Document Marysville_doc_c407796a3a

Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS City of Marysville – September 2021 Prepared by: Makers Architecture and Urban Design BERK Consulting, Inc. Perteet Transpo Group ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 80 Columbia Avenue  Marysville, WA 98270 (360) 363-8100  (360) 651-5099 Fax September 15, 2021 Subject: Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update and Planned Action Dear Reader, The City of Marysville (City) proposes to update its Downtown Master Plan originally adopted in 2009 as well as adopt a form-based code that updates zoning and design standards. In addition to maintaining Downtown as a civic and commercial hub, the City desires to provide for mixed uses including housing types that offer affordable ownership and rental opportunities in proximity to the planned Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The City also intends to refresh its Planned Action Ordinance that facilitates environmental review for development that is consistent with the updated plan and form-based code. In February 2020, the City received a grant from the Washington Department of Commerce to support these initiatives. The attached Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) evaluates a No Action Alternative that continues the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the Downtown area established in 2009, an Action Alternative offering increased mixed use commercial and housing opportunities that recognize transportation and transit investments and build on efforts the City has made to revitalize the downtown and Ebey Waterfront, and a Preferred Alternative similar to the Action Alternative. For each alternative, environmental impacts and mitigation measures are addressed including for: surface water/water resources, land and shoreline uses, socioeconomics, transportation, public services, and utilities. The Final SEIS includes comments and responses on the Draft SEIS and evaluates the Preferred Alternative. This Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update and Planned Action SEIS builds on the October 2009 SEIS for the Downtown and the 2005 Marysville Comprehensive Plan EIS. This 2021 SEIS adopts and supplements: ▪ Marysville Downtown Master Plan Final SEIS October 9, 2009 and associated Draft SEIS July 20, 2009 ▪ Marysville Integrated 2005 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) April 6, 2005 and associated Draft EIS January 13, 2005 The key issues facing decision makers include: ▪ Approval of the Downtown Master Plan Update including a vision, goals and policies, land use concept including changes to map designations, updated growth estimates, and consistency edits to the Comprehensive Plan; ▪ Approval of amendments to the Downtown planned action ordinance to help incentivize growth while mitigating impacts. ▪ Consideration of a new form-based code to ensure design quality and flexibility. ---PAGE BREAK--- Please see the City website for more information at Master-Plan. If you desire clarification or have questions please contact Chris Holland, Planning Manager, at [EMAIL REDACTED], or by phone at [PHONE REDACTED]. Sincerely, Haylie Miller, Community Development Director SEPA Responsible Official City of Marysville ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 ii Fact Sheet Project Title Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update and Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternatives The City of Marysville (City) proposes to update its Downtown Master Plan originally adopted in 2009 as well as adopt a form-based code that updates zoning and design standards. In addition to maintaining Downtown as a civic and commercial hub, the City desires to provide for mixed uses including housing types that offer affordable ownership and rental opportunities in proximity to the planned Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The City also intends to refresh its Planned Action Ordinance that facilitates environmental review for development that is consistent with the updated plan and form-based code. In February 2020, the City received a grant from the Washington Department of Commerce to support these initiatives. This SEIS evaluates a No Action Alternative that continues the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the Downtown area established in 2009, and an Action Alternative offering increased mixed use commercial and housing opportunities that recognize transportation and transit investments and build on efforts the City has made to revitalize the downtown and Ebey Waterfront. A Preferred Alternative was developed similar to the Action Alternative and with the same intent for mixed uses and added housing opportunities in concert with transportation investments. Proponent and Lead Agency The City of Marysville Location The Study Area is approximately 524 acres and is bounded by Grove Street on the north, Armar Road and 47th Avenue NE on the east, Ebey Slough on the south, and I-5 on the west. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 iii Tentative Date of Implementation October 2021 Responsible Official Haylie Miller, Community Development Director, City of Marysville Community Development Department 80 Columbia Avenue Marysville, WA 98270 Contact Person Chris Holland, Planning Manager City of Marysville Community Development Department 80 Columbia Avenue Marysville, WA 98270 [PHONE REDACTED] Direct Line [PHONE REDACTED] Fax [EMAIL REDACTED] Licenses or Permits Required The proposals require a 60-day review by the State of Washington Department of Commerce and other state and regional agencies. Locally, the proposals have been considered by the Planning Commission and their recommendations forwarded to the City Council who will deliberate and determine approval. Authors and Principal Contributors to the EIS Under the direction of the Marysville Community Development Department, the consultant team prepared the SEIS as follows: ▪ MAKERS: Subarea Plan Update, Alternatives, and Land Use and Aesthetics ▪ BERK Consulting: SEPA and Planned Action Lead, Land Use and Socioeconomics and Public Services ▪ Perteet: Surface Water/Water Resources and Utilities ▪ Transpo: Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 iv Date of Draft SEIS Issuance February 25, 2021 Draft SEIS Comment Period The City of Marysville requested comments from citizens, agencies, tribes, and all interested parties on the Draft SEIS from February 25, 2021 to March 29, 2021. Date of Final SEIS Issuance September 15, 2021 Date of Final Action September 27, 2021 Documents Supplemented and Adopted This Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update and Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) builds on the October 2009 SEIS for the Downtown and the 2005 Marysville Comprehensive Plan EIS. This 2021 SEIS adopts and supplements: ▪ Marysville Downtown Master Plan Final SEIS October 9, 2009 and associated Draft SEIS July 20, 2009 ▪ Marysville Integrated 2005 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) April 6, 2005 and associated Draft EIS January 13, 2005 Location of Background Data You may review the City website for more information at If you desire clarification or have questions please refer to the Contact Person above. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 v Purchase/Availability of Draft SEIS The Final SEIS is posted on the City website at Master-Plan. See the Contact Person above if you are unable to access the documents on line; alternate formats may be available at cost. Notice of the Availability of the Draft SEIS was sent to the distribution list below and interested parties who provided comments during the Draft SEIS comment period. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 vi Distribution List Tribes Stillaguamish Tribe Tulalip Tribes Federal Agencies National Marine Fisheries Services Natural Resources Conservation Services US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish & Wildlife State of Washington Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Archaeology & Historical Preservation Department of Commerce Department of Ecology Department of Fish & Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Department of Social & Health Services Department of Transportation Dept of Health-Env. Health Division Energy Office Puget Sound Partnership Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Puget Sound Regional Council Counties and Cities City of Arlington City of Everett City of Everett- Public Works City of Lake Stevens Snohomish County Executive Office Snohomish County Parks & Rec. Snohomish County Public Works Snohomish County Council Snohomish County PDS Districts, Services & Utilities Community Transit Fire District 8 Fire District 15 Fire District 21 Getchell Fire District 22 Lake Stevens School District Lake Stevens Sewer District Lakewood School District Marysville Fire District Marysville Public Library Marysville School District Puget Sound Energy Snohomish County Health District Snohomish Co. PUD- Water Snohomish County EDC Sound Transit Regional Transit Authority Boards and Associations Board of Realtors Pilchuck Audubon Society Snohomish /King County Master Builders Snohomish/Camano Island Co. Newspapers Arlington Times Marysville Globe Seattle Times- North Bureau The Everett Herald ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 iii Table of Contents 1.0. Summary 1-1 1.1. Purpose 1-1 1.2. Description of the Study 1-2 1.3. Planning Process 1-3 1.4. Public Comment Opportunities 1-4 1.5. Objectives and Alternatives 1-4 1.6. Key Issues and Options 1-19 1.7. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-19 2.0. Responses to Comments and Clarifications 2-1 2.1. Comments and Responses 2-1 2.2. Clarifications 2-26 3.0. Acronyms and References 3-1 3.1. Acronyms 3-1 3.2. References 3-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 iv Table of Exhibits Exhibit 1-1. Study Area Map 1-2 Exhibit 1-2. Downtown Development Scenario and Transportation Improvements – Downtown Master Plan 1-5 Exhibit 1-3. Future Land Use Designations 1-6 Exhibit 1-4. Zoning Map 1-7 Exhibit 1-5. No Action 2007-2035 Growth 1-8 Exhibit 1-6. Action Alternative 1-9 Exhibit 1-7. Zoning Description 1-10 Exhibit 1-8. Action Alternative Zoning 1-12 Exhibit 1-9. Action Alternative Growth and Comparison to No Action 1-13 Exhibit 1-10. Preferred Alternative Framework 1-14 Exhibit 1-11. Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative Zoning Classifications 1-15 Exhibit 1-12. Preferred Alternative 1-16 Exhibit 1-13. Comparison of Development Regulations 1-17 Exhibit 1-14. Alternative Growth Comparison 1-18 Exhibit 2-1. Written comments and response matrix. 