Ordinance 33860006.900000
WSS /gjz
12/5/01
ORDINANCE NO. 3386
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
TO ADOPT A COMMON SITING PROCESS FOR ESSENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES, DIRECTING AMENDMENT THEREOF
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds entered into an interlocal agreement with
Snohomish County Tomorrow on December 5, 2001 agreeing to adopt a common siting process
for essential public facilities,
WHEREAS, Snohomish County Tomorrow and its steering committee have
approved a process for siting essential public facilities of a county -wide or state -wide nature in
October 1995, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its Planning
Board recommending approval of the text amendment, and
WHEREAS, the siting of essential public facilities is a matter of grave concern to
the City Council; and it entertains concerns regarding the lack of detail in the process, the
definition of essential public facilities as set forth in the document and believes that a there is a
need to conduct immediate and ongoing review of the process in order to better craft its
provisions to the needs of the City and the County, and
{WSS499127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the efforts of Snohomish County
Tomorrow and Snohomish County as well as the length of time which various public entities
have put in developing the current procedures, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the public interest to adopt such
provisions, while at the same time urging and requesting that Snohomish County Tomorrow
immediately begin a process to refine and update the procedures in order to provide additional
criteria including but not limited to consideration of when a facility constitutes both a regional
facility and an essential public facility; considering the benefit, if any, to the host community
from an essential public facility; consider the impact of fair share limitations for communities
which are already hosting their fair share or more than their fair share of regional public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reserves to itself the final authority to adopt local
land use regulations which conform to the provisions of the interlocal agreement but which
provide further substantive and procedural detail relating to essential public facilities, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element,
paragraph A. General and E. Goal and the subparagraphs thereof are hereby amended to conform
to the attached Exhibit A. In addition, Exhibit B hereto (a document designated as Appendix A)
is hereby incorporated in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan adopting a "Process for Siting
Essential Public Facilities of a County -Wide or State -Wide nature in Snohomish County) as part
(WS S499127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
of and as Appendix A to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits A and B are incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 2. The City staff is hereby authorized to incorporate said changes as part
of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City staff is further requested and directed to notify
Snohomish County and Snohomish County Tomorrow of the City's desire to initiate a process
for review, update and potential amendment of the essential public facilities process at the
earliest opportunity.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAY R GA�l HAAKENSON
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OFT ApelkNEII.
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 12/07/2001
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 12/11/2001
PUBLISHED: 12/18/2001
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/29/2001
ORDINANCE NO. 3386
{WSS499127.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3386
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 11th day of December, 2001, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. 3386. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT TO ADOPT A
COMMON SITING PROCESS FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES, DIRECTING
AMENDMENT THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2001.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{ WSS499127.DOC;1/00006.900000/ }- 4 -
The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan is changed as follows:
Capital Facilities
A. General: The capital facilities element provides the goals and standards for meeting
the community's needs for capital facilities. Capital facilities are those facilities support
the delivery of public services to the community, as well as visitors making use of the
City's resources and services. In addition to serving existing residents, capital facilities
are also planned in order to meet the community's needs as new development occurs in
the future. Because Edmonds is a mature city with a full complement of facilities and
services, most capital facility planning is targeted to maintaining existing level of service
standards and expanding the quality of life of its citizens with new or expanded facilities:
Level -of- service (LOS) standards are described in the transportation, utility and parks
elements. School facility needs and LOS standards are contained in the Capital Facilities
Plan for Edmonds School District No. 15. These LOS standards are used to assist in
developing both short and long range capital improvements projects. The capital facilities
element identifies these projects and their funding sources for a six -year period. This
schedule will be updated on an annual basis and integrated with the City's budget
process. The element also identifies public facility needs for the 20 -year planning period.
Funding sources will vary as specific projects are developed, and will include a variety of
public and private sources. The siting of essential public facilities is a common concern
for jurisdictions within the county, and the City is cetively paftieipat4ng in the
development e has adopted a common siting process for coordination with its
neighboring cities and the county.
E. Goal. Strategically locate new facilities to complement the delivery of services and
provide for efficient and convenient access by the community consistent with the
following policies:
E.1. The location of new or improved capital facilities should take into account
existing service delivery systems and the location and access of service
populations.
