04-014 Siting of Essential Public Facilities 3 3 TERLOCAL AGREEMENT
�N •
regarding
Siting of Essential Public Facilities
within Spokane County
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act(GMA), RCW 36.70A.200,requires that no local
comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities;
and
WHEREAS, the GMA was amended in 2001 to expand the definition of essential public
facilities to include secure community transition facilities for civilly committed sexual offenders;and
WHEREAS, the GMA was also amended in 2002 to include a September 1, 2002 deadline for
all cities and counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040 to establish a process, or amend their existing
process, for identifying and siting essential public facilities and adopt or amend development
regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County require the Steering
Committee of Elected Officials to identify or establish siting and service delivery criteria for locating
essential public facilities (CWPP 6.2)and implement a process for the equitable distribution of
essential public facilities (CWPP 6.3); and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 1995,the Steering Committee of Elected Officials adopted the
Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee's recommended equitable distribution philosophy, a
more detailed Countywide Planning Policy definition of an essential public facility and a definition of
public service obligation; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1996, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials approved the •
Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee's recommendation for the Model Project Review
Process for the Siting of Essential Public Facilities, Tnterjurisdictional Consistency Review Process,
and Inventory; and
WHEREAS, in 2001-2002, the Essential Public Facilities Task Force, with assistance from the
Office of Community Development (OCD),the Department of Social and Health Services(DSHS),
and technical staff from the jurisdictions, developed a regional siting process for essential public
facilities titled Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities is based
on the recommendations in the Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee
Report approved by the GMA Steering Committee of Elected Officials on•May 3, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities is the
product of a concerted effort on the part of the Spokane County Essential Public Facilities Task Force
and all jurisdictions within the county to respond to recent amendments to the GMA; and
12/02/02--lnieriocai A;irei:rneni to inhtt31ement 111E
5JG{on? O Mitii! P rt:.r�5 •. Ft as.et:1;a<<iJllc Facilities ��n_
i of
3 0136
t.
WHEREAS, the Essential Public Facilities Task Force and all jurisdictions within Spokane
County have continually sought consultation from affected agencies and provided them with
opportunities for input throughout the course of creating the Spokane County Regional Siting Process
for Essential Public Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities will
adequately provide for an objective location analysis, equitable distribution of essential public
facilities throughout the county, and opportunities for input from affected agencies,jurisdictions and
the general public; and
WHEREAS, all parties hereto acknowledge that state and federal laws regarding siting
requirements for certain types of essential public facilities will take precedence over the Spokane
County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and
WHEREAS,all parties hereto acknowledge that state and federal laws providing protections for
housing for children in custody of the state or for persons with handicaps as defined under the Federal
Fair Housing Act will take precedence over the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential
Public Facilities;
THEREFORE, Spokane County and the other signatory jurisdictions hereto hereby agree to the
following regarding siting essential public facilities of a statewide or regional/countywide
significance:
(1) Unless it is otherwise preempted by state or federal laws, the Spokane County Regional Siting
Process for Essential Public Facilities("Regional Siting Process") will apply to any and all future
efforts to site an essential public facility of statewide or regional/countywide significance within
Spokane County.
(2) All jurisdictions will fully participate and cooperate in the implementation of the Regional Siting
Process. •
(3) The Regional Siting Process shall be implemented according to the administrative procedures
outlined in Attachment "A"hereto,which is incorporated herein by this reference.
(4) Both the Regional Siting Process and this lnterlocal Agreement are hereby endorsed in their
current form with the understanding that they may also be amended from time to time, as need be.
Amendment procedures shall include opportunities for public input, as required.
Adoption and attest pages follow, in alphabetical order, for all jurisdictions involved.
•
•
12,02/02 —Inierlocal Agreement to trnplerre+lt the
Spokane County Regional Siting P!c.esss for Esse:klial.Public Facie 2 of 16
DATED: S/ 6o/�,47)/ For the City of Spokane Valley:
. 10)1
tossomifili
04i(�,�FO,K,q��,,• David Mercier, , Mme- City Manager
O, aPO
.GO R,�. L•
V: SEAL ATTEST:RATED
Z� '' ' 31
ti�ir �NC tO `�``` Bainbridge
City Clerk
Christine Bainbrid e
•
12102/02-lnterlocal Agreement to implement the
Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essentie Public F cilfites Page 14 of 16
��.
DATED: I 4g• For the City of Airway Heights:
Lars E. Gare, City ager
ATTEST:
• 1.2. -• ArSif
De .1 K.Hannon, City Clerk-Treasurer
12:02,102 Arrterlocat Acycemeili to impitlrileni
$pokane Cu rilv Regiorat Stiig fc,r Esscriiat Putt PI4ce 3 of 16
DATED: January 14, 2003 For the City of Cheney:
/7?-?-71."7-/
Amy Jo Sooy, a��<!�
ATTEST:
o..
Grant Murie, City Clerk
12/02102—Interlocal Agreement to implement the
Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities Page 4 of 16
•
Adopted this it( day of .c„ymi3t:rz , 200 24.by the City Council of the City
of Deer Park.
6r\\kk0,1
Michael D. Wolfe, Mayor
L
ATTEST:
ST:
0• lie Busch, City Clerk
If deemed applicable by the City Council, the following also applies:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
M. Dave Burdega, City Attorney
•
Interlocal Agreement I 1-22-02
Siting of Essential Public Facilities in Spokane County
City of Deer Park,Adopt/Attest Page 3-3
rd
Adopted this day of .pu.,, ()___; 200 2-, by the City Council of the
Town of Fairfield.
e A. Taberner, Mayor
ATTEST:
�Cf•n (') C.ZAJ_J3
Susan Adams, Clerk-Treasurer
If deemed applicable by the City Council, the following also applies:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: a �
Brian Ragen, City Attorney
Interlocal Agreement I I-22-02
Siting of Essential Public Facilities in Spokane County
Town of Fairfield,Adopt/Attest Page 3-4
DATED: a do _ For the Town of Latah:
----
e../..--2 /
C'Edward Crockett, Mayor
ATTEST:
itfrtilit 6281/071
Kynda rowning, City Clerk 5
SPCA:I-UK! •.;t:,ardribl
JUL 1 5 2003
DIVISION OF P.:..A° itiNgiVel
-hilt.,11c.:11 rAcyclem.9n (as amenrind 4';`,T., ",-. 1 'CIO' .rr:Y•it tbe
Cf!Laity 0,11giGit'Jil SitiPg PM:r.c-liS t'..I! E.. ..C71 :11`. Pid.,: f;q r.: PiVIC:f.ij 0' 1
•
•
DATED: January 21, 2003 For the City o ib• ty T...
. 4141ara°t---
•v Peter .n, M yor
A1TEsT:
O.
Arlene Fisher, City Clerk
•
12/02102 -Interlace! Agreement to implement the 8
Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
Mar 15 04 11 : 39a Cit.' of Medical Lake 509 q65 5009 p. 2
DATED: 4)s 3 For the City of Medical Lake:
41
James • . it C :for
A EST:
pQ 1 a �RA0071�
Pamela A. McBroom, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cy is McMulle ity torney
•
The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original as the same appears of
record.
LdQ A
Pamela A. McBroom, finance Director/City Clerk
DATED: / ° 7_ For the Town of Millwood:
■
J mne Batson, Mayor
ATTEST:
'Eva L. Colomb,Clerk-Treasurer
•
12;02;02 Interlocal Agreement to imploment the
Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essentia Public Facilities Page 10 of 16
DATED: 61/1697 .53 For the Town of Rockford:
At
ATTEST:
Aor
-ne LaShaw, City Cl
- -
JUN 2 0 2003
owe:— • •
2/1)2112 .:-.1rr,eocieti 4,031 to:n•tp'ekr.ent the
Spokane, County RE:plc:will Sting Process QT ESSerittai PLYri'!'(:P.acliqies Page 9 01 16
Adopted this day of — Vie, , 200 by the City Council of the
Town of Spangle.
William H. Sievers, Mayor
ATTEST:
91,L,
Carol Hirschel, Clerk-Treasurer
•
if deemed applicable by the City Council, the following also applies:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: n /
Steven Jolley, City Attorney
•
Interlocal Agreement 11-22-02
Siting of Essential Public Facilities in Spokane County
Town of Spangle,Adopt/Attest Page • 3-9
DATED: Pbru4r7 06/30°3 For the City of Spokane:
6Ohn T. Powers, Mayor /
ATTEST:
•
Lf.; AP•■
4,1/
Tern Pfister, City d:rk
Approved as to form :
Assistant City Attorney
12/c2102—:rterocal Agreement to implement toe
Spocanie Counly Reglonal &tog Process ior EssentiarPubt frr:ar Nies Page 13 of 16
DATED: 6/26/0-3 For the Town of Waverly:
William Tensfeld, Mayo
ATTEST:
4-714/elitA07/01. 1
Kynda Btowning, City Clerk
-DPJ4Ty
JUL 1 5 2003
origsgoN
v.-LAMING
2 a2.02--rrit..erinc•at Apt ce.,rtent 1%a5 -,),!) to IcnrIente; t
';pnkanc, C:ourty RtNy4at Sikotta Process ci r.:-k:c;t:rIttal 1'
3 0136
DATED: rR/4 200_5 Board Of County Commissioners
Of Spokane County, Washington
John R.s r Iley,Chair
Q OF CO 4>11 ' C
•
. OH ECp� Oy �t� �-
• `• r 'hil ip .I•Iar is, Vice-Chair
, . •
+ SEAL •• 2�'
i+11 ` # 4 (
M. Kate McCa in, V ommissioner
ATTEST:
Vicky M. Dalton
Clerk of the Board
•
del.a-/ZO
/
By: Daniela Erickson,Deputy
•
12 02,02 --Intcrlocz, IA.;;eement to Implement the
S'ckan C.1untv F:occss for Esser.tial.l'ub;c Fae.iW;r ragr. 15 of 16
Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public
Facilities within Spokane County
ATTACHMENT "A": Administrative Procedures
The following is an outline of administrative procedures that apply to the Spokane
County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities, hereinafter referred to as
"Regional Siting Process." State and federal law containing procedural,hearing,
notification, or other administrative requirements for siting a particular type of essential
• public facility, will take precedence over the following requirements. In addition, the
•
following requirements shall not apply to the extent they would duplicate similar
requirements in state law.