2-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EISI September 2021 1-1 1.0. Summary 1.1. Purpose The City of Marysville (City) proposes to update its Downtown Master Plan originally adopted in 2009 as well as adopt a form-based code that updates zoning and design standards. In addition to maintaining Downtown as a civic and commercial hub, the City desires to provide for mixed uses including housing types that offer affordable ownership and rental opportunities in proximity to the planned Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The City also intends to refresh its Planned Action Ordinance that facilitates environmental review for development that is consistent with the updated plan and form-based code. In February 2020, the City received a grant from the Washington Department of Commerce to support these initiatives. This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) builds on the 2009 SEIS for the Downtown and the 2005 Marysville Comprehensive Plan EIS and helps the City fulfil its role as a High Capacity Transit Community in the Puget Sound Regional Council’s VISON 2050 plan evaluated in the VISION 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued October 2020. This SEIS evaluates a No Action Alternative that continues the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the Downtown area established in 2009, and an Action Alternative offering increased mixed use commercial and housing opportunities that recognize transportation and transit investments and build on efforts the City has made to revitalize the downtown and Ebey Waterfront. The SEIS also addresses a Preferred Alternative developed after the Draft SEIS comment period and through the review of the Draft Downtown Master Plan Update and associated draft form-based code. It is similar to the Action Alternative in anticipated land uses, growth, and urban design. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-2 1.2. Description of the Study Area The Study Area is approximately 524 gross acres and is bounded by Grove Street on the north, Armar Road and 47th Avenue NE on the east, Ebey Slough on the south, and I-5 on the west. See Exhibit 1-1. Exhibit 1-1. Study Area Map Sources: City of Marysville, 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-3 1.3. Planning Process In October 2009, the City of Marysville adopted a Downtown Master Plan intended to revitalize the downtown and downtown waterfront. The City developed a Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to its 2005 Marysville Comprehensive Plan EIS. Between 2009 and 2021, a number of investments have been made or are underway including: ▪ A waterfront redevelopment plan for residential/mixed-uses flanking Ebey Waterfront Park and has acquired and consolidated land to expand the park and attract investment. ▪ State Avenue Improvements. ▪ New SR 529 bridge, I-5 interchange, and 1st St bypass. ▪ Consolidating civic functions at a six-acre site on Delta Avenue marking a return to the town square of historic Marysville and converting Delta Ave to a shared, people-oriented street. ▪ In partnership with Community Transit, planning for the Swift bus rapid transit (BRT), along Cedar Avenue and State Avenue with potential stops located at Grove Street, 4th Street, 1st Street, and around Comford Park within Downtown. ▪ 2nd and 3rd St pedestrian/bicycle and natural drainage improvements. ▪ Regional stormwater facility. ▪ Grove St Overcrossing. ▪ Ebey Slough Trail While there have been public investments, there has been limited private development, and virtually no change in the buildable land capacity results for housing and jobs between 2012 and 2020. In 2020, the City initiated the Downtown Master Plan update, and has established a community engagement plan with several elements: ▪ Downtown Visioning Map and Surveys at a public input web center: ▪ Mayor’s Task Force on Growth Management Meetings ▪ Developers Forum ▪ Planning Commission meetings ▪ City Council Meetings ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-4 1.4. Public Comment Opportunities With the publication of the Draft SEIS, a 30-day comment period was established. See the Fact Sheet for the methods to provide comments. In addition, the Draft Subarea Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. See the project website for the meetings and hearings associated with the project. 1.5. Objectives and Alternatives SEPA requires the statement of objectives by which alternatives can be compared. Some general objectives for the proposal include: ▪ Maintain consistency with Growth Management Act (GMA) goals, county-wide planning policies for Snohomish County, and the applicable multicounty planning policies in VISION 2050. ▪ Provide for a civic, commercial, and mixed use hub providing an efficient land use plan supporting the City’s Comprehensive Plan growth allocations for 2035 and for the future periodic review addressing the horizon year 2044. ▪ Provide multimodal transportation improvements and sufficient public services and infrastructure to support the land use vision. In addition, the goals associated with the updated Subarea Plan are considered objectives (see Chapter 2 for more information). 1.5.1. No Action Alternative Land Use, Urban Design, and Transportation Concept The Downtown Plan recommended increased residential densities and an incentive system in commercial zones; this has been implemented in current zoning code. The Plan also identified transportation improvements including transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation improvements. The City has worked to acquire and consolidate waterfront property, and to improve transportation and circulation Downtown. However, the anticipated private development has not occurred to the extent anticipated. See Exhibit 1-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-5 Exhibit 1-2. Downtown Development Scenario and Transportation Improvements – Downtown Master Plan Source: Makers 2009. The western half of the study area is planned for Downtown Commercial, General Commercial, and Mixed Use. R-8 Single Family High and R18 Multi-Family Medium are predominantly shown on the eastern side of the study area. Zoning districts match closely with the Comprehensive Plan designations. See Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 1-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-6 Exhibit 1-3. Future Land Use Designations Source: City of Marysville, 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-7 Exhibit 1-4. Zoning Map Source: City of Marysville, 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-8 Growth For the core area, the development capacity of the Downtown Master Plan scenario (Exhibit 1-2) was a net increase of about 1,100 dwellings, and 350,000 square feet of retail, office, civic, and hospitality uses. For the broader study area under review in 2020, the transportation model anticipated more growth from 2007-2035. See Exhibit 1-5. Exhibit 1-5. No Action 2007-2035 Growth Type Net Increase Residential Dwellings 1,885 Jobs 1,360 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. 1.5.2. Action Alternative Land Use, Urban Design, and Transportation Concept The Action Alternative would amend the Downtown Master Site Plan and create a new Form-Based Code. There would be new zoning and design standards. Areas of focus for infill and redevelopment are identified along the spine of the new transit and transportation investments, and along the waterfront. Additional moderate density housing would infill in residential neighborhoods such as duplex, triplex, or townhomes to provide affordable ownership and rental housing. Key elements of the alternative are listed in the text box below and illustrated on Exhibit 1-6. Action Alternative Framework 1. Town Center Infill and Redevelopment 2. 3rd/2nd St Old Town Small Business Support and Public Realm Improvements 3. Improve State Ave and 4th St streetscapes/appearance 4. Waterfront Redevelopment 5. Civic Center Hub and Area Redevelopment 6. Historic 3rd St Neighborhood Housing Opportunities in Historic Form 7. Asbery Neighborhood School Redevelopment, Neighborhood Infill, and Amenity Improvements 8. Liberty Neighborhood Infill and Midblock Connections 9. North State Ave/Grove St Redevelopment and Midblock Connections 10. BNSF Sliver and Beach Ave Neighborhood Flexible Uses 11. Multimodal pedestrian/bicycle facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-9 Exhibit 1-6. Action Alternative Framework Source: Makers 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-10 To implement the Action Alternative Concept in Exhibit 1-6, the Action Alternative would amend zoning and apply a form-based code that focuses on design and relationship of buildings and streets. See Exhibit 1-7 for a description of the zones, and Exhibit 1-8 for a map. Exhibit 1-7. Zoning Description Zone/Area Acres (Parcel) Description Mixed Use/Commercial Zones Downtown Core 67.0 The Downtown Core zone encourages high density mixed-use and office uses. Other commercial uses are allowed. Buildings and streets should have pedestrian- friendly design. Waterfront 34.2 The Waterfront zone/overlay encourages construction of high- density residential or mixed-use development along the Ebey Slough waterfront. Flex 44.0 The Flex zone encourages a lively mix of uses, including workshops, small manufacturing and commercial. Residential is allowed in some areas with the Residential Overlay (see below). Flex Residential 32.1 This overlay allows medium-density density housing to the Flex zone. Mixed Use 32.2 The purpose of the mixed use zone (MU) is to provide for pedestrian- and transit-oriented high-density employment uses together with limited complementary retail and higher density residential development in locations within activity centers where the full range of commercial activities is not desirable. Residential Zones Midrise Multifamily 26.2 The Midrise Multifamily zone encourages dense multifamily housing. Commercial is not allowed except as a ground floor element of a mixed-use building. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-11 Zone/Area Acres (Parcel) Description Middle Housing 1 64.9 The Middle Housing 1 zone encourages small infill housing, especially “missing middle” building types. The zone protects the fine- grained, residential character of historic neighborhoods. Middle Housing 2 76.6 The Middle Housing 2 zone encourages infill housing, especially “missing middle” building types and small apartments. Commercial is not allowed except as a ground floor element of a mixed-use building. 3rd Street 6.3 The 3rd Street overlay places design standards along either side of 3rd St to promote high-quality building design that is consistent with existing character. Source: Makers 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-12 Exhibit 1-8. Action Alternative Zoning Source: Makers 2020. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-13 Growth Comparing the Snohomish County buildable land model, growth is anticipated beyond the No Action Alternative as shown in Exhibit 1-9. Exhibit 1-9. Action Alternative Growth and Comparison to No Action No Action Action Difference Residential 1,885 2,579 +694 Jobs 1,360 1,828 +468 Sources: Transpo, BERK 2020. Planned Action In 2009, the City approved a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) for the Downtown area. With the Downtown Master Plan Update, the PAO is proposed for amendment to match the larger study area of this SEIS, incorporate updated growth figures, and provide update mitigation measures. A planned action provides more detailed environmental analysis during the early formulation stages of planning proposals rather than at the project permit review stage. Future development proposals consistent with the PAO do not have to undergo an environmental threshold determination and are not subject to SEPA appeals. Planned actions still need to meet the City’s development regulations and to obtain necessary permits. 