Chapter 21.32
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES

Sections:

21.32.010    Authority.

21.32.020    Inventory of essential public facilities.

21.32.030    Purpose.

21.32.040    Siting and expansion of local essential public facilities.

21.32.050    Siting and expansion of State and regional essential public facilities.

21.32.060    Permit conditions.

21.32.070    Optional site consultation process.

21.32.080    Interjurisdictional siting.

21.32.090    Public involvement.

21.32.100    Consultant and legal review – Deposit.

21.32.110    Hearing Examiner decision.

21.32.120    Suspension or revocation of permit.

21.32.130    Appeal.

21.32.140    Decision timing.

21.32.150    Building permit application.

21.32.160    Secure community transition facilities.

21.32.010 Authority.

This chapter is established to regulate the siting of essential public facilities pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.020 Inventory of essential public facilities.

The City of Woodinville currently hosts or borders several essential public facilities, including but not limited to the following:

(1) The Brightwater regional wastewater treatment facility;

(2) The Cascade recycling facility;

(3) The Sound Transit/Metro park and ride facility;

(4) The Olympic pipeline system;

(5) Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad corridor;

(6) State Route 522; and

(7) State Route 202. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.030 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Growth Management Act and the Woodinville Comprehensive Plan by establishing a process for the siting and expansion of essential public facilities as necessary to support orderly growth and delivery of public services. Essential public facilities and transportation facilities of State-wide significance are necessary and important in the provision of public systems and services. The City’s goal in promulgating the regulations under this chapter is to ensure the timely, efficient and appropriate siting of EPFs while simultaneously acknowledging and mitigating the significant community impacts often created by such facilities. Nothing in this chapter should be construed as an attempt by the City to preclude the siting of essential public facilities in contravention of applicable State law. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.040 Siting and expansion of local essential public facilities.

(1) A special use permit shall be required as provided in this section before any local essential public facility may be located or substantially modified within the City of Woodinville, regardless of the zoning district in which such facility is or is proposed to be located.

(2) A complete application for a special use permit for a local essential public facility shall comply with WMC 21.80.070.

(3) A special use permit for a local essential public facility shall be processed as a Type 3 decision pursuant to the procedures set forth for a special use permit in WMC 21.84.070.

(4) Instead of the approval criteria set forth in WMC 21.84.070(4), a special use permit for a local essential public facility shall be approved upon a determination that:

(a) The project sponsor has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by a detailed written analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed;

(b) The project sponsor has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology, and as verified by the City and reviewed by any relevant associated jurisdictions and agencies;

(c) Necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure safe transportation access and transportation concurrency to the extent required by applicable State and City regulations;

(d) Necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure that public safety responders have capacity to handle increased calls or expenses that will occur as the result of the facility;

(e) The project sponsor has the ability to fund all capital costs associated with required on-site and off-site improvements;

(f) The facility will not unreasonably increase noise level in residential areas, especially at night;

(g) Visual screening will be provided that will mitigate the facility’s visual impacts from streets and adjoining properties;

(h) The facility is not located in any residential zoning district, except to the extent provided herein;

(i) The facility meets all provisions of this title for development within the underlying zoning district, except to the limited extent provided in this subsection. If a local essential public facility does not meet all such provisions, the applicant must demonstrate that compliance with such provisions would preclude the siting of all similar facilities anywhere within the City. If the applicant is able to make such a demonstration, the Hearing Examiner shall authorize the essential public facility to deviate from the provisions of this title to the minimum extent necessary to avoid such preclusion;

(j) The project sponsor’s public participation plan has allowed for public participation in the siting decision and with respect to appropriate mitigation measures;

(k) The project will not result in an unnecessarily disproportionate burden of essential public facilities on a particular geographic area of the City; and

(l) Any and all probable significant adverse environmental impacts, including but not limited to impacts to wetlands, shorelines and wildlife habitat, are adequately mitigated.

(5) The Hearing Examiner may, pursuant to WMC 21.32.060, impose such reasonable conditions on approval of the special use permit as may be necessary in order to enable the proposed facility to:

(a) Satisfy the decision criteria set forth in subsection (4) of this section;

(b) Satisfy any other applicable criteria set forth in this title; and

(c) Protect the public health, safety and welfare.

(6) The decision criteria set forth in this section shall not be applied in such a manner as to preclude the siting or expansion of local essential public facilities in the City of Woodinville. In the event that a local essential public facility cannot, by the imposition of reasonable conditions, satisfy the decision criteria set forth in this section with respect to the applicant’s preferred site, the Hearing Examiner shall either:

(a) Deny the special use permit with respect to the requested site, and require the local essential public facility to be located on one of the investigated alternative sites, if the proposal can be reasonably conditioned to meet the decision criteria at the alternative site; or

(b) Approve the siting or expansion of the local essential public facility at the requested site with such reasonable conditions of approval as may be imposed to mitigate the impacts of the proposal to the maximum extent practicable, if there is no reasonable alternative site on which the decision criteria can be met. (Ord. 706 § 28, 2020; Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.050 Siting and expansion of State and regional essential public facilities.

