housing, group homes and foster care facilities;
(d)      adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs for all economic
         segments of the community. A major objective of the Housing Element is to
         encourage development of affordable housing throughout the Sultan Urban Area. It
         includes:
            an inventory and analysis of existing and a projected housing needs;
            a statement of the goals, policies and objectives for the development of housing;
            identification of sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to,
            government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured
            housing, multifamily housing, group homes and foster care facilities; and
            adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic
            segments of the community.

In addition to information provided in this section, the Land Use Element (Chapter II)
provides further information regarding vacant land availability for residential purposes.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 32
Housing
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                                    CHAPTER IV – HOUSING

POPULATION AND HOUSING PROFILE

Housing in Sultan can be characterized as follows:
   The percent of owner occupied housing units was 72% in Sultan compared with 68% in
   Snohomish County, 62% in Puget Sound, 65% in Washington State, and 66% in the
   United States. Sultan owner occupied statistics may be higher than the region because
   Sultan homeowners prefer ownership and/or because this housing choice is the
   predominant market offering.
   The percent single-family detached units of all structures was 68% in Sultan compared
   with 62% in Snohomish County, 60% in Puget Sound, 62% in Washington State, and
   60% in the United States.
   The percent mobile homes or trailers area of all structures was 18% in Sultan compared
   with 7% in Snohomish County, 5% in Puget Sound, 8% in Washington State, and 8% in
   the United States. Mobile or manufactured homes on single lots may be the preferred
   choice of Sultan households and/or the past predominant market offering.
   The median value of owner occupied housing units was $160,800 in Sultan compared
   with $196,500 in Snohomish County, $199,302 in Puget Sound, $168,300 in
   Washington State, and $119,600 in the United States. Sultan has 83% of its housing
   stock concentrated within the $100-199,999 value ranges compared with 50% in
   Snohomish County, 44% in Puget Sound, 49% in Washington State, and 39% in the
   United States - possibly reflecting the City’s higher percentage of mobile and
   manufactured housing stock.
   The percent of owner occupied housing units paying more than 35% of household
   income for housing costs was 22% in Sultan compared with 19% in Snohomish County,
   19% in Puget Sound, 18% in Washington State, and 16% in the United States.
   The median cost of renter occupied housing units was $588 in Sultan compared with
   $691 in Snohomish County, $660 in Puget Sound, $663 in Washington State, and $602
   in the United States. Sultan has 33% of its rental stock concentrated below $499
   monthly rent compared with 16% in Snohomish County, 23% in Puget Sound, 23% in
   Washington State, and 32% in the United States.
   The percent of renter occupied housing units paying more than 35% of household
   income for housing costs was 31% in Sultan compared with 29% in Snohomish County,
   30% in Puget Sound, 31% in Washington State, and 30% in the United States.

The statistics indicate the following trends:
   Though Sultan may have a greater proportion of lower value housing stock in its
   inventory, housing prices are still higher than household incomes may be reasonably
   able to afford.
   Single-family units may be the preferred choice of Sultan households and/or the past
   predominant market offering.
   A higher proportion of these single-family units are mobile or modular units compared
   with other communities.
   Sultan’s rental households may choose to live in the City because rental housing prices
   are lower than the surrounding area.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                         Page 33
Housing
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                         CHAPTER IV – HOUSING

   Though Sultan may have a greater proportion of lower priced rental units in its inventory,
   housing costs are still higher than household incomes may be reasonably able to afford.

In summary, Sultan households are predominantly housed in owner occupied single-family
and mobile home units less expensive than the surrounding region, and in lower cost rental
units less expensive on average than the surrounding area. Nonetheless, a significant
percent of Sultan households in owner and renter occupied units are also paying more for
housing costs than household incomes may be reasonably able to afford. Sultan residents
will continue to pay high percentages of their household incomes for housing if this trend
continues.

It is the City of Sultan’s policy to use the ratio of income to housing costs as a measure of
affordability. When housing costs, excluding utilities, exceeds 30% of a household’s
income; the housing is no longer considered affordable. A rental unit is considered
affordable for a household if the annual rent (including utilities) is less than or equal to 30%
of the household’s annual income.

Two important factors involved in projecting future housing needs are population and
economic conditions. The City of Sultan’s population in 2005 was 4,486. The 2000 Census
reported and average household size of 2.78 persons. The median age was 32, with 32%
of the population under age 18 and 10% over age 65. The median age was slightly under
that for Snohomish County where 27% of the population was under 18. The over-65
population was about the same.
                    Table IV-1: Average Annual Income (2000 Census)
                         Median Household          Median Family         Per Capita Income
                              Income                 Income
Washington                     $45,776                 $53,760                 $22,973
Puget Sound                    $51,386                 $60,943                 $26,048
Snohomish County               $53,060                 $60,726                 $23,417
Sultan                         $46,619                 $51,038                 $18,822

Projected Housing Needs

The City of Sultan is expected to continue to increase in population. By the year 2015 the
population is projected to be 8,500 persons, and 11,119 by the year 2025. The goals and
policies of the Housing Element work in conjunction with those of the Land Use Element to
address the need for affordable housing in the urban area, and to accommodate the
projected 2025 population increases.

Based upon population estimates, the City of Sultan needs to accommodate approximately
about 2,933 new housing units (at an average of 2.5 persons per dwelling and a 5%
vacancy rate). These new housing units will be distributed throughout the community and
provide for a range of housing densities.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 34
Housing
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                      CHAPTER IV – HOUSING

                    Table IV-2: New Housing Units Needed 2004-2025
                                                                Change      New Units
   Area                                    2004       2025
                                                                2004-25      Needed
    Urban Growth Area (UGA)                4,135      11,119      6,984        2,933

Housing Types

The Sultan community can encourage a wide range of housing to ensure that the 11,119
residents estimated for 2025 have the type of dwelling types that meet their desires at an
affordable price. In addition to the typical single-family, duplex or apartment dwelling, the
City will explore other housing forms that can be suitably integrated into the community.
Among these are the following:

Accessory Housing: Accessory units help provide affordable housing, and include dwelling
units attached or detached from the primary residential units, on a single-family parcel.
Attached units contained within a single-family home are the most commonly encountered
type of accessory dwelling unit. Accessory apartments typically involve the renovation of a
garage, basement family room or a similar space in a single-family residence.

Manufactured Housing: Manufactured homes are allowed in the 2 lower density residential
zones ranging from 4.0-5.0 dwelling units per acre in the Low/moderate density zone to 7.0
in the Moderate density zone (Md). Detached single-family residential uses are allowed in
the three lower density residential zones ranging from 4.0 dwelling units per acre in the
Low/moderate density zone (Lmd), 6.0-8.0 in the Moderate density zone (Md), and 9.5-12.0
in the High density zone (Hd) – but not in the Urban center (Uc). Attached single and
multifamily uses are allowed in the three higher density residential zones ranging from 8.0-
10.0 dwelling units per acre in the Moderate density zone (Md), 12.0-20.0 in the High
density zone (Hd), and 14.0-24.0 in the Urban center (Uc) – but not in the Low/moderate
density zone (Lmd).

Group Homes: The U.S. Census defines “non-institutional group quarters” as living
quarters that house ten or more unrelated persons living in the unit, such as rooming
houses and groups homes. Group homes include “community-based homes” providing
care and supportive services. Such places include homes for the mentally ill, mentally
retarded, and physically handicapped; drug/alcohol halfway houses; communes; and
maternity homes. The extent of the housing need for special population groups (present
and projected) is based on the anticipated continued growth of the special needs
population. In addition, persons with special needs require a range of supportive services in
conjunction with affordable housing to ensure independent living.


GOALS AND POLICIES

GOAL:
   4.1    Encourage a diversity of affordable housing in Sultan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 35
Housing
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                        CHAPTER IV – HOUSING

Policies:

         4.1.1 Use the ratio of income to housing costs as a measure of affordability.
                  When housing costs, excluding utilities, exceeds 30% of a household’s
                  income; the housing is no longer considered affordable.
                  A rental unit is considered affordable for a household if the annual rent
                  (including utilities) is less than or equal to 30% of the household’s annual
                  income.
         4.1.2 Monitor actions by the County and neighboring regarding affordable housing
                  Consider participating in those activities where appropriate to Sultan
         4.1.3 Develop regulatory incentives (higher density, planned residential
               developments, etc.) to encourage affordable housing.

GOAL:
   4.2      Encourage a diversity of housing types to achieve land use, environmental
            and other community goals.
Policies:

         4.2.1 Allow the installation of manufactured housing units on single-family lots to
               reduce housing costs.
         4.2.2 Develop more detached single-family housing types including village, patio,
               and mother-in-law units especially within older developed areas to reduce
               development costs, increase choice, achieve higher densities, but still
               maintain a low-density scale and appearance.
         4.2.3 Develop attached single-family housing types including duplex, quadplex,
               garden, row or townhouses to reduce development costs, increase choice,
               achieve higher densities, but still maintain a moderate-density scale and
               appearance.
         4.2.4 Develop multiple family housing types including multiplexes, townhouses, and
               some garden apartments to increase choice and achieve higher densities in
               newly developing areas.
         4.2.5 Develop mixed-use projects that provide housing over ground floor
               commercial or office activities, particularly within the downtown to increase
               choice and achieve higher densities within a village or pedestrian-oriented
               environment.
         4.2.6 Allow smaller single-family lot sizes to increase density, but maintain single-
               family building scale and character in existing neighborhoods.
         4.2.7 Cluster housing developments to protect sensitive environmental areas,
               increase open space amenities, and reduce development costs.
         4.2.8 Develop new housing with shared access streets and parking lots to make
               more effective use of the roadways and reduce development costs.
         4.2.9 Develop vacant lands on the Sultan River valley floor and in older
               neighborhoods with single-family housing product types to retain and protect
               existing low-density areas and reduce risk exposure on flood prone lands.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 36
Housing
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                        CHAPTER IV – HOUSING

         4.2.10 Develop moderate to higher density housing product types on the edge of the
                plateau bordering the proposed new commercial and employment areas to
                increase housing choice and density on environmentally capable lands.
         4.2.11 Develop mixed-use structures with upper story housing in the downtown to
                increase housing choice and density within a pedestrian-oriented
                environment.

GOAL:
   4.3      Maintain a realistic balance between the land’s potentials and Sultan’s
            ability to provide housing choices and opportunities.
Policies:

         4.3.1 Determine the developable acreage contained within the prescribed Sultan
               UGA.
         4.3.2 Prioritize the delivery of sewer and other service to those planning areas to
               support a variety of higher density, more innovative types of housing choices.
         4.3.3 Allocate Sultan’s infrastructure capacity to those lands that can provide the
               most housing -- related opportunities.

GOAL:
   4.4      Promote diversity by creating district definitions, review and approval
            processes that allow for innovation and performance.
Policies:

         4.4.1 Expand housing district and code definition to allow a broad choice of housing
               types, locations, tenures, and prices. Provide housing opportunities for every
               type, age, physical and mental capability of household to include the family,
               the single-headed household, the individual, and the elderly. To the extent
               appropriate, recognize social area specialization by household and age group
               and provide public service that reflects each area’s special needs.
         4.4.2 Amend the zoning ordinance to define an increase variety of housing
               products including detached single-family, detached lot line, duplex,
               townhouse, multiplex, and green apartments in addition to the single-family
               and mobile home products now included in the prevailing ordinance.
         4.4.3 Clustering and planned unit development provisions: Amend the zoning
               ordinance to allow clustering and planned unit residential developments
               where the objective would be to allow for a variety of housing products, create
               common open space, and/or conserve significant social characteristics of the
               land like wooded areas and scenic views.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 37
Housing
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                     CHAPTER IV – HOUSING



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

Significant changes between this 2007 Comprehensive Plan update and the adopted 2004
integrated SEPA/GMA Comprehensive Plan document include confirmation of population
estimates internally in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan chapters and externally in the facility
plans. Land use distribution is based on a current population projection of 11,119 persons
in the Sultan UGA in 2025. Two expansion areas have been added to the Sultan UGA
since 2004 to ensure that residential land inventory is sufficient.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 38
Housing
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION



CHAPTER V: TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION

The Transportation Element is one of the six mandatory
elements required by the Growth Management Act5:

    [The City must adopt a] Transportation element
    that implements, and is consistent with, the land
    use element.         [It] shall include land use
    assumptions used in estimating travel, estimated
    traffic impacts to state owned transportation
    systems, inventory of transportation facilities and
    services, level of service standards for all locally owned roadways, future year traffic
    forecasts, identification of state and local needs to meet the adopted level of service
    standards, analysis of funding sources to meet future needs, demand management
    strategies, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

This section establishes the framework for the City’s future transportation system. It
represents Sultan’s policy plan for ensuring that the City’s transportation system responds to
the needs of the community. It is based on the full 2006 Transportation Plan recently adopted
by the City. Readers are invited to review the Transportation Plan for in-depth analysis. The
Plan is summarized in the Comprehensive Plan to provide consistency between land use,
transportation, economic development and overall Growth Management planning.


EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

This section provides information about the current conditions of the transportation system
and services within the City and its surrounding Sultan Planning Area.

Overview of the City Street System

Sultan has two principal street networks that are separated by steep hillsides and
connected only by US-2:

The historical grid – a road grid extending out from the historical town and focused on 1st
Street/Trout Farm Road and US-2 in the Sultan River Valley. It extends north from the
Skykomish River and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad into the Sultan
River valley. The grid gives way to a radial roadway system focused on 1st Avenue/Trout
Farm Road north of High Street due to constraints imposed by topographical and natural
features.



5
    RCW 36.70A.070(1)

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 39
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                 CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

The plateau network – extends north from the Skykomish and Wallace Rivers across US-2
and over the plateau. The grid is loosely based on Sultan Basin Road/323rd Avenue, Rice
Road/339th Avenue, and 132nd Street – the only connected roads. The grid gives way to
curvilinear alignments in newer residential developments due to wetlands and other natural
constraints.

Federal Highway US-2 – US-2 or Stevens Pass Highway extends east from Everett and an
interchange with I-5 across Stevens Pass to Wenatchee. US-2 then travels north-south
along the Columbia River to Canada and I-90.

Street Functional Classifications

An adequate arterial system provides the foundation for meeting the transportation needs of
an area. As well as providing for auto travel, a well designed arterial system also meets the
needs of transit users, freight and goods delivery by truck, safe and continuous sidewalks
for pedestrians, adequate lane space for cyclists when designated, and access
opportunities to adjacent properties.

Streets are grouped into functional classifications based on their connectivity, traffic
volumes and capacities, adjoining land uses and access, and speed. The four main
classifications currently used by the City of Sultan are Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials,
Collector Arterials, and Local Streets. Figure V-1 depicts the City’s Street Arterial
Functional Classification system and includes both existing and planned future streets.

Principal Arterials serve as the major regional connectors to employment, retail centers and
downtown central business districts. They have a very high level of regional connectivity,
moving travelers on a continuous route within the larger region. They typically provide for
high traffic volumes between 15,000 and 50,000 average daily vehicles at high speeds.
US-2 is designated as a Principal Arterial.

Minor Arterials serve as the connector arterial throughout a city providing for travel between
major commercial and residential areas, and moving travelers from collector arterials to
principal arterials. Minor arterials act as the supportive spine of the roadway network within
an urban area and thus have a high level of connectivity.

One-mile grid spacing of minor arterials is typical within most urban areas including the
Sultan Planning Area. Average daily traffic volumes on minor arterials can range between
6,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day. Sultan Basin Road, Rice Road, 132nd Street and 1st
Street are designated as Minor Arterials.

Collector Arterials serve travel movement between neighborhoods and carry traffic to and
from higher order arterials. Collectors are commonly used by residents to circulate out of
their neighborhood. These routes provide neighborhood connectivity, but do not serve as
citywide streets. Collector Arterials have been established on a 1/4 to 1/2 mile grid network
within the Sultan Planning Area. Average daily traffic volumes on collectors typically range
between 2,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day. High Street, 8th Avenue and Kessler Drive are
designated as Collector Arterials.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 40
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

Local Streets provide access to adjacent properties in neighborhoods and commercial
areas with limited provisions for through traffic connectivity. Typical of other cities and
urban areas, most of the roadways within the Sultan Planning Area are local streets.
Average daily traffic volumes typically range from 100 to 2,500 vehicles per day.

The City of Sultan Arterial Functional Classifications Map is included as Figure V-1. The
existing (2007) average weekday traffic is shown in Figure V-2.

Traffic Levels of Service

Transportation level of service or LOS is a measure of the quality of service provided by the
transportation system. Transportation LOS helps provide an understanding of the
performance of the transportation system; it also establishes a basis for comparison
between roadways, and helps guide the prioritization of improvement projects.

Evaluating the LOS on the arterial street system is typically described in terms of traffic
congestion, which can be measured by average vehicle delay, travel speed, vehicular
density, or the traffic volume to street traffic capacity (V/C) ratio. The resulting level of
service is usually given a letter ranking from A to F where:
• LOS A and B represent fairly free-flow travel conditions with little or no delay;
• LOS C and D represent stable flow with acceptable delay; and
• LOS E and F represent severe congestion with low travel speeds and unacceptable
   delay.

The existing 2007 LOS on the City’s arterials is shown in Figure V-3. While Figure V-3
demonstrates that the 2007 traffic LOS on City and County arterial roadways within the
Sultan Planning Area is very good during the average weekday PM peak hour, US-2 is very
congested during this time.

Table V-1 presents US-2 traffic intersection operational LOS analysis conducted as part of
WSDOT’s US-2 Route Development Plan for Old Owen Road, 5th Street, Main Street, and
Sultan Basin Road. Intersection LOS performed by Perteet Inc. is also shown for the
intersection of US-2 and Rice Road (339th Ave SE).
                            Table V-1: US-2 2006 Intersection LOS
                                              2006 Annual Average      2006 Highest Month
                                               Weekday PM Peak          (August) Weekend
  Intersection                                     Hour LOS            PM Peak Hour LOS
  US-2 / Old Owen Road (signalized)                   B                         F
  US-2 / 5th Street (signalized)                      C                         E
  US-2 / Main Street (unsignalized)                    F                        F
  US-2 / Sultan Basin Road (unsignalized)              F                        F
  US-2 / Rice Road (unsignalized)                     F                        N/A




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 41
Transportation
            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                             AUGUST 2007
                                                                                         CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                  Figure V-1: 2007 Arterial Functional Classifications




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                  Page 42
Transportation
            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                        AUGUST 2007
                                                                                    CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                  Figure V-2: 2007 Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT)




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                             Page 43
Transportation
            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                         AUGUST 2007
                                                                                     CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                  Figure V-3: 2007 Arterial Level of Service (LOS)




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                              Page 44
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                 CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

As can be seen in Table V-1, in 2006 there was intersection LOS F at the Main Street,
Sultan Basin Road, and Rice Road unsignalized intersections during the average weekday
PM peak hour. In August, which has been determined to be the month that has the highest
weekend traffic volumes on US-2, there was unacceptable LOS at the Old Owen Road, 5th
Street, Main Street and Sultan Basin Road intersections. Since the time of that analysis,
the City has completed the US-2 & Sultan Basin Road Intersection Improvements providing
widening to Sultan Basin Road, realignment of the intersection at US-2, and additional
channelization and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection. This transportation
project has improved traffic operations and safety at the intersection.

The Transportation Plan concludes that the 2007 arterial traffic LOS within the City of Sultan
is generally good, however traffic congestion with poor LOS exists on US-2, particularly at
unsignalized intersections negatively affecting travel to, through, and within the City. During
peak weekend travel conditions, even signalized intersections on US-2 within the City are
experiencing unacceptable LOS conditions.

Existing Bus Service Coverage

Community Transit currently serves the City with three bus routes:

CT Route 270: Provides hourly weekday only service 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM between Everett
Station and Gold Bar with stops in Snohomish, Monroe, Sultan and Startup. Average
monthly ridership in 2006 on Route 270 was 11,154 riders.

CT Route 271: Provides hourly weekday service 5:30 PM to midnight, supplementing
Route 270 weekday service. Average monthly ridership in 2006 on the route was 6,663
riders.

CT Route 277: Provides commuter style weekday service between Gold Bar and Everett’s
Boeing facilities during the Boeing shift commute hours. Average monthly ridership in 2006
on the route was 2,234 riders. Route 277 has limited stops, consistent with commuter style
service. A stop in Sultan is provided at the Sultan Park and Ride lot.

Paratransit Service: Community Transit’s DART is a paratransit service that provides
transportation for people whose disability or condition prevents them from using Community
Transit regular route buses. DART paratransit service can take a qualified rider to locations
within 3/4 of a mile of a CT bus route during the regular hours that the bus routes serve that
area.

A map of CT’s Routes, 270, 271, and 277 coverage within the Sultan Planning Area is
shown in Figure V-4. The map also provides a 1/4 mile hatched line buffer drawn around
bus stops within the City.

The Transportation Plan concludes that existing transit coverage is good within the historic
area of the City, but that many other areas within the City and the larger Sultan Planning
Area lack adequate access to both public transit and paratransit service. This includes
areas north of High Street and north of US-2 in the plateau area.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 45
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                   CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

Rail Transit

The option of expanding heavy rail commuter service to include Sultan and the surrounding
region from the multi-modal terminal in Everett has also been discussed and will depend on
future potential costs and benefits.

The Western Heritage Center – a rail museum proposed for development east of Rice Road
– may develop a narrow gauge rail line looping the properties between US-2, Rice Road,
and 140th Street SE. Local promoters have also discussed the possibility of ultimately
expanding the narrow gauge line to link with the downtown.

Non-motorized Transportation

Non-motorized transportation systems include facilities that provide for safe pedestrian and
bicycle travel. These include sidewalks, crosswalks, off-street trails, bike routes, and bike
lanes. In rural areas, non-motorized facilities can also include roadway shoulders when
they are adequately wide.

Pedestrian Facilities

In the past, many of the roads in Sultan were constructed to a rural standard with no curb or
sidewalk improvements or provisions for safe pedestrian travel.                  Recent roadway
reconstruction projects have provided storm drainage, curb and sidewalk improvements,
particularly along major streets providing access to schools, parks and the downtown
business district (including Main Street, 1st Street, 4th Street, 8th Street, Willow Avenue, High
Street, Kessler Street, and most recently Sultan Basin Road). Sidewalks have also been
constructed on many local streets in concert with new development within the City.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 46
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                                    CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                    Figure V-4: Sultan 2006 Public Transit Routes




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                             Page 47
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                   CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


Trails

Non-motorized transportation systems also include separated or off-road recreational trails.
Some portion of these recreational trail corridors can also satisfy local transportation needs
between residential areas and parks, schools, commercial and employment areas
depending on the trail locations.

The High Street Trail is an asphalt multi-purpose trail developed from the east end of High
Street up the hillside and onto the plateau to provide for evacuation of schools in case of
flood or dam emergencies. At the time of writing of this plan, several segments of the
Willow/Bryant Trail were under construction on the plateau area west of Sultan Basin Road
and south of 132nd Street.

Bicycle Facilities

In the past, cyclists within the Sultan Planning Area have either rode in the lane of traffic, on
available road shoulders, or on City sidewalks. Many commuter cyclists ride along US-2 in
the available highway shoulder to reach their destinations. To provide for safer bicycle
travel within the City, the City has completed two major improvements.

Recent completion of the High Street off-road trail and the bike lanes on Sultan Basin Road
provide a measure of safety and choice for safe cycling within the City. However many
challenges remain, especially in older neighborhoods along US-2 and in the rural areas of
the Sultan Planning Area.

Safe walking and bicycling environments within Sultan are a major concern of citizens. In
many cases, pedestrians and cyclists must share narrow high volume streets with motor
vehicles of all sizes. They cross busy intersections with multiple conflict points. Currently,
the Sultan Planning Area lacks a system of continuous and connected non-motorized routes
along the arterial street system.

Freight Transportation

Within the Sultan Planning Area, freight and goods are transported on US-2, on City and
County roads, and on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Stevens Pass rail
line, which parallels US-2 providing major cross-state freight and passenger travel between
Everett and Spokane.

The Stevens Pass rail line is BNSF’s primary route for double-stack intermodal freight
traffic. However, within the Sultan Planning Area BNSF does not provide service to local
industrial users, nor is such service planned by BNSF in the near future. All freight and
goods originating from or destined to commercial businesses within the Sultan Planning
Area are currently carried by trucks.

Figure V-5 displays freight routes in Sultan according to the Washington State Freight and
Goods Transportation System (FGTS) rating system.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 48
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                                                       CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                            Figure V-5: 2005 Freight and Goods Transportation System




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                Page 49
Transportation
                             PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                          AUGUST 2007
                                                                  CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION



FORECASTING FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND

The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to provide travel forecasts
for at least ten years based on the jurisdiction’s adopted future land use plan. In Sultan, this
was accomplished though development of a traffic forecasting model that provided future
traffic growth forecasts to the year 2025 based on the City’s adopted year 2025 Future Land
Use Plan. A description of the traffic forecasting model development and its resulting
forecasts is provided in the Transportation Plan. Forecasts were based on two alternative
assumptions:

A 2025 No Action Scenario that assumed no change or improvement to the City’s existing
street system. US-2 was assumed to be four lanes with two additional traffic signals
installed at Main Street and at Rice Road intersections.

A 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario that assumed a series of City arterial street
improvements including arterial extensions across the plateau and construction of a
connecting Minor Arterial grid system. US-2 was assumed to be four lanes with two
additional traffic signals installed at Main Street and Rice Road Intersections. A new right-
turn only intersection at 1st Street and US-2 was assumed.

Existing and future (2025) population and land uses were used in the traffic forecast.

Future Traffic Volumes

Average weekday traffic (AWDT) forecasts for the two plan scenarios are shown in Figures
V-6 and V-7. The traffic forecasts reveal that traffic volumes within the Sultan Planning
Area will increase as projected land use development under the City’s adopted land use
plan is realized, particularly in the plateau area. The majority of the forecasted traffic
increase can be attributed to intra-city travel between the plateau area and the historic area
of the City, and increasing regional travel between Sultan and other communities.

A comparison of the “No Action” and “Preferred Arterial” scenarios shows that without
continued improvement of the City’s east-west arterial grid network, traffic volumes on
Sultan Basin Road and Rice Road are projected to substantially increase. Traffic on US-2
is also much higher under the “No Action” scenario than the “Preferred Arterial” scenario.
All travel to and from the City Planning Area from points east and west, as well as within the
City itself, occurs on US-2. The difference between the two scenarios is the amount of
future traffic that would divert off US-2, or not use it at all, if the arterial improvements
recommended in the “Preferred Arterial” scenario are built.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 50
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                          AUGUST 2007
                                                                                          CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                  Figure V-6: 2025 No Action Arterial Scenario – Average Weekday Traffic Volumes




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                   Page 51
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                           AUGUST 2007
                                                                                           CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

               Figure V-7: Sultan 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario – Average Weekday Traffic Volumes




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                    Page 52
Transportation
                            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                        AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


Future Traffic Levels of Service

As discussed, transportation LOS is a measure of the quality of service provided by the
transportation system. Transportation LOS establishes a basis for comparison between
roadways and helps guide the prioritization of improvement projects.

The 2025 No Action and Preferred Arterial Traffic LOS is shown in Figures V-8 and V-9.
The future 2025 traffic LOS analysis demonstrates the impact of increasing traffic volumes
on the performance of the arterial network and US-2 within the Sultan Planning Area. A
comparison of the two figures indicates that Sultan Basin Road north of US-2 will likely fall
to LOS E/F by 2025 unless additional arterial capacity or connectivity is built.

While both alternatives indicate poor LOS on US-2 west of Sultan Basin Road even with
widening to four travel lanes, under the 2025 “Preferred Arterial” scenario, US-2 traffic
volumes and congestion would be reduced between 1st Street and Sultan Basin Road. This
forecasted reduction is due to an expected decrease of intra-city travel using US-2 as the
result of providing additional east-west arterial connectivity within the City as recommended
in the “Preferred Arterial” scenario.

An additional benefit of the “Preferred Arterial” scenario to US-2 traffic operations is in
providing a major new access point to US-2 at 1st Street. The recommended 1st Street /
US-2 access point, combined with connecting arterial improvements planned for 1st Street /
Trout Farm Road and the 132nd Street Extension, are expected to route traffic off of US-2 on
to the City arterial system at the west of downtown, reducing traffic volumes on US-2 east
past 3rd Street, 5th Street, and Main Street.

Table V-2 presents US-2 2025 traffic intersection operational LOS analysis based on traffic
forecasts developed by the City’s traffic forecast Model.
                             Table V-2: US-2 2025 Intersection LOS
                                                     2025 Annual          2025 Annual
                                                 Average Weekday       Average Weekday
                                                 PM Peak Hour LOS      PM Peak Hour LOS
                                                     – No Action       – Preferred Arterial
Intersection                                           Scenario             Scenario
US-2 / Old Owen Road (signalized)                         C                     C
US-2/ 1st Street (unsignalized right-turn only)           --                    C
US-2 / 5th Street (signalized)                            D                     C
US-2 @ Main Street (unsignalized)                         C                     B
US-2 / Sultan Basin Road (signalized)                     F                     B
US-2 / Rice Road (signalized)                             B                     B




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 53
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                      AUGUST 2007
                                                                                      CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                            Figure V-8: Sultan 2025 No Action Arterial Scenario LOS




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                              Page 54
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                                                       CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                             Figure V-9: Sultan 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario LOS




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                               Page 55
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

The traffic forecasting and LOS analysis demonstrate the positive effects of constructing an
arterial grid system within the Sultan Planning Area. The arterial system improvements
recommended in the “Preferred Arterial” scenario provide not only for a more efficient form
of intra-City travel, but also provide improved access and more efficient use of US-2 for
regional and statewide travel.

Forecasts for Other Modes

While future year 2025 traffic forecasts were developed using the City’s traffic forecasting
model, forecasts of future demand for other transportation modes within the Sultan Planning
Area were less rigorous, but still provided enough information to guide transportation
infrastructure and service improvement planning.

Transit

Transit service forecasts utilized for the Sultan Comprehensive Plan were developed by
Community Transit (CT) through work with the Puget Sound Regional Council. As part of
development of CT’s 2004 Transit Development Plan (2004–2009), CT examined the Puget
Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) travel model forecasts for year 2010. According to CT,
forecasted transit service demand in eastern Snohomish County is expected to increase to
the point where additional service may be warranted.

According to CT:

    … a surprising finding is that eastern Snohomish County may provide a viable new
    market for direct commuter service to downtown Seattle and University District in
    coming years. While projected demand between eastern Snohomish County and these
    areas is minor in comparison to that of southwest Snohomish County, it is at least equal
    if not greater than that from north Snohomish County which already has several direct
    commuter services to those markets.
                                                       -Community Transit’s Transit First Transit
                                                            Development Plan (2004 – 2009).

In late 2007, CT was preparing to update its 6-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP) and
contemplating developing a longer-range plan that would look 20 years into the future.

Non-motorized

Future year 2025 non-motorized (pedestrian/bicycle) travel was not modeled for the
Transportation Plan, but instead derived from public opinion through public outreach
conducted by the City. According to public opinion survey work, public open houses and
public meetings held as part of the development of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a
strong desire for improved non-motorized facilities. Facility improvements recommended by
the public included completion of the exiting sidewalk system as well as construction of
trails and bicycles facilities particularly around schools, along US-2, and in areas of new
housing developments.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 56
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                   CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

Freight

Estimates of the future year 2025 demand for freight movement within the Sultan Planning
Area were not explicitly modeled. However, analysis and recommendations completed as
part of the 2001 Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan recognized the need for transportation
facilities necessary to serve expanded industrial and commercial activity within the City.
Specifically, the Master Plan recommended transportation goals, policies and specific
improvement projects that recognize the impacts of increased truck freight movement
associated with the Plan.

Future improvement strategies for capacity improvements are being considered by both
BNSF and WSDOT for the BNSF Steven’s Pass rail line. The Washington State
Transportation Commission's 2006 Rail Capacity and System Needs study analyzes
whether or not the state should participate in freight rail, what the state's role in rail should
be, investment approaches, governance, and a state asset management plan.


TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN

At the heart of the transportation planning requirements of the Growth Management Act
(GMA) is the requirement of local governments planning under the act to determine their
transportation needs, including local and state transportation system improvements as well
as projects and strategies necessary to meet established level of service standards.

The overall goal of the City’s Transportation Element is to promote a balanced, affordable,
reliable and efficient transportation system that supports the City’s 2025 Future Land Use
Plan. In order to meet the goal, a series of transportation improvements are recommended
for arterials, State highways, transit facilities and services, non-motorized facilities, and
freight transport facilities.     Following is a summary of the Transportation Plan
recommendations.

Arterial System Improvements

A series of transportation improvements are recommended to develop the arterial street
system within the Sultan Planning Area. Four types of system improvements are
recommended:
1. Existing street deficiency improvements necessary to address existing deficiencies on
   both local access and arterial streets,
2. Future arterial system capacity improvements necessary to meet the City’s traffic level
   of service (LOS) standard “D”,
3. Future arterial system enhancements necessary to meet City street design standards
   and to provide enhanced arterial system connectivity to help reduces traffic congestion
   at key system choke points, and
4. Two transportation projects that look out beyond the year 2025 to present long-term City
   project concepts to begin dialogue with regional leaders and potential partner agencies.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 57
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

A map of all the recommended arterial improvement projects is shown in Figure V-10 and
are listed in Tables V-3 thru V-6. These are also included in the City’s Capital Facilities
Element.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 58
Transportation
                             PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                     CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                                   Table V-3: Recommended Existing Street Deficiency Projects
                                                                                                     Future Number                       Arterial Functional
  Project #                 Project Name                            Project Description                              Project Type                                   Bicycle Facility?         Transit Street?
                                                                                                        of Lanes                           Classification

                                                        Install traffic calming treatment to Date
                                                        Ave. from 8th St west to the Elementary                           Existing
T-46           Date Avenue Traffic Calming              School                                            2              Deficiency         Local Access                   No                       No
                                                        Repair, replace, and construct as
                                                        necessary asphalt, sidewalks, and bike
                                                        lanes. Project is combined with water,                            Existing
T-51           3rd St. Reconstruction                   sewer, and stormwater system projects.            2              Deficiency         Local Access               Bike Lanes                   No
                                                                                                                          Existing
T-61           6th Street Reconstruction                Reconstruct 6th St. to urban standards            2              Deficiency         Local Access                   No                       No



                                                   Table V-4: Recommended Arterial System Capacity Projects
                                                                                              Future Number                   Arterial Functional
   Project #             Project Name                      Project Description                              Project Type                             Bicycle Facility?          Transit Street?
                                                                                                 of Lanes                       Classification


                                                Reconstruct 1st St from High Ave to Trout
                1st Street Reconstruction Phase Farm Rd. Project includes water, sewer
  T-38          II                              and storm water utilities construction.             3         Capacity           Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                   Yes
                US-2/Rice Rd (339th Ave)        Signalize exisiting intersection of US-2 at                                                           Bike Lanes/Trail
  T-40          Signalization                   339th Ave SE.                                       3         Capacity         Principal Arterial        Crossing                 Yes, US-2
                                                Continue Sultan Basin Rd. improvements
                Sultan Basin Rd. Reconstruction north to 124th St.SE. Proposed Joint
  T-42          Phase IV                        City/County Project                                 3         Capacity           Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                   Yes
                                                Reconstruct Trout Farm Rd. from 1st St.
                                                north to 125th St SE. Proposed joint
  T-47          Trout Farm Rd Reconstruction    City/County Project                                 2/3       Capacity         Collector Arterial   Multi Purpose Trail              Yes
                                                Extend 132nd S.t from Sultan Basin Rd.
                                                northwest connecting to Trout Farm Rd.
  T-57          132nd Ave Arterial Extension    near 307th St.                                      3         Capacity           Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                   Yes
                                                Provide grade-seperated ramp access to
  T-59          US 2/ 1st Avenue Interchange    US-2 from 1st St.                                   2         Capacity           Minor Arterial                No                    Yes




 SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                                 Page 59
 Transportation
                         PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                           CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                                            Table V-5: Recommended Arterial System Enhancement Projects
                                                                                                  Future
 Project                                                                                                                    Arterial Functional
                Project Name                           Project Description                       Number of   Project Type                         Bicycle Facility?   Transit Street?
    #                                                                                                                         Classification
                                                                                                   Lanes

                                      Construct new east/west collector between 339th Ave
T-24       New East/West Collector    SE and Sultan Basin Rd in the north section of the City       2        Enhancement     Collector Arterial          No                 No
                                      (aprox. location between 132nd and 124th St SE).

                                      Provide east/west access and traffic collector through
           New North Industrial
T-26                                  the Industrial Park from Rice Rd (339th) to Sultan Basin      2        Enhancement     Collector Arterial          No                 No
           Park Collector
                                      Rd. and US-2

           East Main     St   Road    Extend East Main St. east to connect to 149th St. SE
T-27                                                                                                2        Enhancement       Local Street              No                 No
           Extension                  within the Economic Development Zone south of US-2.


           DyerSkywall Emergency      Provide emergency access for properties between
T-28                                                                                                2        Enhancement       Local Street              No                 No
           Access                     BNSF tracks and the Skykomish River for public safety


                                      Extend Kessler Dr. north from Bryant Rd. to 124th St.                                                        Multi Purpose
T-29       Kessler Drive Extension                                                                  2        Enhancement     Collector Arterial                             No
                                      SE.                                                                                                               Trail

                                      Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through
                                                                                                                            Proposed Collector
T-31a      New 330th Ave Arterial     the Industrial Park north to 124th St SE. CITY                2        Enhancement                            Shared Lane             No
                                                                                                                                 Arterial
                                      LIMIT/UGA PORTION ONLY

                                      Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through
                                                                                                                            Proposed Collector
T-31b      New 330th Ave Arterial     the Industrial Park north to 124th St SE. NON-UGA             2        Enhancement                            Shared Lane             No
                                                                                                                                 Arterial
                                      PORTION
                                      Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at
                                      County Rural Arterial road standards to provide arterial
           Rice Rd.    (339th)   St                                                                                          Proposed Minor
T-32a                                 connectivity and access to US-2. Proposed joint project       2        Enhancement                             Bike Lanes             No
           Extension                                                                                                             Arterial
                                      with Snohomish County. CITY LIMIT/UGA PORTION
                                      ONLY
                                      Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at
           Rice Rd.    (339th)   St   County Rural Arterial road standards to provide arterial                               Proposed County
T-32b                                                                                               2        Enhancement                             Bike Lanes             No
           Extension                  connectivity and access to US-2. Proposed joint project                                    Arterial
                                      with Snohomish County. NON-UGA PORTION
                                      Develop an interior access arterial from Old Owen Rd.
           229th Ave Extension or     east to Sportmans Park to provide access to existing
T-33                                                                                                2/3      Enhancement     Collector Arterial          No                 No
           Highland Ave Extension     roadside commercial properties and reduce curb cuts on
                                      US-2.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                     Page 60
Transportation
                             PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                                              Table V-5: Recommended Arterial System Enhancement Projects (Cont.)
      Project                                                                                                 Future Number                   Arterial Functional
                       Project Name                               Project Description                                         Project Type                                Bicycle Facility?        Transit Street?
         #                                                                                                       of Lanes                       Classification

                US-2 RDP City Access         Downtown access to US 2 will be focused on 3rd, 5th, 8th,
     T-34       Revisions                    and Main Streets to reduce congestion.                                           Enhancement       Principal Arterial       Multi Purpose Trail         Yes, US-2

                Cascase View Drive/330th     Reconstruct Cascade View Dr to Collector arterial standard
                Ave Intersection             and realign street to create a signalized intersection at US-2                                                            E. Main St Trail joins as
     T-35       Realignment                  and 330th Ave SE.                                                     2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial      a Multi Purpose Trail        Yes, US-2

                                             Reconstruct and extend 138th St. between Sultan Basin Rd.
     T-36       138th St Extension           and 339th Ave SE.                                                     2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                     Yes

                                             Reconstruct 339th Ave from Sultan Startup Rd. north to
                Rice (339th Ave SE)          132nd St. SE to arterial standard with curbs gutter and
     T-41       Reconstruction               sidewalks.                                                            2/3        Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                 Yes

                                             Redesign the road to remove access from US-2 rerouting
     T-43       Walburn Rd. Rerouting        access to Sultan Basin Rd. north of Wagley Creek                      2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                      No

                                             Extend Pine St. East to Walburn to provide east west access
                                             from Sultan Basin Rd to downtown Sultan. Emergency
     T-44       Pine Street Extension        Evacuation Route                                                      2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                      No

                                             Install traffic signal and improvements from the intersection
                                             of 4th and Alder St to the intersection of 5th and US-2.
                                             Proposed Joint project with Community Transit and Sultan
     T-45       Alder St Improvements        School District                                                       2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                     Yes
                                             Reconstruct Gohr Rd to arterial standard from 1st St north to
     T-48       Gohr Rd Reconstruction       311th Ave SE                                                          2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                      No
                                             Extend Gohr Rd north to the proposed proposed 132nd Ave.
     T-49       Gohr Rd Extension            Extension.                                                            2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                      No

     T-52       8th St. Sidewalks            Install sections of missing sidewalks on 8th St.                                 Enhancement       Collector Arterial

                10th St. Railroad Crossing   Reconstruct the 10th St. crossing with the BNSF Rail Line
     T-53       Improvement                  Within the Economic Development zone.                                 2          Enhancement         Local Street                   No                      No
                Industrial Park Rail Spur    Petition BNSF and contribute to construct a rail spur access
     T-55       Construction                 to the Industrial Park                                                n/a        Enhancement              n/a                       n/a                     n/a

     T-58       132nd Ave Reconstruction     Reconstruct 132nd St SE to arterial standard                          2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                 Yes
                124th St. SE Reconstruction Reconstruct 124th St SE to urban standards from west
     T-62       Phase 1                     terminus to Sultan Basin Rd.                                           2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial       Multi Purpose Trail             No
                                             Extend 124th Ave. west to Trout Farm Rd. intersecting at
     T-65       124th St. Extension          aprox. 125th St                                                       2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial       Multi Purpose Trail             No




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                                                               Page 61
Transportation
                    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                      CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                                                Table V-6: Transportation Projects Beyond 2025


                                                                                              Number of              Arterial Functional   Project Cost
              Project #    Project Name                 Project Description                             Project Type
                                                                                                Lanes                  Classification       Estimate




                          124th St. SE     Reconstruct 124th St SE to County Rural
                          Reconstruction   Arterial road standards from Sultan Basin Rd. to
             T-63         Phase 2          Rice Rd. Proposed joint City/County Project.           2         Future    County Local Road    $11,100,000


                                           Construct a bridge crossing the Sultan River
                                           north of 125th St SE. to provide for emergency
                          Sultan River     access evacuation route and future arterial
                          Bridge           circulation. Project includes reconstruction of                              Proposed Minor     $4.6 Mil Plus
             T-64         Construction     Trout Farm Rd. to the bridge crossing.                 2         Future          Arterial        bridge cost




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                  Page 62
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                               Figure V-10: Recommended Arterial Improvements




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                        Page 63
Transportation
                                 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                           CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


Arterial Street Design Standards

Standards for arterial street construction and improvement provide continuity for the arterial
system and assure that adequate facilities are constructed. Well designed street standards
also help ensure the safety and accessibility for other system users including transit buses,
pedestrians and cyclists as well as providing for landscape areas, parking and right-of-way
width. The City of Sultan arterial street standards are listed in Table V-7.
                  Table V-7: Recommended Arterial Street Design Standards
                                 Traffic      Parking      Bike   Street                                Right
Street Type                                                                 Landscape   Sidewalks
                                 Lanes        Pockets      Lane   Width                                of Way
COLLECTOR
2 Lane w/Parking                  2-11’           8’       n/a     38’         5’            6’         60’
2 Lane w/Multi Purpose Trail
and Parking                       2-11’           8’       n/a     38’         5’       1- 6’, 1-12’    66’
2 lane w/Bike Route and
Parking Pockets                   2-11’       12’ w/bike   n/a     46’         5’           6’          68’
INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR
2 Lane                         2-12 to 14’       n/a       n/a    24-28’       4’           6’         44-48’
3 Lane                         1-12’, 2-12’      n/a       n/a     36’         4’           6’          56’
MINOR ARTERIAL
2 Lane                            2-12’          n/a       n/a     24’         5’            6’         46’
2 Lane w/Multi Purpose Trail      2-12’          n/a       n/a     24’         5’       1-6’, 1-12’     52’
2 Lane w/Bike Lane                2-12’          n/a        5’     34’         5’            6’         56’
3 Lane                         1-12’, 2-12’      n/a       n/a     36’         5’            6’         58’
3 Lane w/Multi Purpose Trail   1-12’, 2-12’      n/a       n/a     36’         5’       1-6’, 1-12’     64’
3 Lane w/Bike Lane             1-12’, 2-11’      n/a        5’     45’         5’            6’         67’

Figures V-11 and V-12 illustrate two of the arterial design standards.

Each street design must consider the need for transit stops and bicycle lanes. Key transit
stop locations will require allowances for pads to accommodate bus shelters in the future.
Collector and local streets should also allow for parking pockets between landscaped bulb-
outs at key intersections at the discretion of the developer.

Transit facilities at key stops require right-of-way allowances for pads for transit shelters.
The minimum extra right-of-way allowance for a transit pad at an in-lane transit stop should
be five feet in width and about 15 feet in length as illustrated on the diagram. This
allowance will provide sufficient space for a standard shelter with adjacent room for other
transit amenities such as signs, schedules, trash receptacles, etc.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                         Page 64
Transportation
                         PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                 Figure V-11: Three-Lane Arterial with Bike Lanes




              Figure V-12: Three-Lane Arterial with Multi Purpose Trail




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                     Page 65
Transportation
                            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

Transit System Improvements
                                                         Figure V-13: Sultan 2025
                                                       Recommended Transit Streets
Of primary importance to the City is increasing
opportunities for access to public transit,
particularly in the developing areas north of the
historic town, and in the plateau area north of
US-2. Providing expansion of existing transit
routes and/or additional new routes in these
areas is key to ensuring a viable 1/4 mile walk
access to transit stops in these developing
areas. Figure V-13 depicts the right of way
needs for transit stops.

To best serve the Sultan Planning Area, a future
public transit street network has been identified
as shown in Figure V-14. Transit streets
delineated on the map are specifically identified
in the future arterial system improvement
projects listed in Tables V-3 thru V-5.

The City supports expansion of commuter bus
service to provide future direct service to
downtown Seattle and the University District as
recommended in Community Transit’s 2004 – 2009 Transit Development Plan. The City will
work with Community Transit in order to facilitate effective improvements to public transit
service in the City and along US-2.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 66
Transportation
                PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                                      CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                               Figure V-14: Sultan 2025 Recommended Transit Streets




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                          Page 67
Transportation
                            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


Non-motorized System Improvements

The City is committed to taking measurable steps toward the goal of improving every
citizen’s quality of life by creating a safer walking and biking environment. The main focus
of the non-motorized improvements recommended in this section is to provide routes that
can be used for commuting purposes between residential areas and shopping centers,
schools, and places of employment. An additional consideration in non-motorized planning
is to provide increased access to public transit. The recommended non-motorized
improvements within the Sultan Planning Area are listed in Table V-8 and shown in Figure
V-15.

Non-motorized improvements that serve more of a recreational nature are recommended in
the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan. When properly planned and constructed,
both commuter based and recreational based non-motorized facilities are shown to increase
the desirability of a City as a place to live and work.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 68
Transportation
                 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                     CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION



                                             Table V-8: Recommended Non-motorized Improvements
                                                         within the Sultan Planning Area
                                                                                                                          Future Number
           Project #                 Project Name                             Project Description                                         Project Type
                                                                                                                             of Lanes

                                                          Repair, replace and construct missing sidewalks within the                        Existing
          NM-3         Sidewalk Spot Improvements         City                                                                 n/a         Deficiency
                                                          Renovate public sidewaks. Stand alone projects not                                Existing
          NM-4         Sidewalk Enhancement               associated with road renovation.                                     n/a         Deficiency
                                                          Construct multipurpose trail from the east end of E. Main St
                                                          north Cascade View Dr and 330th Ave. for nonmotorized and
          NM-1         East Main St. Trail                emergency access.                                                    n/a        Nonmotorized
                                                          Construct multipurpose trail to provide nonmotorized safety
                                                          and connectivity as part of US-2 RDP
          NM-5         US-2 Route Corridor Trail          reconstruction/widening.                                             n/a        Nonmotorized
                                                          Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized
                                                          travel to and from residential, commercial, parks and natural
          NM-6         Willow/Bryant Trail                areas.                                                               n/a        Nonmotorized
                                                          Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized
                                                          travel to and from residential, commercial, parks and natural
          NM-7         High/Kessler/140th Trail           areas.                                                               n/a        Nonmotorized
                                                          Construct a nonmotorized bridge crossing on US 2 to provide
                                                          increased safety for pedestrians and improved traffic flow.
          NM-8         US-2 Pedestrian Overcrossing       Joint Project with WSDOT                                             n/a        Nonmotorized




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                    Page 69
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                                CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                    Figure V-15: Future Bike Lanes and Trails




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                         Page 70
Transportation
                            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                         AUGUST 2007
                                                                 CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


Freight System Improvements

Freight and goods are transported within the Sultan Planning area on US-2, City and
County roads, and on the BNSF Stevens Pass rail line. Recommended future
improvements to facilitate expected increased tonnage of freight movement to and from
developing commercial and industrial areas within the City include many of the
recommended arterial system improvements listed in Tables V-3 thru V-5.
     T-26 New North Industrial Park Collector,
     T-35 Cascade View Dr/330th Ave Intersection Realignment,
     T-33 299th Ave Extension,
     T-41 Rice Road Reconstruction,
     T-40 US-2/339th Ave Signalization
     T-55 Industrial Park Rail Spur Construction


TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Transportation demand management (TDM) is a series of strategies that provide for a more
efficient utilization of the transportation system by reducing the demand for single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. Employer-based TDM strategies are those that are
primarily undertaken by public and private employers specific to serving commuter travel to
the employment sites. These include:
       Ride-matching programs for carpooling and vanpooling
       Transit support programs
       Flexible work schedules
       Telecommuting
       Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools

As of this writing, there were no CTR employer worksites located in the Sultan Planning
Area.

In order to encourage TDM within the City, Sultan will continue to pursue improvements to
transit service and facilities and development of the non-motorized system. In addition, the
City should explore amending the land use development codes to increase awareness and
strengthen implementation of TDM strategies.


STATE OWNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITIES

As required under the WA Growth Management Act (GMA), comprehensive plan
transportation elements are required to include a sub-element addressing state-owned
transportation facilities, and transportation facilities of statewide significance. The City’s
Transportation Plan complies with the GMA requirements by providing:
   An inventory of state-owned facilities within the Sultan Planning Area;
   Estimates of traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting from land use decisions so
   performance can be monitored and improvements can be planned;


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 71
Transportation
                           PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

   State adopted level of service (LOS) standards for measuring state facility performance;
   Identifying current and future state facility needs that are consistent with WSDOT’s
   statewide multimodal transportation system plan.

Within the Sultan Planning Area, US-2 is the only state-owned transportation facility. US-2
is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and a National Highway System
(NHS) facility across its entire length. US-2 is also designated as a Scenic Byway in the
vicinity of State Route Mile Post (SRMP) 15.37 to 104.72, this includes the section through
the Sultan Planning Area, approximately SRMP 21.25 to 25.0.

Traffic impacts from the City’s 2025 Future Land Use Plan on US-2 were estimated with the
Sultan Traffic Model. Forecasted 2025 traffic volumes and LOS analysis are provided in
Chapter 4.

US-2 has an established a traffic level of service (LOS) standard of “D” for the highway
through the Sultan Planning Area. Local transportation concurrency requirements do not
apply to HSS facilities.

Two WSDOT planning documents provide recommended transportation improvements to
US-2: the Washington State Highway System Plan, and the WSDOT US-2 Route
Development Plan (RDP), which at the time of this writing was still in draft form. This
section outlines the improvements recommended in each plan.

1. WSDOT Highway System Plan

The Highway System Plan recommends the widening of US-2 to 5 lanes through the Sultan
Planning Area as the ultimate long range solution. Due to the current lack of projected
funding to implement this solution, a tiered set of proposed improvement strategies is
recommended providing staged solutions to the highway’s identified safety, congestion and
environmental problems. The tiered solution sets are classified Minimum, Moderate and
Maximum “Fixes”. Within the Sultan Planning Area these recommend solutions are:

Minimum Fix – Provide intersection improvements at Old Owen Road, Main Street and
             339th Street SE (Rice Rd). This estimated $3-$5 million solution is expected
             to provide a 45-85% reduction in collisions and a 66% reduction in daily
             vehicular delay providing a $9 million benefit.

Moderate Fix – Widen US-2 to five lanes though Sultan. This solution is estimated to cost
              $45-$60 million and predicted to provide 55-65% reduction in collisions and
              a 75-80% reduction in daily vehicle delay yielding a $34 million benefit.

Maximum Fix – In addition to the Minimum and Moderate Fixes, widen US-2 to four lanes
             east of the City of Sultan providing a median-divided, limited access
             highway west to Monroe. This solution is estimated to cost $47-$63 million
             and provide a 10-30% collision reduction and a 75-80% reduction in daily
             vehicle delay yielding a $59 million benefit.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 72
Transportation
                             PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
                                                                          AUGUST 2007
                                                                  CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

2. US-2 Route Development Plan

The US-2 Route Development Plan (RDP) includes a list of safety and congestion relief
improvement projects created by WSDOT with the help of local communities. As of June
2007, this plan was in a final draft form. When completed, the US-2 RDP will provide
information to update the WSDOT Highway System Plan.

The draft US-2 RDP recommends 56 projects to enhance safety and reduce congestion for
drivers along a 47-mile length of US-2 between the Cities of Snohomish and Skykomish.
The intent of the RDP is to provide WSDOT and local jurisdictions a list of projects they can
use to solicit funding for construction. Within the Sultan Planning Area, the study
recommends safety and capacity improvement projects. These projects are shown in
Figures V-16 and V-17. Once the RDP is completed, the City will review its findings for
possible amendment of the Capital Facilities Plan and 6-Year Transportation Improvement
Program.