1.5.3. Preferred Alternative Land Use, Urban Design, and Transportation Concepts The Preferred Alternative would amend the Downtown Master Site Plan and create a new Form-Based Code with zoning and design standards like the Action Alternative. Areas of focus for infill and redevelopment are identified along the spine of the new transit and transportation investments, and along the waterfront. Additional moderate density housing would infill in residential neighborhoods such as duplex, triplex, or townhomes to provide affordable ownership and rental housing. Key elements of the alternative are listed in the text box below and illustrated on Exhibit 1-10. Preferred Alternative Framework 1. Town Center Infill and Redevelopment 2. 3rd/2nd St Old Town Small Business Support and Public Realm Improvements 3. Improve State Ave and 4th St streetscapes/appearance 4. Waterfront Redevelopment 5. Civic Center Hub and Area Redevelopment 6. Historic 3rd St Neighborhood Housing Opportunities in Historic Form 7. Asbery Neighborhood School Redevelopment, Neighborhood Infill, and Amenity Improvements 8. Liberty Neighborhood Infill and Midblock Connections 9. North State Ave/Grove St Redevelopment and Midblock Connections 10. BNSF Sliver and Beach Ave Neighborhood Flexible Uses 11. Multimodal pedestrian/bicycle facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-14 Exhibit 1-10. Preferred Alternative Framework Source: Makers 2021. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-15 To implement the Preferred Alternative Concept in Exhibit 1-10, the Action Alternative would amend zoning and apply a form-based code that focuses on design and relationship of buildings and streets. See Exhibit 1-11 for a description of the zones, and Exhibit 1-8 for a map. Exhibit 1-11. Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative Zoning Classifications Zone Draft SEIS Action Alternative Final SEIS Preferred Alternative Acres Description Acres Description Downtown Core (DC) 67.0 The Downtown Core zone encourages high density mixed-use and office uses. Other commercial uses are allowed. Buildings and streets should have pedestrian- friendly design. 101.1 The Downtown Core zone encourages high density residential mixed use and office mixed use. Other commercial uses are allowed. No active ground floor required except on designated streets. Main Street (MS) 0.0 9.8 The Main Street zone protects and enhances the character of Marysville’s historic retail core. This zone encourages high-activity uses like restaurants, entertainment, and shops, and residential above the ground floor. New buildings should feature an active ground floor use. Parking is generally not required. Flex 44.0 The Flex zone encourages a lively mix of uses, including workshops, small manufacturing and commercial. Residential is allowed in some areas with the Residential Overlay (see below). 38.0 This zone encourages a mix of uses, including artisan, workshops, small light manufacturing, and commercial. New residential, schools, daycares, and other sensitive uses are not allowed due to air quality, noise, and odor impacts from I-5 and the BNSF railroad corridor. Flex Residential Overlay (FR) 32.1 This overlay allows medium-density density housing to the Flex zone. 38.1 This overlay zone allows “missing middle” building types and lowrise apartments in addition to all uses allowed in the Flex zone. Midrise Multifamily (MMF) 26.2 The Midrise Multifamily zone encourages dense multifamily housing. Commercial is not allowed except as a ground floor element of a mixed-use building. 26.2 This zone encourages dense multifamily housing. Commercial is not allowed except as a ground floor element of a mixed-use building. Middle Housing 1 (MH1) 64.9 The Middle Housing 1 zone encourages small infill housing, especially “missing middle” building types. The zone protects the fine- grained, residential character of historic neighborhoods. 71.2 The Middle Housing 1 zone encourages small infill housing, especially “missing middle” building types. The zone protects the fine-grained, residential character of historic neighborhoods. Middle Housing 2 (MH2) 76.6 The Middle Housing 2 zone encourages infill housing, especially “missing middle” building types and small apartments. Commercial is not allowed except as a ground floor element of a mixed-use building. 76.6 This zone encourages infill housing, especially “missing middle” building types and lowrise apartments. Commercial is not allowed except as a ground floor element of a mixed-use building. 3rd Street Character Area 6.3 The 3rd Street overlay places design standards along either side of 3rd St to promote high-quality building design that is consistent with existing character. Addressed in code; not an overlay. Source: Makers 2021. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-16 Exhibit 1-12. Preferred Alternative Zoning Source: Makers 2021. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-17 Differences in the zoning between the Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative include changes to categories but not a change in intent for the future character of the study area: ▪ Waterfront areas in the Action Alternative was changed to Flex Residential and Downtown Core, which similarly allow mixed uses ▪ Mixed Use in the Action Alternative was changed to Flex Residential and Midrise Multifamily which allow for mixed use and attached housing similar to the Mixed Use designations Some minor changes to through-block connections/block frontage designations between the Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative include: ▪ 3rd St between Cedar Ave and State Ave—removed requirement to connect east-west across the Town Center site and railroad ▪ Liberty Lane alignment between State and Alder Ave (south of Grove St)—shortened Active ground floor designation to one block between State and Columbia Aves Development Regulations Consistent with the concept plan in Exhibit 1-10 and intent of zones in Exhibit 1-11, the Preferred Alternative incorporates a form-based code with more elements defined than under the Action Alternative. The heights and densities are compared to the No Action Alternative for the equivalent zones in the same geography. There would be a decrease in height under the Main Street (MS) zone. There would be an increase in the Midrise Multifamily (MMF) zone applied to the Totem Middle School; should there be redevelopment design standards of the form-based code apply. Most zones include a base maximum density that is similar to existing zoning, but also to an unlimited maximum density, except that heights, landscaping, parking, and setbacks would effectively limit density. Exhibit 1-13. Comparison of Development Regulations Zone –Preferred No Action Alternative: Allowed Heights & Densities Preferred Alternative: Allowed Heights & Densities Downtown Core (DC) Base height: 65-85 feet Min. density: None Max density: None Base height: 85 feet Height may be increased by 1’ for each 1’ of street and interior setback beyond minimum requirement. Min. density: 45 du/acre Max density: None Main Street (MS) Base height: 85 feet Min. density: None Max density: None Base height: 45 feet Height may be increased by 1’ for each 1’ of street and interior setback beyond minimum requirement. Min. density: None Max. density: None ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-18 Zone –Preferred No Action Alternative: Allowed Heights & Densities Preferred Alternative: Allowed Heights & Densities Flex Base height: 35-85 feet Min. density: None Max density: 12 du/acre or no limit with RDI (GC zone) to None (DC zone) Base height: 45 feet Height may be increased by 1’ for each 1’ of street and interior setback beyond minimum requirement. Max height for SW waterfront parcel is 75’. Min. density: None Max. base density: 28 du/acre Flex Residential Overlay (FR) See above Base height: same as Flex Max. density in residential overlay areas only: 45 du/acre Midrise Multifamily (MMF) Base height: 30-45 feet Min. density: None Max density: 18 du/acre or 27 du/acre with RDI (R18 zone) to 28 du/acre (MU zone) Base height: 65 feet Max. base density: 28 du/acre Max. density: None Max. density on sites greater than 20,000 ft: 45 Middle Housing 1 (MH1) Base height: 30-45 feet Min. density: None Max density: 8-18 du/acre or 27 du/acre with RDI (R18 zone) Currently zoned R8-18 Base height: 35 Max base density: 18 du/acre Max. density: none Middle Housing 2 (MH2) Base height: 30-45 feet Min. density: None Max density: 4.5 du/acre (just along Armar Rd); 8-18 du/acre or 27 du/acre with RDI (R18 zone) Currently zoned R4.5-18 Base height: 45 Max base density: 18 du/acre Max. density: none Source: Makers 2021. Growth The Preferred Alternative has similar proposed densities as the Action Alternative and is similar in growth depending on the minimum and maximum densities of the zones, and in some cases no maximum. Exhibit 1-14. Alternative Growth Comparison No Action Action Preferred Residential 1,885 2,579 2,579 Jobs 1,360 1,828 1,828 Sources: Transpo, BERK 2020. Planned Action Similar to the Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative incorporates an updated Planned Action Ordinance amended to address the EIS Study Area, and mitigation measures of this SEIS. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-19 1.6. Key Issues and Options The key issues facing decision makers include: ▪ Approval of the Downtown Master Plan Update including a vision, goals and policies, land use concept including changes to map designations, updated growth estimates, and consistency edits to the Comprehensive Plan; ▪ Approval of amendments to the Downtown planned action ordinance to help incentivize growth while mitigating impacts. ▪ Consideration of a new form-based code to ensure design quality and flexibility. 1.7. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1.7.1. Surface Water/Water Resources How did we analyze Surface Water/Water Resources? City plans for surface and groundwater resources were reviewed, and readily available records maintained by federal, state, and local agencies were compiled and screened, to identify water resources in the downtown planning area. Findings were validated through field reconnaissance and aerial imagery. The analysis focused on assessing quality of existing water resources and alternatives to improve their function or recreational and aesthetic values. What impacts did we identify? Access to the Ebey Slough shoreline can continue to develop to improve public access to the water and provide new housing, recreation, and commercial opportunities connected to a waterfront experience. The shoreline restoration and enhancement, and the extension of existing trails and pathways, are opportunities to improve downtown surface water features. The downtown area is already completely built out; therefore, groundwater impacts relate principally to construction impacts, illicit discharges to the storm system, and conveyance system failures. Impacts to surface water would relate to illicit discharges and impacts of construction along /within the Slough. The City can, with the support of federal and state agencies, mitigate these impacts through development permit conditions and routine capital maintenance. What is different between the alternatives? There is no significant difference between the alternatives, although the Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative propose new site-specific improvements to reduce polluted runoff ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-20 from entering the City’s system. The City will continue with shoreline improvements and surface water management as part of on-going maintenance and resiliency planning. What are some solutions or mitigation for impacts? There would be continued application of federal, state, and local surface water regulations. Solutions to improving water quality include the installation of end of pipe treatment, site specific water quality controls, and increased use of LID techniques to reduce water quantity and improve water quality entering the slough. The new end of pipe treatment facility at the marina basin will improve water quality from approximately 280 acres of the downtown planning area. The area south of 8th Street and east of State Street (Downtown Neighborhood) and the Armar Road Residential area will not benefit from the new treatment facility. This approximately 180 acres area currently discharges stormwater runoff to Allen Creek or directly to Ebey Slough near the public works facility. New development and the resulting increased densities in these areas will require new low impact stormwater systems like the infiltration systems seen along 3rd Street east of Columbia Avenue. The City should require on-site water quality treatment for development south of 1st Avenue. This would eliminate the need for additional City water quality improvements along the waterfront. The City will begin Surface Water Action Planning in 2021. The resultant action plan will present new surface water management strategies and projects that would be implemented under either alternative. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? The ultimate outcome is an improved waterfront experience through better access to the water and more water quality treatment for discharges to Ebey Slough. There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the surface water element. Development under all the alternatives would result in increased demand for access to the waterfront and increase surface water treatment requirements. It is anticipated that with proposed mitigation measures the Alternative impacts would be less than significant. 1.7.2. Land and Shoreline Use and Aesthetics How did we analyze Land and Shoreline Use and Aesthetics? The SEIS reports current land use patterns using County Assessor data. It also considers land use policies and zoning of each alternative, and calculates future growth based on land capacity. What impacts did we identify? Under both alternatives, there will be consistency with State and Regional Plans by focusing growth in an urban center with investments in transportation. Both alternatives will result in increased development intensity in the downtown along the waterfront, Town Center, and State Avenue. In both alternatives, mixed use and higher intensity development is paired with ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-21 design standards to ensure human-oriented design. In both alternatives, waterfront property is likely to redevelop and would be subject to Shoreline Master Program provisions. What is different between the alternatives? ▪ Growth Pattern and Goals: There would be capacity under the current plan to increase housing densities and jobs in downtown in about a half mile of transit though less centrally located than the Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative would further provide a diversity of housing types, focused near transit investments. The growth intensity would be higher under the Proposed Action than the No Action. The Proposed Action Alternative would advance the state and regional plans to a greater degree than the No Action Alternative with a greater capacity for housing and jobs beyond the current planning period of 2035 and assist the City in its pending periodic review that will establish the City’s growth plan for 2044. ▪ Growth Near Freeway and Railroad: The No Action Alternative plans for more growth in the western and eastern extents of the study area. The Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative remove the residential allowance adjacent to I-5 and near the BNSF railroad corridor. This has the positive benefit of fewer residents living near the I-5 and BNSF corridor air quality and noise impacts. ▪ Height and Reasonable Zone Transitions: The transit improvements on State Ave may attract higher intensity redevelopment (likely 5 to 7 stories) in the Downtown Commercial zone. This zone, in some places, is adjacent to a R-8 Single Family, High Density – Small Lot zone which allows up to 30-foot heights. The difference in allowed height under the No Action Alternative may result in two fairly distinct zones—multifamily and primarily single family—with little architectural or density variation to bridge the two development types. Under the Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative, the form-based code and zoning provide for improved transitions in height and uses. The Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative Main Street zone height limits would have a positive benefit of protecting existing affordable commercial space. In addition, it protects historic character and vibrant streetscapes and encourages a transition between taller buildings expected in the downtown core and the shorter buildings and lower intensities expected in the residential zones. ▪ Missing Middle Housing: Under the Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative, more missing middle housing/small-scale residential (townhouse, duplex/multiplex) is expected throughout, but especially in current the R-8 zone where Middle Housing zones are proposed. This may result in modest changes to the ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-22 appearance of residential streets and build a greater sense of liveliness with more people using the sidewalks and streets. A potential negative impact could include degradation of the relatively people-oriented residential streets with some missing middle redevelopment. If current parking and access requirements continue (20’ for fire and extensive turning radii), existing residential street fronts could become more auto- oriented in their appearance and function than they are today. A potential negative impact may also occur if reduced setbacks are established resulting in setbacks varying widely, and the sense of a cohesive street wall degrading. Also, if setbacks become too narrow without design consideration for adequate privacy, residents may feel less comfortable using their space facing the street. ▪ Heights: Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be a decrease in height under the Main Street (MS) zone. There would be an increase in the Midrise Multifamily (MMF) zone applied to the Totem Middle School; should there be redevelopment design standards of the form-based code apply. ▪ Densities: With the Preferred Alternative, most zones include a base maximum density that is similar to existing zoning, but also to an unlimited maximum density, except that heights, landscaping, parking, and setbacks would effectively limit density. What are some solutions or mitigation for impacts? The City applies Marysville Municipal Code (MMC) Title 22 Land Use Standards to new development under the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action builds on existing regulations and advances them with a form-based code. Highlights of the Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative features that serve as mitigation include: ▪ Promoting human-oriented design in the broader study area extending design guidance beyond the 2009 Downtown Master Plan (DMP) boundary. ▪ The Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative proposes specific design guidance on 3rd St, between Alder Ave and 47th Ave, so that future residences maintain a historic character. ▪ To protect the 3rd/2nd St Old Town areas’ lively and historic character and affordable space, the Action Alternative reduces the allowed height. ▪ By allowing a greater variety of housing types in the current R-8/proposed Middle Housing zones, the transition between the more intense DC and lesser intense residential zones would be eased. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-23 Additional proposed mitigation includes: ▪ Small-scale residential impact on sidewalk experience. Marysville may consider updating parking and access standards for missing middle housing types to maintain building-to-street relationships and people-oriented design. ▪ Small-scale residential setbacks. If residential setback variation is a concern with reduced setbacks, design guidance can encourage a cohesive street front while allowing for variation through setback averaging and landscaping. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? The greater intensities and variety of uses expected would not have significant unavoidable adverse impacts when paired with the proposed form-based code and associated design guidance. A minor adverse impact may occur if middle housing development includes extensive parking and access at the street front, which would degrade the sidewalk experience and streetscape aesthetics and reduce street parking. This could be mitigated with reduced access requirements and considered under mitigation measures. 