E.2. Ensure that the siting of essential public facilities is not precluded by the
implementation of this Comprehensive Plan.
E.3. Utilize the adopted Est ' 1- process for the siting of essential public
facilities that is consistent and coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions within
the region. The process is contained in Appendix A
EXHIBIT A
Interlocal Agreement to implement Common
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
r
PROCESS FOR SITING ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
OF A COUNTYWIDE OR STATEWIDE NATURE
IN SNOHONHSH COUNTY
[APPROVED BY SCT STEERING COMMITTEE - OCTOBER 19951
PURPOSE
In accordance with the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act, and following
an extensive policy review process by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee,
the Snohomish County Council has adopted a series of county -wide planning policies to guide
the preparation of city and county comprehensive plans. Included therein are policies addressing
the siting of "public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature" (identified as Policies
CF -1 through CF -5), as specifically required by the GMA. These policies commit the GMA
planning jurisdictions of Snohomish County to develop a common siting process for these
facilities.
The GMA further requires local governments to develop a process for identifying and siting
"essential public facilities" and to incorporate that process into their local comprehensive plans.
As indicated and defined by WAC 365 -195 -340 essential public facilities can be difficult to site,
and their location in a community may be locally unpopular. Local and state governments are
charged by GMA with the task of ensuring that such facilities, as needed to support orderly
growth and delivery of public services, are sited in a timely and efficient manner.
The process described here is intended to address the siting of essential public facilities not
already sited by a local comprehensive plan and for which discretionary land use action is
required. The siting process set forth below is also intended to meet GMA requirements, as well
as the intent of the countywide planning policies. A final objective is to - enhance public.
participation during the early stages. of facility siting to reduce the time spent analyzing
unacceptable sites and thereby produce earlier siting decisions that are also consistent with
community goals.
DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY
Any facility owned or operated by a unit of local or state government, by a public utility or
transportation company, or by any other entity providing a public service as its primary mission
Page l EXHIBIT B
Interlocal Agreement to Implement Common
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
may qualify as an "essential public facility" (or, EPF.). In general, an essential public facility will
be characterized by the following:
1) .. it is a. necessary component of a system or network which provides a public service or
good; and
2) it may be difficult- to site because of potential significant opposition.
Essential public facilities of a county -wide nature are those which serve a population bas,
ase
extending beyond the host community - which may include several local jurisdictions within
Snohomish County or a significant share of the total County population. Such facilities may
include, but are not limited to, the following examples: airports, state education facilities, state or
regional transportation facilities, state or, local correctional facilities, solid waste - handling
facilities, in patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and
group homes.` Other facilities meeting the basic definition above and whose, sponsor desires to
utilize this siting process may be qualified as essential public facilities by completing the
designation procedure described below.
Essential public facilities of a regional or statewide nature may include, but are not limited to,
those facilities listed above which serve a multi- county population base; and other large public
facilities appearing on the OFM list to be maintained under RCW 36.70A.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES ELIGIBLE FOR COMMON SITE REVIEW
Essential public facilities of a county -wide or statewide nature which are not already sited in a
local comprehensive plan are eligible for review under the common siting process described
below. Candidate facility proposals may be submitted for review under this Common Siting
Process by either the project sponsor or by a local jurisdiction wishing to site the project (the
"host community ").
A facility may be designated an essential public facility eligible for review under this process
under the following conditions:
1) the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee or the governing board of the host
community makes a determination that the proposed facility meets, the definition of an
essential public facility; or, the facility appears on the State, County, or the host
community's list of essential public facilities;
M-0
2) either the sponsoring agency or the host community determines that the facility will be
difficult to site.
The application of this definition for group homes and similar facilities, as well as of the siting process for these facilities,
will be within the legal parameters of fair housing laws.
Page 2
Interlocal Agreement to Implement Common
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
COMMON SITE REVIEW PROCESS
Either the sponsor of an essential public facility within Snohomish County which is eligible for
review under the Common Site Review Process, or the proposed host community, may elect to
follow the process described herein. Alternatively, sponsors of such facilities having a preferred
site location already identified may choose to seek siting approval under the local process
provided by the host community (the jurisdiction having land use authority over that site), if that
approach is acceptable to the host community.