(1) A special use permit shall be required as provided in this section before any State or regional essential public facility may be located or substantially modified within the City of Woodinville, regardless of the zoning district in which such facility is or is proposed to be located.

(2) A complete application for a special use permit for a local essential public facility shall comply with WMC 21.80.070.

(3) A special use permit for a local essential public facility shall be processed as a Type 3 decision pursuant to the requirements for a special use permit set forth in WMC 21.84.070.

(4) State and regional essential public facilities shall satisfy the provisions of this title for development within the zoning district in which they are proposed to be located, except as provided in this section.

(5) The Hearing Examiner shall not deny a special use permit application for a State or regional essential public facility and shall accept the valid siting determination made by a State or regional sponsor with respect to any such facility. The Hearing Examiner may, pursuant to WMC 21.32.060, impose reasonable conditions upon the State or regional essential public facility in order to ensure that:

(a) Necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure safe transportation access and transportation concurrency;

(b) Necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure that public safety responders have sufficient capacity to handle increased calls or expenses that will occur as the result of the facility;

(c) All capital costs associated with on-site and off-site improvements necessitated by the facility are borne by the project sponsor to the extent legally permissible;

(d) The facility will not unreasonably increase noise levels in residential areas, especially at night;

(e) Visual screening will be provided that will mitigate the visual impacts from streets and adjoining properties;

(f) Any and all probable significant adverse environmental impacts, including but not limited to impacts to wetlands, shorelines and wildlife habitat, are adequately mitigated;

(g) Any other applicable criteria set forth in this title are satisfied; and

(h) The public health, safety and welfare are adequately protected.

(6) In the event that a State or regional essential public facility cannot, by the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval, satisfy the criteria set forth in this section, the Hearing Examiner shall approve the siting or expansion of the State or regional essential public facility with such reasonable conditions of approval as may mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The Hearing Examiner shall not impose conditions in such a manner as to preclude the siting or expansion of any State or regional essential public facility in the City of Woodinville. (Ord. 706 § 29, 2020; Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.060 Permit conditions.

(1) In issuing a special use permit under this chapter, the Hearing Examiner may impose such reasonable conditions as necessary in order to ensure that a proposed essential public facility satisfies, to the extent practicable, the applicable permit criteria therefor and does not unreasonably impact the public health, safety, environment and welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Limiting the manner in which the proposed special use is conducted, including restricting the time during which an activity may take place, and restraints to minimize such environmental effects as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare and odor;

(b) Requiring a special yard or other open space or lot area or dimension;

(c) Limiting the height, size or location of a building or other structure;

(d) Designating the size, number, location or nature of vehicle access points;

(e) Designating the amount of street dedication, roadway width or improvements within the street right-of-way;

(f) Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of parking or vehicle loading areas;

(g) Limiting or otherwise designating the number, size, location, and height of lighting of signs;

(h) Limiting the location and intensity of outdoor lighting, and/or requiring shielding thereof;

(i) Requiring screening, landscaping or another facility to protect adjacent or nearby property, and designate standards for the installation or maintenance of such facility;

(j) Designating the size, height, location or constituent materials for on-site fencing;

(k) Protecting existing trees, vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat or other significant natural resources;

(l) Requiring provisions for public access, both physical and visual, to natural, scenic and recreational resources;

(m) Requiring provisions for stormwater drainage, including designating the size, location, screening, or other improvements of detention ponds and related facilities;

(n) Imposing special conditions on the proposed special use to reasonably ensure its conformance with the surrounding neighborhood and the intent and purpose of the underlying zoning district; and

(o) Requiring financial guarantees regarding the installation of required infrastructure and landscaping improvements, as well as reasonable evidence or assurances that any permit conditions will be complied with.

(2) The list of conditions enumerated in subsection (1) of this section is nonexclusive. Nothing in this chapter is intended to diminish or otherwise abridge the City’s authority to require mitigation measures or impose conditions pursuant to any other applicable State or local requirement, including but not limited to the SEPA regulations codified at Chapter 21.52 WMC and the subdivision regulations codified at Chapter 21.60 WMC. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.070 Optional site consultation process.

Prior to submitting a special use permit application under this chapter, an EPF sponsor may request site consultation with the Director. Participation in this consultation process is encouraged as a means for project sponsors to present facility proposals, provide information about potential sites, and discuss possible siting incentives and mitigation measures. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.080 Interjurisdictional siting.