•
•
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Lead Time:
There is nothing in the Regional Siting Process that would inherently require the
process to take more than 180 days. However, because essential public facilities
(EPFs) include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, a legitimate public
participation process must make allowances for the extended comment periods,
additional workshops, and continued hearings necessary to fully address the public's
concerns. The process for siting controversial facilities should allow enough lead time
to accommodate any unforeseen delays.
B. Public Involvement:
It is the applicant's responsibility to conduct an appropriate public participation
program for the Regional Siting Process. Public involvement is a key part of the
siting and decision process. While answers to some of the site selection criteria will
be fairly straightforward and objective, assessment of other criteria may require a
subjective judgment based on public opinion and community values. Some facilities •
are more controversial than others. To a large extent, the nature of the proposed
facility will determine the appropriate level and type of citizen participation in the
siting process.
Public comment may be submitted in response to any one of the published notices
regarding an EPF proposal. Review periods of thirty (30) days allow for comments
on the respective Functional and Qualitative Analysis. The Weighted Analysis
requires a major and multi-faceted public participation component. The Board of
County Commissioners of Spokane, Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Board")
hearing(s) on the Preferred Site List provides the final opportunity for public input
12;02/02 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures Interloca1 Agreement 1
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities within Spokane ;
County
51 -- (s
during the Regional Siting Process. Appendix B to the Regional Siting Process (sec
jurisdictions' adopted amendments) provides further guidelines and options for a
public involvement strategy.
C. Notification: -
It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all notices are published in a timely
manner and to provide written verification, in the form of an affidavit, that the
notification has been properly given. Publication is triggered by the completion of
each stage of the Location Analysis. Notices shall be published in the legal
newspaper of general circulation as noted in each subsection of this document. While
the time frames may vary from one proposal to another, each newspaper notice must
•
be published at least fourteen days in advance of any hearing of public meeting. •
Following publication of each notice, the applicant must provide the Spokane County
Division of Planning with a completed affidavit of publication. The applicant shall
publish the following Notices using forms for public notice included in the
application packet:
1. Notice of Application regarding EPF Proposal;
2. Notice of Availability of Functional Analysis regarding EPF Proposal;
3. Notice of Availability of Qualitative Analysis regarding EPF Proposal;
4. Notice of Availability of Weighted Analysis regarding EPF Proposal;
5. Notice of Hearing on EPF Proposal; and
6. Notice of Final Site Selection regarding EPF Proposal.
7.
ii. PROCEDURAL REQUX.REMEN`I'S
A. Determination of Appropriate Siting Process:
The Regional Siting Process outlined herein applies only to siting EPFs of statewide
or regional /countywide significance. EPFs of local significance will be sited
according to the process in place for each local jurisdiction. Although group homes
are listed as EPFs, siting of housing for children in custody of the state (not including
juveniles held in county criminal detention facilities or state juvenile institutions as
defined in RCW 13.40.020), or for persons with handicaps as defined under the
Federal Fair Housing Act, is exempt from the Regional Siting Process.
If a proposed facility is not included on an officially adopted state, regional, county or
local community essential public facilities list, a proponent or local jurisdiction
should request in writing that the Board determine whether or not it is an essential
public facility that is subject to the Regional Siting Process.
•
12.-02/'02 - Attachment"A": Administrative Procedures interloc-al Agreement. 2
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential public 'Facilities within Spokane
County
The Request for Determination of Appropriate Siting Process shall provide the
•
following information:
1. The nature or function of the proposed facility;
2. Whether the facility is publicly or privately owned;
3. Whether the facility is provided by or substantially funded by the government;
4. Probable impacts of the proposed facility;
5. The potential geographic area of adverse impact and public benefit;
6. The extent of public need for the services involved;
•
7. Whether the facility is necessary in order to meet a public service obligation;
and
S. Whether the facility is listed on an officially adopted state, regional, county or
local community essential public facilities list.
The Board will issue its written Determination of Appropriate Siting Process within a
reasonable amount of time but no longer than thirty(30)days after receiving a written
Request for Determination of Appropriate Siting Process. Both the Request and the
Determination shall become part of Spokane County Planning's record on this EPF
proposal. The Board's decision may be appealed to Spokane County Superior Court
or the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, whichever is
applicable,within the appropriate appeal time period as set forth in the applicable
statute.
B. Application:
If the Regional Siting Process applies, the next step is for the proponent to contact the
Spokane County Division of Planning for an application packet. The application
packet includes a General Application, a copy of the Regional Siting Process, a
procedural checklist, appropriate forms.to use for public notice, and affidavits of
publication. An application fee, as established by resolution of the Board, (to cover
processing and staff review) shall be submitted along with a completed application. It
is the applicant's responsibility to determine the time needed to conduct required
studies, provide additional information, and make revisions. The next step is for the
applicant to publish the Notice of Application regarding EPF Proposal.
If the applicant substantially modifies the proposal after the Notice of Application has
been published, the proposal shall be treated as a new application and required to start
again from the first step in the Regional Siting Process (Determination of Appropriate
Siting Process). However, this requirement does not apply to changes made to the
12x'02/02 - Attachment"A": Administrative Procedures Interlocal Agreement 3
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities within Spokane
County
1 — -C?
proposal as a direct result of comments on the proposal received during the Regional
Siting Process.
C. Notice of Application regarding EPF Proposal:
Opportunity for public comments begins with publication of the Notice of
Application regarding EPF Proposal. This notice contains the name of the proponent,
type of facility, who to contact with questions and how to get copies of the proposal.
It also restates the information found in the Request for Determination, and advises
the public of upcoming opportunities to comment; namely during the Functional,
Qualitative, and Weighted Analysis stages, as well as the Board's final public
hearing(s). This notice must be published in The Spokesman Review.
D. Location Analysis:
1. Functional Analysis:
a) The applicant is responsible for performing a Functional Analysis as the first
step in determining potential locations within Spokane County for the
proposed facility. As part of the Functional Analysis, the applicant shall
consider the siting requirements, legal requirements, and service delivery
criteria for the proposed
facility. The Regional
Siting Process contains a
list of additional objective Functional Analysis
/.)
criteria that the applicant (nnrnrirornantvl
may feel is relevant.
Comments addressed to the _ ------ -_
applicant from members of Qualitative Analysis
the public and affected (on 10 sites)
• agencies and jurisdictions ------------
may identify other factors
that need to be addressed
in the Functional Analysis.
Weighted
Analysis • Hearing en
b) The applicant shall detail (on 3 gars) Preferred
the assumptions and Site List
reasons for identifying t'sitcs)
objective criteria to be •
applied to the proposed Site
0
facility and the selected
methodology for fly
Applicaut
evaluating and scoring the
proposed facility with
respect to those criteria, 3 Stages of Location Analysis
12/02/02 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures Interlocul Agreement 4
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities within Spokane
County
and shall include this information as part of the initial submittal. The applicant
may employ resources needed to assist in site analysis, such as Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) information or equivalent geographic and
demographic data. However, a site assessment must be performed in order to
confirm the accuracy of such data, assess the potential for negative impacts
and identify possible mitigation strategies.
c) The purpose of the Functional Analysis is to assist the applicant in identifying
ten (10) potential sites for the proposed EPF. Further analysis shall focus on
these selected sites rather than the county as a whole.
• d) Once the applicant feels the Functional Analysis is complete, it shall publish a
Notice of Availability of Functional Analysis regarding EPF Proposal. This
•
notice shall recite the main findings of the Functional Analysis, summarizing
the evaluation criteria and identifying the selected semi-finalist sites and how
they ranked. It will also provide notice of the beginning and ending dates for
a comment period of thirty (30) days, indicating that copies of the Functional
. Analysis are available to the public and have been distributed to all
jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as all relevant agencies, affected
special purpose districts, and other interested parties. This notice must be
published in The Spokesman Review.
c) Requests for further study, arbitration:
i. Within fourteen(14) days of receipt,the applicant will respond in
writing to any requests for further study or analysis of additional
factors. In this written response, the applicant will indicate whether
or not it intends to honor the request for additional study, the
reasoning behind its intention, and the avenues available to the entity
requesting further study if it is not satisfied with the applicant's
response. The applicant will provide the Board and the Spokane
County Division of Planning with copies of both the initial request
and its response.
ii. If the entity making request for further study is not satisfied with the
. applicant's response, it must notify the applicant, the Spokane
County Division of Planning, and the Board, in writing, that it
requests the Board to make a determination.on the need for further
study. Requests for Board determination must be made within ten
(10) days of the date the applicant's response was received by the
entity requesting further study.
iii. The Board will arbitrate in the event an applicant is unwilling to
comply with a public, agency or departmental request for further
study or analysis of additional factors. The Board will consult with
•
12/02/02 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures interlocal Agreement 5
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities within Spokane
County
5 I
the applicant and the entity requesting further study, and make a
determination on the need for further study within ten (10) days of
the applicant, or entity, making fornial written request for such
determination. Said determination shall be binding on the applicant,
but may be appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court or the
Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board,
whichever is applicable, within the appropriate appeal time period as
set forth in the applicable statute.
iv. If the Board determines that further study is required, the applicant
may not proceed to the Qualitative Analysis stage until that
requirement has been met.