The Common Site Review Process will involve the steps described below.
1. Determination of Eligibility. The project sponsor must receive a determination of eligibility
from either the h host community or the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee
that the proposed facility constitutes an essential. public facility as defined above. This
initial step will also include a determination, as a threshold matter, of whether the facility in
question presents siting difficulties. If the facility does not present siting difficulties, it
should be relegated to the normal siting process, as recommended in WAC 365 -195 -340
(2)(a)(iii).
2. Site Search Consultation. As an optional service to project sponsors, the Planning
A visory Committee (PAC) and/or the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (ICC) will,
upon request, provide a forum for project sponsors prior to the initiation of the formal siting
review process. Sponsors will have the opportunity to present proposed projects involving,
essential public facilities for the purpose of seeking information on potential sites within
Snohomish County and about potential concerns related to siting. Sponsors may also
propose possible incentives for host communities.
Through the PAC/ICC, local jurisdictions may be requested to provide information to
sponsors regarding potential sites within their communities. The sponsor of an eligible
project electing to utilize this siting process may initiate this communication by contacting
Snohomish County Tomorrow and requesting aid in the siting of its proposed facility.
3. Local Land Use Review. Following site consultation with the PAC and/or the ICC (when
at step is taken by the sponsor), the sponsor may then apply for site approval with the local
land use or permit authority, as required under local law. The local jurisdiction shall conduct
its review as required by this common siting process, as well its own codes and ordinances.
This shall include the conduct of public hearings required for any land use action which may
be needed by the proposal, including comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, conditional
use permit, or similar approval.
The local authority shall evaluate the proposal against the common siting criteria described
herein, as well as against any local criteria generally applicable to the type of action required,
in making its land use decision on the project proposal. Where no local land use action is
required the sponsor may proceed directly to the permit application stage.
Page 3
Interlocal Agreement to Implement Common
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
4. Advisory Review Process. ' The local land use authority's decision, as it relates to matters
encompasses y e si evaluation criteria described below, is subject to an advisory review
process as provided herein. This process, if utilized, would occur prior to any appeal
processes already provided by local ordinance.
Within 21 days following the decision by the local land use authority required ty re q to approve the
proposal, an advisory review process may be utilized by the sponsor involving a 3 - member
advisory review board appointed by the Snohomish County Tomorrow Executive Board.
Qualifications for board members, as well as procedures for board creation and conduct of
board business shall be governed by written guidelines to be established by Snohomish
County Tomorrow, provided that no official or employee of .Snohomish County or any local
jurisdiction within Snohomish County shall be a board .member.
The advisory review board shall not have the authority to overturn a local decision. The
board, on a review of the record, shall only find that the local decision does or does not
accurately reflect the evidence provided by the sponsor, or that adequate consideration was or
was not given to the evaluation criteria, and may recommend to the local agency that it
reconsider its decision.
A recommended alternative for host communities and sponsors would be to use arbitration as
the final recourse for resolution of differences. In cases where this option is agreed to in
advance, a pre- selected arbitrator would serve as the appeal agent for these parties.
Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the administrative appeal or legal remedies
otherwise available to sponsors, host communities or third parties.
5. Permit Application. Upon receipt of the required land use approvals by the local land use
authority, the sponsor may then apply for the required permits to construct the proposed
facility. When a permit is denied for reasons relating to this siting process, the permitting
authority will submit in writing the reasons for permit denial to the sponsor.
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria will be utilized by all county and city review authorities in evaluating
siting proposals made by sponsoring agencies seeking to site an essential public facility (EPF) in
Snohomish County. The sponsor shall provide the information needed for the reviewing body to
evaluate a site(s) and make a recommendation or decision on a specific proposal. These criteria
encompass an evaluation of regional need and local site suitability for the proposed and
designated essential public facility. Findings concerning the proposal's conformance with each
criterion shall be included in the documentation of the local authority's decision.
1. Documentation of Need. Project sponsors must demonstrate the need for their proposed
PFs. Included in a analysis of need should be the projected service population, an
inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities and projected demand for this type of
essential public facility.
Page 4
Interlocal Agreement to Implement Common
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
2. Consistency with Sponsor's Plans. The proposed project should be consistent with the
sponsor's own long-range p for facilities and operations.
