Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 08/20/2002 KEN T COUNCIL WORKSHOP I1.� WASH //'``��NGTO N / 'OU CITY COUNCIL August 20, 2002 Judy Woods Council President 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 The Council Workshop will be held in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:00 PM Phone: 253-856-5712 .on Tuesday, August 20, 2002. Fax: 253-856-6712 Council Members: President Judy Woods,Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Leona Orr,Julie Peterson,Bruce White, Rico Yingling Speaker Time 1. Committee Minutes Tom Brubaker 10 min. 2. Kent Station Video Mike Martin 10 min. 3. Secure Community Transition Facilities Charlene Anderson 25 min. The Council Workshop meets each month on the first and third Tuesdays at 5:OOPM in Chambers East unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-5712, ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388. Item 1 Council Workshop 8/20102 Committee Minutes CITY OF KENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT Memorandum To: City Councilmembers CC: Jim White, Mayor Mike Martin, Chief Administrative Officer Brenda Jacober, City Clerk From: Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Be: Necessity of Verbatim Transcript of Council and Committee Meetings Date: August 8, 2002 Currently, the City Clerk's office prepares verbatim transcripts of all council and council committee meetings. This verbatim transcript is not needed. The only statutory requirement is that the City keep a "journal" or a "journal of minutes" or "minutes" of council or committee meetings. Black's Law Dictionary describes "journal" as "a book in which entries are made or events recorded from day to day," and describes "minutes" as "memoranda or notes of a transaction or proceeding." In other words, minute entries, by their very nature are intended to be summary notes of more extended discussions, not verbatim transcripts. They can be as short and succinct as practical, so long as they convey the gist of the business transacted. The following is all that the statutes say regarding recording council business: • RCW 35A.12.110. Council Meetings: "A journal of all proceedings shall be kept, which shall be a public record." • RCW 35A.39.010. Legislative and administrative records: "Every code city shall keep a journal of minutes of its legislative meetings with orders, resolutions and ordinances passed, and records of the proceedings of any city department, division, or commission performing quasi judicial functions as required by ordinances of the city and general laws of the state...." • RCW 42.32.030. Minutes: "The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions, agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection." MEMORANDUM: City Councilmembers August 8,2002 Page: 2 • Applicable case law clarifies that the City must maintain a verbatim record of any quasi-judicial matter held before a council, committee, board, commission, or department. Barrie v. Kitsap County, 84 Wn. 2d 579 (1974). A written transcript, audio tape or video tape will suffice, so long as the record is complete. The reason for this is that quasi-judicial matters involve the adjudication of specific rights among specific persons based upon specific factual circumstances and are subject to appeal in the state courts. An appellate court cannot make a reasoned decision without a complete record of the original proceeding, and hence cannot make a fully informed decision. As a result, without that complete record, the reviewing court's only response is to vacate the lower proceeding, leaving up to the parties to do it all over again, this time keeping a good record. The City does keep track of its quasi-judicial hearings and always keeps a verbatim record, usually by audio tape. Therefore, the current practice of verbatim transcription of all council and committee meetings is not necessary so long as the minutes prepared convey the gist of the business transacted at the meeting. P:CiviPAPINiONSCouodl-Vsrb.nmT.uamgMceooge.doc WEST'S REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON ANNOTATED TITLE 35A.OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 35A.12.MAYOR-COUNCIL PLAN OF GOVERNMENT Copr.© West Group 2002. All rights reserved. Current through Chapter 3 of 2002 Regular Session 35A 12.110. Council meetings The city council and mayor shall meet regularly, at least once a month, at a place and at such times as may be designated by the city council. All final actions on resolutions and ordinances must take place within the corporate limits of the city. Special meetings may be called by the mayor or any three members of the council by written notice delivered to each member of the council at least twenty-four hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting.All actions that have heretofore been taken at special council meetings held pursuant to this section,but for which the number of hours of notice given has been at variance with requirements of RCW 42.30.080, are hereby validated.All council meetings shall be open to the public except as permitted by chapter 42.30 RCW.No ordinance or resolution shall be passed, or contract let or entered into,or bill for the payment of money allowed at any meeting not open to the public, nor at any public meeting the date of which is not fixed by ordinance, resolution, or rule, unless public notice of such meeting has been given by such notice to each local newspaper of general circulation and to each local radio or television station, as provided in RCW 42.30.080 as now or hereafter amended. Meetings of the council shall be presided over by the mayor, if present, or otherwise by the mayor pro tempore, or deputy mayor if one has been appointed, or by a member of the council selected by a majority of the council members at such meeting. Appointment of a council member to preside over the meeting shall not in any way abridge his right to vote on matters coming before the council at such meeting. In the absence of the clerk, a deputy clerk or other qualified person appointed by the clerk,the mayor, or the council, may perform the duties of clerk at such meeting. A journal of all proceedings shall be kept,which shall be a public record. WEST'S REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON ANNOTATED TITLE 35A.OPTIONAL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 35A.39.PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS Copr.© West Group 2002. All rights reserved. Current through Chapter 3 of 2002 Regular Session 35A 39 010 Leilislative and administrative records Every code city shall keep a journal of minutes of its legislative meetings with orders, resolutions and ordinances passed, and records of the proceedings of any city department, division or commission performing quasi judicial functions as required by ordinances of the city and general laws of the state and shall keep such records open to the public as required by RCW 42.32.030 and shall keep and preserve all public records and publications or reproduce and destroy the same as provided by Title 40 RCW.Each code city may duplicate and sell copies of its ordinances at fees reasonably calculated to defray the cost of such duplication and handling. WEST'S REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON ANNOTATED TITLE 42.PUBLIC OFFICERS AND AGENCIES CHAPTER 42.32.MEETINGS Copr.© West Group 2002. All rights reserved. Current through Chapter 3 of 2002 Regular Session 42.32.030. Minutes The minutes of all regular and special meetings except executive sessions of such boards, commissions,agencies or authorities shall be promptly recorded and such records shall be open to public inspection. Copr.© West 2002 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt.Works kept in order to permit parties a full and complete judicial review. James Barrie et al.,Appellants, V. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County et al.,Respondents. Kitsap County, No. 60743, Francis E. Holman, J., entered October 5, 1973.reversed. *580 43011 Action to review a zoning decision of county Supreme Court of Washington,En Banc commissioners. Appeals taken from a judgment partially in favor of the plaintiffs. November 21, 1974 Derrill T. Bastian and William H. Fraser, for appellants. Petition for rehearing denied January 17, 1975 John C. Merkel, Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents Kitsap County et al. HEADNOTES Bishop,Cunningham&Costello,Inc.,(P.S.)by John Zoning --Hearings --Notice --Sufficiency -- Bishop and Leonard W. Costello, Monheimer, Determination. Schermer, Van Fredenberg & Smith, by Roland (1) The good faith intent of a county planning Johnson, for respondents Vergeer et al. commission is not to be considered in determining whether its notice of a hearing relating to the [As amended by order of the Supreme Court January recommendation of official controls is sufficient for 7, 1975.] purposes of RCW 36.70.590; rather, the question to be considered is whether or not such notice would mislead concerned citizens. [See Ann. 96 A.L.R.2d Hunter,J. 466; 58 Am.Jur.,Zoning § 176.] The appellants (plaintiffs), James and Sheila Barrie, Zoning--Hearings--Notice --Sufficiency--Informed along with surrounding landowners, appeal from the Recipient. decision of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, (2) The notice which RCW 36.70.590 requires be which upheld the approval of a rezone of certain given of a county planning commission hearing property and voided a proposed planned unit relating to recommendation of official controls must development(or PUD). The respondents(defendants) apprise persons who might be affected by such action in this case include the Kitsap Planning Commission, of its nature and character so that they may the Kitsap Board of County Commissioners, and the adequately prepare for the hearing. project developers of the PUD. Zoning --Planned Unit Development --Purpose --In The land which is subject to the disputed rezone and General. planned unit development is located near Bremerton (3) In general, the purpose of a planned unit in an unincorporated area and has previously been development is to achieve planning flexibility by used as a dairy farm. On two sides are located main modifying certain specific zoning requirements as traffic arterials, one of which is a 4-lane state they apply to a particular parcel of land. highway. In addition, two of the adjoining sides and part of a third are zoned for general business Zoning --Proceedings --Planning Commission -- activities. The land is bordered to the east by a large Nature of Proceedings. commercial shopping center; to the north by Riddell (4) The proceedings of a planning commission to Road where a gas station is located; and to the south consider zoning actions, subsequent to the adoption by a food market and a furniture store. of a comprehensive plan, are administrative and quasi-judicial. On October 7, 1970, the defendant developers, Robinson, Vergeer, and Ness filed an application for Zoning--Judicial Review--Administrative Record-- a rezone of the above 31.8-acre tract of land from its Necessity. then existing classification of RE-7500(single family (5) A verbatim record of adjudicatory zoning residential) to the proposed classification of BG proceedings before a planning commission must be (business general). A separate application was filed Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works requesting the approval of a planned *581 unit rezone be approved and an ordinance amendment be development of the same property as a shopping and passed, and that the planned unit development be professional center. Both applications were dated approved and a resolution be passed.' October 6, 1970, and were submitted together to the Kitsap County Planning Commission (hereafter The record shows that neither during the course of referred to as the'Commission'). the January 18 meeting nor any prior meeting, had opposition been expressed concerning the proposed Following the submission of the two applications to rezone and PUD. the Commission, a notice of a public hearing was published on October 15, 1970, in the Bremerton Following the hearing of January 18, 1971, no final Sun,a legal newspaper.The notice advised the public development plans for the proposed PUD were of the proposed rezone in conjunction with a PUD for submitted by the developers until February 7, 1973. a shopping and professional center. However, the No extension was applied for or granted on or before notice failed to state the time, date and place of the January 18, 1972. On February 7, 1973, the public hearing. According to the record, on the 14th defendant Ness submitted a final development plan of October 1970, a letter containing notice had been for Phase I of the PUD to the Board. Thereafter, on mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the April 23, 1973,the final development plans for Phase property subject to the rezone, advising them of the II were submitted and accepted by the Board. hearing. This letter did contain the date, time and location of the hearing. On October 27, 1970, the On May 31, 1973, the plaintiff Barrie protested the Commission held an open hearing and tabled the Board's actions by filing a writ of certiorari with the proposed rezone and PUD. Superior Court for Kitsap County alleging, among other things, that the PUD was void and that the Notice of the next open meeting was published on original single family residential classification should November 11, 1970, in two legal newspapers, the be reinstated. Subsequently, on August 12, 1973, Bremerton Sun and the Port Orchard Independent. other parties successfully moved to join in the suit. A The notice indicated the time, place and purpose of return to the writ was filed by the defendants and on the second meeting, which was held on November August 29, 1973, a trial commenced at which time 24, 1970. During the course of this hearing, the the court took evidence and heard arguments of Commission decided that the rezone and PUD should counsel be discussed with the City of Bremerton and, therefore,the subject was tabled once again. On October 5, 1973, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that (1) the On December 29, 1970, at the regularly scheduled notice of October 15, 1970, was incomplete and meeting of the Commission, the proposed rezone and therefore invalid; (2) the notice published on PUD was considered for the third time. During the November 11, 1970, was in compliance with the interim since their last meeting, the Commission had statutory requirements, and therefore did constitute received approval from the City of Bremerton legal notice; (3) a verbatim record of the proceedings conditioned on the assurance that all construction *583 need not be kept by either the Commission or would be in accordance with the City's building Board, and that minutes were lawful and sufficient; standards. In the course of the meeting, a motion to (4) the record taken as a whole fails to reveal any approve the rezone was made and passed by a vote of appearance of unfairness during the course of the 6 to 0 with the chairman abstaining. In addition, a proceedings;(5)the proposed PUD is void for failure separate motion was passed to approve the PUD on the part of the developers to submit a final application subject to several conditions. development plan within 1 year of the preliminary approval; (6) the PUD and the rezone are separate Subsequently, the recommendations of approval for and severable, and therefore the voiding of the PUD the *582 rezone and the PUD were submitted by the did not taint the validity of the rezone; and (7) an Commission to the Kitsap County Board of County affirmative act by the Board is required to rezone the Commissioners (hereafter referred to as the 'Board'). tract back to its original classification. In response to On January 18, 1971, in an open meeting, the Board this decision,the plaintiffs appeal. unanimously approved both applications and rezoned the 31.8-acre tract to business general. According to (1) It is conceded the trial court was correct in ruling the minutes: that the application for the PUD was void under section 4.5.2.3 of the zoning ordinance for the reason 'There was a motion by Commissioner Lobe that the that no final development plans had been filed with Copr.© West 2002 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works the Board within 1 year, or on extension of time of Silverdale Realty, and Mr. J. H.Robinson and Mr. obtained. The plaintiffs contend, however, that the Neal C. Ness, c/o Silverdale Realty, P.O. Box 56, voiding of the PUD application automatically voided Silverdale,Washington. Location of the property is at the application to rezone. They argue that otherwise the southwest corner of Riddel Road and the the notice was misleading and defective since it Brownsville Highway(Hwy.21-13). failed to inform a concerned citizen that a blanket rezone, without an attached PUD, could result. The defendants on the other hand contend that the For persons wishing additional information or the applications were separate and were considered exact legal descriptions of the above described separately, and it was never intended that the property, feel free to contact the Kitsap County approval of the rezone be dependent on the approval Planning Department at TRiangle 6-4441, Extension of the PUD. The record appears to support this 255. conclusion, but the sufficiency of the notice must be considered independent of what the Commission, in (Italics ours.) good faith, may have had in mind or intended. The question is whether or not the notice was defective in (2)We feel that any citizen reading this notice would that the plaintiffs and concerned citizens were in fact be led to believe that the rezone and the PUD were misled.We agree with the plaintiffs. one proposal to be considered together and not separately and that the rezone was for the exclusive RCW 36.70.580 required that the Commission hold purpose of a PUD development. The purpose of the at least one public hearing before recommending an notice required by this *585 statute is to fairly and amendment *584 or official control [FN1] to the sufficiently apprise those who may be affected by the Board. RCW 36.70.590 provides in part: proposed action of the nature and character of the amendment so that they may intelligently prepare for Notice of the time,place and purpose of the hearing the hearing. Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 83 shall be given by one publication. . . at least ten days Wn.2d,707,711,521 P.2d 1173 (1974). before the hearing. (3)To fully understand the deficiency of this notice one must be cognizant of the effects a planned unit FN1. See RCW 36.70.550 and RCW development has upon an area. The PUD is intended 36.70.560 for definitive explanation of to achieve flexibility by permitting specific official control. modifications of the customary zoning standards as applied to a particular parcel of land. Lutz v. Longview,83 Wn.2d 566,520 P.2d 1374(1974).The (Italics ours.) Pursuant to the statute, the following very definition of the word 'planned' includes the notice was published on November 11, 1970, in the connotation of a project which stresses imaginative Bremerton Sun and the Port Orchard Independent: scope. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961). In this case, an individual who viewed a map The regular meeting of the Kitsap County Planning of the proposed planned unit development, which Commission will be held Tuesday, November 24, was on file and a matter of public record,would have 1970 at 10:00 A.M. or thereafter, in the County seen an imaginatively drawn plan providing for new Administration Building, Port Orchard, Washington. buildings with surrounding landscaping. The land The purpose of the meeting will be to hold public was inventively contoured. There was adequate hearings on the following: (NOTE: Old Business is parking and specific space provided for pedestrian scheduled to begin at 10:00 A.M. and New Business circulation. Such a development may very well have to begin at 1:30 P.M.) met with approval of the community, which could have accounted for the absence of objections to the . . . applications at the rezone hearings; whereas, a rezone Public Hearing: Application has been submitted to of the property to business general, as compared to a the Kitsap County Planning Commission requesting rezone restricted by a planned unit development, approval of a rezone from RS-7500 to Business would conceivably be unsightly, congested, and General in conjunction with approval of a planned could be wholly objectionable to adjoining unit development which proses [sic] a shopping and landowners and members of the community. Our professional center on a parcel of land containing holding that the notice in this case is deficient is 31.8 acres with related parking and accesses. Name mandated by the constitutional requirement calling of the applicants: Mr. Gerald S.Vergeer, Coordinator for procedural due process of law. One of the basic �.. Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt.Works touchstones of due process in any proceeding is of the record made before those groups. notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise affected parties of the In Loveless on page 763 we adopted the decision of pending action and afford them an opportunity to Russo v. Stevens 10 Misc.2d 530 173 N.Y.S.2d 344 present their objections. Armstronp, v. Manzo, 380 (1958), and concluded that U.S. 545, 14. L. Ed.2d 62,85 S. Ct. 1187(1965). no adequate or intelligent judicial review is possible We hold that the notice provided by the defendants unless all the essential evidentiary material upon was defective in that it conceivably deprived the which the administrative agency predicates a quasi- plaintiffs, and*586 all other affected parties,of their judicial determination is in the record and before the opportunity to be heard, by misleading them into court. believing that the proposed PUD and the rezone would be treated as one action. Therefore, the initial The very purpose for requiring a record is to provide rezone was invalid,and is hereby declared void. an adequate factual accounting which will enable a reviewing court to resolve the issues before it in a The plaintiffs also challenge the sufficiency of the given case. In light of our determination that rezone record,contending that rezone proceedings are quasi- proceedings conducted by county planning judicial in nature and therefore require a verbatim commissions and boards of county commissioners record to be kept by both the planning commission are quasi-judicial in character, we hold that a and the board of county commissioners.We agree. verbatim record of rezone proceedings hereafter initiated shall be required in order that we assure (4) In the case of Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, future parties a full and complete judicial review. 78 Wn.2d 858, 869, 480 P.2d 489 (1971), we stated that a planning commission, in its role as a hearing In view of our disposition of this case, we need not and fact-finding tribunal, 'partakes of the nature of an reach the other issues raised. administrative, quasi-judicial proceeding ' Furthermore, in Fleming v. Tacoma, 81 Wn.2d 292, The decision of the trial court, holding the rezone to 502 P.2d 327(1972),we stated on page 299: be valid,is reversed. The process by which they [zoning decisions] are Hale, C. J., and Finley, Rosellini, Hamilton, made, subsequent to the adoption of a comprehensive Stafford, Wright, Utter, and Brachtenbach, JJ., plan and a zoning code,is basically adjudicatory. concur. *588 (Italics ours.) In addition, we distinguished between Wn.2d,1974. the legislative function of enacting the initial comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance from Barrie v.Kitsap County subsequent rezones.We held that END OF DOCUMENT in amending a zoning code, or reclassifying land thereunder, the same body, in effect, makes an adjudication between the rights sought by the proponents and those claimed by the opponents of the zoning change. Fleming v. Tacoma,supra at 299. (5) A full and complete record is important in all types of proceedings. However, the necessity of an adequate record is especially acute when the court is called upon to review adjudicatory proceedings. In Loveless v. Yantis. 