Funding for these projects is discussed further in Chapter VIII – Capital Facilities.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 73
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                          AUGUST 2007
                                                                                          CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                            Figure V-16: US-2 RDP Draft Recommended Safety Improvements




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                  Page 74
Transportation
              PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                        AUGUST 2007
                                                                                        CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION

                        Figure V-17: US-2 RDP Draft Recommended Capacity Improvements




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                Page 75
Transportation
                            PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                               CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION


                                              Table V-9: Planning Level Costs (Est. for Recommended Improvements)
                                                                                                                                                Future Number                   Arterial Functional
  Project #                 Project Name                                                 Project Description                                                    Project Type                             Project Cost Estimate
                                                                                                                                                   of Lanes                       Classification

                                                                                                                                                                  Existing
NM-3          Sidewalk Spot Improvements                 Repair, replace and construct missing sidewalks within the City                             n/a         Deficiency              n/a                   $130,000
                                                         Renovate public sidewaks. Stand alone projects not associated with road                                  Existing
NM-4          Sidewalk Enhancement                       renovation.                                                                                 n/a         Deficiency              n/a                   $310,000
                                                         Install traffic calming treatment to Date Ave. from 8th St west to the Elementary                        Existing
T-46          Date Avenue Traffic Calming                School                                                                                      2           Deficiency         Local Street               $124,000

                                                         Repair, replace, and construct as necessary asphalt, sidewalks, and bike lanes.                          Existing
T-51          3rd St. Reconstruction                     Project is combined with water, sewer, and stormwater system projects.                      2           Deficiency         Local Street              $1,300,000
                                                                                                                                                                  Existing
T-61          6th Street Reconstruction                  Reconstruct 6th St. to urban standards                                                      2           Deficiency        Local Access               $1,500,000
                                                         Reconstruct 1st St from High Ave to Trout Farm Rd. Project includes water, sewer
T-38          1st Street Reconstruction Phase II         and storm water utilities construction.                                                     3            Capacity         Minor Arterial             $2,500,000

T-40          US-2/Rice Rd (339th Ave) Signalization     Signalize exisiting intersection of US-2 at 339th Ave SE.                                   3            Capacity        Principal Arterial          $1,400,000
                                                         Continue Sultan Basin Rd. improvements north to 124th St.SE. Proposed Joint
T-42          Sultan Basin Rd. Reconstruction Phase IV   City/County Project                                                                         3            Capacity         Minor Arterial             $9,140,000
                                                         Reconstruct Trout Farm Rd. from 1st St. north to 125th St SE. Proposed joint
T-47          Trout Farm Rd Reconstruction               City/County Project                                                                         2/3          Capacity        Collector Arterial          $9,050,000
                                                         Extend 132nd S.t from Sultan Basin Rd. northwest connecting to Trout Farm Rd.
T-57          132nd Ave Arterial Extension               near 307th St.                                                                              3            Capacity         Minor Arterial            $17,480,000

T-59          US 2/ 1st Avenue Interchange               Provide grade-seperated ramp access to US-2 from 1st St.                                    2            Capacity         Minor Arterial             $6,470,000


                                                         Construct new east/west collector between 339th Ave SE and Sultan Basin Rd in
T-24          New East/West Collector                    the north section of the City (aprox. location between 132nd and 124th St SE).              2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial         $11,040,000
                                                         Provide east/west access and traffic collector through the Industrial Park from Rice
T-26          New North Industrial Park Collector        Rd (339th) to Sultan Basin Rd. and US-2                                                     2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial         $15,510,000
                                                         Extend East Main St. east to connect to 149th St. SE within the Economic
T-27          East Main St Road Extension                Development Zone south of US-2.                                                             2          Enhancement         Local Street              $2,000,000
                                                         Provide emergency access for properties between BNSF tracks and the Skykomish
T-28          DyerSkywall Emergency Access               River for public safety                                                                     2          Enhancement         Local Street              $2,350,000
T-29          Kessler Drive Extension                    Extend Kessler Dr. north from Bryant Rd. to 124th St. SE.                                   2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $8,630,000
                                                         Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through the Industrial Park north to                                     Proposed Collector
T-31a         New 330th Ave Arterial                     124th St SE. CITY LIMIT/UGA PORTION ONLY                                                    2          Enhancement           Arterial               $2,500,000
                                                         Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through the Industrial Park north to                                     Proposed Collector
T-31b         New 330th Ave Arterial                     124th St SE. NON-UGA PORTION                                                                2          Enhancement           Arterial                 Cost TBD

                                                         Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at County Rural Arterial road
                                                         standards to provide arterial connectivity and access to US-2. Proposed joint
T-32a         Rice Rd. (339th) St Extension              project with Snohomish County. CITY LIMIT/UGA PORTION ONLY                                  2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial        $2,942,500
                                                         Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at County Rural Arterial road
                                                         standards to provide arterial connectivity and access to US-2. Proposed joint
T-32b         Rice Rd. (339th) St Extension              project with Snohomish County. NON-UGA PORTION                                              2          Enhancement                                    Cost TBD
                                                         Develop an interior access arterial from Old Owen Rd. east to Sportmans Park to
              229th Ave Extension or Highland Ave        provide access to existing roadside commercial properties and reduce curb cuts on
T-33          Extension                                  US-2.                                                                                       2/3        Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $2,720,000



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                                                                            Page 76
Transportation
                           PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                           CHAPTER V –TRANSPORTATION



                     Table V-9: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Recommended Transportation Improvements (Cont.)
                                                                                                                                                 Future Number                   Arterial Functional
  Project #                  Project Name                                                 Project Description                                                    Project Type                             Project Cost Estimate
                                                                                                                                                    of Lanes                       Classification

                                                          Downtown access to US 2 will be focused on 3rd, 5th, 8th, and Main Streets to                                                                     Awaiting WSDOT
T-34          US-2 RDP City Access Revisions              reduce congestion.                                                                                     Enhancement       Principal Arterial          Estimate
              Cascase View Drive/330th Ave Intersection Reconstruct Cascade View Dr to Collector arterial standard and realign street to
T-35          Realignment                               create a signalized intersection at US-2 and 330th Ave SE.                                    2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $500,000

T-36          138th St Extension                          Reconstruct and extend 138th St. between Sultan Basin Rd. and 339th Ave SE.                 2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $2,530,000
                                                          Reconstruct 339th Ave from Sultan Startup Rd. north to 132nd St. SE to arterial
T-41          Rice (339th Ave SE) Reconstruction          standard with curbs gutter and sidewalks.                                                   2/3        Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial        $8,350,000
                                                          Redesign the road to remove access from US-2 rerouting access to Sultan Basin
T-43          Walburn Rd. Rerouting                       Rd. north of Wagley Creek                                                                   2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $1,250,000
                                                          Extend Pine St. East to Walburn to provide east west access from Sultan Basin Rd
T-44          Pine Street Extension                       to downtown Sultan. Emergency Evacuation Route                                              2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $750,000

                                                          Install traffic signal and improvements from the intersection of 4th and Alder St to
                                                          the intersection of 5th and US-2. Proposed Joint project with Community Transit
T-45          Alder St Improvements                       and Sultan School District                                                                  2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $650,000

T-48          Gohr Rd Reconstruction                      Reconstruct Gohr Rd to arterial standard from 1st St north to 311th Ave SE                  2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $4,200,000

T-49          Gohr Rd Extension                           Extend Gohr Rd north to the proposed proposed 132nd Ave. Extension.                         2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $3,500,000

T-52          8th St. Sidewalks                           Install sections of missing sidewalks on 8th St.                                                       Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $310,000
                                                          Reconstruct the 10th St. crossing with the BNSF Rail Line Within the Economic
T-53          10th St. Railroad Crossing Improvement      Development zone.                                                                           2          Enhancement         Local Street               $100,000

T-55          Industrial Park Rail Spur Construction      Petition BNSF and contribute to construct a rail spur access to the Industrial Park         n/a        Enhancement              n/a                  $1,000,000

T-58          132nd Ave Reconstruction                    Reconstruct 132nd St SE to arterial standard                                                2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial       $11,100,000

T-62          124th St. SE Reconstruction Phase 1         Reconstruct 124th St SE to urban standards from west terminus to Sultan Basin Rd.           2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $5,500,000

T-65          124th St. Extension                         Extend 124th Ave. west to Trout Farm Rd. intersecting at aprox. 125th St                    2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial         $10,700,000
                                                          Construct multipurpose trail from the east end of E. Main St north Cascade View Dr
NM-1          East Main St. Trail                         and 330th Ave. for nonmotorized and emergency access.                                       n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                   $500,000
                                                          Construct multipurpose trail to provide nonmotorized safety and connectivity as part
NM-5          US-2 Route Corridor Trail                   of US-2 RDP reconstruction/widening.                                                        n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                  $1,672,000
                                                          Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized travel to and from
NM-6          Willow/Bryant Trail                         residential, commercial, parks and natural areas.                                           n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                   $390,000
                                                          Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized travel to and from
NM-7          High/Kessler/140th Trail                    residential, commercial, parks and natural areas.                                           n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                   $887,000
                                                          Construct a nonmotorized bridge crossing on US 2 to provide increased safety for
NM-8          US-2 Pedestrian Overcrossing                pedestrians and improved traffic flow. Joint Project with WSDOT                             n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                 $4,000,000

                                                                                                                                                                                Total Project Costs          $154,985,500




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 77
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER V – TRANSPORTATION



INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

The City of Sultan works to maintain positive relationships with neighboring jurisdictions,
WSDOT, the state and the federal government. The City is part of the larger region and
shares many of the same concerns and interests particularly in the realm of transportation.
The development and ongoing monitoring of the City’s Comprehensive Plan demonstrates
that commitment.

Increasingly, Sultan’s transportation system is influenced by what happens beyond its City
limits. Travel between the City and other communities and recreational areas has
increased significantly over the past decade, and as the forecasts in Chapter IV of this plan
demonstrate, traffic on US-2 will continue to increase in the future impacting travel along the
US-2 corridor.

Ongoing coordination efforts include working with the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) developing the US-2 Route Development Plan (RDP), working
with Community Transit (CT) to coordinate transit planning and operations within the City,
working with Snohomish County to study and mitigate the impacts of land use development,
and continued membership and participation in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).


GOALS AND POLICIES

The following goals and policies are based on an updated analysis of existing and future
transportation conditions within the City of Sultan and the result of public outreach. These
goals and policies provide the foundation for the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.

GOAL:
   5.1      Create an effective road network. Complete a road network grid, establish
            class and function, improve standards and resolve parking and access
            conflicts for the Sultan planning area.
Policies:
         5.1.1 Road Network: Work with Snohomish County and the Washington State
               Department of Transportation to complete development of an arterial grid
               serving the Sultan planning area, especially north-south corridors across US-
               2.
         5.1.2 Classification: Establish a functional system that defines each road’s
               principal purpose and protects the road’s functional viability. Define a
               collector road system that provides methods for traversing the
               neighborhoods, industrial and commercial districts, and other places within
               Sultan without overly congesting or depending on the arterial system
               particularly between the valley floor and plateau. Define arterial, collector,
               and local access road standards that are equivalent to the standards being
               enacted by Snohomish County in the urban/rural transition.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 78
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                                 CHAPTER V – TRANSPORTATION

         5.1.3 Order: Control land use development and local street access patterns
               adjacent to US-2 intersections to protect the functional viability of the highway
               during major commuting periods. Control local street connections, curb cuts,
               on and off-street parking areas, crosswalks, crossing islands, and other
               traffic-calming and pedestrian-related devices to protect the functional
               viability, and traffic-carrying capacity of the major arterial network and US-2.
         5.1.4 Standards: Implement effective right-of way, pavement widths, road shoulder
               requirements, curb, gutter, sidewalk standards, crosswalks, crossing islands,
               and other traffic-calming and pedestrian-related devices for major arterial,
               collector and residential streets. Coordinate with Snohomish County and
               Washington State Department of Transportation to improve major arterial
               roads in the planning area, including US-2, Sultan Basin Road, 229th Ave/Old
               Owen Road, and Harvey Mann Road to provide effective level of service for
               all transportation modes.
         5.1.5 Conflicts: Determine effective road, traffic, and parking interfaces between
               present and eventual circulation patterns at US-2 intersections. Develop a
               long-range road and channelization design, signal, and signing plan that
               resolve traffic and safety conflicts and that promotes compatible land use
               development within the downtown core and adjacent neighborhoods.
         5.1.6 Retail Area Enhancements: Work with property owners of Sultan downtown
               business district to improve streetscape, parking and pedestrian conditions.
               Provide planning, management and financing assistance appropriate to the
               problem’s resolution.

GOAL:
   5.2      Encourage modal balance.      Create an appropriate balance between
            transportation modes where each meets a different function to the greatest
            efficiency.
Policies:
         5.2.1   Air service:     Support continued development of local, regional, and
                 international air facilities that provide services for commercial and general
                 passenger services needs within the Sultan planning area. In particular,
                 support continued operation and development of Harvey Airfield in
                 Snohomish, Arlington Airport in Arlington, and Paine Field in Everett as
                 general-purpose airfields capable of providing commercial, charter, and
                 recreational flights in the local area. Continue to support development of
                 SeaTac Airport with facilities capable of providing national and international
                 freight and passenger services.
         5.2.2   Railroad: Improve Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company
                 (BNSF) service to improve local freight and material hauling needs within
                 the Sultan planning area, possibly providing a spur line to the industrial uses
                 located within the employment district. Consider the feasibility of expanding
                 heavy rail commuter service to include Sultan and the surrounding region.
                 Support development of a narrow gauge rail line serving the Western
                 Heritage Center - and potentially other areas of the City. If feasible, heavy
                 rail service could be expanded to include recreational service between

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 79
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                  CHAPTER V – TRANSPORTATION

                 Sultan and leisure destinations at Stevens Pass and Leavenworth during
                 peak seasonal activities.
         5.2.3   Transit: Improve Community Transit service to satisfy local needs within the
                 Sultan planning area, particularly between residential and major commercial
                 and employment districts in the surrounding region. Locate park and ride
                 lots in areas that are accessible to transit routes and local residential
                 collectors, but don’t unnecessarily congest arterial roads or US-2
                 intersections. In joint efforts with Community Transit, create attractive park-
                 and-ride lots that attract transit riders and also serve as off-peak period
                 recreational and downtown shopper facilities.
         5.2.4   Trails: Develop an integrated system of regional and local oriented
                 multipurpose trails that provide designated routes for bicyclists, hikers and
                 walkers, casual strollers, shoppers, tourists, joggers, and equestrians.
                 Designate routes that access local parks, schools, commercial areas, and
                 other alignments that provide unique environmental experiences and/or
                 functional traveling connections with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
         5.2.5   Transportation Demand Management: Conduct public awareness programs
                 and project promoting van-pooling, ride-sharing, joint parking management,
                 and other programs that reduce dependence on single occupancy vehicles
                 for employment, commercial and recreational transportation demands.

GOAL:
   5.3      Improvement of streets and highways must not impair the safe and efficient
            movement of bicycles and pedestrian traffic.
Policies:
         5.3.1   Develop and adopt an Arterial Street Access policy to reduce conflicting
                 turning movements along the City’s arterials.
         5.3.2   Streets that should be striped to provide a bicycle lane separate from
                 parking and travel lanes are: (1) Shoulder of US-2 through the planning
                 area except within the Industrial Park subarea, where bicycle facilities shall
                 be designed into street improvement and frontage improvement projects as
                 identified in the Master Plan; (2) 4th Street; (3) 1st Street; and (4) 8th Street.

GOAL:
   5.4      Streets shall be located, designed, and improved in a manner which will
            minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on designated critical areas.
Policies:
         5.4.1   Planning and design of the Industrial Park north collector street should
                 incorporate specific best management practices identified in the Master Plan
                 for the Wagleys Creek Corridor.

GOAL:
   5.5      Ensure that transportation facilities and services needed to support
            development are available concurrent with the impacts of such


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                  Page 80
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER V – TRANSPORTATION

            development, that protects the investment which have been made in the
            existing transportation facilities and services, maximize the use of these
            services, and promote orderly and compact growth.
Policies:
         5.5.1   The City shall not issue development permits where the project requires
                 transportation improvements that exceed Sultan’s (or the State’s in the case
                 of US-2) ability to provide and maintain them in accordance with the
                 adopted level of service (LOS). Projects consistent with the Industrial Park
                 Master Plan may meet concurrency standards through a range of strategies
                 identified therein.
         5.5.2   The City recognizes that WSDOT sets the transportation LOS standard for
                 US-2 as it is a highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). The City will
                 continue to cooperate with WSDOT in periodically reviewing and
                 establishing the LOS standards on US-2.
         5.5.3   US-2 highway and intersection improvements, access, and internal
                 circulation improvements identified in the Industrial Park Master Plan shall
                 be used as project mitigation measures to address specific impacts of
                 development proposals. Funding and financing of improvements shall be
                 identified in the 6-Year Plan.

GOAL:
   5.6      Ensure that truck traffic does not impede the through-movement of traffic
            within the City limits.
Policies:
         5.6.1   New industrial uses or projects within the Industrial Park shall provide street
                 and frontage improvements consistent with the Master Plan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 81
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER V – TRANSPORTATION



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

The intent of the updated 2007 transportation element is to establish a vision for the City of
Sultan’s transportation system for the year 2025 and guide development of that system by
both the City and other responsible stakeholders. Significant changes between this 2007
Comprehensive Plan update and the adopted 2004 integrated SEPA/GMA Comprehensive
Plan document are intended to ensure that the transportation element in the 2007
Comprehensive Plan update meets the mandatory requirements of growth management
under RCW 36.70A.070 and provides transportation project recommendations to the City’s
capital facilities plan. Internal consistency between the Transportation Element, Land Use,
population and other Plan elements has been achieved.
The City has completed a comprehensive update of its Transportation Plan and TIP as a
result of updates to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. The two plans are consistent.
The revised Transportation Element recommends adoption of a revised transportation level
of service (LOS) standard, moving from an LOS B standard to LOS D. The new standard is
consistent with most other communities planning under GMA.
The traffic impact fee has undergone a thorough review with recommendations for
increases contained in the draft comprehensive plan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 82
Transportation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT



CHAPTER VI: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

The natural environment is composed of air, water, soil,
minerals, and living organisms, such as plants, animals,
people, fish, birds, insects and microorganisms. How
well these components interact with each other, as well
as good stewardship for the environment, determines to
a large extent the health of the environment.

The quality of life we enjoy is also closely related to our
stewardship of the natural environment. The quality of the air we breathe and the water we
consume is dependent upon our decisions to properly manage these natural resources for
present and future generations. Environmental remediation projects are increasingly
expensive to both individual developers and property owners in addition to our community
as a whole. Properly taking care of our natural environment will yield the continued
privilege of living, working and playing within an environmentally desirable and appealing
community.

New regulations intended to protect our critical natural areas have emerged. The Growth
Management Act now requires counties and cities to use “best available science” in
adopting policies and development regulations to protect critical areas. This chapter
contains a basic description of the City of Sultan’s natural environment, its current condition,
and recommendations for its protection and enhancement. It also discusses current
policies and regulations in effect to protect the local environment and recommends updates.
As part of the integrated SEPA/GMA approach to this update, this section also discusses
how critical area protection relates to other elements of the Plan.

Sultan developed a detailed inventory of the GMA/CTED defined critical environmental and
resource lands within the Sultan proposed UGA in 1994. Sultan developed and adopted
critical area ordinances that complied with the intent of the GMA/CTED guidelines.
Snohomish County’s Sensitive Area code regulates unincorporated Snohomish County
lands within and adjacent to the Sultan UGA. For additional detail see Figure VI-1:
Critical Areas 2006.

Sultan conducted public hearings on draft resource lands and critical area regulations that
complied with the GMA/CTED guideline requirements prior to adopting Sultan's Critical
Area Ordinance. The regulations were adopted in December, 2006.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 83
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Under Sultan's critical areas ordinance, development may be permitted on sites that contain
sensitive areas only when City officials determine that all significant environmental concerns
and hazards have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is or can be developed with
no more impact than a similarly unaffected site. Sultan may impose mitigation measures
restricting or eliminating development in areas outside of the sensitive area portion of the
site if necessary in order to protect the sensitive portion of the site. The ordinance defines
procedural measures to safeguard sensitive areas, including the authority to require special
studies and assurances should City officials deem appropriate.


THE CITY OF SULTAN’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN 2007

The Physical Environment

The City of Sultan’s natural environment is part of the Puget Sound Lowlands climatic
region or the transition point where the maritime influences of Puget Sound begin to be
absorbed by the Cascades. As a result, Sultan’s climatic condition is typical of conditions
that occur within the Puget Sound Lowlands. Population growth and resultant development
offer challenges to preservation of the quality of this environment. Following is a brief
description of the components of Sultan’s environment and the challenges to it.

Soils

Puget Sound soils generally range from deposits with dark surface horizons and high
organic contents to deposits with dark, organically enriched surface horizons to deposits
with high organic matter and lime with clay leached from the surface layers.

Sultan includes soils with these characteristics. On the higher elevations and plateaus,
receding glaciers left behind highly variable deposits ranging from porous sands and gravel
to very impermeable glacial till, ranging from five to 100 feet in thickness. A surface layer of
about three feet of looser weathered material forms the surface soils.

The primary soils on the uplands are mostly sandy loams and Norma Loam, a hydric soil
found along Wagleys Creek and the wetlands. Below the topsoil layer, subsurface soils are
a mixture of sands, silt, clay, and cobbles. The water table is typically found within four feet
of the surface along Wagleys Creek and the wetlands.

Certain areas in the UGA that have been indicated as 100 year flood zones by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have organic and peat soils that are poorly
drained.

Topography

Sultan is located within the eastern edge of the Puget Trough section of the Cascade
Mountains. The Cascade Mountains were created by continuous volcanic activity along the
border of the underlying continental plates. The mountains were in turn, subject to the
action of periodic glacial intrusions, the most recent being the Pleistocene glacial period
more than 15,000 years ago. The Pleistocene glacial intrusion gradually carved and
flooded Puget Sound, the lowland areas, and other valleys alongside the Cascade foothills.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 85
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Water

Water is an especially important element of Sultan’s physical setting. With its location at the
confluence of the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers, its susceptibility to flooding and the need to
preserve surface and groundwater quality combine to make the protection of water quality
and quantity an important community goal as well as a State and federal requirement.

Surface Water

The natural stormwater drainage system allows runoff to be dispensed into Wagleys Creek,
the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers, and a variety of wetlands on the valley floors and plateau.
The City’s surface water management plan has categorized four broad drainage zones
consisting of the:
• central business district – draining into the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers,
• northern basin – draining into the Sultan River,
• western basin – draining into the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers, and
• eastern basin – draining into the northern tributaries of Wagleys Creek and then into the
    Skykomish River.

The City will form a Surface Water utility in 2007 to control stormwater impacts in the
community. The utility is discussed in the Capital Facilities Element of this Plan.

Groundwater

Unlike rivers and floodplains, groundwater is located beneath the surface in aquifers,
springs or other underground features. Groundwater is generally found at depths of 0-5 feet
throughout the UGA. Aquifers are located through the complete expanse of the Sultan,
Skykomish, and Wallace River corridors.

Generally, in the less developed portions of the UGA, the water is of good quality.
However, depending on location, thickness and intensity of adjacent urban uses –
groundwater deposits can be contaminated by unfiltered septic or by stormwater runoff
containing surface fertilizers, oil and grease pollutants and on occasion, by animal wastes.
The deposits may be tapped for agricultural or commercial purposes, but can be limited for
public consumption in some areas.

Floodplains

Floodplains are lands subject to high water inundation during heavy winter storms and rapid
rain and snowmelt. Flooding conditions are characterized by sharply rising river flows, high
magnitude peaks, and flood duration lasting from several hours to days. Wave action,
stream velocity, chemical composition, and the presence of debris or sediment affect flood
hazard risks. Flooding rivers undercut riverbanks, remove topsoil, and may cause septic
systems to fail polluting surface waters.

In 1968, the US Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act and program to deal
with increasing losses from flood hazards nationwide. The Act provides flood insurance in
communities that are willing to adopt floodplain management programs to mitigate future
flood losses. The act requires a community to identify all floodplain areas and establish

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 86
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

flood-risk zones. In return, NFIP provides a mandatory flood insurance purchase
requirement for the affected properties.

Sultan currently participates in the NFIP and is responsible for enforcing FEMA program
rules. The City maintains a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifying potential flood
hazard areas. According to the FIRM, the Twin River plat (Skywall) is located at the
confluence of the Wallace and Skykomish Rivers and is entirely within the 100-year
floodplain. The FIRM also indicates portions of the areas along Wagleys Creek, and the
Sultan and Skykomish Rivers are prone to the 100-year flood.

Sultan River Floodplain – extends from Henry M Jackson Dam on Spada Lake south to the
confluence with the Skykomish River – a drainage area of about 106 square miles to the
US-2 Bridge. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 100-year floodplain
map for the Sultan River extends across the Sultan River valley floor to a point east along
1st Street and most of the downtown district.

Skykomish River Floodplain – extends from the headwaters of the Skykomish River west
through Sultan to Monroe and a confluence with the Snoqualmie River, then west through
Everett into Puget Sound as the Snohomish River. The Skykomish River drainage area
above the 5th Street Bridge includes about 618 square miles. The FEMA 100-year
floodplain designation for the Skykomish River extends across the Skykomish River valley
floor north to the Wallace River and to the edges of the BNSF railroad tracks through the
UGA.

Snohomish County, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and BNSF modified the Skykomish
River channel over the years adversely affecting the hydraulic flow at the Sultan River
confluence. The modifications included the placement of rip rap along the railroad tracks,
the installation of a training dike on the north bank of the Skykomish River, and the filling of
overflow channels along the 5th Street Bridge among others. The modifications increase
the velocity and potential for backup of the Skykomish River into the Sultan River
confluence.

Skykomish/Sultan River Backwash - Skykomish River floodwaters back up into the Sultan
River overflowing into portions of the downtown district north of US-2 during a peak flood
event. The backwash occurs due to a decrease in the Skykomish River flow are just
downstream of the confluence, a rapid decline in the flood profile on the Sultan River just
downstream of the US-2 Bridge, and eddy losses at the confluence – in addition to the
Skykomish River modifications listed above.

Sultan has completed a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP)
identifying current boundaries for the Sultan and Skykomish River FEMA floodplains and a
program for dealing with repetitive loss property. After studying a number of structural and
non-structural options, the CFHMP adopted a cost-effective non-structural program for
reducing repetitive flood losses within the floodplain that involves the following short-term
measures:
   acquiring properties within the repetitive flood loss area,
   raising 1st Street above flood level during the next road overlay project,


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 87
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

   developing an emergency preparedness and response plan for evacuation,
   applying for flood insurance under the NFIP Community Rating System,
   adopting a stormwater management plan and associated stormwater utility to manage
   flood reduction projects,
   revising floodplain maps using new topographic mapping techniques,
   enforcing current floodplain standards and regulations affecting new development, and
   expanding public outreach programs to inform and notify residents of flood hazards,
   flood control measures, and flood insurance.

The CFHMP proposed to implement the following measures over the long-term:
   evaluating the feasibility of eliminating flooding altogether through flood walls or setback
   levees,
   acquiring property within the Skywall District to allow channel migration and mitigation,
   and
   automating the flood warning system with telemetry flow gauges to provide an early
   warning alert capability.

Potential channel modifications to be considered over the long-term include:

Sultan River – removing the sediment that deposited at the confluence of the Sultan and
Skykomish Rivers and raised the bank elevation under the US-2 bridge reducing the river
channel. This would remove one principal source of the backwater that floods the
downtown district.

Skykomish River – mining the sand and gravel bar (bar scalping) that has built up in the
overflow channels when the channels (including Shinglebolt Slough) were closed by the 5th
Street bridge construction. This would increase the flow area of the Skykomish River to
compensate for the loss of overflow channels – and provide salmonid habitat.

Oxbow lakes – restoring the former oxbow lakes in the Sultan River floodplain to allow
increased storage capacity during peak discharge periods from the Sultan River.

Potential manmade barriers to be considered over the long-term plan include:

1st Street – raising the roadway with successive overlay projects to provide some barrier to
minor flooding events. The roadway would have to be raised three feet above the base
floodplain elevation (an increase from 4-7 feet above the existing surface) Date Street to
US-2 to provide a flood barrier for a 100-year flood.

Floodwall – installing a flood control barrier or floodwall north of Date Street to 300 feet west
of 1st Street, and south to US-2 to protect the downtown area. The wall or levee would be
nearly 2,000 feet long and average 8-9 feet in height.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 88
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                        CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Air Quality

Climate, topography, and the location and type of urban developments within the Sultan
UGA influence air quality conditions. The Olympic Mountains create a north to south air
funnel through the area that consists of moist, marine air currents generated from Puget
Sound waters. The marine air moderates climatic conditions and creates mild, wet winter
and cool, dry summer seasons.

Temperature inversions are common during fall and winter nights affecting air quality
conditions throughout the Sultan UGA, particularly where winds are channeled down the
Skykomish River valley. The air inversions trap pollution from automobile exhausts, wood
stoves, industrial, and other urban activities within the more developed areas during the
night and may not break up until early afternoon of the following days.

Poor air quality generally prevails in the Puget Sound area during winter temperature
inversions. Such stable atmospheric conditions create high concentrations of traffic and
combustion related pollutants near ground level with very little dispersion. Temperature
inversions may also degrade air conditions along heavily traveled corridors within the Sultan
UGA.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provisions of regulations under the Clean Air
Act are administered locally by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The Agency and the
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) operate 47 air quality monitoring stations
in the Puget Sound region to measure compliance with the Clean Air Act provisions
including stations in Marysville, Everett, Lynnwood, and Lake Forest Park. The National
Park Service monitors air quality at several locations in Mount Rainier and Mount Baker
National Parks.

Each agency performs different air quality functions. PSCAA regulates and permits
stationary sources and construction emissions, DOE regulates mobile sources, and EPA set
national standards and oversees PSCAA and DOE.

According to its 2005 report, PSCAA finds that, with the exception of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone, air pollutant concentrations have fallen well below levels of concern in
the Puget Sound area. The region has been in attainment for all criteria air pollutants for
almost a decade.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Animals

Urban and agricultural activities within the Sultan UGA have substantially reduced wildlife
habitat through the years. However, valuable habitat qualities still remain in the
undeveloped, large native vegetation tracts and around the remaining wetlands and riparian
(streamside) forests along the Wallace, Sultan, and Skykomish River valleys, and adjacent
to Winters and Wagleys Creeks.

The wooded areas support a wide variety of large and small mammals, birds, reptiles, and
amphibians. The most common mammals within the wooded areas include bears, cougars,

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 89
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                      CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

chipmunks, rabbits, marmots, skunks, and raccoons. A small number of larger mammals
including black-tailed deer and coyote likely occur at the edge of the Sultan UGA where
large contiguous forested areas remain.

The wetlands and riparian zones within the Wallace, Sultan, and Skykomish Rivers
probably support muskrat, mink, otter, beaver, raccoon, and weasel.

Water bodies, wetlands, and adjacent agricultural fields also provide suitable nesting and
feeding habitat for mallard ducks, American widgeons, green-wing teal, common coot,
common merganser, blue-wing teals and great blue heron, and Canada geese.

Crows, ravens, jays, nuthatches, woodpeckers, sparrows, winter wrens, ruffled grouse, blue
grouse, band-tailed pigeon, Merriam's turkey, owls, hawks, Osprey, and eagles can find
suitable habitat for feeding and nesting in the upland forested areas and stream valleys.
Many of these species can tolerate adjacent urban developments so long as some habitat
and connecting migration corridors remain undisturbed.

Portions of the Sultan UGA that overlook the Wallace, Sultan, and Skykomish Rivers
provide habitat for the bald eagle and osprey. The northern bald eagle is listed as a
threatened species on Washington State's endangered and threatened lists. No other
endangered or threatened species are known to occur in the Sultan UGA.

Other species of special concern under Washington State's Department of Fish & Wildlife
endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, and monitor species programs in the Sultan
UGA may include the great blue heron, pileated woodpecker, purple martin, Vaux's swift,
and western bluebird. Candidate and threatened mammals may include western gray
squirrel along with the western pond turtle. Many of these remaining species can be found
in close proximity to urbanized areas, although most need undisturbed vegetated areas
large enough to maintain viable habitat.

Fisheries

Chinook, coho and chum salmon species spawn and rear in a number of freshwater bodies
within the Sultan UGA. Anadromous game fish that have been identified in the area include
rainbow trout, cutthroat, Dolly Varden, eastern brook trout, whitefish, largemouth bass,
perch, crappie and catfish.

A number of fish runs are considered endangered or threatened in Snohomish County
including the chinook and the sea-run cutthroat trout. Bull trout and Chinook salmon are
listed as a threatened species; coho salmon is a candidate species for listing.

Winters and Wagleys Creeks are typical lowland-type streams that gradually meander
through a wide habitat offering suitable spawning and rearing areas. Coho salmon are
known to spawn and rear in the lower reaches of Wagleys Creek south of US-2, although
the creek’s capacity is severely limited by culverts and heavy sedimentation. Chinook
salmon spawn and rear in the reaches of the Wallace, Sultan and Skykomish Rivers.

These fish runs developed traits over the centuries that are best adapted to the
environmental conditions of these waterways. Diminishing runs threaten the continued

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                         Page 90
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

survival of the fish within these water bodies. Factors that have caused the diminishment of
the wild runs include:
   forest clear-cutting and land development that create sediment loads increasing water
   turbidity and silting in gravel spawning beds;
   clear-cutting tree stands in riparian areas that remove natural shading thereby
   increasing water temperatures; and
   water diversions that restrict access from the upper reaches and spawning areas of river
   runs.


PROTECTION MEASURES

Sultan ordinances, including the building code, subdivision, and shoreline management
regulations, were developed to ensure that environmental values are considered, in addition
to technical and economic considerations for development in the community. The Sultan
Comprehensive Plan defines critical environmental characteristics given special protection
within the Sultan UGA. The plan has allocated land uses accounting for the physical
characteristics of the land and the land's ability to support suggested land use
developments with the minimum harm to the environment.

Sultan Critical Areas Ordinance: Sultan conducted public hearings on draft resource lands
and critical area regulations that complied with the GMA/CTED guideline requirements prior
to adopting Sultan's Critical Area Ordinance in 2006.

Under Sultan's critical areas ordinance, development may be permitted on sites that contain
sensitive areas only when City officials determine that all significant environmental concerns
and hazards have been eliminated or ameliorated so that the site is or can be developed
with no more impact than a similarly unaffected site. Sultan may impose mitigation
measures restricting or eliminating development in areas outside of the sensitive area
portion of the site if necessary in order to protect the sensitive portion of the site. The
ordinance defines procedural measures to safeguard sensitive areas, including the authority
to require special studies and assurances should City officials deem appropriate.

In accordance with the provisions of GMA, the Washington State Department of Fish &
Wildlife (DFW) has developed minimum guidelines (WAC 365-190-080(5)(c)(ii) for
classifying and designating critical or priority habitat and species (PHS). To date, DFW has
identified a list of the most important habitats and species for six regions within the State.
DFW will soon issue management recommendations that may be employed to protect and
preserve critical habitat areas, and maps that will identify the location of critical habitats
within Snohomish County and the Sultan UGA.


GOALS AND POLICIES

GOAL:
  6.1 Respect and Protect the Natural Environment


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 91
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                      CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Policies:
      6.1.1    Maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural environment and
               Sultan’s proposed future urban development.
      6.1.2    Enforce exacting performance standards governing possible future urban
               developments with land or soil areas that are subject to moderate and
               severe hazards using best available science.
      6.1.3    Improve and enhance perennial streams, ponds, springs, marshes,
               swamps, bogs and other surface tributary collection areas from land use
               developments or alterations that would tend to alter natural drainage
               capabilities, contaminate surface water run-off or spoil the natural setting.
      6.1.4    New When reviewing development proposals work to achieve a “no net
               loss” standard for critical areas and habitats.
      6.1.5    Establish buffer zones that are wide enough to maintain and preserve the
               growth of native plants and materials that perform natural biological
               functions. Wetlands should be rated consistent with the most current
               Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for
               Western Washington.
      6.1.6    Improve and enhance buffer zones along the banks or perennial streams,
               creeks and other tributary drainage systems to allow for free flow of storm
               run-off and to protect run-off water quality.
      6.1.7    Protect alluvial soils, retention ponds and other floodplains or flooded
               areas from land use developments that would alter the pattern or capacity
               of area floodways, or that would interfere with the natural drainage
               process - particularly within the Sultan and Skykomish River floodplains.
      6.1.8    Enforce control zones and exacting performance standards governing
               land use developments around retention pond dams, and along shorelines
               to protect against possible damage due to dam breaches, severe storm
               and other natural hazards or failures - particularly along the Sultan River
               within the impact zone of a Sultan river Dam failure.
      6.1.9    Protect soils with extremely poor permeability from land use
               developments that could contaminate surface water run-off, contaminate
               ground water supplies, erode or silt natural drainage channels, overflow
               natural drainage systems and otherwise increase natural hazards.
      6.1.10   Protect soils with high water tables and over aquifers from land use
               developments that create high surface water run-off with possible oil,
               grease, fertilizer or other contaminants that could be absorbed into the
               ground water and aquifer system.
      6.1.11   Protect soils with very poor compressive strengths, like muck bogs, and
               some clay and silt deposits, from land use developments or improvements
               that will not be adequately supported by the soil’s materials - particularly
               along the Winters and Wagleys Creeks corridor.
      6.1.12   Enforce exacting performance standards governing land use
               developments on lands containing shallow depths to bedrock or bedrock
               escarpments, particularly where combined with slopes that are
               susceptible to landslide hazards.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 92
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                      CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

      6.1.13   Protect soils in steep slopes composed of poor compressive materials, or
               have shallow depths to bedrock, or have impermeable subsurface
               deposits or that contain other characteristic combinations that are
               susceptible to landslide or land slumps - particularly along the bluff
               between the Sultan River valley floor and the upper plateau.
      6.1.14   Enforce exacting performance standards governing possible land use
               developments on soils that have moderate to steep slopes that are
               composed of soils, ground covers, surface drainage features or other
               characteristics that are susceptible to high erosion risks - particularly
               along the bluff between the Sultan River valley floor and the upper
               plateau.

GOAL:
   6.2    Conserve natural resources.
Policies:
      6.2.1    Conserve and protect natural areas within the environment to provide a
               continuing place for wildlife that are representative of Sultan’s ecological
               heritage. Protect shoreline, agricultural, and timber production activities
               that produce a valued natural and economic product, and that reflects
               Sultan’s historical origins. Enforce exacting performance standards
               governing possible land use developments on lands or sites that may be
               planned to include wildlife.
      6.2.2    Shoreline resources: Protect the waterfront lands, improvements and
               features that support waterfront and waterway activities along the
               Wallace, Sultan and Skykomish Rivers shoreline. Enforce exacting
               performance standards governing possible land use developments of, or
               adjacent, existing recreational boat landings and docks, fishing access
               areas and beaches.
      6.2.3    Agricultural resources: Enforce exacting standards governing possible
               land use developments of, or adjacent, existing agricultural area and
               activities. Promote the use of cluster developments patterns, common
               area conservancies, negative growth areas and other innovative concepts
               that conserve or allow, the possible coexistence of rural, agricultural
               activities within or adjacent to Sultan’s developing urban area- particularly
               along the US-2 corridor.
      6.2.4    Mining resources: Enforce exacting performance standards governing the
               possible establishment and operation of mineral activities where allowed.
               Require the use of landscaped buffer areas and other methods that
               shelter and physically and visually screen surrounding areas from mineral
               extraction sites.       Require the prior development, approval, and
               performance guarantees of suitable and environmentally appropriate
               reclamation and rehabilitation plans for proposed mineral extraction sites
               and activities.
      6.2.5    Open space wildlife habitat: Enforce exacting standards governing the
               land use developments adjacent to existing, natural open space areas
               that contain prime wildlife habitat characteristics - particularly along

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 93
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                        CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

                  Wallace, Sultan and Skykomish Rivers. Promote the use of cluster
                  development patterns, common area conservancies, and other innovative
                  concepts that conserve or allow, the possible coexistence of natural, open
                  space areas and corridors within or adjacent to Sultan’s developing urban
                  area and between the Sultan UGA and surrounding unincorporated rural
                  area.
         6.2.6    Wetland wildlife habitat: Protect lands, soils or other wetland areas that
                  have prime wildlife habitat characteristics - especially the extensive
                  wetlands located within the urban growth areas. Promote the use of site
                  retention ponds, natural drainage methods, and other site improvements
                  that conserve natural drainage features and increase wetland habitats.
                  Establish exacting performance standards governing the preservation of
                  wetlands and drainage corridors, steep slopes and wooded areas as
                  natural habitats and wildlife migration corridors. Control adverse impacts
                  associated with land development and reduce the amount of natural cover
                  and habitat that would otherwise be reduced or destroyed.
         6.2.7    Woodland wildlife habitat: Protect lands, soil or other wooded area that
                  have prime woodland habitat characteristics - especially the bluff between
                  the Sultan River valley, Winters an Wagleys Creeks, and the upper
                  plateau. Promote the use of buffer zones and corridors, common areas,
                  trails and paths, and other innovative concepts that conserve or increase
                  woodland habitats. Promote the use of cluster development patterns,
                  common area conservancies, and other innovative concepts that
                  conserve or allow the possible coexistence of wooded corridors within or
                  adjacent to Sultan’s developing urban area and between the Sultan UGA
                  and surrounding unincorporated rural areas.
         6.2.8    Urban flora and fauna: Incorporated performance oriented development
                  standards that retain and enhance natural flora and fauna within Sultan’s
                  urban environment - especially the wetland and wooded areas,
                  landscaped buffer area and yards, site and area shrubbery, and other
                  natural and established plantings that provide greenery, habitat, visual
                  interest and relief within Sultan’s developed areas. Establish design
                  standards that will replant buffers and developed areas with natural
                  landscaped materials and settings that will reestablish wildlife habitats
                  affected by development construction.

GOAL:
   6.3      Allocate and manage the land’s environmental capability and suitability in
            the most responsible and effective manner. Allow innovation and flexibility
            yet ensure the environment is not degraded or that urban use does not
            create public hazards or nuisances.
Policies:
         6.3.1    Best-to-least capability allocation: As much as possible, allocate high
                  density urban development onto lands that are optimally suitable and
                  capable of supporting urban uses, and/or that pose fewest environmental
                  risks - including the periphery of the upper plateau. To the extent

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 94
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

                   necessary, allocate urban uses away from lands or soils that have severe
                   environmental hazards - such as flood hazards. Designate lands and
                   soils with serve limitations for low intensive rural uses or leave in the
                   natural state - particularly wetlands, drainage corridors and lands with
                   seasonal high water tables or over aquifers.
         6.3.2     Performance criteria: As much as practical, incorporate environmental
                   concerns into performance standards rather than outright restrictions.
                   Use review processes that establish minimum performance criteria that
                   developers must satisfy in order to obtain project approvals, and hold the
                   developer liable for the successful accomplishment of proposed
                   performance requirements. As much as possible, allow for innovation and
                   more detailed investigations, provided the end result will not risk
                   environmental hazards or otherwise create public problems or nuisances.

GOAL:
   6.4      Establish minimum performance standards governing noise, air, light,
            glare, and other operating characteristics or permitted urban uses that
            effects the quality of the manmade environment
Policies:
         6.4.1   Promote the use of materials with extra acoustical properties in building
                 developments, landscaped and earth berm buffers in site improvements,
                 and other innovations that will reduce noise impacts on residential
                 developments, particularly along US-2 and Sultan’s other major traffic
                 corridors.
         6.4.2   Protect urban residential areas from obnoxious or distracting noises,
                 particularly during evening hours, and especially of a kind created by
                 controllable activities. Enforce exacting performance standards governing
                 possible land use developments that create noise that can exceed
                 acceptably defined levels.
         6.4.3   Prevent groundwater contamination risks. To the extent practical, cooperate
                 with Snohomish County and other public agencies to create and implement
                 plans that will prevent future developments in high-risk areas.
         6.4.4   Prevent surface water contamination and erosion of natural surface
                 drainage channels due to ill-conceived or poorly designed urban
                 development. Promote the use of stormwater retention systems and holding
                 areas, natural drainage and percolation systems, permeable surface
                 improvements, clustered developments, and other concepts that will reduce
                 stormwater volumes and velocities.
         6.4.5   Enforce exacting performance standards governing the use of stormwater
                 runoff, fertilizers, and herbicides, pesticides, dumping of wastes, trapping of
                 greases and other byproducts, and other pollutants from impervious
                 surfaces. Such contaminates can be carried into the natural drainage
                 system and spoil the quality of surface water bodies, particularly impacts
                 that result from temporary construction and development activities. As
                 much as possible, treat stormwater with natural filtering methods including


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 95
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

                 the use of open drainage swales and detention ponds, and biofiltration
                 system to settle out and trap pollutants.
         6.4.6   Enforce exacting performance standards governing the emission of carbons,
                 gases or other particles into the atmosphere; and the creation of burnt
                 materials, smoke, dust or other polluting by products that could degrade air
                 quality. Develop and adopt an ordinance to regulate the burning of wood in
                 stoves and fireplaces during temperature inversion conditions.

GOAL:
   6.5      Preserve and protect the unique, interdependent relationship between
            Sultan’s water, land, and cultural heritage.
Policies:
         6.5.1   Waterway: Define and regulate the design and operation of water-oriented
                 activities including over-water-structures or water-borne improvements such
                 as piers, floats, barges, and the like to protect the navigational capabilities of
                 the Wallace, Sultan, and Skykomish Rivers. Define and regulate activities
                 that may occur within or affect the natural current, flows, and even
                 floodways to protect the functional integrity of the Wallace, Sultan, and
                 Skykomish River’s waterways.
         6.5.2   Habitats: Preserve natural habitat areas, including banks, streams, and
                 associated wetlands, from disruption. Protect fragile ecosystems that
                 provide the waterfront unique value, especially fish spawning beds in the
                 natural tributaries of the Wallace, Sultan, and Skykomish Rivers and Winters
                 and Wagleys Creeks.
         6.5.3   Water and shoreline quality: Define and regulate activities that contaminate
                 or pollute the Wallace, Sultan, and Skykomish Rivers, and Winters and
                 Wagleys Creeks and shorelines including the use or storage of chemical,
                 pesticides, fertilizers, fuels and lubricants, animal and human wastes,
                 erosion, and other potentially polluting practices or conditions.
         6.5.4   Natural Setting: Preserve Sultan’s natural shoreline and waterway setting to
                 the maximum extent feasible. Control dredging, excavations, land fill,
                 construction of bulkheads, piers, docks, landings or other improvements that
                 will restrict the natural functions or visual character of the Wallace, Sultan,
                 and Skykomish Rivers or shorelines. Utilize natural materials and designs
                 where improvements are considered to blend new constructions with natural
                 setting and with older structures.

GOAL:
   6.6      Maintain and enhance the development and operation of an effective and
            efficient stormwater treatment system that will meet the needs of Sultan’s
            present and future population.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                  Page 96
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Policies:
         6.6.1  Develop a long term municipal government mechanism to manage surface
                water in a way that water quality is preserved and localized flooding and
                erosion problems are reduced.
         6.6.2  Manage the quality of stormwater runoff to protect public health and safety,
                surface and groundwater quality and the natural drainage system.
         6.6.3  Require design of storm drain lines or pathways to minimize potential
                erosion and sedimentation, discourage significant vegetation clearing, and
                preserve the natural drainage systems such as rivers, streams, lakes and
                wetlands.
         6.6.4  Require future developments to provide water quality and flow attenuation
                measures as outlined in the DOE Stormwater Manual.
         6.6.5  Require development regulations that encourage the reduction of
                impervious surface and retention of natural vegetation by using innovative
                designs and other development tools.
         6.6.6  Ensure that storm drainage facilities necessary to support construction
                activities and long-term development are adequate to serve the
                development at the time of construction and when the development is
                available for occupancy and use.
         6.6.7  Require design of new development to allow for efficient and economical
                provision of storm drainage facilities.
         6.6.8  New development should minimize increases in total runoff quantity, should
                not increase peak stormwater runoff, and should prevent flooding and water
                quality degradation.
         6.6.9  New development should incorporate bioswales into future drainage
                facilities to remove pollutants prior to their discharge to receiving waters.
         6.6.10 Consider more proactive patrols of watershed areas to continually monitor
                discharge violations, subject to other law enforcement priorities in the
                community.
         6.6.11 Review and update as necessary City stormwater and flood hazard
                regulations. Participate in regional water quality and flood hazard reduction
                efforts within all drainage basins that affect the City.

GOAL:
   6.7      Maintain and retain a mixed-use waterfront including those agricultural,
            fishing, boating and tourist uses that provide Sultan’s shoreline unique
            appeal.
Policies:
         6.7.1   Fishing: Preserve fishery developments as a significant cultural and
                 economic resource. Retain important fishing support services and promote
                 development of additional docking and landing facilities consistent with
                 fishing needs.
         6.7.2   Pleasure boating: Encourage the development of temporary docking and
                 landing facilities for day use and transient watercraft. Retain open surface

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 97
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

                 water area to the maximum extent possible to facilitate safe and convenient
                 watercraft circulation.
         6.7.3   Commercial uses: Encourage development of water-oriented commercial
                 uses in locations that can be provided adequate and unobtrusive supporting
                 services including parking. Require commercial developments to provide
                 public facilities and access to shoreline banks, dikes, docks, walkways and
                 other facilities including vistas.
         6.7.4   Recreation: Develop existing publicly owned shoreline properties to provide
                 additional public access where appropriate - particularly in Reese and
                 Sportsman Parks. Acquire additional sites, where possible, along the
                 Wallace and Skykomish Rivers. Create a mixture of active and passive
                 public facilities that do not intrude on the natural features of the shoreline.

GOAL:
   6.8      Preserve a quality urban waterfront. Define and enforce the highest quality
            standards concerning present and future land use developments within
            Sultan’s waterfront areas.
Policies:
         6.8.1   Balance and scale: Maintain a balance in waterfront land use development
                 so that any single use does not overpower or detract from others. Maintain
                 a human, pleasing scale so that new structures do not overpower existing
                 facilities and do not dominate the shoreline in terms of size, location or
                 appearance.
         6.8.2   Access and visibility:      Create an accessible shoreline including the
                 developments of public parks, fishing and boat docks, picnic and passive
                 overlooks, and view points. Require private developments to provide
                 equivalent access and visibility to tenants and users of new private
                 developments, users of the waterways, and the public-at-large.
         6.8.3   Amenities:      Require waterfront developments to provide amenities
                 commensurate with the project’s enjoyment of the natural, public resource
                 including where desirable, additional docks or landings, paths or walks,
                 picnic and seating areas, fishing piers or areas, overlooks and viewpoints.
         6.8.4   Supporting improvements: Enforce suitable standards governing shoreline
                 improvements equal to the standards enforced in other developments within
                 the Sultan urban area. In addition, illustrate and enforce design standards
                 that control scale, construction materials, drainage patterns, site coverage,
                 landscaping and screening, signage, and other features of unique
                 importance to the waterfront setting. Encourage innovative, effective
                 solutions that cluster and share common improvements, reduce paved
                 areas, and otherwise blend constructions with the natural setting or with
                 desirable features of Sultan’s built environment.

GOALS:
   6.9      Conserve those lands and soils that have socially valuable characteristics -
            such as historic features, scenic vistas, and unique natural areas to

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 98
Natural Environment
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                            AUGUST 2007
                                                    CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

          preserve Sultan’s character. Designate socially valuable landmarks and
          sites on an overlay of land use plan and zoning maps.
   6.10   Restrict high density development within the Sultan and Skykomish River
          floodways - to reduce risk and damage from flooding, especially should the
          Sultan Dam fail. Adopt the non-structural flood reduction program and
          initiate acquisition of repetitive flood loss properties within the floodway
          zone.
   6.11   Direct urban development to those lands and soils that are most
          environmentally capable of being developed for urban uses – including
          land along the east segment of US-2 and on the plateau to reduce risk and
          maximize land use potential.            Designate high-density residential
          development zones on the plateau.
   6.12   Conserve the steep bluffs as wooded natural areas - to reduce landslide
          hazard, conserve wildlife habitat, and preserve the woodlands scenic
          values. Create hillside/woodland cluster provisions.
   6.13   Conserve the Sultan Riverfront between River Park, Osprey Park, and the
          Oxbow in open space – to reduce flood risk, protect wetland and wildlife
          habitat, preserve scenic value, and provide public access. Acquire
          repetitive flood loss properties for habitat.
   6.14   Conserve both sides of the Skykomish River between the Sultan River and
          8th Street – to protect wildlife habitat, preserve scenic value, and provide
          public access. Acquire repetitive flood loss properties for habitat.
   6.15   Conserve the north bank of the Wallace River/Sprague Slough from
          Cemetery Park to the end of Sultan Startup Road – to reduce flood risk,
          protect wildlife habitat, preserve scenic value, and provide public access.
          Acquire repetitive flood loss properties for habitat.
   6.16   Conserve the Winters and Wagleys Creeks corridor and adjacent wetlands
          from Sultan Basin Road across Rice Road and to the edge of the plateau at
          Pacific Northwest Pipeline – to reduce flood risk, protect wildlife habitat,
          improve surface water quality, preserve scenic value, and provide public
          access.
   6.17   Conserve the wetlands located at the bottom of the plateau slope from Fir
          Street through the high school to the Oxbow – to reduce flood risk, protect
          wildlife habitat, improve surface water quality, preserve scenic value, and
          provide public access.
   6.18   Conserve the wetlands located on top of the plateau from Kessler to Rice
          Road – to reduce flood risk, protect wildlife habitat, improvement surface
          water quality, preserve scenic value, and provide public access.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                      Page 99
Natural Environment
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                       CHAPTER VI – NATURAL ENVIRONMENT



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

Significant changes between the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update and the adopted 2004
integrated SEPA/GMA document include the following:
•   Highly technical soils information has been removed from the 2007 update.        This
    information is available upon request from the City.
•   Information on air quality has been updated.
•   The City adopted new critical areas regulations to implement the Plan policies in
    December, 2006. When reviewing development proposals the City will work to achieve
    a “no net loss” standard for critical areas and habitats.
•   Development in critical area buffers and on geological hazard areas could affect water
    quality, critical habitats and public safety. Such development is restricted under the
    policies of the updated 2007 plan.
•   The 2007 plan references the new stormwater utility that is currently under
    development.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                        Page 100
Natural Environment
      PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VII – PARKS AND RECREATION




CHAPTER VII: PARKS AND RECREATION

INTRODUCTION

The Growth Management Act requires that all cities and
counties include a park and recreation element in their
comprehensive plans. In addition, those cities and
counties must ensure that all urban growth areas
include greenbelt and open space areas, and that open
space corridors are identified within and between urban
growth areas6. The adopted mission of the City is to
“provide and promote community leisure, recreation
and cultural opportunities for all citizens of Sultan.”

Sultan, the Sultan School District, and the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife
have developed a variety of park, recreation, and open space facilities within the City. The
inventory includes wildlife conservancies and natural areas, walking trails, waterfront
swimming beaches and boat ramps, playgrounds, recreational courts and fields,
gymnasiums, and a variety of meeting room facilities.