1.7.3. Socioeconomics How did we analyze Socioeconomics? The socioeconomics analysis uses federal and state population, housing, job, and demographic data to characterize current conditions. Future growth is identified based on a 2012 and 2020 buildable lands data and land capacity evaluation for the Proposed Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative, as well as the City’s transportation model. What impacts did we identify? Studied alternatives increase housing and job capacity over existing levels, with the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative increasing capacity of housing and jobs over the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives increase housing opportunities in all parts of the study area. What is different between the alternatives? The No Action Alternative focuses housing in the west and east rather than the center of the study area, whereas the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative focuse housing in the center where more investment is being made in the BRT and other transportation investments. Job capacity is similarly distributed in the east and west, and the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative increases it in the center due to increased mixed uses on redevelopable sites not considered in the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, Downtown housing densities would continue to be oriented to lower densities (6.5 – 8 du/ac) and higher densities (18-34 du/ac R-18 and MU or unlimited ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-24 in DC and GC) with less densities in the middle of the spectrum. The Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative would increase midrange densities to promote added ownership and rental housing opportunities. Under all alternatives there is a risk of displacement of existing housing and jobs as redevelopment occurs. Both alternatives add development capacity that can help accommodate displaced housing units and employment space. The Proposed Action Alternative would include policies and new development codes to avoid displacement and encourage small business retention and housing retention. What are some solutions or mitigation for impacts? Existing regulations provide mitigation, including: ▪ MMC Title 22 Unified Development Code provides zoning and development standards for residential and employment uses. ▪ MMC Chapter 3.103 Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption to incentivize housing Downtown. ▪ MMC Chapter 22C.090 Residential Density Incentives for R-18, MU, GC, and DC zones, e.g. 1.5 bonus units and 30-60 units per five acres for low-income or senior housing. ▪ MMC Chapter 3.105 Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales Tax Credit Fund, identifies funding for acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing, or operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or supportive housing, or providing rental assistance to tenants. Mitigation to address affordable housing and displacement is built into the Proposed Action through the Downtown Master Plan updates to policy and new form-based code that offers design quality and flexibility for land uses. Other mitigation measures include: ▪ Establishing an inclusionary housing requirement that new mixed use and multifamily development incorporate affordable housing or pays an in-lieu fee. ▪ Amending multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) regulations to expand the study area to match the Downtown Master Plan Update Study Area in Exhibit 1-1. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? There will be an increase in housing and jobs in the study area under all studied alternatives. However, there is capacity to address displacement of housing and jobs. With implementation of mitigation measures including features of the Proposed Action to add a wider range of housing types and address design quality, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-25 1.7.4. Transportation How did we analyze Transportation? Transportation impacts were evaluated consistent with the methods of the Marysville Comprehensive Plan 2015. The transportation analysis includes 2035 traffic forecasts using the City of Marysville travel demand model and an evaluation of street system operations, non-motorized and transit facilities. Transportation impacts of the Action Alternative was identified through a comparison to the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is similar in growth and pattern as the Action Alternative and results are transferable. What impacts did we identify? Transportation demands for all modes would be increased with either the Action Alternative or Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative. There are existing and planned transit service and non-motorized facilities to accommodate transit use, walking and biking. It is anticipated that as development occurs and transportation improvements are completed additional transit and non-motorized facilities would be constructed including accommodation of the Swift BRT Downtown. Under the No Action Alternative, Action Alternative, or Preferred Alternative all study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the weekday PM peak hour. The evaluation includes planned improvements identified in the City’s 2019-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the Preferred Alternative, the MDMP has been refined based on the analysis conducted for the Draft SEIS and feedback from the community. Key refinements to the transportation plan features include removal of the east-west connection across the railroad tracks along 3rd St to the Town Center (Draft SEIS TR-1.e and TR-2) and additional emphasis and pedestrian connectivity along 4th Street to/from the Civic Campus and Town Center. There have also been some minor changes to the travel mode priorities for corridors within shared priority removed from 5th Street and the north-south bicycle priority along Alder Avenue and Quinn Avenue further defined. The Downtown would continue to be well-connected with sidewalks and bicycle facilities with the refinements to the MDMP. There would be no new transportation impacts or mitigation measures with the refined MDMP. A pedestrian crossing would be provided along 4th Avenue at State and Cedar Avenues and a HAWK signal or other pedestrian crossings treatment would be provided at Delta Avenue with the MDMP. The network of sidewalks, bike facilities and multimodal trails access to and from as well as within the study area will continue to encourage trip making via walking and biking for commuter, recreational or other purposes. What is different between the alternatives? Either the Action Alternative or Preferred Alternative is anticipated to generate approximately 1,600 more weekday PM peak hour trips compared to the No Action Alternative. As a result of the higher trip generation, it is anticipated that future increases in traffic volumes and delays ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-26 would be higher with the Action Alternative or Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative. What are some solutions or mitigation for impacts? The Downtown Master Plan incorporates improvements to mitigate transportation impacts such as non-motorized connections and improvements, a second Swift BRT station near the Civic Center campus, monitoring traffic improvement needs with key infrastructure improvements, Intelligent Transportation System improvements, managed access along major corridors, and consider roundabouts for traffic control needs. As development occurs, required frontage improvements would help complete and improve the network and new development would be required to pay traffic impact fees to contribute towards planned improvements. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? Development under all the alternatives would result in increases in all travel modes – vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. The mitigation measures would mitigate the transportation impacts of the Alternatives. 1.7.5. Public Services How did we analyze Public Services? To analyze public services this study compared existing conditions with projected growth to identify future needs for public services (police, fire and emergency services, schools, and parks) associated with each of the proposed alternatives. Current effective levels of service for police were used to project future need for additional police officers due to growth. Current effective levels of service based on incident fire and EMS call volume per capita was used to project future call volume for fire and emergency services due to growth as well. The analysis also considered the proximity of police and fire protection facilities/apparatuses to the Study Area. Demand for school services were analyzed in terms of the schools within or surrounding the Study Area that would likely receive additional school age children generated by growth in the Study Area. Demand for parks and recreation facilities were analyzed by the projected future need for additional park acreage and trail mileage due to growth based on the City’s parks and recreation LOS standards. Impacts on public services and utilities would be considered to result in significant impacts under one or more of the following conditions: ▪ Negatively affect the response times for police and/or fire and emergency medical services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-27 ▪ Increase demand for special emergency services beyond current operational capabilities of service providers. ▪ Reduce access to park and open space facilities. ▪ Result in increases in students and lack of facilities. What impacts did we identify? Under all alternatives, additional population and employment growth would generate a need for additional police, fire and emergency, school, and park services. For fire and emergency services, growth in the Study Area under both alternatives will generate increased incident call volume. For police services, to maintain the City’s current effective LOS under all alternatives, the Marysville Police Department would need to hire more police officers to serve the new growth generated in the study area. Growth in the Study Area will also generate more school age children within the Study Area. Based on Marysville School District’s adopted student generation rates, projected population growth within the Study Area will include between 2,537 to 3,472 students through the planning period, depending on the alternative. Lastly, to maintain the City’s current LOS standards for park acreage and trail mileage under all alternatives, the City would need develop or acquire more park acreage and develop more trail mileage to serve the new growth generated in the study area. What is different between the alternatives? The Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative would allow for more population and employment growth than the No Action Alternative. As the City’s current or policy-based LOS standards are based on population, demand for public services will be highest under the Action Alternative and will be lowest under the No Action Alternative. What are some solutions or mitigation for impacts? In general, planning for future growth is a way to mitigate the impacts generated by projected population and employment growth. For police as well as fire and emergency services, the Marysville Police Department (MPD) and Marysville Fire Department (MFD) could hire additional staff to prepare for the new growth in the study area. Both MPD and MFD could also adopt formal, population-based LOS standards for police as well as fire and emergency services to help identify project-specific demand. For schools, the City collects school impact fees on behalf of the Marysville School District to partially offset the system improvement costs of educating additional students generated by new development. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-28 Similarly, the City also collects park impact fees to build or acquire new park and recreation facilities. The Action Alternative also includes investment in pedestrian and bicycle improvements to connect with trails, parks, and schools within and abutting the study area. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? All studied alternatives would increase the demand for fire, police, schools, and parks and recreation with No Action Alternative the least and the Action Alternative or Preferred Alternative the most. With regular capital facility planning and implementation of mitigation measures no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated 1.7.6. Utilities How did we analyze Utilities? City comprehensive plans for stormwater, waste water, and solid waste were reviewed and readily accessible records maintained by federal, state, and local agencies were compiled and screened to identify utility conditions in the Downtown Planning area. Specific capital plans like LID improvements, the new Ebey Waterfront Park and the new regional stormwater treatment facility were also reviewed. The analysis focused on assessing the general condition and the availability of long-term capacity to accommodate growth in the Downtown Planning Area. Findings indicate sufficient utility infrastructure and capacity to accommodate planned growth, provided on-going maintenance and regulatory compliance standards are maintained. What impacts did we identify? The studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and solid waste services. Because there is no stormwater quantity discharge limits for the planning area, currently planned stormwater improvements (2021 improvements) and on-going maintenance and capital planning will be sufficient for the planned growth. Increased residential and employment population in the area has the potential to increase water and wastewater system demands. With appropriate regulatory and capital mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. What is different between the alternatives? There are no significant utility impacts between the alternatives. The City wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste utilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed growth alternatives. Private utility providers have sufficient capacity to serve future growth in the sub-area. There is one Class B water system that would be removed under either alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 1-29 What are some solutions or mitigation for impacts? The utility solution is to continue to maintain and sustain the resiliency of the utility systems in the Downtown Planning area. Pro-active administrative measures such as planning for increases in maintenance and operations funding to sustain system resiliency should continue. Annual discussions with private utility providers specifically focused on City growth and new private utility investments to service planned growth and new building styles. The City should plan to acquire the Class B water right and abandon that right to reduce development restrictions in the well head protection zone. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? The ultimate outcome is to provide public utilities (water, wastewater, and solid waste) and ensure implementation of private utility growth that will accommodate the planned growth in the Downtown Planning Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EISI September 2021 2-1 2.0. Responses to Comments and Clarifications This chapter of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) describes the opportunities for commenting on the Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update and Planned Action Draft SEIS, followed by the specific comments that were submitted and responses to those specific comments. 2.1. Comments and Responses During the Draft SEIS comment period, written comments were received from the individuals and agencies listed below. The issues raised in each comment letter are numbered on each letter and are followed by correspondingly numbered responses. The issues raised in each comment letter are provided with a corresponding response. Full comment letters are included at the end of this chapter. Comments that state preferences on alternatives or other matters are acknowledged with a response that the comment is noted and forwarded to City decision makers. Comments that address methods, analysis results, mitigation, or other matters are provided a response. Input received will be considered by the City Council prior to their decision on the proposal. Exhibit 2-1. Written comments and response matrix. Letter Comment Response 1 Jamie Holland 3/4/2021 COMMENT 1-1 As a new resident to Marysville I have been dismayed and disappointed in what I see as a lack of planning and oversite regarding Marysville as a whole. At times it has been hard to live here and since we live closer to Smokey Point, we completely avoid going south as State Street and the downtown area are deplorable, save for a few RESPONSE 1-1 Your comments about appreciation for the master plan are noted and forwarded to City decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-2 Letter Comment Response locally-owned businesses in the historic area. (Which give me hope!) As a former resident of Renton, Bothell and employed in Issaquah, all of which have dynamic, engaged downtown areas, I am VERY pleased to see a master plan for Marysville, which has no identity except for the mall and being 'near the freeway.' I have no comments on the plan except that I did participate in the online survey and am happy to see the positive results. I appreciate the fact that the city council has recognized the need for drastic changes in Marysville and has started the process. I feel encouraged for the first time since we moved here a year ago and look forward to seeing the changes. 2 Lynda Hawkins 3/5/2021 COMMENT 2-1 Are there plans in the near future to accommodate Tiny Homes for affordable housing for seniors, students and other low income barriers to home ownership or rentals? RESPONSE 2-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. The Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action include a form based code and greater variety of housing types in the study area. 3 Jean Uhrich 3/6/2021 COMMENT 3-1 20 years ago, downtown Redmond looked similar in size and shape as today’s Marysville. Today, using mixed-use commercial and housing options, Redmond is nearly unnavigable with narrow streets, tall apartments and homes looming above. It’s incredibly easy to get lost! And the traffic signals must have quadrupled! It takes forever to drive through, especially if you’re looking for something in particular. Please don’t make the same mistakes the leaders in Redmond made. The charm of Marysville is the number of different single family homes scattered around parks and schools. I realize you have to bring more people in to help existing businesses make it. However, limiting the number of mega-apartment complexes to keep traffic manageable also would be well advised. RESPONSE 3-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. The studied alternatives were tested with the City’s transportation model and affirmed the need for improvements listed in the Comprehensive Plan to achieve the City’s levels of service. The proposals also include other multimodal improvements and will benefit from the future Bus Rapid Transit on State Ave. 4 Jean Uhrich 3/24/2021 COMMENT 4-1 My immediate concern is the increased traffic throughout downtown. The first major issue I see is access to downtown from I-5. A key objective in your Master Plan is to RESPONSE 4-1 See Response to Comment 3-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-3 Letter Comment Response improve transportation connectivity to facilitate access and to handle continued growth. Currently, underneath the freeway overpass, 4th Street allows only three lanes westbound and one lane eastbound. Is rebuilding that overpass in the plan? COMMENT 4-2 In your map (Figure 1. 2009 DMP envisioned public and private investment phasing), I see new residential/retail vertical mixed use and business high rises in downtown Marysville. I assume parking would be available (possibly underneath) to accommodate those new apartments and businesses, but where would parking be available for the increased civic, social and cultural activities? (I couldn’t find parking lots on Map 2. Urban Design Framework.) While this plan would take several years to complete, encouraging middle and higher density homes throughout the city will add to traffic buildup. Building a city that brings in economic development revenue is desirable as long as the increase in traffic doesn’t become a burden that would discourage public use. Are the streets, as they are currently, going to be able to handle that much more traffic? RESPONSE 4-2 Parking standards are included in the form-based code associated with the Preferred Alternative, and with the Marysville Municipal Code for the No Action Alternative. See also Response to Comment 3-1. COMMENT 4-3 I am excited to see possible redevelopment of our waterfront properties. While Marysville will never have the waterfront availability that Kirkland has, it would be great to have several sites that would allow public access to the water. RESPONSE 4-3 The comments are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 4-4 Redeveloping Asbery Athletic Field to allow a park, trails, a place for gathering outdoor performance would be terrific. RESPONSE 4-4 The comments are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. 5 WA Utilities and Transportation Commission 3/29/2021 COMMENT 5-1 In downtown Marysville, there are at-grade railroad crossings at 1st Street (USDOT 084630B), 4th Street (USDOT 084640G), 8th Street (USDOT 084644J) and Grove Street (USDOT 084646X). The DMP and SEIS refer to planned and recommended improvements, including: • TR-2 - 3rd St/BNSF corridor crossing – Seek funding and construct a grade-separated ped/bike crossing at 3rd Street over the BNSF RESPONSE 5-1 The comments are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. Under the Preferred Alternative, key refinements include removal of the east-west connection across the railroad tracks along 3rd St to the Town Center (Draft SEIS TR-1.e and TR-2). ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-4 Letter Comment Response rail line as part of the 3rd Street ped/bike connection through Town Center (TR-1e). • TR-14 - 8th St bicycle facilities – Design and construct 8th Street to accommodate multi-use paths, landscaping, and parallel street parking on both sides; bicycle priority features at the BNSF railroad corridor; and, where feasible, natural drainage features. The SEIS also states that a key planned improvement serving the downtown area identified in the City’s 2019-2024 Transportation Improvement Program, and by the City within the DMP boundary, or the adjacent facilities serving downtown, includes: • Grove Street Overcrossing – New overcrossing at the BNSF mainline at Grove Street between Cedar Avenue and State Avenue. Because they appear to be conceptual at this stage, UTC staff does not have specific comments related to the proposed improvements. However, we offer the following as information for any future project involving a railroad crossing within the City: To construct a new public crossing or make any changes to an existing public crossing, by law, a railroad or public agency city/county/state park, etc.) must file a petition with the UTC and receive approval (see RCW 81.53.030, RCW 81.53.060, RCW 81.53.261, and WAC 480-62-150). By filing a petition, the petitioner alleges that public safety requires the construction or modification at the crossing, and bears the burden of proof. A separate petition is required for each crossing project. When approving a new public crossing, the UTC considers public necessity, convenience, and safety. Current state policy strongly discourages construction of new at-grade crossings unless no other viable alternatives exist, and even in those instances, consideration should be given to closing one or more existing crossings. With any petition to construct a new crossing, the UTC requires a feasibility study on whether it is practicable to grade separate the new crossing (RCW 81.53.020). A SEPA review is also required for any new at- grade crossing. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the national standard for traffic control devices. The MUTCD states, in Part 8A.02, that because of the number of variables to be ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-5 Letter Comment Response considered, no single standard system of traffic control devices is universally acceptable for all crossings. The appropriate traffic control system to be used at a grade crossing should be determined by an engineering study involving the road authority and railroad. An engineering study consists of a review of site characteristics, the existing traffic control system, and highway and railroad operational characteristics. Based on a review of these conditions, an assessment of existing and potential hazards can be made. If safety deficiencies are identified, countermeasures can be recommended. Generally, the UTC petition process works as follows: 1. Diagnostic team meeting - The diagnostic team meeting is a meeting of the parties (UTC staff, the railroad, and public agency road authority at a minimum) at the crossing site, to discuss proposed changes and provide an opportunity for discussion of any safety concerns and/or questions prior to the petition being filed at the UTC. The petitioner schedules the meeting, discusses the proposed crossing changes, answers any questions about the project, and generally sends out meeting notes after the diagnostic meeting. UTC staff’s role is to advise the team of policy and administrative rules applicable to crossing petitions/UTC process/MUTCD compliance. 2. Petition – Once the project is at approximately 60 percent design, the petitioner files the petition with the UTC. The petitioner must ensure that all information in the petition is current and complete and must obtain the respondent’s signature on the Waiver of Hearing portion of the petition prior to filing. 3. Order – Once the petition is received, UTC staff reviews it and, assuming the petition is complete and the respondent has signed the Waiver of Hearing, makes a recommendation to the UTC for approval. The UTC approval process varies depending on the type of petition filed construction of a new crossing vs. modifications to existing crossings). ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-6 Letter Comment Response 6 City of Marysville Traffic Engineer 3/29/2021 COMMENT 6-1 1. It is my understanding that a conversation between the CAO and City Engineer has confirmed my concerns with any additional BNSF rail‐grade crossing and that all mention of the proposed over‐crossings at 3rd ST and 4th ST should be removed completely from DMP. a. The locations are practically infeasible given that to maintain ADA the approaches would need to be greater than 1000’ in length on both sides of the tracks or elevators would be necessary with elevators likely discourage especially bike use of the crossing. b. Given length of approaches necessary, it would be a shorter walk/bike to just go to existing crossings at 1st or 4th ST. c. Limited ROW is present at either location to even allow for the installation of elevators. d. The concept could be reevaluated in future downtown master plan updates as sky bridges between 2+ story or greater buildings. RESPONSE 6-1 Under the Preferred Alternative, key refinements to the transportation plan features include removal of the east-west connection across the railroad tracks along 3rd St to the Town Center (Draft SEIS TR-1.e and TR-2). COMMENT 6-2 2. Transportation Objective (page 22) ‐ #5 – Statement should add mention of SR 529 Interchange. RESPONSE 6-2 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-3 3. Community Livability (page 23) – An Objective should be to provide and retain adequate parking to encourage suburban living while also encouraging commercial activity that attracts suburban and rural visitors to the historic downtown commercial area. a. Essentially, residents of surrounding areas both within Marysville and beyond are not going to visit nor patronize a downtown commercial area in which they must content with a lack of parking concept such as City of Seattle propagates. b. Rural citizens are also very unlikely to utilize transit to access the downtown commercial area thus they must be able to drive/park conveniently or they will simply go elsewhere. RESPONSE 6-3 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-4 4. 4th ST & Delta Ave Pedestrian facility: RESPONSE 6-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-7 Letter Comment Response a. This has never in past been mentioned as a bridge but as a HAWK signal. Remove over‐ crossing statement. b. Given the flat nature of the area, and the requirement of meeting ADA, see above comments regarding BNSF over‐crossings. Only difference is that clearance over a roadway only needs to be 16’ as opposed to 20’+ required over rail. The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-5 5. BNSF Sliver & Beach Ave Neighborhood (page 30) ‐ # 5 – I would strongly argue that it is very unlikely that existing residents of Marysville nor future residents of Marysville are going to be all‐ in on Seattle style parking elimination philosophies suggesting that if a jurisdiction makes parking impractical, more will use transit. This philosophy in Marysville is much more likely to portray a neighborhood as undesirable to live in. RESPONSE 6-5 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-6 6. Figure 24 redevelopment plan ‐ As plans are being development for redevelopment of parcels on the NW and SE corners of 4th ST (SR 528) and State Ave (SR 529), consideration must be given to the fact that large radius corner are absolutely necessary on these corners to provide for the ability for truck traffic to utilize existing City truck routes as well as the state highway system. a. This should be a Goal or Objective listed on page 22. RESPONSE 6-6 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-7 7. Parking Minimums (page 56) – I would encourage that parking minimums not be lowered to the extent that any redeveloped properties are obviously undesirable from a standpoint of suburban livability or in manner that residential parking spills into commercial areas thus driving out actual desirable commercial business patrons. RESPONSE 6-7 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and form-based code; the comments are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-8 8. Chapter 4 Transportation: a. Travel Context Classifications: RESPONSE 6-8 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-8 Letter Comment Response i. Grove ST is an important east/west connection from 87th Ave NE to Ash Ave with City plans for an over‐crossing other BNSF rail line which should increase vehicular travel and the roadway already carries well over 10,000 ADT. Grove St should not be listed as bike/ped priority but should be listed as Shared Priority. It has existing bike lanes but also is a three lane roadway with two‐way left turn lane. It functions well for today and tomorrow. Removal of the center should NOT be considered. b. Pedestrian & Bicycle (page 64): i. Paragraph 3 – decorative pavement should be limited to stamped pavement, no artwork should be considered as FHWA has provided guidance through MUTCD interpretations that safety is not maintained with street art. c. Vehicular (page 67): i. Staffing: Given staffing of only 1 Traffic Engineering for a City of 70k population, 46 traffic signals and 20+ square miles, signal timing plans are only updated when the existing plan fails. Systematic signal timing updates have not been performed for well over 10+ years. Based upon City size and other jurisdictions in WA State, a City of Maryville’s size in the state of WA averages near 4 traffic engineering staff (not including maintenance staff). Staffing is also a substantial hurdle to any consideration for ITS and Adaptive Signal Control (ASC) evaluation/implementation/maintenance. ii. Autonomous Vehicles – Any statement of capacity increases with AV’s is pure speculation at this stage of AV development and statements otherwise are idealistic and should not be mentioned at this time. Equally likely would be AV’s driving around constantly, wasting fuel and taking up roadway space thus creating less roadway capacity…… iii. Connected Vehicles: ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-9 Letter Comment Response Street light poles are a poor location for device installation that needs power at any time other than night. Traffic signals are much better locations for device installation as they have constant power sources, mast arms and street lights to provide mounting options, etc. iv. TR‐10 – What is the difference between and ASC vs. ACS system? Typo or reference to something different? v. TR11 – Given close spacing of downtown intersections and necessity of increasing queue pockets in/when left turns are restricted to signals only, landscaped medians are very unlikely to be feasible. vi. Existing HAWK signal – Again, the existing HAWK signal should not be stated as relocated or otherwise moved. Significant effort went into the design and construction. The location as existing provides much greater mobility for all users and safety for pedestrians and bicycles as intersection turning traffic is not present mid‐block. Placement at an intersection adds safety issues and requires likely elimination of either left turn vehicle traffic or elimination of pedestrian refuge island. Location should be assumed as permanent. COMMENT 6-9 9. Transportation Implementation (page 102): a. 4th ST/Delta Ave ped crossing seems to be a Short Term desired item based upon conversations between CAO and City Engineer. RESPONSE 6-8 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 6-10 10. Executive Summary: a. Section 5.1.1: i. Truck Routes: Truck route is designated upon State Ave (SR 529) from 2nd ST to 4th ST (SR 528). State routes cannot legally be restricted as truck routes. RESPONSE 6-10 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-10 Letter Comment Response It is challenging for trucks to make the NBRT from State Ave to EB 4th ST. Truck Route Map was recently updated and can be found on City Traffic Engineering Webpage. b. Section 5.1.5: i. Snohomish County LOS standards do not apply to City streets and thus any mention of Snohomish County LOS Standards should be removed from the document as incorporation into document only serves to add confusion. c. Section 5.2.1 i. 1st St Bypass project was completed in 2020. 