82 Wn.2d 754, 513 P.2d 1C23 (1973),we recognized on page 762 that: Courts reviewing the proceedings of planning commissions and county commissioners in zoning cases are *587 normally restricted to a consideration Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt.Works Item 3 Council Workshop 8/20/02 Secure Comy munit Transition Facilities COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WAS H I N O T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 August 13, 2002 TO: COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER RE: SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES Workshop Date: August 20, 2002 At their July 22"d public hearing,the Land Use & Planning Board recommended forwarding a "No Change"recommendation to the City Council regarding Secure Community Transition Facilities. The following paragraphs and enclosed documents provide background on this issue as the Council proceeds to consider the Board's recommendation. INTRODUCTION Senate Bill ESSB 6594 enacted March 2002 (amending ESSB 6151 which was enacted June 2001) requires cities to provide for siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTFs) by September 1, 2002. Changes to state law occurred as a result of a 1991 civil rights complaint and 1994 federal court order requiring the McNeil Island total confinement facility to provide residents with "constitutionally adequate mental health treatment." This means that residents who are ready for conditional release must have an opportunity for less restrictive alternative placement. SCTFs provide sexual offenders with living arrangements that are less restrictive than total confinement. An SCTF has "...supervision and security, and either provides or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services"(RCW 71.09.020). The 2002 Legislature provided an appropriation to the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for the implementation of ESSB 6594 and also allowed the state to "preempt and supersede local plans, development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection requirements, and all other laws as necessary..." for failure to comply. However, failure to act by the September 1, 2002 deadline is not a condition for fiscal sanctions, appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board, or a private cause of action(ESSB 6594 Section 2(8)). Staff presented this issue to the May 14, 2002 Public Safety Committee, which did not object to proceeding with analysis of the City's regulations regarding Secure Community Transition Facilities. Staff also presented this issue to the Land Use and Planning Board at their June 10a' workshop, and the Board conducted a public hearing on the issue on July 22"a `— BACKGROUND Senate Bill 6151 amended the Growth Management Act to include SCTFs in the list of facilities that typically are difficult to site and that are deemed "essential public facilities" (RCW 36.70A.200 "GMA"). As directed by GMA, cities must have a process for identifying and siting these facilities. The Capital Facilities Element of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains a goal and policies regarding the siting of essential public facilities. Goal CFP-8 envisions a "cooperative interjurisdictional process to determine siting of essential public facilities of a county-wide, regional, or state-wide nature." Policy CFP-8.3 provides for a conditional use -� process for specific group homes. The City of Kent first defined and established a process for siting group homes in January 1991 via Ordinance No. 2958 (amended April 1999 via Ordinance No. 3451). This ordinance was in response to the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act. Kent City Code 15.02.173 defines a Class III group home as "...privately or publicly operated residential facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system who have entered a pre- or post-charging diversion program..." and includes "...individuals who have been convicted of a violent crime against a person or a crime against property with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator." These group homes require a Conditional Use Permit to locate in all the commercial zoning districts in Kent except the GWC, Gateway Commercial district, where such group homes are not allowed. These group homes also are allowed via a Conditional Use Permit in the "0", Professional and Office, zoning district. They are not permitted in any other district. Kent City Code Section 15.08.280 further regulates the location of Class III group homes by a dispersion requirement of 600 feet from any other Class II or Class III group home and a 1,000- foot separation requirement from "sensitive land uses." These sensitive land uses include public or private schools, churches or other religious facilities or institutions, parks and playgrounds, and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive. Class III group homes also must be separated at least 1,000 feet from all residential areas. State law requires SCTFs to provide a high degree of security and staff supervision. Security measures include court conditions, proximity to risk locations, intensive staffing, closer supervision and escorts, household security systems, intensive training for qualified staff, informed staff and escorts, requiring advance planning for community trips, and individual electronic monitoring devices. The law also requires the City to consider the effect of"equitable distribution factors"on the siting of a facility. Consideration will be given to the City's number and location of existing residential facilities operated by the Department of Corrections or the Mental Health Division of DSHS, the number of registered sex offenders classified as level II or level III, and the number of sex offenders registered as homeless in the City. "Equitable distribution" means avoiding a disproportionate grouping of similar facilities in any one jurisdiction. The new SCTF law provides that such facilities may not be sited within the line of sight of any risk potential activities or facilities, i.e., those activities and facilities where the public has a higher incidence of risk from persons who are conditionally released from the special commitment center. The risk potential activities and facilities include schools, licensed day care and preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, playgrounds, sports fields, recreational and community centers, school bus stops, religious facilities, and public libraries. DSHS sent the City of Kent Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data providing location of the risk potential facilities referenced by the new law. Maps of the risk potential facilities, including 1,000-foot and 500-foot buffers are included in the agenda packet. DSHS data indicate the City of Kent has 206 registered sex offenders (all categories) and no residential facility beds City Council Workshop August 20,2002 Page 2 of 6 operated by the Department of Corrections and the DSHS Mental Health Division within the municipal limits. According to Police Department records, the number of registered sex offenders (all categories) provided by DSHS includes those offenders who have Kent mailing addresses but live in the unincorporated area of King County. The average number of registered sex offenders within the municipal limits is 125. A July registry listed 118 level one offenders, three (3) level two offenders and two (2) level three offenders. OTHER JURISDICTIONS Staff researched with other cities their progress toward meeting the regulations regarding Secure Community Transition Facilities. Most cities are preparing to amend their ordinances to comply with the September 1, 2002 deadline. Auburn: The City of Auburn is proposing Conditional Use Permitting for the facilities, with a separation requirement from sensitive land uses. Federal Way: The City of Federal Way is not preparing to amend their regulations and possibly will face preemption by the State of Washington of "...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 secure community transition facilities..." (Reference Chapter 71.09 RCW). SeaTac: The City of SeaTac is proposing to allow the facilities in their High Commercial and Industrial zoning districts via a Conditional Use Permit process. The city is not proposing any separation or buffer from sensitive land uses beyond what is in the state law. Tukwila: The City of Tukwila is proposing allowing the facilities via an "unclassified use permit" (similar to Conditional Use Permit) in their industrial zone with a separation requirement from residential zones and other such facilities. King County: It appears that King County still is researching their response to the state regulations. At the very minimum, they likely will adjust their Group Homes ordinance to disallow such facilities in residential areas. Des Moines: At their public hearing, the City of Des Moines proposed allowing the facilities via Council Use Permit (similar to Conditional Use Permit) in the Pacific Ridge area north of S. 216`h Street along Highway 99, in the CC zoning district along the west side of Highway 99 adjacent to the City of Kent, and in a business park area north of S. 216`h Street. Covington: The City of Covington is not intending to amend their regulations and possibly will face preemption from the State of Washington. Renton: Staff from the City of Renton proposes to locate the facilities in their medium and heavy industrial areas in the"Valley"only and perhaps within the Arterial Commercial district along West Valley Highway. They are proposing a Conditional Use Permit process without a separation requirement. Other Cities: Although staff hasn't consulted directly with Burien, we understand the City of Burien is proposing a Conditional Use Permit process to allow the facilities in one of the industrial zoning districts, with a separation or buffer requirement. City Council Workshop August 20, 2002 Page 3 of 6 ANALYSIS Staff s analysis of Kent City Code indicates that after applying the existing Group Homes Class III regulations, there is a limited number of potential locations that would meet the development _ criteria for locating Secure Community Transition Facilities. Additionally, on three previous occasions (Cities of Auburn, Enumclaw and Tukwila), the Department of Social and Health Services has commented that a separation requirement/buffer is more restrictive than the requirements in state law. In their July 22°d comments on the proposed City of Kent regulations, DSHS made similar remarks regarding those Kent options proposing separation requirements. DSHS further commented that their field tests determined that an individual might reasonably visually distinguish and recognize other individuals who are standing within 600 feet, assuming the terrain is visually unobstructed (Reference the "line of sight" criterion for siting Secure Community Transition Facilities). Staff proposed the following options for consideration by the Land Use & Planning Board in their public hearing: 1) No Change: Under this option Secure Community Transition Facilities would be classified Class III Group Homes. These Group Homes are allowed via Conditional Use Permit in the O, Professional and Office, zoning district and in all commercial zoning districts (NCC, CC, DC, DCE, CM-1, CM-2, GC) except GWC, Gateway Commercial. There is a separation requirement or buffer from other Class 11 or Class III Group Homes and from residential and other sensitive land uses. Concerns about this option relate to the limited number of available parcels and the possibility of State preemption because of the perceived "more restrictive" criteria from State law. 2) Minor Change — Add zoning district: Under this option Secure Community Transition Facilities would be classified and allowed as in Option 1, with an amendment to add the GWC zoning district to the list of commercial zoning districts. This option slightly increases the number of available parcels. State preemption is possible as stated under Option 1. 3) Minor Change — Text Amendment: This option can be combined with either Option 1 or 2. A. Add a note to the Land Use Table (KCC 15.04.020) that states, "A Secure Community Transition Facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements (Reference Chapter 71.09 RCW). Secure Community Transition Facilities are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for Class III Group Homes, but they are subject to a 600-foot separation from any other Class II or III Group Home. (After hearing testimony from DSHS representative Beverly Wilson at the public hearing before the Land Use & Planning Board, staff was amenable to amending this text at this location as follows: "In no case shall a Secure Community Transition Facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a Secure Community Transition Facility, the Hearing Examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be "within line of sight." Through the Secure Community Transition Facility — Conditional Use Permit process, "line of sight" may be City Council Workshop August 20, 2002 Page 4 of 6 considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet.") This distance will be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. B. Add a definition of Secure Community Transition Facility to KCC 15.02 as follows: "Secure community transition facility" means a residential facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative under chapter 71.09 RCW. A secure community transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services. Secure community transition facilities include but are not limited to the facilities established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250 and any community-based facilities established under chapter 71.09 RCW and operated by the secretary of the State of Washington department of social and health services or under contract with the secretary. C. New definition in KCC 15.02 as follows: "Less restrictive alternative" means court- ordered treatment in a setting less restrictive than total confinement which satisfies the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092. D. New definition in KCC 15.02 as follows: "Equitable distribution" means siting or locating secure community transition facilities in a manner that will not cause a disproportionate grouping of similar facilities either in any one county, or in any one jurisdiction or community within a county, as relevant. - E. Add to end of definition in KCC 15.02.173 as follows: Group home (C) Class III group home. Class III group home means privately or publicly operated residential facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system who have entered a pre- or post-charging diversion program, or been selected to participate in state-operated work/training release or other similar programs as provided in Chapters 137-56 and 137-57 WAC. Such groups also involve individuals who have been convicted of a violent crime against a person or a crime against property with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator. Class III group homes shall have a maximum of eighteen (18) residents including resident staff. (After hearing testimony from DSHS representative Beverly Wilson at the public hearing before the Land Use & Planning Board, staff was amenable to amending this text at this location as follows: "Secure Community Transition Facilities are considered Class III Group Homes.") F. Amend KCC 15.08.280(C) Separation requirements for Group homes class II and III as follows: "A one thousand (1,000) foot separation requirement will apply to class II and III group homes to separate such facilities from sensitive land uses such as publie playgrespublic and private schools school bus stops licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities public parks publicly dedicated trails sports fields, playgrounds recreational and community centers churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, public libraries, and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive..." City Council Workshop August 20,2002 Page 5 of 6 (The Land Use & Planning Board, at the public hearing, accepted into the record a July 22, 2002 letter from John Reynolds of DSHS regarding this separation requirement precluding location of juvenile community facilities in Kent. Mr. Reynolds states this is contrary to the Growth Management Act and Growth _ Management Hearings Board decisions. Staff responded by noting that the public hearing before the Board was to consider regulations for siting Secure Community Transition Facilities and that staff would undertake review of regulations regarding other Group Homes at a later time.) G. Amend KCC 15.09.030(D)(8) Standards and criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit: 8. Any other similar considerations may be applied that may be appropriate to a particular case. For example, Secure Community Transition Facilities shall comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements (Reference Chapter 71.09 RCW). Great weight shall be given to equitable distribution and the City shall not be subject to a disproportionate grouping of essential public facilities of a state- wide, regional or county-wide nature. 4. Restricted zonin a: Under this option, the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities would be limited to the GWC, Gateway Commercial, zoning district (see enclosed aerial). The text changes under Option 3 would be applied in this option. (During the presentation at the public hearing before the Land Use & Planning Board, staff recommended approval of this option. Furthermore, after hearing testimony from DSHS representative Beverly Wilson at the public hearing before the Land Use & Planning Board, staff was amenable to amending KCC 15.04.020 to add a note in all zoning districts where Class III Group Homes are allowed stating "Secure Community Transition Facilities are permitted only in the GWC zoning district." A "reverse note" would then be added under the GWC zoning district stating "Other Class II and Class III Group Homes are not allowed in this zoning district.") RECOMMENDATION By a vote of 5 to 1 the Land Use & Planning Board recommended forwarding Option 1, No Change, to the City Council for approval. CA\S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2002\SCTFCCworkshop.doc Eric: DSHS July 22,2002 letter re Amendments to Chapter 15 of the Kent City Code DSHS July 22,2002 letter re...Juvenile Community Facilities DSHS July 19,2002 letter re local emergency services response time DSHS June 20,2002 letter"Elected Officials-Letter on Preemption" DSHS Frequently Asked Questions DSHS Summary of Statutory Siting Requirements DSHS Index of Key Provisions for Siting&Operating SCTFs DSHS Overview of Civil Commitment Process&Treatment Program DSHS Allocation of Additional SCTF Beds DSHS SCTF Resident Profile DSHS SCC Resident Profile DSHS Process for Civil Commitment to Special Commitment Ctr KCC 15.02.173 and 15.08.280 4 maps showing risk potential locations with 1,000 and 500 foot buffers Aerial of GWC zoning district Environmental DNS,Decision Document&Checklist City Council Workshop August 20, 2002 Page 6 of 6 `a`' Tcrp f STATE OF WASHING ON DC 'A P� ! iA CNT OFi J LLiA,L A NC i i =r �� :� , -- PO 3o;i-!53-2? Ofvmpia iNA 985-03=-532- �V July 22, 2002 A Jam` Kent Land Use and Planning Board City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, Washington 98032-5895 RE: Amendments to Chapter 15 of the Kent City Code regarding the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities Dear Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed amendments to the Kent City Code. We appreciate the City's interest in working with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to assure that the City's approach to siting secure community transition facilities (SCTF) meets the requirements of state law. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the City to adequately and appropriately address this important need. As you know, RCW 36.70A.200, as amended by ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), requires all counties and cities to establish a process and amend development regulations as necessary "to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities." At a minimum, this means: The local process and regulations must not preclude the siting of an SCTF. The land use regulations must be consistent with, and no more restrictive than, the requirements for siting and operating an SCTF set out in chapter 71.09 RCW. • ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), Sec. 7, states that the requirements set out in RCW 71 .09.285 through 71.09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by DSHS. This does not prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents DSHS from adding requirements to enhance public safety. City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 2 • The jurisdiction must consider the effect of "equitable distribution factors" on the siting of a facility as addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8). A written policy or statement that describes how your jurisdiction weighs this requirement against other public safety siting requirements of chapter 71.09 RCW is evidence of your consideration. • The zones or areas that the jurisdiction identifies as appropriate for siting secure community transition facilities must include potential sites that meet the criteria in state law. The jurisdiction has the option of identifying specific sites or parcels that meet the criteria in state law. A potential site means either buildable land or a suitable existing facility that is available for lease or purchase at a reasonable or fair market rate. To meet these requirements, we suggest that a jurisdiction complete sufficient analysis to determine whether or not areas or zones designated as appropriate for siting an SCTF will actually yield potential sites that meet the criteria in chapter 71.09 RCW. At a minimum, this means analyzing risk potential locations and equitable distribution factors. To assist you in this analysis, DSHS developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that maps the locations of risk potential facilities and activities and provides information on equitable distribution factors. DSHS has provided this GIS data to your planning staff and will provide updated data as it becomes available. • The local jurisdiction's siting and permitting processes that would be required when DSHS actually sites a facility must be designed to result in a permitted site in a timely manner. This means that the siting process will enable the department to complete construction or renovation of a facility so that it is available for occupancy when needed. A reasonable amount of time to complete local land use permitting process is 180 days from the inception of any local requirements. It is the department's expectation that local jurisdictional permitting processes and regulations (e.g., building permits) for SCTFs will be no more stringent than the requirements for group care facilities. The enclosed letter from DSHS Secretary Dennis Braddock, dated June,20, 2002, provides additional information regarding the meaning of these requirements for counties and cities subject to preemption of local land use authority under ESSB 6594. Specific Comments on City Code Amendment DSHS offers the following comments on Option 4, the recommendation of the City's planning staff in the July 15, 2002 memorandum from Charlene Anderson City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 3 to Vice-Chair David Malik and the City's Land Use & Planning Board. Option 4 would incorporate the text changes listed under Option 3. Land Use Table (KCC 15.05.020). Option 4 would limit the siting of SCTFs to the GWC, Gateway Commercial zoning district, as a conditional use. The staff note to Option 2 observed that adding the GWC zoning district to the list of commercial zoning districts where SCTFs could be sited "slightly increases the number of available parcels." In Option 4, only those parcels that constitute that slight increase would be available for siting SCTFs. Selection of appropriate zones or areas for SCTFs is a local choice. Location of an SCTF in the Gateway Commercial zoning district may be appropriate, as long as you are confident that sufficient sites meeting the state criteria are available in this area. RCW 36.70A.200(5) states that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities, including SCTFs. We note that you have already made use of the GIS data that DSHS provided regarding risk potential facilities and equitable distribution factors. We suggest that the City conduct a thorough geographic analysis, if this has not been done, to make sure that limiting SCTFs to this area would not be preclusive given the location of risk potential facilities. Text Amendment— Option 3. Option 3 would add a note to the land use table requiring SCTFs to comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements, and exempting them from the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for Class III Group Homes. For clarification, we suggest stating in the regulations that SCTFs are Class III Group Homes, and specifying the portions of the City's regulations that do and do not apply to them. Based on our reading of the existing code and the proposed changes, it is our understanding that: 1. SCTFs would only be allowed in the GWC zoning district; other Class III Group Homes would not be allowed in that zone. 2. SCTFs are exempt from the requirement of KCC 15.08.280 for a one thousand foot separation from risk potential facilities and activities. 3. SCTFs would be subject to the 600-foot separation from any Class'll or Class III Group Homes. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the requirement to locate a SCTF a minimum of 600 feet from any other Class II or III Group Home is the City's provision for equitable distribution. City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 4 We have several concerns. Clarity. Your specific "siting criteria" that would apply to SCTFs are unclear, and could becomE: a source of confusion or conflict. We suggest that you clarify whether or not SCTFs are considered Class III Group Homes. In addition, if SCTFs are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 (as stated in the note to the Lind Use Table), that code section should be amended to specifically exempt SCTFs from the requirements that apply to other Class III facilities. Separation requirements. We noted above some confusion over whether or not SCTFs are exempt from the requirement in KCC 15.08.280 for a 1,000-foot separation from risk potential facilities and activities "and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive..." If the restrictions in KCC 15.08.280 apply to the siting of SCTIr=s, the requirements are more restrictive than state law. ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), Sec. 7, states: The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71 .09.340. Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressee in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public safety. The risk potential facilities and activities referenced in RCW 71.09.285 and 290 are those listed in the legislative definition, RCW 71.09.020(7). The provision in KCC 15.08.280 that requires separation from "other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive" could be interpreted to add risk potential-facilities that are not listed in statE.1 law. Adding risk potential facilities to those in the legislative definition would be more restrictive. We would also be concerned with a one-thousand foot separation distance. In setting out the contents for the Policy Guidelines, RCW 71.09.285 states that "in no case shal I the policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration." It goes on to define "within the line of sight" as meaning "that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals." DSHS recently completed field tests to determine what linear distance is a reasonable rneasure of an unobstructed line of sight. In our tests, we determined that an indiviidual might reasonably visually distinguish and recognize other individuals who are standing within 600 feet, assuming the terrain is City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 5 unobstructed. We suggest that you amend your proposed ordinance with wording something like this: In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the Hearing Examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be "within line of sight." Through the Secure Community Transition Facility — Special Use Permit process, "line of sight" may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet." Available sites. As we noted earlier in this letter, we wonder if the one zone available for siting SCTFs would yield an adequate number of suitable parcels. Again, we suggest that the City necessary e numbeeofrmine if the GWC, Gateway Commercial zone would yield an adequate suitable parcels to allow for siting consistent with state law. We appreciate the efforts the City of Kent is taking to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed designation and siting process for essential public facilities and your proposed regulations for secure community tatellto contact m have e at any questions concerning our comments, please do not hes (360) 902-8257, or Elaine Taylor, Land Use Administrator for Secure Community Transition Facilities, at (360) 902-8184. Sincerely, —3& 1 - Beverly . Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center Enclosure c: -i,'�harlene Anderson, AICP, City of Kent Holly Gadbaw, DCTED V. ­-N iz:ad rAa 3609027889 DSHS-LANDS & BLDGS DIV U 002 o CITY OFF KENT m C aev J U L 2 2 2002 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICESEXHIB[T�o� PLNGBOARD Olympia, WA 98504.5000 July 22, 2002 RECEIVED JUL 22 2002 L ind Use and Planning Commission CITY OF KENT C ty of Kent PLANNING SERVICES �'. !0 Fourth Ave. S. K ?nt, Washington 98032-5895 F1 =: Proposed City of Kent Zoning Code relating to Juvenile Community Facilities C► ?ar Members of the Land Use and Planning Commission: T I lank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Kent's Draft Zoning FI ?gulations as they relate to Group Homes Class II, juvenile community facilities. 0 it comments address concems with both the existing Code provisions and the Pr)posed amendments. FI:ase note that our comments do not include or address Secure Community Ti ansition Facilities; comments relating to those facilities are being submitted s:parately. 1. Juvenile Community Facilities: TF e mission of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration is to protect the public, h,:Id juvenile offenders accountable for their crimes, and reduce criminal behavior &I ough a continuum of preventive, rehabilitative, and transition programs in re!. ;idential and community settings. Cc mmunity facilities are an important part of a continuum of services. They allow yc ith to gradually transition from secure care to minimum security in the co nmunity. Successful reintegration of youth into the community depends on the it access to the community. The programs provide youth the opportunity to p►:.ctice new skills and competencies in less restrictive, more normal settings. Y,:ith may attend school and/or vocational training and be employed in the :o nmunity. And, most group homes have community service programs where �o ith volunteer their time giving back to the community. All treatment efforts are JE? signed to build upon skills learned in institutions, hold youth accountable for JE! nonstrating socially acceptable behaviors and reduce the possibility that ✓c, )ths will reoffend when released. Youth are required to make court-ordered -e� titution payments to victims. U7/22/02 W N 12:44 FAX 3609027889 DSHS-LANDS & BLDGS DIV Z 003 .etter to the Land Use and Planning Commission July 22, 2002 Page 2 Community facilities offer a variety of services including 24-hour residential upervision, individual and group counseling, family counseling, release c lanning, drug and alcohol education, random urinalysis testing, education and/or :)cational training, skills training, anger management, victim awareness classes nd other rehabilitative treatment interventions based on each youth's unique reds. ' "-II youth must be eligible on a standardized risk assessment tool prior to being (: )nsidered for placement in a community facility. Youth who do not comply with It a rules in a community facility will be returned to an institution. Depending on 11' a violation, they may remain at an institution to complete their sentence; or, tt ey may be allowed to return to the community facility after demonstrating rE sponsible behavior and working on the specific skill deficits that led to their rE turn to the institutions. 11 Objections to Proposed Amendments to KCC 15.08.280(C): VI a are concerned that the City's proposed amendments to KCC 15.08.280(C), aid even the existing code language, may preclude the siting of juvenile cc mmunity facilities in violation of RCW 36.70A20o(5). KCC 15.08.280(C) r,; Juires a one thousand foot separation for juvenile community facilities (Class II G oup Homes) from all "sensitive land uses" including: Public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, public libraries, and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive... T- a language "other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive" is not defined an J could arguably include single-family residences and a wide range of ad Jitional uses. Under this restriction, there may be no available sites for a lu% enile community facility in the City. Any potential locations would likely be in thf industrial areas of the City. Fh 3 Growth Management Act (GMA) provides as follows: "No local :c, nprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of 't;::ential public facilities." RCW 36.70A.200(5). Essential public facilities include a: ,lities that are typically difficult to site such as state and local correctional a: lities, in-patient facilities and group homes. 'rri,, Growth Management Hearings Board in Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines del ned "preclude" as "render impossible or impracticable." "Impracticable" is de ned as "not practicable: incapable of being performed or accomplished by the 07/22i02 M(V 12:44 FAX 3609027889 DSHS-LANDS & BLDGS DIV 2004 -etter to the band Use and Planning Commission luly 22, 2002 'age 3 r jeans employed or at command."' " An example of the Board's interpretation of mpracticable° is provided in Children's Alliance v. City of Bellevue. In that case, t le Board held that the City of Bellevue effectively precluded the siting of an ssential public facility, group homes for children. The Board found: At the very least, the Ordinance makes the siting of group homes in Bellevue impracticable. The Ordinance forces group care providers to site facilities for children in nonresidential areas, denying the children the therapeutic benefits of living in a residential community and effectively thwarting the purpose of group care. The unsuitability of commercial areas for the siting of group homes for children means that group care providers will more than likely choose not to site in Bellevue . . . 2 1' le Board also looked at the fact that commercial land was in scarce supply. I, though the City of Bellevue did not prohibit the siting of group homes in all a i Bas of the City, the Board held that the City precluded the siting of group h( mes by making the siting of group homes impracticable. In State of Washin gqon De artment of Corrections and De artment of Social and F! !alth Services v. City of Tacoma, the Growth Management Hearings Board re viewed a one thousand foot buffer restriction applied to Department of C( rrections (DOC) work release facilities." The City of Tacoma applied a one tl•1)usand foot buffer between work release facilities and any residential zones, da scare facilities, foster homes, crisis care clinics, group homes, schools, parks, all I open spaces. The Board found that the buffer was clearly erroneous and Pn teluded the siting of essential public facilities (work i✓ of Tacoma.4 release facilities) within the Sir Marly, the City of Kent's Section 15.08.280(C), and the proposed amendment, nf` jctively preclude the siting of juvenile community facilities by making it n-I lossible or impracticable for JRA to site a facility in the City. The one h:isand foot separation requirement will either result in no available sites or will oil;e juvenile facilities into the industrial areas of the City. > Placing JRA community facilities within industrial areas is counter to the philosophy of community reintegration on which our programs are designed. Youth in juvenile community facilities attend local schools, work with local ?mployers, and provide community service in their neighborhoods. Teaching (outh how to be good neighbors is essential for successful community Fi d Decision and Order.CPSGMHB No. 97-3-014,August 1997. Fi d Decision and Order, CPSGMHB No.95 3 -3-0011,July 1995,Pages 12-13. 11 Department of Social and Health Services(DSHS)and the City of Tacoma entered into an Agreed S if t ration, resolving the portion of the case relating to the dispute between DSHS and the City. ?in l Decision and Order,CPSGMHB No.00-3-0007,November 2000,Page 10. 07/22/02 1eN 12:44 FAX 3609027889 DS$S—LANDS & BLDGS DIV Z 005 -etter to the Land Use and Planning Commission July 22, 2002 'age 4 reintegration; it requires that the juveniles have regular contact with members Of the community and that we have input from neighbors and from the community on how well we and the juveniles in our care are doing. Housing youth in an industrial zone could also create serious health and safety concerns for our clients. Industrial zones are often characterized b hazardous waste pollution, high noise levels from truck traffic, and air y Pollution. Juvenile community facilities are similar to other group homes in size; the match the size and bulk of other buildings in most residential neighborhoods. Youth in juvenile community facilities need access to transportation to get to work, school, mental health services and other out-patient treatment services and community volunteer programs, There are usually no current school bus routes in industrial zones, making transportation for youth to schools, employment and other necessary programs very difficult. J�- venue community facilities are similar in size, facility requirements and p:pulation served to Class I Group Homes and would be more appropriately it,:laded in that category of the zoning code, T-ank you for an opportunity to share our concerns with you. If you have an qu:sfions regarding our comments, please contact Elizabeth McNagny at (3 0 90 ?-8164. 4ivision nc Iy, �C nReynold , irector of La and Buildings Robin Cummings, Director Community Programs, JRA Jeff Patnode, Program Manager, JRA Cheryl Stephani, Assistant Secretary, JRA Ken Harden, Assistant Secretary, MSA Linda Sullivan-Colglazier, ATG Holly Gadbaw, CTED TATF %P STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SE04 P , ago, July 19, 2002 Dear Elected Officials: In planning for the siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTF), many city and county staff have asked for guidance on the issue of local emergency services response time and its relative importance in evaluating appropriate zones or areas for SCTF sites. As you may know, ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002) amended the response time requirements. There is no longer a requirement for SCTFs to be sited in areas that can "endeavor to achieve an average five-minute law enforcement emergency response time." Instead, the law now requires the siting to balance the local response time against the proximity of the proposed SCTF site to risk potential activities or locations in existence at the time the site is listed for consideration. In considering the amended requirement, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has consulted with local planning staff, law enforcement representatives, and state executive and legislative staff. It is the department's position that the operative word in this consideration is "balance." DSHS does not assume that all rural areas are inappropriate for siting SCTFs. In fact, the law directs that the department's guidelines "...shall require great weight be given to sites that are the farthest removed from any risk potential activities." However, if this directive were to be considered alone, it could result in SCTFs being sited only in very isolated, remote areas that may not be suitable for a variety of reasons, one of which would be the issue of emergency services response time. In balancing these requirements, consideration also must be given to the ability of the local area to respond to fire and medical emergencies as well as law enforcement emergencies. In determining this balance and in searching for potential SCTF sites, DSHS will consider its responsibility for public safety and its obligations to the SCTF residents and staff and will review several factors. DSHS will use these factors, as described below, to develop an emergency response plan with the local jurisdiction where an SCTF is sited and with neighboring jurisdictions. In your jurisdiction's planning and designation of areas or zones that are appropriate for siting secure community transition facilities, we encourage you to consider these factors as well. If your jurisdiction is considering designating areas or zones that are in rural locations— especially areas in remote rural locations -- we strongly encourage your jurisdiction to do an analysis of the area being considered and to use these factors as an outline to prepare a draft emergency response plan. The purpose of the plan is to help both the local jurisdiction and DSHS determine if the proposed area or zone comports with state law requirements for public safety and would be a fiscally prudent and feasible SCTF location. As a general rule, DSHS will consider sites in remote locations with very long average emergency response times as not appropriate for SCTFs unless a fiscally prudent and feasible emergency response plan can be implemented. Here are the factors to be considered: Elected Officials— Emergency Response Time to SCTFs July 19, 2002 Page 2 Law Enforcement Emergency • The average emergency response time(s) of public safety personnel in the general area where a potential SCTF site may be located. The general area reviewed may include the district or sub-area within the jurisdiction where the potential site is located. It may also include an area that encompasses more than one local jurisdiction. • The distance between the SCTF site being considered and risk potential locations and the density of risk potential locations. • The types of nearby risk potential locations and the frequency or level of use of the risk potential locations. • The proximity and availability of public safety personnel in other nearby locations to act as a secondary response to assist with potential emergencies. Fire Emergency • The average response time of the local fire department and the location of and access to local fire department stations, including volunteer stations. • The proximity of fire department personnel from other jurisdictions to the potential site and their availability to respond in an emergency. Medical Emergency • The average response time of local emergency medical personnel and the location of and access to local emergency medical services. • The availability of trained volunteer emergency medical personnel in the area, including SCTF staff certified in emergency medical procedures. Thank you for the work you and your staff are doing to provide for the siting of secure community transitions facilities. If you or your staff have any questions about the requirements for siting secure community transition facilities, please call Beverly Wilson, Associate Superintendent for Community Programs, Special Commitment Center, at (360) 902-8257. Sin ly, , DENNIS BRA DOCK Secretary c: Planning Directors Assistant Secretary Timothy R. Brown, Ph. D. Superintendent Mark Seling, Ph. D. Dick Van Wagenen, Governor's Policy Advisor John Reynolds, Director, Lands and Buildings Beverly Wilson STAT'£ o i � v �s n Oy �y'L 1889? STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olympia, WA 98504-5000 June 20, 2002 Dear Elected Officials: Many of you and your staff have asked the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for guidance regarding the "preemption" provisions of ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002). In particular, you have asked how and when DSHS will determine whether any of the six counties (Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, and Thurston) or any of the cities in those counties are preempted for failure to meet the statutory planning requirements to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTF). After October 1, 2002, ESSB 6594 Section 9(1) preempts and supersedes local plans, development regulations, permitting and inspection requirements and all other laws as necessary to enable the department to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate secure community transition facilities within the borders of any of the six counties listed above or any of the cities in those counties that have failed to comply with legislatively mandated planning. A copy of Section 9 and other relevant sections of ESSB 6594 are enclosed. To avoid preemption, your jurisdiction must fulfill the planning requirements in RCW 36.70A.200 and chapter 71.09 RCW. At a minimum this means: 1. Do not preclude. Your jurisdiction's process and regulations must not preclude the siting of a SCTF. "Preclude" is defined as"render impossible or impracticable." Impracticable means "not practicable, i.e., incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command."' For example, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board determined that a City of Tacoma ordinance that limited the location of new work release facilities to the City's Heavy Industrial District (M-3)where the availability of non-developed, non-contaminated sites is problematic, effectively precluded the siting of new work release facilities in the City.2 2. Adopt regulations consistent with state law. Your jurisdiction's land use regulations must be consistent with, and no more restrictive than, the requirements for siting and operating a SCTF set forth in chapter 71.09 RCW. 3. Establish an equitable distribution policy. Your jurisdiction must have considered the "equitable distribution" requirements of RCW 71.09.250(8). A written policy or statement that describes how your jurisdiction weighs this requirement against other public safety siting requirements of chapter 71.09 RCW is evidence of your consideration. t Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines,CPSGMBB Case No. 97-3-0014,Final Decision and Order(August 13, 1997),at 8. Z Department of Corrections v. City of Tacoma, CPSGNM Case No.00-3-0007,Final Decision and Order 'ovember 20,2000),at 7. Elected Officials — Letter on Preemption June 20, 2002 Page 2 4. Identify appropriate zones or areas. Your jurisdiction must have identified zones or areas that are appropriate for siting SCTFs and that include potential site(s) that meet and are consistent with state law requirements. The jurisdiction has the option of identifying specific sites or parcels that meet the criteria in state law. A specific or potential site means either buildable land or a suitable existing facility that is available for lease or purchase at a reasonable or fair market rate.. The jurisdiction must have completed sufficient review to determine whether or not areas or zones designated as appropriate for siting a SCTF will actually yield potential sites that meet the criteria in chapter 71.09 RCW. At a minimum, this means analyzing risk potential locations and equitable distribution factors. To assist you in this analysis, DSHS has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that maps the locations of risk potential facilities and activities and provides information on equitable distribution factors. DSHS has provided this GIS data to your planning staff and will provide updated data as it becomes available. 5. Establish a process for timely siting. Your local jurisdiction must have designed siting and permitting processes that will result in a permitted SCTF site in a timely manner. This means that the siting process will enable the department to complete construction or renovation of a facility so that it is available for occupancy when needed. A reasonable amount of time to complete the local land use permitting process, including an pre- application requirements, is 180 days from the inception of any local requirements. I s t the department's expectation that a jurisdiction's other permitting processes and regulations (e.g., building permits) for SCTFs will be no more stringent than the requirements for group care facilities. Determination of Preemption A county or city that has not complied with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 by September 1, 2002, is considered to be preempted, effective October 1, 2002. Not complying means either 1) the city or county has not adopted a process in its comprehensive plan and development regulations to provide for siting SCTF; or 2) the city or county has adopted a plan or development regulations that are in clear conflict with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200, or RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. The department expects to follow the local jurisdiction's adopted process and regulations for siting SCTFs unless the process and regulations do not comply with the law. Given the complexity and unique qualities of local processes and regulations, however, it may not b possible to determine at the outset of the department's siting process if the designated zones or areas will yield appropriate potential sites that meet statutory criteria or if the local process and regulations will result in timely siting. When siting a facility in a jurisdiction that has adopted a process and regulations, the department will endeavor to follow local requirements. If the department encounters siting barriers during the process, the department will consult with the local jurisdiction, evaluate whether preemption is necessary, identify alternative options, and notify the local jurisdiction of its decision. Elected Officials — Letter on Preemption June 20, 2002 Page 3 It is our intent to work closely with and consult with counties and cities throughout the siting of secure community transition facilities regardless of preemption. If a facility is sited in a preempted jurisdiction, we will continue to consult with the local government. When you send your proposed plans and regulations to the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), as specified in RCW 36.70A.106, please send us a copy. We are coordinating with CTED to act as the lead agency in reviewing proposals relating to SCTFs. We would appreciate receiving your proposals as early as possible in your planning process —that will give us an opportunity to assist your staff and to review and comment on your proposals. We would also appreciate receiving your adopted plans and regulations and any supporting documents as soon as possible upon their completion. Please send copies of your documents to Elizabeth McNagny, Housing Policy/Land Use Administrator, DSHS Lands and Buildings Division, P.O. Box 45848, Olympia, Washington, 98504-5848. Elizabeth's email address is MCNAGEC(d.)dshs.wa.Qov. If you or your staff have questions about the Special Commitment Center program or secure community transition facilities, please call Beverly Wilson, SCC Associate Superintendent for Community Programs, at (360) 902-8257. Your planning staff may also call Elaine Taylor, SCTF Land Use Administrator, at (360) 902-8184 for consultation and assistance in planning. Sincerely, QNIS OIL--BRADDOCK Secretary Enclosures c: Planning Directors Tim Brown Mark Seling John Reynolds Beverly Wilson Elaine Taylor Elizabeth McNagny Scott Lockwood Dick Van Wagenen Leonard Bauer Association for Washington Cities Washington State Association of Counties 3ECTIMS U50H sec. 2. RCW 36.70A.200 and 2001 2nd sp. s. c 12 s 205 are each amended to read as follows : (1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under RCTX 36.70A. 040 shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. 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 RCTR 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 . (2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36 .70A.040 shall, not later than Uthe eleeeLline ' r ' ) ) ,September 1, 2oo2, establish a process, or amend its existing process, for identifying and siting essential public facilities( ( ,,, ) ) and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary* to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities. (3) Any city or county not planning under RCW 36.70A. 040 shall, not later than ( (the deadli es—in R-- ' .7 e .'3 0) ) S ent em er 1. 2002, establish a process for siting secure community transition facilities and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of such facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities. (4) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of those essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. The office of financial management may at any time add facilities to the list. (5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. (6) No re,-son may bring a cause of action for civil damages based on the good faith actions of anv county or city t_-provide for tha of secure COMMunity transition facilities in accordance with _ hls section and with the reauj cements of cra'ot r 12 Laws of 200 ')TId s8 sess For nurposes of this subsection."penson° includes. butt not l imi r ad to any individual as my as def fined corp9rat;on �arrnership . associa inn and limi d liability entity, 7 Counties or cities es sitinn faCi 1 i ti es pursilan t0 S 12 ecti cn (2) 0 of this section- shall comply with section 7 of this act (8) The failure ofa county- or, city to a t- by the deadlines established in subsections (2) and (3) of this se c^t,on is no (a) A condition that would di sollalify the co inty or cites for grants, loans , or pledcTe� .2-- RC'W a i SS 070 or 70 i 4F 070; ideration for grants or loans provided rider Rcw 43 .17 250 (21 n� (c) A basis for any p titinn under RCW 36 ,70A.280 or or Private cause o action and NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows : The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. . Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public safety. NEW SECTION_ Sec. 9 . A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows : (1) After October 1, 2002, notwithstanding RCW 36.70A.103 or any other law, this section 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 secure community transition facilities within the borders of the following: (a) Any county that had five or more persons civilly committed from that county, or detained at the special commitment center under a pending civil commitment petition from that county where a finding of probable cause has been made, on April 1, 2001, if the department determines that the county has not met the requirements of RCW .i6.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities. This subsection does not apply to the county in which the secure community transition facility authorized under RCW 71.09.250 (1) is located; and (b) Any city located within a county listed in (a) of this subsection that the department determines has not met the requirements of RCW 36 .70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities . (2) The department's determination under subsection (1) (a) or (b) of this section is final and is not subject to appeal under chapter 34. 05 or 36 .70A RCW. (3) When siting a facility in a county or city that has been preempted under this section, the department shall consider the policy guidelines established under RCW 71.09.275 and 71.09.290 and shall hold the hearings required in RCW 71.09.315 _ (4) Nothing in this section prohibits the department from: (a) Siting a secure community transition facility in a city or )unty that has complied with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities, including a city that is located within a county that has been preempted. if *the department sites a secure community transition facility in such a city or county, the department shall use the process established by the city or county for siting such facilities; or (b) consulting with a city or county that has been preempted under this section regarding the siting of a secure community transition facility. (5) (a) A preempted city or county may propose public safety measures specific to any finalist site to the department. The measures must be consistent with the location of the facility at that finalist site . The proposal must be made in writing by the date of : (i) The second hearing under RCW 71. 