Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L02-022 - CITY OF TUKWILA - SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY CODE AMENDMENTL02 022 SCTF SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY CODE AMENDMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT CITY WIDE SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE . STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olympia, WA 98504 -5000 Steve Lancaster Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Comments on the Determination of Non-Significance for Proposed Siting of a Secure Community Transition Facility at Orillia Road Dear Mr. Lancaster: c: Timothy R. Brown, Ph.D. Kennith Harden April 28, 2003 Thank you for your letter of April 25, 2003 commenting on the Determination of Non - Significance and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist related to the proposed Orillia Road site. The Department of Social and Health Services will review and consider your comments as we continue to evaluate the Orillia Road site. We will also include your letter in the record for review and consideration by the Secretary in the final secure community transition facility (SCTF) site selection process. As you may know, we have listed for consideration another property that is located in the Grouse Ridge forest area of East King County. We are also continuing to investigate properties in industrial areas for consideration. The decision on the final site selected will be made after the public meetings have been held on all sites listed for consideration. Thank you again for providing information for consideration. 2 4- 1 7 ohn Reynolds Dire or ands and Brings Division RECEIVED APR 3 0 2003 DE QELOPIVIENT • April 25, 2003 City of Tukwila John Reynolds Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 45848 Olympia WA 98504 -5848 Dear Mr. Reynolds: • 1. Wetlands and impact to the environment: 1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Re: Comments regarding the Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the proposed siting of a Secure Community Transitional Facility at 4515 South 200 Street. The City of Tukwila has reviewed the SEPA checklist and the Determination of Nonsignificance issued on March 24, 2003, for the proposed siting of a secure community transitional facility on Orillia Road. Our review has included those documents identified by DSHS as forming the basis for your determination (reference e-mail from Elizabeth McNagny to Minnie Dhaliwal, 4/22/03). Based on our review it appears that certain issues and potential impacts have not been taken into consideration for this Determination of Nonsignificance. We request that the DNS be withdrawn, that the issues raised herein be adequately evaluated and that a new threshold determination be issued. We strongly believe that upon fully evaluating these issues you will determine that the proposal has a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and that an EIS must be prepared. DSHS has inappropriately relied upon its preemption of King County land use authority in undertaking an inadequate evaluation of environmental impacts. DSHS has a responsibility to understand and disclose environmental impacts, and to incorporate that understanding in its decisions. Preemption of King County authority does not change the fact that the proposal will have probable significant adverse impacts on wetlands, housing, the implementation of adopted local land use plans and other elements of the natural and built environments. Following are some impacts of the proposal that need further re- evaluation before a final SEPA determination can be made. Items number (B)(3)(a)(1) and (3) of the checklist indicate that there are on -site and off - site wetlands that will be impacted. However the impacts associated with the filling of the 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z ~w J U . 00 CO CO u_ . w 0 g Q . w = w Z = Z o " LU w U O - O I- • uj u .z w U= O ~ z on -site wetland have not been addressed. No wetland delineation has been performed. There has been no assessment of functions and values associated with these wetlands. Without such basic environmental information it is impossible to identify, understand and disclose the true impacts of the proposal, as required by SEPA. It is also impossible to identify and evaluate potential mitigating measures, also required by SEPA, and DSHS has apparently not even attempted to do so. = z w Further, the response to item number (B)(8)(h) is incorrect as it states there are no v ' environmentally sensitive areas on the site. Wetlands and steep slopes are identified as U - 0 environmentally sensitive areas by King County and by the City of Tukwila. N w J f U LL 2. Impacts to Wildlife in gQ In response to the requirement to list any threatened or endangered species on or near the c site, DSHS indicates there are "none known" (environmental checklist item B(5)(b)). Yet = w the Preliminary Site Analysis Report prepared by DSHS's consultants and referenced Z within the environmental checklist indicates an Endangered Species Act (ESA) p evaluation is required. If such an evaluation is required, it is inconceivable that a w ~ Determination of Nonsignificance could have been issued without the evaluation being 2 completed and its results disclosed. o cn O t— w w. U 3. Incompatibility with Adopted Land Use Plans: u o z co The response to item number (B)(8)(k) of the checklist is incomplete and inaccurate. The Cu proposal is clearly not compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. SEPA i requires this to be evaluated, disclosed and incorporated into DSHS decisions. z King County Comprehensive Plan. The environmental checklist erroneously states the King County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Urban." In fact, King County designates this site and its surroundings for "Urban Residential, One Unit Per Acre" development. DSHS has made no attempt to evaluate and disclose the impact of siting a Secure Community Transitional Facility in an area planned for single family housing development. Preemption of King County land use regulations