Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5689 ORDINANCE NO. 5689 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WHEREAS, in 2001 and 2002 the Washington State legislature passed 3ESSB 6151 and ESSB 6594 requiring local governments in certain counties to identify Secure Community Transition Facilities for the placement of sexual offenders as essential public facilities under the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, cities and counties have until September 1, 2002 to adopt plan amendments and regulations related to the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities; and WHEREAS, to comply with the requirements of 3ESSB6151 and ESSB 6594 the Planning Department prepared text amendments to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan pertaining to essential public facilities; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Draft Comprehensive Plan text amendments were considered in accordance with procedures of the State Environmental Policy Act and a Final Determination of Non-Significance was issued on the proposal on June 13, 2002; and WHEREAS, prior to adoption the proposed amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Office of Community Development and other State agencies for the 60 day review period in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 with the 60 day review period having been concluded on August 2, 2002; and WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing, the Auburn Planning Commission on July 2, Ordinance No. 5689 August 14, 2002 Page 1 2002, opened a public hearing on the proposed amendments and continued said hearing to July 9, 2002, and August 6, 2002, to provide for additional public notification and comment; and WHEREAS, the Auburn City Planning Commission heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration of said proposed amendments and on August 6, 2002 made a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2002, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the Aubum City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b) allows for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to occur more frequently than once per year in instances where an emergency exists; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds this Ordinance is necessary for the public welfare, and it warrants adoption as an emergency ordinance to comply with the deadline requirement imposed by ESSB 6594. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. CODE AMENDMENT. Chapter 5 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan is amended to read as follows: Essential Public Facilities According to the GMA (RCW 36.70A.200) as amended, "Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as dcfined 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~ and group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." More generally, essential public facilities are facilities, conveyances, or sites that meet the following definition: (1) the facility, conveyance or site is Ordinance No. 5689 August 14, 2002 Page 2 used to provide services to the public; (2) these services are delivered by government agencies, private or non-profit organizations under contract to or with substantial funding from government agencies, or private firms or organizations subject to public service obligations, and (3) the facility or use of the site is necessary to adequately provide a public service. The Growth Management Act requires that every comprehensive plan include a process for siting essential public facilities. No comprehensive plan can preclude the siting of essential public facilities within the community. The Growth Management Act includes these provisions because siting certain public facilities has become difficult due to the impacts many of these facilities have on the adjacent community. Many factors contribute to this problem, including increased demand for facilities to serve a growing population, increased competition for land as the state becomes more urbanized, problems with siting processes, and judicial decisions which compel jurisdictions to provide certain Pacilities. By including a process for siting essential facilities in the Comprehensive Plan, deficiencies in the siting process can be minimized. This section contains Auburn's process for siting essential public facilities. This is an interim process, as the Growth Management Planning Council, which is made up of representatives of the cities in King County and the county, will develop a countywide process for siting essential public facilities. When that process is developed, Auburn may modify these procedures to reflect the Council's recommendation. CF-65 Essential Public Facility Siting Process. General: 1. The City will review proposals through the process outlined in parts (3) through (8) below, if the essential public facility largely serves a regional, countywide, statewide or national need and is included in a policy sense within an adopted state or regional plan which meets the following criteria: a. The state or regional plan was developed through an appropriate public process (including at least one local public heating) and has undergone a NEPA and/or SEPA review; and; b. A clear policy statement supporting the type of facility proposed must be included. The plan should also include, in a policy sense, the set of siting guidelines used for such a facility. Such criteria may include, but not be limited to, type and sufficiency of transportation access, co-location requirements, preferred adjacent land uses, on- or off-site security and/or mitigation, and required public facilities and services. 2. If the essential public facility largely serves a regional, countywide, statewide or national need and is not part of an adopted state or regional plan, the proponent will be required to request that the appropriate state or regional plan be amended to include the proposal meeting the criteria contained in part (1) above. The proposal will also be reviewed following the process outlined in parts (3) through (8). O~inance No. 5689 August14,2002 Page 3 Essential Public Facilities ora regional, count~vide, statewide, or national nature: 3. Essential public facilities of a regional, countywide, statewide or national nature will be reviewed by the City through the special area plan process. The boundaries of the Special Area Plan will be set at a scale directly related to the size and magnitude of the proposal. For facilities of regional, state, and national need, an alternative analysis will be performed using, but not limited to, the guidelines described in part 1 (above). Auburn staff shall participate in the review process of part 1 (above), and use the data, analysis and environmental documents prepared in that process to aid in the City's special area plan review, if Auburn determines that those documents are adequate. If the facility requires other development permits, those approvals also shall be considered within the review process. 