09 .315 (2) (a) when there are three finalist sites; or (ii) The first hearing under RCW 71.09 .315 (2) (b) when there is only one site under consideration. (b) The department shall respond to the city or county in writing within fifteen business days of receiving the proposed measures. The response shall address all proposed measures. (c) If the city or county finds that the department's response is inadequate, the city or uuu-Liuy utc►y 1-L,-,%.1 y -_r--_.___-- _ within fifteen business days of the specific items which it finds inadequate. If the city or county does not notify the department of a finding that the response is inadequate within fifteen business days, the department' s response shall be final. (d) If the city or county notifies the department that it finds the response inadequate and the department does not revise its response to the satisfaction of the city or county within seven business days, the city or county may petition the governor to designate a person with law enforcement expertise to review the response under RCW 34.05.479. (e) The governor's designee shall hear a petition filed under this subsection and shall make a determination within thirty days of hearing the petition. The governor's designee shall consider the department' s response, and the effectiveness and cost of the proposed measures, in relation to the purposes of this chapter. The determination by the governor' s designee shall be final and may not be the basis for any cause of action in civil court. (f) The city or county shall bear the cost of the petition to the governor' s designee. If the city or county prevails on all issues, the department shall reimburse the city or county costs incurred, as provided under chapter 34. 05 RCW- (g) Neither the department's consideration and response to public safety conditions proposed by a city or county nor the decision of the governor' s designee shall affect the preemption under this section or the department' s authority to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and . operate the secure community transition facility at that finalist site or at any finalist site. (6) until June 30, 2009, the secretary shall site, construct, occupy, and operate a secure community transition facility sited under this section in an environmentally responsible manner that is consistent with the substantive objectives of chapter 43 .21C RCW, and shall consult with the department of ecology as appropriate in carrying out the planning, construction, and operations of the facility. The secretary shall make a threshold determination of whether a secure community transition facility sited under this section would have a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. If the secretary determines that the secure community transition facility has such an impact, the secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement that meets the requirements of RCW 43 .21C. 030 and 43 .21C.031 and the rules promulgated by the department of ecology relating to such statements. Nothing in this subsection shall be the basis for any civil cause of action or administrative. appeal. (7) This section does not apply to the secure community transition facility established pursuant to RCW` 71.09 .250 (1) . FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Answers to Questions about the DSHS Special Commitment Center and Requirements for Siting Secure Community Transition Facilities BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. What is the Special Commitment Center? The Special Commitment Center (SCC), located on McNeil Island, is a total confinement facility designed to provide long-term rehabilitative treatment for certain sexual offenders. The program, operated by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), is housed within the secure perimeter of the McNeil Island Corrections Center. Although the program operates within the confines of a correctional facility, it is not a prison or criminal justice program. It is a specialized mental health treatment program. Sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences, but are found by state superior courts to meet the definition of"sexually violent predator" under chapter 71.09 RCW, may be civilly committed to the SCC for care, control, and custody. They remain in the total confinement program receiving ongoing treatment until the court determines that they are ready for placement in a community supervised living arrangement (LRA). 2. What does "less restrictive alternative" mean? What is a "secure community transition facility?" A less restrictive alternative (LRA) placement is defined in the state law as a living arrangement that is less restrictive than total confinement. An LRA placement may be in a residential facility program operated or contracted by the Department of Social and Health Services or in the person's own home in the community. "Secure community transition facility" (SCTF) is the statutory name for a LRA residential facility program operated or contracted by DSHS. As stated in RCW 71.09.020, "...a secure community transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services." The program offers 24-hour intensive staffing and line- of-sight supervision by trained escorts when residents leave the facility. 3. How does a court decide when an SCC resident is ready for conditional release from the SCC? What are the grounds for making that decision? Each civilly committed person receives an annual review by qualified professionals to evaluate the person's progress in treatment. A civilly Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 1 EXHIBIT 93 committed individual has a right to an annual hearing in the superior court of commitment to determine his or her readiness for conditional or unconditional _ release. The superior court judge or jury makes the decision based on expert testimony of the person's history and progress. If the court determines that the community can be adequately protected and it is in the person's best interest to be conditionally released, the court may order the person's conditional release to a less restrictive alternative placement. The court's determination that an individual is ready for conditional release is based on the individual's behavior, psychological testing,and expert testimony. 4. Why is it necessary to establish LRA facilities? As required by state law, individuals who have been determined by the courts to be ready for conditional release have the right to live in settings that are less restrictive than total confinement. As discussed below, the civil commitment program must meet the standard of "constitutionally adequate mental health treatment." This means that residents who are ready for conditional release must have an opportunity for placement in a less restrictive alternative placement. Many SCC residents do not have the personal or family resources necessary to provide the level of support and supervision required for successful conditional release. A structured and closely supervised community residential program provides community protection and an appropriate environment in which the conditionally released person can continue treatment, learn appropriate life skills, and make a successful transition to community living while being closely monitored. In August 1991, a civil rights complaint was filed in federal court alleging violations of the constitutional rights of SCC residents. In 1994, the Federal District Court entered an order and injunction requiring the SCC to provide the residents with "constitutionally adequate mental health treatment." Since 1995, the court has held annual or semiannual hearings on the state's progress toward meeting the court's requirements. Following the November 1999 hearing, the federal court ordered that a penalty of $50 per day per resident accrue, but deferred the state's payment of the contempt sanctions because many improvements had been made within the SCC program. The court also found that the lack of less restrictive alternative housing options was a significant issue and ordered the state to "[make) arrangements...for the community transition of qualified residents, under supervision, when they are ready for a less restrictive alternative." Following the July 2001 and February 2002 hearings, the court found that the state's enactment of legislation (3ESSB 6151 and ESSB 6594) establishing the McNeil Island Secure Community Transition Facility and providing a process for siting additional facilities on the mainland was a significant positive step. However, the court has continued the accrual of the contempt sanctions (now well over $4 million) until the state has established LRA facilities on the mainland. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 5. Why doesn't the state appeal the federal court orders? What would happen if the state simply refused to provide less restrictive alternative housing options? The state has appealed past federal court orders and lost. At the very least, a refusal to implement less restrictive alternative housing options may result in an order requiring the state to pay a large sanction that could continue until compliance with the court order is met. A refusal could ultimately place the SCC program in jeopardy and lead to the closure of the program and release of SCC residents to settings with little or no supervision. 6. How many sex offenders reside in the SCC? As of April 2002, there are 156 residents in the Special Commitment Center total confinement program, including one woman who is housed at a special unit in the Washington Corrections Center for Women at Purdy, and one juvenile who is in a program outside Washington State. There are also seven SCC residents who have received court-ordered conditional releases. Three of these individuals are living in private residences in the custody of their families, three are in a special needs contracted community program, and one is in the recently established McNeil Island Secure Community Transition Facility. For the past several years, admissions to the SCC have been averaging about 2.5 residents per month. SCC TREATMENT PROGRAM AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 7. What kind of rehabilitative treatment do SCTF residents receive? Prior to their conditional release, SCC residents participate in an intensive treatment program at the total confinement facility. The treatment program requires the resident to participate in intensive individual and group sessions with qualified professionals, undergo periodic polygraph (lie detector) and plethysmograph (sexual arousal) tests, and, in some cases, take medications. Residents who successfully complete the first five phases of treatment begin their preparation for a community transition placement. Residents who receive court-ordered conditional releases to an LRA must continue participating in intensive treatment with a qualified, court-approved community sex offender treatment provider. The SCTF staff work as a team with the treatment provider and the resident's assigned community corrections officer to monitor each resident's progress throughout all aspects of the community transition program. 8. What level of security does an SCTF provide for community protection? State law requires SCTFs to provide a high degree of security and staff supervision. The coordination and teamwork of the SCTF program staff, sex offender treatment provider, community corrections officer, and local law Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 3 enforcement are essential to assuring community protection. Security measures include: _ • Specific conditions set by the court. To protect the community when a person is conditionally released, the court of commitment orders clearly defined conditions that the person must follow. State law requires the program staff, treatment providers, and community corrections officers to immediately report serious violations of court-ordered conditions, including any alleged criminal offenses, to law enforcement. If the person is not arrested and detained by law enforcement, the person must be transferred to the SCC total confinement facility pending the outcome of a court review. • Proximity of SCTF site to risk locations. When a property is considered for an SCTF, the law requires DSHS and local governments to consider and address many factors. Key considerations include the distances between the SCTF property and "risk potential activities and facilities" such as child care centers, schools, school bus stops, public libraries. The law also requires evaluating a site to determine if barriers exist or can be installed to shield visibility between the SCTF and adjacent properties, if electronic monitoring services are available to the area, and if there is reasonable access to community services such as treatment, employment, vocational training, etc. • Intensive staffing. The law requires the SCTF to provide intensive staffing ratios. In facilities with six or fewer residents, the facility must _ provide a ratio of one staff on duty for each resident during the day and evening hours, and two staff on duty for every three residents during the night hours. • Close supervision and escorts. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, each SCTF resident must be closely supervised (on a one-to-one basis) by a trained staff or court-authorized escort when the resident leaves the SCTF premises for any purpose. The staff/escort must remain with the resident for the duration of the outing, even when the resident may be working at a job. • Household security systems. The SCTF facility must have household and perimeter security systems installed that meet specific technical specifications and offer appropriate emergency backup provisions. This includes providing a tamper-proof security panel, emergency electrical supply system, personal panic devices for all staff, staff photo ID badges, etc. • Intensive training for qualified staff. SCTF staff must meet specific qualifications and receive specialized in-service training on a range of topics before they begin working with residents. Each staff is required to Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 4 pass a thorough state and federal criminal background check and not have a history of any felony convictions. • Informed staff and escorts. Staff and escorts must be fully informed about each resident's offense history and behavior patterns. Although staff and escorts do not carry guns, they must be equipped with cell and radio phones, and be trained in self-defense and appropriate emergency response procedures. • Community trips require advance planning. Residents are allowed to leave the facility premises only for specific purposes, as authorized by the court order, and only with prior approval of the resident's assigned community corrections officer, treatment provider, and the SCTF program manager. Reasons for leaving the facility may include treatment, employment interviews, employment, training, and other activities, such as family visits, that are specifically addressed in the resident's treatment plan. • Individual electronic monitoring devices. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, each resident must wear an individual electronic monitoring device. 9. If an SCTF is sited in our county, will the residents placed there be the same ones who were committed from our county? It is possible, but not a given. The court orders the placement and considers many factors including whether housing is available that meets the court's - conditions and the individual's needs, a qualified community sex offender treatment therapist has agreed to work with the resident and make regular reports to the court, the location of victims, etc. PLANNING AND SITING REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES 10.What is being proposed? What does the law require? Two laws have been passed that address the siting of secure community transition facilities. In June 2001, the state enacted 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2001, E2). This law provides direction to DSHS and local governments in the planning and siting of secure community transition facilities. The law requires counties and cities that are fully planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to include a process in their comprehensive plans and development regulations to provide for the siting of SCTFs. Counties and cities not fully planning under GMA also must establish a planning process and amend their development regulations, as needed, to provide for siting SCTFs. The statute provides specific siting requirements Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 5 and community safety standards that DSHS and local governments must follow. In March 2002, ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002) was enacted. This legislation amended some of the siting criteria enacted in the previous legislation and addressed several other issues that are relevant to the role of cities and counties in the SCTF planning and siting process. The requirement to site facilities in areas in which it is possible to "endeavor to achieve an average law enforcement emergency response time of five minutes" was deleted from the law. ESSB 6594 provides cities and counties with immunity from causes of action for civil damages related to the siting of SCTFs. Cities and counties and their law enforcement personnel are also granted immunity from causes of action for civil damages if law enforcement personnel make reasonable and good faith efforts to respond to emergencies involving SCTF residents. The 2002 law authorizes two types of contractual agreements between DSHS and local governments. DSHS and the local government where a facility is sited may contract with each other to memorialize their agreements on SCTF operating procedures and their respective roles and responsibilities. Contingent upon funds being appropriated, DSHS may also contract with local communities to provide resources to mitigate the impact of the SCTF. To assure that facilities can be sited in a timely manner, ESSB 6594 provides the state with limited authority to "preempt and supersede 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 secure community transition facilities..." The state's preemption authority applies only to six counties (Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, and Thurston) and any of their cities and only to any of those jurisdictions that fail to comply, by September 1, 2002, with the statutory planning requirements for siting secure community transition facilities. 11.What is the role of the local jurisdiction? What is the role.of DSHS? Under RCW 36.70A.200, no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities, including SCTFs. State regulations recommend that local governments take a cooperative inter-jurisdictional approach, consistent with countywide planning policies, in planning for difficult-to-site essential public facilities of, a countywide, regional or statewide nature. Cities and counties have the lead role in defining a process and appropriate areas for siting SCTFs. In other words, local jurisdictions are responsible for planning and permitting. To plan for the siting of these facilities, local governments must conduct the analysis necessary to identify areas or sites Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 6 that meet the minimum criteria required by state law. As the permitting authority, local government is not responsible for buying or leasing land or buildings for SCTFs. DSHS is required to work with local governments in the planning process. In the event that DSHS must preempt a local jurisdiction to site a facility, DSHS will continue to consult with the local government as appropriate. To help local jurisdictions in the planning process, DSHS will provide program information, geographic information system (GIS) data and other technical support. To support this effort, DSHS is building a .comprehensive geographic information system to assist local jurisdictions in the mapping and review of potentially suitable areas for siting SCTFs. Once a local jurisdiction has identified appropriate area(s) or zones, and DSHS has determined that a facility is needed in that area, DSHS will review the available properties within those areas to identify specific sites. After identifying specific sites, DSHS will apply to the local jurisdiction for the appropriate permits. If the jurisdiction has been preempted, DSHS will continue to consult with local government as appropriate. 12.What is the role of the individual towns and cities within the county? Is my city required to find a site separate from sites that may be identified by the county? At a minimum, the state law requires counties and cities within the county to notify each other of siting plans. The legislation does not further define how counties and cities must coordinate. Early coordination, with counties taking a lead role, is advisable because it allows the seamless review of risk potential facilities and equitable distribution factors. All counties and cities must establish a process and development regulations to provide for siting SCTFs. Except where countywide planning policies have otherwise dictated siting choices, development regulations should provide for the possibility of siting each of the listed essential public facilities somewhere within each jurisdiction's planning area. DSHS expects that a coordinated countywide analysis will determine that some areas within a county's boundaries will be preferred over others for siting SCTFs. 13.In August 2001, DSHS notified all 39 counties that SCTFs may need to be sited within any of 12 identified counties sometime between May 2004 and May 2007. Our county was one of the 12 counties identified, but it is not one of the six counties that are subject to preemption under ESSB 6594. Do different planning and siting requirements apply to our county? No. ESSB 6594, however, clarifies that a failure of any jurisdiction to complete the planning by the deadline is not a condition for fiscal sanctions, appeals to the growth management hearings board, or a private cause of action. If your jurisdiction is not subject to preemption, it is highly unlikely that Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 7 DSHS would site a facility in your area unless your jurisdiction volunteers as a location. Jurisdictions that are subject to preemption and that fail to do the required planning by the deadline run the risk of losing local control over the SCTF siting, permitting, and construction process if and when DSHS determines that a facility must be sited in that jurisdiction. If DSHS decides to site a facility in a preempted jurisdiction, the department will consult with the local government and attempt to follow local procedures and practices to the extent possible. 14.What steps does DSHS suggest for coordinating with local jurisdictions? Although there will be local variations, DSHS suggests the following steps: a. The county and its cities establish a coordinated countywide planning process. At a minimum, a coordinated process would include sharing early drafts of revisions to comprehensive plans and development regulations. b. DSHS, counties, and cities share data on location of risk potential facilities and activities and equitable distribution factors. c. DSHS assembles the data available and provides counties and cities with digital GIS data. d. Counties and cities adopt comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations, as necessary, that define the siting process, criteria, and zones, areas or site(s) appropriate for siting SCTFs. e. When ready to site a facility in a particular area, DSHS reviews available sites within the areas identified by the local jurisdiction(s) and approves sites that meet state requirements. If a jurisdiction has been preempted, DSHS consults with the local government and identifies appropriate sites. As needed, DSHS selects one or more potential SCTF sites within the areas identified by the local jurisdiction(s). f. DSHS, in consultation and coordination with the local jurisdiction(s) where sites under consideration are located, holds public hearings on the sites as required by state law. g. DSHS selects the preferred site for the facility. h. If the local jurisdiction has not been preempted, DSHS follows the local jurisdiction's permitting requirements. If the jurisdiction has been preempted, DSHS consults with the local government, engages the services of other permitting and construction consultants and resources as needed (e.g., the state fire marshal) to act in lieu of the local government. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 8 15.What GIS data is DSHS collecting and making available to local jurisdictions? DSHS is gathering data that include: • Locations of the risk potential facilities referenced in the law. These risk potential facilities include public and private schools, licensed day care facilities, licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, playgrounds, and sports fields, recreational and community centers, school bus stops, churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques, and public libraries. • The number of registered sex offenders (Levels I, II, and III) aggregated by city and county. Limitations of the data prevent further sub- categorization by offender level. Data sharing agreements preclude DSHS from releasing this information at an individual level. • The number of residential facility beds in each jurisdiction operated by the Department of Corrections' and the DSHS Mental Health Division. By mid-May 2002, DSHS plans to make the GIS data available to the six counties and their cities subject to preemption. Cities may wish to coordinate their efforts through their county's GIS department to assure consistency and seamless coverage. Data for the remaining counties and cities will be limited at this time, but DSHS will continue to build the system so that over time, information will be available statewide. 16.Who is responsible for the public's participation in the planning and siting process? The local jurisdiction is responsible for the public participation process required for the revisions it makes to its comprehensive plan and development regulations. State law requires DSHS to conduct a public hearing process during the final site selection. Where local government requires public notice and hearings associated with permits, the DSHS public hearings requirement does not apply to the extent they are duplicative of the local requirement. Local public hearing requirements would apply only in non-preempted jurisdictions. 