does not relieve DSHS from its legal responsibility under SEPA to evaluate such impacts. King County Countywide Planning Policies. The environmental checklist ignores altogether a centerpiece of the land use planning strategy affecting King County and each of its cities: The King County Countywide Planning Policies. Under the Growth Management Act, King County and the cities within the county were required to jointly develop and adopt countywide planning policies. It is important to note that these planning policies have not been preempted by DSHS. A number of these policies have a direct bearing on DSHS plans to site a secure community transitional facility. The environmental checklist must include an evaluation of the compatibility of the proposed Orillia Road facility with the Countywide Planning Policies. Moreover, because the 2 CPPs are an integral element of the growth management system established by the GMA, it is incumbent upon DSHS to site its facilities in a consistent manner. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The City of Tukwila undertook Comprehensive Planning for the Orillia Road unincorporated area and in 1995 formally designated the area for future annexation. The specific site in question is designated Low Density Residential under the city's Comprehensive Plan. In 2002, the City responded to the State mandate to provide reasonable opportunities for the siting of secure community transition facilities by designating a specific portion of our planning area for such uses. However a secure community transition facility is not permitted in a residential zone since our primary consideration was to clearly separate such uses from residential areas, both existing and future. Siting a secure community transition facility at this proposed site would be a clear violation of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The environmental checklist must evaluate and disclose this clear incompatibility. This is not an academic issue. The Growth Management Act established a framework for local land use planning and development regulation that requires partnership and coordination among state, regional, county and city plans and actions. Under this framework, it is critical that property owners, residents, service providers and government agencies be able to rely on adopted plans. DSHS must evaluate the significant adverse impacts that will result from its proposed action. A thorough evaluation will disclose that siting a secure community transitional facility at Orillia road will make it impossible for Tukwila to implement its adopted plans for the area. 4. Impacts to housing: The response to item (B)(9)(b) and (c) of the checklist simply states that the proposal "would not have a negative housing impact." Such a sweeping conclusion is totally inappropriate where there has been no apparent attempt to actually evaluate the probable impacts. Two factors suggest that housing impacts will be severe. First, a considerable amount of time and analysis has been undertaken by cities and counties over the past year to identify appropriate locations for secure community transitional facilities. Considerable technical expertise and local knowledge has been brought to bear on this issue. I am not aware of a single jurisdiction that determined that residentially zoned areas are appropriate for such facilities. Second, DSHS has heard hours of testimony in recent months by area residents concerning the undesirability of living near such a facility. It should be obvious that the siting of a secure community transitional facility will have a chilling effect on any future housing development in the area. Where the affected area has been planned and zoned for residential development, the ability of local government and the private sector to provide appropriate housing will be negatively impacted. All probable impacts to housing in the area must be evaluated and considered before a final SEPA determination can be made on this project. 3 5. Impact to Public Services: Response to item number (B)(15)(b) of the checklist is inaccurate since it does not mention that there will be an impact to Tukwila's Police Department and potentially to Tukwila's Fire Department. It is highly unlikely that the King County Sheriff's office can = z provide adequate emergency response to the site in light of its isolation from other c4 2 Sheriff's Department service areas. It is also our understanding that Fire District #24 c=i currently has no emergency response capability. The Department of Social and Health U O o Services indicated in their response to such concerns from the public that they would co W work with law enforcement and emergency service agencies in surrounding communities -I F. to coordinate response protocol. This certainly implies there will be some impact on N LL O Tukwila emergency services. Impacts to the City of Tukwila's Police and Fire 2 Department must be addressed by DSHS and measures to mitigate those impacts must be 5 identified. CO li 6. Transportation Impacts I— p z � LU m We find no evidence that DSHS has conducted even a preliminary traffic analysis for the m o proposal. DSHS indicates the facility "could" generate up to 100 trips per day, but v u> > provides no basis for this conclusion. Virtually no information on peak hour trip o uj generation or trip distribution is provided. Without this information it is impossible to i v . determine what transportation impacts will be caused by the proposal. There has been no P traffic safety assessment, even though DSHS's consultant has indicated the location of a . iu c , driveway serving the site may be a safety issue. This lack of any meaningful analysis v must be remedied. o t=-. 