Where the City has executed an interlocal agreement with one or more other jurisdictions regarding the siting of EPFs of a regional or State-wide nature, the City shall cooperate fully and in good faith with said jurisdiction(s) to the extent specified in the interlocal agreement; provided, that nothing in this section nor in any such interlocal agreement shall be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise abridging the City’s regulatory authority. The City may also in its discretion execute a development agreement with the sponsor of any proposed EPF pursuant to Chapter 21.82 WMC and Chapter 36.70B RCW. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.090 Public involvement.

The special use permit application process shall include a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement in the siting decision and to assist in determining possible mitigation measures. Informational public meetings within the City shall be scheduled pursuant to this process, the number of which shall be determined by the Director based upon consideration of the size, complexity and estimated impacts of the proposed facility. The Director shall determine the format and location(s) for the meetings, and shall require that public notice and meeting summaries acceptable to the City shall be either prepared or funded by the EPF sponsor. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.100 Consultant and legal review – Deposit.

The Director may require legal and/or independent consultant review of a proposed EPF or expansion of an existing EPF in order to assess its impacts and compliance with the criteria contained in this chapter. If such review is required, the project sponsor shall make a deposit with the City sufficient to reasonably fund the cost of such review, as determined by the Director. Said deposit shall be separate from and in addition to any other required fee. The deposit shall be set at a level reasonably consistent with the anticipated cost of review based on the size, complexity and estimated impacts of the proposal, as determined by the Director. The Director may require the sponsor to periodically supplement the deposit to the extent necessary to ensure payment of the review. Any unexpended funds shall be returned to the applicant following the final decision on the underlying special use permit application. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.110 Hearing Examiner decision.

(1) The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written decision approving, approving with conditions, or denying an application for a special use permit for an essential public facility under this chapter. The Hearing Examiner’s decision shall contain findings and conclusions addressing the standards and criteria applicable to the category of EPF under consideration.

(2) The decision criteria set forth in this chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to preclude the siting or expansion of essential public facilities in the City of Woodinville.

(3) Any party of record may request reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner’s decision within 10 days of issuance thereof. Any such request for reconsideration shall be in writing and addressed to the Director, who shall transmit it to the Hearing Examiner. If a request for reconsideration is received, the Hearing Examiner shall, within 10 days, issue a decision granting or denying said request. The relevant appeal deadline for the Hearing Examiner’s underlying decision shall be tolled during the period of any reconsideration. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.120 Suspension or revocation of permit.

A special use permit issued for an EPF may be suspended or revoked by the Director if the sponsor subsequently fails to comply with any condition of approval. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.130 Appeal.

Appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s ruling shall be governed by Chapter 21.85 WMC. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.140 Decision timing.

The review, reconsideration and appeal process set forth in this chapter shall not be used to preclude an EPF. The Hearing Examiner shall render a final, appealable decision with respect to special use permit application for an EPF within 240 days of the City’s notice of completion regarding the permit application. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.150 Building permit application.

(1) Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the special use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to comply, the Director shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor.

(2) No building or construction permits may be applied for prior to special use permit approval of an EPF unless the applicant signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the Director’s acceptance of the building or construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter.

(3) Building permits for an EPF which fails to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report made to the Director. The Director shall institute a proceeding before the Hearing Examiner to permit the EPF’s sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its special use permit should not be revoked or further conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 21.84 WMC; provided, that the Hearing Examiner’s decision shall be final and appealable only to Superior Court pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)

21.32.160 Secure community transition facilities.

(1) The siting of secure community transition facilities as defined by RCW 71.09.020 shall be governed by the applicable provisions of Chapter 71.09 RCW and this section.

(2) The Hearing Examiner may impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of a special use permit for a secure community transition facility, pursuant to applicable provisions of the WMC; provided, that with respect to the subject matters specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340, the Hearing Examiner shall not impose any condition more restrictive than the requirements specifically addressed by those sections. This subsection shall not be construed as limiting any authority the Hearing Examiner may have to impose conditions of a type that are not specifically addressed by RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. The State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) may voluntarily impose conditions upon its proposal that would be more restrictive than the requirements of RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. To the extent that this subsection conflicts with subsection (4) of this section, subsection (4) shall control.

(3) The City hereby acknowledges and adopts the siting policy guidelines developed by DSHS pursuant to RCW 71.09.285 and 71.09.290 and such guidelines shall be considered by the Hearing Examiner in making his/her decision on the special use permit for a secure community transition facility. The Hearing Examiner shall deny a special use permit application if it determines that DSHS did not comply with the siting policy guidelines in selecting the proposed site.

(4) With respect to the siting of secure community transition facilities, nothing in this section shall be construed by the Hearing Examiner or a reviewing court to be a regulation more restrictive than the minimum requirements (RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340). The Hearing Examiner is hereby authorized, in making his/her decision regarding the siting of a secure community transition facility, to ignore any regulation herein that the Hearing Examiner determines to be more restrictive than the minimum requirements. (Ord. 611 § 8 (Att. A), 2016)