Chapter 20.16
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Sections:
20.16.010 Purpose and applicability.
20.16.020 Definitions.
20.16.030 Conditional use permit required.
20.16.040 Optional site consultation process.
20.16.045 Interjurisdictional siting.
20.16.050 EPF conditional use permit procedure.
20.16.060 Independent consultant review.
20.16.070 Decision criteria.
20.16.080 Decision criteria – EPFs proposed by a regional agency with jurisdiction.
20.16.090 Denial of regional EPF – Limitations.
20.16.100 Permit approval – Suspension or revocation.
20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal.
20.16.120 Decision timing.
20.16.130 Building permit application.
20.16.010 Purpose and applicability.
A. This chapter establishes the city's reivew process for essential public facilities in order to support orderly growth and delivery of public services. The city's goal in promulgating the regulations under this chapter is to ensure the timely, efficient and appropriate siting of EPFs while simultaneously acknowledging and mitigating the significant community impacts often created by such facilities. This chapter also seeks to promote enhanced public participation that will produce EPF siting decisions consistent with community goals.
B. Nothing in this chapter should be construed as an attempt by the city to preclude the siting of essential public facilities in contravention of applicable state law. The chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the city's statutory obligations.
C. The siting process established by this chapter does not apply to “secure community transition facilities” as defined under Chapter 71.09 RCW, or to residential health and social service facilities protected by state or federal law as residential uses permitted in residential zones. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.020 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this chapter:
A. “City” means the city of Edmonds, Washington.
B. “Department” means the city of Edmonds development services department.
C. “Director” means the city of Edmonds development services director.
D. “Essential public facility” or “EPF” means a facility:
1. Listed in RCW 36.70A.200;
2. Appearing on the list maintained by the State Office of Financial Management pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200(4);
3. Designated in the city's comprehensive plan;
4. Designated by a regional agency with jurisdiction; and/or
5. Owned or operated by a unit of local or state government, a public utility or transportation company, or any other entity under contract to a unit of local or state government to provide an essential public facility.
E. “Regional essential public facility” or “regional EPF” means a project designated as an EPF and sited by a bona fide regional agency acting within its legally constituted authority and geographical jurisdiction.
F. “Project sponsor” means the proponent and/or applicant for an essential public facility. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.030 Conditional use permit required.
All EPFs shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. An EPF shall be considered a conditional use in all zones of the city. In the event of a conflict with any other ECDC provision, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.040 Optional site consultation process.
Prior to submitting a conditional use permit application under this chapter, an EPF sponsor may initiate optional site consultation with the department. This consultation process, while not required, is encouraged as a means for project sponsors to present facility proposals, seek information about potential sites, and propose possible siting incentives and mitigation measures. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.045 Interjurisdictional siting.
In the event that the city has executed an interlocal agreement with one or more other jurisdictions regarding the siting of EPFs of a regional or state-wide nature, the city shall cooperate fully and in good faith with said jurisdictions to the extent specified in the interlocal agreement; provided, that nothing in this section nor in any such interlocal agreement shall be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise abridging the city's regulatory authority. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.050 EPF conditional use permit procedure.
A. Application for EPF conditional use approval shall be made pursuant to ECDC 20.90.010, as consistent with this chapter. Approval, conditional approval or denial of the project sponsor's application shall be made by the city of Edmonds hearing examiner after a public hearing.
B. The conditional use permit application shall include a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement in the siting decision and to assist in determining possible mitigation measures. Informational public meetings within the city shall be scheduled pursuant to this process; the number of meetings shall be set by the director consistent with the size, complexity and estimated impacts of the proposal. The director shall determine the format and location(s) for the meetings, and shall require that public notice and meeting summaries acceptable to the city shall be either prepared or paid for by the EPF sponsor.
C. In addition to the conditional use permit application fee, and all costs required by the public participation plan specified in subsection (B) of this section, an additional fee of $5,000 shall be required for the additional costs associated with review of the application under the criteria established in ECDC 20.16.070. Facilities for the disabled or other populations for whom the city is required to consider for accommodation of its rules, practices and procedures under the requirements of state and/or federal law may apply for a reduction of this fee pursuant to Chapter 17.05 ECDC to a level consistent with the administrative burden placed upon the city's resources. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.060 Independent consultant review.
A. The director may require independent consultant review of the proposal to assess its compliance with the criteria contained in ECDC 20.16.070 and 20.16.080.
B. If such independent consultant review is required, the project sponsor shall make a deposit with the department sufficient to defray the cost of such review. Said deposit shall be separate from and in addition to any other fee paid by this chapter. The deposit shall be set at a level consistent with the anticipated cost of review based on the size, complexity and estimated impacts of the proposal. The deposit shall be supplemented by the applicant from time to time to ensure payment of the reasonable cost of consultant review. Any unexpended funds shall be returned to the applicant following the final decision on the application. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.070 Decision criteria.
