Chapter 17.200
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES1
Sections:
17.200.050 Applications for EPF projects.
17.200.060 CUP-EPF review criteria.
17.200.070 Building permit application.
17.200.080 Special provisions for secure community transition facilities (SCTFs).
17.200.090 Processing timelines.
17.200.100 CUP city council authority – Final decision.
17.200.020 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a siting process for essential public facilities (EPFs). This process involves the community and is intended to assist in the identification and minimization of adverse impacts.
B. Essential public facilities are defined in Chapter 17.06 MVMC. EPFs include, but are not limited to, those facilities which are difficult to site, such as airports, state educational facilities, state and regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities and in-patient facilities (including substance abuse and mental health facilities). The Growth Management Act mandates that no local development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Secure community transition facilities as defined in Chapter 17.06 MVMC are also included.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to waive the city’s rights to assert lead agency status to conduct environmental review under Washington State’s Environmental Policy Act pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC as now and hereafter amended. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.030 Scope.
A. This chapter establishes the criteria that the city shall use in making a decision upon an application for an EPF. The city’s director of community and economic development (director) shall develop a list of essential public facilities. These facilities shall meet the definition of essential public facilities under Chapter 17.06 MVMC. A use or facility may be added to the list of essential public facilities if the use meets the definition of an essential public facility. The list required by this section shall be filed and maintained with the city’s finance department.
B. This chapter shall serve to establish the process for permitting those uses determined to be EPFs and which satisfy the criteria set forth under MVMC 17.200.060. The director shall determine whether a proposed facility shall be reviewed as an EPF and subject to this review process. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.040 Procedure.
Applications that seek approval for an EPF as defined by Chapter 17.06 MVMC and listed under MVMC 17.200.030 shall follow the procedures established in Chapter 14.05 MVMC for a Type IV EPF conditional use permit process. In addition to the decision criteria described in MVMC 17.200.060, secure community transition facilities as defined in Chapter 17.06 MVMC shall also be consistent with the decision criteria described in MVMC 17.200.080. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.050 Applications for EPF projects.
All proposed projects determined to be EPFs shall be reviewed and conditioned in accordance with all requirements of the Mount Vernon Municipal Code including the conditional use permit procedure, set forth in this chapter and referred to as the CUP-EPF review procedure. All EPF applications shall contain the following information:
A. A detailed written description of the proposed and potential public services to be provided, including a proposed site plan, the proposed service area of the facility, the source or sources of funding, and identification of any applicable public regulatory agencies or regional state or federal project agency sponsors and the federal or state authority which the agency has been granted for siting decision-making; and
B. A written statement of the need, in statistical or narrative form, for the proposed project currently and over the following 10-year period; and
C. An inventory of known, existing or proposed facilities, by name and address, within Skagit County, or within the region, serving the same or similar needs as the proposed project; and
D. An explanation of the need and suitability for the proposed facility in the proposed city location(s); and
E. An assessment of the suitability of the proposed location in the city or another jurisdiction in terms of local, county, regional and/or state needs in order to minimize public costs (where appropriate) and environmental impacts, to discern the suitability of the facility’s location in the city or within another jurisdiction, to determine the number of jurisdictions affected or served by the proposed EPF, and to decide what, if any, inter-jurisdictional approach is most appropriate or available; and
F. An analysis of the environmental, social, economic, financial and infrastructure impacts of the proposed EPF, including an assessment of the proportionate financial impacts on affected jurisdictions, consideration copies of agreements which allocate the financial burdens of the proposed project on the city and other jurisdictions, and the approximate area within which the proposed project could potentially have adverse impacts, such as increased traffic, public safety risks, noise, glare, emissions, or other environmental impacts; and
G. An analysis of the proposal’s consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan and development regulations, and plans and policies of other affected jurisdictions, including but not limited to Skagit County county-wide planning policies; and
H. Documentation of public involvement efforts to date, including public and agency comments received, and plans for future public participation; and
I. All application materials required by other chapters of the Mount Vernon Municipal Code for components of the project not covered by this chapter; such as platting requirements, critical area code compliance, traffic concurrency, comprehensive plan and zoning, etc., so that code compliance for all components of the project can be reviewed together; and
J. Such information as requested by the director as determined necessary to complete the preliminary analysis or to otherwise assist the director, staff, and the hearing examiner in making recommendation(s) and the city council in making the final determination on the CUP-EPF. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.060 CUP-EPF review criteria.
A. Essential public facilities shall be subject to classification and identification as follows:
1. Type One – Regional EPFs. These are major essential public facilities that provide public services to more than one county and where the provider has statutory authority to site and construct the facility and where a regional, inter-governmental siting process has been followed. These facilities may include, but are not limited to, regional transportation facilities, such as regional airports; state correction facilities; and state educational facilities.