2. Qualitative Analysis:
a) Once the Functional Analysis stage has been satisfactorily completed, the
applicant is responsible for conducting a Qualitative Analysis regarding
suitability of the semi-finalist sites. This stage of analysis will address the
political, economic, legal and social impacts of the facility, balanced against
the extent of public need for the facility and any reasons why the proposed
facility needs to be in a particular location. The analysis will assess the
relative impacts associated with the proposed facility at each of the semi-
finalist sites, with consideration given to the Qualitative Analysis factors
listed in the Regional Siting Process and other relevant concepts raised in
comments addressed to the applicant from members of the public and
affected agencies and jurisdictions.
b) Public participation is a key tool for identifying factors that are important to
consider at this stage. Opportunities for input should also provide an avenue
for dialogue between the applicant and the public, agencies and affected
jurisdictions regarding mitigation strategies to address potential adverse
impacts.
c) The Qualitative Analysis will narrow down the semi-finalist list to three (3)
finalist sites that pose the least potential for negative impacts or unmet
needs. All finalist sites must be available for lease for the anticipated use
period or for purchase, with the consent of the owner.
d) Once the applicant considers the Qualitative Analysis complete, it shall
publish a Notice of Availability of Qualitative Analysis regarding FPF
Proposal. This notice shall recite the main findings of the Qualitative
Analysis, summarizing the evaluation criteria and identifying the selected
finalist sites. It will also provide the beginning and ending dates for a
comment period of thirty (30) clays, indicating that copies of the Qualitative
Analysis are available to the public and have been distributed to all
1 2/02/02 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures interlocal Agreement 6
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities within Spokane
County
C� ' �' 7
jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as relevant agencies, affected
special purpose districts, and other interested parties. This notice must be
published in The Spokesmaiz Review and the legal newspaper of each
jurisdiction where a semi-finalist site is located.
e) Requests for further study, arbitration: See procedures outlined under
Functional Analysis, (II)(D)(1)(e) above.
3. Weighted Analysis:
a) This stage uses a scoring matrix to rank the three (3) finalist sites in order of
preference. First, the applicant develops a scoring matrix that outlines
criteria used to evaluate the three (3) finalist sites. The outcome of the
public participation program then adds scores to the matrix. The scores in
the matrix reflect weighted values that are assigned to the various functional
and qualitative criteria based on how important each criterion is to the
community. Consensus on weighted values is desirable; however, the final
score may also represent an average of the weighted values assigned by
various segments of the community. A description of this scoring system is
provided in Appendix C to the Regional Siting Process.
b) The applicant is responsible for conducting the public participation program
necessary to accomplish the Weighted Analysis. A variety of participation
techniques may be appropriate at this stage including public workshops,
interviews, surveys, and other input instruments including direct written
communication from members of the public, related agencies or affected
jurisdictions.
c) Once the Weighted Analysis is completed, the applicant shall publish a
Notice of Availability of Weighted Analysis regarding the EPF Proposal.
This notice shall identify the factors or criteria considered in evaluating the
finalist sites, the weighted values assigned by the public to those factors, and
the final score for each site. The Notice of Availability of Weighted
Analysis shall have a minimum comment period of fourteen (14) days. This
notice must be published in The Spokesman Review and the legal newspaper
of each jurisdiction where a finalist site is located.
E. Preferred Site Review:
1. Satisfactory completion of the Weighted Analysis results in a Preferred Site List
that provides an initial ranking of the three (3) finalist sites. Final ranking of
these sites is accomplished through additional consideration by the Board of such
• factors as the likely urban impacts of the proposed facility, site development
criteria, and the possibility of cost sharing agreements that would mitigate any
disproportionate financial burden that may fall on the affected jurisdiction(s), as
12/02/02 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures Interlocal Agreement 7
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities withinn Spokane
County
set forth in Step Nos. 5 through 7 of The 1996 Growth Management Essential
Public Facilities Technical Committee Report. These additional factors are
described more fully in the Regional Siting Process itself.
2. The Spokane County Division of Planning will prepare a written staff report prior
to the notice of the Board's public hearing. Among other things, this report will
summarize findings from the Location Analysis,recite the site rankings from each
of the three (3) stages of the Location Analysis, and summarize comments
received from the public, agencies and affected jurisdictions through the end of
the comment period on the Weighted Analysis. Copies of the report shall be
mailed to the applicant, the jurisdictions where the three (3) finalist sites are
located, and made available to any interested person for the cost of.reproduction.
3. The Board will conduct at least one public hearing on the Preferred Site List,
soliciting testimony on the factors mentioned in paragraph H.E.1 above. The
hearing may be continued, as needed, in order to hear all relevant testimony.
Notice of Public Hearing must be published at least fourteen (14) days in advance
of the hearing date in The Spokesman Review and the legal newspaper of each
jurisdiction where a finalist site is located.
4. Based on the record and testimony received at the hearing, the Board's
recommendation will outline strategies identified to address any issues associated
with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites in order of preference. The Board's
recommendation will be issued within fourteen (14)days of the final hearing.
5. The Board's ranking is advisory and not binding on the applicant.
6. Any applicable interlocal agreements (for services such as fire protection, sewer
service, etc.) shall be in place prior to final site selection. Once the final site is
•
selected, the applicant shall publish a Notice of. Final Site Selection regarding
EPF Proposal in The Spokesman Review and in the legal newspaper where the
final site is located. This notice shall indicate the specific location of the• site, the
host jurisdiction whose local siting process will apply to actually siting the
facility, and where this site ranked in the Board's recommendation on the
Regional Siting Process. Host jurisdictions must cooperate with the applicant in
processing the application if the site finally selected is one of the three (3) finalist
sites.
12/02102 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures Interlocal Agreement. 8
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities within Spokane
County
�- ��
•
F. Process Summary:
Analysis Stage Basis Product Applicant's Responsibility
Functional Countywide 10 sites Defines applicable criteria and
methodology. Provides assessment and
scoring. Publishes results.
Qualitative 10 sites 3 sites Public participation. Provides
assessment and scoring. Details
methodology. Publishes results.
Weighted 3 sites 3 sites ranked Public participation. Provides evaluation
and weighting. Publishes results.
BOCC hearing 3 sites ranked Board Publishes hearing notice. Publishes final
• recommendation site selection notice.
•
G. Local Siting Process:
1. Following final site selection, the applicant will work directly with the local
jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to permit the construction and
operation of the facility under the plans and regulations that were in effect at the
• time of initial application under the Regional Siting Process.
2. Following selection of a final site through the Regional Siting Process, the
applicant is not required to perform further alternative site analysis at the local
level.
3. To facilitate siting, the local jurisdiction's conditional use or special use criteria
should rely as much as possible on the findings from the Regional Siting Process
Location Analysis. To ensure that a jurisdiction's unique concerns are addressed
during the Regional Siting Process Location Analysis, a jurisdiction should raise
those issues during the Functional and Qualitative Analysis comment periods, the
•
Weighted Analysis, or at the Board's hearing.
•
12/02/02 - Attachment "A": Administrative Procedures Interloeal Agreement 9
regarding Regional Siting Process for Essential Public facilities within Spokane
County •
\fe
Spokane County
Regional Siting Process
for
Essential Public Facilities
June 21; 2002
Table of Contents
•
Executive Summary 3
Key Elements of Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
7
I. Essential Public Facilities 7
Definition of an EPF 7
Clarification of Utilities 7
Ownership 7
II. EPF's Level of Significance 7
Siting Process Determination 7
III. Public Involvement 8
IV. Review Process: Roles and Responsibilities 8
Board of County Commissioners 8
Applicant 8
V. Location Analysis 8
Equitable Distribution 9
Criteria for Assessment 9
Functional Analysis 9
Qualitative Analysis 10
Scoring Matrix: Weighted Analysis 11
VI. Preferred Site Review 11
Public Hearing 11
Urban Impact 11
Site Development Criteria 12
Cost Sharing 12
VII. Local Siting Process 12
VIII. Process Flow Chart 13
APPENDIX "A": Level of Significance 14
Essential Public Facilities of a State-wide Nature 14
Essential Public Facilities of a Regional/County-wide Nature 14
Essential Public Facilities of a Local Nature 14
APPENDIX "B": Public Involvement Strategy Guidelines 16
APPENDIX "C": Evaluation Example 17
APPENDIX "D": Siting Criteria for EPFs 19
APPENDIX "E": Inventory of EPFs 21
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 2 of 21
Executive Summary
Spokane County and the towns and cities of Airway Heights,Cheney, Deer Park, Fairfield,
Latah, Liberty Lake,Medical Lake, Millwood,Spangle,Spokane,Rockford,and Waverly are
required to plan for essential public facilities (EPFs) pursuant to the Growth Management Act
(GMA). RCW 36.70A.The Steering Committee of Local Elected Officials for Spokane County
(Steering Committee) through the County Wide Planning Policies along with the"Growth
Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report" adopted on May 3,1996 •
set forth a model project review process for the siting of EPFs. All jurisdictions provided a
mechanism in their Comprehensive Plans to utilize the model project review process either
verbatim or as a model.
Recently the Legislature passed two laws addressing siting of EPFs. In June 2001 the state
enacted 3ESSB 6151,and in March 2002 the state enacted ESSB 6594. These laws require
counties and cities fully planning under GMA to include a process in their Comprehensive
Plans to provide for the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs).
In 2001 planning staff from all jurisdictions in Spokane County formed a task force to
cooperatively develop a regional siting process for all essential public facilities,including
SCTFs. The Essential Public Facilities Task Force, with assistance from the Office of
Community Development(OCD), the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), and
technical staff from the jurisdictions developed a regional siting process for essential public
facilities titled Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities.
The regional process provides for a review process with a location analysis. Public involvement
takes place throughout the process with public comment periods as well as public hearings.
The review process requires the applicant for an EPF to assume responsibility for the bulk of the
analysis and processing of the proposal. The analysis includes two parts. First, an analysis of
functional criteria of all potential sites is conducted to select the highest-ranking ten (10) semi-
finalist sites. Second, these ten semi-finalist sites are analyzed using more qualitative criteria
and resulting in selection of at least three (3) preferred sites. Both analyses include public
comment periods. Next, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)conducts a public
hearing on the Preferred Site List to allow for further public comment,identify strategies to
address any issues associated with particular sites,and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC
ranking is advisory to but not binding on the applicant. Last,the applicant,after selecting a
specific site,will work directly with a local jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to
permit construction and operation of the EPF.