An application for EPF conditional use permit approval shall comply with all other applicable requirements for the proposed use – including SEPA and design review, as applicable – and the following decision criteria:
A. The project sponsor has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by a detailed written analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed.
B. The project will reasonably serve the project's overall service population. Regional EPFs shall comply, in the alternative, with ECDC 20.16.080(A)(1) and (2).
C. The project sponsor has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology, as verified by the city and reviewed by associated jurisdictions and agencies.
D. The project is consistent with the sponsor's own long-range plans for facilities and operations, as well as the plans of those jurisdictions and agencies that may also be participating in a facilities plan.
E. The project sponsor's public participation plan has provided an opportunity for public participation in the siting decision and mitigation measures that is appropriate in light of the project's scope.
F. The project will not result in a disproportionate burden of essential public facilities on a particular geographic area, whether upon the city as a whole or upon any neighborhood of the city.
G. The project is consistent and compatible with the city's comprehensive plan, city-wide planning policies and local land use regulations. In the alternative, proponents of a regional EPF may show that it was sited in accord with the planning process of a regional entity. (See also ECDC 20.16.080(B).)
H. The project site meets the facility's minimum physical site requirements, including projected expansion needs. Site requirements may be determined by the minimum size of the facility, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and on-site mitigation needs. The project sponsor shall identify future expansion needs of the proposed facility during the initial environmental review and the phasing of additional needs early in the process.
I. The project site, as developed with the proposed facility and under the proposed mitigation plan, is compatible with surrounding land uses, to the extent that compatibility is technically and practically feasible.
J. The project sponsor has proposed mitigation measures that substantially avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse impacts on the environment, including but not limited to buffers, design elements and other operational or programmatic measures contained in the proposal.
K. The project sponsor has identified and proposed mitigation measures that substantially avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse fiscal impacts on the city. This mitigation shall be based on an analysis of the project's impact on city finances. This requirement may be waived by the director if she/he finds that the EPF is unlikely to have a significant fiscal impact on the city, or that the burden of undertaking the analysis is not consistent with the scale and community-based nature of the facility being proposed. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.080 Decision criteria – EPFs proposed by a regional agency with jurisdiction.
An application for conditional use permit approval for an essential public facility proposed by a regional agency with jurisdiction shall additionally or alternatively, as applicable, comply with the following site decision criteria:
A. The project sponsor has established that it is a regional agency with jurisdiction. For the purpose of this chapter, “jurisdiction” shall mean within the boundaries of a regional agency's legal and physical jurisdiction as determined by the laws of the state of Washington or its charter. A claim of jurisdiction based upon service area shall meet the following criteria:
1. The project must serve a significant share of the Edmonds population or a significant portion of the land area of the city of Edmonds must lie within the regional agency service area; and
2. The proposed site must reasonably serve the project's overall service population and the service population or service area lying within the city of Edmonds.
B. The site has been designated through a collaborative process which involved representatives of the city of Edmonds, duly appointed by the city, and through a public hearing process which was reasonably calculated to reach the citizens of the city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.090 Denial of regional EPF – Limitations.
Under the Growth Management Act, city ordinances shall not preclude the siting of an essential public facility of any kind. The purpose of this chapter is to impose reasonable conditions upon siting, not to preclude EPFs through denial.
A conditional use permit for an essential public facility project proposed by a regional agency with jurisdiction shall be denied only if: The proposed project conflicts with the proposed use of a particular site by another regional agency with jurisdiction. In the event of a conflict, at least the following factors shall be considered:
A. Which proposal is most consistent with the city's comprehensive plan;
B. Which proposal best serves the broadest interests of the city and its citizens; and
C. Which proposal is first in time. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.100 Permit approval – Suspension or revocation.
If the project sponsor demonstrates compliance with the review criteria listed in ECDC 20.16.070 and satisfies the requirements for a conditional use permit and all other applicable requirements, the hearing examiner shall approve issuance of a conditional use permit for the proposed EPF. A conditional use permit issued for an EPF of any kind may be suspended or revoked if the sponsor fails to comply with the conditions of approval. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal.
Reconsideration of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be governed by ECDC 20.100.010. Appeal of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be governed by Chapter 20.105 ECDC. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.120 Decision timing.
Review, reconsideration and remand process shall not be used to preclude an EPF. Cost and delay do not, prima facie, make an EPF permit review process unfair and untimely, nor be deemed to preclude an EPF. A reasonable consideration schedule shall be established based on the size and complexity of EPF proposals. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.130 Building permit application.
A. Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to comply, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor.
B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF unless the applicant signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department's acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter.
C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report made to the director. The director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit the EPF's sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional use permit should not be revoked or further conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with ECDC 20.100.040(C); provided, however, that the hearing examiner's decision shall be final and appealable only to superior court pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act. [Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].