In addition, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the US Forest
Service provide a variety of backcountry campgrounds, hiking trails, fishing lakes, and other
outdoor recreational activities on state and national forest lands within the immediate and
broader area surrounding Sultan.


EXISTING FACILITIES

The City classifies its parks according to size and function:

Mini Parks: These are the smallest of park features in the community. Mini Parks are
intended to meet recreational needs in areas of concentrated or limited populations, isolated
developments, and topographic or environmental constraints.            Included are scenic
viewpoints, plazas, gardens, and historic places, private “tot lots” in subdivisions, sport
courts, fountains or beautification areas. The service area would be within a half of a mile
walking distance (7-8 blocks).

Two of these parks are considered a part of the parks inventory of the City:
•     Roadside Park: 1.5-acre City park located on the south side of SR-2 west of 10th Street
      in the 800 block with a gazebo, picnic shed and tables. The park is leased from BNSF
      railroad.
•     Garden Park: is a 1-acre park beginning at 6th Street and continuing east to
      approximately 9th Street.

6
    RCW 36.70A.110(2) and RCW 36.70A.160

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 101
Parks and Recreation
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VII – PARKS AND RECREATION



Neighborhood Parks: These include both active and passive recreation opportunities for
residents within a convenient walking or biking distance. They can include informal, non-
programmed open multi-use playfield or open space, baseball and soccer fields, basketball,
tennis or volleyball courts and playgrounds. Natural areas may allow for park trails and
nature study. Neighborhood parks can serve as the recreation and social hub of several
neighborhoods. They serve an area of about a half-mile radius.

Neighborhood parks in Sultan include:
•   Reese Park: 32-acre park located on the west side of the Sultan River at 216 Old Owen
    Road with a baseball/soccer field, two picnic shelters, one restroom facility, and primitive
    trails to the river edge.
•   River Park: 6-acre park located on the east shore of the Sultan River at the south end
    of 1st Street and Main Street with a pavilion and picnic facility. The annual community
    festival with logging competitions and other activities is conducted in the park.
•   Cemetery Park: 1.5 acres of undeveloped property in the Sultan Cemetery located on
    the north bank of the Wallace River at 32901 Cascade View Drive that has been
    improved with a multipurpose baseball and soccer field. The field will eventually revert
    to cemetery use when plot demands require.
•   2nd and Alder Streets: A vacant 0.33-acre parcel acquired by the City for “repetitive
    flood loss reduction”.
•   Skate Board Park: The Skate Board Park is located at 101 E Main Street.
    Improvements to the park to date are the storm drainage system, grass ground cover
    and a 7,000 square foot L-shaped concrete surface design to accommodate skate board
    jumps, ramps and similar equipment. The park uses pervious concrete as part on its
    onsite storm drainage system. The equipment to complete the park will be phased over
    the next several years.

A small (0.18 acre) park owned by the City, at the corner of 5th and Date, was surplused
and sold in 2006.

Community and Regional Parks: These are larger in size serving a broader purpose than
neighborhood parks.        They allow for group activities and offer other recreational
opportunities not feasible or desirable at the neighborhood level. Facilities may include
community centers, stadiums, swimming pools, lighted athletic fields for baseball, soccer,
football and basketball and tennis courts, playgrounds, trails picnic shelters, and parking
lots. They attract citizens from throughout the community and beyond.

Current Community and Regional parks include:

•   Sultan Water Treatment Plant: The Plant itself is located on a 5-acre fenced area
    housing Sultan’s drinking water treatment and storage facilities.       Adjacent and
    surrounding the fenced area is 35 acres of open space including a Bonneville Power
    Line easement a heavily wooded area. The site is accessible by walking.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 102
Parks and Recreation
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VII – PARKS AND RECREATION


•   Osprey Park: A 90.41-acre park located on the east shore of the Sultan River at 801 1st
    Street. 5.0 acres have been developed with a multipurpose baseball, football, soccer
    field and 0.5-mile trail to the river edge. The remaining 85.0 acres preserve wetlands
    and woodlands that provide wildlife habitat along the river and tributary creek. A war
    memorial is planned in the park. A 0.41-acre addition occurred in 2006.
•   Sportsman Park: A 4-acre park located on the west shore of the Sultan River on US-2
    and Albion Street with a boat launch, gazebo, picnic shelter, tables, and river fishing
    access. The park is maintained by the City.

Natural Resource Areas – Open Space: These include lands set aside for preservation and
protection of natural resources, floodways, open space, sensitive areas and buffers,
important vegetation, etc. The objective is to enhance the livability and character of
community through preservation and conservation strategies. Community parks and natural
resource areas may be similar with the exception of development for active recreation uses.
Open spaces may provide some passive recreational opportunities such as nature viewing
and trail user. Lands under this category are dedicated in standard subdivisions, in Planned
Unit Developments and industrial parks among others. The Sultan Cemetery allows public
access to about 1.5 acres of land.

Connector Trails: Linear trails and open spaces can be used to emphasize safe recreation
and transportation travel to and from parks and natural areas. In general, they are located
within existing road right-of-way, utility easements, critical area buffers, open space,
drainage ways, or on sidewalks. The Comprehensive Plan refers to these “Non-motorized
transportation and trails systems”. Connector trails link public facilities rather than being
self-contained within parks.

The High Street Trail is an asphalt multipurpose trail developed from the east end of High
Street for evacuation of schools in case of flood or dam emergencies. Under future plans,
an on/off-road bike and hike trail will be developed to provide an east-west trail (and
emergency evacuation route) extension of the existing High Street Trail from Osprey Park
and 1st Street past the Middle and High Schools along the edge of the plateau to the
employment centers at Rice Road and US-2.

Other than the High Street Trail there are no off-road multipurpose trails within the City or
UGA at the present time except for a few short, informal footpaths through vacant
properties, school grounds, and open spaces. As discussed in the following, future
initiatives are planned.

Park and recreation facilities owned and operated by the City of Sultan totaled 136.5 acres
in 2004 and 172 acres in 2006 (see Table VII-1 and Figure VII-1). These numbers are
used by the City in determining “concurrency” with the adopted level of service standards as
the community grows.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 103
Parks and Recreation
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                      AUGUST 2007
                                                             CHAPTER VII – PARKS AND RECREATION

                                           Table VII-1: Park and Recreation Facilities
OTHER FACILITIES

There are other City and non-City                                            2004         2006
owned facilities providing various                 City Owned or Operated Facilities
levels of recreation opportunities     Mini Parks                      2.50 ac         2.50 ac
for citizens.        These include        Roadside Park                       1.50            1.50
meeting        facilities,   indoor       Garden Park                         1.00            1.00
recreation     buildings,  school-     Neighborhood                    40.01 ac        40.11 ac
owned facilities, etc. While these        Reese Park                         32.00           32.00
offer recreational opportunities for      River Park                          6.00            6.00
citizens, they are not considered         Cemetery Park                       1.50            1.50
part of the concurrency policy of         2nd and Alder                       0.33            0.33
the City.                                 5th and Date                        0.18
                                          Skate Board Park                                    0.28
                                       Community Park                  0.00 ac         35.00 ac
City Hall/Library: New award-
                                          Water Treatment Plant                             35.00
winning City Hall and library          Regional Park                   94.00 ac        94.41 ac
facility located in the downtown at       Osprey Park                        90.00          90.41
the corner of Main and 4th                Sportsman Park                      4.00            4.00
Streets with an interior arcade,
artwork, and council/community         Total                               136.51 ac    172.02 ac
meeting room.                                              Non-City Facilities

Old City Hall:    Original 6,587       Baseball/Softball Fields Total      4 fields      4 fields
square foot City Hall facility            Sultan Elementary School             1             1
                                          Sultan Middle School                 1             1
located adjacent to Osprey Park
                                          Sultan High School                   2             2
at 707 1st Street on a 5.0-acre
                                       Football Fields Total                1 field       1 field
site.   The 1,200 square foot
                                          Sultan High School                   1             1
council chamber has been leased
                                       Soccer Fields                           0             0
to the Boys and Girls Club; 4,775
                                       Sports Courts                       1 court       1court
square feet of building area is           Sultan Elementary School             1             1
provided to the Food Bank.             Tennis Courts                           0             0
Police/Fire Station: 2,500 square      Indoor Pools                            0             0
foot police station located at 513     Outdoor Pools                           0             0
Main Street with multipurpose          Recreational Centers                    1             1
training, meeting room facility,          Community Center                15,190 sf     15,190 sf
and kitchen.
Sultan Boys & Girls Club: 5,400 square foot youth facility collocated with original City Hall
facility adjacent to Osprey Park on 1st Street in 5.0-acre City parcel. City-owned facility
provides activity rooms, kitchen, office, pool room, second floor teen center, and restrooms.
Community Center: A 15,190 square foot community facility located on at 319 1st Street on
a 2.2-acre site.

Sultan School District:
•   Sultan Elementary School: 8-acre school site located on the east side of 4th Street
    between Date and Fir Streets with 3.2 acres devoted to a playground, multipurpose
    recreational court, multi-use field, classrooms, and small cafeteria and gymnasium.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                 Page 105
Parks and Recreation
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                      AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER VII – PARKS AND RECREATION


•   Sultan Middle School: 8-acre school site located on the west side of 4th Street between
    High and Willow Avenue with 3.2 acres devoted to a lighted combination
    baseball/football field, classrooms, arts and crafts, cafeteria, and gymnasium.
•   Sultan High School: 25-acre school site located on 5th Street north of Willow Avenue
    with nine acres devoted to a volleyball court, rubberized-surface field track, lighted
    football field, baseball field, softball field, classrooms, arts and crafts room, cafeteria and
    student commons, stage, and gymnasium. Approximately ten acres of the site is
    covered with wetlands and other sensitive features.

Private Facilities
•   Volunteers of America (VOA): Training area for week-long day camp providing training
    for volunteers in public service and employment organization next to old City Hall on 1st
    Street and Osprey Park. Site includes an A-frame meeting facility, outdoor swimming
    pool, two basketball courts, playground, and T-ball field.
•   Sultan Arts Council and Museum: Meeting room and display area located on second
    floor of old Post Office building.
•   Fern Bluff Grange: Meeting room facility with kitchen located on Cascade View Drive.
•   VFW: Meeting room facility with kitchen located on Main Street in the downtown area.
•   Eagles: Meeting room facility with kitchen located on East Main Street in the downtown
    district.


LEVEL OF SERVICE

Levels of service (LOS) measures the extent to which existing parks, open space and
recreation facilities are serving the existing community; and what types of future facilities
should be provided to meet future growth needs (see Table VII-2).

The most recognized standards for Parks and Recreation are published by the National
Recreational and Parks Association (NRPA). The NRPA developed Level of Service (LOS)
in 1996. LOS is a way of accurately calculating the minimum amount of land to provide all
of the recreation activities and facilities desired in the communities. LOS is still expressed
in terms of acres per population, but is driven by needs facility-based and land measured
formulas.

In order to determine the level of service the City is offering to date, the City of Sultan has
calculated a “Foundation Level of Service” (FLOS) that is a base threshold level that tells
the community what recreational opportunities are currently available. The formula for
calculating this figure is:
                                    .
              Current park acres        /.   Current Population = acres/person FLOS




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 106
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                            AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                  CHAPTER VII – PARKS AND RECREATION




                                                   Table VII-2: Level of Service for Parks
         a                  b             c             D              e              f            g            h             i
                                                                                                 FLOS
                                                       Sultan     Added Need     Added Need     without        LOS           LOS
                                     NRPA LOS
                          2004                      FLOS 2004     for Current      for 2025    Additions     Edmonds      Marysville
   Park Type                          (Per 1000
                        Facilities                   (Per 1000        2004       Population      2025       Needs/1,000   Needs/1000
                                     Population)
                                                    Population)   Population    (FLOS/NRPA)    (Per 1000    Population    Population
                                                                                              Population)
Mini Parks                 2.5           1.5            .7            3.2           11.0          0.2
Neighborhood
Parks                     40.01          1.5           10.5                        76.6           3.6          0.95           1.5
Community Parks                          1.5                          5.7          11.0                        2.67           1.5
Regional Parks             94           0.04           24.6                        180.0          8.5          1.08          0.04
Baseball/Softball
Fields                      4           0.22            1.0                          7.7          0.4           0.2            1
Football Fields             1           0.15            0.3                          1.9          0.1                        0.15
Soccer Fields                           0.18                          0.7            1.3                       0.58          0.66
Sports Courts               1           1.25            0.3           3.8            9.1          0.1                        1.25
Tennis Courts                           0.47                          1.8            3.4                                     0.47
Indoor Pools                            0.05                          0.2            0.4
Outdoor Pools                           0.08                          0.3            0.6                                     0.08
Recreation
Centers                     1           0.05            0.3                          1.9          0.1                        0.05
   (City Facilities):




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                   Page 107
Parks and Recreation
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

Several population estimates are used by various sources, but one must be selected for
Level of Service calculations. In 2006, the population of the City was 4,4407. The official
population in 2004, according to OFM was 4,135. The 2004 population used for the
comprehensive plan development was 3,814. This latter figure was used in the 2007 Plan
revision as the base population number used to calculate the FLOS. This is because of its
use in 2004 and because it creates an FLOS that is the lower of two possible ratios, a more
conservative approach to determining future need. The resulting FLOS ratio is shown in
Column “d” on Table VII-2. The NRPA standard is shown in Column “c”8.

Table VII-2 includes all parks and recreation facilities in the community regardless of
ownership or maintenance responsibility. For its level of service review, the City views its
“concurrency” responsibility to local, community and regional parks. Football, soccer, tennis
and other facilities can be school-owned, privately-owned or owned by other organizations

Existing parks, open space and recreational categories and their respective sizes are
identified in Table VII-2, Columns “a” and “b”. The specific facilities are found on Table VII-
1. Comparing the 2004 inventory to the NRPA standards:
    For “open space” features (Roadside Park, Garden Park), the City’s FLOS is about half
    the NRPA standard.
    The “neighborhood park” FLOS is about 6½ times the national standard.
    No “Community Parks” were listed in 2004.
    Regional Parks were substantially higher than the national standard.

Columns “e” shows how many additional acres are needed now to meet the minimum
NRPA standard. Where the City’s FLOS exceeds that standard, no additional acreage is
shown. Where the FLOS ratio falls below the NRPA standard, the deficiency is shown.
    3.2 additional Mini Park acres would have been needed in 2004 to meet the NRPA
    standard of 1.5 acres per 1000 residents.
    5.7 acres in “Community Parks” would have met the NRPA standard in 2004.
    There were no deficiencies in Neighborhood or Regional parks in 2004.

Column “f” shows how many additional acres or facilities would be needed to match either
the current FLOS or the NRPA ratio, whichever is higher, to serve a 2025 population of
11,119.
    Because of the high FLOS ratio for the City, to maintain the current ratio would require
    77 acres in Neighborhood Parks and 180 acres in Regional Parks facilities.
    Eleven (11) acres each in open space and Community Parks would maintain an NRPA
    Level of Service.



7
    State Office of Financial Management (OFM)
8
    Population figures for LOS determinations may differ from those in other portions of the 2004
    Comprehensive Plan. The City has used updated population estimates to ensure accuracy of LOS
    calculations.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 108
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

Column “g” shows what the LOS would be if no new facilities were added. This latter
number can be compared to the NRPA ratio in Column “c” to determine how the City would
compare with accepted national standards.
   If the 11 acres in Mini Parks were not added, the FLOS in 2025 would fall well below the
   1.5 acre/1000 ratio.
   16.7 acres of Community Parks would be necessary to maintain a 1.5 ratio.
   LOS ratios for Neighborhood and Regional Parks would exceed national standards if no
   property was added.

Columns “h” and “I” show comparable standards in two other Snohomish County cities.

The results of this LOS analysis show that the City of Sultan will meet or exceed the NRPA
standard through 2025 for Parks with the addition of about 14 acres of Mini Park features
and about 17 acres of Community Parks. Sports courts and tennis courts do not meet
national standards but are not always considered to be typical publicly-owned facilities.
They are not considered a part of the City’s inventory for purposes of concurrency analysis.

Between 2004 and 2006 an additional 35 acres of Community Parks were added at the
Water Treatment Plant (see Table VII-1.) The 6-Year Capital Facilities Plan lists the
following improvements over the next 5-6 years:
       Reese Park Improvements
       Plateau Neighborhood Park
       Sportsman Park Improvements
       Skate Board Park (added in 2005)
       Expand Trail System
       Plateau Neighborhood Parks
       Community Park (added in 2006)
       Multipurpose Trails

The estimated cost for these facilities is $1.8 million. Through 2025 additional facilities are
planned totaling an additional $8.1 million. These include:
      Expanded Trail System
      Plateau Parks
      Community Park
      Multipurpose Trails

The exact nature of these improvements will not be known until designs are completed.
Based on past analysis by the City, the priority elements of future recreation improvements
include the following:
      Softball fields
      Basketball courts (three added to existing facilities)
      Tennis courts (four added to existing facilities)
      Tot lots

Although not a direct requirement of its concurrency policy, these facilities will assist in
providing a full recreation program for the community.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 109
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                        CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

Funding for these improvements would come from a variety of sources, including:
      General Fund
      Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
      Grants
      Admissions Tax
      Developer Contributions

The City’s ability to secure these monies will determine when and if the proposed park
improvements will be constructed. The City will pursue these monies aggressively to
ensure that the level of park and recreation services is maintained. Partnerships with other
public and private providers will help secure these future opportunities.

The City does require development impact fees for parks. In 2004 the fee for each new
housing unit was set at $300. In 2006 this was increased to $3,415.

The City is also supportive of efforts to develop a network of off-road multipurpose trails.
This could include several projects in partnership with others, among them:
   2.4 miles of multipurpose bike, hike, and jogging trail loop developed connecting Osprey
   Park, Sultan Middle, High and Elementary Schools, the downtown, and Sultan River
   shoreline using 4th, 8th, Date and Main Streets.
   Love’s Hill (Fir Avenue) Trail: An on/off-road bike and hike trail will be developed to
   create an east-west trail (and emergency evacuation route) from Fir Avenue past the
   Elementary School to the plateau and the Kessler Drive Trail.
   US-2 Northside Trail: An on/off-road bike and hike trail will be developed in SR-2 right-
   of-way to create an east-west trail from Sportsman Park across the SR-2 bridge to River
   Park then through the edge of the downtown and the business uses along Wagleys
   Creek and Rice Road to Sultan Startup Road.
   Skykomish River Trail: Off-road trails will be developed on both sides of the river using
   alignments from River Park under the BNSF trestle and across JW Mann Road Bridge.
   US-2/Wallace River Trail: Off-road trails will be developed from JW Mann Bridge
   through Roadside Park to Foundry Drive and Cascade View Drive past Cemetery Park
   to the end of Sultan Startup Road.
   Sultan River Westside Trail: An off-road trail will be developed on the west side of the
   Sultan River from the US-2 Bridge through Sportsman Park to Reese Park.
   Sultan River Eastside Trail: An off-road trail will be developed on the east side of the
   Sultan River from the US-2 Bridge through River Park around the wetlands and through
   Osprey Park to the Oxbow and Willow Avenue Trail.
   Pacific Northwest Pipeline Trail: An off-road bike and hike trail will be developed on or
   adjacent to the Pacific Northwest Pipeline to create a northern loop trail (and emergency
   evacuation route) between the Sultan River valley, the plateau and Rice Road.
   Willow Avenue/Bryant Road/Rice Road Trail: An on/off-road bike and hike trail will be
   developed to provide an east-west trail (and emergency evacuation route) from 1st
   Street past the High School and through the wetlands to Rice Road.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 110
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

In addition to these City plans, Snohomish County has planned for a “Skykomish River
Greenway - South Park”, an 11.9-acre district park to be acquired and developed on the
south side of the Skykomish River adjacent to the Main Street/Ben Howard Road bridge to
include hand-carry boat launch, trails, and picnic tables.

Apart from direct acquisition and development of park sites, the City will also work to
implement other open space initiatives in partnership with others. The nature and success
of these initiatives will be determined during individual project reviews or other public/private
efforts. The City acknowledges these programs in this Plan and will work with others in best
efforts to see them implemented.

School/Park Projects                  As a joint venture with the Sultan School District,
                                      existing athletic fields will be improved and additional
                                      playground, basketball, and tennis courts will be
                                      developed at the Elementary, Middle, and High School
                                      sites. School classrooms, cafeteria, student commons,
                                      and gymnasium spaces will be jointly scheduled for
                                      after hour public use and before/after school programs.
Hillside Greenbelt Conservancies      Using critical area ordinances, cluster development
                                      allowances, and acquisitions were appropriate, the
                                      hillsides will be conserved around the plateau and
                                      along Wagleys Creek in public or common status to
                                      reduce landslide and erosion, protect wildlife habitat,
                                      preserve scenic value, and provide public access.
Sultan River Greenway                 Using the non-structural flood reduction program,
                                      properties will be acquired within the repetitive loss
                                      floodway zone on the east bank of the Sultan River.
                                      The property acquisitions will be merged with Osprey,
                                      River, Reese and Sportsman Parks to create a
                                      greenway along the Sultan River to reduce flood risks,
                                      protect wildlife habitat, preserve scenic value, and
                                      provide public access.
Skykomish River Greenway              Using the non-structural flood reduction program,
                                      properties will be acquired within the repetitive loss
                                      floodway zone on the north and south banks of the
                                      Skykomish River. The properties will be merged with
                                      the Skykomish River Boat Launch and proposed South
                                      Bank Park to create a greenway along the Skykomish
                                      River from the river bend to 8th Street to reduce flood
                                      risks, protect wildlife habitat, preserve scenic value, and
                                      provide public access.
Wallace River Greenway                Using critical area ordinances, cluster development
                                      allowances, and acquisitions where appropriate, the
                                      north bank of the Wallace River or Sprague Slough will
                                      be conserved in public or common status to reduce
                                      flood risks, protect wildlife habitat, preserve scenic
                                      value, and provide public access.
Wagleys Creek Greenway                Using critical area ordinances, cluster development
                                      allowances, and acquisitions where appropriate, the
                                      floodway and buffer zones along Wagleys Creek will be

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 111
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

                                       conserved in public or common status to reduce flood
                                       risk, improve surface water quality, protect wildlife
                                       habitat, preserve scenic value, and provide public
                                       access.
Fir Street Wetlands                    Using critical area ordinances, cluster development
                                       allowances, and acquisitions where appropriate, the
                                       extensive wetlands in the Sultan River valley from Fir
                                       Street through the High School to the Oxbow will be
                                       conserved in public or common status to improve
                                       surface water quality, protect wildlife habitat, preserve
                                       scenic value, and provide public access.
Plateau Wetlands                       Using critical area ordinances, cluster development
                                       allowances, and acquisitions where appropriate, the
                                       extensive wetlands located on top of the plateau from
                                       Kessler to Rice Road will be conserved in public or
                                       common status to reduce flood risk, improve surface
                                       water quality, protect wildlife habitat, preserve scenic
                                       value, and provide public access.


GOALS AND POLICIES

GOAL:
   7.1      Develop a high quality, diversified park system that preserves significant
            environmental opportunity areas and features.
Policies:

         7.1.1   Level of Service: Strive to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) in excess of
                 the national and state standards. Ensure that the minimum LOS for parks
                 meets or exceeds the NRPA standard.
         7.1.2   Natural areas: Preserve and protect significant environmental features for
                 park and open space use including unique wetlands, open spaces,
                 woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts and other characteristics that reflect
                 Sultan’s natural heritage. Encourage the preservation of unique site
                 features or areas and the providing of public use and access in new land
                 developments - particularly by linking the extensive wetlands on the plateau.
         7.1.3   Incorporate historical and sites, artifacts and facilities into the park system to
                 preserve these interests and provide a balanced social experience. Work
                 with historical and to incorporate community activities into the park and
                 recreational program- including downtown promotional events.
         7.1.4   Manmade environments and features: Incorporate interesting manmade
                 environments, structures, activities and areas into the park system to
                 preserve these features and provide a balanced park and recreation
                 experience. Work with property and facility owners to increase public
                 access and utilization of these special features - including the shorelines,
                 wetlands, and bluffs that meander through and between developed areas.
         7.1.5   Urban growth preserves and set-aside: Cooperate with the Snohomish


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 112
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

                 County Department of Parks & Recreation, Washington State Department of
                 Fish & Wildlife, and other public and private agencies, and with private
                 landowners to set-aside land and resources necessary to provide high
                 quality, convenient park and recreational facilities before the most suitable
                 sites are lost to development.

GOAL:
   7.2      Develop trail and corridor access systems. Develop a high quality system
            of multipurpose park trails and corridors that access significant
            environmental features, public facilities and developed urban
            neighborhoods.
Policies:

         7.2.1   Trail systems: Create a comprehensive system of multipurpose trails
                 providing for recreational hikers and walkers, joggers, casual strollers,
                 bicyclists, neighborhood residents and equestrians.            Link urban
                 neighborhoods to park and community facilities, and with proposed trails to
                 other community and regional facilities. Extend trails through natural area
                 corridors that will provide a high quality, diverse sampling of Sultan’s
                 environmental resources - particularly along Wallace, Sultan, and
                 Skykomish Rivers and Winters and Wagleys Creeks shorelines.
         7.2.2   Natural area linkages: Increase natural area and open space preservations
                 within Sultan’s developed urban area, particularly along shorelines, steep
                 hillsides, wetlands, stream corridors, and major roads that link
                 neighborhoods and facilities.

GOAL:
   7.3    Develop a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Policies:

         7.3.1   Establish routes and pathways for recreational use, which take advantage of
                 recreational opportunities and provide for different degrees of recreational
                 skills.
         7.3.2   Establish a path and route network that promotes continuity throughout the
                 Sultan Urban Area and links communities with the local and regional trail
                 systems, population centers and State and federal path systems.
         7.3.3   Provide support facilities for path users such as safe bicycle parking, water
                 and rest facilities along recreational routes.
         7.3.4   Adopt a map that identifies designated paths and routes recommended for
                 recreational and commuter bicycle use.
         7.3.5   Evaluate the impact of new development and improvements upon bike and
                 pedestrian facilities. New development located along designated bike
                 routes may be required to provide bike facilities as designated in this plan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 113
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                       AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

GOAL:
   7.4      Develop quality recreational facilities. Develop a high, quality, diversified
            recreation system that provides for all age and interest groups.
Policies:
         7.4.1   Waterfront access and facilities: Cooperate with other public agencies and
                 private entities to acquire and preserve additional waterfront access for
                 recreational activities and pursuits. Develop a mixture of watercraft access
                 opportunities including canoe, kayak, rowboat, raft, and power boating.
         7.4.2   Athletic facilities: Support the development of athletic recreational facilities
                 that meet high quality competitive playing standards and requirements for all
                 age groups and recreational interests. Concentrate on field and court
                 activities that provide for the largest number of participants. Develop, where
                 appropriate, a select number of facilities that are oriented to the highest
                 competitive playing standard for multi-agency use, especially in conjunction
                 with the Sultan School District.
         7.4.3   Indoor facilities: Support the development of indoor community and
                 recreational centers that provide for special community activities and athletic
                 uses on a year-round basis. Develop, if appropriate, a select number of
                 centers that are oriented to the most significant indoor activities for multi-
                 agency use, especially in conjunction with the Sultan School District.

GOAL:
   7.5      Effectively manage park and recreation resources. Create effective and
            efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating and maintaining
            facilities that distribute costs and benefits to public and private interests.
Policies:

         7.5.1   Design/development standards: Design and develop facilities that are low
                 maintenance and high capacity design to reduce overall facility maintenance
                 and operation requirement and cost.           Where appropriate, use low
                 maintenance materials, settings or other value engineering considerations
                 that reduce care requirements and retain natural conditions and
                 experiences.
         7.5.2   Accessibility: Design park and recreational trails and facilities to be
                 accessible to individuals and organized groups of all capabilities, skills, age,
                 income, and activity interests.
         7.5.3   Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational system that
                 integrates Sultan with Snohomish County, Sultan School District,
                 Washington State Department of Wildlife and other public and private park
                 and recreational lands and facilities in a manner that will best serve and
                 provide for Sultan resident interests. Cooperate with other public and
                 private entities to avoid duplication, improves facility quality and availability,
                 reduce costs and represent Sultan’s interests.
         7.5.4   Joint venture opportunities: Joint venture and make publicly accessible in
                 combination with other public, non-profit or private entities a greater variety

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                Page 114
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

                 of recreational facilities that would be accomplished by Sultan alone or
                 otherwise. Discuss with the Sultan School District the possibility of entering
                 into joint ventures for the development of combined school, playground, and
                 athletic facilities. Consider sharing the monies Sultan could realize from
                 environmental and growth management impact assessments with the Sultan
                 School District for the joint development and maintenance of active play
                 fields and playgrounds-provided the facilities are made available for use by
                 students and community residents alike.
         7.5.5   Finance:       Investigate new, innovative methods of financing facility
                 development, maintenance and operating needs to reduce costs, retain
                 financial flexibility, match user benefits and interests, and increase facility
                 services. Consider joint ventures with the Snohomish County Department of
                 Parks & Recreation, Sultan School District, Washington State Department of
                 Wildlife, and other public and private agencies where feasible and desirable.
         7.5.6   Park/recreation impact assessment methodology: Develop a methodology
                 for determining the facility impact of proposed development projects within
                 the Sultan planning area to include the corporate limits and any surrounding
                 lands where the residents will depend on Sultan for park and recreational
                 needs. The methodology should determine the potential facility impacts that
                 will be caused by a proposed urban development project and an equitable
                 mitigation assessment that is in accordance with local park and recreation
                 standards. The methodology should also define a process by which the
                 assessed fees can be allocated between agencies for the appropriate
                 development and maintenance of local parks or conservation areas, active
                 play recreational facilities or trails as each of these facilities may be
                 sponsored on the behalf of Sultan residents.

GOALS:

   7.6      Improve existing school and City park sites – enhancing existing picnic
            facilities and shelters, outdoor fields and courts, indoor gymnasiums and
            meeting rooms for public use.
   7.7      Develop neighborhood park sites on the plateau – with access to the trail
            network and open spaces, and playground and picnic facilities for
            residents of new local housing areas.
   7.8      Develop a community park site on the plateau – with access to the trail
            network and open spaces, and recreational courts and fields for citywide
            resident use.
   7.9      In general, develop a local on and off-road hike and bike trail grid – that
            provides flexible north-south and east-west access routes between the
            Sultan River valley, the plateau, and across US-2 and to parks, schools,
            and employment centers.
   7.10     Develop an East-West Trail adjacent or near to the Pacific Northwest
            Pipeline – to create a northern loop trail (and emergency evacuation route)
            between connect the Sultan River valley, the plateau, and Rice Road.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 115
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                            AUGUST 2007
                                                    CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION

   7.11   Develop a Willow Avenue/Bryant Road sidewalk/trail to Rice Road – to
          create an east-west trail connection (and emergency evacuation route)
          from 1st Street past the high school and through the wetlands to Rice Road.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                    Page 116
Parks and Recreation
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                        CHAPTER VII –PARKS AND RECREATION



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

Significant changes between the 2007 update and the adopted 2004 integrated SEPA/GMA
document include the following:
   Level of Service policies inserted.
   Park acreage totals under each category have been updated and confirmed.
   Comparisons are included of existing park acreages in relation to Level of Service.
   Park deficiencies have been quantified under local and national standards.
   Cost estimates of park and recreation development have been calculated.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 117
Parks and Recreation
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES



CHAPTER VIII: CAPITAL FACILITIES AND
PUBLIC SERVICES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the City’s strategy for serving
residents and businesses with public services and
facilities. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), a
Capital Facilities Plan is required to assess the needs of
a community and determine how to provide appropriate
facilities for current and future residents9. A “capital
facility” is any publicly-owned structure or physical
facility. It could be a park, waste treatment facility,
water line, road, public building or similar structure. Services are not considered a capital
facility, nor is the maintenance and operation of physical facilities. Usually it does not
include City vehicles. In Sultan, a capital facility improvement represents a major capital
investment in a City asset, which is not a repair or maintenance item, with a value of at least
$10,000 that has a useful life of five or more years.

In preceding sections, this Comprehensive Plan has identified transportation, parks and
other facilities that are planned through 2025 to serve the residents, employers and tourists
in Sultan. The following discussion addresses how these will be provided and discusses
the sewer, water, drainage services necessary to serve growth. It summarizes the Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) adopted by the City in December 2006 (Appendix D). Finally, it
incorporates the financial requirements to provide these services.

A Capital Facilities Plan must contain an inventory of existing facilities, an assessment of
future facility needs and a plan for financing, including a reassessment strategy to address
potential funding or service shortfalls. The CFP addresses all current infrastructure owned
by the City and establishes a plan for the City to provide the infrastructure and facilities
needed to serve its residents in the future (Year 2025). The CFP is based on the
population, land use, UGA boundary and other assumptions discussed in other sections of
the comprehensive plan. It consolidates capital improvement projects from this and other
comprehensive plan elements into a complete 6-year capital improvement program through
2012 as part of a longer term strategy through 2025 as required by GMA. As is typical of
most CFPs, the first year (2007) of the Sultan Plan has been adopted as part of the annual
City budget. It will be updated each year as part of the City’s budgeting process.

Snohomish County has established Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) that must be
addressed by all of the cities in Snohomish County under GMA. The policies in the Capital
Facilities section of this Comprehensive Plan must reflect the CWPPs related to capital
facilities.


9
    (RCW 36.70A.070)

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 118
Capital Facilities and Public Services
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                             CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Beyond the actual capital facilities planning discussed below, this Plan also addresses
public services provided by the City (e.g. police protection, general government services,
etc.). It also discusses capital facilities and services provided by other agencies outside of
city government. These include schools, electrical, gas and other services.

Capital Facilities Concurrency

“Concurrency” as defined by the Growth Management Act requires that certain public
improvements be made within a certain time frame after growth occurs. By law, the only
element requiring concurrency is transportation. When growth negatively impacts the
transportation Level of Service (LOS) standards, then capacity improvements on the street
system must be made to restore the acceptable LOS. If the required improvements can not
be assured within six years of development, specific developments can not be approved
unless mitigation is included. When a significant drop in LOS occurs and adequate
mitigation can not be identified, the “Reassessment Strategy” (discussed later in this
chapter) can be triggered, including potential changes to the land use plan.

Although the other individual facilities or services do not require concurrency, from a
practical standpoint the existing capacity will become a limiting factor to growth. For
example, if capacity does not exist from the water or wastewater facilities to service new
development that development simply cannot happen. In other areas, like parks, level of
service may deteriorate if capacity improvements are not made. Choosing to delay
implementation of capacity improvements may not limit short-term growth in and of itself,
but it may negatively affect the quality of life that our citizenry currently enjoys.

The City of Sultan requires10 that certain levels of service be maintained for certain facilities
and services:
     Roadways – variable depending on type of road and traffic volumes (see Transportation,
     Chapter V).
     Potable water – 800 gallons for each Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).
     Wastewater Treatment – 100 gallons per ERU.
     Police protection – 2.6 officers per 1000 residents (in Year 2006). Council will be
     reviewing its police LOS in 2007 and will make a decision on LOS based on budget
     forecast and community input.
     Parks and recreation – Variable depending on type of park or facility (see Parks and
     Recreation, Chapter VII).

The City of Sultan must review applications for development against these Level of Service
standards and can approve the development only if the proposed development does not
lower the existing level of service (LOS) below the adopted LOS in the comprehensive plan.
Other services (e.g. libraries) have level of service standards, but are not subject to the LOS
code restrictions. Still other services (schools, fire) are allowed to establish LOS standards,
but are not City facilities.



10
     SMC 16.108

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 119
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                      AUGUST 2007
                                                                CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

The levels of service for the items listed above are discussed in the respective sections of
this comprehensive plan. The Capital Facilities Element discussed below includes
improvements to the City’s services and facilities to address those service levels. In the
case of traffic and parks, impact fees are assessed against new development to assist in
financing these improvements. Where a new development can be served by improved by
new services within six years of construction, it can move forward. Where such assurances
can not be given, the development can be denied until service levels are rectified.

Essential Public Facilities

The Washington State Growth Management Act includes provision for the identification and
location in the comprehensive plan of essential public facilities – those public facilities that
are critical land and building uses that are typically difficult to site. Essential public facilities
include uses such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation
facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient
facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes. No
essential public facilities have been identified for location within the Sultan UGA by other
jurisdictions.

Financial Considerations

Tables VIII-1 and VIII-2 (found later in this chapter) show how much Sultan capital facilities
are expected to cost and how the community intends to pay for them. The cost estimates
are expressed in 2006 dollars and are based on the technical studies adopted as part of the
Plan. Options for new revenue involve grants, service charges, utility fees, developer fees
and bonds. Development impact fees are legally available to pay the cost of road, parks
and fire facilities. It is expected that as new development occurs, they will be assessed the
cost of road, sewer and water extensions.

To determine how the community may be able to pay for needed improvements, GMA
requires financial capacity analysis, which forecast revenues and expenditures for all
City funds. The City analysis was prepared based forecasted population, employment
and development activity. The analysis indicates that revenues will be available for
short-term capital expenditures. For years beyond 2012, these estimates are less
assured, however they are reviewed during each annual plan update. The estimates
assume that development will occur at an approximate pace forecasted for the
community and that no new mandates will require additional capital expenditures and
use of revenue resources.

In conformance with GMA requirements, all revenue sources available for operating
and capital purposes have been identified. The analysis includes new revenues and
existing resources that can be enhanced to provide additional revenues for Capital
Facility Plan improvements.

Each individual capital facility analysis identifies proposed facility needs and potential
funding options. This information is consolidated in the Financing Plan section of this
report.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                  Page 120
Capital Facilities and Public Services
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Capital Facilities in Sultan

Water Facilities

In the State of Washington, water systems and facilities are regulated by the Department of
Health under Washington Administrative Code 246-290. The City owns and operates the
municipal water system as a public utility11. The Sultan system is classified as Group A,
Class 1, “expanding system”. The Public Works Director oversees the various utility
systems. To maintain and operate a water system the City is required to have state
certified operators.

The Sultan water service area includes the city limits and most of the UGA. The Highland
Water Association provides water on the west and Startup Water District on the east.
Although the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) is designated as the
water purveyor for the unincorporated area north of the City, currently no water service is
provided. The City of Everett water treatment plant is located on Lake Chaplain 4.0 miles
northeast of the City.

Ownership of the current Sultan watershed was established by 1908 and water withdrawals
from a spring began in 1911. Today, as shown in Figure VIII-1, the system includes 2.5
MGD of storage to provide adequate water and fire flow to the City.

In 2003, the connection to the City of Everett Pipeline No. 5 was completed and provides an
as-needed emergency supplemental supply. The Water Supply contract with the City of
Everett was executed on June 30, 1999. Snohomish County PUD No 1 and the City of
Sultan executed the Water Supply Pipeline Construction, Operation and Maintenance
Agreement on June 21, 2001.

The City of Sultan provides monitoring and treatment required to ensure water quality
complies with federal and state regulations. Once a year, the Water System produces a
“Consumer Report” mailed to each utility customer to inform them of water quantity, quality,
test results and content.

North Snohomish County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP)

The Snohomish County Council declared Snohomish County to be a Critical Water Supply
Service Area in accordance with state authorizing statues. The declaration invokes the
Public Water System Coordination Act that requires procedures be established, subject to
county approval, to identify all existing and future service areas for public water utilities.




11
     System ID No. 84770




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 121
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

The County Council, in accordance with the Act, established exclusive water utility service
area with minimum domestic supply and fire flow requirements and standards for
construction of temporary and permanent improvements. All developments must abide by
Snohomish County standards and the standards that the authorizing water utility may
append within the service areas, regardless of whether the user will connect to the system
at the time of development. Projects that propose to use satellite or stand-alone water
supply systems for an interim period must also abide by the standards and agree to contract
the operation of the system from the designated water purveyor.

Future Water Conditions

The 2005 Water Plan as amended, adopted by reference in this Comprehensive Plan,
analyzes future system demand based on the expected growth in population, expected
service connections and the average daily water usage. The projected average daily
demand in 2003 was approximately 504,000 gallons per day.

The Washington State Department of Health requires the City to identify programs in place
to encourage water conservation.      The 2005 Water Plan identifies a program of
conservation methods as a primary method of increasing supply through reducing per
capita and per connection usage rates. The average household is allowed 600 cubic feet
(cf) of water per month and any overage is charged at a premium rate. Rates are set in
Ordinance 864-04 SMC.

System improvements needed to meet future demand have also been identified. These are
shown on Figure VIII-1. Future system improvements are designed to serve the 2025
population of 11,119 as well as the future business, industry and fire flow requirements in
the community. Improvement costs and proposed revenue sources are outlined in the 6-
Year Financing Plan. Water line extensions as required to fully serve new development
within the UGA will be funded by new development sponsors. Latecomer agreements may
be entered into to reimburse “first developers” using funds required of future developers.

Sewer Facilities

The information used in this section has been summarized from several technical analyses
conducted since 2004 and adopted by the City:
       2004 Sewer Rate & General Facilities Charge Analysis
       2005 General Sewer Plan
       2006 City of Sultan General Sewer Plan, as amended
       2006 WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report
       City of Sultan 2006 WWTP Upgrade Report General Sewer Plan
       Sewer Rate & General Facilities Charge Analysis

These individual plans are adopted by reference as part of the Sultan Comprehensive Plan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                         Page 123
Capital Facilities
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

When sewer first began in the early 1950’s the outfall went directly into the Skykomish
River. In 1969, the City of Sultan received federal grants to construct the first Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at 230 West Stevens, with a capacity of 0.2 million
gallons per day (MGD). As development continued and the demand grew, in 1998 the City
of Sultan constructed a new 0.7MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant on the same site as the
original plant.

Today, the existing location of the outfall for the WWTP is at the confluence of the Sultan
and Skykomish Rivers. In 1999 and 2000, the City added approximately 7,800 lineal feet of
8-inch to 15-inch interceptor in the current and future industrial park. Between 2000 and
2006 the City has added approximately 10,500 lineal feet of 8” collector and 12” and 15”
interceptor sewer lines.

In 2005, Sultan’s sewer collection system was serving 1,600 customers. The system
consists of approximately 18 miles of gravity and force mains and one City-owned
submersible pump station. The majority of the system consists of eight-inch diameter
gravity mains. Most of the original construction was either concrete or asbestos cement
pipe, while newer construction is mainly PVC pipe.

The service area of the City’s sewer system is defined as any property within the city limit
boundaries. All properties outside the city limits and approximately 27% of the properties
within the City limits are on septic systems. The City requires that all plumbing fixtures
installed for use in any building or elsewhere be connected with the City sewer system it is if
within 120 feet thereof (SMC 13.08.020). This would include properties that do significant
redevelopment.

When properties within the UGA choose to annex into the City, all properties that develop or
redevelop will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. The property owner may
need to construct improvements to the system in order to connect. Sewer extensions as
required to fully serve new development within the UGA will be funded by new development
sponsors. Latecomer agreements may be entered into to reimburse “first developers” using
funds required of future developers.

Future Sewer Conditions

The 2006 General Sewer Plan evaluated the collection system identifying several locations
where system deficiencies exist and improvements are required to meet the needs of future
development. The report also recommends continuation of the City’s program to reduce
infiltration and inflow into the system. Infiltration and inflow introduces non-sewage flows
into the system (e.g. stormwater) and can prematurely use up needed capacity at the
treatment facility and in the pipelines themselves. Infiltration and inflow are typically caused
by deterioration in the collection system such as failed connections, broken pipes, failed
gaskets, and leaking manholes.

Treatment Plant Upgrade

The ability of the City to serve future populations within the UGA is dependent not only on
its sewer collection system, but also on the capacity of its Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). As part of its capital facilities planning, the City worked through a process to

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 125
Capital Facilities
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

determine the best alternative to recommend to Council for WWTP design and construction
as outlined in the 2006 WWTP Upgrade Engineering Report. This report describes the
three phases of improvements for the recommended upgrade alternative to expand and
upgrade the Plant through 2029. The recommended Sultan WWTP upgrade design
includes using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) to treat base wastewater flows. The
Engineering Report is adopted by reference into the CFP and this Comprehensive Plan.

All wastewater from the Sultan UGA will be conveyed to the existing treatment plant. In the
summer of 2005, the City received a large number of development applications that
reserved over 650 sewer connections. This level of activity and expected growth in the
UGA prompted the City to compress its timeline for the expansion of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Construction of the new facility will begin in 2008 with completion in mid
2009. Improvements to the treatment plant will increase its capacity by 30-35%. The 1998
sewer plant upgrade was intended to serve a population of 4,800 through 2017. The
updated plant will be able to accommodate the projected 2025 population of 11,119
residents, projected commercial development and the proposed industrial park.

As shown on Table VIII-2 (found later in this chapter), the cost of the short-term treatment
plant improvements will be about $250,000. Funds for this improvement are available in the
2006 Budget and the plans are nearing approval by the Washington Department of Ecology.
Phase I improvements through 2009, will total $15 million. Financing will be through
revenue bonds, Public Work Trust Fund grants and about $1 million in local sewer fund
reserves. The City recently started a rate study and the Council will hold public hearings to
increase the current rates as an interim measure until the rate study is completed.

Surface Water Management

Sultan’s soils and geology are discussed in Chapter VI. In general, the primary soils on the
uplands are sandy loams and Norma Loam, a hydric soil found along Wagleys Creek and
the wetlands. Below the topsoil layer, subsurface soils are a mixture of sands, silt, clay, and
cobbles. The water table is typically found within four feet of the surface along Wagleys
Creek and the wetlands. On the higher elevations and plateaus, receding glaciers left
behind highly variable deposits ranging from porous sands and gravel to very impermeable
glacial till. Between five and 100 feet of glacial till covers most of the upper plateaus. A
surface layer of about three feet of looser weathered material forms the surface soils.
Certain areas in the UGA, that have been indicated by as 100 year flood zones by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have organic and peat soils that are
poorly drained.

The natural stormwater drainage system allows runoff to be dispensed into Wagleys Creek,
the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers, and a variety of wetlands on the valley floors and plateau.
Sultan maps indicate portions of the areas along Wagleys Creek, and the Sultan and
Skykomish Rivers are prone to the 100-year flood. The surface water management plan
has categorized four broad drainage zones:
       Central Business District – draining into the Sultan and Skokomish Rivers,
       Northern Basin – draining into the Sultan River,
       Western Basin – draining into the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers, and
       Eastern Basin – draining into the northern tributaries of Wagleys Creek and then into
       the Skykomish River.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 126
Capital Facilities
     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                                 CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES


The City’s existing stormwater system has concrete, PVC, and ADS pipe with underground
vaults, detention ponds, and underground infiltration galleries. It is extended into
developing areas as part of project approval. Some of the detention ponds are homeowner
owned and maintained. These are controlled through CC&R’s12. The City maintains three
detention ponds, 15 infiltration trenches, 592 inlets and five outlets.

Sultan captures and releases stormwater within some portions of the older developed areas
in the Sultan River valley. Stormwater runoff from impervious areas is collected through
catch basins and conveyed though short collection runs varying in size. Most of the
collection runs are generally 12-inch diameter storm drainpipes with stretches that range
from 50 to 700 feet from catch to outfall into the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers.

The downtown business district system carries pollutants washed off rooftops, sidewalks,
streets, and other urban surfaces. The downtown business district system was designed in
accordance with the Snohomish County Drainage Ordinance to accommodate a ten year,
24-hour design storm event for sub-basins of less than 50 acres, and a 25-year storm event
for larger sub-basins.

The downtown stormwater conveyance system interconnects with the City’s sanitary sewer
in two locations. The combined systems results in stormwater being unnecessarily treated
in the wastewater treatment plant during heavy storm periods causing a discharge of
untreated sewage into the Sultan and Skykomish Rivers. The City is currently implementing
a series of projects to separate the cross-connections and reduce stormwater inflow and
infiltration accordingly.

In the City’s residential areas, surface water conveyance systems have been constructed by
the City and required of residential developers to provide a level of flood protection in the
newer residential areas in the Sultan River valley and on the plateau. The residential
systems consist of catch basins, culverts, ditches, and pipelines as well as
retention/detention ponds. Much of the residential drainage is “informal” resulting in
overland flow to the nearest down-slope watercourse. The residential systems carry typical
urban surface pollutants through a series of ditches that provide some biofiltration.




12
     Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which are recorded on the title of the property and can be
     enforced through civil, rather than regulatory means.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                    Page 127
Capital Facilities
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Future Conditions and Stormwater Protections

The City has identified various surface water management challenges as growth and
development approach 2025 targets (see Figure VIII-3: Comprehensive Storm System).
These challenges vary from basin to basin throughout the City. The Central Business
District is highly developed and future development within the basin will not change the
characteristics of the basin a great extent. The Eastern, Western and Northern Basins,
however, are still relatively undeveloped and future growth is anticipated as a result of
increased area of impervious and pollution generating surfaces that are primarily associated
with residential development.      To mitigate the impacts of these changes, future
developments will be required to provide water quality and flow attenuation measures as
outlined in the current DOE Stormwater Manual. The City’s Ordinance automatically adopts
the most recent stormwater manual.

A Surface Water Management Plan was developed for the City of Sultan in 2002 with
adoption in 2006. This Plan consists of a review of existing conditions that affect surface
water flow and quality within the City of Sultan to establish a basis for surface water quality
management within the City. The Plan discusses the existing regulatory environment within
which the City operates along with City’s present surface water management efforts. The
City of Sultan adopts the latest Department of Ecology Stormwater standards so that it is
always current with DOE regulations.

The City is proposing policies to promote “bio-swales” (vegetated drainage channels) into
future drainage facilities to remove these pollutants prior to their discharge to receiving
waters. The City has existing ordinances to control and enforce against illegal discharges.
In addition, City review of designs for commercial and industrial facilities can determine the
need for and require increased pollution control facilities in new construction. This will be
especially important as the Sultan Industrial Park develops. There have been suggestions
that more active patrols of watershed areas occur to continually monitor discharge
violations. This would potentially conflict with other law enforcement activities however.

The 2006 Plan recommends the formation of a Storm Water Utility to enable on-going
maintenance activities, financial accounting and organizational improvements.            The
formation of the Storm Water Utility would also provide funding for capital equipment
improvement projects. Based on this study, the City is currently working toward the
formation and approval of a surface water utility. Action on Utility formation is expected in
2007.

One of the primary goals of the Surface Water Management Plan is to develop a long-term
municipal government mechanism to manage surface water in a way that water quality is
preserved, and localized flooding and erosion problems are reduced. To achieve this goal,
a stormwater ordinance and stormwater utility are being created.

In addition to the ongoing street sweeping efforts that remove a bulk of the sediment
heading towards the storm drains, Sultan’s stormwater system has an extensive number of
facilities to maintain, keep operating and remove sediment accumulation. These facilities
range from common catch basins and manholes to detention ponds, infiltration facilities and
water level spreaders. Maintenance appears adequate, but could require additional
attention to increase their functionality.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 128
Capital Facilities
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                             CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Some drainage improvements have been included on the Transportation Improvement Plan
(see Table V-9 in Chapter V - Transportation). Specific improvements include the East
Main culvert replacement at 11th Street and the 1st Street drainage and resurfacing
projects. It can also be assumed that road; parks and similar capital projects to be
developed in the City will include drainage improvements in their design.

The current budget for surface water quality management activities at the City is included in
general fund activities of the City. The priorities are established by the City Council, in
discussion with Public Works Department staff. Previous budgeting activities have been
adequate to meet the department requests but inadequate to meet the Puget Sound Water
Quality Action Plan “guidelines”. Current estimated expenditures are presented in Table
VIII-2 (found later in this chapter).

Solid Waste Services

In accordance with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70.95, all counties,
cities, and towns must plan for and dispose of solid waste. Each county, in cooperation with
the various cities located within the county, must prepare and implement a coordinated and
comprehensive solid waste management plan. In July 1989, the Washington State
legislature enacted the Waste Not Washington Act (ESHB 1671) requiring counties to
prepare and implement waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) programs. ESHB 1671 also
authorized counties to set minimum levels-of-service, to contract for the collection of
recyclable materials, and to impose collection fees.

In response to the Waste Not Washington Act, Snohomish County amended local disposal
agreements in 1992 to require cities (including Sultan) to collect or have a private contractor
collect solid waste within the City's corporate limits; dispose of all collected waste at county-
designated landfill sites and implement programs to provide recycling services.

Garbage collection is not a mandatory requirement in the unincorporated areas although, in
accordance with county requirements, the hauling companies must provide the service to
parties who are interested in paying for it. Recycling and yard waste collection services are
also voluntary in the unincorporated areas but are available to all residents living on a
drivable road.

Snohomish County and the other smaller cities and towns dispose of waste through the
county's disposal system. The unincorporated areas of the county are provided collection
services by certified haulers for the Sultan UGA. The certified haulers are regulated by the
Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) and have designated
franchise districts.

Single-family residential areas are provided curbside recycling and yard waste collection
services; multifamily projects are provided curbside recycling services only. Residents may
also dispose of recycling materials at drop-off sites provided by the franchise hauler or
central drop boxes. Residents may also dispose of recyclable materials at a number of
private buy-back recycling centers and processors who operate in the county. Between 20-
23% of all county residents dispose of solid wastes by composting, recycling, farming
practices or other means.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 130
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Solid waste services are provided in the Sultan area by a private franchise granted through
the Washington State Utilities & Transportation Commission (UTC). The Snohomish
County solid waste transfer station is located at 33014 Cemetery Road.

Transportation

The City of Sultan is served by a wide variety of transportation facilities, ranging from bike
and pedestrian trails to a network of arterial and secondary roads, local streets and US-2.
The City is primarily responsible for the construction and maintenance of streets, signage
and trails within its city limits while the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) is responsible for construction and maintenance along US-2.                     Public
transportation facilities are operated by Snohomish County Community Transit, which
provides transit and van services within Snohomish County including service on US-2
between Everett, Monroe, Sultan, Startup, and Gold Bar. Community Transit services the
Sultan area from a park-an-ride lot located on the south side of US-2 west of 11th Street and
bus stops within the US-2 corridor and transit loading facilities within the community.

Chapter V contains extensive analysis of the current and future transportation system in and
around Sultan. The specific road improvements necessary to maintain the “concurrency”
standards required by the Growth Management Act are prioritized and listed below.

The financial element in the Transportation Plan establishes how transportation
improvements can be funded over the planning horizon year 2025. The plan includes four
sections (all of which are discussed in detail in the Transportation Plan):
      Cost estimates of recommended City transportation projects,
      Revenue sources,
      Transportation mitigation payment system
      Transportation funding capability

Planning level cost estimates for each of the recommended City transportation improvement
projects were prepared and analyze the cost of constructing the improvements, right-of–way
purchase, project design costs, environmental costs and mitigation. The capital facilities
tables below provide the planning level cost estimates for the recommended 2007 – 2025
transportation improvements.