The regional siting process is based on a coordinated interjurisdictional approach,which in
combination with consistent development regulations among the jurisdictions will implement
the requirement of equitable distribution of EPS of a statewide or regional/cotuntywide nature.
Regional Siting Process for tPF.4 Page 3 of 21
( - -
Acknowledgments
This regional siting process for essential public facilities is the result of a collaborative
countywide process including a range of participants. It is founded on the Growth
Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report approved by the Steering
Committee of Elected Officials on May 3,1996. The process was crafted by a task force
consisting of representatives from all planning jurisdictions in the county. From there,it was
reviewed by various technical committees,and endorsed by all jurisdictions' planning
commissions and elected officials.
•
EPF Task Force members:
Airway Heights: Stephen Roberge
Cheney: Glenn Scholten,Tom Richardson
Deer Park: Roger Krieger,Kathy Marcus
•
Fairchild Air Force Base: John Gibson
Fairfield: Kathy Marcus
L.atah: Kathy Marcus
Liberty Lake: Amanda Tainio,Doug Smith
Medical Lake: Doug Ross,Bill Grimes
Millwood:
•
Heather Cannon
•
Rockford: Bill Grimes
Spangle: Kathy Marcus
•
City of Spokane: Susanne Croft
Spokane County: Esther Larsen,Bruce Hunt,Scott Kuhta,Dan Antonson,
Marisa Schuchart
•
Waverly: Kathy Marcus •
City of Spokane,EPF Technical Advisory Committee:
Capital Programs: Dick Raymond
Environmental Programs: Lloyd Brewer
Fire: Greg Hesse,Rich Leorthardt
•
Human Services: June Shapiro
Public Works: Roger Flint
•
Solid Waste: Bill Vensel
•
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 4 of 21
Contact Information for Jurisdictions within Spokane County
• Airway Heights: ,
Planning Department
13120 West 13th Avenue
Airway Heights, WA 99001
509-244-2552
• Cheney:
Planning Department
112 Anderson Road
Cheney, WA 99004
509-235-7221
• Deer Park: •
Mayor/ Community Services Director
316 E.Crawford Avenue
P.O.Box F
Deer Park,WA 99006-Q228
509-276-8802
• Fairfield:
Mayor/ Qerk-Treasurer
P.O. Box 334
Fairfield,WA 99012-0334
509-283-2414
• Latah:
Mayor/ Clerk-Treasurer
P.O.Box 130
Latah,WA 99018-0130 •
509-286-3471
• Liberty Lake:
Planning&Community Development Department
1421 N.Meadowwood Ln.,Suite 120
Liberty Lake,WA 99019 .
509-755-6700
• Medical Lake:
Public Works Director
124 S. Lefevre Avenue
Medical lake,WA 99022
509-565-5000 •
• Millwood:
Planning Director
9103 E. Frederick Ave.
Spokane, WA 99206
509-924-0960
Regional Siting Process for FPFs Page 5 of 21
S I
• Rockford:
Clerk/Treasurer •
P.O. Box 49
Rockford, WA 99030
509-291-4716
• Spangle:
Mayor/Clerk-Treasurer
P.O.Box 147
Spangle,WA 99031-0147
509-245-3260
• City of Spokane:
Planning Services Department
808 W.Spokane Falls Blvd. •
Spokane,WA 99201-3329
509-625-6060
• Spokane County:
Division of Planning,Long Range Planning
1026 W.Broadway Ave.,2nd Floor
Spokane,Washington 99260
509477-2294
mailing address:
Spokane County Division of Planning, Long Range Planning
Mail Stop PWK-2,1116 W.Broadway Ave.,Spokane,WA 99260-0240
• Waverly:
Mayor/ Clerk-Treasurer
P.O.Box 37
Waverly,WA 99039-0037
509-283-4122
Regional Siting Process for EPFs • Page: 6 of 21
Key Elements of Spokane County Regional Siting
Process for Essential Public Facilities
I. Essential Public Facilities
Definition of an EPF
•
Essential Public Facilities(EPFs)are defined as follows:
Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site,such as
airports,state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined
in RCW 47.06.140,state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, •
and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities,mental health facilities,
group homes,and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020.
(RCW 36.70A.200)
Clarification of Utilities
Utilities, as defined in the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County (CWPPs),are
excluded from this EFF regional siting process. In general,a "utility" refers to a system of
delivery, as opposed to a facility at which processing and/or treatment occurs. For example,
delivery systems such as sewer pipes are utilities,whereas the wastewater treatment plant itself
is an EPF. Siting issues concerning utilities shall be addressed within each jurisdiction's
comprehensive plan.
Ownership
If the services provided meet an essential public need, the facility may be considered essential,
regardless of whether it is publicly or privately owned. An EPF may include a facility
providing or housing a needed public service that is:
• provided by or substantially funded by government,or
• provided by a private entity subject to public service obligations1,or
• on an officially adopted state,regional,county or local community EPF list
II. EPF's Level of Significance
Siting Process Determination
The regional siting process outlined herein applies to siting EPFs of statewide or
regional/countywide significance. EPFs of local significance will be sited according to the
process in place for each local jurisdiction. (See Appendix A for classification guidelines and
examples.)
The 1996 Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report defines a public
service obligation as"an obligation imposed by law on service providers to furnish facilities and/or supply
services to all who may apply for and be reasonably entitled to service."
Iegional Siting Process For EV'Fs • Page 7 of 21
If a proposed facility is not listed in Appendix A, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) is
responsible for determining whether the proposal is an essential public facility, and if so,its
level of significance. To aid in this determination, the project applicant shall identify the
potential area of adverse impact and public benefit. If it is determined that a proposed EPF is of
statewide or regional/countywide significance, the regional process for siting EPFs shall be
carried out as described herein.
III. Public Involvement
Public involvement is a key part of the siting and decision process. While answers to some of
the site selection criteria will be fairly straightforward and objective,assessment of other criteria
may require a subjective judgment based on public opinion and community values. To a large
extent,the nature of the EPF will determine the appropriate level and type of citizen
participation in the siting process. (See Appendix 13 for guidelines and options for a public
involvement strategy.)
IV. Review Process: Roles and Responsibilities
Board of County Commissioners
The BoCC has three main roles in this regional siting process. As mentioned above,if there is a
question as to whether a proposal is an EPF,it is the body that makes that determination. Also,
it is responsible for resolving any conflict arising from an applicant's unwillingness to comply
with a public,agency or departmental.request for further study or analysis.
Finally, the 130CC is the body that conducts the public hearing on the Preferred.Site List. The
purpose of this hearing is to allow the public to comment on the finalist sites, identify strategies
to address any issues associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC
ranking is advisory to but not binding on the applicant.
Applicant
The applicant assumes responsibility for the bulk of the analysis and processing of its proposal.
The applicant performs the Functional and Qualitative Analyses,and generally,coordinates and
conducts the various elements of the process including public involvement,review by other
agencies and jurisdictions,SEPA analysis, and notification requirements.
V. Location Analysis
EPFs shall be located based on their respective siting and service delivery criteria,regardless of
Urban Growth Area (UGA)boundaries.2 •
2 Sec CWPP 6.2.
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 8 of 21
S ' _�� y
Equitable Distribution
In addition,site selection shall conform to the following Equitable Distribution Philosophy3:
The procedural process for siting EPFs shall be consistent within all Spokane County
jurisdictions,including consistent siting criteria and development regulations,so as to
ensure that:
(1) no jurisdiction will be viewed by virtue of the siting process or review criteria more
or less favorably than another with regard to locating a particular EPF;
(2) service providers are able to locate to meet their client's needs;and
(3) predictability of development regulations will help project developers to select and
develop sites.
Criteria for Assessment
Some types of information are more easily evaluated through objective criteria, while other
questions involve a more subjective assessment. Therefore,potential sites shall be identified
through both objective and subjective assessments of various types of information.
First, an analysis of functional criteria is performed. These criteria may vary, depending on the
operational and location requirements for the particular type of facility proposed. GIS
(Geographic Information Systems) or equivalent geographic and demographic data analysis is
used to identify a range of alternative semi-finalist sites (approximately ten) that meet the
applicant's basic siting criteria. A site survey must then be performed for each of those sites in
order to confirm the findings and assess the potential for negative impacts and possible
mitigation strategies. During the second stage of analysis, the public evaluates these semi-
finalist sites based on more qualitative criteria. As part of the functional and qualitative
analyses, the applicant routes the proposal to affected agencies and jurisdictions for a minimum
30-day comment period.
Finally, the criteria are weighted and the list of potential sites is further narrowed down to
approximately three sites that reflect legal requirements and public preference. A narrative
example of this analysis process is provided in Appendix C.
Functional Analysis
This step in the location analysis consists of an evaluation of a site's capability of meeting the
basic siting criteria for the proposed EPF.
As part of this step, the applicant shall publish notice of the proposal as well as a Notice of
Availability of Functional Analysis regarding an Essential Public Facility,according to the
requirements described in Appendix B herein. In addition, the applicant will distribute the
proposal and the functional analysis for a minimum 30-day comment period to all jurisdictions
within Spokane County,as well as agencies,special purpose districts,and other interested
parties.
Based on the Technical Committee Report's Essential Public Facilities Equitable Distribution
Philosophy, which was adopted by the Steering Committee on October 6, 1995. Also referenced in
CWPP 3.15 and CWPP 6.2(d).
Regional Siting Process for EFFs Page 9 of 21
Data and site analysis will be conducted for factors on the applicant's list of basic siting
requirements. The functional analysis will also address other relevant factors,including but not
limited to those listed below. In addition,comments from members of the public and affected
agencies and jurisdictions may identify other factors requiring analysis.