3. Consistenc with Other Plans. The proposal must demonstrate the relationship of the project
to ocal, regional and state plans. The proposal should be consistent with the comprehensive
plan and other adopted plans of the prospective host community. In evaluating this
consistency, consideration shall be given to urban growth area designations and critical area
designations, population and employment holding capacities and targets, and the land use,
capital facilities and utilities elements of these adopted plans.
4. Relationship of Service Area to Population. The facility's service area population should
include a significant share of e ost community's population, and the proposed site should
be able to reasonably serve its over -all service area population. [Note: linear transmission
facilities are exempt from this criterion]
5. Minimum Site Requirements. Sponsors shall submit documentation showing the minimum
iR g requirements for the proposed facility. Site requirements may be determined by the
following factors: minimum size of the facility, access, support facilities, topography,
geology, and mitigation needs. The sponsor shall also identify future expansion needs of the
facility.
6. Alternative Site Selection. In general, the project sponsor should search for and
investigate altematiVe sites before submitting a proposal for siting review. Additionally, the
proposal should indicate whether any alternative sites have been identified that meet the
minimum site requirements of the facility. The sponsor's site selection methodology will also
be reviewed. Where a proposal involves expansion of an existing facility, the documentation
should indicate why relocation of the facility to another site would be infeasible.
7. Concentration of Essential Public Facilities. In considering a proposal, the local review
agency will examine the overall concentration of essential public facilities within Snohomish
County to avoid placing an undue burden on any one community.
8. Public Partici ation. Sponsors should encourage local public participation, particularly by
any cted parties outside of the host community's corporate limits, in the development of
the proposal, including mitigation measures. Sponsors should conduct local outreach efforts
with early notification to prospective neighbors to inform them about the project and. to
engage local residents in site planning and mitigation design prior to the initiation of formal
hearings. The sponsor's efforts in this regard should be evaluated.
9. Consistenc y with Local Land Use Regulations. The proposed facility must conform to
ocal land use and zoning regulations that are consistent with the County -wide Planning
Policies. Compliance with other applicable local regulations shall also be required.
10. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. The sponsor's documentation should
demonstrate that the site, as eve oped or a proposed project, will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
Page 5
Interlocal Agreement to Implement Common
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
11. Proposed Impact Mitigation. The proposal must include adequate and appropriate mitigation
measures for the Hpacte areas) and community(ies). Mitigation measures may include,
but are not limited to, natural features that will be preserved or created to serve as buffers,
other site design elements used in the development plan, and/or operational or other
programmatic measures contained in the proposal. The proposed measures should be
adequate to substantially reduce or compensate for anticipated adverse impacts on the local
environment.
AMENDMENTS
This siting process may be amended, upon recommendation by the Snohomish County
Tomorrow Steering Committee, through established procedures for amending the comprehensive
plan in accordance with local code and the State Growth Management Act.
Page .6
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON, 1 S.S.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH f
of the ity of amonas, Washington
On the 11th day of December, 2001, the City Council of
the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3388. A
summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of f !
The undersigned, being first dui sworn on oath deposes and says that she is
l � � g y P y
the title, provides as follows:
AN OR INA NGTTON, AMENDING THE OF ICITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published
PLAN, CAPITAL FA ILITIES ELEMENT TO ADOPT A.
PAN
COMMSIN g, NU NTIAL PUBLIC
FACILITIES, DIRECTING AMENDMENT THEREOF IN
in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME'
EFFECTIVE.
said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and
full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon'
gqThe
I.
feDATED this 12th day of December, 2001.
State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Published: December 18, 2001.
- _— —
of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
City of Edmonds
Summary of Ordinance No. 3386
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper
proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said
paper on the following days and times, namely:
December 18, 2001
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during
all of said eriod.
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th
day of December, 2001
,NliilElpBB`a�
bbd
O
No Publ c in and for the State of Washi�t n; rung
Everett, omish County. 6 IVp t
S. s:
RY m
Cn : rn e
MR S C E t V E D v '•�, pv$erc �eee.
r9, Zoo,
DEC 1 9 2001
��0606P,64��a
EDMONDS CITY CLERK