Transportation Mitigation Fees

Communities are allowed to assess traffic mitigation fees on new development to offset the
impact of road improvements on local budgets. The City of Sultan currently has an adopted
traffic impact fee rate of $1,837 for each PM (afternoon) peak hour trip generated from new
development to provide funding for construction of growth-related transportation
improvements. The City’s traffic impact fee was established in 1995 (SMC 16.112.040).
The existing City traffic impact fee rate is forecasted to generate $5,788,000 in
transportation revenues between 2007 and 2025.

As part of revising the City’s Transportation Element in 2007, a review was conducted on
the current traffic impact fee rate to determine if revisions were necessary based on
information provided in the revised Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 131
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

The review included the revised recommended transportation project list and updated
project costs. The review also included the amount of additional traffic forecasted between
2007 and 2025 based on new development proposed in the City’s 2025 Future Land Use
Plan - an additional 3,151 new vehicle trips.

Based on the revised transportation element information, an updated Sultan traffic impact
fee rate of between $7,021 and $12,924 has been recommended. This range is expected
to generate between $22,242,500 and $40,722,500 in traffic impact fees to help pay a
portion of the growth-related transportation project costs associated with the additional land
use development in the City’s adopted 2025 Future Land Use Plan.

Parks & Recreation Facilities

The City of Sultan, Sultan School District and the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife have developed a variety of park, recreation and open space facilities within the
City. In addition, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the US
Forest Service provide a wide variety of back country campgrounds, hiking trails, fishing
lakes, and other outdoor recreational activities on state and national forest lands within the
immediate surrounding area.

Public parks and recreational facilities owned and operated by the City of Sultan include
Osprey Park, Reese Park, River Park, Roadside Park, Cemetery Park, and Sportsman
Park. For more detailed parks and recreation information, refer to the Parks and Recreation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter VII). As part of the Comprehensive Plan
update, the levels of service for parks contained in that section were reviewed and have
been incorporated into the capital facilities recommendations for the City and UGA.


GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Sultan was incorporated in 1905. It is governed by a Mayor-Council (7-member) form of
government with an appointed City Administrator. Sultan is a full-service city providing
police, finance, public works, building, planning, grant development, and general
governmental administrative services. City government is organized into six departments
with 19 staff including an appointed City Administrator, Police Chief, Clerk Treasurer, Public
Works Director, Building Official, Planning Director, and Grants Coordinator, but excluding
police officers and utility crews.

Sultan Police Department

The Sultan Police Department, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, and the Washington
State Patrol provide police and security services within the Sultan UGA. The police
department provides 24-hour, 365-day a year police services within Sultan’s corporate
limits. The Department is organized into a field operations unit with rotating patrol officers
and a support unit providing investigations.        Department activity includes criminal
investigations, traffic enforcement, animal control, business checks, lost and found, and
citizen assistance. Response times within the corporate limits is 1-2 minutes for
emergencies and under 10 minutes for non-emergencies. The Snohomish County Sheriff's
Office and the Washington State Patrol provide personnel and bomb disposal services for

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 132
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) operations. The department’s service calls have
increased significantly in recent years from 7,138 calls in 1996 to 13,496 calls in the year
2,000 or by 89% over this time period.

The department is currently staffed with nine full-time officers (1.8 officers per 1000
residents), and support staff. The department currently maintains a level-of-service (LOS)
of 2.6 uniformed commissioned officers per 1,000 residents within Sultan corporate limits.
By comparison, the average number of officers per 1,000 persons is 1.7 officers in
Washington State cities between 50,000 and 100,000 populations, and 2.1 officers per
1,000 persons on a national basis. In 2007, Council will be reviewing its police LOS and
making a decision on LOS based on budget forecasts and community input.

City of Sultan Facilities

General government facilities owned by the City of Sultan include Old City Hall, the Public
Works Complex, the Police building, the Community Center/City Hall/Library, the Post
Office and Museum building, and the new Tourist Information Center. Library services are
provided by Sno-Isle County Library District located in Community Center building. Figure
VIII-3: General Government Facilities presents the location of each facility in Sultan.

Previous City administration functions were located in a 5.0-acre property at 703 and 707
1st Street adjacent to Osprey Park. The complex housed the Council chambers,
administrative offices, and public works functions including a 6,000 square foot main shop,
2,700 square foot back bay, 3,300 square foot main garage, 300 square foot dog kennel,
350 square foot gas house, and 1,200 square foot community meeting room (former
Council Chambers). The complex is currently occupied by the Sultan Food Bank and
storage facilities. The Sultan Boys and Girls Club located at 705 and 709 1st Street
occupies two buildings, Osprey Park Restrooms and the Public Works Superintendent’s
office. The complex including the Public Works yard is adjacent and south of Osprey Park.

In 2002, the current administration building was built at 319 Main Street as a joint venture
with the Sno-Isle Library District. The Center accommodates 11 City employees, including
the Mayor, City Administration, Finance/City Clerk, Planning, Building, Engineering,
Economic Development/Grants, Public Works Administration and Utility Billing departments.
The first floor houses the City Council Chambers, also used as a multi purpose community
room, and the Sno-Isle Library. The City is also considering the option of remodeling the
second floor to create additional office space and a conference room. The second story of
the building is designed to be expanded both to the North and West. The 2-story structure
was specially designed to provide all floors above the 100-year floodplain elevation.

The existing Public Works yard is located 703 1st Street behind the Old City Hall complex.
The site is located within the potential evacuation zone of the Henry M. Jackson Dam
collapse on Spada Lake reservoir. The facility provides for vehicle maintenance and
parking, vehicle, equipment, and material storage, maintenance and storage buildings and
an animal shelter. The present location could render the facility unusable during a flood,
dam collapse or other emergency.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 133
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

                        Figure VIII-4: General Government Facilities




The existing Public Works Complex is under consideration for a potential relocation to a
more centralized site to eliminate the potential flood, and dam collapse and also to more
efficiently serve the expanding community. A site analysis and needs study is contemplated
for completion in 2008. The City proposes a $400,000 expenditure for development on
City-owned property adjacent to the cemetery.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                         Page 134
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

The Sultan Police Department is located at 513 Main Street near the center of the City. The
2,500 square foot building is furnished with an armory, evidence storage, property and
interim storage, booking and temporary holding facilities, squad room, interview and
interrogation rooms, records storage, patrol lockers, and other supporting space.

The Police Station building is located out of the 100-year floodway, but within the 100-year
floodplain and within the potential evacuation zone for the Jackson Dam on Spada Lake
reservoir. The building is located near US-2 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Railroad tracks and is thereby exposed to hazardous materials spills or emergency
occurrences due to freight or trucking accidents. The present location could render the
facility unusable during a flood, dam collapse, hazardous materials spill, or other
emergency. A new building, located on the plateau is recommended by the 2004
Comprehensive Plan Update.

The department maintains interim holding and interrogation cells at the station. Jail
services are contracted from the Snohomish County Public Safety Department in downtown
Everett. Other contracted services include vehicle maintenance, radio repair, radar repair
and calibration, weapons maintenance and repair, chaplain services, medical, psychological
and polygraph services.

Non-City Facilities

Fire District No. 5

Fire protection in Sultan is provided by Snohomish County Fire District 5 and is neither
owned nor operated by the City. Fire District #5 provides fire prevention and response
services for a 71 square mile area with a population of 9,500 persons including the City and
UGA. The District has mutual aid agreements with the Everett Fire Department and all of
the other fire districts within Snohomish County.

The District provides fire suppression, hazardous materials first response, rescue and
emergency medical services including BLS transport. An advanced life support service is
provided by contract with Monroe Fire District #3.

The Fire Station is located at 304 Alder adjacent to the downtown district. The District
employs two full-time firefighters, 30 volunteers, and two part-time support staff. The station
provides space for two fire engines, one water tender, one brush truck, and two aid cars.
The District leases the fire station from the City.

Like the Police Station, the Fire Station building is located out of the 100-year floodway, but
within the 100-year floodplain and within the potential evacuation zone of the Jackson Dam
on Spada Lake reservoir. The building is located near US-2 and the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad tracks and is exposed to any possible hazardous materials spills
or emergency occurrences due to freight or trucking accidents. The present location could
render the facility unusable during a flood, hazardous materials spill, or other emergency.

The District is assigned a “6” rating by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau on
a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is optimum and 10 is no fire service at all. Its current Building
Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) is “3” for residential and “3” for commercial.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 135
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                              CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

The NFIP/CRS rating is 8. The ratings are based on the water supply system, fire
department staff and equipment, fire alarm system, fire protection program, building code
enforcement program, and structural conditions of buildings. Ratings affect insurance rates
for homeowners and businesses. District 5 ratings reflect an unlimited water supply and the
use of trained permanent and volunteer staff.

In 2006, the Fire District acquired approximately seven acres of property on US-2 located
outside the 100-year flood plain for a new facility. The schedule for development of the new
site has not been determined at this time.

Visitor Information Center

In 2004, the City acquired a building located at 320 Main Street directly across the street
from the Community Center for the development of a Visitor Information Center. The 1,736
square foot building was originally constructed in 1926 for use as a Bank. Recently the
building was remodeled and seismically upgraded for use as a retail and personnel services
facility. The conversion of the building into a Visitor Information Center was competed in
the summer of 2005 with a formal dedication on October 25 of 2005. Final additions to the
building were completed in early 2006.

Library Services

Sno-Isle Library District operates the Sultan Facility for residents of Sultan on a contract
basis. The District provides library services to residents of Island and Snohomish County in
a service area covering 2,310 square miles with a population over 656,600 persons. The
library system provides free services to anyone living within the unincorporated counties, as
well as residents of those communities that are annexed to the District or contract with the
District for library services. The District’s mission is to provide open and equal access to an
array of library services and cultural and educational resources.

Branch or community facilities vary up to 10,000 square feet in the larger service areas.
Regional library facilities are generally about 10,000 to 15,000 square feet in size. System
library facilities are generally 20,000 square feet or more in size. Library District
headquarters are located in Marysville.

Sno-Isle Library District operates the Sultan facility for residents of the Sultan School District
on a contract basis. The Sultan facility is a new community library of about 8,000 square
feet located on the ground floor of City Hall and the community meeting room building 319
Main Street. The library was constructed to provide sufficient space for an estimated
population demand of 12,600 persons.

The District provides a full range of services including reference and children’s
programming in community libraries in 20 communities including Sultan, a bookmobile, and
four outreach vans. The libraries provide books, audio and video cassettes, compact discs,
and magazines.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                               Page 136
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Sultan School District Facilities

The Sultan School District #311 serves a population of approximately 2,171 (October 2005)
students in kindergarten through grade 12. The District includes the cities of Sultan and
Gold Bar, as well as the unincorporated rural area. The District has two elementary schools
(grades K-5), one middle school (grades 6-8) and one high school (grades 9-12). Within the
Sultan UGA the District operates Sultan Elementary at 501 Date Street, Sultan Middle
School at 301 High Street and Sultan High School at 13715 310th Avenue SE.

The District projects a total of 461 unhoused students in 2011. That is, there will be 461
more students attending school than the District’s educational standards require space for.
These students will of course be served; however, the optimal class size will be exceeded.

The District plans to construct a second middle school, an addition to the current high
school and to reorganize the grade span groupings at the elementary and middle school
levels. To assist in achieving its standard, the District currently assesses impact fees on
new development totaling $2,878 for single-family houses and $1,931 for two-bedroom or
larger apartments.

The District adopted a capital facilities plan on August 28, 2006 outlining the basis for its
construction program and fees. It is adopted by reference in this Comprehensive Plan.

Puget Sound Energy (PSE)

Puget Sound Energy (PSE – formerly Washington Natural Gas or WNG) is certified by the
Washington State Utilities and Trade Commission (U&TC) to supply natural gas to Lewis,
Thurston, Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties. The investor-owned utility company
provides natural gas service to over 450,000 customers within these five counties. Service
is provided on request where the customer is willing to pay for it and the company
determines service extension will be profitable.

Natural gas is not considered an essential service and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is not
mandated to provide service where the service will be unprofitable. However, due to the
relative cost savings of natural gas over electricity, the fuel is the preferred choice of over
99% of the households located within the company's service area.

Northwest Pipeline Corporation supplies natural gas to PSE. The corporation stores natural
gas in an injected underground aquifer at Jackson Prairie Gas Storage Field south of
Chehalis and in a liquefied container complex in Plymouth, Washington. Gas is supplied to
PSE and the region from a 26 and 30-inch high pressure 300 to 800 pounds per square
inch (psi) transmission line located within a north-south easement corridor that extends
across and supplies the five county service area. The easement corridor is located just east
of the developed urban corridors in an alignment through Pierce and King Counties past
Frederickson, Sumner, Auburn, Issaquah, and Duvall into Snohomish County.

Local supply lines are located in public road rights-of-way in a series of supply networks that
cover the Sultan UGA. PSE provides natural gas to customers in the Sultan UGA from the
4-inch Grotto Line located north of the City, then south along Trout Farm Road to the gate
station located north of the Public Works Yard on 1st Street.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 137
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Electric Power

The Sultan UGA is located in the Puget Sound Region electric system - an area that
extends from Chehalis to the Canadian border, and from the Cascades to the Olympic
Peninsula. Power transmission facilities within the Puget Sound Region are owned and
operated by a variety of agencies including public utility districts, municipalities, investor-
owned companies, cooperatives, rural electrification associations (REA's), and federally-
controlled utilities such as the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The Snohomish
County Public Utilities District (PUD) provides power within the local area.

The various utility transmission facilities are interconnected to provide cross system supply,
improve reliability, and reduce operating costs.           Power is transferred across this
interconnected system to supply each company's local requirements. The Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) is the major power supplier within the Puget Sound Region
electric system. BPA markets power generated at federally operated hydroelectric dams to
local companies like Snohomish County PUD using the BPA transmission system. BPA
also sells power to other users within and beyond the Puget Sound Region service area
when there is excess available by season or during emergencies.

Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is responsible for providing power services within a nine-county
service territory in Western Washington. PSE presently services more than 750,000
residential, commercial, and industrial customers within this service area, of which 200,000
were added within the past ten years. PSE does not have generating facilities within
Snohomish County or provide service to customers of the Sultan UGA.

PSE owns and operates a number of transmission lines that traverse the UGA including the
McKenzie-Beverly 115 kV line that extends across the UGA parallel to the BNSF railroad
tracks. This line transports power into the Puget Sound region from the generation source
located at the Columbia River. Due to energy forecast requirements, this line may be
upgraded to 230 kV capacity to cooperatively benefit all electric utilities operating west of
the Cascades by improving voltage stability.

Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) supplies customers within Sultan and the
surrounding county area. The 230 kV lines are reduced or stepped-down again for
distribution to local users on 115 kV lines at the transmission sites and by a series of
substations or transformers located within local service areas.

Snohomish County PUD’s 28 MVA substation is located outside of Sultan city limits on the
south side of US-2. The substation is not being used to capacity, but may be not be of
capacity to support the UGA population at build-out.

Local power companies hope to meet 20% of future projected demand with conservation
and 80% with new supply facilities. PSE and Snohomish County PUD provide a variety of
power conservation programs including model building codes for new home construction,
weatherization grants and loans, home energy audits, water heater insulation kits, energy
saving shower faucets, and grants to businesses for energy saving improvements.

BPA developed similar energy conservation programs including model building codes and
model conservation standards. BPA offers rate incentives through the utility companies for

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                             Page 138
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

builders who construct energy conserving housing products that conform to the model
building standards.

The cost of locating major power distribution lines underground is usually equal to the new
construction costs for overhead lines; PSE and Snohomish County PUD have constructed
new lines underground as a consequence. The cost of locating local 115 kV service lines
underground, however, can be cost prohibitive and the companies consider it to be a
nonstandard service to be reimbursed by the customer.

Verizon Telephone

Telephone, security alarm circuits, and data transmittal services are provided throughout
the Sultan UGA by Verizon [a private for-profit corporation regulated by the Washington
Utilities & Transportation Commission (WUTC) in accordance with Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 480-120]. Verizon also operates subject to various federal laws
and regulations administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Verizon provides telecommunications services throughout Snohomish County. Most of the
company's communications lines are collocated with electric power facilities using aerial
and underground alignments. The main feed line for Sultan runs along Main Street from the
Central Office located at Main Street.

Cellular Systems

Cellular telephones use a series of transmission facilities that project FM radio signals for
conversations and data to mobile/portable telephone users. The cellular transmitting and
receiving equipment and microwave relays are usually mounted on monopole or lattice
towers with ground-mounted switching equipment.             A chain-link enclosed cellular
transmission site may range in size from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet. Cellular transmission
sites emit less than 100 watts of electricity.

Digital microwave and conventional telephone services connect cellular sites to a mobile
telephone switching office (MTSO). The mobile telephone switching offices (MTSO) control
all switching including the transfer of conversations or data transmittal from one site to
another as the mobile phone user travels through the service system. Transmission cells
cover hexagonal-shaped service areas to maximize coverage while minimizing signal
overlay or interference with other transmission cells.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has licensed Cellular One and Qwest to
provide cellular service within the Puget Sound area. The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) limits each transmission cell to 866 channels (one call conducts one
telephone call per channel), which are divided between the two companies.

Verizon, Voice Stream, Nextel, Sprint, and Qwest provide local cellular service within the
Sultan UGA. The companies operate a cellular transmission site from a tower facility
located in the Sultan area.

Under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter
36.70A), Sultan will work with the provider companies on the advance identification of major

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 139
Capital Facilities and Public Services
           PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                    AUGUST 2007
                                                                      CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

       switching stations, truck and distribution lines, and other supporting improvements.
       Advance planning efforts will ensure that these facilities are properly sited and compatible
       with long-range development efforts.

       Capital Facility Plan

       The following tables (Table VIII-1 and VIII-2) show the 6-year and 20-year plans for
       infrastructure in the City of Sultan UGA. Cost estimates are in 2006 dollars and were
       developed by City Staff and the consulting engineers for the respective capital elements.
                           Table VIII-1: 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan Summary
                                                                                                          6-Year
Element                                    2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013      Total
Water Facilities                            $.030    $.600    $.625   $1.100   $1.150    1.200    $.750      $5.530
Sewer Facilities                           $1.707    $.267    $.886   $1.541             $.755   $1.644      $6.780
Surface Water Management                                                                                      $.500
Transportation                                       $.105    $.555     .614   $1.07     $.815   $1.495      $9.654
Parks and Recreation                                                                                         $7.350
General Government Facilities                       $0.100            $0.400                                  $.500
Totals (All amounts are in $MIL)          $1.879    $1.607   $9.060   $3.990   $2.520   $2.770   $3.889   $24.276




       SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                  Page 140
       Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                                  CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

                                                                    Table VIII-2: City of Sultan Capital Facilities Plan ($ Millions) 2007-2012

                                                                                                  2007        2008        2009       2010         2011     2012      2013      2014-2025    Total 6-Year
                                                                                                 Budget     Projected                                                                           Cost
                                              SEWER
        Revenue
                                                                   2007 Carry Forward Funds         $.562                                                                        $33.786
        PWTF Draws                                                                                 $1.500       $.500                                                           $186.499
        General Facilities Charges (GFCs)                                                                                   $.340       $.438                         $1.005
        Developer Contributions
        Revenue Bond Proceeds                                                                                                          $.650
                                                                      Total Capital Resources      $2.094       $.756      $1.158     $1.745       $.666   $1.289     $2.294
         CIP Funded Expenditures
        WWTP 2007 (Under Const.)                                                                  $1.553
        Annual I&I Rehab. (Under Const.)                                                           $.155
        River Crossing 12" Force Main                                                                           $.268
        1st Ave Extension/Gohr Rd to South High                                                                             $.887
        339th Ave SE/132nd to north of US-2                                                                                             $.551
        SE 132nd St./Sultan Basin Rd to 339th (Rice Rd)                                                                                 $.991
        4th St./north to Birch to High                                                                                                                      $.756
        7th St./Murphy St. to High St                                                                                                                                  $.305
        US-2 East/West of 4th                                                                                                                                         $1.400
                     The following project are part of the City of Sultan's long-term projects 2014-2025
        SW-2 Sludge Improvements                                                                                                                                                 $.600
        SW-4 Pump Station #1 upgrades                                                                                                                                           $.250
        SW-13 Alder St/5th St. to Main St.                                                                                                                                       $.288
        SW-22(R) Gohr Rd Extension/1st Ave to north of 129th                                                                                                                    $.864
        SW-24(F) Dryer Rd/Foundary Dr to US-2                                                                                                                                    $.744
        SW-25(N) 330th/132nd LID-97                                                                                                                                             $1.100
        SW-26(O) 135th-132nd/130th to 339th (Rice Rd.)                                                                                                                           $.352
        SW-31(F) Dryer Rd Pump Station #4                                                                                                                                        $.500
        SW-32 124th Sultan Basin Rd to Trout Farm                                                                                                                               $1.350
        SW-33 Sultan Basin Rd 132nd north to 124th                                                                                                                              $.450
        SW-34 Sultan Basin Rd 139th north to 132nd                                                                                                                              $.500
        SW-35 Drainage Basin Study-City/County Council joint project                                                                                                            $.070
                                                                                    Total Sewer $1.707       $.267        $.886     $1.541                 $.755     $1.644     $7.068         $6.780
                                                                Total Funded CIP Expenditures     $1.708        $.268       $.887     $1.542                 $.756     $1.705
                                                                         Ending Cash Balance        $.386       $.488       $.271      $.203       $.666     $.533      $.590 $186.499
        Less: Min. Cap. Cont. Target Approx $200K                                                  $.200        $.200       $.200      $.201       $.201     $.208      $.239
        Balance After Policies Funded                                                               $.186       $.288       $.071      $.001       $.465     $.324      $.351




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                               Page 141
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                         CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

                                              WATER
        Revenue
                                                                  2007 Carry Forward Funds       $.084
          Beginning Cash Balance                                                                            $.883      $1.468    $2.042    $2.034    $1.836     $1.190 $183.574
          Revenue:
               Contributions                                                                     $.333     $1.161      $1.145    $1.009     $.841     $.420      $.168   $48.573
               Grants
               Interest (1)                                                                                 $.024       $.054     $.084     $.111     $.135      $.148    $4.589
               Transfers In                                                                      $.541
        Total Revenue                                                                            $.874     $1.185      $1.199    $1.092     $.951     $.555      $.317 $53.163
                                                                    Total Capital Resources      $.958     $2.068      $2.667    $3.134    $2.986    $2.390     $1.507 $236.737
          CIP Funded Expenditures
        Sultan River Crossing                                                                    $.025      $.100       $.100
        High School Loop                                                                                                $.025     $.100     $.100
        Easement/Date St to Alder                                                                                                           $.050     $.100
        High level reservoir and transmission line                                               $.050      $.500       $.500    $1.000    $1.000    $1.000      $.450
        Trout Farm Rd/WWTP south to Morris property                                                                                                   $.100      $.100
        US2/3rd to 6th & connecting to Main St.                                                                                                                  $.200
                                                                         The following projects depend on grant funding availability.
                                         They are included in the six-year plan with estimated project cost but are not included in the total water projects budget.
        W-13 Trout Farm Road (to Morris property) 1st Ave/High to Trout Farm Road
        W-14 Trout Farm Road Extended (north of Morris property)
        W-12 US-2 west of river/Marcus to Old Owen
        W-18 US-2 East/west of 4th                                                                                                                                                     $.475
                   The following projects are part of the City of Sultan's long term projects 2014-2025                                                                               $.200
        W-9 East Main St/ US-2 to Foundary St                                                                                                                              $.317      $.450
        W-9a US-2/Main St to East Main                                                                                                                                     $.085      $1.100
        W-28 Sultan Basin Rd to Downtown via Walburn Rd                                                                                                                    $.105
        W-31Sultan Basin Rd to Downtown via 132nd Ave                                                                                                                      $.225
        W-33 Rice Rd/132nd to 124th                                                                                                                                        $.369
        W-34 124th Ave/SBR to Rice Rd                                                                                                                                      $.792
        W-38 327th/132nd-124th                                                                                                                                             $.396
        W-40a Trout Farm Rd from 307th to 1st St                                                                                                                           $.375
        W-40b Trout Farm Rd from 307th to 1st St Park                                                                                                                      $.270
        W-40c Trout Farm Rd from 15th St. to UGA                                                                                                                           $.300
        W-40d Trout Farm Rd from 125th St. to UGA                                                                                                                          $.300
        W-41 330th Ave Extension/ US-2 to 132nd Ave                                                                                                                        $.600
        W-39 East west Roadway 127th/ Sultan Basin Rd to Rice Rd                                                                                                           $.792
        W-2 7th St./Main St. to Alder                                                                                                                                      $.077
        W-3 3rd St/Main St. to High St.                                                                                                                                    $.365
        W-6 US-2/ Sultan Basin Rd to Cascade View Dr                                                                                                                       $.412
        W-16 Birch St./Second St to 5th St. Phase II                                                                                                                       $.210
        W-17 2nd St./Main to Birch                                                                                                                                         $.052
        W-18 Alder St./3rd St to 8th St.                                                                                                                                   $.090
        W-19 Cedar St/1st St. to 5th St                                                                                                                                    $.170
        W-20 5th St/Alder to Birch                                                                                                                                         $.090
        W-23 Gohr Rd/Wisteria Ave to north Park                                                                                                                            $.157
        W-27 Miscellaneous asbestos cement pipe replacement                                                                                                                $.709
        W-30 1st Ave/Trout Farm Rd to 302nd SE                                                                                                                             $.162

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                           Page 142
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                         CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

        W-24 Old Owen Rd/US-2 to Mobile Home Park                                                                                                                         $.286
        Other Water Projects
        Engineering Services
                                                             Total Funded CIP Expenditures      $.075      $.600       $.625    $1.100   $1.150    $1.200      $.750
                                                                     Ending Cash Balance        $.883     $1.468      $2.042    $2.034   $1.836    $1.190      $.757 $236.737
                                                                                                                                                                                  Total 6-Year Cost
                                         Transportation                                       2007       2008        2009      2010      2011      2012      2013       2014-
                                                                                                                                                                        2025
        T-61 6th St Overlay                                                                             $.040        $.360                                             $1.100                $.400
        T-45 Alder St Improvements                                                                                   $.050     $.300     $.300                                               $.650
        T-46 Date Avenue Traffic Calming                                                                                       $.024     $.100                                               $.124
        T-40 US-2/Rice Road Intersection                                                                             $.050     $.150     $.500     $.500     $.200                          $1.400
        T-44 Pine St Extension                                                                                                           $.075     $.075     $.600                           $.750
        T-35 Cascade View Dr Realignment                                                                                                                     $.050      $.450                $.050
        T-43 Walburn Rd Re-routing                                                                                                                 $.050     $.050     $1.150                $.100
        T-34 US-2 downtown limited access                                                                                                                    $.050     Awaiting              $.050
                                                                                                                                                                       WSDOT
                                                                                                                                                                       estimate
        NM-3 Side walk spot improvements                                                                 $.040               $.045                 $.045                                     $.130
        NM-1 East Main St Trail                                                                                                                    $.050     $.450                           $.500
        NM-4 Sidewalk Enhancement                                                                        $.025     $.025     $.025      $.025      $.025     $.025       $.160               $.150
        NM-2 Connector Trails                                                                                      $.070     $.070      $.070     $.070      $.070       $.400               $.350
        T-31a New 330th Ave Arterial                                                                                                                                                        $2.500
        T-31b New 330th Ave Arterial                                                                                                                                                        $2.500
        The following projects depend on grant funding availability. They are included in the six-year plan with estimated project cost but are not included in the total water projects budget.
        T-38 1st St Reconstruction                                                                                                                                                          $2.500
        T-36 138th St Extension                                                                                                                                                             $2.530
        T-47 Trout Farm Rd Reconstruction                                                                                                                                                   $9.050
        T-26 New North Industrial Park Collector                                                                                                                                           $15.510
        T-55 Industrial Park Rail Spur                                                                                                                                                      $1.000
        T-33 229th Ave Extension/Highland Ave Extension                                                                                                                                     $2.720
        T-41 Rice Rd (339th Ave) Reconstruction                                                                                                                                             $8.350
        NM-5 US-2 Multi-purpose trail                                                                                                                                                       $1.672
        NM-6 Willow Bryant Trail                                                                                                                                                             $.390
        NM-7 High/Kessler/140th Trail                                                                                                                                                        $.887
        The following project are part of the City of Sultan's long term projects 2014-2025
        T-51 3rd St Reconstruction                                                                                                                                       $1.500
        T-42 Sultan Basin Rd Reconstruction Phase IV                                                                                                                     $9.140
        T-57 132nd Ave Arterial Extension                                                                                                                               $17.480
        T-59 US-2/ 1st Ave Interchange                                                                                                                                   $6.470
        T-24 New East/west collector                                                                                                                                    $11.040
        T-27 East Main St Rd Extension                                                                                                                                   $2.000
        T-28 Dyer Skywall Emergency Access                                                                                                                               $2.350
        T-29 Kessler Dr Extension                                                                                                                                        $8.630
        T-32a Rice Rd (339th) Extension                                                                                                                                  $2.942
        T-32b Rice Rd (339th) St Extension                                                                                                                             Cost TBD
        T-48 Gohr Rd Reconstruction                                                                                                                                      $4.200
        T-49 Gohr Rd Extension                                                                                                                                           $3.500
        T-52 8th St. Sidewalks                                                                                                                                            $.310
        T-53 10th St Railroad Crossing improvements                                                                                                                       $.100

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                          Page 143
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                              AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                                                                         CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

        T-58 132nd Ave Reconstruction                                                                                                                                  $11.100
        T-62 124th St SE Reconstruction Phase 1                                                                                                                         $5.500
        T-65 124th St Extension                                                                                                                                        $10.700
        NM-8 US-2 Pedestrian Over crossing                                                                                                                             $4.000
        See Table VIII-3 Comparison of Forecasted 2007-2025 Revenues and Projected
        Costs for an explanation of expected revenue sources
                                                                       Total Transportation               $.105       $.555      $.614     $1.07     $.815   $1.495    $100.962       $9.654
                                         Stormwater Utility                                   2007     2008         2009      2010       2011      2012       2013    2014-2025 Total 6-Year Cost
        T-56 East Main St Culvert Replacement at 11th St                                      $.050    $.050        $.050     $.050      $.050     $.050     $.050                    $.500
        The following projects depend on grant funding availability. They are included in
        the six-year plan with estimated project cost but are not included in the total
        stormwater utility projects budget.
         SWM-4 Trout Farm Rd 300' north of Gohr Rd                                                                                                                                    $.300
         SWM-5 134th St 150' east of Gohr Rd                                                                                                                                          $.300
         SWM-8 Downtown regional detention facility Engineering Report                                                                                                                $.250

         SWM-22 Rice Rd 300' south of 140th St SE                                                                                                                                     $1.200
                                                                         Total Stormwater     $.050    $.050       $.050      $.050      $.050     $.050     $.050                     $.500
                                         Parks and Recreation                                  2007     2008        2009       2010      2011      2012       2013    2014-2025 Total 6-Year Cost
         Plateau Neighborhood Parks                                                                                                                                                  $4.500
         Plateau Community Park                                                                                                                                                      $2.850
         Reese Park Improvements                                                                                                                                        $.090
         Neighborhood Parks                                                                                                                                             $1.600
         Sportsman Park Improvements                                                                                                                                    $.030
         Skate Board Park                                                                                                                                                $.030
         Expand Trail System                                                                                                                                             $.070
         Park 2                                                                                                                                                         $1.600
         Park 3                                                                                                                                                         $1.500
         Multipurpose Trails                                                                                                                                            $2.133
                                                                  Total Parks & Recreation                                                                              $7.050       $7.350
                                         General Government                                   2007     2008         2009      2010       2011      2012      2013     2014-2025 Total 6-Year Cost
        Public Works Complex                                                                                                  $.400                                                    $.400
        City Hall Expansion                                                                            $.100                                                                           $.100
        Police Department Relocation                                                                                                                                    $1.500
                                                                 Total General Government              $.100                  $.400                                     $1.500         $.500
                                               Subtotal                                       2007     2008         2009      2010       2011      2012      2013     2014-2025 Total 6-Year
                                                                                                                                                                                       Cost
        Water                                                                                 $.030    $.600        $.625     $1.100     $1.150    $1.200    $.750      $9.004        $5.530
        Sewer                                                                                 $1.707   $.267        $.886     $1.541               $.755     $1.644     $7.068        $6.780
        Stormwater                                                                                                                                                                     0.500
        Transportation                                                                                 $.105        $.555     $.614      $1.07     $.815     $1.495    $100.962       $9.654
        Parks and Recreation                                                                                                                                            $7.050        $7.350
        General Government                                                                             $.100                  $.400                                     $1.500         $.500
                                                Total                                         $1.879   $1.607      $2.566     $3.990     $2.520    $2.770    $3.889    $126.617     $24.276



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                         Page 144
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES



REASSESSMENT STRATEGY

GMA requires that provision should be made to reassess Plan elements periodically in light
of the evolving capital facilities plan. This is to determine if probable funding for capital
facilities is insufficient to meet existing needs. If a funding shortfall occurs, the Land Use
Element must be reassessed. Changes can then be made to rectify the shortfall either by
restricting land use development or by lowering the facility standard.

In the event that the City cannot fund the capital improvements needed to maintain required
service levels (as identified in the Capital Facilities Plan), then the City shall take one or a
combination of the four following actions:
1. Phasing of proposed developments that are consistent with the Land Use Element until
   such time that adequate resources can be identified to provide adequate capital facility
   improvements.
2. Reassessment of the City’s financing strategy to find additional opportunities. These
   could include federal and regional grants, loans, and funding programs; partnerships
   with Snohomish County or other service providers; or partnerships with the private
   sector.
3. Reassessment of the City’s adopted service standards to reflect service levels that can
   be maintained given known financial resources.
4. Reassessment of the Future Land Use Map as it affects the need for services.

For example, in order to provide necessary balance between the forecasted 2007 – 2025
transportation revenues and the costs of the recommended 2007 – 2025 transportation
projects, the City may need to reexamine its adopted Future 2025 Land Use Plan, review
the list of recommended transportation projects for possible project modifications or
deletions, and or pursue additional revenues. These are all potential methods for bringing
the Comprehensive Plan into balance with future available revenues.

Transportation Funding

Transportation funding capability was reviewed to determine the ability of the City to provide
adequate transportation revenues to meet the cost of providing the recommended
transportation improvement projects. Forecasted transportation revenue sources available
to the City between 2007 and 2025 include:
   Transportation grants based on a 15% grant funding rate,
   City traffic impact fees,
   Contributions from property owners and developers for required street frontage
   improvements equivalent to a two-lane local urban street,
   City Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) available to fund transportation,
   Anticipated other agency and entity participation in mutually beneficial transportation
   projects.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 145
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

The forecasted transportation revenues available to the City between 2007 and 2025 range
from $138,651,000 to $173,585,500, and when compared to the $154,985,500 in total cost
of recommended transportation projects, provide a transportation funding balance ranging
from a shortfall of -$16,334,500 to a possible surplus of $18,600,500. This range reflects
the calculation of future City impact fee revenues from their existing fee rate amount, to the
calculation with the recommended revisions to the fee rate as discussed in Table VIII-3.

Revising the traffic impact fee rate from $1,837 to $7,021 would generate an additional
$16,334,500. This is the difference between the forecasted 2007 – 2025 transportation
revenues and the costs of the recommended 2007 – 2025 transportation projects.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 146
Capital Facilities and Public Services
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

                                                                                                                                          AUGUST 2007
                                                                                                                        CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES


         Table VIII-3: Comparison of Forecasted 2007 – 2025 Transportation Revenues and Projected Costs



                                                               Forecast Based on          Forecast Based on
                                                               Existing City Impact Fee   Recommended City Impact Fee   Forecast Based on Recommended
           Revenue Source                                      Rate of $1,837**           Rate of $7,021**              City Impact Fee Rate of $12,924**

           Transportation Grants                                      $23,250,000                  $23,250,000                     $23,250,000

           Traffic Impact Fees                                        $5,788,000                   $22,122,500                     $40,722,500

           Required Street Frontage Improvement Revenues              $94,356,000                  $94,356,000                     $94,356,000

           City Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues                        $3,000,000                   $3,000,000                     $3,000,000

           Other Agency/entity Contributions                          $12,257,000                  $12,257,000                     $12,257,000

           Total Forecasted Revenues                                  $138,651,000                 $154,985,500                   $173,585,500

           Total Cost of Recommended Transportation Projects          $154,985,500                 $154,985,500                   $154,985,500

           Anticipated Transportation Funding Balance                 -$16,334,500                     $0                          $18,600,500




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                                                                                   Page 147
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES



GOALS AND POLICIES


GOAL:
   8.1      Ensure that public facility plans adequately address existing service
            deficiencies and future needs.
Policies:
         8.1.1   Establish a policy that results in the timely review of all City capital facilities
                 plans on a regular basis to ensure that the plans provide for appropriate
                 levels of infrastructure development.
         8.1.2   Phase delivery of utility services to planning units with major population
                 growth potential so that Sultan public services and facilities can be
                 coordinated in advance of each area's development needs.
         8.1.3   Ensure that the public funding for infrastructure development is accounted
                 for in City budgets.
         8.1.4   Priority facility projects:
                 8.1.4.1 Develop a new police and fire station complex on the plateau – to
                           provide emergency management in case of a natural disaster within
                           the Sultan and Skykomish river corridors, and from US-2 or BNSF
                           railroad activities.
                 8.1.4.2 Relocate public works yard operations to the plateau – to provide
                           emergency response and management in case of a natural disaster
                           within the Sultan and Skykomish river corridors, and from US-2 or
                           BNSF railroad activities.

GOAL:
   8.2      Prioritize the delivery of sewer and other services to those planning areas
            that:
Policies:
         8.2.1   are easiest and most feasible to serve from existing trunk sewer and water
                 lines;
         8.2.2   allow development of lands that provide employment center opportunities;
         8.2.3   for public facilities like schools and public buildings;
         8.2.4   service the most capable soils able to support a variety of higher density,
                 more innovative types of housing choices;
         8.2.5   tend to create a recognizable urban form; and
         8.2.6   within logical, efficient sewer and water service corridors.
         8.2.7   Allocate Sultan's limited infrastructure capacity to those lands that can
                 provide most housing and employment related opportunities.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                  Page 148
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                             CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

GOAL:
   8.3      Ensure that adequate public facilities and services serving new
            developments are concurrent at the time of land use approval of such
            developments or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
            improvements or strategies within six years of the time of development and
            that services for new developments will not negatively impact existing
            service levels.
Policies:
         8.3.1   Establish strategies to address facility and service needs that are consistent
                 with the land use and transportation elements, existing facility plans, and are
                 financially feasible.
         8.3.2   Phase development so that public facilities and services can be provided for
                 both existing and future growth in a manner that does not outpace the City’s
                 ability to provide and maintain adequate levels of service.
         8.3.3   Extend services to properties within the UGA upon annexation while
                 maintaining levels of service for existing customers.
         8.3.4   Management of capital facilities should emphasize the following concepts:
                  1. Provide preventive maintenance and cost effective replacement of aging
                      elements;
                  2. Plan for extension and upgrades of capital systems while recognizing
                      that system extension associated with new development should be the
                      responsibility of those desiring service;
                  3. Inspect systems to ensure conformance with design standards and
                      reduce the potential for service rate increases through effective fiscal
                      management and fair and equitable rate structures.
         8.3.5   Re-examine the phasing sequence envisioned between land use,
                 infrastructure, and other comprehensive plan elements in the event City
                 revenues and fiscal strategies are not able to fund the plan’s growth
                 requirements.

GOAL:
   8.4      Finance the City’s needed capital facilities in an economic, efficient and
            equitable manner.
Policies:
         8.4.1   Use Sultan’s 6-Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) to prioritize the
                 financing of capital facilities within projected funding capacities and to
                 clearly identify sources of public money for each project.
         8.4.2   Equitably distribute the cost of capital facilities among the primary
                 beneficiaries of the facility.
         8.4.3   Future development shall bear facility improvement costs related to its
                 impacts by the development to achieve and maintain adopted level of
                 service standards and efficient service provision.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 149
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                   AUGUST 2007
                                                             CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

         8.4.4   Pursue all available funding sources for proposed community facilities,
                 downtown improvements, park and recreation facilities, trails/walkways,
                 road improvements and utilities.
         8.4.5   Coordinate the financial resources that are available to Sultan, Snohomish
                 County, and Sultan School District in order to realize a more effective,
                 equitable, and fiscally solvent public security, fire and emergency response,
                 and educational system.
         8.4.6   Where possible, joint venture security, fire, public educational equipment,
                 facilities, and services to provide a greater security capability than would be
                 accomplished by Sultan alone or otherwise.
         8.4.7   Adopt and collect impact fees in accordance with the GMA as part of the
                 financing for public facilities. Such financing shall provide for a balance
                 between impact fees and other sources of public funds and shall not rely
                 solely on impact fees.
                 8.4.7.1 Public facilities for which impact fees may be collected include:
                            public streets and roads, publicly owned parks, open space and
                            recreation facilities, fire district and school facilities.
                 8.4.7.2 Utilize a methodology for determining the facility impact of proposed
                            development projects within the Sultan UGA to include the
                            corporate limits and any surrounding lands where the residents will
                            depend on Sultan for urban services.
         8.4.8   Seek public and private partnerships for new facilities where possible that
                 share an equitable share of expenses.
         8.4.9   Maintain a coordinated capital facilities program and fiscal strategy that
                 support the implementation of the comprehensive plan land use,
                 transportation, public services, and other infrastructure services.

GOAL:
   8.5      Ensure the efficient and equitable siting of public facilities through
            coordinated planning within City departments, between City and non-City
            providers and with other jurisdictions.
Policies:
         8.5.1   Siting of capital facilities shall be based upon criteria including, but not
                 limited to:
                 a. Specific facility requirements, (e.g. acreage, transportation access, etc.;
                 b. Land use compatibility;
                 c. Potential environmental or traffic impacts;
                 d. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
         8.5.2   Capital facilities shall not be located in areas designated as critical or
                 environmentally sensitive unless no other alternative is available.
         8.5.3   The City should not provide for the extension of public facilities and services
                 outside the UGA, excepted as noted in Policy 5.9 regarding water services.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                              Page 150
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                  AUGUST 2007
                                                            CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

GOAL:
   8.6      Coordinate with other governmental jurisdictions to site, when necessary,
            essential land and building uses that are typically difficult to site and that
            are necessary to meet the needs of Sultan's present and future urban
            service area.
Policies:
         8.6.1   Work with other governmental jurisdictions as necessary and appropriate to
                 site essential public facilities within the Sultan area that are necessary to
                 meet the needs of Sultan's present and future urban service area. Jointly
                 identify and evaluate alternative site opportunities that meet the location
                 requirements involved in each facility use. Conduct appropriate public
                 review and hearing processes, including environmental impact assessments
                 and statements where appropriate, to ensure local residents have an
                 opportunity to comment upon siting alternatives, potential impacts, and
                 mitigation measures prior to the selection of final site and development
                 particulars.
         8.6.2   As specified in the Washington State Growth Management Act, local
                 comprehensive plans may specify alternative sites, mitigating development
                 conditions, and other particulars involved in the siting of essential public
                 facilities. By statutory dictate, however, local comprehensive plans may not
                 prevent outright the location and thereby the provision for essential public
                 facilities as defined in the Act and herein.
         8.6.3   The Public Services and Utilities Elements and the pending Capital Facilities
                 Program identify requirements for new or expanded public works yard,
                 various parks and trails. These facilities are necessary to meet the needs of
                 the forecast population in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The
                 Public Services and Utilities Elements identify the process by that these
                 facilities are to be sited.

Water

GOAL:
   8.7      Maintain and enhance the development and operation of an effective and
            efficient water system at fair market value that will meet the needs of
            Sultan’s present and future UGA population.
Policies:
         8.7.1   The principal controller of urban development within the Sultan planning
                 area is the water storage capacity that is available to be allocated to
                 undeveloped lands within the corporate boundaries.
         8.7.2   Ensure that water service necessary to support development will be
                 adequate to serve the residents at the time new development is available for
                 occupancy and use.
         8.7.3   Ensure all new development within the service boundary is served by the
                 municipal water system.

SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 151
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                     AUGUST 2007
                                                               CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

         8.7.4    Continue to provide water service to those properties that receive water
                  from the City and which are located outside the City’s UGA.
         8.7.5    Monitor the City’s water supply to ensure that future water supply needs and
                  water quality requirements will be met.
         8.7.6    Maintain an updated comprehensive water system plan that is coordinated
                  with the Land Use Element so that new development is located where
                  sufficient water system capacity exists or can be efficiently and logically
                  extended.
         8.7.7    Continue to work with City of Everett in order achieve goals and objectives
                  of providing reliable levels of service for Sultan residents and those within
                  the water service area.
         8.7.8    Provide water for consumption and fire protection purposes to Sultan
                  residents and parties who agree to annex in exchange for service.
         8.7.9    Maintain distribution loops that are capable of providing adequate fire flow
                  and pressure requirements throughout the Sultan service area. Maintain fire
                  hydrant distributions and other standards appropriate to the highest public
                  fire protection ratings.
         8.7.10   Coordinate with Snohomish County Fire District 5 to ensure adequate fire
                  flow in all areas of the City.
         8.7.11   Construct additional storage facilities at locations that will provide sufficient
                  reserves and maintain line pressure for consumption and fire protection
                  purposes.
         8.7.12   Support and implement water conservation and reuse measures that reduce
                  water use, such as:
                  a.     Public education;
                  b.     Billing rate structures that encourage conservation;
                  c.     Reclamation of wastewater for irrigation use;
                  d.     Encourage drought tolerant plantings and native vegetation for public
                         and private development, and;
                  e.     Impose water restrictions during droughts.
         8.7.13   Establish a reserve fund and pursue outside funding services to finance
                  needed improvements to the water system.

GOAL:
   8.8      Work with Snohomish County, Washington State Department of Ecology,
            and other public agencies to correct failed septic system problems within
            the rural areas surrounding the Sultan urban service area to reduce
            possible contamination of the groundwater reserve and aquifer.

Sewer
GOAL:
   8.9      Maintain and enhance the development and operation of an effective and
            efficient wastewater treatment plant and collection system that will meet
            the needs of Sultan’s present and future population.


SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                                 Page 152
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                               AUGUST 2007
                                                         CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Policies:
       8.9.1  A principal controller of urban development within the Sultan planning area
              is wastewater treatment capacity.
       8.9.2  Phase service expansion to reflect growth management policies, particularly
              the realization of employment related developments that provide Sultan a
              sound fiscal base.
       8.9.3  Require all properties that develop or redevelop within the city limits to
              connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks will not be used in
              development projects within the Sultan UGA.
       8.9.4  Increase sewer treatment plant and collection line capacities to meet the
              needs of Sultan residents and land within the UGA, as well as meet state
              and federal discharge standards.           Increase and improve secondary
              treatment capacities and methods to meet state and federal discharge
              standards. Investigate, where appropriate, other alternative methods of
              treatment including tertiary systems.
       8.9.5  Increase capacity to reflect increased usage trends influenced by the City’s
              growth and economic development.
       8.9.6  Maintain an updated comprehensive sewer system plan that is coordinated
              with the Land Use Element so that new development is located where
              sufficient sewer system capacity exists or can be efficiently and logically
              extended.
       8.9.7  Ensure that existing deficiencies in the sewer system are upgraded.
       8.9.8   Provide sewer services for Sultan residents and parties who annex in
              exchange for service. Service to the UGA shall not occur until such
              properties are annexed into Sultan.
       8.9.9  Encourage all non-redeveloping properties that annex into the City to phase
              out their septic systems and connect to the City sewer system.
       8.9.10 Adopt an ordinance requiring connection to a Sewer Main when it is
              installed in the street or close proximity of the resident.
       8.9.11 Work with Snohomish County, Washington State Department of Ecology,
              and other public agencies to correct failed septic problems.

Stormwater
GOAL:
   8.10     Create a stormwater management utility – to oversee the management and
            quality of wetland and stormwater retention systems on the valley floor and
            plateau.

GOAL:
   8.11     Create an effective stormwater management system that will control runoff
            quality, volumes, and directions within the areas that affect the Sultan
            urban area.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                         Page 153
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Policies:
       8.11.1 Utilize natural drainage corridors and open channel runoff methods
              wherever possible and practical.
       8.11.2 To the extent that is practical, require channels and retention ponds be
              planted and maintained in a natural state to blend with the natural
              surroundings, to provide wetland park and habitat values, and to use natural
              methods of treatment, such as bio-filtration.
       8.11.3 Require land developments to hold or retain storm runoff of a quantity equal
              to and possibly in excess of the amount that would be distributed by the site
              in a natural state.
       8.11.4 Monitor the quality content of stormwater runoff within the Sultan UGA.
       8.11.5 Establish and enforce exacting performance standards governing the use of
              fertilizers and other surface chemical applications, dumping or drainage of
              wastes including animal and chemical, loss of soil or plant materials due to
              erosion or construction activities.
       8.11.6 Equitably distribute costs associated with collection, distribution or retention
              to the private properties that contribute runoff.

Solid Waste

GOAL:
   8.12     Create an effective solid waste and recycling system that will control waste
            disposal within the areas that affect the Sultan planning area.
Policies:
       8.12.1 Coordinate the financial resources that are available of Sultan, Snohomish
              County, and franchised solid waste operators in order to realize a more
              effective, equitable and fiscally solvent solid waste disposal system.
       8.12.2 Consider joint venturing possible solid waste disposal and recycling
              equipment, facilities and services to provide a greater response capability
              than would be accomplished by Sultan alone or otherwise.

GOAL:
   8.13     Ensure the transportation system program provides for future road
            projects throughout the City to allow growth-related improvements.
Policies:
       8.13.1 The City should continue to improve roads throughout the City that are in
              disrepair or are in need of safety improvements.
       8.13.2 Assess impact fees to help alleviate the City’s burden of funding
              transportation projects.
       8.13.3 Seek state and local grants to help fund all road improvements within the
              City.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 154
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

       8.13.4 Enter into an inter-local agreement with Community Transit for the agency's
              assistance with the acquisition, development, and improvement of
              multipurpose park-and-ride facilities.

Parks & Recreation

GOAL:
   8.14     Effectively develop, manage and maintain high quality parks and recreation
            facilities that meet the needs of Sultan’s present and future population.
Policies:
       8.14.1 Develop innovative methods of financing those projects listed on the 6-year
              and 20-year parks & recreation capital improvement plans.
       8.14.2 Consider joint ventures with public and private agencies to assist in facility
              development, maintenance and operation, and to reduce costs.
       8.14.3 Encourage park facilities that are of low maintenance and high capacity
              design that reduces overall facility maintenance.
       8.14.4 Consider the cost of maintenance prior to funding construction of new
              facilities.

General Government

GOAL:
   8.15     Provide cost effective municipal public facilities to all residents of Sultan in
            a manner that protects investment in existing facilities, maximizes use of
            existing facilities, expands facilities in a cost efficient manner, and
            promotes orderly urban growth.
Policies:
       8.15.1 Ensure public safety services are adequately funded to provide the
              necessary level of services for present and future needs of the community.
       8.15.2 Set aside funds for the City’s share of improvements required by growth to
              achieve an efficient level of service for essential public services and
              facilities. Apply for grants whenever feasible to finance public facilities.
       8.15.3 Support and encourage joint development and use of community facilities
              with other governmental or community organizations in areas of mutual
              concern and benefit.
       8.15.4 To the maximum extent possible, consider opportunities to co-locate
              activities and otherwise optimize public facility utilization in order to delay
              the need for new facilities.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 155
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                 AUGUST 2007
                                                           CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

Non-City Service Providers

GOAL:
   8.16     Cooperate with the Sultan School District, Snohomish County Departments
            of Planning & Community Development, Parks & Recreation, Public Works
            and other public agencies to provide quality public services and facilities
            for residents of the Sultan planning area.
Policies:
       8.16.1 Initiate a citywide capital facility planning process with the Sultan School
              District, Snohomish County, and other public agencies to identify local public
              facility needs.
       8.16.2 Implement a coordinated approach to the funding and development of joint
              public facilities and services to avoid site and facility duplications, save
              development costs, and improve local service delivery.

GOAL:
   8.17     Work in cooperation with Sultan School District to help them accomplish
            their capital improvement objectives and mitigate, where possible, the
            impacts of growth to ensure that adequate school facilities are provided for
            Sultan’s growing population.
Policies:
       8.17.1 Collect school impact fees as provided in the Sultan District Capital Facilities
              Plan to ensure that school facilities will be provided concurrently with future
              development within the City.
       8.17.2 Work with the School District in the development of “safe walks” between
              residential neighborhoods and local schools.

GOAL:
   8.18     Coordinate with all private utility companies to maintain and enhance the
            development and operation of quality private power, natural gas, and
            telecommunication utility systems to meet the needs of Sultan's present
            and future urban service area.
Policies:
       8.18.1 On a frequent basis, provide the private utility companies information on
              current population, employment, and other development trends and
              projects. On a frequent basis also obtain current facilities information, maps,
              and other particulars from private utility companies with that to maintain and
              coordinate accurate utilities element plans.
       8.18.2 Process permits and approvals for all utility facilities in a fair and timely
              manner, and in accordance with development regulations that ensure
              predictability and the utility's ability to provide service when required.



SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                            Page 156
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES

       8.18.3 On an annual basis, provide all private utility companies copies of the Sultan
              Capital Facilities Program (CFP), particularly the schedule of proposed road
              and public utility construction projects so that the companies may coordinate
              construction, maintenance, and other needs in efficient manners.
       8.18.4 Where practical and possible, locate natural gas supply lines within a
              common or adjacent utility corridor using street or road rights-of-way.
       8.18.5 Where safe, practical, and consistent with utility uses, use regional and local
              utility corridors for the development of recreational trails, open spaces, and
              other land uses that may provide multiple benefits to the public, as
              negotiated with the owners of properties on that these corridors are located.
       8.18.6 Promote energy conservation measures in building codes including the use
              of insulated roof and siding materials, windowpanes and entryways, and
              other applications in accordance with Washington State guidelines.
              Promote energy conserving practices including the use of energy-efficient
              appliances, temperature maintenance levels, and other activities to reduce
              power and natural gas demands.
       8.18.7 Where practical and desired by local property owners or developers, locate
              existing or proposed power distribution lines underground to reduce possible
              storm damage and aesthetic clutter.