2. Type Two – Local EPFs. These are local or inter-local facilities serving residents or property in Skagit County. A “local EPF” means an essential public facility that is not a regional EPF.
3. To enable the city to determine the project’s classification, any public or private entity proposing to site an EPF in the city shall provide the application materials set forth in MVMC 17.200.050 to the director once it is known that the EPF is likely or required to be built.
4. The director shall review the application upon receipt and determine whether the proposed project shall be identified as an EPF and if so whether the EPF shall be classified as a regional EPF or local EPF. A determination shall be made within 45 days following the director’s written notice to applicant of receipt of sufficient material and information set forth in MVMC 17.200.050. The director shall provide notice of determination to the applicant and publish notice of the determination in a newspaper of general circulation within Skagit County.
5. The director’s determination shall be an administrative determination subject to appeal and procedures established in Chapter 14.05 MVMC for a Type II hearing examiner administrative appeal process.
B. Notification and involvement of community and jurisdictions for EPFs shall be as follows:
1. Type One Facilities. In addition to such other notice as may be required by law before the siting decision, and at least 90 days before submitting an application for a Type one essential public facility, the prospective applicant shall notify the affected public and jurisdictions of the general type and nature of the proposal, identify sites under consideration for accommodating the proposed facility, and identify opportunities to comment on the proposal. Applications for specific projects shall not be considered complete in the absence of proof of a published notice and notice to the city regarding the proposed project. Published notice shall be in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. This notice shall include the information described above and shall be published at least 90 days prior to the submission of the application. It is expected that an environmental impact statement may be required for most type one facilities in accordance with the SEPA environmental review process. Nothing from the section will preclude the city from consulting with the Skagit County Council of Governments who may provide the project sponsor and affected jurisdictions with their comments or recommendations regarding alternative project locations during this process. The purpose of this provision is to enable potentially affected jurisdictions and the public to collectively review and comment on alternative sites for major facilities before the project sponsor has made their siting decision. Facilities identified and sited in the city’s comprehensive plan shall be considered to have enabled potentially affected jurisdictions and the public to collectively review and comment on alternative sites.
2. Type Two Facilities. Type two essential public facilities shall be required to provide a notice of application as required by Chapter 14.05 MVMC in addition to any standard notification requirements for conditional uses.
C. Conditional Use Permit Required.
1. An EPF shall be a conditional use in all zones. In the event of a conflict with any other provision within the Mount Vernon Municipal Code, the provisions of this section shall govern.
2. In addition to the conditional use permit other development review permits might be necessary depending upon the site that is selected. For example, a plat or critical area mitigation could be necessary.
3. An EPF application and approval process shall satisfy the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 17.108 MVMC except MVMC 17.108.030 and shall be subject to appeal and the procedures established in Chapter 14.05 MVMC for a Type IV conditional use permit.
4. In addition to the conditional use permit application fee, an additional cost reimbursement agreement with the applicant may be required for additional costs, including but not limited to costs for independent consultant review set forth in subsection D of this section, associated with review of an EPF application under the criteria established in this chapter.
D. Independent Consultant Review.
1. The department may require independent consultant review of the proposal to assess its compliance with the decision criteria contained in this chapter.
2. If independent consultant review is required, the applicant shall deposit funds or other security in an amount and in a form acceptable to director to defray the cost of such review. Unexpended funds will be returned to the applicant following the final decision on the application without interest.
E. Decision Criteria For Type One Facilities – Regional Essential Public Facilities. The hearing examiner must recommend approval or recommend approval with conditions; and the city council must approve or approve with conditions, a conditional use permit for a Type one EPF in accordance with the following criteria:
1. The sponsor has provided a meaningful opportunity for public participation in the siting decision and development of mitigation measures that is appropriate in light of the project’s scope, applicable requirements of the county code, and state or federal law;
2. The proposal complies with applicable requirements of Chapter 17.108 MVMC and all other applicable provisions of the city code except MVMC 17.108.030;
3. The proposal shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and types of uses of the underlying zoning of the proposed site including being consistent with the environmental impacts of the underlying zoning permitted uses;
4. The project site meets the facility’s minimum physical site requirements, including projected expansion needs. Site requirements shall be determined by the minimum size of the facility, setbacks, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and on-site mitigation needs;
5. The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates significant adverse impacts to life, limb, property, the environment, public health and safety, transportation systems, economic development and other identified impacts;
6. The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates for any probable significant adverse impact on critical areas or resource lands, except for lineal facilities, such as highways, where no feasible alternative exists;
7. The proposal incorporates specific features to ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or planned character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property; and
8. The project sponsor has proposed mitigation measures that are consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, Chapter 8.26 RCW, Chapter 486-100 WAC as now and hereafter amended when otherwise required by law.