(1) available minimum acreage required for the particular type of EPF;
(2) protection of the natural environment,such as air quality,open space corridors,natural
resource areas and critical areas;
(3) protection of public health and safety,through proximity to and available capacity of
various services,including the location's access to law enforcement,fire protection and
other public safety or emergency response services,as well as other aspects of public
• safety and public health,such as spill containment,reduction of crime opportunity,
proximity to particularly sensitive receptors or electromagnetic force impacts;
(4) adequate capacity available in the transportation network,as determined from systems
such as Level of Service Standards and concurrency management;
(5) adequate access to the required transportation networks,such as highways,municipal
street systems,mass transit,railroad,and air;
(6) adequate capacity available from supporting public facilities and public services,such as
social services and utilities such as sewer,water,and solid waste;
(7) county-wide equitable distribution,based on existing sites;
(8) consistency with existing land use and development in adjacent and surrounding areas;
and
(9) compatibility with existing comprehensive plan land use designations and development
regulations for the site and surrounding areas.
Sites will be ranked based on a formula where each factor is assigned a number indicating the
extent to which that particular site satisfies that siting requirement for the proposed facility.
(See Appendix D for potential siting criteria for various types of facilities.) The end product of
this stage of analysis is a list of approximately ten(10)alternative semi-finalist sites.
Qualitative Analysis
The ten (10) semi-finalist sites that ranked highest in the functional analysis will be selected for
further evaluation using more qualitative criteria. A public process will be conducted to assess
the political,economic,legal and social impacts of the EPF, as well as the extent of public need
for the facility. In the end,all finalist sites must be available for lease for the anticipated use
period or for purchase,with the consent of the owner.
This stage of analysis will result in a general description of the relative impacts associated with
the proposed EPF at each of the semi-finalist sites,including but not limited to the following
factors.
(1) present and proposed population densities of the surrounding area;
(2) presence of archeological, cultural and historical sites;
(3) site design;
(4) availability of a labor pool;
(5) availability of affordable housing;
Regional Siting Process for EFFFs Page 10 of 21
sI
(6) spin-off(secondary and tertiary) impacts (e.g., traffic, economic,social);
(7) potential for associated development being induced by the siting of the EPF;and
(8) proposed mitigating measures to alleviate or minimize significant potential adverse
environmental impacts,including those from closure of or lack of siting an EPF.
The findings at this stage will be balanced against the public need for the proposed facility, and
justification,if any,for why the proposed facility needs to be in a particular proposed location.
An important ingredient at this stage is the dialogue that takes place between the proponent
and the public regarding mitigation strategies to address potential adverse impacts.
Each factor will be assigned a number indicating the extent of impact anticipated for the
proposed EPF at each site. The end product of this stage of analysis is a list of approximately
three(3) alternative finalist sites. •
As part of this step in the location analysis,the applicant shall publish a Notice of Availability
of Qualitative Analysis regarding an Essential Public Facility,according to the requirements
described in Appendix B herein. In addition,the applicant will distribute the qualitative
analysis for a minimum 30-day comment period to all jurisdictions within Spokane County,as
well as agencies,special purpose districts, and other interested parties. Comments received
from members of the public and affected agencies and jurisdictions may identify additional
qualitative factors requiring analysis.
Scoring Matrix: Weighted Analysis
Finally, a scoring matrix is used to rank the sites in order of preference. The scores in the matrix
reflect weighted values that are assigned to the various functional and qualitative criteria based
on how important each criterion is to the community. The conversation that results in this
determination is a key part of the public participation conducted during this siting process.
(See Appendix B for a summary of public involvement strategy guidelines.)
VI. Preferred Site Review
Public Hearing
Satisfactory completion of all preceding required review procedures, including weighted
analysis,results in a ranking of at least three(3)preferred sites. The final public hearing
assesses these finalist sites for the factors listed below.
The BoCC conducts the public hearing on the Preferred Site List. The purpose of this hearing is
to allow the public to comment on the finalist sites,identify strategies to address any issues
associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC ranking is advisory to but
not binding on the applicant.
Urban Impact
The proposed EPF shall be reviewed for impacts on regional growth planning concepts,
including but not limited to the urban nature of the facility, existing urban growth near the
facility site,compatibility of urban growth with the facility, compatibility of facility siting with
respect to Urban Growth Area boundaries,and urban sprawl.
Regional Siting Process for EPFs • Page 11 of 21
lc� _ s
•
Site Development Criteria
Proposed EPFs shall also be reviewed for site development criteria including the time required
for construction,property acquisition,control of on and off-site impacts during construction,
and the possibility of expediting and streamlining necessary government approvals and
permits.
•
Cost Sharing
Finally, the proposed EPF shall be reviewed to determine if the financial impact on the
jurisdiction can be reduced or avoided.The review will identify potential economic impacts
from closure or lack of siting an EPF and include mitigation strategies to minimize impacts (i.e.,
bond or insurance).
Intergovernmental agreements will be established to mitigate any disproportionate financial
burden that may fall on the jurisdiction that becomes the site of an EPF of statewide or
regional/countywide significance. Especially in the case of an EPF of statewide significance,
the proponent state agency may be required to mitigate costs related to siting the facility. In
addition,all proponent entities are required to assume full responsibility for the costs of
operating and maintaining their facility,and this burden shall not fall on the jurisdiction in
which the facility is sited (unless the jurisdiction so desires).
VII. Local Siting Process
Following final selection of the most appropriate site, the applicant will then work directly with
that local jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to permit the construction and operation
of the EPF.
A coordinated interjurisdictional approach is essential in order to fully implement the regional
siting process requirement for equitable distribution of EPFs of a statewide or
regional/countywide nature. For this reason,except for unique circumstances, each
jurisdiction's specific project review guidelines,siting criteria,and development regulations
(land use) are expected to be consistent with all other jurisdictions in Spokane County for the -.
siting of EPFs of a statewide or regional/countywide nature.
•
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 12 of 21
VIII. Process Flow Chart
The basic stages of the regional siting process are as follows:
.4', ssa.• L '5 l',..'
ioj F 1iJ��:..I l..G.�_. i ,-, .r"G a }
� _ 0n �?,.:,49.;-4 f ,
Proposal " EPF '� ,-:.; BoCC makes EPF determination
,^L ._.1$t7 ! 3 . �n^ r * �
.rs-in• 1 r a,.J` .r sr t&
z y'_. Process pr, -W4 Process 7,....f1.-Vi'
yes applies does not
apply
%; ` . Y'" ;r4.t r? t* .,_s .X4;.1
Functional
r
"' . y'
Analysis "
;t. -- ; "
Review
Further Period
Functional ,: ot
i Analysis 'tay.rf ; . :'i • '-
(>-.1Ositcs) ,{ -,e~.A ,:
l.saiy.m.a.ftg1..assioaave,vv,.1l'ti.i s"if .: 4 D.
Qualitative ,,, 1Fr,-;-. 74'1.'_,"a1. 4 -e":
.
.. Analysis 0 ct, .-4 .
y',
s3rIvs►r..n.c:?
t Additional 3w?3
Review 4'
Qualitative +''ice Period -'
i Analysis yc:`'''• 1 j
(on 10 sites) k z.E
K.r.
lines 6 "i
e bPublic 24..'ua;a"
Specific :'- . :
Weighted Hearing on Local Permit -
- Analysis ,�'� Preferred x Site !,..7-• Application {
R., '' ci tion
—► Selected PP
( ) Site List r Process
on 3 sites �'
(ranks = by 4
-'.1 <:- , .<yr i i Applicant
finalist sites)
regional Siting Process for EPPs Page 13 of 21
S 1C,--- ? �f
APPENDIX "A": Level of Significance
The proposed essential public facility (EPF)will be classified as having statewide,
regional/countywide or local significance according to the following.
Essential Public Facilities of a State-wide Nature
EPFs having statewide significance are major facilities that provide a needed public service
affecting,or potentially affecting,residents and/or property located in two(2)or more
Washington State counties and may be included on the Washington State Office of Financial
Management list of EPFs.These facilities include,but are not limited to:regional
transportation facilities,such as commercial and military airports,freeways,highways and
beltways;state correctional facilities;secure community transition facilities;state social
services;state parks;and state higher-educational facilities.
Essential Public Facilities of a Regional/County-wide Nature
EPFs having regional/countywide significance are local or interlocal facilities providing a
needed public service affecting,or potentially affecting,residents and/or property located in
two or more Spokane County jurisdictions.They include,but are not limited to:general
aviation airports;county correctional facilities; regional transportation system;public transit
maintenance and operational facilities;regional solid waste
disposal/recycling/composting/handling facilities;community colleges;regional
wastewater treatment facilities;arenas,stadiums and other entertainment facilities;and
regional social and health services such as inpatient hospitals,mental health facilities,
substance abuse treatment centers,and group homes(including adult family homes,
boarding and retirement homes,and nursing homes).
Essential Public Facilities of a Local Nature
EPFs having local significance are facilities providing a needed public service affecting or
potentially affecting only residents and/or property within the jurisdiction in which they
are located.
Local jurisdiction's comprehensive plans shall provide for additional locally significant
public facilities that are also likely to be considered as"essential".For example,the
following may fall into such a list:fire stations,police stations,child care facilities,public
libraries,community parks,recreation facilities,community centers,local social services,
and elementary,middle and high schools,etc.
When developing locally significant EPFs,the jurisdiction shall document their reasons for
adding a particular type of facility to the local list.There shall be relative consistency of these
lists from one jurisdiction to the next,in order to avoid forcing the siting of a particular
facility in one jurisdiction or another and to assist in meeting service providers'permitting
needs.
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 14 of 21
S 1 G--- LI 0
In order to allow each Spokane County jurisdiction to determine a proposal's classification, the
project applicant shall identify the potential area of adverse impact and public benefit.
If it is determined that a proposed EPF is of statewide or regional/countywide significance, the
process for siting EPFs shall be carried out as described herein. (See Appendix E for an
Inventory of all EPFs of a statewide or regional/countywide significance that are located within
Spokane County, as well as a map showing the location of each facility.)
•
•
•
•
Regional Siting Process For EPEs Page 15 of 21
l c�� `(l
APPENDIX "B": Public Involvement Strategy
Guidelines
Every process to site an EPF shall include methods to provide early notification and
involvement of affected citizens and jurisdictions, thus allowing for opportunities to comment
on the proposal.The nature of the EPF shall be considered when determining the appropriate
level and type of citizen participation in the siting process.