Reassessment

GOAL:
   8.19     Ensure that the Capital Facilities and Land Use Elements are reassessed
            for consistency on a regular basis and propose changes for any
            insufficient levels of funding.
Policies:
       8.19.1 In the event anticipated funding levels fall short of planned essential capital
              facilities needed to serve projected population, reassess the Land Use
              Element and propose modifications as necessary to ensure that the Land
              Use Element remains consistent with the capital facilities financing plan.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                           Page 157
Capital Facilities and Public Services
   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT                                                AUGUST 2007
                                                          CHAPTER VIII – CAPITAL FACILITIES



ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY

Significant changes between the 2007 update and the adopted 2004 integrated SEPA/GMA
comprehensive plan document include the following:
1. The updated Plan is based on the 2005 Water Plan and the 2006 General Sewer Plan.
2. Population estimates have been made consistent with facility plans.
3. The Plan identifies 18 miles of collection system, improvements that will be required to
   keep pace with growth.
4. An explanation of the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan to the Capital
   Facilities Plan has been added.
5. A clarification of the concurrency policy has been added.
6. The Surface Water Utility is under development.




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                                                          Page 158
Capital Facilities and Public Services
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




         Appendix A:
  Supplemental Environmental
    Impact Statement (SEIS)




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN              APPENDIX-A
                                    APPENDIX A

           CITY OF SULTAN’S URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
         SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS)

Description of Proposal: In 2005 an appeal was filed with the Growth Management
                         Hearing Board challenging certain elements of the City of
                         Sultan’s Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Hearings Board
                         ordered that the City make certain revisions to the Plan.
                         Those revisions are the basis of this 2007 Plan update. The
                         City proposes an update of the City of Sultan’s 2004
                         Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management
                         Act (GMA). The update will address general policies on Land
                         Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Capital
                         Facilities, Utilities, Natural Resources and Critical Areas
                         Protection, and Economic Development. The Plan also
                         contains a Future Land Use map, an arterial street plan and
                         revised mapping of other elements.

                          Requirements for an SEIS are governed by WAC 197-11-620:

                          An SEIS shall be prepared in the same way as a draft and
                          final EIS (WAC 197-11-400 to 197-11-600), except that
                          scoping is optional. The SEIS should not include analysis of
                          actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously
                          prepared EIS.

                          The following document supplements the Final Environmental
                          Impact Statement adopted as part of the 2004 Plan adoption.


Proponent:                City of Sultan
                          P.O. Box 1199
                          319 Main Street
                          Sultan, WA 98294-1199
                          Phone: (360) 793-2231
                          Fax: (360) 793-3344

Location of Proposal:     Sultan Urban Growth Area (UGA)

Lead Agency:              City of Sultan

EIS Required:             A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was
                          deemed necessary under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The SEIS
                          contained new information and analysis, but also built on data
                                                                         Appendix A-1
                                               Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


                            and analysis contained in previous environmental documents
                            prepared as part of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan.

                            The lead agency identified the following elements of the
                            environment for discussion in the Supplemental EIS:

I.    Natural Environment: Topography, soils, erosion, air quality, surface and
                           groundwater, public water supplies, plant and animal habitat,
                           fisheries, energy and natural resources.

II.   Built Environment:    Land and shoreline use, environmental health, housing,
                            recreation, historic and cultural resources, transportation,
                            public services, and utilities.

III. Alternatives           A No-Action Alternative will be discussed in the Supplemental
                            EIS. The No-Action Alternative assumes no update to the
                            City of Sultan’s Urban Area Comprehensive Plan.

        SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Integrating Environmental Impact Analysis with Growth Management Planning

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all State and local
agencies to use an interdisciplinary, integrated approach to build environmental factors
into planning and the decision-making processes.

During the development of this Comprehensive Plan update, the City of Sultan is required
to consider the potential environmental impacts of plan policies and alternatives. Cities
and counties planning under GMA may address environmental concerns during the growth
planning process by combining the requirements of GMA with those of SEPA, as specified
by 1995 amendments to Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC),
SEPA Rules.

Cities and counties planning under GMA have the option of combining analyses,
documentation and public involvement required under environmental and growth
management laws. This results in an “integrated document”, satisfying both GMA and
SEPA requirements in one document, with the Environmental Summary serving as the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for this Plan.

A major benefit of this integrated approach is a more predictable process for development
review. Evaluation of environmental choices during the planning process should facilitate
analysis of potential environmental impacts as a result of development. This should result
in more certainty and predictability for developers and landowners in association with
future development proposals. The Comprehensive Plan and subsequent implementing
regulations should therefore result in a timelier and more focused environmental review
process.



Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                    Page A-1 - 2
                                                                          Appendix A-1
                                                Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


Phased Review

It is the intent of this Comprehensive Plan to serve as the foundation for environmental
review as required under SEPA. Project proposals that are consistent with the future land
use designations and this Comprehensive Plan; and that incur no major system impacts to
utilities such as wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, domestic water and
transportation facilities beyond those identified in this Comprehensive Plan and
environmental review, should not be required to undergo further environmental review
related to these systems. It is the intent of the City of Sultan to employ “phased review” of
development in the community, where additional environmental analysis for specific
projects on specific sites will be limited to project impacts that were not foreseen or were
not otherwise documented in this integrated SEPA/GMA Comprehensive Plan. It is the
policy of the City that where proposed developments conform to the policies of this Plan,
they are considered to be consistent with the land use and planning vision of the
community.

SEPA/GMA Integrated Document: Requirements

An integrated document will constitute the necessary SEPA document, as long as it
contains the following as specified by WAC 197-11-235:

              I.   Environmental Summary and Fact Sheet
              II.  Comments and responses obtained during a 45-day review period
                   ending on October 15, 2007.
              III. Appropriate technical and other materials either adopted by reference or
                   included as appendices to this Plan.

                                       I. Fact Sheet

Proposed Action:             Adoption of an update of the City of Sultan’s Comprehensive
                             Plan as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
                             the Growth Management Hearing Board.           The updated
                             Comprehensive Plan provides an updated land use plan and
                             policies to address growth for a 20-year planning period
                             through the year 2025 within the Sultan Planning Area. The
                             Plan includes updates to certain sections of the 2004 Plan.
                             Development Regulations will be updated in 2007-08 to
                             implement the policies of the updated Plan. A revised Critical
                             Areas Ordinance using Best Available Science was adopted
                             by the City in 2006.

Location of Proposal:        The City of Sultan and its surrounding unincorporated urban
                             growth area (UGA) in the Skykomish Valley.

Proponent:                   City of Sultan

Lead Agency:                 City of Sultan


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                       Page A-1 - 3
                                                                         Appendix A-1
                                               Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


                            P.O. Box 1199
                            319 Main Street
                            Sultan, WA 98294-1199
                            Phone: (360) 793-2231
                            Fax: (360) 793-3344

Responsible Official:       Rick Cisar, Community Development Director and
                            SEPA Responsible Official

Required Approvals:         Planning Board recommendation
                            City of Sultan City Council – Adoption
                            Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board -
                                    Finding of Compliance -- Case No. 06303

EIS Authors:                City of Sultan
                            Shockey/Brent, Inc.

Date of Supplemental
EIS Issue:                  August 31, 2007

Date of Final Action:       November 2007

Location of Prior Environmental Documents and Background Information:
                          City of Sultan
                          319 Main Street
                          Sultan, WA 98294-1199

Cost of Document:           Printed copies are available at City Hall at the address above.
                            Copies are also available on CD. The document is also
                            available    to   view    on     the    City’s    website   at:
                            www.http://www.ci.sultan.wa.us. CD’s are free. One copy of
                            the printed document is also free. Each additional copy will
                            cost $15.

SEPA Distribution List

Federal Agencies
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
National Marine Fisheries Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
NOAA Fisheries
NOAA Northwest Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.D.A. Forest Service


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                     Page A-1 - 4
                                                                          Appendix A-1
                                                Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Agencies
Department of Agriculture
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development
Department of Corrections
Department of Ecology
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Health
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Transportation
Interagency Commission on Outdoor Recreation
Parks and Recreation Commission
Washington State Attorney General’s Office
Washington State Emergency Management Division
Washington State Energy Office
Washington State Patrol
Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC)

Regional Agencies
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Puget Sound Regional Council
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
Snohomish County Planning and Development Services
Snohomish County Economic Development Council
Sno-Isle Library District
Soil Conservation District
Sultan School District

Local Government, Tribes and Utilities
BNSF Railway Company
City of Everett Department of Public Works
City of Gold Bar
City of Monroe
Community Transit
Highland Water Association
Northwest Pipeline Company
Puget Sound Energy
Snohomish County Fire District 5
Snohomish County Public Utility District No.1
Snohomish County Sherriff’s Office
Snohomish Health District
Startup Water District
The Tualip Tribes


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                  Page A-1 - 5
                                                                         Appendix A-1
                                               Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


Verizon

Organizations and Interest Groups
Fern Bluff Grange
FOE Sultan (Sky Valley) # 4149
Sky Valley Chamber of Commerce
Sultan Arts Council and Museum
VFW
Volunteers of America (VOA)
US 2 Safety Coalition

Media
The Herald
Monroe Monitor

Libraries
Sultan Library

Purpose of the Proposal

The Proposed Action is the update of the City of Sultan Comprehensive Plan in
accordance with requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). In general, the
proposed update is intended to revise and refine, correct, and extend the 2004
Comprehensive Plan policy direction, rather than markedly depart from the original Plan
vision.

The City of Sultan adopted its updated Comprehensive Plan in 2004. The adoption was
appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board in 2005 (Fallgatter v. City of
Sultan, Case No. 06303). On June 29, 2006 the Hearings Board ruled that several actions
taken by the City were inconsistent with the requirements of the Washington GMA. These
are summarized as follows:

1. The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) is inconsistent with the Transportation
   Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
   a. The TIP does not assess the impact of growth on Highway 2 (US-2).
   b. Improvements listed in the TIP are not reflected in the Finance Element of the Plan.
   c. Improvements for the Industrial Master Plan are not included in TIP.
   d. The Growth Hearings Board mandates that the TIP be made consistent with the
      City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.

2. Different population forecasts for Year 2025 were used in the Water Systems Plan, the
   General Sewer Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.




Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                    Page A-1 - 6
                                                                         Appendix A-1
                                               Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


                                           Population Estimates
                      Source
                                                   2025
                      City                       11,119
                      Sewer Plan                   7,200
                      Water Plan                   6,750

3. Some implementing and amended regulations have not been adopted.

4. The City had indicated that these “functional” sewer and water plans would be updated
   after comprehensive plan adoption to make them consistent. The Hearings Board
   ruled that the original sewer and water plans should have been based on the
   comprehensive plan forecasts before they were adopted.

5. The boundaries of the Water Systems Plan are different than the UGA Boundary.

6. The Sewer Plan is not in conformity with the Land Use Plan.

7. The public participation process was inadequate. The Hearings Board found that:

     If Sultan’s Water and Sewer Plans had been properly based on GMA-adopted
     population targets and service areas, adoption of (the Sewer, Water and TIP)
     ordinance(s) using the regular City public notice and hearing process….would
     most likely be adequate to satisfy the public process procedures under the
     relevant statutes.

The Growth Hearings Board remanded the City’s Comprehensive Plan with instructions to
make necessary revisions:
   Adoption of development code amendments;
   Adoption of Critical Areas Ordinance;
   Adoption of revised TIP;
   Adoption of sewer and water plan revisions to comply with comprehensive plan; and
   Revisions to the Finance Element and Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
   Plan.

Revisions to these documents must be consistent with one another and with population
forecasts that are consistent with Snohomish County allocations.

Purpose of the Supplemental EIS

The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to assist the public and agency decision-makers
in considering future decisions on land use patterns and Comprehensive Plan goals,
policies, and development regulations for the City of Sultan as part of the Comprehensive
Plan update. These broad decisions will provide direction and support for more specific
actions by the City, such as capital improvements and implementing regulations.

The SEPA review of the Plan is a “planning level” analysis as opposed to a “project level”
analysis. The latter is done for specific projects on specific sites and is much more


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                    Page A-1 - 7
                                                                           Appendix A-1
                                                 Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


detailed. A planning-level analysis is more general in nature. SEPA requires that analysis
be as specific as the information available. Because the comprehensive plan is more
general in its discussion of topics, the SEPA analysis will be more general than what might
be found in a project-level SEPA review. It is assumed that as specific projects or
decisions are made in the future, more detailed information will be provided, and that the
policies of this Plan will be considered in decision-making. This is referred to as “Phased
Review” and will be a part of future decision-making using the 2007updated Plan.

The 2004 Plan was adopted after conclusion of the environmental review process. The
reformatted 2007 Plan provides the same information regarding how development trends
through 2025 will be addressed and mitigated to meet the goals of SEPA. The technical
background supporting the mitigation measures can be found in the documents adopted
by reference as part of the 2007 Plan.

Programmatic Analysis

This Supplemental EIS provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental
impacts appropriate to the general nature of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
proposals. The adoption of comprehensive plans or other long-range planning activities
are classified by SEPA as a non-project (i.e. programmatic) action. A non-project action is
defined as an action that is broader than a single site-specific project and involves
decisions on policies, plans or programs. An EIS for a non-project proposal does not
require site-specific analysis; instead the EIS discusses impacts and alternatives
appropriate to the scope of the non-project proposal and to the level of planning for the
proposal (WAC 197-11-442).

Phased Review

SEPA encourages the use of phased environmental review to focus on issues that are
ready for decision, and to exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet
ready for decision-making [WAC 197-11-060 (5)]. Phased review is appropriate where the
sequence of a proposal is from a programmatic document, such as an EIS addressing a
comprehensive plan, to other documents that are narrower in scope, such as for a site-
specific, project-level analysis. The City of Sultan is using phased review, as authorized
by SEPA, in its environmental review of growth management planning actions. The
analysis in this Supplemental EIS will be used to review the environmental impacts of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan alternatives and other related actions, including
implementing regulations.

Public Comment

The following public participation opportunities were held to gain public input:

  07/11/06   Sultan Planning Board Meeting (SPBM)-Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Overview
  08/01/06   SPBM- Plan Task & Schedule Amendments
  08/15/06   SPBM- Prioritization of Tasks for Plan Updates/Amendments
  09/05/06   SPBM- Plan Amendment, Tasks & Schedule
  10/03/06   SPBM- Discussion of Plan Amendments, Tasks & Schedule Presentation


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                          Page A-1 - 8
                                                                                 Appendix A-1
                                                       Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


     10/17/06    SPBM- Reid Shockey Draft Capital Facility Plan Presentation
     11/14/06    SPBM- Reid Shockey Draft Capital Facility Plan Presentation
     11/28/06    SPBM- Approval of Capital Facilities Plan
     12/05/06    SPBM- Review of Capital Facilities Plan Revisions
     02/20/07    SPBM- Review of Parks, Capital Facilities Plan, and Land Use Element
     02/20/07    SPBM- Traffic Information Plan Revisions & Project Overview Presentation
     03/13/07    Open House
     03/20/07    SPBM
     03/28/07    Public Meeting in Sultan
     05/15/07    Planning Board Meeting
     05/15/07    Public Meeting and Open House in Sultan
     05/24/07    City Council Meeting
     06/26/07    Planning Board Meeting
     07/31/07    Planning Board Meeting
     07/31/07    Public Meeting in Sultan

In addition, a public open house on the SEIS will be held September 18, 2007.
Subsequent meetings will be held by the Planning Board and City Council as part of the
Plan adoption process.


                                       II. Analysis of Alternatives

No-Action Alternative

If the City Council takes no action to adopt a new comprehensive plan, the existing City of
Sultan Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2004 will remain in effect. However, the portions
of those elements noted above that were ruled inconsistent by the Growth Hearings Board
would not be valid. The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the Future
Land Use Map would remain unchanged, as would the Development Regulations
associated with the current plan. Review of development proposals that are impacted by
the Growth Hearings Board ruling may be compromised, denied or put on hold pending
resolution of this issue. Planning would continue under the assumptions used to formulate
the goals and policies in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan.

This alternative would continue to have conflicting growth targets for 2025 among key
elements of the Plan; inconsistencies between policies and improvement plans for
Transportation, and Utilities; suffer from inadequate public notice and participation; nor
would changes necessary to ensure compliance with GMA be accomplished. As a result,
State funding of roads, parks, utilities and other infrastructure through the Public Works
Trust Fund, IAC1 and other sources could be denied. Other sanctions could be imposed if
the Growth Management Hearings Board finds the City of Sultan to be out of compliance
with its previous order.

Proposed Action


1
    Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                         Page A-1 - 9
                                                                          Appendix A-1
                                                Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


The Proposed Action is adoption of the City of Sultan 2007 updated Comprehensive Plan.
The 2007 updated Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
provide an updated land use plan and policies to address growth for a 20-year planning
period through the year 2025 within the Sultan Planning Area. The Plan includes updates
to certain sections of the 2004 Plan and internal and external consistencies with Sewer,
Water and Transportation Plans. A revised Critical Areas Ordinance using Best Available
Science was adopted in 2006.

The Proposed Action consists of updates to the following components:
    Land Use (Chapter II)
    Economic Development (Chapter III)
    Housing (Chapter IV)
    Transportation (Chapter V)
    Natural Environment (VI)
    Parks and Recreation (Chapter VII)
    Capital Facilities (Chapter VIII)
    A need to modify some development regulations. The development regulation
    updating process is proceeding concurrently with Plan review and adoption.
    Housekeeping and minor revisions to the City’s current Comprehensive Plan
    elements, which refine but retain current policy intents.

This Plan updates those chapters from the 2004 Plan. The Critical Areas Protection
element was added in 2006 to address “Best Available Science” requirements of GMA.

Objectives of the Proposal

Sultan would want to plan its future in any event. However, under the Washington GMA, it
is required to do so. In 1991, the Legislature enacted the GMA to guide and coordinate
local planning. The Act recognizes the diversity of growth management challenges facing
Washington's large, small, urban and rural cities/counties and establishes distinct planning
requirements for all cities/counties that vary depending upon population and growth rates.

This Comprehensive Plan was developed in accordance with the GMA2 to address growth
issues in the City of Sultan and the adjacent UGA. It represents the community's policy
plan for growth over the next 20 years. It will assist the management of the City by
providing policies to guide decision-making for growth, development and public services.
Cities are required to update their plans every ten years. The original Sultan GMA Plan
was adopted in 1994 and planned through the year 2015. The City adopted an updated
Comprehensive Plan in 2004 designed to carry the community forward through 2025.
This update is intended to correct inconsistencies in the 2004 Plan identified by the
Growth Hearings Board. Specifically, the updated Plan will:
     Refine, correct, extend and update the 2004 Sultan Comprehensive Plan elements,
     goals, policies and implementation plans to correct inconsistencies identified by the
     Growth Hearings Board.



2
    RCW 36.70A.070


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                     Page A-1 - 10
                                                                         Appendix A-1
                                               Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


    Accommodate population and employment forecasts to meet GMA requirements and
    the City vision.
    Include revisions that may be needed because of GMA changes and other related
    State law.

Significant Impacts

This SEIS will consider the environmental consequences of the 2007 update and
development regulations by supplementing information previously provided in the
Environmental Impact Statement for the 2004 City of Sultan Comprehensive Plan.
Particular attention is paid to the most recent environmental information available.

The updated Comprehensive Plan would direct land use, services and capital resources
for the next 20-year period, but the Plan alone would not have direct impacts on the
environment. The Comprehensive Plan would have indirect impacts by establishing the
mix of land uses and overall land use patterns, levels of public services, and focus of
future public capital improvements.

Future development or public capital improvement projects allowed by the Comprehensive
Plan could directly or indirectly affect the elements of the environment addressed in the
EIS. The City will review each of these future actions as they arise to determine: 1) their
consistency with the policies of this Plan; and 2) their direct impacts upon the
environment.

Impacts related to the changes proposed in the 2007 Plan, and therefore not previously
addressed, are addressed in the following Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. It
can be assumed that the balance of the Plan is consistent with the 2004 version and the
2004 EIS.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

At a programmatic, non-project level, future Comprehensive Plan policies and existing or
proposed development regulations that implement the Comprehensive Plan will serve as
mitigation measures. As an integrated SEPA/GMA document, it is a fundamental purpose
of this Plan to ensure that future growth and development occurs in a manner that is
compatible with the many, diverse elements of the community. The policies themselves
are intended to mitigate the impacts of growth and the regulatory changes that will occur
upon adoption of this Plan will add further substance to those policies.

Programmatic mitigation measures described under each element of the environment
being addressed in this SEIS are identified in the Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures below.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts

The facts presented in the 2007 updated Plan describe what has happened in the past
and what will likely happen in the future as growth occurs through 2025. It is a fact that


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                    Page A-1 - 11
                                                                                 Appendix A-1
                                                       Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


the community will grow, that the population will increase and that development will occur
in areas that are currently more rural in character. The UGA has finite boundaries within
which this growth will occur. The areas outside the UGA will remain rural.

                                 Environmental Summary
The following Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures is intended to provide a
comparison of impacts by key subject area, a review of mitigation measures, and potential
significant unavoidable adverse impacts for each.
                          Matrix of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
                                             Land Use Impacts
                     2007 Update                                              2004 Plan
• Land Use distribution based on a current • Land Use distribution based on a current
   population projection of 11,119 for UGA in 2025.        projection of 11,591 for UGA through 2024.
• As development occurs over time, existing land • Certain land use needs (major institutions,
   uses will convert to land uses consistent with the      mixed use developments, etc.) could have a
   Plan.                                                   more difficult time being implemented.
• Adjustments have been made to improve the • More single purpose amendment requests could
   2004 Plan and to adjust to changing trends since        be submitted each year because of outdated or
   the original adoption.                                  ambiguous language in the 2004 Plan.
• Two expansion areas have been added to the • A greater potential for compatibility impacts due
   UGA since 2004.                                         to use type, scale, or activity levels.
• Plan focuses specifically on local subareas • Expanded public services may be more
   (neighborhoods, commercial centers, etc.).              uncoordinated because inconsistent growth
• Greater attention to relationship between high           targets and boundaries.
   impact uses (e.g. industrial park, commercial)        • Possibly outdated land use practices from 1994
• Some land use may result in a potential for              would continue to be the tools of development.
   compatibility impacts due to use type, scale or • Fewer protections between land use zones and
   activity levels.                                        potentially incompatible uses.
• Rapid growth and increasing demand for
   development will require expanded public
   services.
• Land use plans will channel development into
   specific zones and limit the types of uses for each
   zone.
• Implementation of best management practices for
   future land use.
• Explanation of relationship of Plan to Capital
   Facilities Plan.
• Greater buffering of incompatible, adjacent uses.
• Provide healthy economic environment via using
   planning techniques that foster growth.
Mitigation Measures:
The goals, policies and action plans emphasize the protection of potentially incompatible land uses
through appropriate location of land use zones, emphasis on protection of neighborhoods and residential
uses and performance standards for development. Residential, commercial, industrial and institutional
uses are respected in the Plan for their value in the Sultan UGA. There is recognition that the relationship
of these uses to each other must be properly controlled so that incompatibilities are minimized.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:
Both alternatives result in new construction to accommodate population and employment growth. New
construction will result in changes of use and the characteristics of parcels of land, including potential


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                                Page A-1 - 12
                                                                                  Appendix A-1
                                                        Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


demolition and displacement.
                                           Transportation Impacts
                       2007 Update                                  2004 Plan
•   Transportation Element meets the mandatory Proposed Action:
    requirements of Growth Management under RCW General policies regarding access to US 2.
    36.70A.070 and provides transportation project
    recommendations to the City’s Capital Facilities
    Plan.
•   The revised Transportation Element recommends
    adoption of a revised transportation level-of-service
    (LOS) standard and the adoption of an updated
    traffic impact fee based on the review findings.
•   The intent of the transportation element is to
    establish a vision for the City of Sultan’s
    transportation system for the year 2025 and guide
    development of that system by both the City and
    other responsible stakeholders.
•   Clarification of concurrency policy.
•   Explanation of relationship of the Plan to Capital
    Facilities Program.
•   Updated facility plans integrated into the Plan.
    Consistent with population and land use forecasts.

Non-motorized

Recent completion of the High Street off-road trail
and the bike lanes on Sultan Basin Road provide a
measure of safety and choice for safe cycling within
the City.      However many challenges remain,
especially in older neighborhoods along US-2 and in
the rural area of the Sultan Planning Area.

Transit

Existing transit coverage is good within the historic
area of the City. Many other areas within the City
and the larger Sultan Planning Area, including area’s
north of High Street and north of US-2 in the plateau
area, lack adequate access to public transit service.

System Preservation

The Plan identifies a number of transportation
projects that will correct existing deficiencies in
surface conditions or improvements, but not add
street capacity. These include lack of sidewalks,
deteriorated pavement conditions, lack of or
inadequate storm water facilities or safety needs.

Impacts of Proposed Capital Improvements

To accommodate growth under all alternatives,
numerous projects are proposed to improve road,
transit, and non-motorized transportation. Although


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                         Page A-1 - 13
                                                                                    Appendix A-1
                                                          Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


the improvements address the impacts of traffic
congestion, the projects themselves could result in
impacts to the natural and built environment.

Construction impacts would include increased noise
and dust, as well as impede the normal flow of traffic.
Roadway expansion projects will additionally result in
increases in impervious surface area, which in turn
can potentially affect water quality, vegetation,
wildlife, and other elements described elsewhere in
this SEIS.

Detailed planning and design analyses will be
required to carry any of the proposed transportation
improvement projects through to pre-design, design
and ultimately construction. At this later stage, more
analysis of projects would include detailed evaluation
of topographic considerations, impacts to residents
and businesses, environmental impacts, construction
impacts, and project costs. Mitigation measures
would be identified at that time.

                                             Utilities Impacts
                    2007 Update                                              2004 Plan

Water                                                      Water

• Capital Facilities and Public Service— Water             • Plan based on 2004 Water Plan, adopted prior
  Section based on 2005 Water Plan.                          to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, and with
• Increases in future water demand by increases in           different population forecasts.
  population, and the addition of customers who
  currently use private wells.
• Existing supply of 25 mgd, expandable to 60 mgd.
  Groundwater system available for emergency
  uses.
• Storage capacity equals 32 million gallons per day
  in five wells.



Sewers                                                     Sewers

• Capital Facilities and Public Service— Sewer             • The 2006 Sewer Plan included inconsistent
  Section based on 2006 General Sewer Plan,                  population forecasts that conflicted with the
  adopted consistent with the 2007 Comprehensive             adopted 2004 Comprehensive Plan.
  Plan.
• 18 miles of collection system improvements will be
  required to keep pace with growth.
• Three-phase expansion plan to wastewater
  treatment plant to accommodate growth through
  2029.




Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                                Page A-1 - 14
                                                                                    Appendix A-1
                                                          Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


Surface Water Management

• A Surface Water Management Plan was developed
  for the City of Sultan in 2002 with adoption in 2006.
• The Surface Water Utility is under development.

Mitigation Measures:
• The 2005 Water Plan identifies a program of conservation methods as a primary method of increasing
  supply through reducing per capita and per connection usage rates.
• The 2006 General Sewer Plan evaluated the collection system identifying several locations where
  system deficiencies exist and improvements are required to meet the needs of future development. The
  report also recommends continuation of the City’s program to reduce infiltration and inflow into the
  system.
• Use of a reassessment strategy to periodically monitor levels-of-service and take action to ensure
  needed infrastructure is in place or funded to accommodate growth.


Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:

Under each alternative, future population growth and development will continue to increase the need and
demand for public utilities and services such as water supply, sewers, libraries and schools. Coordination
with service providers and regular review of capital plans by service providers will help avoid impacts.

                                      Parks and Recreation Impacts
                    2007 Update                                            2004 Plan

• Parks classified to match CFP and concurrency           LOS standards were locally based and not
  discussions.                                            categorized by type of facility.
• Specific number agreed to for City concurrency for
  Parks.
• LOS standards calculated based on local and
  national standards; and compared to two other
  local communities.
• 2025 population will require 14 additional acres of
  mini parks, and 17 acres of community parks.
• New parks policy 7.1.1: Level of Service: Strive
  to maintain a level-of-service (LOS) in excess of
  the national and State standards. Ensure that the
  minimum LOS for parks meets or exceeds the
  NRPA standard.
• $8.1 million in acquisition and improvements are
  planned through 2025.

Mitigation Measures: In addition to implementation measures outlined in the adopted Parks and
Recreation Plan:
• The City could regularly review and update the LOS Standards to remain current for planning, design,
  and grant purposes.
• The City collects a park impact fee from new development.
• The City could pursue more aggressive grant and bond financing for parks and trails projects.
• The City intends to enter into partnerships with other providers to implement open space initiatives.


Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:


Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                              Page A-1 - 15
                                                                                  Appendix A-1
                                                        Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS



Increased residential and employment growth will increase the demands on parks and recreational
facilities. With implementation of mitigation measures, the City could provide parks and recreation
services at locally adopted levels-of-service to meet the demand, avoiding adverse impacts.

                                     Natural Environment Impacts
                   2007 Update                                             2004 Plan

Air Quality
• The Puget Sound area, including Sultan, has
  been an attainment area for all pollutants for
  almost a decade. Future development could
  degrade air quality again without mitigating
  measures.
• Information on air quality has been updated.

Critical Areas                                          Critical Areas

• Development in critical area buffers and on           • The City must update its critical areas
  geologic hazard areas would affect water quality,       regulations as part of the 2002 Growth
  critical habitats and public safety.         Such       Management Act comprehensive plan review
  development is restricted under the policies of the     mandate. The current adopted critical areas
  updated Plan.                                           regulations (Chapter 16.10 SMC) must be
• The City adopted new critical areas regulations to      revised to include references to “best available
  implement the Plan policies in December 2006.           science” regarding performance measures used
• When reviewing development proposals the City           to protect public health and safety and the
  will work to achieve a “no net loss” standard for       resources.
  critical areas and habitats.

Soils

• Highly technical soils information has been
  deleted.


Mitigation Measures:      In addition to Incorporated Plan Features and Applicable Regulations /
Commitments:

• Updated Critical Areas Ordinance has recently been adopted.
• “Best Available Science” policies and methods added to regulations and project reviews.
• Endangered Species Act prohibits harming designated species or their habitats.
• City will encourage sewer extensions into urban areas served by septic.
• Surface water management regulations will reduce impacts from developments on surface water quality
  and quantity.
• State and federal regulations are acknowledged in the Plan for their preeminent roles in guiding
  development. These include the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Air Act; and the
  Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Shoreline Management Act, and Water Pollution
  Control Act.
• City will work with Snohomish County and other local jurisdictions to coordinate environmental
  regulations on a countywide basis.




Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                               Page A-1 - 16
                                                                                 Appendix A-1
                                                       Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts:

Both Alternatives will increase urbanization in the Sultan UGA, thereby increasing potential for erosion and
sedimentation, and reducing infiltration which may affect water resources if not properly controlled; and
reduction of wildlife habitat.




Sultan Comprehensive Plan                                                                Page A-1 - 17
                                                                    Appendix A-1
                                          Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS


              Comparison of Key Elements of the Adopted Plans

On June 29, 2006 the Central Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board ruled that
several actions taken by the City were inconsistent with the requirements of the
Washington Growth Management Act (GMA). The Transportation Improvement Plan
(TIP) was ruled inconsistent with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Different population forecasts for Year 2025 were used in the Water Systems
Plan, the General Sewer Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The City had indicated
that these “functional” sewer and water plans would be updated after comprehensive
plan adoption to make them consistent. The Hearings Board ruled that the original
sewer and water plans should have been based on the comprehensive plan
forecasts before they were adopted. The boundaries of the Water Systems Plan are
different than the Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary. The Sewer Plan is not in
conformity with the Land Use Plan.

This section compares key elements of each of the adopting plans for
Transportation, Water and Sewer to the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facility
Plan to ensure consistency among these documents.

Transportation

The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to provide travel
forecasts for at least ten years based on the jurisdiction’s adopted future land use
plan. In Sultan, this was accomplished though development of a traffic forecasting
model that provided future traffic growth forecasts to the year 2025 based on the
City’s adopted year 2025 Future Land Use Plan. A description of the traffic
forecasting model development and its resulting forecasts is provided in the
Transportation Plan. Forecasts were based on two alternative assumptions:

A 2025 No Action Scenario that assumed no change or improvement to the City’s
existing street system. US-2 was assumed to be four lanes with two additional traffic
signals installed at Main Street and at Rice Road intersections.

A 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario that assumed a series of City arterial street
improvements including arterial extensions across the plateau and construction of a
connecting Minor Arterial grid system. US-2 was assumed to be four lanes with two
additional traffic signals installed at Main Street and Rice Road Intersections. A new
right-turn only intersection at 1st Street and US-2 was assumed.

Existing and future (2025) population and land uses were used in the traffic forecast.

At the heart of the transportation planning requirements of the Growth Management
Act (GMA) is the requirement of local governments planning under the act to
determine their transportation needs, including local and state transportation system
improvements as well as projects and strategies necessary to meet established level
of service standards.



Supplemental EIS                          18                 Comprehensive Plan Update
City of Sultan                                                             August 2007
                                                                     Appendix A-1
                                           Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS
The overall goal of the City’s Transportation Element is to promote a balanced,
affordable, reliable and efficient transportation system that supports the City’s 2025
Future Land Use Plan. In order to meet the goal, a series of transportation
improvements are recommended for arterials, State highways, transit facilities and
services, non-motorized facilities, and freight transport facilities. Following is a
summary of the Transportation Plan recommendations.

Arterial System Improvements
A series of transportation improvements are recommended to develop the arterial
street system within the Sultan Planning Area. Four types of system improvements
are recommended:
1. Existing street deficiency improvements necessary to address existing
   deficiencies on both local access and arterial streets,
2. Future arterial system capacity improvements necessary to meet the City’s traffic
   level of service (LOS) standard “D”,
3. Future arterial system enhancements necessary to meet City street design
   standards and to provide enhanced arterial system connectivity to help reduces
   traffic congestion at key system choke points, and
4. Two transportation projects that look out beyond the year 2025 to present long-
   term City project concepts to begin dialogue with regional leaders and potential
   partner agencies.

Utilities

   As a result of the Growth Management Hearings Board decision, the water and
   sewer plans for the City were each compared against the 2004 Comprehensive
   Plan to determine where inconsistencies occurred. Such inconsistencies were
   the result of the three plans being developed at different times and based on
   differing data or assumptions.

   For the 2007 update, the land use plan was confirmed as accommodating a 2025
   population of 11,119. This population was distributed throughout the community
   based on a methodology used by Perteet Inc. for the transportation study. Based
   on the population distribution, the water and sewer plans were reviewed to
   confirm when and where utility systems would be required. The cost of the public
   portion of the utility and transportation improvements (private development will
   pay for some extensions to serve new projects) were then confirmed. These
   estimates were put in the capital facilities element of the Plan. Upon adoption of
   the Plan, the water and sewer plans will be revised with the updated information.
   Cost and revenue estimates for transportation are included in the 6-year
   Transportation Improvement Program.

   As a result of this review, the utility plans are consistent with the Comprehensive
   Plan update.




Supplemental EIS                          19                  Comprehensive Plan Update
City of Sultan                                                              August 2007
                                                                    Appendix A-1
                                          Comprehensive Plan and Supplemental EIS
Piping: The size of the CFP utilities are those assumed in the 2007 Plan and this
sizing will suffice for the current UGA boundaries.

•   General Sewer Plan

    Population Served: The three plans all assume a 2025 population of 11,119. In
    December 2005, Snohomish County adopted new population targets for the
    County and the constituent cities. The 2025 target population for the City of
    Sultan was 10,840 people; however this target has since been revised to be
    11,119 people in 2025. (City of Sultan General Sewer Plan Amendment No. 1,
    April 20, 2006)

    Area Served: The sewer plan assumed the current UGA boundaries and did not
    make its own recommendations on UGA boundaries. The population was
    distributed as part of the transportation plan and is consistent with the new
    boundaries.


•   Water System Plan

    Population Served: The three plans all assume a 2025 population of 11,119.

    Area Served: The Comprehensive Plan reflects two recent expansions of the
    UGA on the northern edge of the City near the Water Treatment Plant. The
    population was distributed as part of the transportation plan and is consistent
    with the new boundaries. The water plan assumed the then current UGA
    boundaries and did not make its own recommendations on UGA boundaries.

    Major Projects: The 2005 Water System Plan identified 26 improvement
    projects. The 2007 CFP shows that two of those has been completed (W-1 and
    W-22), 7 have been deleted (W-4, W-5, W-7, W-10, W-21, W-25 and W-26). Of
    the remaining projects in the Water System Plan, the 2007 CFP reflects minor
    inconsistencies in nine of those projects regarding name or length or size of pipe
    to be upgraded. The 2007 CFP includes updated cost estimates and 14 newly
    proposed projects; and incorrectly notes that W-27 was in the Water System
    Plan. If so, the two plans are consistent even though the UGA boundaries may
    have changed.

    Piping: The size of the CFP utilities are those assumed in the 2006 Plan and this
    sizing will suffice for the current UGA boundaries.




Supplemental EIS                          20                Comprehensive Plan Update
City of Sultan                                                            August 2007
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




                Appendix B:
           Level of Service (LOS)

             LOS will be part of the Final
             Comprehensive Plan Update




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN                    APPENDIX-B
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




                        Appendix C:
                        Definitions




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN              APPENDIX-C
Appendix C: Definitions
100-year flood plain – means land adjoining a river, stream, watercourse, ocean, bay,
or lake having a 1% chance of being inundated in any given year. Floodwaters may
result from the overflow of inland or tidal waters and/or the unusual and rapid
accumulation of surface runoff from any source.

Act - means the Growth Management Act as enacted in Chapter 17, Laws of 1990, 1st
Ex. Session, and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991, 1st Special Session, State of Washington.

Adequate capital facilities - means facilities that have the capacity to serve
development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums.

Adopt a comprehensive land use plan - means to enact a new comprehensive land
use plan or to update an existing comprehensive land use plan.

Agricultural land - means land primarily devoted to the commercial production of
horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of
berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed. Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax
imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, or livestock that has long-term
commercial significance for agricultural production.

Aquifer – means a body or rock sediment, sand, or gravel that is able to store and
conduct significant quantities of groundwater.

Aquifer recharge areas – are areas where surface water is able to permeate the soil
and is conducted to aquifers for storage.

Available capital facilities - means facilities or services are in place or a financial
commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified time. In the
case of transportation, the specified time is six years from the time of development.

Capital facility - means a physical structure owned or operated by a government entity
that provides or supports a public service.

Characterized by urban growth - refers to land having urban growth located on it, or to
land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for
urban growth.

City - means any city or town, including a code city.

Concurrency - means that adequate capital facilities are available when the impacts of
development occur. This definition includes the 2 concepts - "adequate capital facilities"
and of "available capital facilities" as defined above.

Consistency - means that no feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any
other feature of a plan or regulation. Consistency is indicative of a capacity for orderly
integration or operation with other elements in a system.
Comprehensive land use plan, comprehensive plan, or plan - means a generalized
coordinated land use policy statement of the governing body of a county or city that is
adopted pursuant to this chapter.

Contiguous development - means development of areas immediately adjacent to one
another.

Coordination - means consultation and cooperation among jurisdictions.

Critical areas - include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with
a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas.

Demand Management Strategies or Transportation Demand Management
Strategies (TDM) - means strategies aimed at changing travel behavior rather than at
expanding the transportation network to meet travel demand. Such strategies can
include the promotion of work hour changes, ride-sharing options, parking policies or
telecommuting.

Department - means the Sultan Planning Department.

Development regulations - means any controls placed on development of land use
activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, official
controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances and binding site
plan ordinances.

Domestic Water System - means that any system providing a supply of potable water
for the intended use of a development that is deemed adequate pursuant to RCW
19.27.097.

Fish and wildlife habitat – means areas identified as being important to the
maintenance of fish, wildlife, and plant species.

Financial commitment - means sources of public or private funds or combinations
thereof have been identified that will be sufficient to finance capital facilities necessary to
support development and that there is assurance that such funds will be timely put to
that end.

Forest land - means and primarily useful for growing trees, including
Christmas trees subject to the excise tax imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through
84.33.140 for commercial purposes, and that has long-term commercial significance for
growing trees commercially.

Geologically hazardous areas - means areas that because of their susceptibility to
erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of
commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety
concerns.

Goal – means a general condition, ideal situation, or achievement that reflects societal
values or broad public purposes.

Growth Management Act - see definition of "Act."
Level of Service (LOS) - means an established minimum capacity of capital facilities or
services provided by capital facilities that must be provided per unit of demand or other
appropriate measure of need.

Long-term commercial significance - includes the growing capacity, productivity and
soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production, in consideration with
the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense uses of the
land.

Master planned resort - means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit
development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on
destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated
with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.

Minerals - include gravel, sand and valuable metallic substances.

New fully contained community - is a development proposed for location outside of
the initially designated urban growth areas that is characterized by urban densities, uses
and services.

Planning period - means the 20-year period following the adoption of a comprehensive
plan or such longer period as may gave been selected as the initial planning horizon by
the planning jurisdiction.

Policy – means an action-oriented procedure, activity, or decision-making that defines
the process by which an objective is achieved.

Potable water – means water suitable for drinking.

Public facilities - include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting
systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and
schools.

Public services - include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public
health, education, recreation, environmental protection and other governmental services.

Regional transportation plan - means the transportation plan for the regionally
designated transportation system that is produced by the regional Transportation
Planning Organization.

Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) - means the voluntary
organization conforming to RCW 47.80.020, consisting of local governments within a
region containing one or counties which have common transportation interests.

Rural lands - means all lands that are not within an urban growth area and are not
designated as natural resource lands having long term commercial significance for
production of agricultural products, timber, or the extraction of minerals.

Sanitary sewer systems - means all facilities, including approved on-site disposal
facilities, used in the collection, transmission, storage, treatment or discharge of any
waterborne waste, whether domestic in origin or a combination of domestic, commercial
or industrial waste.
Solid waste handling facility - means any facility for the transfer or ultimate disposal of
solid waste, including landfills and municipal incinerators.

Snohomish County Tomorrow – means a joint planning process of the County, its
cities and towns, and the Tulalip Tribes to guide effective growth management and to
meet the requirements of the GMA for coordination and consistency among local
comprehensive plans.

Transportation facilities - includes capital facilities related to air, water or land
transportation.

Transportation level of service (LOS) standards - means a measure that describes
the operational condition of the travel stream, usually in terms of speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety.

Transportation system management (TSM) - means low capital expenditures to
increase the capacity of the transportation network. TSM strategies include but are not
limited to signalization, channelization, and bus turnouts.

Urban growth - refers to growth that make intensive use of land for the location of
buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible
with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products,
fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas,
urban growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban
growth" refers to land having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship
to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth.

Urban growth areas (UGA) - means those areas designated by a county pursuant to
R'CW 36.70A.110.

Urban governmental services - include those governmental services historically and
typically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic
water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit
services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not
associated with non-urban areas.

Utilities - means facilities serving the public by means of a network of wires or pipes,
and structures ancillary thereto including systems for the delivery of natural gas,
electricity, telecommunications services, and water and for the disposal of sewage.

Visioning - means a process of citizen involvement to determine values and ideals for
the future of a community and to transform those values and ideals into manageable and
feasible community goals.

Wetland or wetlands - are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass
lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds and
landscape amenities. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the county or city.
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




           Appendix D:
             Six-Year
   Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN              APPENDIX-D
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




         Appendix E:
   Comprehensive Plan Survey




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN              APPENDIX-E
206 completions
Appendix E: Comprehensive plan survey
This survey was mailed to every household within Sultan city limits and urban growth
area to determine what resident voter households liked/disliked about existing conditions
in Sultan. The purpose of the survey was to determine resident household priorities
about issues and projects to be addressed in the comprehensive planning process.

206 households returned completed surveys. The resulting survey results are accurate
to within 8+/- percent of the opinions of the general population who decided to
participate in the survey – and not necessarily of the general population at large (the
statistics are rounded and may not add to 100 percent). The statistics also account for
undecided (generally ranged from 0 to 3% of the total) but do not depict the percents in
the tables shown.

Existing conditions
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest rating, how would you rate the
following in the Sultan area?
                                                                    lowest / highest
Environment                                                        1    2   3    4    5
    5 Preservation of woodlands, open spaces, natural             13% 15% 34% 19% 13%
        features?
    6 Landscaping of roadways and other public places?           13% 22% 40% 15% 7%
Economics                                                          1    2   3    4    5
    7 Local employment opportunities?                            29% 33% 18% 7% 8%
    8 Local education and training opportunities?                18% 27% 29% 11% 10%
    9 Child and daycare services?                                15% 19% 36% 11% 4%
Land use                                                           1    2   3    4    5
  10 Pattern of land development?                                 27% 19% 29% 11% 8%
  11 Quality of commercial development projects?                 18% 24% 29% 13% 9%
  12 Quality of development along SR-2 corridor?                 24% 27% 24% 12% 8%
  13 Quality of development within the downtown area?            16% 29% 30% 13% 7%
Housing                                                            1    2   3    4    5
  14 Housing selection – type, design, neighborhood?              17% 18% 32% 21% 9%
  15 Housing costs – sales prices, rents, and affordability?       6% 9% 36% 34% 10%
Transportation                                                     1    2   3    4    5
  16 Local roadway conditions and traffic controls?               22% 26% 21% 16% 12%
  17 Transit services, schedules, and routes?                      4% 16% 39% 22% 9%
  18 Parking conditions in commercial developments?                7% 13% 43% 23% 7%
Utilities                                                          1    2   3    4    5
  19 Sewage service?                                               5% 4% 31% 34% 13%
  20 Water service and quality?                                    3% 6% 26% 34% 24%
  21 Stormwater management?                                        8% 10% 33% 29% 12%
  22 Solid waste – garbage service?                                6% 7% 24% 36% 20%
Services                                                           1    2   3    4    5
  23 School system (grade k-12)?                                   6% 10% 30% 27% 12%
  24 Community planning?                                          12% 22% 36% 14% 7%
  25 Building permits/regulatory process?                        18% 19% 29% 13% 7%
  26 City services in general?                                     6% 13% 42% 27% 7%
Safety and security measures                                       1    2   3    4    5
  27 Police protection?                                            4% 5% 17% 41% 29%
  28 Fire protection?                                              2% 1% 17% 41% 33%
  29 Ambulance and paramedic service?                              2% 2% 22% 35% 33%
Recreation                                                         1    2   3    4    5
  30 Park and recreational opportunities?                          7% 15% 34% 28% 10%
  31 Trail systems?                                                9% 14% 33% 23% 12%
Urban design                                                       1    2   3    4    5
 32      Historic preservation efforts?                         11% 21% 36% 16% 6%
 33      Building appearances and conditions in general?        10% 25% 38% 19% 4%
 34      General cleanliness and attractiveness?                 8% 22% 32% 27% 8%
 35      Street amenities – signs, landscaping, benches, etc?    6% 18% 42% 23% 7%
Fiscal                                                           1   2   3   4   5
 36 Property tax assessments?                                    9% 13% 47% 16% 7%
 37 Utility charges?                                            12% 17% 38% 15% 11%

Sultan facilities
How often does your household use the following facilities in the Sultan area?
City facilities                                never yearly monthly weekly daily
 38 Library?                                    17%    25%    33%     21%    1%
 39 City hall and other public services?        17%    32%    36%     8%     2%
 40 Walk or bike on a trail or walkway?         28%    16%    28%    21%     5%
 41 Use park and recreation facilities?         23%    27%    28%    17%     2%
 42 Attend a city festival or event?            12%    73%    11%      2%    0%

Shopping behavior
How often does your household shop at the following shopping areas?
Shopping areas                                 never yearly monthly weekly daily
 43 Sultan?                                      3%     6%     22%    51% 15%
 44 Local cities – Monroe, Snohomish,            1%    1%    16%    63% 17%
     Lake Stevens, Silver Lake, Mill
     Creek?
 45 Malls – Everett, Alderwood,                 10%     36%      44%         9%   0%
     Bellevue?
 46 Downtown – Everett and Seattle?             23%     43%      27%         5%   0%

Commercial goods and services
Where is your household most likely to shop for the following items (circle one)?
Convenience goods and services                 Sultan Local cities Malls Downtown
 47 Food and drug?                               25%         72%    0%        0%
 48 Clothing and accessories?                    0%          53% 41%          3%
Convenience goods and services                 Sultan Local cities Malls Downtown
 49 Sporting goods?                               7%         52% 27%          4%
 50 Barber and beauty shops?                    26%          63%    4%        1%
Home and auto
 51 Hardware and home improvements?              35%            58%     1%          3%
 52 Home furnishings and furniture?              4%             56%    22%         12%
 53 Automobile sales and repairs?                21%            67%     1%          8%
Services
 54 Bank and financial?                          50%            45%    0%           3%
 55 Medical and dental?                          25%            68%    3%           2%
 56 Professional and legal?                       3%            71%    2%          14%
Entertainment
 57 Eating and drinking establishments?          44%            43%    1%          4%
 58 Cinema, bowling, and other                    2%            83%    3%          1%
      recreation?
Average monthly expenditure                    $0 50 100 250 500 750 1000 +
 59 How much do you spend in Sultan?           2% 17% 33% 25% 5% 5% 2% 3%
 60 How much do you spend in other             0% 3% 8% 23% 21% 14% 12% 10%
      areas?

Reasons for going elsewhere
Which factors affect your decision not to purchase the items listed in the Sultan area?
Reasons for not shopping in Sultan                            1 2   3   4   5
 61 Goods and services not available locally?                9% 4% 12% 23% 50%
 62 Better selection of goods and services offered           2% 2% 15% 29% 49%
     elsewhere?
 63 Better service provided elsewhere – friendly, helpful,   28% 22% 21% 9% 14%
     etc?
 64 Lower prices provided elsewhere?                          7% 7% 26%24% 28%
 65 More and better traffic and parking conditions           29% 19% 23%10% 10%
     elsewhere?
 66 Cleaner, more pleasant looking stores and environs       18% 18% 26%15% 13%
     elsewhere?

Your household characteristics
                                            circle appropriate response
 67 How long have you lived in Sultan?      0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+ years
                                            7% 35% 14%          9%     3% 28%
 68 What age group are you in?              <18 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
                                             0% 1% 21% 23% 21% 14% 14%
 69 How many people in your household          0    1      2 3 4 5+ employees
      are employed on a full-time basis?    17% 33% 39% 5% 1% 0%
 70 Where do you work?                      19% Sultan
                                            10% Monroe
                                             3% Snohomish
                                             7% Everett
                                             9% Other Snohomish County
                                            19% King County
                                            17% Other___________
                                            15% No response
 71 Do you own or rent your residence?      own rent
                                            93%       4%

Comments?
 72 What should we work on?                 158 or 77% response
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




                        Appendix F:
  Comprehensive Plan Checklist:
 A Technical Assistance Tool from
        the Washington State
 Office of Community Development
   Growth Management Services




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN              APPENDIX-F
                                          COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHECKLIST
                                A Technical Assistance Tool From Growth Management Services


Name and address of city or county:
City of Sultan, PO Box 1199
319 Main Street
Sultan, WA 98294-1199

Staff contact, phone, and e-mail address:
Reid Shockey
Shockey Brent, Inc.,
2716 Colby Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
425-258-9308
rshockey@shockeybrent.com

Instructions:                                                                            Checklist Topics:
This checklist is intended to help jurisdictions update their comprehensive plan, as     Land Use                      2-8
required by RCW 36.70A.130(4). We encourage but do not require jurisdictions to
                                                                                         Housing                         8
complete the checklist and return it to Growth Management Services (GMS). This
checklist is for local governments fully planning under the Growth Management Act        Capital Facilities            10
(GMA), not for those planning for resource lands and critical areas only. For general    Utilities                      12
information on update requirements, refer to Technical Bulletins 1.2 and 1.4.1. For      Rural                          12
Q&A and a map of the smaller, slower-growing cities and counties eligible for a three-   Transportation                 13
year update deadline extension under the Growth Management Act Timelines Bill
(ESSB 6427) see GMS’s Timelines Q&A [NEW in 2006].                                       Economic Development           15
                                                                                         Park and Recreation           16
Bold items are a GMA requirement. Other items may be requirements of other state         Shoreline                     16
or federal laws, best practices, or ideas to consider. Highlighted items are links to    Essential Public Facilities   17
Internet sites.
                                                                                         Optional Elements              18
Submit proposed plans or amendments to GMS for review 60-days prior to adoption          Consistency                    18
[RCW 36.70A.106(1)]. Submit adopted items with a copy of the signed adopting             Public Participation           18
ordinance to GMS within 10 days of adoption [RCW 36.70A.106(2)]. All submittals
should be sent to:                                                                       Amendments                     18
     reviewteam@cted.wa.gov or
     Growth Management Services
     Attn: Review Team
     P.O. Box 42525
     Olympia, WA 98504-2525

If you have questions, call GMS at (360) 725-3000.
Please send grant deliverables directly to the Technical and Financial Assistance Team
at gmsgrants@cted.wa.gov.




                                               Updated through laws of 2006
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   Enclosures to submit to GMS:                                                                     Important Dates:
                                                                                                    Date of planning commission
        Cover Letter noting material type, contact information and important dates;
                                                                                                    public hearing:
        Two copies of proposed plan or amendment (electronic format encouraged);
        Outline of the public participation process (completed and scheduled);
                                                                                                    Date of Council or Commission
        Outline of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance process                         public hearing:
       (enclosing all SEPA documents not previously submitted to GMS);
       Outline of coordination efforts with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure consistency;
                                                                                                    Anticipated date of Council or
       and
                                                                                                    Commission adoption (must be at
       For adopted items, the signed ordinance that includes in the findings of fact a              least 60-days from date CTED
       description of the public participation process; and for updates, a statement that           receives notice):
       the plan and development regulations has been reviewed and updated per RCW
       36.70A.130(4).