7 Kristin Kinnamon 3/29/2021 COMMENT 7-1 I support many of the plan updates. What I would ask for is more. The City needs to better define goals such as “pedestrian friendly,” plan comprehensively for bike routes, and consider everyone’s safety when planning intersections and road “improvements.” RESPONSE 7-1 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 7-2 More Sidewalk Width Sidewalks: Public comment on the Downtown Plan supports the need for better attention to pedestrian safety and comfort downtown. The increased number of housing units downtown makes better sidewalks, safe intersections, and connected bike routes even more urgent. Unfortunately, this plan does not deliver. While a few areas are called out for 12 and 18 foot sidewalks 44), important streets designated to be “pedestrian friendly” do not seem to define that well enough to have meaning. Cedar is supposed to be pedestrian friendly, but the City’s own project to improve stormwater there will only have 6 foot sidewalks. State Avenue and 4th Street are noted by the consultants and public commenters for narrow sidewalks - despite years of road “improvement” projects and recent redevelopment of select parcels. The 2009 Downtown Plan “kit of parts” for road design called for minimum 7 foot sidewalks. What happened? RESPONSE 7-2 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-11 Letter Comment Response This updated plan should require wider sidewalks of 8 at least feet on State Avenue and 4th Street – both routes served by transit where pedestrians have no shoulder or bike lane buffer between high volume and high speed (30 mph and more) traffic. COMMENT 7-3 Plan for Access to Transit Transit: The plan mentions future Swift service and stops, current park & rides, and current routes.* Nowhere does it mention a need to plan for or improve safe access to transit, such as near future Swift stations. Narrow sidewalks, fast turning traffic and lack of safe crossings are significant barriers. While ridership has been disrupted by COVID, the City should be planning for more commuter and local bus service, not less. Bus shelters and benches for local riders are important amenities that should be mentioned in City goals for “pedestrian friendly” streets. I believe there is currently 1 bus shelter on State Avenue in the downtown area, despite high bus ridership and frequent service. It is premature to start planning for alternate uses of underutilized commuter parking lots. Seattle Route 821 from Marysville to the University District will have significantly added service when it begins connecting directly with light rail in September 2021. *Correction to exhibit 5-3: Routes 201 and 202 have not served Alderwood Mall for at least 5 years, a significant change. RESPONSE 7-3 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. COMMENT 7-4 Less Parking (Except for Bikes) Parking: When the Growth Management Task Force was queried on this issue, my concern on the issues was misinterpreted. I fully support reduced parking minimums in all zones – beyond what is even proposed here. As the developers told the City, the market will build parking if it is needed. Right now the plan notes that 50% of parking downtown is underutilized. With frequent transit already provide on State Avenue and Swift coming, more emphasis on non-motorized access to transit and Transportation Demand Management measures such as bus passes, is called for, not more space for cars. I do support the inclusion of bike parking standards – especially for larger properties and public RESPONSE 7-4 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-12 Letter Comment Response projects. The Opera House has no bike parking, for instance. When bike parking is installed, it should follow best practices in terms of design, placement and weather protection (unlike current bike rack at City Hall, for instance, which is too close to the building to use half of it, and uncovered). COMMENT 7-5 Access to Parks – live, work, PLAY Park access: How can the Downtown Plan better live up to its promise of Community Livability when public right of way for people in cars is consistently prioritized over people - people trying to get to parks or school or shop or work outside of a car? Sidewalks and a buffered bike lane for Jennings Park will be an improvement over the current state – but 6 foot sidewalks are not wide enough for families walking to the park. Rather than wider vehicle lanes that promote speed (11 feet here vs. 10-6 elsewhere), more space should be allocated to pedestrians. Given the regional park, nearby schools and existing high pedestrian use in the area, sidewalks should be at least 8 feet wide near Jennings, especially on the east side. Ebey Waterfront Park access has already been compromised by a rebuilt 1st street west of State with no bike lanes and standard-sized sidewalks. Though the 2009 plan envisioned shared lanes and “sharrows” as sufficient bike infrastructure, national standards and safety research have since concluded that buffered and separated bike facilities are best. While Cedar Field will get a crossing light, no wider sidewalks or bike lanes are planned to get people to the park. Ditto Asbery Field. RESPONSE 7-5 COMMENT 7-6 Comprehensive Bike Plan? Bicycle routes: The need for east-west routes is noted in the plan, and the designations of Grove, 8th and 6th make sense. I appreciate the call for “through block” connections for pedestrians where large blocks now exist. However, another east- west route at 1st, 2nd or 3rd is needed to connect to SR 529/State Avenue. The WSDOT has tentative plans for a bike path from Everett on northbound SR 529 – an important non-motorized connection which needs support RESPONSE 7-6 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-13 Letter Comment Response from the City of Marysville. How will people entering the City by bike from the south continue north or connect to designated east-west routes? The 47th/Armar/51st Street corridor – long part of the City’s bike plans – needs to be designated as a priority bicycle street. Cedar Avenue is another continuous north-south bike route that must be preserved and improved throughout its length from 1st Street to 80th. Cedar is designated as a “shared priority” street. The definition of what that means for people on bikes includes “shared lanes” – which are not at all “bike-friendly,” especially for young or more hesitant bike riders. That would be a reduction in service and safety from the current bike lanes on Cedar. Cedar should be a priority street for people walking and biking. COMMENT 7-7 Standards and Strategy One way to set comprehensive goals for safety and multimodal travel would be to establish Level of Service standards – or Level of Traffic Stress - for biking and walking. This might result in consideration of intersection design and signal timing, separated bike lanes, and wider sidewalks throughout the downtown core. As it is, only vehicle delay factors into long-term planning. The City also clearly needs to pursue a Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. There is no strategy to connect current routes, or to prioritize pedestrians in a newly dense and urbanized downtown. RESPONSE 7-7 The comments address the Draft Master Plan Update and are noted and forwarded to city decision makers. ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-14 Letter 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-15 Letter 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-16 Letter 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-17 Letter 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-18 Letter 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-21 Letter 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-24 Letter 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Responses to Comments and Clarifications City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 2-26 2.2. Clarifications Amend 1.7.5, Public Services, Other Proposed Mitigation Measures, third paragraph: With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? All studied alternatives would increase the demand for fire, police, schools, and parks and recreation with No Action Alternative the least and the Residential Focus Action Alternative the most. With regular capital facility planning and implementation of mitigation measures no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Amend 3.6.3, Utilities, Other Proposed Mitigation Measures, third paragraph: The City should maintain and sustain the resiliency of the utility systems in the Downtown Planning area. Pro-active administrative measures such as planning for increases in maintenance and operations funding to sustain system resiliency should continue. Annual discussions with private utility providers specifically focused on City growth and new private utility investments to service planned growth and be building styles. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EISI September 2021 3-1 3.0. Acronyms and References 3.1. Acronyms BRT Bus Rapid Transit CPP Countywide Planning Policies DC Downtown Commercial DMP Downtown Master Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement GC General Commercial GMA Growth Management Act LID Low Impact Development MU Mixed Use OFM Office of Financial Management PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council R18 Medium density multiple-family R-6.5 High density single-family R-8 High density single-family, small lot SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SMP Shoreline Master Program 3.2. References City of Marysville. (2009). Downtown Marysville Master Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Marysville: Prepared by Makers on behalf of the City of Marysville. ---PAGE BREAK--- Acronyms and References City of Marysville Downtown Master Plan Update & Planned Action Final Supplemental EIS I September 2021 3-2 City of Marysville (2015). Comprehensive Plan. Available: City of Marysville (2020). Shoreline Master Program Update. Available: Dougherty, P. (2007, July 26). Marysville — Thumbnail History: HistoryLink.org Essay 8227. Retrieved from Marysville School District. (2016). Marysville Capital Facilities Plan. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). (2019, December). Displacement Risk Mapping. Retrieved from The Tulalips Tribes. (2017). Treaty Rights Office. Retrieved from Transportation Research Board. 2000 and 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. ---PAGE BREAK---