Applicants for statewide and regional/countywide significant EPFs shall initiate a Citizen
participation program prior to final site selection.The program shall include community
involvement in the screening process for the identification of alternative sites most suitable for
locating a given EPF.This process shall be documented and the documentation provided to the
reviewing jurisdiction. •
Along with public input on site selection,citizen participation shall include involvement with issues
such as but not limited to:
• Administration of state contract services • Lighting
• Air pollution • Litter
• Air traffic • Noise
• Availability,of utilities • Odor
• Building design • Operational costs
• Change in type of traffic • Parking
• Cost of closure • Periodic high use
• Encroachment on other land uses • Risk of disaster
• Environmental impacts • Safety
• Groundwater contamination • Site design(within the range of feasible
• Hazardous materials costs and technical requirements)
• Hou.rs of operation • Stimulus to changing character
• Increase in traffic
• Procedural Requirements
The process for citizen involvement shall include the following elements:
• The applicant shall publish notice of the proposal in those newspapers designated by the
affected jurisdicti ons.
• As part of both the functional and qualitative step in the location analysis,the applicant will
distribute the proposal for a minimum 30-day comment period to all jurisdictions within
Spoka.ne County,as well as agencies,special purpose districts,and other interested parties.
• In addition,the application shall conduct open houses or workshops as appropriate,and at least
one public hearing.
• The applicant will provide additional public participation opportunities according to the
guidelines set forth in WAC 365-195-600 and the Spokane County Public Participation Program
Guidelines.
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 16 of 21
APPENDIX "C": Evaluation Example
•
The following narrative provides an example of the two-step assessment and the scoring matrix
used in the location analysis portion of the regional siting process for essential public facilities.
Potential sites shall be identified through both objective and subjective assessments of various types
of information. First,an analysis of Functional Criteria will be performed. These criteria will vary
slightly,depending on the operational and location requirements for the particular type of facility
proposed. Once a range of alternative sites are identified which meet the applicant's basic siting
criteria,these semi-finalist sites will be subjected to pubic evaluation based on more subjective
Qualitative Criteria. Finally,a scoring matrix is used to rank the sites in order of preference based
on weighted values assigned through a public process.
For example,the functional assessment step might involve analysis for such factors as public
safety',availability of support services,environmental impact, distribution equity,and land use
designation.
1. Public safety-The location's access to law enforcement, fire protection and other public
safety or emergency response services. Also includes other aspects of public safety and
public health,like spill containment,reduction of crime opportunity,proximity to
particularly sensitive receptors or electromagnetic force impacts.
2. Availability of support services-The location's access to necessary support services,like
airports,prisons,medical facilities,public transit,utilities,libraries or schools.
3. Environmental impact-The overall assessment,SEPA-style,of the project's impacts to
earth,air,water,traffic,noise,light,aesthetics or other categories of environmental
evaluation.
4. Distribution equity-The relative saturation of EPFs in proximity to the proposed location.
5. Land Use Designation-Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan land use designations for
the potential sites and surrounding areas.
The qualitative assessment step might involve analysis for such factors as economic impact,
aesthetic impact,and the extent to which the site's impacts might be mitigated.
6. Economic impact-The location's susceptibility to negative economic impact(or positive
economic impact)as a result of the project.
7. Aesthetic impact-The location's visual sensitivity to the type of project the EPF represents.
8. Mitigatability-The project's ability to offer compensation(financial or other incentives,
provision of amenities,etc.)or design modifications to mitigate the location's specific
concerns.
A scoring matrix would look something like the one shown below. Initially,the individual sites
(completely hypothetical) are scored against the Criteria on a scale of 1 to 5,five being the most
favorable score. These scores are then assigned a Weight on a scale of 1. to 5,five being most
preferred or important. The initial score for each of the functional and qualitative criteria are then
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 17 of 21
multiplied by that weighted value to produce the Total Score for each criterion,by site. The Final
Score for each site is the sum of the resulting weighted Total Scores for each criterion.
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Site 1 Score 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 5
Site 2 Score 3 5 3 5 4 2 4 3
Site 3 Score 4 3 5 4 5 1 1 1
Site 4Score 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 2
Weight 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
Total Score Final
Score
Site 1 20 16 12 9 9 6 2 10 84
Site 2 15 20 9 15 12 6 8 6 91
•
Site 3 20 12 15 12 15 3 2 2 81
Site 4 5 12 6 6 6 9 10 4 58
In this example,Site 1 barely nudges out Site 3 as the second most preferred site for this particular
EPF. Site 3 scores highly with respect to public safety,environmental impact,distribution equity,
and consistency with the comprehensive plan's land use designation,but it has some negative
economic impact,would probably look bad and would be difficult to mitigate.
Site 4 presents an alternative which scores rather poorly on all but the aesthetic criteria. It involves a
risk to public safety,a negative environmental impact,distribution inequity,weak consistency with
the comprehensive plan's land use designations,some economic impact,and would be difficult to
mitigate,but it will look sharp.
•
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page '18 of 21 I S. ! Lti
APPENDIX "D": Siting Criteria for EPFs
•
Following is the Dept. of Social and Health Services' April 2002"Summary of Key Statutory
Siting Requirements" relative to Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs). This
appendix may be supplemented at a later date to include siting criteria for other types of EPFs.
Summary of Key Statutory Siting Requirements
• Planning. By September 1,2002,cities and counties must establish or amend their processes
for identifying and siting essential public facilities and amend development regulations as
• needed to provide for siting of secure community transition facilities(SCTFs).
• Non-Compliance with Planning Requirements. Failure to act by 9/1/2002 is NOT a
condition that would disqualify county or city from receiving public works trust funds, water
pollution control facility grants, etc., or be a basis for a Growth Management Hearings Board
Review or private cause of action.
• Preemption. After October 1, 2002, the state preempts and supersedes local plans,
development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection requirements, and all other
laws as necessary to enable the department to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate
SCTFs in the following counties or any of their cities that fail to complete the required
planning consistent with state law by 9/1/2002: Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane,
and Thurston Counties.
• Immunity from liability. Cities and counties are immune from causes of action for civil
damages related to the siting of SCTFs. Cities and counties and their law enforcement
officers are also immune from causes of action for civil damages when officers responds in
good faith to emergency calls involving SCI'.'residents.
• Risk potential activities/facilities. Defined as public and private schools, school bus stops,
licensed day care, licensed preschools, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields,
playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques,
and public libraries. Does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit.
• Proximity to risk potential facilities. SCTF not permitted to be located adjacent to,
immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within line of sight of a risk potential
activities/facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of
sight"means that it is possible to visually distinguish and recognize individuals. Give great
wei it to sites that are the farthest removed from risk yotential locations.
•
Regional Siting Process for F,PFs Nag e 19 of 21
• Response Time. Requirement to site in areas in which it is possible to "endeavor to achieve
an average five-minute response time by law enforcement"has been deleted.
• Equitable Distribution. hi considering potential sites, give great weight to "equitable
distribution factors" (i.e., number of residential facilities operated by Dept of Corrections,
residential facilities operated by DSHS Mental Health Division, and Level 2 and Level 3 sex
offenders in each jurisdiction). •
• Public Safety and Security Criteria.
♦ Visibility between SUIT' and adjacent properties is limited or barriers can be
established to limit visibility;
♦ Electronic monitoring devices/systems are available and are functional in the area; .
• Existing building,if used for an SCTF,is suitable or can be feasibly modified; and
♦ Adequate security and back-up system resources can be installed at the site and
contractor/maintenance services are available on 24/7 basis.
• Security panel must be commercial grade with tamper-proof switches and
key-lock to prevent unauthorized access.
• All staff must be issued personal panic devices.
• All staff must be issued and wear photo ID badges.
• Other Siting Requirements.
♦ Site must be in area with access (reasonable commute distance) to medical, mental
health and sex offender treatment providers, and community services such as
employment, educational and other services.
• Treatment providers must be available — this means.the providers are qualified,
willing to provide services, and within a reasonable commute.
• Site must be in location suitable for programming, staffing and support
considerations.
• The SCTF F property must be available at reasonable purchase or lease cost.
Note: Public safety and security criteria - including distance of SCTF from risk potential
locations - must be given the greatest weight.
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 20 of 21
•
APPENDIX "E": Inventory of EPFs
•
Attached are an inventory of all EPFs located in Spokane County that are of a statewide or
regional/countywide significance, and a map showing the locations of those EPFs.
Staff Note: The map is available by contacting the Spokane County Division of Planning.
•
Regional Siting Process for EPFs Page 21 of 21
s 1- � - V2
Revision for Application Fee for Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities 0i . ./03
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING
3 0136 2003 ZONING AND LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE
PURPOSE: This fee schedule is adopted for the purpose of defraying a portion of the costs to Spokane County regarding the
below-listed land use actions. These are reflective of costs incurred by the County for the processing,reviewing,determining,
holding of public hearings, notifying and appealing of the listed land use actions. All applications for the listed land use actions,
except those initiated by the Board of County Commissioners,Planning Commission or Planning Division,shall be accompanied
by the required fee. The required fees are as follows.