   1. The Land Use Element should be consistent with countywide planning policies (CWPPs) and RCW 36.70A.070(1), and
   should consider WAC 365-195-305, 335, 400, 410, and 430.
   a. Does the element include goals and policies relating to land use,                Goals and policies
      urban growth and population growth, stormwater and critical areas             p.17-23
      (unless in separate element), natural resource lands (if applicable),
      and lands for public purposes?
   b. Does the element include a future land use map (or maps)?                        Land use map

       Maps could fulfill the requirement to clearly show the general
       distribution of land, where appropriate, for agriculture, timber             p. 11 Map II-1: Sultan
       production, housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open                    Urban Area Vicinity
                                                                                    Map
       spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public
       facilities, and other land uses. [RCW 36.70A.070(1)]
                                                                                    p. 14 Map II-2:
       Future land use maps should clearly show city limits and urban               Future Land Use Map
       growth area (UGA) boundaries. [RCW 36.70A.110(6)] Include
       a table showing which zones implement which land use
       designations and the total acreage in each land use designation.
                                                                                    See Chapter VII Parks
       Does the element consider planning approaches that increase                  & Recreation
       physical activity, such as neighborhood commercial nodes to allow
       walking and cycling to local services, transit-oriented development,           Planning for
       linear parks and trails network, and siting schools and other public           physical activity
       facilities within neighborhoods to allow easy walking? [RCW
       36.70A.070(1) (AMENDED in 2005)]




                                                                  Page 2
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   c. Does the plan indicate the population for which it is planning and is             Population
      this projection used consistently in the plan?                                    projection uses
                                                                                        latest forecast
       Is the population growth projected in the comprehensive plan
       consistent with the Washington Office of Financial Management
       forecast for the county or the county’s sub-county allocation of that         p. 10 Population
       forecast? [RCW 43.62.035] If not, what is the rationale for using                Growth Trends
       another figure?
       For counties: What is the percentage of county-wide population
       growth allocated for urban growth areas? Is this allocation
       consistent with GMA goals of encouraging urban growth in urban
       areas, reducing sprawl, and ensuring public facilities and services
       are efficiently provided?
   d. As required by RCW 36.70A.070(1), does the Land Use Element                      Estimated
      include population densities, building intensities, and estimates                population
      of future population growth?                                                     capacity and
                                                                                       appropriate
       GMS suggests including the range of dwelling units per acre
                                                                                       densities
       allowed in each land use designation and/or implementing zones as
       a projection of existing and projected development capacity.                 p.9 Growth trends,
       Review WAC 365-195-305(2)(a-k) for a recommendation of how to                   population
       meet the requirement.                                                           projections

       If a buildable lands analysis has been completed, are measures
       needed to ensure appropriate densities will result? Have such
                                                                                    p.14 Future Land Use
       measures been adopted?
                                                                                       Map
       Buildable lands analysis was required by RCW 36.70A.215 in the 6                Reasonable
       counties with 2004 update deadlines. GMS’s Buildable Lands                      measures adopted
       Program Guidelines has a list of measures.                                      if needed




                                                                  Page 3
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   e. As required by RCW 36.70A.130(3), have urban densities and                       UGA review
      urban growth areas (UGAs) been reviewed every ten years?                         (required every 10
                                                                                       years)
        This may be done as part of an update under RCW 36.70A.130(4).
        Review WAC 365-195-335 and WAC 365-195-630(3) for
        suggestions on how to decide if the UGA is appropriately sized for         p. 10 Population
        the planned population. Supporting information should include:                Growth Trends
        selected population growth forecast scenario [RCW 43.62.035];
        population allocation and percentage of land devoted to urban,              p.13-15 Future Land
        rural, and resource uses (counties) [RCW 36.70A.070(1)]; land                  Use, Residential
        capacity analysis for UGAs, and changes to UGAs with reasons for               Land Supply,
        change. [RCW 36.70A.110 and RCW 36.70A.130(3)] By                              Commercial and
        definition, urban growth areas are all unincorporated areas so                 Office Areas, and
        designated by a county and all incorporated cities and towns.                  Industrial.
        [RCW 36.70A.110 and WAC 365-195-335]
        Other issues to consider:
                                                                                   Chapter VIII, Capital
        Can the jurisdiction adequately provide urban services to an                 Facilities and Public
        expanded UGA? Look to the CWPPs as possible guidance to                      Services. See
        determine whether a UGA expansion is needed and how this                     “Capital Facilities
        process should be conducted.                                                 in Sultan”,
                                                                                     specifically Water
        Is there a coordinated approach to planning for development in
                                                                                     Facilities, and
        urban growth areas, especially among adjacent jurisdictions?
                                                                                     Sewer Facilities.
        Do urban growth areas (incorporated or not) provide for achieving
        urban densities, services, and uses? Do policies and regulations           p. 17-23 Goals and
        encourage urban growth in urban areas and reduce sprawl?                      Policies
        It is recommended that UGAs not be expanded into areas where
        urbanization may have a significant adverse impact on critical
        areas.
        If a county designates a fully contained community (FCC), part of
        the county’s population allocation should be reserved for the FCC.
        [RCW 36.70A.350(2)]
   f.   Does the plan identify lands useful for public purposes such as                 Public use lands
        utility corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage               p. 85-87
        treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities,
        recreation, schools, and other public uses? [RCW 36.70A.150
        and WAC 365-195-430]
                                                                                        List of acquisitions
        Has a list of acquisitions been developed with a timeline and
        budget for acquiring lands useful for public purposes under RCW
        36.70A.150? [The list need not be part of the comprehensive plan.]

   g. Does the plan identify open space corridors within and between                    Open space
      urban growth areas, including lands useful for recreation,                        corridors
      wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas? [RCW               p. 102-103, 110-112
      36.70A.160]




                                                                  Page 4
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   h. If there is an airport within or adjacent to the jurisdiction, does the           No incompatible
      plan include policies, land use designations, and zoning to                       uses near airports
      discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to general
      aviation airports? [RCW 36.70.547 (NEW in 1996)]

        Have the plan and regulations been filed with the Aviation
        Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation                   Plan filed with
        (WSDOT)? [RCW 36.70.547 (NEW in 1996)]                                          WSDOT

        Does the plan allow the siting and expansion of general aviation
        airports according to local provisions and state requirements for
        siting essential public facilities? [RCW 36.70A.200]




   i.   Is there a U.S. Military Base within or adjacent to the jurisdiction
        employing 100 or more personnel, and operated by the U.S.
        Department of Defense? See Map of U.S. bases to help make this
        determination.

        If so, does the plan include policies, land use designations, and               No incompatible
        zoning to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to                 uses near bases
        military bases? [RCW 36.70A.530(3) (NEW in 2004)]

        Has the commander of the base been informed of amendments
        to comprehensive plan and development regulations on lands                      Base commander
        adjacent to the base? [RCW 36.70A.530(4)]                                       notified




                                                                  Page 5
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   j.   Does the Land Use Element review drainage, flooding, and                       Stormwater
        stormwater run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and                    planning
        provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse
        those discharges that pollute waters of the state? [RCW                     p. 128-130 Future
        36.70A.70(1)] RCW 90.56.010(26) defines waters of the state.                   Conditions and
        Do stormwater policies and regulations incorporate the State                   Stormwater
        Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Manual for Eastern or                       Protections
        Western Washington or the equivalent? This could be one way to
        demonstrate compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection                   p. 128
        Agency (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
        (NPDES) [Section 402] Phase 2 permit requirements.
        Examples of best practices for stormwater include:
        •   Provisions to retain natural hydrology and processes, such as
            limiting effective impervious surfaces, clustering, preserving
            open spaces and forests, and promoting low impact
            development practices. See Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT)
            low impact development (LID) guidance.
        •   Provisions to incorporate relevant land-use recommendations
            for the watershed.
            http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html, and for salmon
            recovery www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/default.htm.
        •   Policy to adopt a clearing and grading ordinance if not already
            existing (See GMS’s Technical Guidance Document for
            Clearing and Grading in Western Washington).




   k. Does the comprehensive plan designate and protect critical                       BAS used to
      areas using the best available science (BAS) in developing                       designate and
      policies to protect the functions and values of critical areas, and              protect critical areas
      giving “special consideration” to conservation or protection                  p. 83 Chapter VI
      measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous                             Natural
      fisheries? [RCW 36.70A.172, WAC 365-190-080, and WAC 365-                        Environment
      195-900 through 925 (BAS is NEW in 1995)]
        Plan policies should address the five critical areas. [RCW
        36.70A.030(5)] See CTED’s Critical Areas Assistance Handbook
        for help. CTED recommends that jurisdictions follow the process in
        WAC 365-195-915 to document decisions.




                                                                  Page 6
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   l.   Are there policies to designate and protect wetlands and their
        buffers?                                                                       Wetlands defined
                                                                                     under GMA definition
        Are wetlands defined using RCW 36.70A.030(21)?
        Are wetlands delineated using the Washington State                              Wetlands
        Department of Ecology (Ecology’s) Wetland Delineation                           delineation using
        Manual? [RCW 36.70A.175, NEW in 1995]                                           Ecology’s manual
                                                                                     p.92 Goals and
        See Ecology’s resources on wetlands for assistance.                             Policies


   m. Does the plan include provisions for protection of the quality                    CARAs
      and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies?
      [RCW 36.70A.070(1)]                                                            p.92-95 Goals and
        This is required if jurisdictions draw groundwater for potable water            Policies
        or need to manage threats to exempt wells. Policies should limit
        impervious surfaces and regulate hazardous uses in critical aquifer
        recharge areas (CARAs), protect wellhead areas, and consider
        watershed plans. See Ecology’s guidance on Critical Aquifer
        Recharge Areas (CARAs) and Water Resource Inventory
        Assessment (WRIA) plans.
   n. Are policies and land use designations for frequently flooded areas               Frequently flooded
      consistent with FEMA guidance? Classifications of frequently                     areas regulated
      flooded areas should include, at a minimum, the 100-year                         using FEMA
      floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management                      guidance?
      Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program. [WAC 365-                     p.86-88 Floodplains
      190-080(3)]
        Has the link between flooding and ecological functions, such as
        groundwater recharge, wetlands, etc, been considered?
   o. Are geologically hazardous areas designated according to criteria in              Geohazards
      WAC 365-190-080(4)? Is the range of uses limited in geologically               p.67 Goals and
      hazardous areas, especially excluding critical facilities such as                 Policies
      emergency response, hospitals, etc.?


   p. Are significant fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and                  Fish and wildlife
      corridors designated for protection? See WAC 365-190-080(5) for                   habitat
      more information on specific habitat conservation areas, and factors              conservation areas
      to consider for their designation and protection. Is there                     p.91 Protection
      coordination with adjacent jurisdictions when habitat areas cross-                Measures
      jurisdictional boundaries?
        See http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm for lists of priority habitats
        and species.
        See http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watertyping to use
        Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)’s
        stream typing system?



                                                                  Page 7
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   q. Is the jurisdiction affected by an Endangered Species Act (ESA)               p. 91 Protection
      4(d) rule? Are requirements of the rule, if applicable, incorporated          Measures
      into comprehensive plan policies? Have species listings affected
      land use assumptions, capital facilities planning, and permit
      processes? Will new capital facilities (e.g., new infrastructure,
      water, and wastewater utilities) be needed to comply with ESA?
      Have they been included in the Capital Facilities Element of the
      plan?
        Will stormwater regulations or clearing and grading ordinances
        need to be updated to protect fish habitat? Should new policies be
        added to the plan?
        If monitoring programs have been adopted to ensure that habitat is
        being maintained, is there adequate funding for monitoring?

   r.   If there is inadequate scientific information about critical areas, has
        the jurisdiction adopted an “adaptive management” policy and
        program for addressing this situation?
        WAC 365-195-920 and Critical Areas Assistance Handbook
        provide guidance on the recommended approach for addressing
        inadequate scientific information.
   s.   Have non-regulatory measures to protect or enhance functions and            p. 91 Protection
        values of critical areas been considered? These may include public          Measures
        education, stewardship programs, pursuing grant opportunities,
        water conservation, farm planning, joint planning with other
        jurisdictions and non-profit organizations, stream and wetland
        restoration activities, etc. See Critical Areas Assistance Handbook
        for more information.
   t.   Are the criteria for designating natural resource lands                        Natural resource
        consistent with CTED’s Minimum Guidelines to classify                          lands designation
        agricultural, forest, mineral lands and critical areas? [RCW                   criteria consistent
        36.70A.050, WAC 365-190, and WAC 365-195-400]
   u. If forest or agricultural lands of long-term commercial                          TDR or PDR
      significance are designated inside UGAs, is there a transfer                      program for forest
      and/or purchase of development rights (TDR, or PDR)                               or agricultural
      program? [RCW 36.70A.060(4)]                                                      lands inside UGAs

   v. Are there policies limiting nonagricultural uses to lands with                    Limit accessory
      poor soils or otherwise not suitable for agricultural purposes                    uses on
      and policies limiting the allowable range of accessory uses to                    agricultural lands
      those allowed under RCW 36.70A.177(3) (AMENDED in 2004
      and 2006)?




                                                                  Page 8
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   w. Are there policies encouraging the conservation of productive                     Policies
      forest and agricultural lands and discouraging incompatible                       encouraging
      uses? RCW 36.70A.020(8) (AMENDED in 1997)]                                        conservation and
                                                                                        discouraging
       Are innovative techniques such as agricultural zoning, cluster                   incompatible uses
       zoning, large lot zoning, quarter/quarter zoning, and sliding scale              on resource lands.
       zoning allowed in agricultural lands to conserve lands and
       encourage the agricultural economy included? [RCW 36.70A.177
       (AMENDED in 1997 and 2004)]
   x. Have designated mineral resource lands been reviewed?                             Review mineral
                                                                                        resource lands
   RCW 36.70A.131 requires consideration of new information including
   data available from the Department of Natural Resources relating to
   mineral resource deposits when reviewing mineral resource land
   designations. Minerals include sand, gravel and valuable metallic
   substances. [RCW 36.70A.030(11)]
   y. If the county is eligible and has designated a major industrial
      development or master planned location outside of the UGA, is                     Major industrial
      the area consistent with the criteria in RCW 36.70A.365 and                       area
      367? [NEW in 1995; AMENDED in 2004]
   z. If the county has permitted a master planned resort, have the                     Master planned
      requirements of RCW 36.70A.360 been met?                                          resort


   2. The Housing Element is intended to ensure the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods. It should
   be consistent with relevant CWPPs, RCW 36.70A.070(2), and should consider WAC 365-195-310.
   a. Is there a statement of goals, policies, and objectives for the                  Strategy for housing
      preservation, improvement, and development of housing?                        p.35-37 Goals and
      [RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b)] What strategy and mechanisms are there                    policies – Housing
      for achieving these targets?                                                     Element
       If enacting or expanding affordable housing programs under ESHB
       2984, does the plan identify certain land use designations within a
       geographic area where increased residential development will
       assist in achieving local growth management and housing policies?
       [RCW 36.70A Section 2 (3)(a)] [NEW in 2006]
   b. Does the element include an inventory and analysis of existing                   Housing needs
      and projected housing needs that identifies the number of                        analysis using latest
      housing units necessary to manage projected growth over the                      population
      planning period? [RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)] Review CTED’s                            projection
      Assessing Your Housing Needs for assistance.                                  p.35 Projected housing
                                                                                       needs, Table IV-4
                                                                                       New Housing Units
                                                                                       Needed 2004-2025




                                                                  Page 9
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   c. Does the element identify sufficient land for housing, including                 Special housing
      but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for                     planned for and not
      low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily                           subject to
      housing, group homes, and foster care facilities? [RCW                           discrimination
      36.70A.070(2)(c)]                                                             p.35 Housing Types
       No city or county planning under the GMA may enact or
       maintain ordinances, development regulations, or
       administrative practices which treat a residential structure                 p.37 Policy 4.4.1
       occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar
       residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated
       individuals. [RCW 36.70A.410; RCW 70.128.140; Washington
       Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222-225; and WAC
       365-195-310(2)(k)]
   d. Does the plan make adequate provisions for existing and                         Affordable housing
      projected housing needs of all economic segments of the                         planned
      community? [RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)]                                            p.35 Policy 4.1.1
       WAC 365-195-310 recommends an evaluation of the extent to                   p.35 Policy 4.1.2
       which the existing and projected market can provide housing at              p.35 Policy 4.1.3
       various costs and for various income levels, and an estimation of           p.35 Policy 4.2.1
       the present and future populations that would require assistance to         p.37 Policy 4.4.2
       obtain housing they can afford. This section should also identify
       existing programs and policies to promote adequate affordable
       housing and evaluate their effectiveness.
       Do affordable housing programs enacted or expanded under ESHB
       2984 comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A Section 2 (2
       and 3)? Examples of such programs include but are not limited to:
       density bonuses within urban growth areas, height and bulk
       bonuses, fee waivers or exemptions, parking reductions, expedited
       permitting conditioned on provision of low-income housing units,
       or mixed use projects. [RCW 36.70A Section 2(1)]. Affordable
       housing is defined as when the total housing costs, including basic
       utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the income limit (50 percent
       or less of the county median family income, adjusted for family-
       size for renters or 80 percent or less of the county median family
       income, adjusted for family size for owners). [RCW 36.70A
       Section 2(2)(b-c)] [NEW in 2006]
   e. Are there policies on manufactured housing so that it is not                     No discrimination
      regulated differently than site built housing? [RCW 35.21.684,                   against
      35.63.160, 35A.21.312, and 36.01.225 (AMENDED in 2004)]                          manufactured
                                                                                       housing
       A local government may require that manufactured homes (1) new,
       (2) are set on a permanent foundation, and (3) comply with local             p.35 Policy 4.2.1
       design standards applicable to other homes in the neighborhood;
       but may not discriminate against consumer choice in housing.
       [National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
       Standards Act of 1974]




                                                                 Page 10
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   f.   If the city has a population of over 20,000, or the county has a              ADUs allowed
        population of over 125,000, does the jurisdiction allow                    City population target
        accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family residential               for 2025 is 11,119
        areas? [RCW 43.63A.215(3)]                                                 however;
                                                                                   p.36 Policy 4.2.2
                                                                                   encourages “mother-in-
                                                                                   law” units
   g. Are family daycare providers allowed in all residential                          Family daycares
      dwellings located in areas zoned for residential or commercial                   allowed
      use and are any zoning conditions imposed no more restrictive                 This is not specifically
      than conditions imposed on other residential dwellings in the                    covered in the
      same zone? [RCW 36.70A.450] Family daycare provider means                        Comprehensive
      a child daycare provider who regularly provides child daycare for                Plan.
      not more than 12 children in the provider’s home in the family
      living quarters. [RCW 74.15.020(1)(f)]


   3. The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element needs to be consistent with CWPPs, RCW 36.70A.070(3), and WAC 365-
   195-315 and should serve as a check on the practicality of achieving other elements of the plan. This element should cover
   all the services planned, provided, and paid for by the jurisdiction. For clarity, services provided by other providers could be
   included in the Utilities Element, or as a subsection of the CFP.
  a.    Does the element include goals and policies relating to capital                 Goals and policies
        facilities to guide decisions? [RCW 36.70A.120]
  b.    Does the element include an inventory of existing capital                       Inventory of
        facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and                  existing facilities
        capacities of the capital facilities? [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a)]                 p.121-139 Capital
                                                                                        Facilities in Sultan
        The inventory could include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater,
        school, parks and recreation facilities, solid waste management,
        police and fire protection facilities. The element should include
        references to water or other system plans, include a brief summary
        of these plans, indicate location of the facilities, and show where
        systems currently have unused capacity. Public services and
        facilities defined in RCW 36.70A.030(12 and 13).
  c.    Is a forecast of the future needs for existing capital facilities                Forecast of future
        included in the element? [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b)]                                  needs
                                                                                      p.140 Table VIII-1
        The forecast should be based on projected population and adopted
                                                                                         Six Year Capital
        levels of service (LOS) [urban LOS for cities, rural LOS for
                                                                                         Improvement Plan
        counties], population densities, and distribution of growth over the
        planning period. WAC 365-195-315(2)(b) suggests that                          p.141-144 Table VII-
        jurisdictions include a strategy for providing capital facilities over           2 City of Sultan
        the 20-year life of the plan. Consider whether the jurisdiction has              Capital Facilities
        sufficient water rights or sewage treatment capacity to support the              Plan ($ in millions
        plan’s projected 20-year growth, or a strategy to obtain them.                   2007-2012




                                                                 Page 11
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

  d.   Does the element indicate proposed locations and capacities of                   Planning for future
       expanded or new capital facilities? [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(c)]                       needs
                                                                                     p.141-144 Table VIII-
       WAC 365-195-315(2)(e) suggests that the phasing schedule in the
                                                                                        2: City of Sultan
       Land Use Element should dictate when and where capital facilities
                                                                                        Capital Facilities
       will be needed. Consider if the concurrency ordinance or other
                                                                                        Plan ($ in millions
       mechanisms have been effective in providing public facilities and
                                                                                        2007-2012
       services concurrent with development.

  e.   Is a six-year plan (at least) included that will finance planned                 Six-year funding
       capital facilities within projected funding capacities identifying               plan consistent
       sources of public money for such purposes? Is the CFP                            with comp plan
       consistent with rest of the comprehensive plan? [RCW                           p.140 Table VIII-1
       36.70A.070(3)(d) and RCW 36.70A.120]                                              Six Year Capital
                                                                                         Improvement Plan
       WAC 365-195-315(2)(d) suggests that the plan be updated at least
       biennially so that financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of
       the present for concurrency to be evaluated. For a list of funding
       sources, see http://www.infrafunding.wa.gov/.
       Are there plan provisions establishing policies, levels of service,
       and regulatory strategies for concurrency as applied to public
       facilities other than transportation? [WAC 365-195-510(2 and 3)]
       Can the plan provide adequate facilities in a timely manner? [WAC
       365-195-315(2)]
  f.   Is there a policy to reassess the Land Use Element if probable                   Reassessment
       funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that                 policy included
       the Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element, and financing               p.150 Policy 8.1.1
       plan within the Capital Facilities Element are coordinated and                p.150 Policy 8.1.3
       consistent? [RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e)]
       WAC 365-195-315(2)(f) suggests that the plan set forth how
       pending applications for development will be affected while such a
       reassessment is being undertaken.
  g.   If impact fees are used, are the public facilities for which money               Impact fees used
       is to be collected and spent on, included in this element? [RCW                  only for project
       82.02.050(4)]                                                                    included in the
                                                                                        CFP
                                                                                     p.151 Policy 8.4.1
                                                                                     p.152 Policy 8.4.7




                                                                 Page 12
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   4. The Utilities Element should relate to all services provided, planned for, paid for, and delivered by providers other than
   the jurisdiction. This should be consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(4), and should consider WAC 365-
   195-320.
   a. Does the element include goals and policies relating to service                  Goals and policies
      arrangements with other providers?
   b. Does the element show the general location, proposed location,                    General location of
      and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but               existing facilities
      not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and
      natural gas lines? [RCW 36.70A.070(4)]                                         Chapter VIII, Capital
      When services such as solid waste, water, or sewer are provided by               Facilities and
      separate districts or commercial service providers, they should be               Public Services.
      addressed in this element.                                                       See “Capital
                                                                                       Facilities in
      WAC 365-195-320(2)(a) states that proposed utilities are understood              Sultan”,
      to be those awaiting approval when the CFP is adopted. WAC 365-                  specifically Water
      195-320(2) suggests:                                                             Facilities, and
      • Coordinating with non-municipal service providers to analyze                   Sewer Facilities.
          the capacity needs of various utilities over the planning period.
          [WAC 365-195-320(2)(b)]
      • Evaluating whether any utilities should be identified and
          classified as essential public facilities (EPF) subject to the
          separate siting process established for EPFs. [WAC 365-195-
          320(2)(d)]
      • Consider policies calling for joint use of transportation rights-of-
          way and utility corridors, coordination between road
          construction and utility trenching activities, and coordination of
          utility planning among adjacent jurisdictions. [WAC 365-195-
          320(2)(g) and (h)]


   5. The Rural Element (counties only) should be consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(5), RCW 36.70A.011
   RCW 36.70A.030(15 and 16), and should consider WAC 365-195-330]. Rural lands are lands not included in urban growth
   areas, or designated as agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands.
   a. Are there goals and policies relating to rural land use and services?             Goals and policies




                                                                 Page 13
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   b. Does the element define rural character following the guidance of                 Appropriate uses,
      RCW 36.70A.030, (15), and (16)? RCW 36.70A.070(5) requires                        densities, and
      that the Rural Element allow rural development, forestry, and                     services
      agriculture in rural areas and provide for a variety of rural
      densities, uses, essential public facilities and rural governmental
      services.
       CTED suggests that jurisdictions consider Growth Management
       Hearings Board cases for guidance on appropriate rural densities                 Written record
       and levels of governmental services and compile a written record                 developed
       explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals
       and meets the requirements of the Growth Management. [RCW
       36.70A.070(5)(a)]
       Does the element identify the portion of county’s population growth
       which occur in rural lands? [WAC 365-195-330(2)(b)] Is the
       population density low enough to limit demands on rural services
       and preserve rural character? Are urban services limited in rural                 Urban services
       areas? [RCW 36.70A.110(4)]                                                       limited in rural
                                                                                        areas
       The plan may include optional techniques such as limited areas of
       more intensive rural development (LAMIRDs), clustering, density
       transfer, design guidelines, and conservation easements to
       accommodate rural uses not characterized by urban growth as
       specified in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) [AMENDED in 2004].


   6. The Transportation Element should be consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(6), and should consider
   WAC 365-195-325.
    a. Does the element include goals and policies for roadways; fixed                 Goals and policies
       route and demand response public transit; bicycle and pedestrian
       travel; water, rail, air, and industrial port and intermodal facilities;
       passenger and freight rail; and truck, rail, and barge freight
       mobility? [WAC 365-195-325(2)(a)]
    b. Is there an inventory of air, water, and ground transportation                   Transportation
       facilities and services, including transit alignments, state-                    inventory
       owned transportation facilities, and general aviation airports
       to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis
       for future planning? [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A)]
        WAC 365-195-325(2)(c) provides recommendations for meeting
        inventory requirements.




                                                                 Page 14
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

    c. Does the element include regionally coordinated level of service                 Levels of service
       (LOS) standards for all arterials and transit routes to gauge                    for all facilities;
       the performance of the system, LOS for highways of statewide                     local, regional, and
       significance, and LOS for other state highways consistent with                   state
       the regional transportation plan? [RCW
       36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B) NEW REQUIREMENT IN 1997]
         LOS set by WSDOT for highways of statewide significance. LOS
         on highways that are not of statewide significance should be
         designated through the regional transportation planning
         organization. Local LOS should be defined, such as describing
         what levels A-F look like, or other ways of measuring LOS.



    d. Does the element include the land use assumptions used in                        Land use
       estimating travel? [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(i)]                                     assumptions

    e. Does the element identify specific actions and requirements for                 Concurrency
       bringing into compliance locally owned transportation
       facilities and services that are below an established LOS
       standard? [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(D) (AMENDED in
       2005), WAC 365-195-510, and WAC 365-195-835]
         Are concurrency policies consistent with RCW
         36.70A.070(6)(b) (AMENDED in 2005)? Strategies such as
         increased public transit, ride sharing programs, and other
         multimodal strategies may be used to ensure that development
         does not cause service to decline on a locally owned facility below
         adopted levels of service.
         If required by ESSB 6566, has a commute trip reduction plan
         to achieve reductions in the proportion of single-occupant
         vehicle commute trips been adopted and submitted to the
         regional transportation planning organization? Is it consistent
         with the comprehensive plan? [NEW in 2006]
    f.   Does the element describe existing and planned transportation                 TDM Strategies
         demand management (TDM) strategies, such as HOV lanes,
         parking policies, high occupancy vehicle subsidy programs, etc.?
         [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi)].
    g. Does the element include a pedestrian and bicycle component?                    Bicycle and
       RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vii) (AMENDED in 2005) This should                         pedestrian planning
       inventory existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and identify
       and plan improvements for facilities. Improvements could be
       focused on safe routes to school and hazard areas, and should be
       funded in capital facility or transportation improvement plans.
         Guidance and example bicycle and pedestrian plans are available
         from CTED and WSDOT.




                                                                 Page 15
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

    h. Does the element include a forecast of traffic for at least 10                  Traffic forecast
       years, based on the Land Use Element, to provide information
       on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth?
       [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(E)]
    i.   Does the element identify state and local system expansion                    Future needs
         needs to meet current and future demands? [RCW
         36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(F)]
         Are the needs of state-owned facilities identified in the
         comprehensive plan consistent with the Washington
         Transportation Plan? [RCW 47.06]
    j.   Is the transportation funding program coordinated with the CFP,
         and does it address the deficiencies identified in the system?
         Does the element analyze the funding capability to judge needs                 Funding analysis
         against probable funding resources? [RCW
         36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(A)]
         Is a multiyear financing plan included in the element based on                 Funding program
         the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate
         parts of which serve as the basis for the six-year street, road,
         or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities,
         RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public
         transportation systems? [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(B)]
         If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, is
                                                                                        Funding shortfall
         there a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or
                                                                                        strategy
         how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that
         LOS standards will be met? [RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(C)]
    k. Does the element discuss intergovernmental coordination                          Intergovernmental
       efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the                           coordination
       transportation plan and land use assumptions on the
       transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions? [RCW
       36.70A.070(6)(a)(v)]
    l.   Does the element discuss how the transportation plan implements                                         .
         and is consistent with the land use element, and how it is consistent
         with the regional transportation plan? [WAC 365-195-325(2)(b)]
    m. Is the plan certified by the regional transportation planning                    Plan certified by
       organization? [RCW 47.80.23(3) and 47.80.026]                                    RTPO


   7. The Economic Development Element is not required because the state has not provided funding to assist in developing
   it. However, local goals, policies, objectives, and provisions for economic growth and vitality and a high quality of life
   should be established in the plan, and supporting strategies should be integrated with the land use, housing, utilities, and
   transportation elements. [RCW 36.70A.070(7)] An Economic Development Element should include:




                                                                 Page 16
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

    a. A summary of the local economy such as population,                          p.25-27
       employment, payroll, sectors, businesses, and sales. [RCW
       36.70A.070(7)(a)], Consider gathering data and information for
       your community data profile pertaining to business,
       transportation, labor, real estate, utilities, incentives, regulatory,
       government, and quality of life. See CTED’s Guidebook on
       Economic Development (2005).


    b. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy              p.25-27
       defined as the commercial and industrial sectors and supporting
       factors such as land use, transportation, utilities, education, work
       force, housing, and natural/cultural resources. [RCW
       36.70A.070(7)(b)]
    c. Identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster                p.28-30
       economic growth and development and to address future needs.
       [RCW 36.70A.070(7)(c)]


   8. A Park and Recreation Element [RCW 36.70A.070(8)] is not required because the state has not provided funding to
   assist in developing it. However, park, recreation, and open space planning are GMA goals, and it is important to plan for
   and fund these facilities. CTED’s Guidebook Planning for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space in your Community, can
   provide step-by-step assistance. A Parks and Recreation Element should include:
    a. Goals and policies to guide decisions regarding facilities.                  p.112-116

    b. Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year              p. 108-112                   What’s Different:
                                                                                                                 Parks classified to
       period based on adopted levels of service and population growth.              Level of Service            match CFP and
       [RCW 36.70A.070(8)(a)]                                                                                    concurrency
                                                                                                                 discussions.


    c. An evaluation of facilities and service needs over the planning              p.107 Table VII-2
       period. [RCW 36.70A.070(8)(b)]                                               Level of Service for
                                                                                    Parks
    d. An evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to             p.111 Sultan will
       provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational                work with Snohomish
       demand. [RCW 36.70A.070(8)(c)]                                               County on an 11.9
                                                                                    “Skykomish River
        This element should be consistent with the Capital Facilities               Greenway-South
        Element as it relates to park and recreation facilities. [RCW               Park” with river
        36.70A.070(3)(e)]                                                           access

   9. The Shoreline Element of the comprehensive plan is the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
   [RCW 36.70A.480] The SMP goals and policies may also be included in an Environmental Element. The comprehensive
   plan and SMP goals and policies should be consistent.




                                                                 Page 17
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   Are SMP goals and policies included in the comprehensive plan?                       SMP goals and
   [RCW 36.70A.480]                                                                  policies.

   Currently, critical areas along shorelines are to be designated and
   protected by the critical areas ordinance (CAO). When a jurisdiction
   updates its SMP consistent with Ecology’s new guidelines (Chapter 173-
   26 WAC), and according to a schedule in RCW 90.58.080, protection
   for critical areas within shorelines is transferred from the critical areas
   ordinance to the SMP. Protection must be at least equal to that from the
   CAO under the GMA. Since the SMP is required after the GMA update,
   jurisdictions are advised to consider consistency between the
   comprehensive plan and shoreline master plans. (NEW IN 2003)
   See Questions and Answers on ESHB 1933 for assistance.

   10. Provisions for siting essential public facilities (EPFs) should be consistent with CWPPs, RCW 36.70A.200, and should
   consider WAC 365-195-340, and 840. This section can be included in the Capital Facilities Element, Land Use Element, or
   in its own element. Sometimes the identification and siting process for EPFs is part of the CWPPs.
   a. Does the plan include a process or criteria for identifying and                   EPF identification
      siting essential public facilities? EPFs include those facilities                 and siting process
      that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state                  p.152 Goal 8.5
      education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities,             p.152 Policy 8.5.1
      state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling
      facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse
      facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure
      community transition facilities? [RCW 36.70A.200(1)]
       WAC 365-195-340 suggests a potential process.


   b. Have state or regional transportation facilities and services of                  Transportation
      statewide significance and secure community transition facilities                 facilities of
      (defined in RCW 71.09.020(14)) been added to list of EPFs?                        statewide
      [RCW 36.70A.200 (AMENDED in 1997 and 2001)]                                       significance and
                                                                                        secure community
                                                                                        transition facilities
                                                                                        added to list of
                                                                                        essential public
                                                                                        facilities

   c. Are there policies that address the statutory requirement that                    No preclusion
      no comprehensive plan may preclude the siting of essential                        policy
      public facilities? [RCW 36.70A.200(5)]                                         p.153 Policy 8.6.1

   d. Did the jurisdiction consider the Office of Financial                             List considered
      Management’s list of essential state public facilities that are
      required or likely to be built within the next six years? [RCW
      36.70A.200(4)] (Instructions to find the list are available from
      GMS)




                                                                 Page 18
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

   11. Optional plan elements and sub-area plans may be included in the comprehensive plan.
     Are additional elements included in the plan, such as energy
     conservation, historic preservation, natural hazards, or community
     design? [RCW 36.70A.080 and WAC 365-195-345] These elements
     should be consistent with all other elements of the plan. Resources:
     Historic Preservation: A Tool for Managing Growth, CTED, 1994,
     revised in 2005, Optional Comprehensive Plan Element for Natural
     Hazard Reduction, CTED, 1999.
     Are any sub-area plans included in the plan, and are they consistent
     with the other plan elements? [RCW 36.70A.080(2)]


   12. Consistency is required by the GMA.
    a. Are all plan elements consistent with relevant county-wide                       CWPPs
       planning policies (CWPPs) and the GMA. [RCW 36.70A.100                        Yes, all plan elements
       and 210 and WAC 365-195-300(2)(c) and 520] GMS suggests                       are consistent with
       CWPPs be referenced in each element, or be appended to the plan               CWPP and the GMA
       to clearly show consistency. Some jurisdictions use a table to
       show consistency.
    b. Does the plan describe how all elements fit together, such as                   Internal
       consistency of plan elements and future land use map, and                       consistency
       consistency of land use and capital facilities elements? [RCW                 Yes, Capital Facilities
       36.70A.070 (preamble)]                                                          Element Chpt. VIII
    c. Are there policies directing that capital budget decisions be                   Budget decisions
       made consistent with the comprehensive plan? [RCW                               consistent with
       36.70A.120]                                                                     plan
                                                                                     Yes, Capital Facilities
                                                                                       Element Chpt. VIII
    d. Is the plan coordinated with the plans of adjacent                              External
       jurisdictions? [RCW 36.70A.100, and WAC 365-195-530]                            consistency
                                                                                     Yes, the plan is
       Adjacent jurisdictions should be provided with proposed plan and
                                                                                       consistent with
       SEPA documentation.
                                                                                       county-wide
                                                                                       planning policies
                                                                                       CWPP


   13. Public participation, plan amendments and monitoring
    a. Does the plan ensure public participation in the comprehensive                   Public participation
       planning process? [RCW 36.70A.020(11), .035, and .140]                        p.6-7 Public
                                                                                     Involvement
        WAC 365-195-600(2) suggests a list of possible public
        participation choices.
    b. Does the plan describe the process for making amendments? Is
       this process coordinated among the county and cities within a
       county? [RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a), WAC 365-195.630(2), and 865]




                                                                 Page 19
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   Comprehensive plan provisions                                                        Page # and how           Update action, if
                                                                                        addressed in plan        needed

    c. Does the plan set out a procedure for adopting emergency                         Process for plan
       amendments and does it define emergency? [RCW                                    amendments
       36.70A.130(2)(b)]

    d. Are amendments to be considered no more often than once a                        Plan amendments
       year not including the exceptions described in RCW                               no more than once
       36.70A.130(2)? [AMENDED in 2006]                                                 a year.
    e. Is there a process to assure that proposed regulatory or                         Process to avoid
       administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional                      takings
       taking of private property? [RCW 36.70A.370] See Attorney
       General’s Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional
       Takings of Private Property for guidance.
    f. Is there a plan or program for monitoring how well comprehensive
       plan policies, development regulations, and other implementation
       techniques are achieving the comprehensive plan’s goals and the
       goals of the GMA? [WAC 365-195-865(2)]

    g. Is there a plan or program for monitoring how well natural resource
       lands and critical areas ordinances and other implementation
       techniques are protecting critical areas?

    h. Does the comprehensive plan and development regulations define a
       process for amending regulations as new information and data
       becomes available?




                                                                 Page 20
Note: Bold items and checkboxes are a requirement of the GMA. Other items are other state or federal laws or examples of best practices.
   City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




          Appendix G:
         City of Sultan
     Transportation Element




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN            APPENDIX-G
  CITY OF SULTAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT


           Prepared For:
      City of Sultan

             June 2007




           Prepared by:




    2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900
         Everett, WA 98201
                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1
   1.1   PURPOSE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ................................................................... 1
   1.2   GMA REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 1
   1.3   TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY.............................................. 4
   1.4   LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS – THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...................................................... 5
   1.5   TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD ............................................................................... 5
   1.6   OTHER TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND STUDIES ................................................................... 6
2.0 TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES......................................................... 8

3.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS .......................................................... 11
   3.1   OVERVIEW OF THE CITY STREET SYSTEM ........................................................................... 11
   3.2   STREET FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 12
   3.3   EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE ....................................... 14
   3.4   OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC TRANSIT .......................................................................................... 17
   3.5   EXISTING BUS SERVICE COVERAGE .................................................................................... 18
   3.6   OVERVIEW OF NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION ........................................................... 21
   3.7   EXISTING NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES .............................................................................. 21
   3.8   EXISTING FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES .............................................................. 22
4.0 FORECASTING FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND ............................................................ 24
   4.1   TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 24
   4.2   FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................ 26
   4.3   FUTURE TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 29
   4.4   FORECASTS FOR OTHER MODELS........................................................................................ 32
5.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN.............................................................. 33
   5.1   ARTERIAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................... 33
   5.2   ARTERIAL STREET DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................. 40
   5.3   TRANSIT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 42
   5.4   NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................ 44
   5.5   FREIGHT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 46
   5.6   TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 46
6.0 STATE OWNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITIES ................................. 48
   6.1   INVENTORY OF STATE OWNED FACILITIES ......................................................................... 48
   6.2   PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE OWNED FACILITIES ................................................... 49
   6.3   TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO STATE OWNED FACILITIES ................................................................ 52
   6.4   LOS AND CONCURRENCY FOR HIGHWAYS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE .......................... 52
   6.5   TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE ............................................. 52
7.0 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................................................................. 52
   7.1   COST ESTIMATES OF RECOMMENDED CITY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ................. 52
   7.2   REVENUE SOURCES............................................................................................................. 55
   7.3   TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION PAYMENT SYSTEM ............................................................ 58
   7.4   FUNDING CAPABILITY......................................................................................................... 59

City of Sultan                                                i                                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
                                                              LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1:     US 2 2006 INTERSECTION LOS ....................................................................................................................17
TABLE 2:     US 2 2025 INTERSECTION LOS ....................................................................................................................29
TABLE 3:     RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL SYSTEM CAPACITY PROJECTS ...........................................................................35
TABLE 4:     RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS ...................................................................35
TABLE 5:     CITY OF SULTAN RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL STREET DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................38
TABLE 6:     RECOMMENDED NONMOTORIZED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE SULTAN PLANNING AREA ..........................42
TABLE 6:     COST ESTIMATES FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS – SHORT TERM ......................................................51
TABLE 7:     COST ESTIMATES FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS - LONG TERM ........................................................52



                                                             LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: CITY OF SULTAN ARTERIAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP ...............................................................13
FIGURE 2: SULTAN 2007 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC (AWDT) ..............................................................................15
FIGURE 3: SULTAN 2007 ARTERIAL LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ...................................................................................16
FIGURE 4: SULTAN 2006 PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES .....................................................................................................20
FIGURE 5: SULTAN 2005 FREIGHT AND GOODS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................23
FIGURE 6: SULTAN 2025 NO ACTION ARTERIAL SCANARIO - AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .....................27
FIGURE 7: SULTAN 2025 NO ACTION ARTERIAL SCENARIO - AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .....................28
FIGURE 8: SULTAN 2025 NO ACTION ARTERIAL SCENARIO LOS ................................................................................30
FIGURE 9: SULTAN 2025 PREFERRED ARTERIAL SCENARIO LOS ................................................................................31
FIGURE 10: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................37
FIGURE 11: THREE-LANE ARTERIAL WITH BIKE LANES ..............................................................................................39
FIGURE 12: THREE-LANE ARTERIAL WITH MULTI PURPOSE TRAIL .............................................................................39
FIGURE 13: SULTAN 2025 RECOMMENDED TRANSIT STREETS ....................................................................................41
FIGURE 14: FUTURE BIKE LANES AND TRAILS.............................................................................................................43
FIGURE 15: US 2 RDP DRAFT RECOMMENDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................49
FIGURE 16: US 2 RDP DRAFT RECOMMENDED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................49



                                                                 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC MODEL DATA AND ANALYSIS




City of Sultan                                                         ii                                                                        June 2007
Transportation Element
1.0      INTRODUCTION

The review of the City of Sultan Plan Transportation Element was commissioned by the City
Council in March 2007. The Council directed staff to provide analysis and revisions to the
adopted 2004 City Transportation Element and 2006 Capital Facilities Plan and 2007 – 2011
Transportation Improvement Program in order to meet Washington State Growth Management
Act (GMA) requirements. This revised Transportation Element completes the project by
providing a transportation element that meets the mandatory requirements of Growth
Management under RCW 36.70A.070 and provides transportation project recommendations to
the City’s Capital Facilities Plan. The revised Transportation Element also recommends
adoption of a revised transportation level of service (LOS) standard and the adoption of an
updated traffic impact fee based on the review findings.

1.1      Purpose for the Transportation Element

The purpose of the City of Sultan Transportation Element is to identify, evaluate and recommend
transportation improvements for the City through the planning horizon year 2025. The intent of
the Transportation Element is to establish a vision for the City of Sultan’s transportation system
for the year 2025 and guide the development of that system by both the City and other
responsible stakeholders.

The Transportation Element is an integral part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is required
to satisfy GMA requirements which call for a balanced approach to land use and transportation
planning to help ensure that the City’s transportation system can support planned levels of land
use development. The City must adopt specific standards about the acceptable levels of
congestion on its arterial street system; these standards are called transportation level of service
(LOS) standards.

In addition, the GMA mandates that capital facility funds be identified to adequately pay for
necessary transportation improvements. The Transportation Element recommends a funding
program that identifies several sources to finance these improvements. The funding program
will be supplemented by the proposed adoption of a transportation impact fee program to assist
in funding projects that will accommodate traffic growth associated with planned future land use
development. In addition, the City of Sultan’s Transportation Element provides the City with
documentation and justification for application of funding grants for transportation improvement
projects and guidelines for arterial street construction.

1.2      GMA Requirements

The Growth Management Act (GMA) adopted by the State of Washington in 1990, among other
things, established specific goals and requirements to guide development of the transportation
element of city and county comprehensive plans to ensure that a balanced approach is taken
toward land use development and transportation.




City of Sultan                               1                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
Planning Goals
There are 14 far-reaching planning goals to guide the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans and development regulations.               The goals discourage sprawling
development, encourage development in urban areas with adequate public facilities, encourage
economic development throughout the state consistent with comprehensive plans, encourage
efficient multimodal transportation systems, provide for the protection of property rights, and
require that adequate public facilities and services necessary to support development be available
when new development is ready for occupancy. Many of these planning goals directly relate to
specific planning requirements in the act.

The following four goals clearly relate to transportation:

    (3)      Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are
             based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
             plans.

    (10)     Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
             including air and water quality, and the availability of water.

    (11)     Citizen Participation and Coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in
             the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and to reconcile
             conflicts.

    (12)     Public Facilities and Services: Ensure that those public facilities and services
             necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the
             time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current
             service levels below locally established minimum standards.

Specific Requirements
The GMA has very specific requirements to guide the development of transportation elements of
city and county comprehensive plans. According to GMA transportation element requirements
(RCW 36.70A.070), the transportation element shall include the following sub elements:

     a.      Land use assumptions used in estimating travel;

     b.      Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting from land
             use assumptions to assist the department of transportation;

     c.      Facilities and services needs, including:

            (i) An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services,
            including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities, to define existing
            capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning…must include state-
            owned transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdictional boundaries;




City of Sultan                                 2                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
            (ii) Level of service (LOS) standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes
            to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be
            regionally coordinated;

            (iii) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways,
            as prescribed in chapters 47.06 and 47.80 RCW, to gauge the performance of the
            system;

            (iv) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned
            transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service
            standard;

            (v) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to
            provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth;

            (vi) Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands.
            Identified needs on state-owned transportation facilities must be consistent with the
            statewide multimodal transportation plan required under chapter 47.06 RCW;

     d.      Finance, including:
            (i) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding
            resources;

            (ii) A multi-year financing plan…which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street,
            road, or transit program;

             (iii) If probable funding falls short, how additional funding will be raised, or how land
             use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be
             met;

             (iv) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of
             the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of
             adjacent jurisdictions;

             (v) Demand-management strategies;

             (vi) Pedestrian and bicycle component…that address and encourage enhanced
             community access and promote healthy lifestyles.

House Bill 1487 (SHB 1487), signed into law in 1998, requires that cities and counties add a
sub-element to their comprehensive plans related to State owned transportation facilities and
transportation facilities of Statewide significance (even if not owned by the State). To comply, a
separate chapter (Chapter 6) is included in the revised Sultan Transportation Element which
includes:




City of Sultan                                 3                                               June 2007
Transportation Element
      • An inventory of State owned transportation facilities within the Sultan Planning Area;
      • Estimates of traffic impacts to State owned transportation facilities resulting from land
          use decisions so performance can be monitored and improvements planned;

      • Transportation levels of service (LOS) standards for measuring state facility
          performance; and

      • Identification of current and future state facility needs that are consistent with the
          statewide multimodal system plan (Washington Transportation Plan).

1.3       Transportation Element Development Methodology

The Transportation Element development process included a review and inventory of the City’s
existing (2006) transportation system including streets, transit routes and facilities, rail lines,
sidewalks and trails, bike facilities and park and ride lots. The Element also includes an analysis
of current conditions of US 2 through the City. Existing transportation data and information was
obtained from the City of Sultan, Snohomish County, Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT), and Community Transit. Where data was lacking, a field review was
conducted to collect additional information.

The City of Sultan Community Development Department provided existing and future year 2025
land use data from the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element which became the basis for
developing a traffic forecasting model. The traffic model was then used to estimate future traffic
levels for the year 2025 planning horizon. Specifically, traffic forecasts for the year 2025 City’s
arterial street system and US 2 were developed based on the following:

      • Trip generation estimates development from the City’s 2025 future land use plan for
          areas within the Sultan Urban Growth Area (Sultan Planning Area).
      •   Trip distribution based on estimated future traffic flow patterns within the Sultan
          Planning Area and to other regional destinations via US 2, Old Owen Road, 311th Avenue
          SE, and Sultan Basin Road north of the Planning Area.
      •   Regional traffic forecasts of through-City traffic on US 2 Old Owen Road, 311th Avenue
          SE, and Sultan Basin Road in the year 2025 developed using the Puget Sound Regional
          Council (PSRC) travel demand model and the Snohomish County traffic model.
      •   Traffic assignment on recommended arterial street system and US 2 within the Sultan
          Planning Area.

Traffic level of service (LOS) analysis was performed on City arterials based on both existing
and future year 2025 traffic volumes. This analysis helped identify existing and future
transportation deficiencies, and guide development of transportation improvements needed to
meet the City’s traffic LOS standard. The analysis also provided information to help review
arterial system connectivity to provide for planning of safe and effective transit service, and to
study pedestrian and bicycle travel and needs within the Sultan Planning Area.




City of Sultan                                  4                                                June 2007
Transportation Element
A transportation financial plan was developed that included both short and long-range revenue
forecasts, and costs for each identified transportation improvement. An analysis of funding
capability was then conducted to determine if the transportation revenues were sufficient to fund
the identified improvements based on the City’s traffic LOS standard. Based on the review
findings, revisions to the City’s traffic impact fee are recommended.

The identified transportation improvements were then prioritized to provide information to the
City’s Capital Facility Plan (CFP) and to supplement the City’s Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP).


1.4      Land Use Assumptions – The Comprehensive Plan

The City of Sultan’s Transportation Element is one component of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. It is required to be internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This means that the
various requirements and assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan must not contradict each
other. Most important is the use of consistent future land use assumptions. The Transportation
Element provides that consistency as it is based on the City’s 2025 growth targets for population
and employment that were established through the process described in the Land Use Element.

1.5      Traffic Level of Service Standard

Transportation level of service (LOS) provides a measurement of the quality of service provided
by the transportation system. The GMA requires the establishment of a transportation LOS
standard to be used as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of the transportation system.
The LOS standard is also used as a benchmark to determine whether transportation
improvements or services will be available to serve proposed development at the time of
development or within six years of the development. This requirement is called transportation
concurrency.

Simply stated, transportation concurrency requires that the transportation impacts of land use
development actions do not reduce the transportation LOS below the jurisdiction’s adopted LOS
standards. If it is determined that the proposed land use action would reduce the LOS below the
adopted standard, either the development as proposed must be modified to reduce its
transportation impact, or corrective transportation improvements must be identified and
implemented at the time of the development or within a six-year period. This determination is
made as part of the development approval process. The transportation LOS standard and
findings may also be used to program transportation funding priorities of planned improvements.


If services that will operate at the adopted LOS standard will not be concurrent with a proposed
development, then either funding for the improvements must be identified or the development
cannot be granted approval as proposed. The LOS standard and findings may also be used to
program transportation funding priorities of planned improvements.




City of Sultan                               5                                           June 2007
Transportation Element
It is recommended that an LOS “D” be adopted as the City’s adopted LOS standard for the
City’s arterial street system, while retaining the State’s adopted LOS “D” standard for US 2 in
compliance with State requirements and standards for Highways of Statewide Significance
(HSS).

1.6       Other Transportation Plans and Studies

In addition to this transportation element, there are four other transportation plans and studies
that are closely related to the City’s Transportation Element. They are the Sultan Basin Road
Concept Plan, the Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan, the Downtown Sultan 2020 Vision Plan,
and the US 2 Route Development Plan.

      1. Sultan Basin Road Concept Plan

      The 1999 Sultan Basin Road Concept Plan reviewed the function and traffic operations of
      Sultan Basin Rd. at its intersection with US 2 north to 124th St. SE, and made transportation
      improvement recommendations to both US 2 and Sultan Basin Rd. The study examined
      1996 and forecasted 2017 traffic conditions, and recommended transportation improvements
      which are included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. The
      recommended improvements include:

      -   Reconstruction of Sultan Basin Road to an urban street with two through travel lanes,
          sections with a two-way left turn lane, bike lanes, sidewalks on both sides and
          landscaping.

      -   Improvements to US 2 including widening to two travel lanes in each direction (4-lanes),
          signalization at the US 2 and Sultan Basin Road/Cascade View Drive intersection,
          improvements to the US 2 and Rice Road intersection, replacement of the US 2
          Wagley’s Creek Bridge with specific concern for the US 2 intersection with 11th Street,
          and elimination of sight distance restrictions on US 2.

      The City has been successful in pursuing the recommended improvements to Sultan Basin
      Road with several phases of the project complete. The City is working with WSDOT as part
      of the US 2 Route Development Plan (RDP) to develop a preferred improvement to US 2
      through the City.

      2. Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan

      The 2001 Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan recommended the development of a 360-acre
      Industrial Park located in the eastern portion of the City, east of Sultan Basin Road on the
      north and south side of US 2. The Master Plan, among other things, recommended policies
      and strategies for transportation improvements necessary to support the development of the
      Industrial Park. The Master Plan recommended construction of an east-west arterial through
      the Industrial Park area north of US 2. The new street would connect Rice Road to Sultan
      Basin Road, providing access and traffic circulation within the Industrial Park and relief to
      US 2. With its adoption in 2002, this Master Plan became part of the City’s Comprehensive
      Plan.

City of Sultan                                6                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
    3. Downtown Sultan 2020 Vision Plan

    In 2005 the City partnered with the Washington Chapter of the American Planning
    Association (APA) to develop a framework for development of the City’s Historic
    Downtown. The result was a community involvement planning process and creation of the
    Downtown Sultan 2020 Vision Plan.

    The APA provided a team of experienced planning professionals who met with stakeholders
    and citizens within Sultan to visualize and brainstorm about the future of downtown. The
    resulting plan provides recommendations for improvements to the downtown to spur
    economic development including transportation.

    An implementation committee subsequently met to continue the process and provide refined
    actions and recommendations to the City and local businesses. Specific transportation
    recommendations include upgrading pedestrian facilities and amenities, consideration of
    gateway enhancement features to define the downtown area and attract shoppers, and
    improved access and circulation with US 2. Recommendations from the Downtown Sultan
    2020 Vision Plan have been incorporated in this Transportation Element.

    4. US 2 Route Development Plan

    The US 2 Route Development Plan (RDP) is a list of safety and congestion relief
    improvement projects developed by WSDOT with the help of local communities including
    the City of Sultan. As of June 2007, this plan was in a final draft form.

    Working with our partners and local communities, the draft US 2 RDP recommends 56
    projects to enhance safety and reduce congestion for drivers along a 47-mile stretch of US 2
    between the cities of Snohomish and Skykomish. The intent of the RDP is to provide
    WSDOT and local jurisdictions a list of projects they can use to solicit funding for
    construction.

    To identify problems and potential solutions, the study examined collision data, historic
    population growth and future development forecasts provided by the Puget Sound Regional
    Council (PSRC), traffic flow, and environmental issues associated with the highway. The
    future forecast year of the study was 2030.

    Within the Sultan Planning Area, the study recommends safety and capacity improvement
    projects. These projects discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Sultan Transportation Element.
    Once the RDP is completed in late 2007, the City will review its findings for possible
    amendment of the Transportation Element, the Capital Facilities Plan, and the six-year
    Transportation Improvement Program.