4. Impacts of the proposed essential public facility must be identified and an appropriate mitigation plan developed. TSe Unless otherwise governed by state law, the financing strategy for the mitigation plan shall be structured so that the costs of the plan shall be allocated proportionally on a benefit basis using, but not limited to, non-local sources o f funding. 5. The special area plan process to be used for essential public facilities of a regional, countywide, statewide or national nature shall follow the City's Comprehensive Plan amendment process which includes multiple opportunities for public involvement. 6. An analysis of the facility's impact on City finances shall be undertaken. If the study shows that locating a facility in a community would result in a disproportionate financial burden on the City of Auburn, an agreement with the project's proponents must be executed to mitigate the adverse financial impact or the approval shall be denied. Essential Public Facilities qf primarill, local nature: 7. If the essential public facility meets largely local needs (for example, in-patient facilities, including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities and group homes), the facility shall be considered based upon section (8) below. All Essential Public Facilities: 8. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate all applications to site essential public facilities: a. Whether there is a public need for the facility. b. The impact of the facility on the surrounding uses and environment, the City and the region. c. Whether the design of the facility or the operation of the facility can be conditioned, or the impacts mitigated, in a similar manner as with a traditional private development, to make the facility compatible with the affected area and the environment. Ordinance No. 5689 August 14, 2002 Page 4 d. Whether a package of mitigating measures can be developed that would make siting the facility within the community more acceptable. e. Whether the factors that make the facility difficult to site can be modified to increase the range of available sites or to minimize impacts on affected areas and the environment. f. Whether the proposed essential public facility is consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. g. Essential public facilities shall comply with any applicable state siting and permitting requirements (e.g., hazardous waste facilities). h_. Whether the State proves by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that 1) a sufficient and reasonable number of alternative sites have been fully, fairly, and competently considered; and ~ .... ~h ~.,v~;* ........ .,v.v c^..,,~ +^~v ~' ....... -.~.-~.~;*~ .... _.._~.a-'" ~:~'~ ~+~ ~ ~ .......... ~ 2) such sites were found to be unsuitable for an SCTF for reasons other than the cost of property. i. Whether careful analysis has been completed to show that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural, or socio-economic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, iurisdiction, or region. CF-66 The Planning Director shall make a determination as to whether a development application will result in a significant change of use or a significant change in the intensity of use of an existing essential public facility. If the Planning Director determines that the proposed changes are significant, the proposal will be subject to the essential public facility siting process as defined in Policy CF-65. If the Planning Director determines that the proposed changes are insignificant, the application shall be reviewed through the City's standard development review procedures. The Planning Director's determination shall be based upon the following: a. The proposal's impacts on the surrounding area b. The likelihood that there will be future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with the proposal. One of the difficulties of siting essential public facilities is that they are not allowed in all appropriate areas. To help address this problem, Auburn shall allow essential public facilities in those zones in which they would be compatible. The types of facilities that are compatible will vary with the impacts likely from the facility and the zoning district. In the M-2 Zoning District, many essential public facilities will be compatible uses and broad use categories allowing such uses should be included in the zone. CF-67 Essential public facilities shall be allowed in those zoning districts in which they would be compatible and impacts can be mitigated. In situations where specific development standards cannot be met, but there is a determination that the facility can be made compatible, the City Council can waive those specific standards with the requirement that appropriate mitigation is provided. The M-2 Zoning District should include broad use categories that allow all essential public facilities that are difficult to site as permitted or conditional uses as appropriate. Ordinance No. 5689 August '14, 2002 Page 5 CF-68 Essential public facilities should be equitably located throughout the City, county and state. No jurisdiction should absorb a disproportionate share. CF-69 Essential public facilities of a regional, countywide, statewide or national nature should be restricted to the Region Serving Area of Auburn. Such facilities should be located in relationship to transportation facilities in a manner appropriate to their transportation needs. Extensive buffering from adjacent uses may be required. Facilities which generate a significant amount of track traffic should be located on major arterial streets. SECTION TWO. GENERAL SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of such code, ordinance or regulation or the application thereof to other person or circumstances shall not be affected. SECTION THREE. NO WAIVER PROVISION. The City Council does not, by adoption of this ordinance, waive or relinquish its rights to challenge the validity of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594. SECTION FOUR. IMPLEMENTATION. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. SECTION FIVE. EFFECTIVE DATE - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is immediately necessary for the preservation of public peace, health, safety and welfare, and declares that this Ordinance is an emergency ordinance, to be in full force and effect immediately upon adoption of the Ordinance by a majority plus one of the whole City Council. INTRODUCED: AU(~ ] 9 200Z PASSED: AUG ] 9 200~. APPROVED: AUG ][ 9 2DO~ PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR O~inanceNo. 5689 August14,2002 Page 6 ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk Daniel B. Hgi~ City A"ttorn"ey~....~ PUBLISHED: ,~-~ 3'~' ~- - Ordinance No. 5689 August14,2002 Page 7