Plat Administration
A. Preliminary Plat 6 $1,698 plus$14/lot
Preliminary Plat and Zone Reclassification 5 Preliminary plat fee plus
'f the zone reclassification fee
13. Final Plat 7 $ 862 plus$10/lot
C. Change of Condition/Design(without Public Hearing)
requests by the proponent for modifications requiring
recirculation to reviewing departments and agencies
I. Plats(Design Change Only) 9 $ 664
2. Short Plats 10 $ 265
3. Binding Site Plans 11 $ 691
D. Preliminary Short Plat
4 or more lots 12 $1,326 plus$12/lot over 4 lots
3 lots 13 $ 994
2 lots 14 $ 663
E. Final Short Plat
4 or more lots 15 $ 663 plus$12/lot over 4 lots
Slots 16 $ 498
2 lots 17 $ 330
F. Preliminary Binding Site Plan 18 $1,724 plus$10/lot
G. Final Binding Site Plan 19 $1,326
H. Extension of Time $ 226
for plats, short plats, binding site plans 20
L Duplex Division
1. Existing lots/parcels allowing a duplex 23 $ 398 plus$12/duplex dwelling unit lot
2. In conjunction with a Preliminary Plat $ 334
or Preliminary Short Plat 24
J. Zero Lot Line-any 27 $ 330 plus$l0/lot
K. Certificate of Exemption'
1. Pre-1978 28 $ 67
2. Between 5 and 10 acres 29 $ 100
3. Minor lot line adjustment 30 $ 100
4. All other Certificates of Exemption 31 $ 87
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING Page 1 of 5 Effective date: January 1,2003
1026 West Broadway Avenue 2003 FEE SCHEDULE
Spokane,WA 99260.0220
Phone.477-7200 'Fax::477-2293 •
Revision for Application Fee for Regional Siting Process tijr Essential Public Facilities 0I,_.103
L. Vacation of or alteration to:
I. Final Plat, Final Short Plat,
or Final Binding Site Han(mylar change) 34 $ 663
2. Final Plat, Final Short Plat,or
Final Binding Site Plan(resolution change only) 35 $ 330
II. Zoning Administration
A. Zone Reclassification
1. From any zone to the EA or GA on 44 $ 795 plus$32 per 10-acre increment
2. From any zone to the R.R-10, SRR-5, SRR-2 $ 955 plus$38 per 10-acre increment
and SR-1 zones 45
3. From any zone to the SR-1/2 and
UR-3.5 zones 46 $1,194 plus$27/acre
4. From any zone to the RS, UR-7, UR-12 and
UR-22 zones 47 $1,432 plus$44/acre
5. From any zone to the B-I, B-2 and
B-3 zones 48 $1,909 plus$51/acre
6. From any zone to the 1-1, 1-2
and 1-3 zones 49 $2,385 plus$65/acre
7. From any zone to the Mining zone 50 $2,385 plus$19/acre
8. From any zone to any zone not listed above 51 $ 955
B. Change of Conditions or Public Hearing 80%of zone reclassification fee under
Site Plan Review 53 this schedule
C. Appeal of Administrative decision 54 $ 265
D. Zoning Map Modification for an Arterial $ 398
Road Name or Location Change 56
E. Administrative Permits/Reviews/Determinations
I. Manufactured Home Park Site Plan Review 59 $ 351
2. Home Profession Permit, with no building permit 60 $ 80
3. Temporary Use Permit, with no building permit 61 $ 299
4. Top Soil Removal Permit 62 $ 458
5. Modification/Review of Previously Approved $ 43/hour(1/2 hr minimum)
Site Plan(not in conjunction with building permit application)65
6. Seasonal Temporary Use Permit 66
a.2-month permit $ 101
b.4-month permit $ 201
c. 6-month permit $ 304
d. 8-month permit $ 404
7. Seasonal Temporary Use Permit Renewal 67 $ 39
F. Variance
1. Before or after any construction takes place 73 $ 708
V. Conditional Use Permits
1. Renewal of conditional use permits, all 79 $ 67
2. All 80 $ 454
H. Appeal of a Level I or fl Civil Notice of Violation $ 51 (Resolution#i2-0596)
1. Reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner Decision on NOV $ 25 (Resolution#t2-0596)
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING Page 2 of 5 Effective date: January 1,2003
1026 West Broadway Avenue 2003 FEE SCHEDULE
Spokane,WA 99260.0220
Phone:477-7200 •Fax::477-2243 •
Revision for Application Fee for Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities Ol,w J03
III. Shorelines Management Administration
A. Shorelines Permits
I. Substantial Development, Variance or Conditional Use Permit
Value of development(materials and labor):
$ 0 - $25,000 89 $ 398 plus advertising cost
$ 25,00 - $75,000 90 $ 477 plus advertising cost
$ 75,001 - $300,000 91 $ 636 plus advertising cost
Over$300,000 92 $ 795 plus advertising cost
B. Nonpermit Service
1. Site Inspection 93 $ 44/hour(l/2 hour minimum)
2. Expansion of Nonconforming Use Review 94 $ 100
IV. Current Use Assessment Administration
A. Timber Land or Open Space Application 101 $ 67 plus advertising cost
V. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administration
A. Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) 106 $S10 minimum deposit*
*Fee is computed by cost incurred during production
If deposit balance falls below$100,additional
increment will be required.
B. Threshhold determination for first hour. $ 76/hour(1/2 hour minimum)
C. Threshhold determination for each additional hour. $ 75/hour
D. Review of special studies required for threshold $ 75/hour(1/2 hour minimum)
determinations(WAC 197-11-914) 107
E. Administrative appeal $ 265
VI. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Administration
A. Preliminary PUI)or Final development Plan Review 111 $1,491
B. PUD Final Development Plan Review $ 776
without Public Hearing 113
VII. Pre Conference Fee
Before any application for the below-listed land use:actions is handed out,the following fees will be charged for explanation,
instruction and answering the applicant's or his/her representative's questions regarding the application,process or procedure. Pre
conference fees are non refundable.
A. Preliminary Plat; Vacation or alteration of Final Plat,
Short Plat,or Binding Site Plan;Zone Reclassification;or
Preliminary Planned Unit Development 136 $ 61
B. Preliminary Short Plat;Preliminary Binding Site Plan;
Temporary Use Permit;Top Soil Removal Permit;
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING Page 3 of 5 Effective date: January 1,2003
1026 West Broadway Avenue 2003 FEE SCHEDULE
Spokane,WA 99264-0220
Phone:477-72011 •Fax::477-2243
•
Revision for ApplicatiOri Fee for Regional Siting Process For Fssentiat Public Facilities
Variance{before or after construction); Coiaditioltial Usc;
Shorelines; and any Change in Conditions 137 $ 39
VIII. Regional Planning Fees
A. Spokane County Re ional Stung Process for Essential 0136
Pubic Fucilides
].Arpp]ic.11ion Fee $ 12TH] (Itesolutioat 3- -
IX. Fee Administration
A. General Ad ini nr,tration of lee Schedule.
1. All of the required fees wil] he paid at the time of application or when the applicant requests information or
service for whii;h a fee is charged above and is rendered without an application being filed, pro>violcd that for hourly
fees the appl ican[ will he billed and the fees paid before the decision is made a and findings sighed,
2_ Each action for which there is a listed fee above will constitute a separate action, and the LC will be coinputed
as determined above. Each'variance required is a scparule action.
3. Measurement rxf acreage will be rounded to the nearest full acre except fur areas less than one acre, which will
be cooipt ied as One acre:.
4_ Hourly wages will be rounded to the nearest'lx hour as notes] except for hours less than !..12 hour, which will be
computed as 'x hour_
5. The value of projects andlor construction shall he rleaermincd by building permit value:if issued within the last
year_ If no building permit was required or the building permit was issued more th;ur one year ago, the v.iltle shall
be delermi ned per C aunty Assessor records,awarded construction bid, estimated tolistruction cosi or other
corlipartb]e lileails.
13. Refund policy.
L There is no rtfllaad of any pre conference feu.
2. An fi0% refund or 11,425; will be provided i l the- Planning Director or hkfher de_.siu,nee determines iliac, although
the application may have been accepted, no processing by the County has occurred.
3. A 30% refund of fees will he provided if the Plannine Direeno>r or his/her designee determines that the request
is made prior to any mailing of norm's or if any processing by the County has occurred.
4. No refund or fees will be provided after au ndrraiiiistrative decisionlinterpretation is rendered or after the
mailing or notice unless the application is withdrawn at a County depanmern's r .qucs[_
5. Full refund of ices, minus the pre conference fee, may be authorizer! lithe County bah inapprol)ri,3rely told an
applicant drat a permit}nclion is required and lrtier it is determined by the County that the pe.rmitlapp]icariun vs as not
ncccss,u-yfrequired,
C. Automatic Modification of Pee chedtlle�,
The Planning Zoning and Land Use fee Schedule shall be automatically administratively once a year. The
tnadificat ion shall take place as clue as possible io one year utter adoption of this schedule and yeru'ly thereafier_The
Planning Division shall use the Consumer Price Index for!IS Vs.restern Cities 500,000-300,000 in silt ("CH U
West C, un the `77 bast, for all to ban consumcrx"). The starling point for modification of this schedule-shall be the
above-cited CPT for September, 1992, which was 217,5.
D. Waiver of Fe-es.
The Director, in consultation with the Director of Public~Works and/or the Chief Administrative Officer, may waive
all or a portion olilrc secs established herein for special] individual circumstances where [hurl is extreme economic
hardship, issues of fundamental fairness,or where appliemion of the fee schedule is otherwise unreasonable or
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING ['zip:cr 5 Ei1ecrive chef: 1in,urr}'1.2003
102' 'West Bran dxeay Avenue 241(13 FFE SCHEDULE
Spokane,WA 99260-0220
PFIL41e:477-7200 ' f;rx:_477-2243
Revision for Application Fee for Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities
impractical. Requests for the waiver of fees shall be made in writing to the Director,staling the reasons therefor. The
Director's decision shall be indicated by letter stating the basis for approval or denial of the waiver. The Director's
decision is final and binding.
d id Sablli isl,M Oadinsn:c Hxtkm rrternres blt!been&hied.
''In 1998,the Department of Labor eliminated the Consumer Price Index(CPI)for U.S.Western Cities size class C
(50.000-300,000 in population)on both the 1977 base and another that was for she I982-1984 base. In its place.a new index
was created: the CPI West B/C for population sizes of 1.500,000 and under. Its base is December 1996 at 100.