City of Sultan                              7                                           June 2007
Transportation Element
2.0         TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The following goals and objectives are based on an analysis of existing and future transportation
conditions within the City of Sultan and the result of public outreach. These goals and policies
provide the foundation for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

GOAL

      5.1      Create an effective road network. Complete a road network grid, establish class
               and function, improve standards and resolve parking and access conflicts for the
               Sultan planning area.
Policies

            5.1.1   Road Network: Work with Snohomish County and the Washington State
                    Department of Transportation to complete development of an arterial grid serving
                    the Sultan planning area, especially north-south corridors across US 2.
            5.1.2   Classification: Establish a functional system that defines each road’s principal
                    purpose and protects the road’s functional viability. Define a collector road
                    system that provides methods for traversing the neighborhoods, industrial and
                    commercial districts, and other places within Sultan without overly congesting or
                    depending on the arterial system particularly between the valley floor and plateau.
                    Define arterial, collector, and local access road standards that are equivalent to the
                    standards being enacted by Snohomish County in the urban/rural transition.
            5.1.3   Order: Control land use development and local street access patterns adjacent to
                    US 2 intersections to protect the functional viability of the highway during major
                    commuting periods. Control local street connections, curb cuts, on and off-street
                    parking areas, crosswalks, crossing islands, and other traffic-calming and
                    pedestrian-related devices to protect the functional viability, and traffic-carrying
                    capacity of the major arterial network and US 2.
            5.1.4   Standards: Implement effective right-of way, pavement widths, road shoulder
                    requirements, curb, gutter, sidewalk standards, crosswalks, crossing islands, and
                    other traffic-calming and pedestrian-related devices for major arterial, collector
                    and residential streets. Coordinate with Snohomish County and Washington State
                    Department of Transportation to improve major arterial roads in the planning
                    area, including US 2, Sultan Basin Road, 229th Ave/Old Owen Road, and Harvey
                    Mann Road to provide effective level of service for all transportation modes.
            5.1.5   Conflicts: Determine effective road, traffic, and parking interfaces between
                    present and eventual circulation patterns at US 2 intersections. Develop a long-
                    range road and channelization design, signal, and signing plan that resolve traffic
                    and safety conflicts and that promotes compatible land use development within
                    the downtown core and adjacent neighborhoods.
            5.1.6   Retail Area Enhancements: Work with property owners of Sultan downtown
                    business district to improve streetscape, parking and pedestrian conditions.

City of Sultan                                    8                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
                  Provide planning, management and financing assistance appropriate to the
                  problem’s resolution.

    5.2      Encourage modal balance.      Create an appropriate balance between
             transportation modes where each meets a different function to the greatest
             efficiency.
Policies

          5.2.1     Air service: Support continued development of local, regional, and international
                    air facilities that provide services for commercial and general passenger services
                    needs within the Sultan planning area. In particular, support continued
                    operation and development of Harvey Airfield in Snohomish, Arlington Airport
                    in Arlington, and Paine Field in Everett as general-purpose airfields capable of
                    providing commercial, charter, and recreational flights in the local area.
                    Continue to support development of SeaTac Airport with facilities capable of
                    providing national and international freight and passenger services.
          5.2.2     Railroad: Improve Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF)
                    service to improve local freight and material hauling needs within the Sultan
                    planning area, possibly providing a spur line to the industrial uses located within
                    the employment district. Consider the feasibility of expanding heavy rail
                    commuter service to include Sultan and the surrounding region. Support
                    development of a narrow gauge rail line serving the Western Heritage Center-
                    and potentially other areas of the city. If feasible, heavy rail service could be
                    expanded to include recreational service between Sultan and leisure destinations
                    at Stevens Pass and Leavenworth during peak seasonal activities.
          5.2.3     Transit: Improve Community Transit service to satisfy local needs within the
                    Sultan planning area, particularly between residential and major commercial and
                    employment districts in the surrounding region. Locate park and ride lots in
                    areas that are accessible to transit routes and local residential collectors, but
                    don’t unnecessarily congest arterial roads or US- 2 intersections. In joint efforts
                    with Community Transit, create attractive park-and-ride lots that attract transit
                    riders and also serve as off-peak period recreational and downtown shopper
                    facilities.
          5.2.4     Trails:    Develop an integrated system of regional and local oriented
                    multipurpose trails that provide designated routes for bicyclists, hikers and
                    walkers, casual strollers, shoppers, tourists, joggers, and equestrians. Designate
                    routes that access local parks, schools, commercial areas, and other alignments
                    that provide unique environmental experiences and/or functional traveling
                    connections with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
          5.2.5     Transportation Demand Management: Conduct public awareness programs and
                    project promoting van-pooling, ride-sharing, joint parking management, and
                    other programs that reduce dependence on single occupancy vehicles for
                    employment, commercial and recreational transportation demands.


City of Sultan                                  9                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
GOAL

    5.3      Improvement of streets and highways must not impair the safe and efficient
             movement of bicycles and pedestrian traffic.
Policies

          5.3.1     Develop and adopt an Arterial Street Access policy to reduce conflicting turning
                    movements along the City’s arterials.
          5.3.2     Streets which should striped to provide a bicycle lane separate from parking and
                    travel lanes are: (1) Shoulder of US- 2 through the planning area except within
                    the Industrial Park subarea, where bicycle facilities shall be designed into street
                    improvement and frontage improvement projects as identified in the Master
                    Plan; (2) Fourth Street; (3) First Street; and (4) Eighth Street.

GOAL

    5.4      Streets shall be located, designed, and improved in a manner which will
             minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on designated critical areas.

Policies

          5.4.1     Planning and design of the Industrial Park north collector street should
                    incorporate specific best management practices identified in the Master Plan for
                    the Wagley’s Creek Corridor.

GOAL

    5.5      Ensure that transportation facilities and services needed to support development
             are available concurrent with the impacts of such development, that protects the
             investment which have been made in the existing transportation facilities and
             services, maximize the use of these services, and promote orderly and compact
             growth.

Policies

          5.6.1     The City shall not issue development permits where the project requires
                    transportation improvements which exceed Sultan’s (or the State’s in the case of
                    US 2) ability to provide and maintain them in accordance with the adopted level
                    of service (LOS). Projects consistent with the Industrial Park Master Plan may
                    meet concurrency standards through a range of strategies identified therein.
          5.6.2     The City recognizes that WSDOT sets the transportation LOS standard for US 2
                    as it is a highway of Statewide Significance (HSS). The City will continue to
                    cooperate with WSDOT in periodically reviewing and establishing the LOS
                    standards on US 2.



City of Sultan                                  10                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
            5.6.3   US 2 highway and intersection improvements, access, and internal circulation
                    improvements identified in the Industrial Park Master Plan shall be used as
                    project mitigation measures to address specific impacts of development
                    proposals. Funding and financing of improvements shall be identified in the
                    Six-Year Plan.

GOAL

      5.6      Ensure that truck traffic does not impede the through-movement of traffic
               within the City limits.

Policies

            5.7.1   New industrial uses or projects within the Industrial Park shall provide street and
                    frontage improvements consistent with the Master Plan.


3.0         EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

This section provides information about the current (2007) conditions of the transportation
system and services within the City and its surrounding Sultan Planning Area.

3.1         Overview of the City Street System

Sultan has two principle street networks which are separated by steep hillsides and connected
only by US 2:

The historical grid – a road grid extending out from the historical town and focused on 1st
Street/Trout Farm Road and US 2 in the Sultan River Valley. It extends north from the
Skykomish River and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad into the Sultan River
valley. Numbered streets are aligned north and south, named avenues east and west to create a
rectangular grid in the older portions of town adjoining the downtown district. The grid gives
way to a radial roadway system focused on 1st Avenue/Trout Farm Road north of High Street
due to constraints imposed by topographical and natural features.

The plateau network – extends north from the Skykomish and Wallace Rivers across US 2 and
over the plateau. Names and numbers are intermingled on north-south aligned avenues and east-
west aligned streets – the opposite of the historical naming system. The grid is loosely based on
Sultan Basin Road/323rd Avenue, Rice Road/339th Avenue, and 132nd Street – the only
connected roads. The grid gives way to curvilinear alignments in newer residential
developments due to wetlands and other natural constraints.

Federal Highway US 2 – US 2 or Stevens Pass Highway extends east from Everett and an
interchange with I-5 across Stevens Pass to Wenatchee. US 2 then travels north-south along the
Columbia River to Canada and I-90. US 2 was one of the first highways built across the Cascade
Mountains. The highway’s alignment follows the Skykomish River and early railroad
developments.

City of Sultan                                  11                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
3.2      Street Functional Classifications

An adequate arterial system provides the foundation for meeting the transportation needs of an
area. As well as providing for auto travel, a well designed arterial system also meets the needs of
transit users, freight and goods delivery by truck, safe and continuous sidewalks for pedestrians,
adequate lane space for cyclists when designated, and access opportunities to adjacent properties.

Streets are grouped into functional classifications based on their connectivity, traffic volumes
and capacities, adjoining land uses and access, and speed. The four main classifications
currently used by the City of Sultan are Principle Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collector Arterials,
and Local Streets. Figure 1 depicts the City’s Street Arterial Functional Classification system
and includes both existing and planned future streets.

Principle Arterials serve as the major regional connectors to employment, retail centers and
downtown central business districts. They have a very high level of regional connectivity,
moving travelers on a continuous route within the larger region. They typically provide for high
traffic volumes between 15,000 and 50,000 average daily vehicles at high speeds. US 2 is
designated as a Principle Arterial.

Minor Arterials serve as the connector arterial throughout a city providing for travel between
major commercial and residential areas, and moving travelers from collector arterials to principle
arterials. Minor arterials act as the supportive spine of the roadway network within an urban area
and thus have a high level of connectivity.

One-mile grid spacing of minor arterials is typical within most urban areas including the Sultan
Planning Area. Average daily traffic volumes on minor arterials can range between 6,000 and
20,000. Sultan Basin Road, Rice Road, 132nd Street and 1st Street are designated as minor
arterials.

Collector Arterials serve travel movement between neighborhoods and carry traffic to and from
higher order arterials. Collectors are commonly used by residents to circulate out of their
neighborhood. These routes provide neighborhood connectivity, but do not serve as citywide
streets. Collector Arterials have been established on a 1/4 to 1/2 mile grid network within the
Sultan Planning Area. Average daily traffic volumes on collectors typically range between 2,000
and 8,000. Date Avenue, High Street, 8th Avenue and Kessler are designated as Collector
Arterials.

Local Streets provide access to adjacent properties in neighborhoods and commercial areas with
limited provisions for through traffic connectivity. Typical of other cities and urban areas, most
of the roadways within the Sultan Planning Area are local streets. Average daily traffic volumes
typically range from 100 to 2,500 vehicles per day.

As development occurs within the City, the arterial functional classification system should be
reviewed periodically to determine roadway connectivity, traffic levels and level of service
(LOS), and the spacing between similar roadways. Future revisions to the functional
classification system may be necessary if conditions change. The appropriate functional
classification designation of roadways provides the framework to guide City and developer
capacity improvements to accommodate future travel demands. Snohomish County Public
Works has agreed to provide traffic count service to the City to help monitor the arterial system.

City of Sultan                               12                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 1: City of Sultan Arterial Functional Classification Map




City of Sultan                                                    13   June 2007
Transportation Element
3.3      Existing Traffic Volumes and Traffic Levels of Service

The analysis of the City arterial system included a review of the existing (2007) average
weekday traffic volumes on select streets within the City and the larger Sultan Planning Area.
Traffic volume data was provided by the City of Sultan, the Snohomish County Public Works
Department and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The existing
(2007) average weekday traffic is shown in Figure 2.

Transportation level of service or LOS is a measure of the quality of service provided by the
transportation system. Transportation LOS helps provide an understanding of the performance
of the transportation system, it also establishes a basis for comparison between roadways, and
help guide the prioritization of improvement projects.

Evaluating the LOS on the arterial street system is typically described in terms of traffic
congestion which can be measured by average vehicle delay, travel speed, vehicular density, or
the traffic volume to street traffic capacity (V/C) ratio. The resulting level of service is usually
given a letter ranking from A to F where:

      • LOS A and B represent fairly free-flow travel conditions with little or no delay;
      • LOS C and D represent stable flow with acceptable delay; and
      • LOS E and F represent severe congestion with low travel speeds and unacceptable delay.
According to the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, traffic LOS can
also be understood in terms of the time it takes to drive from one point to another. In the
example below, traffic LOS rating A – F is provided on a 3 mile trip on urban arterial street(s)
based on the time it takes to make the trip. This example is applicable within the City of Sultan
as most cross town trips are approximately 3 miles in length:

LOS A - B         6 – 7 minutes
LOS C - D         7 – 11 minutes
LOS E - F         11 – 15 minutes or longer

The level of service (LOS) analysis conducted for arterial traffic conditions within the Sultan
Planning Area was based on a generalized traffic level of service methodology for roadway
corridors used by the Snohomish County Public Works Department. This street-corridor based
methodology uses the ratio of peak hour traffic volumes (PHT) to a maximum service volume
(MSV) appropriate for the arterial being examined. It is an excellent indicator of general traffic
conditions along a street, and can help to indicate where LOS problems may exist or where more
detailed level of service operational analysis may be necessary. This is a conventional approach
to determining traffic LOS for planning purposes and is consistent with the most current version
of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual.

The existing 2007 level of service on the City’s arterials is shown in Figure 3.




City of Sultan                                14                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 2: Sultan 2007 Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT)




City of Sultan                                         15   June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 3: Sultan 2007 Arterial Level of Service (LOS)




City of Sultan                                          16   June 2007
Transportation Element
While Figure 3 demonstrates that the 2007 traffic LOS on City and County arterial roadways
within the Sultan Planning Area is very good during the average weekday PM peak hour, US 2 is
very congested during this time.

Table 1 presents US 2 traffic intersection operational LOS analysis conducted as part of
WSDOT’s US 2 Route Development Plan for Old Owen Road, 5th Street, Main Street, and
Sultan Basin Road. Intersection LOS performed by Perteet Inc. is also shown for the intersection
of US 2 and Rice Road (339th Avenue SE).

Table 1: US 2 2006 Intersection LOS
                                            2006 Annual Average         2006 Highest Month
                                            Weekday PM Peak             (August) Weekend PM
Intersection                                Hour LOS                    Peak Hour LOS
US 2 / Old Owen Road (signalized)                    B                             F
US 2 / 5th Street (signalized)                       C                             E
US 2 @ Main Street (unsignalized)                    F                             F
US 2 / Sultan Basin Road (unsignalized)              F                             F
US 2 / Rice Road (unsignalized)                      F                            N/A

As can be seen in Table 1, in 2006 there was intersection LOS failure at the Main Street, Sultan
Basin Road, and Rice Road unsignalized intersections. Since the time of that analysis, the City
has completed the US 2 & Sultan Basin Road Intersection Improvements providing widening to
Sultan Basin Road, realignment of the intersection at US 2, and additional channelization and
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection. This transportation project has improved
traffic operations and safety at the intersection.

In conclusion, the 2007 arterial traffic level of service (LOS) within the City of Sultan is
generally good, however traffic congestion with poor LOS exists on US 2, particularly at
unsignalized intersections negatively affecting travel to, through and within the City.

3.4      Overview of Public Transit

Public transportation within the City of Sultan is operated by Community Transit which provides
transit fixed route, paratransit (Dart dial-a-ride) and vanpool services within Snohomish County
including service on US 2 between Everett, Monroe, Sultan, Startup, and Gold Bar. County
residents pay transit service costs with a special sales tax assessment.

WSDOT owns and maintains a park and ride lot within the City. The Sultan Park and Ride lot is
located south of US 2 near the intersection with 11th Street. The park and ride contains parking
space for approximately 64 cars. According to CT, the lot’s average utilization rate in 2006 was
under 20%, meaning that the lot had plenty of available parking capacity at that time.




City of Sultan                              17                                           June 2007
Transportation Element
3.5      Existing Bus Service Coverage

Community Transit currently serves the City with three bus routes.              These routes, their
frequency, and existing (2006) ridership data are summarized below:

CT Route 270: Provides hourly weekday only service 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM between Everett
Station and Gold Bar with stops in Snohomish, Monroe, Sultan and Startup. Route 270 travels
between these cities on US 2, but exits the highway and travels on local streets to provide better
transit access within the communities (except for Startup). Average monthly ridership in 2006
on Route 270 was 11,154 riders. Average weekday boardings were 527. During the peak month
of October, the boardings per revenue hour were 17.7. In comparison, the average boarding per
revenue hour for all of CT’s local routes was 21.5.

In Sultan, Route 270 exits US 2, looping through the historic part of town with stops on local
streets and arterials such as 5th Street, Alder Avenue, 1st Street, High Street, 8th Street, and Main
Street Route 270 also stops at the Sultan Park and Ride lot and at a stop near the intersection of
US 2 and Rice Road

CT Route 271: Provides hourly weekday service 5:30 PM to midnight, supplementing Route
270 weekday service. Route 271 provides the only weekend fixed route bus service to US 2 east
communities, providing hourly service 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Similar to Route 270, Route 271
travels on US 2 between Everett Station and Gold Bar with stops in Snohomish, Monroe, Sultan
and Startup. Route 271 also exits US 2 to local streets to provide better service to those
communities, except in Startup and Monroe where it travels only on US 2. Average monthly
ridership in 2006 on the route was 6,663 riders. Average weekday boardings on Route 271 were
115, and average Saturday and Sunday boardings were 538 and 386, respectively. During its
peak month of September, the boardings per revenue hour were 7.4.

Within Sultan, Route 271 exits US 2 and provides service to the historic part of town, with stops
at the Sultan Park and Ride lot and on US 2 at Rice Road identical to Route 270.

CT Route 277: Provides commuter style weekday service between Goldbar and Everett’s
Boeing facilities during the Boeing shift commute hours. The route travels on US 2. In the
morning, Route 277 travels from Goldbar to Everett providing three one-way trips, one every 30
minutes, between 4:00 and 5:00 AM. In the afternoon, it returns east from Everett providing
three one-way trips every 30 minutes between 2:00 and 3:00 PM. Average monthly ridership in
2006 on the route was 2,234 riders. Average weekday boardings on Route 277 were 106.
During its peak month in May, boarding per revenue hour were 12.6, compared to 22.6 which
was the average for CT’s Boeing routes.

Route 277 has limited stops, consistent with commuter style service. A stop in Sultan is
provided at the Sultan Park and Ride lot.

Paratransit Service: Community Transit also provides paratransit (dial-a-ride) service within
the Sultan Planning Area. Community Transit’s DART is a paratransit service that provides
transportation for people whose disability or condition prevents them from using Community


City of Sultan                               18                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
Transit regular route buses. DART paratransit service can take a qualified customer to locations
within 3/4 of a mile of a CT bus route during the regular hours that the bus routes serve that area.

A map of CT’s Routes, 270, 271, and 277 coverage within the Sultan Planning Area is shown in
Figure 4. The map also provides a ¼ mile hatched line buffer drawn around bus stops within the
City. This 1/4 mile buffer demonstrates the distance that most people would walk to access bus
transit. By providing this buffer on the transit maps, we are able to demonstrate the extent of
effective fixed route transit service coverage area within the Sultan Planning Area. CT’s Dart
service coverage area, while not shown on the map, would extend the buffer to a 3/4 mile
distance.

In conclusion, while existing transit coverage is good within the historic area of the City, many
other areas within the City and the larger Sultan Planning Area lack adequate access to both
public transit and paratransit service including area’s north of High St and north of US 2 in the
plateau area.

Rail Transit: The option of expanding heavy rail commuter service to include Sultan and the
surrounding region from the multi-modal terminal in Everett has also been discussed – and will
likewise depend on future potential costs and benefits.

The Western Heritage Center – a rail museum proposed for development east of Rice Road –
may develop a narrow gauge rail line looping the properties between US 2, Rice Road, and 140th
Street SE. Local promoters have also discussed the possibility of ultimately expanding the
narrow gauge line to link with the downtown.




City of Sultan                               19                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 4: Sultan 2006 Public Transit Routes




City of Sultan                                20   June 2007
Transportation Element
3.6      Overview of Non-motorized Transportation

Non-motorized transportation systems include facilities that provide for safe pedestrian and
bicycle travel. These include sidewalks, crosswalks, off street trails, bike routes, and bike lanes.
In rural areas, non-motorized facilities can also include roadway shoulders when they are of
adequate wide.

Some portions of non-motorized routes can be used for commuting purposes to reduce potential
vehicular traffic volumes. If properly located, designed and maintained, non-motorized trails can
accommodate a significant portion of local resident travel between residential areas and shopping
centers, schools, and places of employment. Non-motorized facilities also provide access to
public transit and in this way can help decrease the reliance on single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
travel. When properly planned and constructed, non-motorized facilities are shown to increase
the desirability of a City as a place to live and work.

Safe walking and bicycling environments within Sultan are a major concern of citizens here,
whether they are avid or casual recreational walkers or bicycle commuters. In many cases,
pedestrians and cyclists must share narrow high volume streets with motor vehicles of all sizes
and bicycles. They cross busy intersections with multiple conflict points. Currently, the Sultan
Planning Area lacks a system of continuous and connected nonmotorized routes along the
arterial street system. People in Sultan have expressed concern through surveys and in dialogue
with City leaders.

With this plan the City can take measurable steps toward the goal of improving every citizen’s
quality of life by creating a safer walking and biking environment. This plan proposes a strategy
for implementing a priority system for physical improvements through grants and competitive
funding sources.

3.7      Existing Non-motorized Facilities

Pedestrian Facilities
In the past, many of the roads in Sultan were constructed to a rural standard with no curb or
sidewalk improvements or provisions for safe pedestrian travel. Recent roadway reconstruction
projects have provided storm drainage, curb, and sidewalk improvements, particularly along
major streets providing access to schools, parks, and the downtown business district including
Main Street, 1st Street, 4th Street, 8th Street, Willow Avenue, High Street, Kessler Street, and
most recently Sultan Basin Road. Sidewalks have also been constructed on many local streets in
concert with new development within the City.

Trails
Non-motorized transportation systems also include separated or off-road recreational trails.
Some portion of these recreational trail corridors can also satisfy local access needs between
residential areas and parks, schools, commercial and employment areas depending on the trail
locations.




City of Sultan                               21                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
The High Street Trail is an asphalt multi-purpose trail developed from the east end of High Street
up the hillside and onto the plateau to provide for evacuation of schools in case of flood or dam
emergencies. At the time of writing of this plan, several segments of the Willow/Bryant Trail
were in construction on the plateau area west of Sultan Basin Road and south of 132nd Street.

Bicycle Facilities
In the past, cyclists within the Sultan Planning Area have either rode in the lane of traffic, on
available road shoulders, or on City sidewalks. Many commuter cyclists ride along US 2 in the
available highway shoulder to reach their destinations. To provide for safer bicycle travel within
the City, the City has completed two major improvements.

Recent completion of the High Street off-road trail and the bike lanes on Sultan Basin Road
provide a measure of safety and choice for safe cycling within the City. However many
challenges remain, especially in older neighborhoods along US 2 and in the rural areas of the
Sultan Planning Area.

3.8       Existing Freight Transportation Facilities

Within the Sultan Planning Area freight and goods are transported on US 2, on City and County
roads, and on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) Stevens Pass rail line which
parallels US 2 providing major cross-state freight and passenger travel between Everett and
Spokane.

The Stevens Pass rail line is BNSF’s primary route for double-stack intermodal freight traffic.
However, within the Sultan Planning area BNSF does not provide service to local industrial
users, nor is such service planned by BNSF in the near future. All freight and goods originating
from or destined to commercial businesses within the Sultan Planning Area are currently carried
by trucks.

In Washington State the highway and roadway system is rated according to the amount of freight
and goods that are carried by truck on the system. The Washington State Freight and Goods
Transportation System (FGTS) is a ranking of roads in Washington State by average gross
annual truck tonnage carried. The FGTS classification system is as follows:

      •   T-1 over 10 millions tons carried annually
      •   T-2 between 4 and 10 million annual tons
      •   T-3 between 300,000 and 4 millions annual tons
      •   T-4 between 100,000 and 300,000 annual tons
      •   T-5 at least 20,000 tons carries in a 60 day period

The FGTS system is affected by changes in the economy, international trade, and the
transportation industry such as changes in truck travel patterns, cargoes and tonnages. Revisions
to the Freight and Goods Transportation System routes and tonnage classifications are developed
by the agency having jurisdiction over the roadway segment. When last updated in 2005, US 2
within the Sultan Planning area was designated as a T-2 facility carrying an estimated annual
6,262,200 tons. Figure 5 displays the 2005 FGTS system within the Sultan Planning Area.

City of Sultan                                 22                                         June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 5: Sultan 2005 Freight and Goods Transportation System




City of Sultan                        23                        June 2007
Transportation Element
4.0      FORECASTING FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND

The Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to provide travel forecasts for at least
ten years based on the jurisdiction’s adopted future land use plan. In Sultan, this was
accomplished though development of a traffic forecasting model that provided future traffic
growth forecasts to the year 2025 based on the City’s adopted year 2025 Future Land Use Plan.

A description of the traffic forecasting model development and its resulting forecasts is provided
below. Future forecasts of travel on other modes such as transit and non-motorized (pedestrian
and bicycle) is also documented in this chapter.

4.1      Traffic Forecasting Methodology

There are very specific steps that are followed in development and use of a traffic forecasting
model. These steps are summarized here in application to the Sultan Model.

         1. Define Model Study Area: Define Model Study Area: Define the specific area that
            will be included in the traffic model. An area was selected that was slightly larger
            than the City’s adopted Planning Area due to the need to provide a model study area
            consistent with US Census geography in order to utilize Census data.

         2. Determine Street Network to be Modeled: Determine Street Network to be Modeled:
            Define the specific set of streets for traffic forecasting. The future arterial street
            network for Sultan was selected for projections of traffic forecasts. Two arterial
            street networks were modeled:

             2025 No Action Scenario – assumed no change or improvement to the City’s existing
             street system. US 2 was assumed to be four lanes with two additional traffic signals
             installed at Main Street and at Rice Road intersections.

             2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario – assumed a series of City arterial street
             improvements including arterial extensions across the plateau and construction of a
             connecting Minor Arterial grid system. US -2 was assumed to be four lanes with two
             additional traffic signals installed at Main St and Rice Rd Intersections. In addition, a
             new right-turn only intersection at 1 St. and US 2 was assumed.

         3. Traffic Analysis Zones: Divide the Model Study Area into traffic analysis zones
            (TAZ’s) in order to ascertain the existing and future distribution of land use
            development within the model Study Area. Twenty three TAZ’s were defined within
            the Planning Study Area with boundaries consistent with US Census geography.

         4. Intergovernmental Coordination: In order to examine and account for traffic and land
            use that may impact a model study area from outside its boundaries, it is incumbent
            on the modeler to review neighboring jurisdiction’s land use plans, and traffic
            forecasts on arterials and highways that traverse the model study area.



City of Sultan                                24                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
             The development of the City’s traffic model included discussions with Snohomish
             County staff and review of the traffic and land use forecasts provided by the County’s
             Comprehensive Plan. In addition, land use and traffic forecasts provided by the Puget
             Sound Regional Council (PSRC) were also reviewed and included.

         5. Land Use Data: Collect population, housing and employment information for each of
            the TAZ’s. Existing (2006) and future 2025 population, housing, and employment
            information consistent with the City’s adopted future land use plan was organized and
            transposed to the TAZ system. The City’s future 2025 land use growth was allocated
            to the TAZ’s based on:

                  -      the location of known development projects;
                  -      City Comprehensive Plan zoning;
                  -      Constraints to development such as steep slopes and wetland; and
                  -      Calculated average density of recently completed developments, such as
                         dwelling units per acre, provided by Snohomish County Tomorrow.

             For areas outside of the City’s planning area that were included in the model study
             area, traffic impacts from development data from Snohomish County was included,
             consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

         6. Trip Generation: Calculate trips to be generated by each TAZ based on the land use
            data and trip generation assumptions. With the City’s future 2025 land use data, the
            number of vehicle (traffic) trips originating and destined for each TAZ during the PM
            peak hour (4:30 – 5:30 pm) was calculated using trip generation rates from the
            Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition.

         7. Trip Distribution: Trip distribution refers to the calculation of trip movement within
            and outside of the model study area. Trip distribution occurs between housing areas,
            commercial areas, recreational areas, and to/from areas outside of the model study
            area such as between neighboring cities. For the Sultan model, PM peak hour traffic
            trip distribution was calculated by merging the 23 TAZ’s into larger districts and
            applying distribution assumptions consistent with recent (2003 – 2006) traffic impact
            analysis (TIA) studies performed for larger developments in the City.

         8. Trip Assignment: Trip assignment is the final step where trips are assigned to the
            various streets and roadways network within the model study area. For the Sultan
            model network, trip assignment was calculated and trips assigned to the model
            network using the most direct routes in terms of both travel distance and travel delay.
            Two possible roadway network scenarios were evaluated, a “No Action” scenario that
            included only known arterial improvement projects, and a “Preferred Arterial”
            scenario that included additional arterial system improvements.




City of Sultan                                 25                                          June 2007
Transportation Element
4.2      Future Traffic Volumes

Traffic forecasts were developed for arterials within the Sultan Planning Area with a traffic
forecasting model. Future 2025 traffic forecasts were provided for the No Action and Preferred
Arterial scenarios; average weekday traffic (AWDT) forecast are shown in Figures 6 and 7.

The traffic forecasts reveal that arterial volumes within the Sultan Planning Area will increase as
projected land use development under the City’s adopted land use plan is realized, particularly in
the plateau area. The majority of the forecasted traffic increase can be attributed to intra-city
travel between the plateau area and the historic area of the City, and increasing regional travel
between Sultan and other communities to the east and west.

The difference between the “No Action” and “Preferred Arterial” scenarios demonstrates the
positive effects of providing an arterial grid system within the Sultan Planning area to provide
for a more efficient form of intra-City travel, and to provide better access to US 2 for regional
travel.

Understanding how traffic from the developing Plateau area gains access to the rest of the City
and the larger region is key to the understanding where future traffic congestion and arterial
capacity deficiencies are likely to occur, and where transportation solutions can be most
effective.

A comparison of the “No Action” and “Preferred Arterial” scenarios shows that without
continued improvement of the City’s east-west arterial grid network, traffic volumes on Sultan
Basin Road and Rice Road are projected to substantially increase.

Traffic on US 2 is also much higher under the “No Action” scenario than the “Preferred Arterial”
scenario. This is due to the fact that currently, US 2 provides the only east-west connecting route
within the Sultan Planning Area. All travel to and from the City Planning Area from points east
and west, as well as within the City itself, occurs on US 2. The difference between the two
scenarios is an estimate of the amount of future traffic that would divert off US 2, or not use it at
all, if arterial options were provided within the City.




City of Sultan                               26                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 6: Sultan 2025 No Action Arterial Scenario – Average Weekday Traffic Volumes




City of Sultan                                                   27                   June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 7: Sultan 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario – Average Weekday Traffic Volumes




City of Sultan                                                   28                   June 2007
Transportation Element
4.3      Future Traffic Levels of Service

In order to evaluate the impact of the forecasted 2025 future traffic volumes on the two City
arterial scenarios, PM peak hour (4:30 – 5:30) traffic level of service (LOS) analysis was
performed on each of the two City arterial scenarios.

As discussed in Section 3.3, Transportation LOS is a measure of the quality of service provided
by the transportation system. Transportation LOS helps provide an understanding of the
performance of the transportation system. It also establishes a basis for comparison between
roadways and helps guide the prioritization of improvement projects.

The 2025 No Action and Preferred Arterial Traffic LOS is shown in Figures 8 and 9.

The future 2025 traffic LOS analysis demonstrates the impact of increasing traffic volumes on
the performance of the arterial network and US 2 within the Sultan Planning Area. A
comparison of the two figures indicates that Sultan Basin Road north of US 2 will likely fall to
LOS E/F by 2025 unless additional arterial capacity or connectivity is constructed.

While both alternatives indicate poor LOS on US 2 west of Sultan Basin Road even with
widening to four travel lanes, under the 2025 “Preferred Arterial” scenario, US 2 traffic volumes
and congestion would be reduced between 1st Street and Sultan Basin Road. This forecasted
reduction is due to an expected decrease of intracity travel using US 2 as the result of providing
additional east-west arterial connectivity within the City.

An additional benefit of the “Preferred Arterial” scenario to US 2 traffic operations is in
providing a major new access point to US 2 at 1st Street. The recommended 1st Street / US 2
access point, combined with connecting arterial improvements planned for 1st Street / Trout Farm
Road and the 132nd Street Extension, are expected to route traffic off of US 2 on to the City
arterial system at the west of downtown, reducing traffic volumes on US 2 east past 3rd Street, 5th
Street, and Main Street.

Table 2 presents US 2 2025 traffic intersection operational LOS analysis based on traffic
forecasts developed by the City’s traffic forecast Model.

Table 2: US 2 2025 Intersection LOS
                                                   2025 Annual Average       2025 Annual Average
                                                   Weekday PM Peak           Weekday PM Peak Hour
                                                   Hour LOS – No Action      LOS – Preferred Arterial
Intersection                                       Scenario                  Scenario
US 2 / Old Owen Road (signalized)                           C                           C
US 2 / 1st Street (unsignalized right-turn only)            --                          C
US 2 / 5th Street (signalized)                              D                           C
US 2 @ Main Street (unsignalized)                           C                           B
US 2 / Sultan Basin Road (signalized)                       F                           B
US 2 / Rice Road (signalized)                               B                           B



City of Sultan                               29                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 8: Sultan 2025 No Action Arterial Scenario LOS




City of Sultan                                          30   June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 9: Sultan 2025 Preferred Arterial Scenario LOS




City of Sultan                                          31   June 2007
Transportation Element
4.4      Forecasts for Other Modes

While future year 2025 traffic forecasts were developed using the City’s traffic demand
forecasting model, forecasts of future demand for other transportation modes within the
Sultan Planning Area were less rigorous, but still provided enough information to guide
transportation infrastructure and service improvement planning.

Transit
Transit service forecasts utilized for the Sultan Comprehensive Plan were developed by
Community Transit (CT) through work with the Puget Sound Regional Council. As part
of development of CT’s 2004 Transit Development Plan (2004 – 2009), CT examined the
Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) travel model forecasts for year 2010.
According to CT, forecasted transit service demand in eastern Snohomish County is
expected to increase to the point where additional service may be warranted.

According to CT:

“… a surprising finding is that eastern Snohomish County may provide a viable new market for
direct commuter service to downtown Seattle and University District in coming years. While
projected demand between eastern Snohomish County and these areas is minor in comparison to
that of southwest Snohomish County, it is at least equal if not greater than that from north
Snohomish County which already has several direct commuter services to those markets.”
-Community Transit’s Transit First Transit Development Plan (2004 – 2009).

As of this writing, CT was preparing to update its six-year transit development plan
(TDP) and contemplating developing a longer-range plan that would look twenty years
into the future. Clearly, the demand for new commuter and other transit services will
continue to grow in eastern Snohomish County beyond 2010, probably exceeding the
projected rate of growth in housing as affordable housing opportunities provide growth of
commuter residents. The City of Sultan is committed to participating in planning for new
and improved transit service with Community Transit.

Non-motorized
Future year 2025 non-motorized (pedestrian/bicycle) travel was not modeled, but instead
derived from public opinion through the public outreach completed by the City.
According to public opinion survey work, public open houses and public meetings
conducted as part of the development of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a strong desire
for increased non-motorized facilities. Facility improvements recommended by the
public included completion of the exiting sidewalk system as well as construction of
trails and bicycles facilities particularly around schools, along US 2, and in areas of new
housing developments.

Freight
Estimates of the future year 2025 demand for freight movement within the Sultan
Planning Area were not explicitly modeled. However, analysis and recommendations
completed as part of the 2001 Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan recognized the need for

City of Sultan                                PAGE    32                                   June 2007
Transportation Element
transportation facilities necessary to serve expanded industrial and commercial activity
within the City. Specifically, the Master Plan recommended transportation goals, policies
and specific improvement projects which recognize the impacts of increased truck freight
movement associated with the Plan.

The BNSF Steven’s Pass rail line is a major cross-state freight and passenger line
between Everett and Spokane. According to the Washington State Transportation Plan,
significant rail capacity constraints have been identified on the rail line where current
train volumes exceed practical capacity. Future improvement strategies for capacity
improvements are being considered by both BNSF and WSDOT. The Washington State
Transportation Commission's 2006 Rail Capacity and System Needs study analyzes
whether or not the state should participate in freight rail, what the state's role in rail
should be, investment approaches, governance, and a state asset management plan.


5.0      TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN

At the heart of the transportation planning requirements of the Growth Management Act
(GMA) is the requirement of local governments planning under the act to determine their
transportation needs, including local and state transportation system improvements as
well as projects and strategies necessary to meet established level of service standards.

The overall goal of the City’s Transportation Element is to promote a balanced,
affordable, reliable and efficient transportation system that supports the City’s 2025
Future Land Use Plan. In order to meet the goal, a series of transportation improvements
are recommended for arterials, State highways, transit facilities and services,
nonmotorized facilities, and freight transport facilities. The improvement needs are
separated into existing needs – those that are needed today, and future needs which are
defined as transportation improvements that are necessary by year 2025.

5.1      Arterial System Improvements

In this section, a series of short term (2007 thru 2015) and long term (2015 thru 2025)
transportation improvements are recommended to develop the arterial street system
within the Sultan Planning Area. The improvement recommendations are the result of a
review of existing arterial system conditions, and future traffic forecast analysis from the
City’s 2025 traffic forecasting model. Four types of system improvements are
recommended:

         1. Existing street deficiency improvements necessary to address existing
            deficiencies on both local access and arterial streets,

         2. Future arterial system capacity improvements necessary to meet the City’s
            traffic level of service (LOS) standard “D”,




City of Sultan                            PAGE   33                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
         3. Future arterial system enhancements necessary to meet City street design
            standards and to provide enhanced arterial system connectivity to help reduces
            traffic congestion at key system choke points, and

         4. Two transportation projects that look out beyond the year 2025 are included in
            order to present long-term City project concepts to begin dialogue with
            regional leaders and potential partner agencies.

A map of all the recommended arterial improvement projects is shown in Figure 10.

Existing street deficiency improvements are projects that resolve existing capacity,
pavement, and/or design deficiencies on both local access and arterial streets. Table 3
provides the list of recommended existing street deficiency projects.

Arterial system capacity improvements provide for the widening of arterial streets as well
as improvements to arterial intersections, both which expand traffic carrying capacity.
These arterial improvements were developed through traffic LOS performance analysis
of both existing (2007) and future forecasted traffic congestion. Where traffic LOS
exceeded the City’s adopted LOS standard of “D”, capacity deficiencies were identified
and corrective arterial capacity improvement projects are recommended. Table 4
provides the list of recommended arterial system capacity improvement projects.

Arterial system enhancements provide for projects needed to upgrade existing roadways
to City urban street design standards and to provide for arterial connectivity. Many of the
designated arterials within the Sultan planning area were built to rural standard and do
not include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. As development occurs within
the Sultan planning area and travel demands on these arterials increase, projects are
recommended to upgrade these arterial to City urban design standards.

Improvements to the arterial system to enhance system connectivity are also
recommended. Existing arterials within the Sultan Planning Area have a limited level of
connectivity, particularly east-west across the developing plateau area, and north-south to
and across US 2. This limits travel choices and increases the likelihood of cut-through
traffic in residential areas.

Limited arterial connectivity also places pressure on US 2 within the City to provide for
short intercity trips, which can negatively impact regional traffic movement on the
highway. These problems will only increase with additional development. Construction
of the recommended connecting arterials will provide safer and more efficient travel
routes to City residents as well as providing needed relief to US 2. Table 5 provides the
list of recommended arterial system enhancement projects.

Two conceptual transportation projects that may hold promise in providing long-term
transportation and emergency evacuation solutions beyond the planning horizon year
2025 are presented in Table 6. The purpose of including these conceptual projects is to
help foster dialogue with regional leaders and partner agencies.


City of Sultan                           PAGE   34                                        June 2007
Transportation Element
Table 3: Recommended Existing Street Deficiency Projects
                                                                                                     Future Number                  Arterial Functional
  Project #                Project Name                           Project Description                                Project Type                         Bicycle Facility?     Transit Street?
                                                                                                        of Lanes                      Classification

                                                       Install traffic calming treatment to Date
                                                       Ave. from 8th St west to the Elementary                         Existing
T-46          Date Avenue Traffic Calming              School                                             2           Deficiency       Local Access               No                  No
                                                       Repair, replace, and construct as
                                                       necessary asphalt, sidewalks, and bike
                                                       lanes. Project is combined with water,                          Existing
T-51          3rd St. Reconstruction                   sewer, and stormwater system projects.             2           Deficiency       Local Access          Bike Lanes               No
                                                                                                                       Existing
T-61          6th Street Reconstruction                Reconstruct 6th St. to urban standards             2           Deficiency       Local Access               No                  No




Table 4: Recommended Arterial System Capacity Projects
                                                                                                     Future Number                  Arterial Functional
  Project #                Project Name                           Project Description                                Project Type                         Bicycle Facility?     Transit Street?
                                                                                                        of Lanes                      Classification


                                                       Reconstruct 1st St from High Ave to Trout
                                                       Farm Rd. Project includes water, sewer
T-38          1st Street Reconstruction Phase II       and storm water utilities construction.            3            Capacity        Minor Arterial        Bike Lanes              Yes
                                                       Signalize exisiting intersection of US-2 at                                                         Bike Lanes/Trail
T-40          US-2/Rice Rd (339th Ave) Signalization   339th Ave SE.                                      3            Capacity      Principal Arterial       Crossing            Yes, US-2
                                                       Continue Sultan Basin Rd. improvements
                                                       north to 124th St.SE. Proposed Joint
T-42          Sultan Basin Rd. Reconstruction Phase IV City/County Project                                3            Capacity        Minor Arterial        Bike Lanes              Yes
                                                       Reconstruct Trout Farm Rd. from 1st St.
                                                       north to 125th St SE. Proposed joint
T-47          Trout Farm Rd Reconstruction             City/County Project                                2/3          Capacity      Collector Arterial   Multi Purpose Trail        Yes
                                                       Extend 132nd S.t from Sultan Basin Rd.
                                                       northwest connecting to Trout Farm Rd.
T-57          132nd Ave Arterial Extension             near 307th St.                                     3            Capacity        Minor Arterial        Bike Lanes              Yes
                                                       Provide grade-seperated ramp access to
T-59          US 2/ 1st Avenue Interchange             US-2 from 1st St.                                  2            Capacity        Minor Arterial             No                 Yes




City of Sultan                                                                       35                                                                                         June 2007
Transportation Element
Table 5: Recommended Arterial System Enhancement Projects
                                                                                                                     Future Number                   Arterial Functional
  Project #                Project Name                                 Project Description                                          Project Type                             Bicycle Facility?      Transit Street?
                                                                                                                        of Lanes                       Classification

                                                    Construct new east/west collector between 339th Ave SE
                                                    and Sultan Basin Rd in the north section of the City (aprox.
T-24          New East/West Collector               location between 132nd and 124th St SE).                              2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial             No                   No

                                                    Provide east/west access and traffic collector through the
                                                    Industrial Park from Rice Rd (339th) to Sultan Basin Rd. and
T-26          New North Industrial Park Collector   US-2                                                                  2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial             No                   No
                                                    Extend East Main St. east to connect to 149th St. SE within
T-27          East Main St Road Extension           the Economic Development Zone south of US-2.                          2          Enhancement         Local Street                 No                   No
                                                    Provide emergency access for properties between BNSF
T-28          DyerSkywall Emergency Access          tracks and the Skykomish River for public safety                      2          Enhancement         Local Street                 No                   No

T-29          Kessler Drive Extension               Extend Kessler Dr. north from Bryant Rd. to 124th St. SE.             2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial     Multi Purpose Trail          No
                                                    Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through the
                                                    Industrial Park north to 124th St SE. CITY LIMIT/UGA                                              Proposed Collector
T-31a         New 330th Ave Arterial                PORTION ONLY                                                          2          Enhancement           Arterial              Shared Lane               No


                                                    Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through the                                        Proposed Collector
T-31b         New 330th Ave Arterial                Industrial Park north to 124th St SE. NON-UGA PORTION                 2          Enhancement           Arterial              Shared Lane               No


                                                    Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at County
                                                    Rural Arterial road standards to provide arterial connectivity
                                                    and access to US-2. Proposed joint project with Snohomish
T-32a         Rice Rd. (339th) St Extension         County. CITY LIMIT/UGA PORTION ONLY                                   2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial      Bike Lanes                No

                                                    Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at County
                                                    Rural Arterial road standards to provide arterial connectivity
                                                    and access to US-2. Proposed joint project with Snohomish                                          Proposed County
T-32b         Rice Rd. (339th) St Extension         County. NON-UGA PORTION                                               2          Enhancement           Arterial              Bike Lanes                No


                                                    Develop an interior access arterial from Old Owen Rd. east to
              229th Ave Extension or Highland Ave   Sportmans Park to provide access to existing roadside
T-33          Extension                             commercial properties and reduce curb cuts on US-2.                   2/3        Enhancement       Collector Arterial             No                   No




City of Sultan                                                                           36                                                                                                         June 2007
Transportation Element
Table 5: Recommended Arterial System Enhancement Projects (Cont.)
                                                                                                                        Future Number                   Arterial Functional
  Project #                 Project Name                                    Project Description                                         Project Type                                Bicycle Facility?         Transit Street?
                                                                                                                           of Lanes                       Classification

                                                       Downtown access to US 2 will be focused on 3rd, 5th, 8th,
T-34          US-2 RDP City Access Revisions           and Main Streets to reduce congestion.                                           Enhancement       Principal Arterial       Multi Purpose Trail          Yes, US-2

                                                       Reconstruct Cascade View Dr to Collector arterial standard
              Cascase View Drive/330th Ave             and realign street to create a signalized intersection at US-2                                                            E. Main St Trail joins as
T-35          Intersection Realignment                 and 330th Ave SE.                                                     2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial      a Multi Purpose Trail         Yes, US-2

                                                       Reconstruct and extend 138th St. between Sultan Basin Rd.
T-36          138th St Extension                       and 339th Ave SE.                                                     2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                      Yes

                                                       Reconstruct 339th Ave from Sultan Startup Rd. north to
                                                       132nd St. SE to arterial standard with curbs gutter and
T-41          Rice (339th Ave SE) Reconstruction       sidewalks.                                                            2/3        Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                  Yes

                                                       Redesign the road to remove access from US-2 rerouting
T-43          Walburn Rd. Rerouting                    access to Sultan Basin Rd. north of Wagley Creek                      2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial                No                      No

                                                       Extend Pine St. East to Walburn to provide east west access
                                                       from Sultan Basin Rd to downtown Sultan. Emergency
T-44          Pine Street Extension                    Evacuation Route                                                      2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                       No

                                                       Install traffic signal and improvements from the intersection
                                                       of 4th and Alder St to the intersection of 5th and US-2.
                                                       Proposed Joint project with Community Transit and Sultan
T-45          Alder St Improvements                    School District                                                       2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial               No                      Yes
                                                       Reconstruct Gohr Rd to arterial standard from 1st St north to
T-48          Gohr Rd Reconstruction                   311th Ave SE                                                          2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial                No                      No
                                                       Extend Gohr Rd north to the proposed proposed 132nd Ave.
T-49          Gohr Rd Extension                        Extension.                                                            2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial                No                      No

T-52          8th St. Sidewalks                        Install sections of missing sidewalks on 8th St.                                 Enhancement       Collector Arterial

                                                       Reconstruct the 10th St. crossing with the BNSF Rail Line
T-53          10th St. Railroad Crossing Improvement   Within the Economic Development zone.                                 2          Enhancement         Local Street                   No                       No
                                                       Petition BNSF and contribute to construct a rail spur access
T-55          Industrial Park Rail Spur Construction   to the Industrial Park                                                n/a        Enhancement              n/a                       n/a                      n/a

T-58          132nd Ave Reconstruction                 Reconstruct 132nd St SE to arterial standard                          2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial         Bike Lanes                  Yes
                                                       Reconstruct 124th St SE to urban standards from west
T-62          124th St. SE Reconstruction Phase 1      terminus to Sultan Basin Rd.                                          2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial       Multi Purpose Trail              No
                                                       Extend 124th Ave. west to Trout Farm Rd. intersecting at
T-65          124th St. Extension                      aprox. 125th St                                                       2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial       Multi Purpose Trail              No




City of Sultan                                                                               37                                                                                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
Table 6: Transportation Projects beyond 2025

                                                                                  Number of              Arterial Functional   Project Cost
  Project #    Project Name                 Project Description                             Project Type
                                                                                    Lanes                  Classification       Estimate




              124th St. SE     Reconstruct 124th St SE to County Rural
              Reconstruction   Arterial road standards from Sultan Basin Rd. to
T-63          Phase 2          Rice Rd. Proposed joint City/County Project.           2         Future    County Local Road    $11,100,000


                               Construct a bridge crossing the Sultan River
                               north of 125th St SE. to provide for emergency
              Sultan River     access evacuation route and future arterial
              Bridge           circulation. Project includes reconstruction of                              Proposed Minor     $4.6 Mil Plus
T-64          Construction     Trout Farm Rd. to the bridge crossing.                 2         Future          Arterial        bridge cost




City of Sultan                                                               38                                                                June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 10: Recommended Arterial Improvements




City of Sultan                                 39   June 2007
Transportation Element
5.2      Arterial Street Design Standards

Standards for arterial street construction and improvement provide continuity for the arterial
system and assure that adequate facilities are constructed. Well designed street standards also
help ensure the safety and accessibility for other system users including transit buses, pedestrians
and cyclists as well as providing for landscape areas, parking and right-of-way width. The City
of Sultan arterial street standards are listed in Table 7.

Table 7: City of Sultan Recommended Arterial Street Design Standards
Street Type                    Traffic        Parking      Bike   Street    Landscape   Sidewalks      Right
                               Lanes          Pockets      Lane   Width                                of Way

COLLECTOR
2 Lane w/Parking               2-11’              8’        n/a     38’         5’          6’             60’
2 Lane w/Multi Purpose Trail
and Parking                    2-11’              8’        n/a     38’         5’      1- 6’, 1-12’       66’
2 lane w/Bike Route and
Parking Pockets                2-11’          12’ w/bike    n/a     46’         5’          6’             68’

INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR
2 Lane                2-12 to 14’                n/a        n/a    24-28’       4’          6’            44-48’
3 Lane               1-12’, 2-12’                n/a        n/a     36’         4’          6’             56’

MINOR ARTERIAL
2 Lane                         2-12’             n/a        n/a     24’         5’          6’             46’
2 Lane w/Multi Purpose Trail   2-12’             n/a        n/a     24’         5’      1-6’, 1-12’        52’
2 Lane w/Bike Lane             2-12’             n/a        5’      34’         5’          6’             56’

3 Lane                         1-12’, 2-12’      n/a        n/a     36’         5’          6’             58’
3 Lane w/Multi Purpose Trail   1-12’, 2-12’      n/a        n/a     36’         5’      1-6’, 1-12’        64’
3 Lane w/Bike Lane             1-12’, 2-11’      n/a        5’      45’         5’          6’             67’

The following descriptions help illustrate the City’s arterial design standards:

The arterial rights-of-way need to accommodate the needs of all transportation system users e.g.
cars, trucks, transit buses, cyclists and pedestrians. The street width refers to the total width of
pavement measured curb to curb. The design standards include six-foot wide sidewalks on both
sides of a street unless there is a multi-use path in the right-of-way. A four to five foot wide
landscaped buffer strip should also be provided between the vehicular travel lanes and sidewalks
or paths.

Where three travel lanes are recommended, the third lane is not a through travel lane but a center
two-way-left-turn-lane (TWLTL). The TWLTL provides safer vehicular turning access into side
streets and frontage properties. On the three–lane arterial segments where the additional
TWLTL lane may not be needed for vehicular movement, it may be possible to include a
landscaped median which can also provide opportunities for pedestrian refuge where there are
crosswalks. The landscaped median can be transformed into left-turn pockets where warranted
at intersections or major driveways, or transitioned back into a TWLTL where warranted.
Figures 11 and 12 illustrate two of the arterial design standards.


City of Sultan                                   40                                           June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 11: Three-Lane Arterial with Bike Lanes




Figure 12: Three-Lane Arterial with Multi Purpose Trail




City of Sultan                         41                 June 2007
Transportation Element
Each street design must consider the need for transit stops and bicycle lanes. Key transit stop
locations will require allowances for pads to accommodate bus shelters in the future. Collector
and local streets should also allow for parking
pockets between landscaped bulb-outs at key
intersections at the discretion of the developer.

Transit facilities at key stops require right-of-
way allowances for pads for transit shelters.
The minimum extra right-of-way allowance for
a transit pad at an in-lane transit stop should be
five feet in width and about 15 feet in length as
illustrated on the diagram. This allowance will
provide sufficient space for a standard shelter
with adjacent room for other transit amenities
such as signs, schedules, trash receptacles, etc.

Based on the City of Sultan street design
standards, the objective of providing a high
quality of street landscaping, and the above
recommendations for the needs of vehicular
travel, transit services, and non-motorized
facilities, the following right-of-way standards
and cross-sections are recommended.

5.3      Transit System Improvements

This section outlines recommended improvements to public transit serving the Sultan Planning
Area. Of primary importance to the City is increasing opportunities for access to public transit,
particularly in the developing areas north of the historic town, and in the plateau area north of US
2. Providing expansion of existing transit routes and/or additional new routes in these areas is
key to ensuring a viable 1/4 mile walk access to transit stops in these developing areas.

The future public transit street network has been identified that would best serve the Sultan
Planning Area. This network is shown in Figure 13. Transit streets delineated on the map are
specifically identified in the future arterial system improvement projects listed in Tables 3
through 5. Design guidelines for design and construction of transit bus stops are provided in
Section 5.2 of this plan in order to provide standards for construction of bus stops along the
identified transit streets as future improvements to the streets take place.

The City also supports expansion of commuter bus service to provide future direct service to
downtown Seattle and the University District as recommended in Community Transit’s 2004 –
2009 Transit Development Plan. The City is committed to working with Community Transit in
order to facilitate effective improvements to public transit service in the City and along US 2.




City of Sultan                                42                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 13: Sultan 2025 Recommended Transit Streets




City of Sultan                                       43   June 2007
Transportation Element
5.4      Non-motorized System Improvements

The City is committed to taking measurable steps toward the goal of improving every citizen’s
quality of life by creating a safer walking and biking environment. The main focus of the
nonmotorized improvements recommended in this section is to provide routes which can be used
for commuting purposes between residential areas and shopping centers, schools, and places of
employment. An additional consideration in nonmotorized planning is to provide increased
access to public transit. The recommended nonmotorized improvements within the Sultan
Planning Area are listed in Table 8 and shown in Figure 14.