17.What is the amount that will be awarded in a planning grant? Does accepting the grant make it more likely that DSHS will site a facility in our jurisdiction? DSHS is waiting until early May 2002 for responses from cities and counties about their interest in applying for grants before determining the level of grant awards. DSHS is considering various award options such as providing Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 9 somewhat larger awards to counties than to cities that apply individually and providing a small bonus for jurisdictions that apply jointly. A local jurisdiction's acceptance of a planning grant will have no effect on DSHS' siting decisions. DSHS will look for the best sites that meet statutory requirements and program needs and that can be sited in a timely manner. Because of the urgency to site facilities, DSHS will be looking for sites in all six counties. In deciding where to site facilities, the department will consider many factors including which counties were responsible for the civil commitment of the likely LRA candidates. However, there is no one overriding factor that will drive siting decisions. 18.What does it mean to "make a commitment to initiate the process to site a facility?" Jurisdictions accepting grants will be expected to fully comply with RCW 36.70A. 200. At a minimum, DSHS believes the law requires the following: • The local process and regulations must not preclude the siting of a SCTF. • The land use regulations must be consistent with, and no more restrictive than, the requirements for siting and operating a SCTF set out in chapter 71.09 RCW. • The jurisdiction must consider the effect of "equitable distribution factors" on the siting of a facility as addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8). • The zones, areas or sites that the jurisdiction identifies as appropriate for siting secure community transition facilities must include potential sites that meet the criteria in state law. A potential site means either buildable land or a suitable existing facility that is available for lease or purchase at a reasonable or fair market rate. • The local iurisdiction's siting and permitting processes that would be required when DSHS actually sites a facility must be designed to result in a permitted site in a timely manner. To meet these requirements, DSHS suggests that a jurisdiction needs to complete sufficient analysis to determine whether or not the areas or zones that it designates as appropriate for siting an SCTF will actually yield potential sites that meet the criteria in chapter 71.09 RCW. This means analyzing risk potential locations and equitable distribution factors. In considering the effect of equitable distribution, DSHS suggests the jurisdiction decide whether equitable distribution is more or less important than other public safety criteria such as the proximity of the SCTF to risk potential locations, etc. The process for siting a facility in a timely manner means being able to complete construction or renovation of the facility so that the facility is available for Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 10 occupancy when it is needed. A reasonable amount of time to complete the local land use permitting process is 180 days from the date of application. It is the department's expectation that other local jurisdiction permitting processes and regulations (e.g., building permits)for SCTFs will be the same as for similar type facilities. Again, DSHS expects that all local jurisdictions' processes and regulations will enable the-department to site a facility when it is needed. 19.What does preemption actually mean? What procedures will DSHS follow if siting a facility in a preempted jurisdiction? Preemption means that all local and state land use plans, policies and regulations do not apply to the siting of a facility. This includes state laws such as State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), the Shoreline Management Act, and the Hydraulics Code. The law makes clear, however, that DSHS must site a facility in an environmentally responsible manner that is consistent with the substantive objectives of SEPA and consult with the Department of Ecology to carry out the planning, construction, and operations of the facility. DSHS must make a threshold determination if the siting would have a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. If so, DSHS must prepare an environmental impact statement that meets the requirements of SEPA and regulations promulgated by the Department of Ecology. If DSHS sites in a preempted jurisdictions, the department will also contract with consultant firms to review and advise on building and site preparation requirements, the state fire marshal to review'and advise on fire codes, etc. 20. How big a site do you need for a 3-bed facility or a 12-bed facility? The required size of the site will vary by jurisdiction. Several factors must be considered: Is the site serviced by a jurisdiction's water and sewer systems or is a well and septic system required? If a well and septic system are needed, what is the separation requirement? If a septic system is required, what are the jurisdiction's drain field requirements and how well does the soil drain on that particular site? What are the jurisdiction's requirements for setbacks and parking? DSHS estimates that a site for a 3-bed facility with a well and septic system will require a minimum of 2 acres. A 12-bed facility with a well and a septic system would require a minimum of 3 acres. If installation of a well and septic system is not necessary, the site could be smaller but will still vary by jurisdiction. 21. State law voids local requirements that are more restrictive than the statutory minimum criteria. Can local jurisdictions still require that an SCTF meet local design standards, landscaping, setback, light and noise restrictions, etc.? Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 11 Yes. In general, the normal physical standards for the jurisdiction and the zoning district would apply. These might include design guidelines, landscaping, setbacks, lighting, signage, percentage of site coverage, location of access to a major arterial, etc. Any conditions affecting the operation of the facility or imposing additional safety requirements would be "more restrictive" than those in the state statute. 22. Who can local jurisdictions contact to get more information? DSHS staff welcome the opportunity to meet with local elected officials and staff, planning commission members, and others. All of the staff listed below are knowledgeable about the siting of SCTFs, the SCC program, and technical land use issues. If the staff person you contact is unable to answer your questions, he or she will ask the appropriate person to respond. PROGRAM ISSUES: DSHS Special Commitment Center Community Programs PO Box 45322 Olympia, WA 98504-5322 Beverly Wilson, Associate Superintendent 360-902-8257 360-902-8497 (fax) wilsobk2(a)dshs.wa.gov Allen Ziegler, Community Programs Manager 360-902-8258 360-902-8497 (fax) Zieglwa(cDdshs.wa.gov Kelly Cunningham, Community Programs Manager 360-902-7541 360-902-8497 (fax) CunniKJ(cDdshs.wa.gov LAND USE ISSUES: DSHS Division of Lands and Buildings PO Box 45848 Olympia,WA 98504-5848 Elaine Taylor, Land Use Administrator for SCTFs Special Commitment Center/Lands and Buildings 360-902-8184 360-902-7889 (fax) TAYLOEA(a)dshs.wa.gov Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 12 SUMMARY OF 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 SCTF 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 reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. Give great weight to sites that are the farthest removed from risk potential locations. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 EXHIBIT#4 • 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. In 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 SCTF 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. ♦ 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 means-the providers are qualified and willing to provide services. ♦ Site must be in location suitable for programming, staffing and support considerations. ♦ The SCTF 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. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 INDEX OF KEY PROVISIONS FOR SITING AND OPERATING SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES r Subject Referenced in Codified in Amended in 3ESSB 6151 RCW Section ESSB 6594 Definitions • Risk potential activity or facility Sec.102(7) 71.09.020(7) Sec. 4(7) General Provisions • Clarifications on state authority to Sec. 201(3) 71.09.250(3) preempt and supersede local and state laws to site facilities • Determining maximum number of SCTF Sec. 201(7)(a) 71.09.250(7)(a) Secs. 11-14 beds that may be required to be sited in any county • Equitable distribution factors Sec. 201(8)&(9) 71.09.250(8)&(9) Amendments to Growth Management Act for on essential public facilities and local Sec. 205 36.70A.200 Sec. 2 government planning requirements for SCTFs Local government immune from causes of action for civil damages related to siting Sec. 2(6) SCTFs ;al government's failure to act by planning deadlines not a condition for fiscal sanctions Sec. 2(7) or private cause of action Law enforcement must respond to calls regarding SCTF residents as high priority Sec. 3(1) Local gov't and law enforcement officers immune from causes of action when making Sec. 3(2) "good faith" responses Siting not limited to residential areas Sec. 206 71.09.260 Response time and proximity to risk potential Sec.213 71.09.285 Sec.5 facilities General Siting Criteria Sec. 214 71.09.290 Security systems Sec. 215 71.09.295 Staffing requirements ( Sec. 216 71.09.300 Department of Social and Health Services - Special Commitment Center April 2002 EXHIBIT#5 1 Referenced in Codified in Amended in Subject 3ESSB 6151 RCW Section ESSB 6594 and Electronic monitoring and escort requirements Sec. 217 71.09.3 71.09.305 5 Sec.6 Public notification for locating facilities Sec. 219 71.09.315 Local siting requirements more restrictive Sec. 7 than state law are void Planning and Siting Incentive Grants • Eligibility for bonus grants Sec. 201(7)(b) 71.09.250(7)(b) • Planning grants Sec. 204(3) 71.09.255(3) Sec. 8 • Basic incentive grants Sec. 204(4) 71.09.255(4) • Rapid permitting bonus Sec. 204(5) 71.09.255(5) • Excess bed bonus Sec.204(6) 71.09.255(6) State authority to preempt and supersede Sec. 9(1)-(4) local requirements Preempted city or county may propose Sec. 9(5) specific public safety measures City or county may appeal DSHS' response to Sec. 9(5) the public safety proposal Appeal decision is final and not subject to Sec. 10 judicial review DSHS must site SCTFs in environmentally Sec. 9(6) responsible manner Cross-reference of GMA and preemption Sec. 15 provisions of ESSB 6594 Sec. 9 Long-term contract with local government on Sec. 16 operating procedures for SCTFs Mitigation agreements with communities Sec. 207 71.09.250 and Sec. 17 affected by the siting of an SCTF RCW NOTES Local option to plan for regional secure Sec. 18 community transition facilities Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 THE SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER: :AN OVERVIEW OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCESS AND TREATMENT PROGRAM BACKGROUND The Special:Commitment Center (SCC), located on McNeil Island, is a total, confinement 'facility .designed to provide, long-term rehabilitative treatment for certain sexual offenders.- The program"was established by the Community Protection Act in;1990 and is operated by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS):; SCC is housed within the secure perimeter of the McNeil Island Corrections_Center..`Although the program operate_ s within a total confinement facility, it is not a prison or criminal justice program. It is a specialized mental health treatment program. r9, - Sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences, but are found . by state, superior_courts to meet the criteria:for civil commitment under chapter 71.09` RCW-may be referred,to..the, SCC,_for._ care,control, and custody They: remain- 7 in.:;the .total:.confinements, treatment, program receiving ongoing #reatment untilthe court determines that they are ready for placement in= a less restrictive-"-alternative. (LRA) and community. transitionWM ". _ Only a small fraction about 3% of the approximately 1,000 sex offenders released from prison each year - are sent to the SCC: The rest are released directly_to the community.;_ This includes people who are likely to re-offend, but do not have a mental abnormality as defined by the statute. -The-,legislature assigned DSHS, not the Department of Corrections, with the responsibility;for establishing;and managing the SCC because it is a " public mental health,treatment_program, not a criminal justice program. The SCC budget is included in the Mental Health Division of DSHS. In 1994 a federal judge ruled that the, SCC must provide 'constltutionally;.- adequate',mental health treatment,: and;that offenders- must have.,an ..=.m opportunity to graduate to less restrictive living arrangements when they _ a do well= in-treatment.. Since,many civilly committed,.sex offenders lack ersonal" resources and families- needed,-to rovide, appropriate Y less P e : . P. _ - restrictive.:-, alternative-' placements,-: the- court determined . that- state- administered- transition, facilities:_ are-:- needed to assure there are appropriate` and- safe- placements. available. By law,..a state court of Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center AprJ12002 EXHIBIT#6 commitment (a county superior court) may conditionally release a civilly committed person to a less restrictive alternative placement only when the court has determined that the community can be adequately protected and the placement is in the person's best interest. Legislation enacted in 2001 authorized DSHS to establish a less restrictive alternative facility (called a "secure community transition facility' in the law) on McNeil Island. The law, as amended in 2002, also established criteria for siting additional transition facilities in other locations around the state and directed DSHS to work closely with counties and cities in the planning and siting process. In the future; these transition facilities will house civilly; committed sex offenders . who receive court-ordered conditionafreleases from the SCC: Y ' THE SCC POPULATION As of April 2002- there are 154 men inthe"SCC.- One woman is housed separately at the Washington Corrections Center for Women at Purdy, and one juvenile has been placed in a program outside Washington State. There "are`-also seven ' individuals'-who,. have received court-ordered, conditional releases to les ements s restrictive alternative plac .;Three.ace:. housed`iri a contracted-special needs program, three are living with their families who have been assigned by the courts as custodians, and one has been placed at the-new McNeil Island Secure Community Transition roximatel two miles from the Facility located at the North Complex," app y main facility. HOW THE CML COMMITMENT PROCESS WORKS" The End of Sentence Review Committee reviews. the cases of, all sex offenders when they are nearing the end of. their- prison sentences.__ - the Committee includes Chaired,_ by- the Department of`:Corrections; representatives from-several' other other" agencies and organizations. :The Committee assigns a "level" to each offender, based on the seriousness of J their. crime and<"their; likelihood to re-offend.= Level 1 is: the least dangerous;Level.3 is the most dangerous . _ Of the Level 3' offenders; the Committee refers those who meet the legal criteria for commitment to the SCC - that is, those who are more likely_ than not to re=offend and have a mental abnormality-4o a psychologist. The psychologist" evaluates them and makes recommendations. The Committee then sends its recommendations to the prosecutor, who, after getting more expert advice and consultation, files for a probable cause Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center Apri12002 2 hearing. Offenders have a right to a trial within 45 days of being referred for SCC commitment. The King County Prosecutor's Office handles commitment cases of the individuals who were previously convicted in the King County court system. On behalf of the other 38 counties, a unit of the Attorney General's Office handles the commitment hearings of individuals convicted by other county courts. TREATMENT MODEL The SCC treatment program is based on a standard, nationally accepted model, Relapse Prevention with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is an approach similar to treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. There are five phases of treatment at SCC. Each resident who participates in treatment is evaluated periodically and upon completing requirements for the respective treatment phase. Conducted by clinical professionals, the evaluation includes a review of the resident's level and quality of participation, attendance at classes and groups, completion of required courseworki demonstration of the treatment model principles in every day life, and the results of polygraph and plethysmograph tests. The.five phases of treatment are: Phase 1: Orientation and Evaluation. Completing a comprehensive assessment and developing an individual treatment plan. Phase 2: Treatment Readiness. Developing the motivation needed to prepare for in-depth involvement in treatment. Phase 3: Skill Acquisition. Examining and gaining an understanding of one's sexual offenses and criminal behavior. Phase 4: Skill Application. Identifying risk factors and learning to avoiding risk situations, developing anger management skills, and learning to accept constructive feedback. Phase 5: Skill Generalization. Developing empathy and concern for others, demonstrating the ability to identify and change behavior patterns. Phases three through five are intense treatment and require mature growth.and sincere attempts to change. Each phase of treatment builds on previous phases. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 3 ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY BEDS PER RCW 71.09.250(6) AND ESSB 6594 2004 THRu 2007 Current law requires all counties. and their cities to amend their plans and development regulations, as needed, by September 2002, to provide for the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF). ESSB 6594, however, has effectively narrowed this requirement to the six of the seven counties that had at least five residents committed, or detained for commitment, to the Special Commitment Center (SCC) on April 1, 2001. Under the new law, the state has authority to "preempt' any of these six counties, or their cities, that fail to complete the required planning by October 1, 2002. This preemption authority will enable the state to site facilities in these counties as needed. Pierce County is exempt from this planning requirement because it is the site of a 24-bed SCTF on McNeil Island. Clark, Kitsap, Spokane and Thurston Counties are each required to plan for one three-bed facility, the minimum size facility that may be sited. King and Snohomish Counties, with a greater number of residents committed to SCC, have been assigned a greater number of beds, expressed in a range from minimum to maximum needed by 2007. County Residents at SCC on 4-1-01 Projected Minimum and Maximum # of Beds Needed by 2007 Clark I 6 3 King 41 5— 15 Kitsap 6 3 Pierce 21 No Additional Beds Required Snohomish 20 3 -7 Spokane 5 3 Thurston g 3 Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 EXHIBIT#7 SCTF RESIDENT PROFILE A Special Commitment Center (SCC) resident begins his community transition phase of treatment when he receives a court-ordered conditional release to a less restrictive alternative placement. A secure community transition facility (SCTF) is such a placement. While residing in the SCTF, the resident continues to participate in sex offender specialized treatment with a court-approved professional. The professional has agreed to work with the resident and the SCTF program, and provide regular reports to the court. The resident also participates in other community-based activities that may include education, alcohol or chemical dependency treatment, vocational training, recreation, and social skills. A resident's activities in the community must be planned, approved, and scheduled in advance. The activities must conform to any conditions imposed by the court's order of release and be approved by the residential program, the sex offender treatment provider, and the resident's assigned community corrections officer. When a SCTF resident leaves the facility premises for any purpose, the resident must be closely monitored for the duration of the outing. Unless otherwise ordered by the court; this supervision is provided on a one-to-one basis by an approved escort — generally by a residential program staff or another court-authorized person who has received specific training in emergency procedures and is knowledgeable of the resident's offense history and behavioral patterns. In addition to receiving direct personal supervision, the resident also wears a personal electronic monitoring device. Training in life skills such as home economics, money management, and job interviewing are key elements of the residential treatment program. Since many of the residents have lived in institutions for much of their lives, training in these basic skills may be essential to a resident's successful transition to community-based living. Each resident in the SCTF program has an individualized treatment plan that is designed to address the resident's unique needs. The resident must take an active part in developing his plan in consultation with the program staff and treatment professionals. Public safety is essential to the success of the SCTF program and its residents. To assure that goal, the SCTF program works closely with law enforcement and other community professionals. In any community where an SCTF is established, the SCC administration and SCTF Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 EXHIBIT #8 1 program staff work with the community representatives to establish appropriate emergency procedures and to define respective roles and responsibilities. Through contracts with local communities, the SCTF also provides training to local law enforcement on the legal and constitutional requirements of the civil commitment program, emergency procedures, and other topics that support effective communications between the program and the community. A Typical Day in a Resident's Life (SCTF) Weekday off Work Weekday at Work Rise, Prepare/Eat Rise, Prepare/Eat 7:00 a.m. Breakfast, Clean Up 5:45 a.m. Breakfast. Prepare Sack Lunch 8:00 a.m. Household Chores 7:00 a.m. Household Chores 9:30 a.m. Escorted to grocery 8:00 a.m. Escorted to Employer. store Begin Work Shift Return to SCTF. Noon Prepare/Eat Lunch, 11:00 a.m. Clean Up 1:00 P.M. Transition Class 5:00 P.M. Work shift concludes. Escorted Back to SCTF 3:00 p.m. Treatment Homework 6:00 p.m. Prepare/Eat Dinner 6:00 p.m. Prepare/Eat Dinner, 7:00 p.m. Homework Clean Up 8:00 p.m. Escorted to Indiv. 8:00 p.m. Escorted to Group Therapy Session Therapy Session 9:30 p.m. Return to SCTF 9:30 P.M. Return to SCTF 10:00 P.M. Journal, Go to Bed 10:00 P.M. Journal, Go to Bed Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 SCC RESIDENT PROFILE There is no stereotypical profile that adequately describes all residents of the Special Commitment Center. (SCC). The one characteristic all residents do share is a history of violent sexually motivated offenses. Some SCC residents have offended against adults, others have victimized children, and still others have committed crimes against both adults and children. Some SCC residents have serious or chronic physical, mental, or developmental disabilities. Their treatment is individualized in response to their special needs. Some residents have attended college or technical vocational training schools, and have held well-paying jobs. Some are poorly educated and have limited work skills or experience. A significant number of SCC residents grew up in dysfunctional or abusive families and were victims of sexual abuse themselves. Many residents have spent long periods of their lives in prison or in other institutions. SCC residents may be classified into two groups -- those who participate in treatment and those who do not. To determine if the community can be adequately protected if the resident is conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative, the court of commitment considers a resident's progress in treatment and the advice of professionals before rendering a decision. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that only individuals who actively participate and succeed in treatment are eligible for community transition. Of those who are eligible, only those who can demonstrate trustworthiness and a willingness to follow rigorous conditions of release are likely to receive a court order of conditional release. Successful treatment participants have made a conscious decision to change. They attend intensive individual and group therapy sessions and classes that require them to make full disclosures, confront their offending patterns of behavior, and develop a personalized relapse prevention plan. Individual relapse prevention plans are developed and implemented by each resident with the guidance of an assigned team of treatment professionals. The key factor for defining success in treatment is a resident's ability to demonstrate change in every day life — change that is consistent over time, not just during treatment sessions and groups. The SCC resident must exhibit the principles learned through treatment on the living unit and Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 1 EXHIBIT#9 in interactions with staff and other residents. Residents are also subject to periodic polygraph and plethysmograph tests, which they must pass in order to advance through the treatment program and to qualify for- community transition. As of April 2002, there are 156 residents, ranging in age from 17 to 76, in the total confinement program. The McNeil Island total confinement facility, however, houses only adult males. One youth resides in a specialized program outside Washington State, and one woman resides at a special unit on the grounds of the Washington Corrections Center for Women at Purdy. In addition to the 156 residents, there are seven participants in court-ordered less restrictive alternative placements: three are in a special needs program, three are living at home in the custody of their families, and one has been admitted to the new secure community transition facility on McNeil Island. A Typical Day in a Resident's Life (Total Confinement Facility) Treatment Participant Treatment Non-Participant 7:30 a.m. Breakfast 10:00 a.m. Wake up 9:00 a.m. Psycho-educational Class 10:30 a.m. Psycho-educational Class Noon Lunch Noon Lunch 1:30 p.m. Group or Individual Therapy 1:00 P.M. Recreation/Job 3:30 p.m. Job/Education Module 5:30 p.m. Dinner 5:30 p.m. Dinner 6:00 P.M. Alcohol/Substance Abuse 6:00 p.m. Recreation/Job Treatment Group 7:30 p.m. Homework/Recreation/Free- Time 11:00 P.M. Must be in room 10:00 P.M. Must be in room Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 . 