•
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING Page 5 of 5 Effective date: January 1,2003
1026 'Vest Broadway Avenue 2003 FEE SCHEDULE
Spokane,WA 99260-0220
Phone:477-7200 •Fax::477-2243
NO. 2 0812
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE
SPOKANE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE )
PLAN POLICY CF.15.1 RELATING TO ) DECISION
ESSENTIAL PUJ3LIC FACILITIES )
•WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 36.70,the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County,Washington,hereinafter referred to as the"Board,"has
created a Planning Commission,hereinafter referred to as the"Commission";and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Board
adopted a Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan for Spokane County, . •
'hereinafter referred to as the "Comprehensive Plan," on November 5, 2001 (County
Resolution 1-1059); and -
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2002, the Washington State Legislature declared an
emergency and passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594 (ESSI3 6594) implementing
the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Equitable Distribution of
Secure Community Transition Facilities, and on March 21, 2002 the Governor signed
ESSB 6594;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of ESSB 6594 Spokane County, along
with all planning jurisdictions within the state of Washington,was mandated to amend its
Comprehensive Plan to include a process for identifying and siting essential public
facilities, including, among other facilities, secure community transition facilities as -
defined in RCW 71.09.020; and .
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.70 RC W,the Commission is
authorized to recommend changes to the Comprehensive Plan to the Board for its review and
consideration for adoption;and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan regarding siting of essential public facilities, including the proposed revision to
Policy CF.15.1 and the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public
Facilities, as more particularly set forth in Commission's Attachment "A", attached
hereto and incorporated herein;and
WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges the Determination of Nonsignificance
(DNS) issued by the Spokane County Division of Planning on June 21, 2002, with
respect to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment;and
1
•
. .
NO. 2 0812 ...
- - .
. .
WHEREAS,the Board,after considering.the Commission's Recommendation and .
• • • reviewing the Commission's Findings of-Fact, concurs with the Findings of Fact, .
Decision, and RecOmmendation of the Commission dated July 25, 2002, attached hereto - •
and incorporated herein by reference, and determines the best interest of the general,
. . ,
public, as well as its health, safety and welfare,.will be met by the Board amending the
Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as recommended.by the Commission. -
. • • . . .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board,,alter.eonsidering all of
•...
the above, that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as-set forth:in.the Commission's
Attachment"A",attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, be adopted. •
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board does -hereby direct Division of .
' Planning- Staff to,prepare, in cooperation with all jurisdictions in.Spokane County, an
interlocal. agreement outlining,.adminis-trative procedures for the 'Spokane County
Regional Suing Process for Essential Public Facilities.
. _
. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that.the Board does hereby adopt as.Findings of •
• Fact all rccit.*.herein as well as the Commissions'.Findings of.Fact as set forth in the
..,.
Commission's Findings, Decision, and Recommendation dated.July 25, 2002, attached
hereto and incorporated hercin-by.reference. .
. .
. .
. • •
. .
. --
: , :, - ,- . •
. .
APPROVED this 13b day of August,2002.. ..
. . . - . . .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
,..-- e. com,y,2'k, e S.6 KA I. OUNTY,WASHINGTON •
,- 0 ,------ 7•*) ' 'ii
1, Nt.41.34 f'D; Q
. .0 ' /••0 .-1, • 402A. 0''0 •
411 •(.2 st.„ "X° 0, ti. itt (4.. •
• •
• -. . A. : : M.Kate t .fin,Chau.
_ •_ • - , - '%1 : • i
ATITIST:: , I (A • '• ! . ,,,
• • i'l 'b. -.:*1- •..4r.•.1• • .• •• . -
Vicky M.Dalton . ',, ttvz.oxIct-t.. ...- •
...• J.
Cleik of di _
the Board ,.,,. ....... 1 - •, -/ .-
grA .... 11111tai A....... ...L....4
.. . . — .J• gr Roskelley,Vice-Chair,; -
. .
. ,. .
. . , .
. .
Q3Y: / / — . 4/.._-_/ _./., ; if
Dniela Eficks01,Deputy - J. - - . -. --
, a r r i s,Commissioner
. .
. .
. . . . .
. . -
. -
. -.. . - • •
. . .
. .
. . . . . _
.. . .
. • . - . . . .
. . . . .
. .
- .
• .
- • 2
. .
. • • • -
. - .
. '
. .
3 0136
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL )
AGREEMENT REGARDING SITING OF ESSENTIAL )
PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY )
AND TO AMEND THE SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION ) FINDINGS OF FACT
OF PLANNi.NG'S ZONING AND LAND USE FEE ) AND
SCHEDULE TO ADOPT A UNIFIED SPOKANE ) RESOLUTION
COUNTY REGIONAL SITING PROCESS )
ADMINISTRATION FEE )
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County,Washington, hereinafter referred to as the"Board," has the care of County property
and the management of County funds and business; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A, on November 5, 2001 the Board
adopted a Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan for Spokane County, hereinafter referred
to as the"Comprehensive Plan"(County Resolution No. 1-1059); and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2002 the Washington State Legislature declared an emergency
and passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594 (ESSB 6594) implementing the recommendations
of the Joint Select Committee on the Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition
Facilities, and on March 21,2002 the Governor signed ESSB 6594; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of ESSB 6594 Spokane County, along with all
planning jurisdictions within the state of Washington, was mandated to amend its Comprehensive
Plan to include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities, hereinafter referred to as
EPFs, including, among other facilities, secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW
71.09.020; and
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2002 pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A(200)(1) and (2)
the Board adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding siting of EPFs, including a
revision to Comprehensive Plan Policy CF.15.1 relating to EPFs and the Spokane County Regional
Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities (Spokane County Resolution No. 2-0812); and
WHEREAS, the Board's Decision set forth in Spokane County Resolution No. 2-0812
included a directive to the Division of Planning Staff to prepare, in cooperation with all
jurisdictions in Spokane County, an interlocal agreement outlining administrative procedures for
the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and
Page 1 of 4
3 0136
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-referenced directive and the provisions of RCW 39.34
(Interlocal Cooperation Act), Spokane County, in cooperation with the City of Airway Heights,
the City of Cheney, the Town of Deer Park, the Town of Fairfield, the Town of Latah, the City
of Liberty Lake, the City of Medical Lake, the Town of Millwood, the Town of Rockford, the
Town of Spangle, the City of Spokane, and the Town of Waverly, through staff assigmed to the
EPF Task Force,jointly prepared the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public
Facilities within Spokane County and its Attachment "A", hereinafter collectively referred to as
the "Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs" and which is attached hereto, incorporated herein by
reference, and outlines particularly the administrative procedures for the Spokane County
Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities, and
WHEREAS, it has been acknowledged by all parties to the Interlocal Agreement for Siting
EPFs that state and federal laws regarding siting requirements for certain types of essential public
facilities will take precedence over the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public
Facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of all parties to the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs that a)
housing for persons with handicaps as defined under the Federal Fair Housing Act and b)housing for
children in the custody of the state, which housing includes "community facilities" as defined in
RCW 72.05.020 and facilities licensed under chapter 74.15 RCW are exempt from the Spokane
County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and
AREAS, it is the intent of all parties to the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs that
housing for juveniles held in county detention facilities or state juvenile institutions as defined in
RCW 13.40.020 is subject to the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public
Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Airway Heights, the City of Cheney, the Town of Deer Park, the
Town of Fairfield, the City of Liberty Lake, the Town of Millwood, and the Town of Spangle
have adopted the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Latah, the City of Medical Lake, the Town of Rockford, the
City of Spokane, and the Town of Waverly are in the process of adopting the Interlocal
Agreement for Siting EPFs; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs provides for the Board by
Resolution to establish an application fee for applicants proposing to site an EPF of statewide or
regional/countywide nature within any jurisdiction in Spokane County; and
WHEREAS, as part of the preparation of the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs the
EPF Task Force, recommended a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process
Administrative Fee of twelve hundred dollars ($1200) per applicant; and
Page 2 of
3 0136
WHEREAS, on April 23, 1985 the Board adopted a Division of Building and Planning
Fee Schedule for Land Use Actions, Application, and/or Permits (County Resolution No. 85-
0332) and on February 13, 1996 the Board amended said Fee Schedule (County Resolution No.
96-0174); and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002 the Board amended the above referenced Fee
Schedule(County Resolution No. 2-1098); and
WHEREAS, included in the above referenced Fee Schedule is a provision for fees to be
administratively adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index West B/C for population
sizes of 1,500,000 and under; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(20), the adoption of administrative
procedures and a fee schedule relating solely to governmental procedures and containing no
substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment is procedural and
therefore categorically exempt from threshold determination and ETS requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and
WHEREAS, after providing ten (10) days public notice, on January 21, 2003 the Board
held a public hearing to receive public testimony both for and against the Interlaced Agreement
for Siting EPFs, including a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative
Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Board, being desirous of giving the matter further consideration did
determine to continue the public hearing to February 4, 2003, for decision only; and
WHEREAS, the Board, after considering the recommendation of the EPF Task Force
regarding a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee, the Interlocal
Agreement for Siting EPFs, and the records of the Division of Planning relating to EPFs, concurs
with the recommendation of the EPF Task Force regarding a unified Spokane County Regional
Siting Process Administrative Fee and Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs and determines the best
interest of the general public, as well as its health, safety and welfare, will be met by the Board
adopting the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane
County and its Attachment "A", including the unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process
Administrative Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board, after considering all of the above,
that the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County
and its Attachment "A", including the unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process
Administrative Fee, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,be adopted; and
BE 11 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board does hereby adopt as Findings of Fact all
recitals herein as well as the Board's Decision dated August 13, 2002 as set forth in County
Resolution No. 2-0812:
•
Page 3 of 4
3 0130
APPROVED THIS 4TH DAY *,--, BRUARY 2003.
o CObt%j4`'1`
Q9 .4;0E666. ql, 'q BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Qom.y49 4";;;; °°i ti' °'`/ OF SPO NE •UNTY,WASHINGTON
% . ® —r--'
j ,/ II I1J. .
/
.L a
ATTEST: 4,% .- 5E'"L• cy` Johr7 '.oskelley, Chair
/ Vicky M. Dalton < E
Clerk o e Board
By: I. /_ _!1 `A i , 'hillip P Harris Vice- Chair
Daniela Erickson,Deputy 1.
FI rio 1jTa
M A ate Mc 1 , 1 n, Commissioner
•
Page 4 of 4 •