Nonmotorized improvements that serve more of a recreational nature are recommended in the
Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan. When properly planned and constructed, both
commuter based and recreational based nonmotorized facilities are shown to increase the
desirability of a City as a place to live and work.

Table 8: Recommended Nonmotorized Improvements within the Sultan Planning Area

                                                                                                             Future Number
  Project #                 Project Name                         Project Description                                         Project Type
                                                                                                                of Lanes

                                             Repair, replace and construct missing sidewalks within the                         Existing
NM-3          Sidewalk Spot Improvements     City                                                                 n/a          Deficiency
                                             Renovate public sidewaks. Stand alone projects not                                 Existing
NM-4          Sidewalk Enhancement           associated with road renovation.                                     n/a          Deficiency
                                             Construct multipurpose trail from the east end of E. Main St
                                             north Cascade View Dr and 330th Ave. for nonmotorized and
NM-1          East Main St. Trail            emergency access.                                                    n/a        Nonmotorized
                                             Construct multipurpose trail to provide nonmotorized safety
                                             and connectivity as part of US-2 RDP
NM-5          US-2 Route Corridor Trail      reconstruction/widening.                                             n/a        Nonmotorized
                                             Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized
                                             travel to and from residential, commercial, parks and natural
NM-6          Willow/Bryant Trail            areas.                                                               n/a        Nonmotorized
                                             Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized
                                             travel to and from residential, commercial, parks and natural
NM-7          High/Kessler/140th Trail       areas.                                                               n/a        Nonmotorized
                                             Construct a nonmotorized bridge crossing on US 2 to provide
                                             increased safety for pedestrians and improved traffic flow.
NM-8          US-2 Pedestrian Overcrossing   Joint Project with WSDOT                                             n/a        Nonmotorized




City of Sultan                                     44                                                                   June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 14: Future Bike Lanes and Trails




City of Sultan                            45   June 2007
Transportation Element
5.5         Freight System Improvements

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.8, freight and goods are transported within the Sultan
Planning area on US 2, City and County roads, and on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad (BNSF) Stevens Pass rail line which parallels US 2. Recommended future
improvements to facilitate expected increased tonnage of freight movement to and from
developing commercial and industrial areas within the City include many of the recommended
arterial system improvements listed in Tables 3 through 5. In particular, these arterial
improvement projects will help facilitate freight movement within the City:

                    •     T-26 New North Industrial Park Collector,
                    •     T-35 Cascade View Dr/330th Ave Intersection Realignment,
                    •     T-33 299th Ave Extension,
                    •     T-41 Rice Road Reconstruction,
                    •     T-40 US 2/339th Ave Signalization, and

In addition, a freight rail improvement project is recommended to provide for rail access into the
City’s Industrial Park: T-55 Industrial Park Rail Spur Construction.

5.6         Transportation Demand Management

Transportation demand management (TDM) is a series of strategies that provide for a more
efficient utilization of the transportation system by reducing the demand for single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) travel. One of the transportation goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to
provide for efficient use of the transportation system through encouraging the balanced use of the
various transportation modes including TDM:

      5.2      Goal:    Encourage modal balance.       Create an appropriate balance between
               transportation modes where each meets a different function to the greatest efficiency.

            5.2.1       Objective: Transportation Demand Management: Conduct public awareness
                        programs and project promoting van-pooling, ride-sharing, joint parking
                        management, and other programs that reduce dependence on single occupancy
                        vehicles for employment, commercial and recreational transportation demands.

This objective 5.2.1 directs the City to conduct public awareness programs that help promote
TDM. TDM strategies can be of two types: (1) employer-based strategies and (2) regional
strategies. Employer-based strategies are those that are primarily undertaken by public and
private employers specific to serving commuter travel to the employment sites. These include:

                    •     Ride-matching programs for carpooling and vanpooling
                    •     Transit support programs
                    •     Flexible work schedules
                    •     Telecommuting
                    •     Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools

City of Sultan                                   46                                          June 2007
Transportation Element
Where large employment concentrations are present, TDM strategies can be very effective. A
good example is Everett Boeing which has partnered with Community Transit to provide
Commuter Route 277 providing commuter style weekday service between Goldbar and Everett’s
Boeing facilities during the Boeing shift commute hours. Route 277 stops in Sultan at the Sultan
Park and Ride lot. Boeing also employs all of the other TDM strategies listed, as it is a
Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) employer and is required by law to
encourage the use of non single occupant vehicle (SOV) commute travel to its work sites.

The purpose of Washington’s 1991 Commute Trip Reduction Law (CTR) (RCW 70.94.521-551)
is to improve our quality of life by reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and fuel
consumption. To achieve these goals, employers are asked to develop CTR programs that
encourage employees who drive alone to work to consider using an alternative commute mode
such as buses, vanpools, carpools, biking, or walking. Telecommuting and working a flexible
work schedule such as the compressed workweek are other elements employers can implement
to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips to the worksite.

The law affects public and private employers in Clark, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish,
Spokane, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima counties that have 100 or more full-time employees
at a single worksite who begin their workday between 6 and 9 AM on at least two weekdays for
at least 12 continuous months. According to the Snohomish County Public Works Department,
which coordinates CTR efforts within Snohomish County, there are over 70 CTR employer
worksites in Snohomish County alone. Near the US 2 corridor, there are five CTR employer
worksite located in Monroe.

When applied at the regional level, TDM strategies have significant impact on overall traffic
levels because they generally impact all travel markets such as commuting, school, shopping,
etc. Effective regional TDM strategies include:

             • Providing easily accessible and frequent transit service – this Plan recommends
                  expanding transit service within the Sultan Planning Area, and provides design
                  guidelines for the construction of bus stops along City arterials.

             • Providing bicycle/pedestrian facilities – this Plan recommends significant
                  investment in improving nonmotorized travel within the Planning Area including
                  sidewalk construction and repair, bike lanes, bike routes, and trails.

             • Providing park-and-ride lots – Sultan has a park and ride lot located south of US 2
                  near the intersection with 11th Street contains parking space for approximately 64
                  cars. This Plan recommends construction of pedestrian overpass of US 2 near the
                  park and ride lot, and construction of nonmotorized facilities on E. Main St
                  connecting to the park and ride lot to help facilitate safer nonmotorized access to
                  the lot.

             • TDM-friendly land use policies – the implementation of land use policies that are
                  TDM-friendly such as allowing mixed use development, combined with nearby

City of Sultan                                 47                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
                  and accessible transit access and improvements to nonmotorized facilities,
                  reduces the demand for vehicular travel. The potential impact of these strategies
                  may be greater in the long run than traditional employer-based TDM measures.

In order to encourage TDM within the City, Sultan will continue to pursue improvements to
transit service and facilities, and development of its nonmotorized system. In addition, the City
should explore amending the land use development codes to increase awareness and strengthen
implementation of TDM strategies.


6.0      STATE OWNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FACILITIES

As required under the WA Growth Management Act (GMA), comprehensive plan transportation
elements are required to include a sub-element addressing state-owned transportation facilities,
and transportation facilities of statewide significance. This section of the City’s Transportation
Element complies with the GMA requirements by providing:

                  • An inventory of state-owned facilities within the Sultan Planning Area;
                  • Estimates of traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting from land use
                         decisions so performance can be monitored and improvements can be
                         planned;
                  •      State adopted level of service (LOS) standards for measuring state facility
                         performance;
                  •      Identifying current and future state facility needs that are consistent with
                         WSDOT’s statewide multimodal transportation system plan.

6.1      Inventory of State Owned Facilities

Within the Sultan Planning Area, US 2 is the only state-owned transportation facility. US 2 is
designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and a National Highway System (NHS)
facility across its entire length. US 2 is also designated as a Scenic Byway in the vicinity of
State Route Mile Post (SRMP) 15.37 to 104.72, this includes the section through the Sultan
Planning Area, approximately SRMP 21.25 to 25.0.

Through the Sultan Planning Area, US 2 has a functional classification of Rural-Principle
Arterial assigned by WSDOT, and the highway is rated on the Washington State Freight and
Goods Transportation System (FGTS) as a T-2 facility carrying an estimated 6,262,200 tons in
2005. US 2 serves freight, commuter, neighborhood, business and recreational travelers.
Weekend recreational traffic on US 2 is higher than weekday commuter traffic.




City of Sultan                                   48                                          June 2007
Transportation Element
6.2      Planned Improvements to State Owned Facilities

Two WSDOT planning documents provide recommendations for improvements to transportation
along US 2, the Washington State Multimodal System Plan, and the WSDOT US 2 Route
Development Plan (RDP) which at the time of this writing was still in draft form. This section
outlines the improvement recommendations from each plan.

1.       WSDOT Highway System Plan

The State WSDOT Highway System Plan is one element of the WA State Multimodal System
Plan. The Highway System Plan acknowledges increasing congestion and safety concerns on US
2 within Snohomish County. The Highway System Plan calls for a combination of added
general purpose lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, managed lanes, and added bus service to be
developed and refined over the next 20 to 50 years to help mitigate increasing congestion. The
plan also recommends safety management strategies to reduce and prevent the frequency and
severity of disabling injuries caused by collisions on US 2 through eliminating high accident
locations, pedestrian accident locations, and constructing and improving intersections.

Specifically, the Highway System Plan recommends the widening of US 2 to 4 lanes through the
Sultan Planning Area as the ultimate long range solution. Due to the current lack of projected
funding to implement this solution, a tiered set of proposed improvement strategies is
recommended providing staged solutions to the highway’s identified safety, congestion and
environmental problems. The tiered solution sets are classified Minimum, Moderate and
Maximum “Fixes”. Within the Sultan Planning Area these recommend solutions are:

Minimum Fix – Provide intersection improvements at Old Owen Road, Main Street and 339 SE
Street (Rice Rd). This estimated $3-$5 million solution is expected to provide a 45-85%
reduction in collisions and a 66% reduction in daily vehicular delay providing a $9 million
benefit.

Moderate Fix – Widen US 2 to five lanes though Sultan. This solution is estimated to cost $45-
$60 million and predicted to provide 55-65% reduction in collisions and a 75-80% reduction in
daily vehicle delay yielding a $34 million benefit.

Maximum Fix – In addition to the Minimum and Moderate Fixes, widen US 2 to four lanes east
of the City of Sultan providing a median-divided, limited access highway west to Monroe. This
solution is estimated to cost $47-$63 million and provide a 10-30% collision reduction and a 75-
80% reduction in daily vehicle delay yielding a $59 million benefit.

2.       US 2 Route Development Plan

The US 2 Route Development Plan (RDP) includes a list of safety and congestion relief
improvement projects created by WSDOT with the help of local communities. As of June 2007,
this plan was in a final draft form.

The draft US 2 RDP recommends 56 projects to enhance safety and reduce congestion for
drivers along a 47-mile stretch of US 2 between the cities of Snohomish and Skykomish. The

City of Sultan                             49                                           June 2007
Transportation Element
intent of the RDP is to provide WSDOT and local jurisdictions a list of projects they can use to
solicit funding for construction.

To identify problems and solutions, the study examined collision rates and locations, population
growth and future development, traffic flow, and environmental issues associated with the
highway. The future forecast year of the study was 2030.

Within the Sultan Planning Area, the study recommends safety and capacity improvement
projects. These projects are shown in Figures 15 and 16 and listed below. Once the RDP is
completed, the City will review its findings for possible amendment of the Capital Facilities Plan
and six-year Transportation Improvement Program.

US 2 RDP Draft Recommended Safety Projects
    •    East Monroe to West Gold Bar, MP 15.6 - 30.3 - Install traffic cameras and electronic
         message signs to provide real-time traffic information to drivers.
    •    Monroe to Gold Bar, MP 15.6 - 30.3 - Install median rumble strip to reduce the number
         of cross-over head on collisions. Preliminary cost estimate under $5 million.
    •    One mile west of Sultan - MP 20.7 - 21.4 - Add westbound passing lane to improve
         traffic congestion and driver safety.
    •    One mile west of Sultan - MP 20.45 - Eliminate wide eastbound turn-out to address sight
         distance problem.
    •    Sultan, MP 21.42 - MP 24.44 - Add an additional westbound through lane, consolidate
         driveway access, u-turns and right turns would be restricted from US 2 at Main Street,
         construct a physical median through the City. Preliminary cost estimate under $15
         million
    •    Sultan, between 3rd and 4th streets, MP 22.24 - MP 22.93 - Add westbound lane and
         restrict left turn access.
    •    Sultan, Sultan-Startup Road, MP 24.73 - Install left turn lane, widen shoulder or prohibit
         left turns.
US 2 RDP Draft Recommended Capacity Projects
    •    Monroe to Gold Bar, MP 15.6 - MP 30.1 - Widen to four lanes and construct bridge
         improvements. Preliminary cost estimate under $200 million.
    •    Sultan, MP 21.42 - MP 24.44 - Add an additional eastbound through lane, construct at
         current signal locations to be determined. (Roundabouts are also recommended at Old
         Owen/ Fern Bluff Road, 3rd Street, near 8th Street, and at Sultan-Basin Road
         intersections).




City of Sultan                                50                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
Figure 15: US 2 RDP Draft Recommended Safety Improvements




Figure 16: US 2 RDP Draft Recommended Capacity Improvements




City of Sultan                      51                        June 2007
Transportation Element
6.3       Traffic Impacts to State Owned Facilities

Traffic impacts from the City’s 2025 Future Land Use Plan on US 2 were estimated with the
Sultan Traffic Model. Forecasted 2025 traffic volumes and LOS analysis are provided in
Chapter 4.

6.4       LOS and Concurrency for Highways of Statewide Significance

US 2 is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) by WSDOT who has established
a traffic level of service (LOS) standard of “D” for the highway through the Sultan Planning
Area. Local transportation concurrency requirements do not apply to HSS facilities.

6.5       Transportation Facilities of Statewide Significance

Transportation facilities and service of Statewide Significance are defined by the State’s Growth
Management Act (GMA). Within the Sultan Planning Area, the Transportation facilities and
service of Statewide Significance include:

      • US 2;
      • The BNSF Stevens Pass rail line, including Amtrak intercity passenger rail service and
           freight rail service on the line;
      •    The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) as the designated federal metropolitan
           planning organization (MPO) and state regional transportation planning organization
           (RTPO) serving King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties. The PSRC serves as the
           forum for coordinating regional transportation planning and federal funding decision
           making. The City of Sultan is active, and will continue to be active with the PSRC.

Improvements to the US 2 highway, and to the BNSF rail line for additional freight movement
access are recommended in this Plan in Chapter 5.

7.0       FINANCIAL PLAN


A financial plan establishes how transportation improvements can be funded over the planning
horizon year 2025. The plan includes four sections: 7.1 Cost estimates of recommended City
transportation projects, 7.2 Revenue sources, 7.3 Transportation mitigation payment system, and
7.4 Transportation funding capability.


7.1       Cost Estimates of City Transportation Projects

Planning level cost estimates for each of the recommended City transportation improvement
projects were prepared in 2007. These estimates analyzed the cost of constructing the
improvements as well as estimates for right-of–way purchase, project design costs, and
environmental costs and mitigation. Table 9 provides the planning level cost estimates for the
recommended 2007 – 2025 transportation improvements.

City of Sultan                              52                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
Table 9: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Recommended Transportation Improvements
                                                                                                                                                Future Number                   Arterial Functional
  Project #                 Project Name                                                 Project Description                                                    Project Type                             Project Cost Estimate
                                                                                                                                                   of Lanes                       Classification

                                                                                                                                                                  Existing
NM-3          Sidewalk Spot Improvements                 Repair, replace and construct missing sidewalks within the City                             n/a         Deficiency              n/a                   $130,000
                                                         Renovate public sidewaks. Stand alone projects not associated with road                                  Existing
NM-4          Sidewalk Enhancement                       renovation.                                                                                 n/a         Deficiency              n/a                   $310,000
                                                         Install traffic calming treatment to Date Ave. from 8th St west to the Elementary                        Existing
T-46          Date Avenue Traffic Calming                School                                                                                      2           Deficiency         Local Street               $124,000

                                                         Repair, replace, and construct as necessary asphalt, sidewalks, and bike lanes.                          Existing
T-51          3rd St. Reconstruction                     Project is combined with water, sewer, and stormwater system projects.                       2          Deficiency         Local Street              $1,300,000
                                                                                                                                                                  Existing
T-61          6th Street Reconstruction                  Reconstruct 6th St. to urban standards                                                      2           Deficiency        Local Access               $1,500,000
                                                         Reconstruct 1st St from High Ave to Trout Farm Rd. Project includes water, sewer
T-38          1st Street Reconstruction Phase II         and storm water utilities construction.                                                     3            Capacity         Minor Arterial             $2,500,000

T-40          US-2/Rice Rd (339th Ave) Signalization     Signalize exisiting intersection of US-2 at 339th Ave SE.                                   3            Capacity        Principal Arterial          $1,400,000
                                                         Continue Sultan Basin Rd. improvements north to 124th St.SE. Proposed Joint
T-42          Sultan Basin Rd. Reconstruction Phase IV   City/County Project                                                                         3            Capacity         Minor Arterial             $9,140,000
                                                         Reconstruct Trout Farm Rd. from 1st St. north to 125th St SE. Proposed joint
T-47          Trout Farm Rd Reconstruction               City/County Project                                                                         2/3          Capacity        Collector Arterial          $9,050,000
                                                         Extend 132nd S.t from Sultan Basin Rd. northwest connecting to Trout Farm Rd.
T-57          132nd Ave Arterial Extension               near 307th St.                                                                              3            Capacity         Minor Arterial            $17,480,000

T-59          US 2/ 1st Avenue Interchange               Provide grade-seperated ramp access to US-2 from 1st St.                                    2            Capacity         Minor Arterial             $6,470,000


                                                         Construct new east/west collector between 339th Ave SE and Sultan Basin Rd in
T-24          New East/West Collector                    the north section of the City (aprox. location between 132nd and 124th St SE).              2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial         $11,040,000
                                                         Provide east/west access and traffic collector through the Industrial Park from Rice
T-26          New North Industrial Park Collector        Rd (339th) to Sultan Basin Rd. and US-2                                                     2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial         $15,510,000
                                                         Extend East Main St. east to connect to 149th St. SE within the Economic
T-27          East Main St Road Extension                Development Zone south of US-2.                                                             2          Enhancement         Local Street              $2,000,000
                                                         Provide emergency access for properties between BNSF tracks and the Skykomish
T-28          DyerSkywall Emergency Access               River for public safety                                                                     2          Enhancement         Local Street              $2,350,000
T-29          Kessler Drive Extension                    Extend Kessler Dr. north from Bryant Rd. to 124th St. SE.                                   2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $8,630,000
                                                         Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through the Industrial Park north to                                     Proposed Collector
T-31a         New 330th Ave Arterial                     124th St SE. CITY LIMIT/UGA PORTION ONLY                                                    2          Enhancement           Arterial               $2,500,000
                                                         Construct a new north-south arterial from US-2 through the Industrial Park north to                                     Proposed Collector
T-31b         New 330th Ave Arterial                     124th St SE. NON-UGA PORTION                                                                2          Enhancement           Arterial                 Cost TBD

                                                         Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at County Rural Arterial road
                                                         standards to provide arterial connectivity and access to US-2. Proposed joint
T-32a         Rice Rd. (339th) St Extension              project with Snohomish County. CITY LIMIT/UGA PORTION ONLY                                  2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial        $2,942,500
                                                         Extend Rice Rd. (339th Ave) north to 124th St. SE at County Rural Arterial road
                                                         standards to provide arterial connectivity and access to US-2. Proposed joint
T-32b         Rice Rd. (339th) St Extension              project with Snohomish County. NON-UGA PORTION                                              2          Enhancement                                    Cost TBD
                                                         Develop an interior access arterial from Old Owen Rd. east to Sportmans Park to
              229th Ave Extension or Highland Ave        provide access to existing roadside commercial properties and reduce curb cuts on
T-33          Extension                                  US-2.                                                                                       2/3        Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $2,720,000



City of Sultan                                                         53                                                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
Table 9: Planning Level Cost Estimates for Recommended Transportation Improvements (Cont.)
                                                                                                                                                 Future Number                   Arterial Functional
  Project #                  Project Name                                                 Project Description                                                    Project Type                             Project Cost Estimate
                                                                                                                                                    of Lanes                       Classification

                                                          Downtown access to US 2 will be focused on 3rd, 5th, 8th, and Main Streets to                                                                     Awaiting WSDOT
T-34          US-2 RDP City Access Revisions              reduce congestion.                                                                                     Enhancement       Principal Arterial          Estimate
              Cascase View Drive/330th Ave Intersection Reconstruct Cascade View Dr to Collector arterial standard and realign street to
T-35          Realignment                               create a signalized intersection at US-2 and 330th Ave SE.                                    2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $500,000

T-36          138th St Extension                          Reconstruct and extend 138th St. between Sultan Basin Rd. and 339th Ave SE.                 2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $2,530,000
                                                          Reconstruct 339th Ave from Sultan Startup Rd. north to 132nd St. SE to arterial
T-41          Rice (339th Ave SE) Reconstruction          standard with curbs gutter and sidewalks.                                                   2/3        Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial        $8,350,000
                                                          Redesign the road to remove access from US-2 rerouting access to Sultan Basin
T-43          Walburn Rd. Rerouting                       Rd. north of Wagley Creek                                                                   2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $1,250,000
                                                          Extend Pine St. East to Walburn to provide east west access from Sultan Basin Rd
T-44          Pine Street Extension                       to downtown Sultan. Emergency Evacuation Route                                              2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $750,000

                                                          Install traffic signal and improvements from the intersection of 4th and Alder St to
                                                          the intersection of 5th and US-2. Proposed Joint project with Community Transit
T-45          Alder St Improvements                       and Sultan School District                                                                  2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $650,000

T-48          Gohr Rd Reconstruction                      Reconstruct Gohr Rd to arterial standard from 1st St north to 311th Ave SE                  2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $4,200,000

T-49          Gohr Rd Extension                           Extend Gohr Rd north to the proposed proposed 132nd Ave. Extension.                         2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $3,500,000

T-52          8th St. Sidewalks                           Install sections of missing sidewalks on 8th St.                                                       Enhancement       Collector Arterial           $310,000
                                                          Reconstruct the 10th St. crossing with the BNSF Rail Line Within the Economic
T-53          10th St. Railroad Crossing Improvement      Development zone.                                                                           2          Enhancement         Local Street               $100,000

T-55          Industrial Park Rail Spur Construction      Petition BNSF and contribute to construct a rail spur access to the Industrial Park         n/a        Enhancement              n/a                  $1,000,000

T-58          132nd Ave Reconstruction                    Reconstruct 132nd St SE to arterial standard                                                2          Enhancement    Proposed Minor Arterial       $11,100,000

T-62          124th St. SE Reconstruction Phase 1         Reconstruct 124th St SE to urban standards from west terminus to Sultan Basin Rd.           2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial          $5,500,000

T-65          124th St. Extension                         Extend 124th Ave. west to Trout Farm Rd. intersecting at aprox. 125th St                    2          Enhancement       Collector Arterial         $10,700,000
                                                          Construct multipurpose trail from the east end of E. Main St north Cascade View Dr
NM-1          East Main St. Trail                         and 330th Ave. for nonmotorized and emergency access.                                       n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                   $500,000
                                                          Construct multipurpose trail to provide nonmotorized safety and connectivity as part
NM-5          US-2 Route Corridor Trail                   of US-2 RDP reconstruction/widening.                                                        n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                  $1,672,000
                                                          Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized travel to and from
NM-6          Willow/Bryant Trail                         residential, commercial, parks and natural areas.                                           n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                   $390,000
                                                          Acquire land and develop property to provide nonmotorized travel to and from
NM-7          High/Kessler/140th Trail                    residential, commercial, parks and natural areas.                                           n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                   $887,000
                                                          Construct a nonmotorized bridge crossing on US 2 to provide increased safety for
NM-8          US-2 Pedestrian Overcrossing                pedestrians and improved traffic flow. Joint Project with WSDOT                             n/a        Nonmotorized             n/a                 $4,000,000

                                                                                                                                                                                Total Project Costs          $154,985,500




City of Sultan                                                         54                                                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
7.2       Revenue Sources

This section provides a forecast of anticipated transportation revenues that considers the City’s
past history, ability to secure state and federal grant dollars, and the amount of local revenues
available.

Transportation Grant Funds

The City has been successful in securing transportation grant funds for transportation
improvements projects. These funds have allowed the City to advance needed projects forward
to design and construction.

Between 2007 and 2025, the City expects to receive approximately 15% of its total
transportation project costs through federal, state and regional transportation grant funding. This
amounts to an estimated $23,250,000 in transportation funding revenues. The following pages
contain a list of available transportation grant funds the City can pursue to meet the target.

Federal SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users)

This is the federal transportation program that provides transportation funds for local
governments on a competitive basis. The funds are administered through WSDOT and the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Funds are available through various programs under the
SAFETEA-LU umbrella including the Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Bridge
Program (HBP), Transportation Enhancement Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program,
Recreational Trails Program, and the Transportation, Community and System Preservation
Program. A brief summary of each of the programs is provided below:

Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The STP Program provides flexible funding that can be used by state and local governments for
projects on any federal–aid highway system facility including the National Highway System
(NHS), bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, modifications of existing
public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regardless of
whether the sidewalk is on the federal –aid system right of way, and intracity and intercity bus
terminals and facilities. A portion of the funds are reserved for rural areas and may be spent on
the federal-aid functionally classified system including Rural Minor Arterials.

Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
The HBP provides funding to state for improving bridges through replacement, rehabilitation,
and systematic preventative maintenance.

Transportation Enhancement Program
Transportation Enhancements are transportation and transportation related activities that are
designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the transportation
system. The program provides for a wide variety of projects that range from nonmotorized
(bike/pedestrian) facilities, to landscaping and scenic beautification, to mitigation of water
pollution due to highway runoff, and to the restoration of historic transportation facilities.

City of Sultan                               55                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
Safe Routes to School Program
The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools program is to provide K-8 children a safe, healthy
alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. This federal program, which in
Washington also includes a state funded portion, provides funding for engineering and
construction, education efforts and enforcement activities within two-miles of schools. There is
no match requirement. Projects are to be submitted as complete projects and fully funded.

Intersection and Corridor Safety Program
In spring 2005 WSDOT developed the Intersection and Corridor Safety program to fund safety
projects that eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents at high accident intersections and within
high accident corridors. WSDOT estimated approximately $20 million to be available for this
program.

Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program
The TCSP Program provides funding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants,
implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships between
transportation, community, and system preservation and to identify private sector-based
initiatives. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments and tribal
governments are eligible for TCSP Program discretionary grants. Authorized funding for the
TCSP Program is $61.25 million per year for FY 2006 through 2009. The Federal share payable
on account of any TCSP project or activity shall be 80% or subject to the sliding scale rate

Recreational Trails Program
The Recreational Trail Program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for
motorized and nonmotorized travel.

More information on federal SAFETEA-LU funding program opportunities is available at the
Federal Highway Administration website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm.

Washington State Transportation Improvement Board

The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) provides funding to foster
investment in quality local government transportation projects. The TIB distributes grant
funding from revenue generated by three cents of the State’s gas tax, to cities and counties for
funding transportation projects. TIB administers several funding programs each with its own set
of criteria used to facilitate project selection. The project selection process for all programs is
completed annually. The TIB programs are summarized below:

Small City Programs
Cities and towns with a population under 5,000 are eligible for funding from three programs:

     -    Small City Arterial Program (SCAP),
     -    Small City Preservation Program (SCPP), and
     -    Small City Sidewalk program (SC-SP)



City of Sultan                               56                                              June 2007
Transportation Element
These programs provide funding on a competitive basis to reconstruct and maintain the
transportation infrastructure within small cities. These programs have an annual application
cycle. TIB awards approximately $10 million to new small city projects each year. Currently,
the City of Sultan is eligible to apply for grant funding under these programs; as the population
of the City increases beyond 5,000 Sultan will no longer be eligible to compete under this
program.

TIB Urban Programs
The Transportation Improvement Board provides funding to urban cities within federally
designated urban areas with population greater than 5,000. Three state-funded grant programs
are administered through TIB:

     -    Urban Arterial Program (UAP) for road projects that improve safety and capacity,
     -    Urban Corridor Program (UCP) for road projects that expand capacity and have multiple
          funding partners, and
     -    Sidewalk Program (SP) for sidewalk projects that improve safety and connectivity.

TIB Urban Program projects require financial participation by the local agency. Minimum local
match requirements range from ten to twenty percent depending on the assessed value of the
local agency. Local match is typically a mixture of private and public funds.

Projects are selected annually using a rating system based on criteria developed by TIB. TIB
awards approximately $70 million to new projects each year. As the population of Sultan grows
to over 5,000, the City will be eligible to compete for the TIB Urban Program funds.

Other TIB Programs

Several other programs are administered by TIB including:

     -    Route Jurisdiction Transfer Program (RJT) reviews petitions from cities, counties or
          WSDOT for additions of deletions from the state highway system.

     -    Route Transfer Program (RTP) provides funding to offset extraordinary costs associated
          with the transfer of state highways to cities.

     -    De-TEA Program offers to remove federal funds from a transportation project and
          provide 100% state TIB funding in its place. The intent of the program is to lower costs
          and speed projects towards completion by eliminating unnecessary federal process and
          administrative requirements that only apply because of the presence of federal funds.

Other WA State Transportation Funding Programs

The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program
The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program was initiated to reduce the nearly 400 statewide fatal
and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. Similar to the federal Safe
Routes to School Program, the purpose of the program is to aid public agencies in funding cost-


City of Sultan                               57                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
effective projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education and
enforcement.

Community Development Block Grant Funds
Providing several (CDBG) grant programs, WA State Office of Community Development
administers fund through a competitive application process to assist Washington State small
cities, towns and counties in carrying out significant community and economic development
projects that principally benefit moderate and low-income persons. Transportation projects are
eligible.

Community Economic Revitalization Board Rural Program
Administered by the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, this
program assists in financing growth-related infrastructure in designated rural counties, and
timber and salmon-impacted areas that will result in job creation by manufacturing, industrial
assembly, distribution, processing, warehousing and tourism development. Transportation
projects are eligible. More information is available at http://www.pwb.wa.gov/partners.asp


Local Transportation Funds

The City generates local transportation funds through the Real-Estate Excise Tax or REET. The
REET fund taxes the sale of real property at ½ of 1 percent. This fund will be used to provide
transportation funds to construct needed improvements throughout the City.

Revenue forecasts estimate that an additional $3,000,000 of REET funding will be available
between 2007 and 2025 to help provide local funding for needed transportation improvements.


7.3      Transportation Mitigation Payment System

The City of Sultan currently has an adopted traffic impact fee rate of $1,837 per PM peak hour
trip generated from new development to provide funding for construction of growth-related
transportation improvements. The City’s traffic impact fee was established in 1995 (SMC
16.112.040). The existing City traffic impact fee rate is forecasted to generate $5,788,000 in
transportation revenues between 2007 and 2025.

As part of revising the City’s Transportation Element in 2007, a review was conducted on the
current traffic impact fee rate to determine if revisions were necessary based on information
provided in the revised Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.

The review included the revised recommended transportation project list and updated project
costs as shown in Table 9. The review also included the amount of additional traffic forecasted
between 2007 and 2025 based on new development proposed in the City’s 2025 Future Land Use
Plan - an additional 3,151 new vehicle trips.

Based on the revised transportation element information, an updated Sultan traffic impact fee
rate of between $7,021 and $12,924 was recommended. This range is expected to generate

City of Sultan                             58                                            June 2007
Transportation Element
between $22,242,500 and $40,722,500 in traffic impact fees* to help pay a portion of the
growth-related transportation project costs associated with the additional land use development
in the City’s adopted 2025 Future Land Use Plan.
* Calculations rounded to nearest $500




7.4        Funding Capability

Transportation funding capability was reviewed to determine the ability of the City to provide
adequate transportation revenues to meet the cost of providing the recommended transportation
improvement projects. The review compares the forecasts of transportation revenues to the total
cost of recommended transportation improvement projects presented in Table 9.

Forecasted transportation revenue sources available to the City between 2007 and 2025 include:

           Transportation grants based on a 15% grant funding rate,

           City traffic impact fees,

           Contributions from property owners and developers for required street frontage
           improvements equivalent to a two-lane local urban street,

           City Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) available to fund transportation,

           Anticipated other agency and entity participation in mutually beneficial transportation
           projects.

A comparison of forecasted transportation revenue from these sources to the total cost of
recommended transportation improvements is presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Comparison of Forecasted 2007 – 2025 Transportation Revenues and Project Costs
                                                      Forecast Based on          Forecast Based on
                                                      Existing City Impact Fee   Recommended City Impact Fee   Forecast Based on Recommended
Revenue Source                                        Rate of $1,837**           Rate of $7,021**              City Impact Fee Rate of $12,924**

Transportation Grants                                        $23,250,000                  $23,250,000                     $23,250,000

Traffic Impact Fees                                          $5,788,000                   $22,122,500                     $40,722,500

Required Street Frontage Improvement Revenues                $94,356,000                  $94,356,000                     $94,356,000

City Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues                          $3,000,000                   $3,000,000                     $3,000,000

Other Agency/entity Contributions                            $12,257,000                  $12,257,000                     $12,257,000

Total Forecasted Revenues                                    $138,651,000                 $154,985,500                   $173,585,500

Total Cost of Recommended Transportation Projects            $154,985,500                 $154,985,500                   $154,985,500

Anticipated Transportation Funding Balance                   -$16,334,500                     $0                          $18,600,500

** City traffic impact fee rate set by City Council


The forecasted transportation revenues available to the City between 2007 and 2025 range from
$138,651,000 to $173,585,500, and when compared to the $154,985,500 in total cost of

City of Sultan                                                 59                                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
recommended transportation projects, provide a transportation funding balance ranging from a
shortfall of -$16,334,500 to a possible surplus of $18,600,500. This range reflects the
calculation of future City impact fee revenues from their existing fee rate amount, to the
calculation with the recommended revisions to the fee rate as discussed in Section 7.3.

In order to provide necessary balance between the forecasted 2007 – 2025 transportation
revenues and the costs of the recommended 2007 – 2025 transportation projects, the City may
need to reexamine its adopted Future 2025 Land Use Plan, review the list of recommended
transportation projects for possible project modifications or deletions, and or pursue additional
revenues.

Revising the traffic impact fee rate from $1,837 to $7,021 is projected to generate an additional
$16,334,500 and is the recommended strategy to provide balance between the forecasted 2007 –
2025 transportation revenues and the costs of the recommended 2007 – 2025 transportation
projects.


8.0      INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

The City of Sultan works to maintain positive relationship with neighboring jurisdictions,
WSDOT, the state and the federal government. The City is part of the larger region and shares
many of the same concerns and interests particularly in the realm of transportation. The City has
an active commitment to working with neighboring cities, regional partners and state and federal
agencies is demonstrated to discuss issues, share information and solve problems. The
development and ongoing monitoring of the City’s Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that
commitment. The Growth Management Act requires that plans between neighbor

Increasingly, Sultan’s transportation system is influenced by what happens beyond its City
limits. Travel between the City and other communities and recreational areas to the east and
west has increased significantly over the past decade, and as the forecasts in Chapter 4 of this
plan demonstrate, traffic on US 2 will continue to increase in the future impacting travel along
the US 2 corridor.

Ongoing coordination efforts include working with the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) developing the US 2 Route Development Plan (RDP), working with
Community Transit (CT) to coordinate transit planning and operations within the City, working
with Snohomish County to study and mitigate the impacts of land use development.




City of Sultan                               60                                             June 2007
Transportation Element
              APPENDIX A
Traffic Model Data and Analysis
               Available upon request
      City of Sultan - Comprehensive Plan




            Appendix H:
    Industrial Park Master Plan
          and Final SEIS




SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN              APPENDIX-H
   RECOMMENDED
  INDUSTRIAL PARK
    MASTER PLAN
         and
 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
      STATEMENT
                 RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL PARK MASTER PLAN
             And Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement


March 7, 2001

This document represents the recommended goals, policies, regulations, and
standards for the Sultan Industrial Park subarea. This builds on the findings and
conclusions of the 2001 Draft Master Plan and SEIS; the October public hearing and
written comments on the environmental impact analysis; and the Planning
Commission – City Council November workshops. As a result of the workshops, the
City staff and consultants have prepared these recommendations for further public
review and adoption. The FSEIS (Appendix A) addresses the responses to the public
comments on the DSEIS.

This recommended plan will be subject to the following steps:

    State agency review required by the Growth Management Act will commence
  with the distribution of the document. Agencies have 60 days to provide
  comments.

    The Sultan Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Master Plan
  and then make its recommendations to the City Council. The Planning
  Commission hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 19 at 7:00 PM at the
  Sultan City Hall.

    The Sultan City Council will hold a public hearing on the Planning Commission
  recommendations and adopt the Master Plan. The Council Hearing is expected to
  be held in April.

 Questions should be addressed to Rick Cisar, Director of Community Development,
 City of Sultan.


                                City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY                               PAGE
Purpose & Intent                                                   1.1
Master Plan Area                                                   1.1
Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review                1.2
   o Land Use Permits                                              1.3
   o Site Development Permits                                      1.4
   o Building Permits                                              1.4
Planning Process                                                   1.5
Recommended Master Plan                                            1.5

CHAPTER TWO – MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS
LAND USE ELEMENT                                                   2.1
Vision                                                             2.1
Land Use and Zoning Mapping                                        2.3
Land Use Policies                                                  2.6
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT                                             2.8
Highway Improvements                                               2.9
Internal Circulation and Access                                    2.10
    o North Corridor Street                                        2.11
    o SR 2 Access                                                  2.13
    o Internal Circulation South of SR 2                           2.14
 Transportation Policies                                           2.14
 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT                                        2.16
     o Recreation                                                  2.16
     o Utilities                                                   2.17
     o Other Public Facilities                                     2.17
 Six-Year Plan                                                     2.18
 Capital Facilities Policies                                       2.19
 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT                                                2.20
 Open Space Strategy                                               2.20
 Open Space Policies                                               2.20
 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT                                             2.22
     o “Industrial Park Corridor Stream and Wetland                2.22
        Reconnaissance Report and Stream and Wetland Buffer
        Considerations from an ESA Perspective”
     o Project Review                                              2.23

CHAPTER THREE – IMPLEMENTATION
Zoning Code Overlay                                                3.1
    o Residential Uses Within the Industrial Park                  3.6
Development Review Process                                         3.7
Binding Site Plan                                                  3.7
    o Buffers Between Uses                                         3.7
    o Wagley’s Creek Conservation Corridor                         3.7
                                  City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
   o Development Agreements                                         3.8
   o Environmental Review                                           3.8
Planned Action Ordinance Outline                                    3.10
Planned Action Checklist                                            3.14
   o Environmental Thresholds                                       3.18
Design Review                                                       3.18
Monitoring                                                          3.18
Marketing Program                                                   3.19


APPENDICES

A. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
B. DRAFT MASTER PLAN AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
    STATEMENT (Contact City Hall)
C. INDUSTRIAL PARK CORRIDOR STREAM AND WETLAND
    RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
    AND STREAM AND WETLAND BUFFER
    CONSIDERATIONS FROM AN ESA PERSPECTIVE

LIST OF FIGURES
1-1   Study Area                                                    1.2

2-1   Recommended Preferred Land Use Designation                    2.3
2-2   North Corridor Street                                         2.11
2-3   Wagley’s Creek Corridor Concept                               2.12
2-4   Connector Street Intersection Concept                         2.13
3-1   Industrial Park Development Review Process                    3.10

LIST OF TABLES

2.1   Preferred Alternative Land Use Designations                   2.4
2.2   Alternative Comparison                                        2.4
2.3   Land Use Alternatives Weekday Trip Generation                 2.8
2.4   Land Use Alternatives Weekend Trip Generation                 2.8
2.5   Industrial Park Six-Year Capital Facilities Needs             2.18
3.1   Recommended Zoning Use Changes                                3.2




                                   City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                   RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL PARK MASTER PLAN
                                   INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY


PURPOSE & INTENT
The City of Sultan has engaged in planning for the long-term development of the
Industrial Park area since 1997. This program has involved providing sanitary sewer
service to the area through Local Improvement District 97-1; preparing market and
traffic analyses and forecasts; considering alternative land use and zoning for the
area; and preparing this Master Plan. The primary objectives of this initiative are to
create opportunities for private investment in businesses that will employ area
residents and improve the City’s fiscal condition.

This Master Plan is intended to become part of the Sultan Comprehensive Plan,
providing guidance for project-level planning, design and development. It contains
policies, regulations, and standards that have been tailored to the specific
characteristics of the Industrial Park.


MASTER PLAN AREA

The Master Plan area is illustrated in Figure 1-1. The Sultan Industrial Park is the
eastern portion of the City lying east of Sultan Basin Road on the north and south
sides of SR 2. Sultan is within Snohomish County and the Skykomish Valley. The
Industrial Park is approximately 1.5 miles long (east-west) and 0.6 miles wide (north-
south). The planning area is also identified as Local Improvement District (L.I.D.)
#97-1. Approximately 360 acres comprise the area.




                                 City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                               Page 1.1
                                   Figure 1-1
                                 STUDY AREA




This document is the Industrial Park Master Plan Element of the Sultan
Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Industrial Park Master Plan and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, August 27, 2001 is an appendix (B) to this document.
The draft contains the technical findings and conclusions of the economic and
physical environmental analysis that was prepared to support the plan. It also
describes the planning process and public outreach that produced the plan.


GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The state Growth Management Act (GMA) provides the opportunity for local
jurisdictions to adopt subarea plans into their comprehensive plans. In addition, the
GMA and the state Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) provide the opportunity for
planning and environmental review to be conducted at the same time, using the
findings and conclusions of the environmental review to inform and focus the
outcome of the plan. This has been the method used to create the Master Plan.
Generally, the level of detail possible to achieve in a comprehensive planning effort is
less than that possible for a project-level plan for a specific site. In the case of the
Master Plan, the level of detail achieved is a hybrid. Some site-specific information
was used to weigh the environmental impacts of different development scenarios.
                                  City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                                Page 1.2
However, it was not possible to do so for all sites and possible future activities. As a
result, the Master Plan establishes thresholds or standards that will be used to assess
whether project proposals are consistent with the plan policies.

The Master Plan balances certainty and flexibility. Project applicants wish to know
what is required of them and how the City can expedite their permits. On the other
hand, individual site conditions and the characteristics of the market make it difficult
for the City to anticipate and accommodate all possible types and scales of
development. In addition, there are outside influences on permitting. The Draft
(Chapter 2) described all of the permits that the City and state and federal agencies
may require for development.

Three categories of permitting actions are probable for projects within the Industrial
Park: Land Use Permits, Site Development Permits and Building Permits. The
objective of the Master Plan is to anticipate as many possible future types of
applications and to provide means for the City and other permitting agencies to
expedite approvals.

It is not possible to anticipate all types of applications, nor is it possible to create a
complete database of information sufficient to guarantee that all permit conditions
can be addressed at the Master Plan level. The Master Plan can establish thresholds
for certain types of possible project impacts below which mitigation conditions can
be identified through regulations, and above which, further analysis and/or
mitigation may be necessary.

For example, a project that generates peak hour trips at an intersection may be
approved if the additional trips do not reduce the level of service at the intersection
and the traffic impact fees associated with anticipated future needs are paid.
However, if the project is expected to result in a reduction of LOS at the intersection,
the applicant may be required to provide further traffic analysis and agree to specific
mitigation actions such as channelization or signalization.

The Master Plan anticipates the following permits, either already part of the Sultan
Unified Development Code, or to be added:

Land Use Permits
• Land Subdivision
• Planned Development
• Binding Site Plans
• Conditional Use Permits



                                   City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                                 Page 1.3
Site Development Permits
• Hydraulic Permits for stream crossings
• Shoreline Substantial Development permits
• Wetland-related permits (JARPA)
• Highway access permits
• Clearing and Grading and Vegetation Removal permits
• Forest Practices permits
• 404 Wetland Fill permits
• Drainage Permits (NPDES)

Building Permits
• Design Review
• Variances

While the Master Plan cannot address all of these to the extent of ensuring that
projects are “permit-ready”, it does provide a wealth of information that can be used
to make many projects “application-ready”. Since there are so many conditions that
influence the planning and design of development projects, the Master Plan also
provides the opportunity for applicants and City to engage in early discussions and
shape the proposals within a range of flexibility provided by the ability to interpret
the application of regulations, mitigation conditions, and guidelines.

Projects that are consistent with the Plan may qualify as “planned actions” under
SEPA. In those instances, the City will apply the mitigation measures established in
the Plan and additional SEPA procedures will not be required. This does limit public
scrutiny of the permit process to some extent. Designating projects as planned
actions shifts much of the project-related environmental review to verifying
consistency with the Plan at pre-application stages. The City will work with project
applicants at that time to identify suitable project design and mitigation measures
that can be used to address environmental impacts.

In addition to the regulatory, permitting features described here, the Master Plan also
calls for new implementation strategies for public/private partnerships to address
capital facility improvements financing, open space and natural resource
conservation, and marketing. These are intended to go beyond the basic City
responsibilities of project review and approval.

PLANNING PROCESS

Following the release of the Draft Master Plan and SEIS, the City Council conducted
a public hearing on the environmental impact statement in two parts – October 4,
2001 and October 16, 2001. The hearing provided the opportunity for citizens to offer
                                 City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                               Page 1.4
testimony commenting on the document’s findings. Written comments were also
received during the review period. Appendix A - Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement contains the transcript of the hearing and copies of
the written comments. The City’s responses to the comments and corrections to the
DSEIS are also included in the FSEIS. Appendix C – Stream and Wetland
Reconnaissance Report and Stream and Wetland Buffer Considerations contains a
report on further environmental analysis of wetland, stream and habitat
characteristics of the area produced since the Draft was issued.

After the environmental review comment period closed, the City Council and
Planning Commission held two workshops in November (8 and 19) to hear from the
public regarding the alternatives that were included and evaluated in the Draft. The
workshops resulted in a recommended “preferred alternative” that is described in
this document. The preferred alternative blends together aspects of the 3 land use
alternatives, transportation alternatives, and implementation alternatives that were
considered previously.

Public hearings will be conducted in March and April, 2002 prior to Planning
Commission deliberations and City Council adoption of the Master Plan.

RECOMMENDED MASTER PLAN

Chapters 2 and 3 contain the description of the recommended master plan and
implementation measures that are intended for adoption. The master plan elements
include policies and strategies for land use, transportation, capital facilities, open
space, and environmental protection. The implementation chapter describes the
recommended changes to the zoning regulations and procedures for project permit
review and approval. As the Sultan Comprehensive Plan is further amended in 2002,
additional analyses of related city-wide housing supply and demand, capital
facilities needs, and transportation systems will be conducted. These may result in
the need to re-consider some of the policies or regulations in the Master Plan if they
suggest different conclusions about the relationship of growth within the Industrial
Park and overall growth within the City and the Urban Growth Area.




                                 City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                               Page 1.5
                   RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL PARK MASTER PLAN
                                     MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS


This chapter describes the recommended Master Plan. It is organized into sections
that generally parallel the Sultan Comprehensive Plan elements: land use,
transportation, and capital facilities. Recommendations for policy changes
pertaining to housing, economic development and utilities are included in these
sections. Since open space and related habitat issues are so critical to the subarea
plan, separate open space and environmental elements have been included here.

The alternatives examined in the Draft included physical land use and transportation
options, public investment options, and regulatory implementation options. The
recommended Master Plan focuses primarily on the policies that will guide the
physical and regulatory framework for development. Public and private investment
strategies may range depending upon the pace of development that will occur over
the next few years. The City intends to work with property owners and developers
to establish methods for financing needed infrastructure improvements.



LAND USE ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Chapter contains the recommended configuration for land use
designations within the Industrial Park; an overview of recommended changes to the
application of the current Highway Oriented (HO) and Economic Development (ED)
zoning districts, and policy amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.

VISION

The Draft Master Plan contained a proposed vision statement aimed at describing the
eventual future completion of the Industrial Park. That statement is as follows:

          By 2020, the Sultan Industrial Park area will be substantially developed
      with a mix of businesses including manufacturing, distribution, and
      technology-based industry; community-serving and visitor-oriented retail and
      personal services; offices; hotels; recreational vehicle accommodations; and
      dining and entertainment venues. Buildings will house freestanding single
      operations, business and industrial parks, and multi-tenant flexible space
      users. The upper terrace along the northern portion of the area will be
                                  City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                                Page 2.1
      developed for mixed office and medium density residential uses taking
      advantage of views and access from Sultan Basin Road.
           SR 2 will be a busy urban arterial providing both state highway functions
      as well as local access. The highway will be improved with intersection
      signals, turning lanes, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Access and egress
      serving businesses will be designed to serve multiple properties. An internal
      network of public streets will connect uses on the north side of the highway
      and provide for traffic circulation connections to Sultan Basin Road and Rice
      Road as well as to signalized intersections with SR 2. These streets will be
      landscaped, provide for pedestrians and bicycles, and connect open spaces.
           The natural environment will be enhanced using the Wagley’s Creek
      corridor and associated wetlands to create habitat and open spaces that will
      provide green relief from the intensively developed areas. Regional stormwater
      detention ponds will be integrated into this system using biofiltration to clean
      the water before it reaches the natural areas.
           Buildings, parking lots, signage, and landscaping will be designed to show
      a flexible but collective “look” of the area that will say “you have arrived in
      Sultan” to travelers passing through on the highway.
           Hundreds of jobs will be filled by local residents who will be able to
      commute to work in a few minutes, some by foot or bicycle. Sales tax, business
      and occupation tax, and property tax revenues to the City will support
      increased city services to all of Sultan.


This vision looks ahead 15-20 years into the future. The actual ultimate buildout of
the area may take longer, depending upon the economy and the demand for land to
accommodate new development and expansion of existing businesses.




                                   City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                                 Page 2.2
                                 Figure 2.1
                  Recommended Preferred Land Use Designation




LAND USE AND ZONING MAPPING

Figure 2.1 shows the recommended preferred alternative for land use in the area.
This configuration is different from the alternatives described in the Draft, primarily
due to the larger area devoted to medium density residential uses. During the
workshops, a number of property owners and development representatives stated
that a portion of the area north of Wagley’s Creek was better suited to residential
uses due to the topography, view potential, and adjacency to existing and pending
residential uses to the north. Table 2.1 shows the area estimates for each of the land
use designations and Table 2.2 shows the comparison of the Preferred Alternative
with the alternatives described in the Draft. These areas do not include existing
street and highway right of ways. Known undevelopable areas such as the Wagley’s
Creek corridor and identified wetlands are not included.




                                  City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                                Page 2.3
                                      Table 2.1
                    Preferred Alternative Land Use Designations
                                       (Acres)

                                                                    ZONES
     AREA                                                  ED           H O MDR TOTAL
     North of SR 2, between Sultan Basin Road & Rice Road 67.8          12.8 75.8  156.4
     North of SR 2, East of Rice Road                                   36.3        35.3
     South of SR 2, East of Rice Road                       7.8         12.8        20.6
     South of SR 2 & North of Cascade View Drive                        21.0        21.0
     South of Cascade View Dr. & West of Foundry Rd.       20.0                     20.0
     South of Cascade View Dr. & East of Foundry Rd.      37.2*                    37.2*
     TOTAL                                                132.8         82.9 75.8 290.5*
      *includes approximately 17.5 Acres in city and county ownership




                                         Table 2.2
                                  Alternative Comparison
                                           (Acres)

     ZONE         EXISTING            RETAIL         MANUFACTURING         RECOMMENDED
                 CONDITIONS          EMPHASIS          EMPHASIS             PREFERRED
     HO             40.5               82.7               67.2                  82.9
      ED            224.1              156.5             207.4                 115.3
     MDR             10.3              35.7                0                    75.8
      *does not include city and county owned land

The Preferred Alternative zoning overlay has the following added characteristics:

The market analysis described in the Draft identified future land demand for
commercial and industrial development. No estimate of demand for residential land
was made, but there apparently is a strong demand based on recent development
activity within the City. The increase of residential land capacity by 65.5 acres
would enable the eventual development of 300-500 dwelling units depending upon
whether they are single-family detached, attached or multifamily units. Site
constraints such as slopes, wetlands, and streams will likely inhibit this potential,
and the market for new housing will be influenced by the pace of new job creation,
the economy, and the competition offered by other housing opportunities in and
around the City. New job creation within the Industrial Park should also provide
existing residents with the opportunity to work nearer their existing homes.

Commercial and industrial land uses in the HO and ED zones should be allowed to
develop in an intermixed fashion so long as individual uses do not conflict with, or
                                    City of Sultan Recommended Industrial Park Master Plan
                                                                                  Page 2.4
impact neighboring uses. This would result in a greater degree of flexibility in
mixing land uses to accommodate the broader range of uses identified in the
economic analysis.

During the process of formulating and discussing the alternatives, the stakeholders
asked how it would be possible to enable a higher degree of mixed commercial and
industrial uses within the area. The group believes that highway frontage area
should be reserved for retail commercial uses, consistent the findings of the economic
analysis. However, some existing industrial uses exist along the highway. In
addition, established industrial businesses within the area are concerned about the
potential of creating conflicts if non-industrial uses are allowed to locate next to them
resulting in complaints about noise, trucks, etc.

The Master Plan recommends re-assigning permitted land uses to the HO and ED
zones to avoid conflicts either by outright location provisions, or through a more
flexible design review and conditioning approach. Changes to the current zones
should include:

    •   Prohibit residential uses in the ED and HO zones. Existing residences would
        be legal non-conforming uses.
    •   Some uses currently permitted only in the HO zone should be added to the
        ED zone as outright permitted or conditional uses. This will create a richer
        mix of non-retail uses off of the highway, promoting development in the
        form of office or business parks.
    •   Many of the retail commercial uses currently allowed in HO should be
        allowed under the condition that smaller establishments be part of planned
        retail centers subject to design review guidelines for building and parking
        siting, landscaping, lighting and signage. Larger establishments could be
        “free-standing”, but still subject to design review. This would also
        discourage isolated development of small retail establishments that should
        be located along Main Street in downtown Sultan.
    •   Some public uses should be conditional in the HO zone since they use land
        that is more valuable for commercial uses.
    •   Wholesale/Storage/Distribution uses currently allowed in the HO zone
        should be prohibited.

Moderate density (MD) residential uses are recommended for the northwestern
portion of the area. In this zone, hotel-, retail-, personal service-, and
business/professional service uses allowed in the MD zone elsewhere in the City
should be prohibited in new residential development to ensure concentration of
those uses at the base of the hill along the highway and south of the highway.
Implementation of these recommendations is described