F. Decision Criteria for Type Two Facilities – Local Essential Public Facilities. The hearing examiner may recommend approval, or condition his/her recommendation for approval; and the city council may approve, or condition its approval of a conditional use permit for a local EPF only when the proposal meets all of the following criteria:
1. The proposal shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and types of uses of the underlying zoning of the proposed site including being consistent with the environmental impacts of the underlying zoning permitted uses;
2. The project applicant has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by an analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed;
3. If applicable, the project would serve a significant share of the city’s population, and the proposed site will reasonably serve the project’s overall service population;
4. The applicant has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology;
5. The project is consistent with the applicant’s own long-range plans for facilities and operations;
6. The project has fewer impacts in the particular geographic area in contrast with other available locations;
7. The applicant has provided a meaningful opportunity for public participation in the siting decision and development of mitigation measures that is appropriate in light of the project’s scope, applicable requirements of the city code, and state or federal law;
8. The proposal complies with applicable requirements of all other applicable provisions of the city code;
9. The project site meets the facility’s minimum physical site requirements, including projected expansion needs. Site requirements shall be determined by the minimum size of the facility, setbacks, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and on-site mitigation needs;
10. The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates significant adverse impacts to life, limb, property, the environment, public health and safety, transportation systems, economic development and other identified impacts;
11. The proposal shall not have any probable significant adverse impact on critical areas or resource lands, except for lineal facilities, such as highways, where no feasible alternative exists;
12. The proposal incorporates specific features to ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or planned character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property;
13. Major public facilities which generate substantial traffic should be sited near major transportation corridors;
14. The project sponsor has proposed mitigation measures that are consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, Chapter 8.26 RCW, Chapter 486-100 WAC as now and hereafter amended when otherwise required by law;
15. The proposal will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity;
16. The proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific features, conditions, or revisions that ensures it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property; and
17. Parity exists with the uses permitted in the same general area in their freedom from nuisance generating features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic, physical hazards, and similar matters. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.070 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, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor.
B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to approval of a conditional use permit for an 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 hold the city harmless and accept all financial risk associated with preparing and submitting construction plans before a final decision is made under this chapter. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.080 Special provisions for secure community transition facilities (SCTFs).
A. The purpose and intent of this section is to establish standards for secure community transition facilities (SCTFs) in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW, and to maintain compatibility with other land uses and services permitted within the city. The standards in this section apply to all SCTFs in addition to the conditional use permit process set forth under Chapter 14.05 MVMC and criteria set forth MVMC 17.200.060; the standards of this section are not subject to variance.
B. SCTFs conforming with the standards set forth below (in addition to approval under standards set forth pursuant to MVMC 17.200.060 criteria for EPFs) may be approved by conditional use permit. The following additional siting criteria applies to SCTFs:
1. SCTFs should be located near transit facilities, as appropriate.
2. No SCTF shall be permitted within one mile from any existing SCTF, work release, prerelease, or similar facilities, and shall not result in disproportionate grouping of similar facilities pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(8) and (9).
3. On-Site Facilities Required. Each SCTF shall have the capability to provide on-site dining, on-site laundry or laundry service, and on-site recreation facilities to serve the residents.
4. SCTFs shall not be permitted adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a conditional use is applied for consideration. “Risk potential activity” or “risk potential facility” means an activity or facility that provides a higher incidence of risk to the public from persons conditionally released from the special commitment center. Risk potential activities and facilities include: Public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public and private parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, public libraries, public and private youth camps, and others identified by the department following the hearings on a potential site required in RCW 71.09.315. “Within the line of sight” means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals.
5. Siting of SCTFs shall be in accordance with the siting criteria of Chapter 71.09 RCW, and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. In addition, no SCTFs shall be sited closer than 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned or utilized property.
6. SCTFs shall provide the following staffing and security measures:
a. The owner and operator of the SCTF shall submit and maintain a plan for staffing, security measures, procedures for immediate public notification of escapes, and escapee search procedures (“the plan”), all in a form and content satisfactory to the director. The security measures shall indicate the types of security measures/facilities proposed for the SCTF including, but not limited to, constant electronic monitoring of residents, site security measures/equipment, and site access and control consistent with Chapter 71.09 RCW, unless otherwise ordered by a court. The plan, along with documentation of the director’s concurrence in or rejection of the plan, shall be included in materials submitted to and reviewed by the hearing examiner; provided, that the security plan made part of the public record shall not be in such detail that security of the facility would be compromised.
b. The owner and operator of the SCTF shall enter into a contract with the city, in a form and content satisfactory to the city attorney, committing the owner and operator to comply with and maintain the plan for the life of the facility.
c. The applicant shall install an eight-foot high fence, in character with the surrounding area, between the facility and all property boundaries. This fence shall be set back at least 10 feet from the property boundaries and Type II landscaping as defined within Chapter 17.93 MVMC shall be installed between the property boundary and the fence. The hearing examiner may waive or lessen this requirement upon finding that due to existing site features or the type or character of adjoining uses, the privacy and security of the occupants of adjoining properties can be maintained in the absence of a fence or with a lower fence, or with reduced landscaping requirements.
d. The facility shall have a backup power source.