2 0 F- m_ 2 e w y 0 ++ C H C O d d c w LLB 3E �` W dz cyd H .c A E 3 0 m u► Z o � y A d � JGM d W Qd in >- U xU) y °' z0• o 3W Z V � z U C N m W 90 tAM E y m m d a O Ch Yf w C FA F O CU .� c O o z O = o, U o ` a Im cv i y O d W 06 dye y a E o. _ a tn � � y � O in V i E Z 0 c m o o E fE .� !0 7 A ` O m L VOi n Ol W 0:uj +' A C C 47 m E .0 u m a c a $ d0A O -0 o H �► U a t ;; J d m cN c 06 > �m w C m c ., v, U) AEc 10 arc O cn o L E C in ++ E U. Y C � N O A � C f0 M ° � A d c O � Z U _ m� LOn —jai xo d, Wc z � a z O � 4 y H • �. C A o d U of d U CJ d ++ y C A O a d a_f°i ORE ° W a) � a>i °v I cn Z a O � •ac > Z W V) I)ocument Pale 1 of 1 Title 15 ZONING* Chapter 15.08 GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS* 15.08.280 Group homes class II and III 15.08.280 Group homes class II and III. A.Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to outline general conditions with which class II and IIl group homes,as defined in KCC 15.02.173,must comply when applying for a conditional use permit to locate in the city. B.Dispersion requirements. A class II and III group home must locate a minimum of six hundred(600)feet from any other class 11 or III group home.This distance will be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. C.Separation requirements. A one thousand(1,000) foot separation requirement will apply to class I1 and III group homes to separate such facilities from sensitive land uses such as public or private schools, churches or other religious facilities or institutions,parks and playgrounds,and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive. In addition to the sensitive uses listed in this subsection, class III group homes must be separated at least one thousand(1,000) feet from all residential areas. This distance would be measured by the same method as that used for the dispersion requirements described in subsection(B)of this section. D.Registration and licensing. Group homes must obtain all licenses necessary for operation by state and federal agencies. Class II and III group homes must also register with the city by supplying information pertinent to the validity, update and renewal status of the home's state and federal license.Accuracy of all information contained in any state or federal license shall be verified to the extent possible by the city,and any applicant for a group home conditional use permit shall have theresponsibility to ensure that any changes made to the license prior to its renewal are immediately provided to the city. (Ord.No. 2958, § 18, 1-2-91) 15.08.300 Zero lot line development—Authorized. Zero lot line development may be permitted in the following zoning districts: A. SR-2 single-family residential. T3. SR-3 single-family residential. '. SR-4.5 single-family residential. D. SR-6 single-family residential. E. SR-8 single-family residential. F.MR-D duplex multifamily residential. G.MR-G low density multifamily residential. Exhibit #12 httn:/hkrA,\N,.mr,;c.org/cei-bin/om ral exe9r11entTn=1 R004457khitcnPrhPnriina=nnR,infnhacP= C/l 7/01) Document Page 1 of 1 Title 15 ZONING' Chapter 15.02 DEFINITIONS 15.02.173 Group home. 15.02.173 Group home. A. Class 1 group home. Class I group home means publicly or privately operated residential facilities such as state-licensed foster homes and group homes for children;group homes for individuals who are developmentally,physically or mentally disabled;group homes or halfway houses for recovering alcoholics and former drug addicts; and other groups not considered within class II or III group homes. 1. Group home, class 1-A. A class I-A group home shall have a maximum of seven(7)residehts including resident staff. 2. Group home, class I-B. A class I-B group home shall have a maximum of ten(10)residents including resident staff. 3. Group home, class 1-C. The number of residents for a class I-C group home will be based upon the density of the underlying zoning district. B. Class 11 group home. Class II group home means publicly or privately operated residential facilities for juveniles under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. These homes include state-licensed group care homes or halfway homes for juveniles which provide residence in lieu of sentencing or incarceration, and halfway houses providing residence to juveniles needing correction or for juveniles selected to participate in state-operated work release and pre-release programs. The planning director shall have the discretion to classify a group home proposing to serve juveniles convicted of the offenses listed under class III group home in this section as a group home class III, and any such home shall be sited according to the regulations contained within the group III classification. 1. Group home, class 11-A. A class II-A group home shall have a maximum of eight(8)residents including resident staff. 2. Group home, class II-B. A class II-B group home shall have a maximum of twelve(12)residents including resident staff. 3. Group home, class H-C. A class II-C group home shall have a maximum of eighteen(18)residents including resident staff. C. Class III group home. Class III group home means privately or publicly operated residential facilities for adults under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system who have entered a pre- or post-charging diversion program, or been selected to participate in state-operated work/training release or other similar programs as provided in Chapters 137-56 and 137-57 WAC. Such groups also involve individuals who have been convicted of a violent crime against a person or a crime against ,perty with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator. _ .d.No. 2958, § 2, 1-2-91; Ord.No. 3451, § 2,4-20-99) 15.02.174 Guest cottage. Guest cottage means an accessory, detached dwelling without any kitchen facilities designed for and used to house transient visitors or nonpaying guests of the occupants of the main building. (Ord.No.2801, § 1, 9-6-88) 15.02.175 Hazardous substance. Exhibit #11 1 tt �•//caarr}i mrcr nrrt/rn;_1„n/nm ;can; AlI'),I, "fTT)—Q1 7I1 A4 1 ;tc �rl o� 7; � — R.;—r 1,11 —11 - K/'2/h'1 C> xt m T i c O a+ QI C C 1N0 d u 4J 61 � c m r t'N Of m Y O 46J 3 ce m LLJ Ip c in t' d F— E3 o R N fA U m 0c L d � o d `oTp a � cr ` > > z Z u � i LLB m v) A S E a, m m d o in d c UI y ++ FE p Q� U cC c c c d M C C imp A L a+ � pl W CL °7 a. IAy ` O cis d °uoE Z 0 c a o� EE H w 0 L u 0 S .c R L u Huj n cm W D: J +' A c d tJ L y � w 6V1 M�1 ; In mm � A u ep a c � ' 3 O O yj y ' I U > U aci c +n o� v dam_ .`.1 d a— N } M y i V N ow 0 A r.+ p mE C G7 c GJ cu V Q C m E t c N L ++ LL Y C > N C fp _ f4 W O w o � G a: Ad a � z LLI p1 om v af0i J L h U0 rn m I o O cl: c Z w a moE N z IL uLn HAL w d a) d U d tU/f d Vf J c E c i �+ 1n r0.+ p y fp L d p7 d V C V1 O ~ m z af°i u E ° a�i d w o>i v V) S ct O � o E d Z . W (n d' ` - L o. a � J Q CICI�OC1�Z®� Cl) gZ ON s `CD5. CD CC CD C.O.ynQ4��0 0 am ofD `� c 9eF � O � R.�o Do J C N 4 C N o ry: Oo CD z 0 m O !A � y Y+ 4 + 1 is•`� : '�- • • .t Ao `i I + 4 •.y'- • _+ ,i „ '- . ,. I • � �� ..a d � '•Mee �,_ -_ ` d � e e ,k .. w _$ ■■; v f . 1�r Ili • �0� � �. �xwS��o���, �cQ AA-0 mptDOxloo v C m0� c�i3Appxm 8 CCD c 7 _ Z �O� �Z=Oz c Q o �� Mom•C407�zC w� a WE a tD e�FCD CD `im m1v m CaM n C'ys` Z y Z O fA O °t �m 3 N� s= 0 3 N� A y s 22D X m .c cn n m mm z w r0 ddd%iii BE CD O rn Z CA r s e Y �/ tle +g • 0--�_ +•j/ `� 'yam: ••"g^� - aP - • 'L.' m / /ems -''�� p i • s l d . ..��,tl �. eC , a = • • bra• •• ... e _ c`, lij. as :. i ° • NdEs • -_ _ • - i, a „_y •. • _- •i F .. r _ �„ � .a O�I O ^J • a / a " . • a t'C C, ra JJ a O IY 11 F . (IN C //�� / cc cn mm-unmor—oD02n0 o m � �• \V 9 fnz02n��CC2� z m��O��Dcc2ipZ O n C' cn 0�. ��,�,r �mz2r� o 'mom s Dmm O c--- CCU co V� °' ` i F CD N� :� r v z �� T am om ;�y m-4 m -Ap n �■ ^ N09 M �� T C3 O .T7 ZO m � 7 � zm � D "Z N o A+ rj1 > > D T` m 0 w� z m O o N � n /■■�► K)CDO �■ rMIL �■ Z N cn O r2 _ 10 O !( < p 1 i r 1; r o 0: 0-G O i' CD . O O cn �� ;=:f cD m > Ce 3301 > > 33 �.o.OZ o r� c ? _ m ccoo y+ CD cc :� �o vvm'm'n�03 (� o� O a n W N� w ��333n OOG�—fir y o —■ y 3 3 3c� 33 3 =i O 0 ` y L.ci of m® m n N —C y 3 0 m cc ydd�+ < CD a. M.M. m Q� 3 3 x (A3 00 • ■ m CO) CDCD O pj 0 Cl) W Or = r z CCD 00 CDo' Dy m Mk �� h } mt 'sail Iit# fie :ke tt _ 5 ! �s t - .a AS CITY OF KENT 0 KENT W.5 M I N G T O DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE N Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2002-37 Project CITY OF KENT SECURE COMMUNITY KIVA #2022279 TRANSITION FACILITY CODE AMENDMENT Description The proposed code amendment addresses the siting criteria for secure community transition facilities (SCTF) within the City of Kent A SCTF will provide residences for sexual offenders. This amendment is in response to Senate Bill ESSB 6594 enacted March 2002 and ESSB 6151 enacted June 2001 that requires cities to plan for the siting of secure community transition facilities by September 1 2002 Applicant CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES 2204 THAVENUE S. KENT, WA 98032 Lead Agency City of Kent The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period as provided by WAC 197 11 680. Comments must be submitted by August 20, 2002. Responsible Official Kim Marousek, AICP PositionlTitle Senior Planner/SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 S. Fourth Aven e ent WA 98032 Te ephone: (253) 856-5454 Dated August 6, 2002 Signa APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETE INATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN F EEN (14) FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE APPLICATION FEE: 1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON INDIVIDUAL PARCEL: 250 K E N T ALL OTHERS: 700 WASHINGTON PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD .— CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES $100 EACH BOARD (253) 856-5454 TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: APPLICATION KIVA#: a(3 RECEIVED BY: CA DATE: PROCESSING FEE: V C) -2 Z l A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signs re esponsible Off icla Date B. COMMENTS: C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: Y1/i Q D. ZONING DISTRICT: 1 City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION FORM _, BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Name of Project: Secure Community Transition Facility Code Amendment 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Planning Services Office Mailing Address: 220 4tn Avenue S. Kent WA 98032 Contact Person: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Telephone: 253-856-5454 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): City 4. Name of Legal Owner: n/a City -Wide Telephone: Mailing Address: 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). This is a nonproject action that will affect the regulations for siting secure community transition facilities and will apply city-wide. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): N/A b. Tax identification number: N/A 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 15 The proposal is for a zoning text amendment that would apply city- wide _ 8. Site Area: n/a Site Dimensions: 9. Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The proposed code amendment addresses the siting criteria for secure community transition facilities (SCTF)within the City of Kent. A SCTF will provide residences for sexual offenders. This amendment is in response to Senate Bill ESSB 6594 enacted March 2002 and ESSB 6151 enacted June 2001, that requires cities to plan for the siting of secure community transition facilities by September 1, 2002. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). The proposed code amendment will be heard by the Land Use and Hearing Board on July 22, 2002 and a recommendation will be forwarded to the Kent City Council in mid-September for consideration and decision. 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City is not evaluating any other similar code amendments. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** Ordinance City Council adoption Ci*y of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 15 *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. At a future time, the State has withheld the right to preempt the City's ordinance and declare an emergency for siting a secure community transition facility (SCTF). If the state pursues a preemption, it may do so without site-specific environmental review. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS a. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The regulations will apply to all affected properties within the City of - Kent. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There are slopes of 40% or greater within the City limits. This is a nonproject action that will not change any regulations that pertain to the protection of critical slopes. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. This is a nonproject action. Detailed soils information will be provided along with any project specific proposal. J. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are areas that have unstable soils which are identified on the City's Hazard Area Map. Regulations to govern these steep slopes would apply to any future development proposal. a. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A uld erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 15 generally describe. Erosion is possible at a future construction phase. At such a point in the future, the City's clearing and grading ordinances will apply. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. N/A 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. As a nonproject action, there are no anticipated air quality concerns. Future projects will be required to meet all applicable standards. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Overall City conditions are not anticipated to change as a result of this code amendment. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. N/A 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Green River, Garrison Creek, Mill Creek, Springbrook Creek, Soos Creek, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Johnson Creek, Mullen Slough and a number of other seasonal surface water bodies are within the City limits. However, it is not anticipated that this nonproject action will impact any of these surface water bodies. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and City of Ken,'.Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 6 of 15 attach available plans. The adoption of an ordinance for the siting of secure community transition facilities will not require work within 200- feet of any water body. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Future project development may be located within the 100- year floodplain. If so, those regulations that protect flood zones will apply. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No groundwater discharges or withdrawals will occur from this nonproject action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. If future siting locations occur on properties with septic systems, the project proponent will be required to meet all applicable local and state standards. Water Runoff (including storm water): City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 7 of 15 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The proposed code amendment will not modify any existing ordinances related to water runoff. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Any future proposals will be required to meet the City of Kent surface water design manual standards. The nonproject action will not create any surface water problems. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or grain X_Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other X Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No impacts to vegetation will occur through the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Future impacts may occur through site specific development which will be evaluated at that time. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A J. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to City of Ken*Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 8 of 15 preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Any threatened or endangered species within the City limits will not be impacted by this nonproject action. Any site-specific development will evaluate potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. N/A d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No change in energy needs are anticipated by the adoption of this ordinance. At such time when a secure community transition facility is constructed, it will be required to meet the UBC. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This will be evaluated upon site specific project submittal. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could .ur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 9 of 15 No known environmental health impacts are anticipated by this code amendment. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No need for services beyond that which the City currently provides are anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? The City has traffic noise, airplane noise, and industrial- related noise generation. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Beyond that which is created by residential uses, there is no impact anticipated for the future development of a secure community transition facility. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None are proposed. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? This nonproject action will apply city-wide. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Various lands within the City of Kent have been historically used and are currently used for agricultural purposes. c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The main areas of potential designation by this proposed ordinance Cit; of'Ken*. Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 10 of 15 are currently zoned for commercial use. f. Nhat is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The main areas of potential designation by this proposed ordinance have a commercial comprehensive plan designation. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. There are environmentally sensitive areas within the City. The City's critical areas ordinances would apply to site-specific development proposals which should protect these resources. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Although the code amendment is a nonproject action, the development of a SCTF may result in up to 18 residents which include both staff and individuals living in the facility. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed ordinance would require a conditional use permit for siting of a secure community transition facility. This process requires that the site location be evaluated for compatibility with surrounding uses. Further, the development of the proposed regulations are consistent with the Kent Comprehensive capital facilities siting of essential public facilities. 9. Housina a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. This is a nonproject action. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. No housing impacts are anticipated by the adoption of this proposed ordinance. Any site-specific impacts associated with the development ,)f a SCTF will be addressed through the conditional use permit City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 11 of 15 proces. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The height of any future structures associated with this ordinance will be limited by the underlying zoning regulations. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Aesthetic impacts for future development will be controlled via the conditional use permit process. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a nonproject action. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None are anticipated with future development associated with this proposed ordinance. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None are proposed for this nonproject action. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Existing recreational areas are considered by this proposed ordinance. Any future secure community transition facilities will not be permitted to locate within the "line of sight' of a "sensitive land use" which includes public parks. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. City of Ken:Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 12 of 15 None are anticipated however, depending upon the exact location of a SCTF, there may be a greater need for security around existing recreational uses. This would be evaluated at the time of a site- specific development application. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The City's transportation system will not be impacted by the adoption of this proposed ordinance. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Location to transit will be considered by siting criteria for future facilities. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). This will be evaluated upon site specific project submittal. There are no impacts associated with the ordinance adoption. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None for this nonproject action. Trips associated with the build-out of a SCTF could include travel to and from educational, social and City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 13 of 15 health services by residents of the facility. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None are proposed for the nonproject action. Site-specific impacts would be addressed at the time of development. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The adoption of the SCTF ordinance will not directly create a need for increased services. However, siting a SCTF may increase the need for law enforcement training and may necessitate an enhanced database for information dissemination and communication. A SCTF is considered a high priority response for emergency calls. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None are proposed for the nonproject action. Potential future mitigation for site specific development could include state mitigation funding for police training and for the development of a database. The State Department of Social and Health Services will also consider and balance the average response time of emergency services to the general area of a proposed site against the proximity to risk potential activities and facilities. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. N/A b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. N/A C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: 7 City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 14 of 15 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to impact these environmental elements. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to impact these environmental elements. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? None 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to impact these environmental elements. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources a re: None 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to impact these environmental elements. Any future secure community transition facilities will not be permitted to locate within the "line of sight" of a "sensitive land use" which includes public parks. City of Kent Planning Services For Agency Use Environmental Checklist Page 15 of 15 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed code amendment will be compatible with existing comprehensive plan designations and is consistent with the capital facilities element with respect to the siting of essential public facilities. There are no anticipated shoreline impacts. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to impact the need for utilities or public services. Trips associated with the build-out of a SCTF could include travel to and from educational, social and health services by residents of the facility. Siting a SCTF may increase the need for law enforcement training and may necessitate an enhanced database for information dissemination and communication. A SCTF is considered a high priority response for emergency calls. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This proposed code amendment is promulgated to bring the City of Kent into consistency with state regulations, specifically Senate Bill ESSB 6594 and ESSB 6151. S:\permit\plan\zonecodeamend\2002\sctfchecklist.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager KENT W A 5 H I N G T o N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document CITY OF KENT SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY CODE AMENDMENT #ENV-2002-37 (KIVA#2022279) Responsible Official: Kim Marousek AICP I. PROPOSAL The proposed code amendment addresses the siting criteria for secure community transition facilities (SCTF) within the City of Kent. A SCTF will provide residences for sexual offenders. This amendment is in response to Senate Bill ESSB 6594 enacted March 2002 and ESSB 6151 enacted June 2001, that requires cities to plan for the siting of secure community transition facilities by September 1, 2002. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 3222), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance 3117) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner/Subdivider with the City of Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may require the deeding/dedication of right of way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03, and with Sections 15.08.220 to 15.08,224, and to Section 15.08.240 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent, in order to: preserve trees; or to regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes; or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter — 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. Decision Document Secure Community Transition Facility Code Amendment #ENV-2002-37 KIVA #2022279 In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth There are slopes of 40 percent or greater within the City limits. This is a nonproject action that will not change any regulations pertaining to the protection of critical slopes. There are areas that have unstable soils which are identified on the City's Hazard Area Map. Regulations to govern these steep slopes would apply to any future development proposal. B. Water The Green River, Garrison Creek, Mill Creek, Springbrook Creek, Soos Creek, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Johnson Creek, Mullen Slough and a number of other seasonal surface water bodies are within the City limits. However, it is not anticipated that this nonproject action will impact any of these surface water bodies C. Animals Any threatened or endangered species within the City limits will not be impacted by this nonproject action. Any site-specific development will evaluate potential impacts to threatened or endangered species. D. Land and Shoreline Use The proposed ordinance would require a conditional use permit for siting of a secure community transition facility. This process requires that the site location be evaluated for compatibility with surrounding uses. Further, the development of the proposed regulations are consistent with the Kent Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element for the siting of essential public facilities. E. Housing Although the code amendment is a nonproject action, the development of a SCTF may result in up to 18 residents which include both staff and individuals living in the facility. No housing impacts are anticipated by the adoption of this proposed ordinance. Any site-specific impacts associated Page 2 of 4 Decision Document Secure Community Transition Facility Code Amendment #ENV-2002-37 KIVA #2022279 with the development of a SCTF will be addressed through the conditional use permit process. F. Recreation Existing recreational areas are considered by this proposed ordinance. Any future secure community transition facilities will not be permitted to locate within the "line of sight" of a "sensitive land use" which includes public parks. No recreational impacts are anticipated however, depending upon the exact location of a SCTF, there may be a greater need for security around existing recreational uses. This would be evaluated at the time of a site- specific development application. G. Transportation The City's transportation system will not be impacted by the adoption of this proposed ordinance. H. Public Services The adoption of the SCTF ordinance will not directly create a need for increased services. However, siting a SCTF may increase the need for law enforcement training and may necessitate an enhanced database for information dissemination and communication. A SCTF is considered a high priority response for emergency calls. Potential future mitigation for site specific development could include state mitigation funding for police training and for the development of a database. The State Department of Social and Health Services will also consider and balance the average response time of emergency services to the general area of a proposed site against the proximity to risk potential activities and facilities. I. Nonproject Analysis This proposed code amendment is promulgated to bring the City of Kent into consistency with state regulations, specifically Senate Bill ESSB 6594 and ESSB 6151. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate, as per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21 C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts Page 3of4 Decision Document Secure Community Transition Facility Code Amendment #ENV-2002-37 KIVA #2022279 associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. 2. The State Shoreline Master Program and the Kent Shoreline Master Program. 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage code. 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation action plan and six-year transportation improvement plan. 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater facilities master plan. 6. City of Kent Comprehensive water plan and conservation element. 7. Kent City Code Sections 6.02.010 and 6.02.020 construction standards. 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 street use permit requirements. 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 flood hazard protection. 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivision Code. 11 . Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Parks. 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control. 13. City of Kent Uniform Building and Fire Codes 14. Kent Zoning Code. 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 water shortage and emergency regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227. 16. Kent City Code Sections 6.02 and 6.03 required public improvements. 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and surface water drainage utility. 18. City of Kent comprehensive sewer plan. 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan. 20. City of Kent Wetland Management Ordinance 3109. 21. Resolution 1605 Enhanced review procedures SEPA and ESA B. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2) a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project. KENT PLANNING SERVICES August 6, 2002 KM:ch\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2002\201935-2002-32.doc Page 4 of 4 STATF RECEIVED O� y a AUG 2 0 2002 x KEN T CITY COUN('I[, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 • Olympia WA 98504-5322 August 20, 2002 J AUG 2 City Council President Judy Woods CITY OF KENT City Council Members CITY CLERK City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, Washington 98032-5895 RE: Amendments to Chapter 15 of the Kent City Code regarding the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities Dear President Woods and Council Members.- Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed amendments to the Kent City Code. We appreciate the City's interest in working with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to assure that the City's approach to siting secure community transition facilities (SCTF) meets the requirements of state law. On July 22, 2002, we provided oral and written _ testimony to the City's Land Use & Planning Board regarding "Option 4, Restricted Zoning," the option recommended by staff in a July 15, 2002 staff report. For your convenience, we are providing a copy of the written testimony that we submitted at that time, including all enclosures submitted with that letter. We urge you to consider our comments to the Land Use & Planning Board as you consider the options for siting SCTFs. At their August 13, 2002 meeting, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended forwarding "Option 1, No Change," to the City Council for approval. Since we did not analyze this option in our previous testimony, we wish to supplement that testimony with an analysis of Option 1 . We are concerned that applying the existing regulations for Class III group homes to SCTFs would be more restrictive that the siting provisions in RCW 71.09.285 and 71.09.290, and would have the potential for precluding the siting of a facility. As our letter of July 22, 2002 explained, ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), Sec. 7, states: The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71 .09.285 through 71.09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting Kent City Council August 20, 2002 Page 2 development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71 .09.285 through 71 .09.340. Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public safety. Applying all existing Class III group home regulations to SCTFs raises several concerns: • Allow siting of SCTFs as a conditional use in the O, Professional and Office, zoning district and in all commercial zoning districts (NCC, CC, DC, DCE, CM-1, CM-2, GC) except GWC, Gateway Commercial. Selection of appropriate zones or areas for SCTFs is a local choice. RCW 36.70A.200(5) states that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities, including SCTFs. We note that you have already made use of the GIS data that DSHS provided regarding risk potential facilities and equitable distribution factors. We suggest that the City conduct a thorough geographic analysis, if this has not been done, to make sure that limiting SCTFs to this area would not be preclusive. • Require SCTFs (like other Class III group homes) to be located a minimum of 600 feet from any other class II or III group home. As we stated in our letter of July 22, 2002, it is our understanding that the requirement to locate an SCTF a minimum of 600 feet from any other Class II or III Group Home is the City's provision for equitable distribution. In that context, separation of SCTFs from Class I I I facilities can be justified based on the requirement in RCW 71.09.250(8) to give great weight to equitable distribution when siting SCTFs by considering the number and location of residential correctional facility beds operated by Department of Corrections and residential mental health facility beds operated by DSHS. Requiring separation of SCTFs from Class II group homes (juvenile facilities) would be more restrictive than the minimum requirements of RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. • Require SCTFs to be separated at least 1000 feet from all residential areas. The risk potential facilities and activities referenced in RCW 71.09.285 and 290 are those listed in the legislative definition, RCW 71.09.020(7). The provision in KCC 15.08.280 that requires separation from residential areas adds risk potential facilities that are not listed in state law. Consequently, the provision is more restrictive than state statute. Kent City Council August 20, 2002 Page 3 • Require SCTFs (like other Class III group homes) to be separated at least 1,000 feet from all "sensitive" uses. The provision in KCC 15.08.280 that requires separation from "other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive" could be interpreted to add risk potential facilities that are not listed in state law. The risk potential facilities and activities referenced in RCW 71.09.285 and 290 are those listed in the legislative definition, RCW 71.09.020(7). Adding risk potential facilities to those in the legislative definition would be more restrictive than state statute. • Require SCTFs to be located 1000 feet from "sensitive" uses. Requiring SCTFs to be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from risk potential facilities or activities is inconsistent with state law. RCW 71 .09.285 states that "in no case shall the [DSHS] policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration." It goes on to define "within the line of sight" as meaning "that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals." DSHS recently completed field tests to determine what linear distance is a reasonable measure of an unobstructed line of sight. In our tests, we determined that an individual might reasonably visually distinguish and recognize other individuals who are standing within 600 feet, assuming the terrain is unobstructed. We suggest that you amend your proposed ordinance with wording something like this: In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the Town Council shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be "within line of sight." Through the Conditional Use Permit process, "line of sight" may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet. We believe that this language would better address the City's concern for public safety while maintaining consistency with the state statute. Kent City Council August 20, 2002 Page 4 We appreciate the efforts the City of Kent is taking to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed designation and siting process for essential public facilities and your proposed regulations for secure community transition facilities. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (360) 902-8257, or Elaine Taylor, Land Use Administrator for Secure Community Transition Facilities, at (360) 902-8184. Sincerely, Beverly K. Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center Enclosures c: Charlene Anderson, AICP, City of Kent Holly Gadbaw, DCTED T4Tn .- 1.J, SA.Ti OF"OVA Ste!iN TON DLF)A!\ ✓{i1\d' i � � ' � s % : � ,L1 � � J'U ?G 3o,x -5322 * Otvmpia AVA 9£3=0--5322 July 22, 2002 Kent Land Use and Planning Board City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, Washington 98032-5895 RE: Amendments to Chapter 15 of the Kent City Code regarding the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities Dear Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed amendments to the Kent City Code. We appreciate the City's interest in working with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to assure that the City's approach to siting secure community transition facilities (SCTF) meets the requirements of state law. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the City to adequately and appropriately address this important need. As you know, RCW 36.70A.200, as amended by ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), requires all counties and cities to establish a process and amend development regulations as necessary "to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities." At a minimum, this means: The local process and regulations must not preclude the siting of an SCTF. The land use regulations must be consistent with, and no more restrictive than, the requirements for siting and operating an SCTF set out in chapter 71.09 RCW. • ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), Sec. 7, states that the requirements set out in RCW 71 .09.285 through 71.09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by DSHS. This does not prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents DSHS from adding requirements to enhance public safety. City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 2 • The jurisdiction must consider the effect of "equitable distribution factors" on the siting of a facility as addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8). A written policy or statement that describes how your jurisdiction weighs this requirement against other public safety siting requirements of chapter 71.09 RCW is evidence of your consideration. • The zones or areas that the jurisdiction identifies as appropriate for siting secure community transition facilities must include potential sites that meet the criteria in state law. The jurisdiction has the option of identifying specific sites or parcels that meet the criteria in state law. A potential site means either buildable land or a suitable existing facility that is available for lease or purchase at a reasonable or fair market rate. To meet these requirements, we suggest that a jurisdiction complete sufficient analysis to determine whether or not areas or zones designated as appropriate for siting an SCTF will actually yield potential sites that meet the criteria in chapter 71.09 RCW. At a minimum, this means analyzing risk potential locations and equitable distribution factors. To assist you in this analysis, DSHS developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that maps the locations of risk potential facilities and activities and provides information on equitable distribution factors. DSHS has provided this GIS data to your planning staff and will provide updated data as it becomes available. • The local jurisdiction's siting and permitting processes that would be required when DSHS actually sites a facility must be designed to result in a permitted site in a timely manner. This means that the siting process will enable the department to complete construction or renovation of a facility so that it is available for occupancy when needed. A reasonable amount of time to complete local land use permitting process is 180 days from the inception of any local requirements. It is the department's expectation that local jurisdictional permitting processes and regulations (e.g., building permits) for SCTFs will be no more stringent than the requirements for group care facilities. The enclosed letter from DSHS Secretary Dennis Braddock, dated June 20, 2002, provides additional information regarding the meaning of these requirements for counties and cities subject to preemption of local land use authority under ESSB 6594. Specific Comments on City Code Amendment DSHS offers the following comments on Option 4, the recommendation of the City's planning staff in the July 15, 2002 memorandum from Charlene Anderson City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 3 to Vice-Chair David Malik and the City's Land Use & Planning Board. Option 4 would incorporate the text changes listed under Option 3. Land Use Table (KCC 15.05.020). Option 4 would limit the siting of SCTFs to the GWC, Gateway Commercial zoning district, as a conditional use. The staff note to Option 2 observed that adding the GWC zoning district to the list of commercial zoning districts where SCTFs could be sited "slightly increases the number of available parcels." In Option 4, only those parcels that constitute that slight increase would be available for siting SCTFs. Selection of appropriate zones or areas for SCTFs is a local choice. Location of an SCTF in the Gateway Commercial zoning district may be appropriate, as long as you are confident that sufficient sites meeting the state criteria are available in this area. RCW 36.70A.200(5) states that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities, including SCTFs. We note that you have already made use of the GIS data that DSHS provided regarding risk potential facilities and equitable distribution factors. We suggest that the City conduct a thorough geographic analysis, if this has not been done, to make sure that limiting SCTFs to this area would not be preclusive given the location of risk potential facilities. Text Amendment — Option 3. Option 3 would add a note to the land use table requiring SCTFs to comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements, and exempting them from the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for Class III Group Homes. For clarification, we suggest stating in the regulations that SCTFs are Class III Group Homes, and specifying the portions of the City's regulations that do and do not apply to them. Based on our reading of the existing code and the proposed changes, it is our understanding that: 1. SCTFs would only be allowed in the GWC zoning district; other Class III Group Homes would not be allowed in that zone. 2. SCTFs are exempt from the requirement of KCC 15.08.280 for a one thousand foot separation from risk potential facilities and activities. 3. SCTFs would be subject to the 600-foot separation from any Class II or Class III Group Homes. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the requirement to locate a SCTF a minimum of 600 feet from any other Class II or III Group Home is the City's provision for equitable distribution. City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 4 We have several concerns. Clarity. Your specific "siting criteria" that would apply to SCTFs are unclear, and could become a source of confusion or conflict. We suggest that you clarify whether or not SCTFs are considered Class III Group Homes. In addition, if SCTFs are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 (as stated in the note to the Land Use Table), that code section should be amended to specifically exempt SCTFs from the requirements that apply to other Class III facilities. Separation requirements. We noted above some confusion over whether or not SCTFs are exempt from the requirement in KCC 15.08.280 for a 1,000-foot separation from risk potential facilities and activities "and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive..." If the restrictions in KCC 15.08.280 apply to the siting of SCTFs, the requirements are more restrictive than state law. ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), Sec. 7, states: The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71 .09.285 through 71 .09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public safety. The risk potential facilities and activities referenced in RCW 71 .09.285 and 290 are those listed in the legislative definition, RCW 71.09.020(7). The provision in KCC 15.08.280 that requires separation from "other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive" could be interpreted to add risk potential-facilities that are not listed in state law. Adding risk potential facilities to those in the legislative definition would be more restrictive. We would also be concerned with a one-thousand foot separation distance. In setting out the contents for the Policy Guidelines, RCW 71.09.285 states that "in no case shall the policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration." It goes on to define "within the line of sight" as meaning "that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals." DSHS recently completed field tests to determine what linear distance is a reasonable measure of an unobstructed line of sight. In our tests, we determined that an individual might reasonably visually distinguish and recognize other individuals who are standing within 600 feet, assuming the terrain is City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board July 22, 2002 Page 5 unobstructed. We suggest that you amend your proposed ordinance with wording something like this: In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the Hearing Examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be "within line of sight." Through the Secure Community Transition Facility — Special Use Permit process, "line of sight" may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet." Available sites. As we noted earlier in this letter, we wonder if the one zone available for siting SCTFs would yield an adequate number of suitable parcels. Again, we suggest that the City conduct the necessary GIS analysis to determine if the GWC, Gateway Commercial zone would yield an adequate number of suitable parcels to allow for siting consistent with state law. We appreciate the efforts the City of Kent is taking to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed designation and siting process for essential public facilities and your proposed regulations for secure community transition facilities. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (360) 902-8257, or Elaine Taylor, Land Use Administrator for Secure Community Transition Facilities, at (360) 902-8184. Sincerely, Beverly eWilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center Enclosure c: Charlene Anderson, AICP, City of Kent Holly Gadbaw, DCTED 5?.1 TF 4 4 4 Wj�� 1bF9� STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olympia, WA 98504-5000 June 20, 2002 Dear Elected Officials: Many of you and your staff have asked the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for guidance regarding the "preemption" provisions of ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002). In particular, you have asked how and when DSHS will determine whether any of the six counties (Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, and Thurston) or any of the cities in those counties are preempted for failure to meet the statutory planning requirements to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTF). After October 1, 2002, ESSB 6594 Section 9(1) preempts and supersedes local plans, development regulations, permitting and inspection requirements and all other laws as necessary to enable the department to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate secure community transition facilities within the borders of any of the six counties listed above or any of the cities in those counties that have failed to comply with legislatively mandated planning. A copy of Section 9 and other relevant sections of ESSB 6594 are enclosed. To avoid preemption, your jurisdiction must fulfill the planning requirements in RCW 36.70A.200 and chapter 71.09 RCW. At a minimum this means: 1. Do not preclude. Your jurisdiction's process and regulations must not preclude the siting of a SCTF. "Preclude" is defined as "render impossible or impracticable." Impracticable means "not practicable, i.e., incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command."' For example, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board determined that a City of Tacoma ordinance that limited the location of new work release facilities to the City's Heavy Industrial District (M-3) where the availability of non-developed, non-contaminated sites is problematic, effectively precluded the siting of new work release facilities in the City.2 2. Adopt regulations consistent with state law. Your jurisdiction's land use regulations must be consistent with, and no more restrictive than, the requirements for siting and operating a SCTF set forth in chapter 71.09 RCW. 3. Establish an equitable distribution policy. Your jurisdiction must have considered the "equitable distribution" requirements of RCW 71.09.250(8). A written policy or statement that describes how your jurisdiction weighs this requirement against other public safety siting requirements of chapter 71.09 RCW is evidence of your consideration. I Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines, CPSGNM Case No. 97-3-0014,Final Decision and Order(August 13, 1997),at 8. 2 Department of Corrections v. City of Tacoma, CPSGMHB Case No. 00-3-0007,Final Decision and Order (November 20,2000),at 7. Elected Officials -- Letter on Preemption June 20, 2002 _. Page 2 4. Identify appropriate zones or areas. Your jurisdiction must have identified zones or areas that are appropriate for siting SCTFs and that include potential site(s) that meet and are consistent with state law requirements. The jurisdiction has the option of identifying specific sites or parcels that meet the criteria in state law. A specific or potential site means either buildable land or a suitable existing facility that is available for lease or purchase at a reasonable or fair market rate. The jurisdiction must have completed sufficient review to determine whether or not areas or zones designated as appropriate for siting a SCTF will actually yield potential sites that meet the criteria in chapter 71.09 RCW. At a minimum, this means analyzing risk potential locations and equitable distribution factors. To assist you in this analysis, DSHS has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that maps the locations of risk potential facilities and activities and provides information on equitable distribution factors. DSHS has provided this GIS data to your planning staff and will provide updated data as it becomes available. 