7. The total number of SCTF beds in a SCTF shall be no greater than the total number of beds required be sited in a county under RCW 71.09.250(7)(a). The number of SCTF beds in a proposed SCTF shall be reduced below the maximum number required in a county when public safety and security considerations including site characteristics, program components, average response time of emergency services to the general area, and proximity of proposed site to risk activity exists and alternative siting is available elsewhere within the county.
C. Application Materials. In addition to the regular application materials required for a land use review pursuant to Chapter 14.05 MVMC and MVMC 17.200.050, an application for an SCTF shall also include:
1. The siting process used for the SCTF, including alternative locations considered.
2. An analysis showing that consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will not result in a concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region.
3. Proposed mitigation measures, including the use of buffering from adjoining uses.
4. A general overview of planned security for the facility.
5. A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process.
6. Notice of the application to all property owners and occupants of record within one mile of the proposed site. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.090 Processing timelines.
A. Notice of the city council final decision following the public hearings on a project permit application shall be issued within 120 days from when the permit application is determined by the director to be technically complete for processing.
B. In determining the number of days that have elapsed after an application is technically complete, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the city asks the applicant to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the city mails notification to the applicant of the need for additional information until the date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information, or 28 days after the applicant supplies the information to the city, whichever is earlier. If the information submitted by the applicant under this subsection is insufficient, the city shall mail notice to the applicant of the deficiencies and the provisions of this subsection shall apply as if a new request for information had been made;
2. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared;
3. The period specified for administrative appeals of project permits;
4. Any period during which processing of an application is suspended pursuant to verification of compliance of required notice requirements; and
5. Any period of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city.
C. The time periods established by this section shall not apply to a project permit application:
1. That requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation to obtain approval;
2. That is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case a new 120-day time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete;
3. That requires approval of a development agreement by the city council;
4. When the applicant consents to an extension; or
5. During any period necessary for reconsideration of a hearing examiner’s recommendation.
D. The city shall notify the applicant in writing if a notice of final decision on the project has not been made within the time limits specified in this section. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date of issuance of a notice of final decision.
E. Failure of the city to make a final decision within the timelines specified by this chapter shall not create liability for damages. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
17.200.100 CUP city council authority – Final decision.
A. The designated hearing body, giving substantial weight to the recommendations of the staff report, shall review the application under the following criteria:
1. Whether the proposed action as recommended by city staff and the hearing examiner is consistent with the criteria established under MVMC 17.200.060 and 17.200.080 if applicable;
2. Whether modifications to recommended conditions or restrictions, if any, are adequate to mitigate impacts in a manner which meets the standards of this code and any related development agreement; and
3. Whether project conditions cumulatively are reasonable and would not preclude development of the EPF.
B. Recognizing that RCW 36.70A.200(2) prohibits the city from precluding the siting of an essential public facility, if the permit application proposes siting of a project in a location other than the city’s preferred location as recommended by city staff or otherwise designated under the city’s comprehensive plan or this title, the applicant shall present information as to why the city’s preferred location, rather than the location applied for, will preclude development of the project. The applicant shall provide any engineering, financial and other studies and information necessary to explain its position; unless it has already done so through the comprehensive planning process. However, financial studies will not be required for linear transportation projects, such as roads and highways, proposed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The city council, with additional analysis and input from city staff and the hearing examiner, if requested, shall make findings and a decision as to whether siting the project at the city’s preferred location would be impossible, impracticable, or otherwise preclusive. The said findings and decision shall not be deemed, however, to preclude the authority of a regional decision-making body, under law now existing or subsequently amended, to determine where a regional EPF shall be sited, assuming applicable laws and legal requirements are complied with. This section shall not apply to the siting of SCTFs.
C. As a condition of approval pursuant to MVMC 17.200.060, the hearing examiner may recommend and the city council may:
1. Increase requirements in the standards, criteria, or policies established by this title;
2. Stipulate the exact location as a means of minimizing hazards to life or limb, property damage, impacts to the environment, erosion, underground collapse, landslides, or transportation systems;
3. Impose conditions necessary to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts identified as a result of the project;
4. Require the posting of construction and maintenance bonds sufficient to secure to the city the estimated cost of construction, installation and maintenance of required improvements;
5. Impose any requirement that will protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
6. Impose conditions as may be deemed necessary to establish parity with uses permitted in the same zone in their freedom from nuisance generating features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic, physical hazards, and similar matters. (Ord. 3425 § 3, 2008).
Prior legislation: Ord. 3386.