5. Establish a process for timely siting. Your local jurisdiction must have designed siting and permitting processes that will result in a permitted SCTF site in a timely manner. This means that the siting process will enable the department to complete construction or renovation of a facility so that it is available for occupancy when needed. A reasonable amount of time to complete the local land use permitting process, including any pre- - application requirements, is 180 days from the inception of any local requirements. It is the department's expectation that a jurisdiction's other permitting processes and regulations (e.g., building permits) for SCTFs will be no more stringent than the requirements for group care facilities. Determination of Preemption A county or city that has not complied with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 by September 1, 2002, is considered to be preempted, effective October 1, 2002. Not complying means either 1) the city or county has not adopted a process in its comprehensive plan and development regulations to provide for siting SCTF; or 2) the city or county has adopted a plan or development regulations that are in clear conflict with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200, or RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. The department expects to follow the local jurisdiction's adopted process and regulations for siting SCTFs unless the process and regulations do not comply with the law. Given the complexity and unique qualities of local processes and regulations, however, it may not be possible to determine at the outset of the department's siting process if the designated zones or areas will yield appropriate potential sites that meet statutory criteria or if the local process and regulations will result in timely siting. When siting a facility in a jurisdiction that has adopted a process and regulations, the department will endeavor to follow local requirements. If the department encounters siting barriers during the process, the department will consult with the local jurisdiction, evaluate whether preemption is necessary, identify alternative options, and notify the local jurisdiction of its decision. Elected Officials -- Letter on Preemption June 20, 2002 Page 3 It is our intent to work closely with and consult with counties and cities throughout the siting of secure community transition facilities regardless of preemption. If a facility is sited in a preempted jurisdiction, we will continue to consult with the local government. When you send your proposed plans and regulations to the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), as specified in RCW 36.70A.106, please send us a copy. We are coordinating with CTED to act as the lead agency in reviewing proposals relating to SCTFs. We would appreciate receiving your proposals as early as possible in your planning process —that will give us an opportunity to assist your staff and to review and comment on your proposals. We would also appreciate receiving your adopted plans and regulations and any supporting documents as soon as possible upon their completion. Please send copies of your documents to Elizabeth McNagny, Housing Policy/Land Use Administrator, DSHS Lands and Buildings Division, P.O. Box 45848, Olympia, Washington, 98504-5848. Elizabeth's email address is MCNAGEC(a)dshs.wa.gov. If you or your staff have questions about the Special Commitment Center program or secure community transition facilities, please call Beverly Wilson, SCC Associate Superintendent for Community Programs, at (360) 902-8257. Your planning staff may also call Elaine Taylor, SCTF Land Use Administrator, at (360) 902-8184 for consultation and assistance in planning. Sincerely, QDNIS BRADDOCK Secretary Enclosures c: Planning Directors Tim Brown Mark Seling John Reynolds Beverly Wilson Elaine Taylor Elizabeth McNagny Scott Lockwood Dick Van Wagenen Leonard Bauer Association for Washington Cities Washington State Association of Counties SeC, 2 , RCW 36 .70A. 200 and 2001 2nd sp- s. c 12 s 205 are each amended to read as follows : I anni r (1) The comprehensive plan_ of each county and city that is p g t ing under RCS 36.70A• 040 shall include a Process for identifying and si essentia p ublic facil-ties . Essential public facilities include these l such as airports, facilities that are typically difficult to site, state education facilities and state or regiona- transportation RCI9 47 . 06 .140, state and local correctional facilities as defined in es, solid waste handling facilities , and in-pa faciliti tient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group as defined in RCW homes, and secure community transition facilities 71.09 .020 . RCW 36 .70A. 040 shall, not (2) Each county and city planning under ., ) ) Sent ember 1 . later than ( (` -`"y ` - "� " ` + process, for 2002 , establish a process, or amend its existing :_...... essential Public facilities ( (,) ) and adopt or identifying and siting p to provide for the amend its development regulations as necessary _ siting o= secure community transition facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities . city or county not planning under RCTr1 36 . 70A. 040 shall, not (3) Any �3-$) ) September a n nr :ik ri +� later than ( ( transition 0d , establish a process for siting secure community facilities and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of such facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities. a) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of ( ired or likely to those essential state public facilities that are requ' ement be built within the next six Years . The office of financial mariag may at any time add facilities to the list. may (5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation y of essential public facilities . preclude �,he siting _ for civil damages base 61 No Denson may brim a cause o. action itv to D OV, "or the aOod fai th acti Ons Or an cCuntV Or C- an the - _ tins in accordance wit- s;ti ra of secure communi tv tral7si lion -ac_1- r 12 • laws Of 2001 Zr'-d ; repents o- chaDte_ th; s section and with the r_ -- c OT t___S 5L1bSE'CLi O^-, nDer$0'1tt iP_Cl11deS . but For' t011r'7OSe. - this Ste. SeSS . - not limited to, anv individual , aaenw as defined in PCW 42 17 020 corporation, partnership . association and limited liability entity (7) counties or cities siting facilities ti es pursuant to subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall comply with section 7 of this act (8) The failure of a county or city to act by the deadlines established in subsections (2) and (3 ) of this section is not - (a) A condition that would disqualify the county or city for grants , loans , or pledges under RCW 43 . 155 . 070 or 70 146 070 • (b) A consideration for aran_ts or !cans provided under RCW 43 .17 . 250 (2) : or (c) A basis for any petition under RCW 36 . 70A.280 or for any T)rivate cause of action. NETA SECTION. Sec. 7 . A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows : The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71 . 09 . 285 through 71.09. 340 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department . Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36 . 70A. 030 , unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71. 09 . 285 through 71 .09 . 340 . Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public safety. NEW SECTION. Sec. 9 . A new section is added to chapter 71. 09 RCW to read as follows : (1) After October 1, 2002, notwithstanding RCW 36 . 70A.103 or any other law, this section 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 secure community transition facilities within the borders of the following: (a) Any county that had five or more persons civilly committed from that county, or detained at the special commitment center under a pending civil commitment petition_ from that county where a finding of probable cause has been made, on April 1, 2001, if the department determines that the county has not met the requirements of RCW 36 . 70A. 200 with respect to secure community transition facilities . This subsection does not apply to the county in which the secure community transition facility authorized under RCW 71. 09 .250 (1) is located; and (b) Any city located within a county listed in (a) of this subsection that the department determines has not met the requirements of RCW 36 .70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities . (2) The department' s determination under subsection (1) (a) or (b) of this section is final and is not subject to appeal under chapter 34 . 05 or 36 .70A RCW. (3) When siting a facility in a county or city that has been preempted under this section, the department shall consider the policy guidelines established under RCW 71.09 .275 and 71. 09 .290 and shall hold the hearings required in RCW 71. 09.315 ._ (4) . Nothing in this section prohibits the department from: (a) Siting a secure community transition facility in a city or county that has complied with the requirements of RCW 36 . 70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities, including a city that is located within a county that has been preempted. If 'the department sites a secure community transition facility in such a city or county, the department shall use the process established by the city or county for siting such facilities; or (b) Consulting with a city or county that has been preempted under this section regarding the siting of a secure community transition facility. (5) (a) A preempted city or county may propose public safety measures specific to any finalist site to the department. The measures must be consistent with the location of the facility at that finalist site. The proposal must be made in writing by the date of : (i) The second hearing under RCW 71 . 0 9 .315 (2) (a) when there are three finalist sites; or (ii) The first hearing under RCW 71 .09 .315 (2) (b) when there is only one site under consideration. (b) The department shall respond to the city or county in writing within fifteen business days of receiving the proposed measures. The response shall address all proposed measures . (c) If the city or county finds that the department' s response is inaaequate, cne C1Ly U.i UUU11Ly lllay 11UL.11y L1lC Ut=JJCLLl.il1C111- Lii rv�i i1i� within fifteen business days of the specific items which it finds inadequate . If the city or county does not notify the department of a finding that the response is inadequate within fifteen business days, the department' s response shall be final . (d) If the city or county notifies the department that it finds the response inadequate and the department does not revise its response to the satisfaction of the city or county within sever_ business days, the city or county may petition the governor to designate a person with law enforcement expertise to review the response under RCW 34 .05 .479 . (e) The governor' s designee shall hear a petition filed under this subsection and shall make a determination within thirty days of hearing the petition. The governor' s designee shall consider the department' s response, and the effectiveness and cost of the proposed measures , in relation to the purposes of this chapter. The determination by the governor' s designee shall be final and may not be the basis for any cause of action in civil court . (f) The city or county shall bear the cost of the petition to the governor' s designee. If the city or county prevails on all issues, the department shall reimburse the city or county costs incurred, as provided under chapter 34 . 05 RCW. (g) Neither the department' s consideration and response to public safety. conditions proposed by a city or county nor the decision of the governor' s designee shall affect the preemption under this section or the department' s authority to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate the secure community transition facility at that finalist site or at any finalist site. (6) Until June 30 , 2009, the secretary shall site, construct, occupy, and operate a secure community transition facility sited under this section in an environmentally responsible manner that is consistent with the substantive objectives of chapter 43 .21C RCW, and shall consult with the department of ecology as appropriate in carrying out the planning, construction, and operations of the facility. The secretary shall make a threshold determination of whether a secure community transition facility sited under this section would have a probable significant, adverse environmental impact . If the secretary determines that the secure community transition facility has such an impact, the secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement that meets the requirements of RCW 43 .21C. 030 and 43 .21C.031 and the rules promulgated by the department of ecology relating to such statements . Nothing in this subsection shall be the basis for any civil cause of action or administrative appeal . (7) This section does not apply to the secure community transition facility established pursuant to RCW' 71. 09 .250 (1) . • _'CATp t y `�ti/• y� gaa STATE OF iN.ASHINGTON DE TiMEN7 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES July 19, 2002 Dear Elected Officials: In planning for the siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTF), many city and county staff have asked for guidance on the issue of local emergency services response time and its relative importance in evaluating appropriate zones or areas for SCTF sites. As you may know, ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002) amended the response time requirements. There is no longer a requirement for SCTFs to be sited in areas that can "endeavor to achieve an average five-minute law enforcement emergency response time. Instead, the law now requires the siting to balance the local response time against the proximity of the proposed SCTF site to risk potential activities or locations in existence at the time the site is listed for consideration. In considering the amended requirement, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has consulted with local planning staff, law enforcement representatives, and state executive and legislative staff. It is the department's position that the operative word in this consideration is "balance." DSHS does not assume that all rural areas are inappropriate for siting SCTFs. In fact, the law directs that the department's guidelines "...shall require great weight be given to sites that are the farthest removed from any risk potential activities." However, if this directive were to be considered alone, it could result in SCTFs being sited only in very isolated, remote areas that may not be suitable for a variety of reasons, one of which would be the issue of emergency services response time. In balancing these requirements, consideration also must be given to the ability of the local area to respond to fire and medical emergencies as well as law enforcement emergencies. In determining this balance and in searching for potential SCTF sites, DSHS will consider its responsibility for public safety and its obligations to the SCTF residents and staff and will review several factors. DSHS will use these factors, as described below, to develop an emergency response plan with the local jurisdiction where an SCTF is sited and with neighboring jurisdictions. In your jurisdiction's planning and designation of areas or zones that are appropriate for siting secure community transition facilities, we encourage you to consider these factors as well. If your jurisdiction is considering designating areas or zones that are in rural locations —especially areas in remote rural locations --we strongly encourage your jurisdiction to do an analysis of the area being considered and to use these factors as an outline to prepare a draft emergency response plan. The purpose of the plan is to help both the local jurisdiction and DSHS determine if the proposed area or zone comports with state law requirements for public safety and would be a fiscally prudent and feasible SCTF location. As a general rule, DSHS will consider sites in remote locations with very long average emergency response times as not appropriate for SCTFs unless a fiscally - prudent and feasible emergency response plan can be implemented. Here are the factors to be considered: �' Elected Officials— Emergency Response Time to SCTFs July 19, 2002 Page 2 Law Enforcement Emergency • The average emergency response time(s) of public safety personnel in the general area where a potential SCTF site may be located. The general area reviewed may include the district or sub-area within the jurisdiction where the potential site is located. It may also include an area that encompasses more than one local jurisdiction. • The distance between the SCTF site being considered and risk potential locations and the density of risk potential locations. • The types of nearby risk potential locations and the frequency or level of use of the risk potential locations. • The proximity and availability of public safety personnel in other nearby locations to act as a secondary response to assist with potential emergencies. Fire Emergency • The average response time of the local fire department and the location of and access to local fire department stations, including volunteer stations. • The proximity of fire department personnel from other jurisdictions to the potential site and their availability to respond in an emergency. Medical Emergency • The average response time of local emergency medical personnel and the location of and access to local emergency medical services. • The availability of trained volunteer emergency medical personnel in the area, including SCTF staff certified in emergency medical procedures. Thank you for the work you and your staff are doing to provide for the siting of secure community transitions facilities. If you or your staff have any questions about the requirements for siting secure community transition facilities, please call Beverly Wilson, Associate Superintendent for Community Programs, Special Commitment Center, at (360) 902-8257. Sin ly, DENNIS BRA DOCK Secretary c: Planning Directors Assistant Secretary Timothy R. Brown, Ph. D. Superintendent Mark Seling, Ph. D. Dick Van Wagenen, Governor's Policy Advisor John Reynolds, Director, Lands and Buildings Beverly Wilson STATEOF RECEIVE D a xAUG202002 J � � KENT CITY COUNCIL STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olympia, WA 98504-5000 August 20, 2002 OD Q UV f U City Council President Judy Woods AUG 2 r � City Council Members CITY OF KEEN City of Kent CITY CLERK 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, Washington 98032 RE: Proposed City of Kent Zoning Code relating to Changes for Class II and Class III Group Homes Dear President Woods and Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Kent's Draft Zoning Regulations as they relate to Group Homes Class II and Class III. Our comments address concerns with the impact of the proposed amendments on Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) juvenile community facilities, Class II facilities under the City's code. We have reviewed the staff's proposed four options as described in the City Staff Report dated August 13, 2002. We recognize that the main focus of the proposed amendments is to address Secure Community Transition Facilities. But, we are concerned that Option 3 and Option 4 (which applies the text changes of Option 3) would preclude the siting of juvenile community facilities, Group Homes Class II, in violation of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.200(5). 1. Specific Concerns regarding Option 3 and Option 4 Proposed Amendments to KCC 15.08.280(C): The City defines Class II group homes as "publicly or privately operated residential facilities for juveniles under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system." KCC 15.02.173(B). DSHS juvenile community facilities meet the City's definition of Class II group homes. According to KCC 15.04.020, Class II group homes are only allowed in the Duplex Multifamily (MR-D) zone within the City. The existing KCC 15.08.280(C) requires a one thousand foot separation for Group Homes Class II from "public or private schools, churches or other religious facilities or institutions, parks and playgrounds and such uses that are deemed to be sensitive..." Under Option 3 or Option 4, KCC 15.08.280(C) the Kent City Council August 20, 2002 Page 2 list of sensitive land uses would be greatly expanded. The City Code would be amended to require a one thousand (1000) foot separation for juvenile community facilities (Class II Group Homes) from all "sensitive land uses" including: Public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, public libraries, and other such uses that are deemed to be sensitive... (Emphasis added: the additional land uses subject to the amended 1000 foot buffer are underlined.) The addition of new sensitive land uses subject to a 1000 foot buffer, particularly the addition of school bus stops, eliminates all MR-D zoned land within the City for possible juvenile community facility sites. The Department created a map of the City showing the MR-D zones and each listed sensitive land use with a 1000 foot buffer. We request that the map be included in the record as an attachment to this letter. 2. Requirements of the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides as follows: "No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities." RCW 36.70A.200(5). Essential public facilities include facilities that are typically difficult to site such as state and local correctional facilities, in-patient facilities and group homes. Juvenile community facilities are essential public facilities. The Growth Management Hearings Board in Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines defined "preclude" as "render impossible or impracticable." "Impracticable" is defined as "not practicable: incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command."' In State of Washington Department of Corrections and Department of Social and Health Services v. City of Tacoma, the Growth Management Hearings Board reviewed a one thousand foot buffer restriction applied to Department of Corrections (DOC) work release facilities.2 The City of Tacoma applied a one thousand foot buffer between work release facilities and any residential zones, daycare facilities, foster homes, crisis care clinics, group homes, schools, parks, and open spaces. The Board found that the buffer was clearly erroneous and 1 Final Decision and Order, CPSGMHB No. 97-3-014,August 1997. 2 The Department of Social and Health Services(DSHS)and the City of Tacoma entered into an Agreed Stipulation,resolving the portion of the case relating to the dispute between DSHS and the City. Kent City Council August 20, 2002 Page 3 precluded the siting of essential public facilities (work release facilities) within the City of Tacoma.3 The proposed amendment to City of Kent's Section 15.08.280(C) under Option 3 or Option 4 would preclude the siting of juvenile community facilities by making it impossible or impracticable for JRA to site a facility in the City. The one thousand foot separation requirement would result in no available sites in the zone designated for Class II group homes. 3. Juvenile Community Facilities. The mission of the DSHS Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration is to protect the public, hold juvenile offenders accountable for their crimes, and reduce criminal behavior through a continuum of preventive, rehabilitative, and transition programs in residential and community settings. Community facilities are an important part of a continuum of services. They allow youth to gradually transition from secure care to minimum security in the community. Successful reintegration of youth into the community depends on their opportunity to make the necessary linkages with agencies and individuals in the community. The programs provide youth the opportunity to practice new skills and competencies in less restrictive, more normal settings. Youth may attend school and/or vocational training and be employed in the community. And, most group homes have community service programs where youth volunteer their time giving back to the community. All treatment efforts are designed to build upon skills learned in institutions, hold youth accountable for demonstrating socially acceptable behaviors and reduce the possibility that youths will reoffend when released. Youth are required to make court-ordered restitution payments to victims. Community facilities offer a variety of services including 24-hour residential supervision, individual and group counseling, family counseling, release planning, drug and alcohol education, random urinalysis testing, education and/or vocational training, skills training, anger management, victim awareness classes, family focused therapy, mentoring services, prerelease community connections, and other rehabilitative treatment interventions based on each youth's unique needs. All youth must be eligible on a standardized risk assessment tool prior to being considered for placement in a community facility. Youth who do not comply with the rules in a community facility will be returned to an institution. Depending on the violation, they may remain at an institution to complete their sentence; or, they may be allowed to return to the community facility after demonstrating 3 Final Decision and Order,CPSGMHB No. 00-3-0007,November 2000,Page 10. Kent City Council August 20, 2002 Page 4 responsible behavior and working on the specific skill deficits that led to their return to the institutions. The unique programming, community resources, transition opportunities, and overall impact on offenders cannot be replicated in an institutional setting. Research supports the fact that juvenile community facility programs impact offender recidivism and are effective components of offender rehabilitation.4 In addition, independent assessments of Community Facility programs concluded the facilities are well run and DSHS' transition model is worthy of national replication.5 Juvenile Community Facilities provide important services and opportunities for the City's youth. An average of twenty youth per year are committed to a Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration facility from the City of Kent.6 Yet, there are currently no juvenile community facilities located in the City. While the department has no current plans to locate a juvenile community facility in the City, it is important that we not be precluded from locating facilities in appropriate jurisdictions when they are needed. Thank you for an opportunity to share our concerns with you. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Elizabeth McNagny at (360) 902-8164. S* cer , I� n Reynold , Director Division of Lands and Buildings c: Cheryl Stephani, Assistant Secretary, JRA Ken Harden, Assistant Secretary, MSA Robin Cummings, Director Community Programs, JRA Jeff Patnode, Program Manager, JRA Lois Nicholas, Regional Administrator, JRA Linda Sullivan-Colglazier, ATG Holly Gadbaw, CTED 4 Reintegration, Supervised Release and Intensive Aftercare. Dr. David Altschuler,Dr.Troy Armstrong, and Dr. Doris MacKenzie(1999). 5 Research and independent assessments completed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1997)and the Washington State Institute for Public Policy(1998). 6 Data over 5 years: 19 youth from City of Kent in 1997; 15 youth in 1998;24 youth in 1999; 17 youth in 2000; 10 youth in 2001; 15 youth for first six months of 2002, with a projection of 30 youth for the year.