7. Utilities The environmental checklist erroneously indicates that a septic system is "currently available at the site" (item B(16)(a)). Later in the checklist it is disclosed that a septic system for the site has not yet been designed. The proposal to provide for sanitary sewer needs by a septic system is inappropriate and contrary to public policy. Under the King County Countywide Planning Policies, urban sewer systems are preferred over on -site systems for new construction within the urban area. The temporary use of on -site disposal systems may be appropriate in limited circumstances where a reasonable plan is in place for future connection to an urban system. In this instance there is no such reasonable plan. In fact, the extension of urban utility services in Tukwila's Potential Annexation Area is subject to the city's approval. DSHS has already been notified that Tukwila will not approve the extension of services to a facility that is inconsistent with the City's comprehensive plan (letter from Mayor Steven M. Mullet to Secretary Dennis Braddock, March 29, 2003). 4 z Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. We strongly urge you to reconsider and withdraw your March 23, 2003 Determination of Nonsignificance and initiate the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the proposed facility. If you have any questions or need clarification on our comments, you can reach me at 206 -431 -3670. Sincerel Steve Lancaster SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila, Washington Cc: Mayor Steven M. Mullet Rhonda Berry, Acting City Administrator Tukwila City Council 'a 2 .u6 0O' 0 (f) W 2 w O' g Q. w 2 a. Z O; W tJJ D i W W W - O' .. W O H • 2 ia.:t».v,z. >J:s:»i. .+ + :L li: ,.xr_ _,...... ..... ». ,. ... ,_ „ .iY.:' v: . S. w. ,,.N..e J. >:fi.. if .. v.-,.,...... s . :: s: r r.:: L.; r::. : ' w.•.' SY..}; :.:. 4i7 .:.::,,;..'t.5,e'.s. ::;:ii. 44/08/03 TILE 11:38 FAX 3609027889 DSHS -LANDS & BLDGS DIV CP tA 9w S WAC 197 -11 -970 Determination of non - significance (DNS). Responsible official: . Dennis Braddock Position/title: Secretary, Department of Social and Health Services Olympia, WA 98504 -5848 (360) 902 -8154 0 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: DSHS proposes to construct a 12- bed community transition living facility totaling approximately 6,400 SF in two structures, and to include necessary access drives and a parking area. The proposed facility is to house individuals civilly committed to DSHS for mental health treatment, in a highly supervised community transition program. Proponent Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Building Division, Office of Capital • Programs Location of proposal: This site is east of 1 -5 in unincorporated King County at the intersection of Orillia Road and South 200th St. See vicinity map attached. Lead agency: Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Building Division, Office of Capital Programs 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 43.21C.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. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitte 2003. Date: March 24, 2003 Contact person: John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division, PO Box 45848, f rv� n 1 ZC n �`<-2� y April 25, Signature Mayor Joe Brennan Deputy Mayor Don DeHan Councilmembers Gene Fisher Kay M. Lasco Terry Anderson Frank Hansen Will Wurdeman April 24, 2003 RECEIVED APR 3 0 2003 COMMUNITY "The Hospitality City "DEV DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT John Reynolds, Director Lands and Buildings Division, Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 45848 Olympia WA 98504 -5848 AA •4.,4 • / , • ®E Re: SEPA DNS for Proposed SCTF site; 4515 S. 200 St. (SE corner of Orillia Rd. and S. 200 St.) Dear Mr. Reynolds: The City of SeaTac hereby submits comments on the Determination of Nonsignificance issued on the above referenced proposal on March 24, 2003. First of all, we see some problems with the Department of Social and Health Services' (DSHS) compliance with the substance of SEPA regulations. We find it disturbing that, as a party of record (having formally commented on this proposal at both of the mandatory Public Hearings) we were not notified directly of this SEPA determination by copy of the environmental checklist and the DNS pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -340 (2) (b). WAC 197 -11 -510 states that the lead agency "must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is ... available. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public" include "(a) Posting the property, for site - specific proposals;... (c) notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal..." Not only were we not notified that the DNS was available, but we have found no evidence, after several site visits, that the property was posted, as required by WAC 197 -11 -510. We also see no evidence that DSHS consulted with the Washington Department of Ecology as required by RCW 71.09.342. If such evidence exists, we request that you provide it to the City. Even if DSHS has not adopted SEPA procedures, the threshold determination required by RCW 71.09.342 should not be undertaken in a vacuum, sealed off from the public and agency participation of RCW 71.09.315. 4800 South 188th Street • SeaTac, WA 98188 -8605 City Hall: 206.973.4800 • Fax: 206.973.4809 • TDD: 206.973.4808 • www.ci.seatac.wa.us City Manager Bruce A. Rayburn Deputy City Manager Elizabeth A. Spencer Assistant City Manager Craig R. Ward City Attorney Robert L. McAdams City Clerk Judith L. Cary John Reynolds, Director, DSHS Lands and Buildings Division City of SeaTac Comments on SEPA DNS April 24, 2003 Page 2 Secondly, we provide the following comments in regard to the SEPA Checklist: IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement The answer to question 15.a states that the proposal would not result in increased need for public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other). SeaTac Response We disagree. Although the facility will be equipped with fire and security alarms, the alarms themselves do not provide emergency services. Fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical response, and police assistance to quell assaultive behavior or riot are potential situations that cannot be ignored. As pointed out in our previous letters to DSHS regarding this matter, because of topographical and distance considerations, fire and police response times from unincorporated areas of King County are slower than the recommended minimums. As City representatives stated at the Public Hearings, the City of SeaTac has no legal obligation to provide Police service response to areas outside the City. Consequently, Sheriff's Office units would have to respond from White Center, Skyway, or Federal Way through heavily congested areas. Regarding fire service, King County Fire District #24, which has no response capability, serves the area. The checklist should acknowledge these negative impacts, and mitigations should be proposed. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement Question 8.k. asks what measures are proposed to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing land uses and plans. The DSHS checklist response is that they are authorized to preempt King County's regulations. SeaTac Response The DSHS checklist does not answer the question at all. The site, although technically in unincorporated King County, is immediately adjacent to (across Orillia Rd. from) the City of SeaTac. This area of SeaTac is zoned for single family residential use, and is designated for future use as medium density residential. The checklist does not address how the proposed project will be, or can be, made compatible with residential uses. We are compelled to restate that, because of the proposed site's proximity to existing and future residential areas in SeaTac, the site is inappropriate for a SCTF. DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement The answer to question 8.f states that the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the proposed site is "Urban." J John Reynolds, Director, DSHS Lands and Buildings Division City of SeaTac Comments on SEPA DNS April 24, 2003 Page 3 SeaTac Response This is not accurate. The 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Urban Residential, Low, 1 DU /ac." (Dwelling Unit per Acre). Thus, it is not simply urban land, but is land designated for single family residential use. ? z DSHS has stated publicly that single family residential areas are not appropriate locations for SCTFs. We agree with that statement. v 00 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH — EMERGENCY SERVICES AND POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION W = J DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement cn The answer to question 7.a.1 states that no need for special emergency services is w O anticipated. g u_a SeaTac Response 0 This does not make sense. The preceding paragraph (7.a) states that "during = I- w construction there is a potential risk of fire due to construction operations." This z ' . potential risk of fire requires provision of fire prevention/suppression services. z o Furthermore, the risk of fire does not magically disappear upon completion of III LLI construction. v o DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement o co The answer to question 7.a states that the site is potentially contaminated by w w arsenic and lead in the soil, and lead and asbestos in the existing building. � "—' rz SeaTac Response w z The checklist gives recommendations by the Department of Ecology if 0 contamination is found, but does not discuss when the necessary testing will be p F done nor what mitigation measures will be taken should the site prove to be Z contaminated with hazardous materials. The checklist should require mitigation for any contamination that may be found. WATER — WETLANDS AND STORMWATER DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement The answer to question 3.3 states that "the area of impact [to wetlands] will be below the level that would require federal permits." SeaTac Response This is not completely accurate. It is our understanding from conversations with Corps of Engineers representatives, that any amount of fill in any wetland requires a 404 permit unless it is conclusively shown that the wetland is "isolated" (Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps). However, the State's Clean Water Act and wetland regulations still apply. The stated answer in the Checklist fails to recognize this, and the checklist provides no mitigation. There is also no reference made to the required consultation with the Department of Ecology. John Reynolds, Director, DSHS Lands and Buildings Division City of SeaTac Comments on SEPA DNS April 24, 2003 Page 4 DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement The answer to question 3(a)(6) states that stormwater discharges would be treated onsite. z SeaTac Response = w None of the drawings and maps released to the public show the locations of the stormwater treatment facilities. Furthermore, there is no discussion in the v Checklist of how the stormwater facilities will affect the planned septic system's c o function, nor how the runoff will affect the Class 2 wetland located 200 yards w southeast of the site. J H U) L w 0 } UTILITIES DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement co The answer to question 16.b states that "a new onsite septic system will be = w designed for the project..." z SeaTac Response z I Countywide Planning Policy CO -12 states that "Preferred sewer and water 2 � . systems in areas designated for growth beyond 2002 ... shall be designed, sited, v co o and built to facilitate eventual conversion to urban sewer and water systems." The o City of Kent Public Works Department, in a letter dated January 30, 2003, states w w that there is no sewer capacity east of the Green River Bridge "beyond servicing 1-- c- the connection of the Collucio and Segale properties." The checklist fails to 0 acknowledge this situation, and does not explain how the project would comply w co with the Policy CO -12. o 1 ` DSHS SEPA Checklist Statement . z The answer to question 16.b also states that water service is available from the Highline Utility District. SeaTac Response Countywide Planning Policy FW -13 states that "urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed." There is no evidence that DSHS either sought or obtained approval for the extension of the water service from the City of Tukwila, in whose potential annexation area the subject site is located. ..r ° Mr ° .s .Zir±k;ti Beet, T?C'4. i:a 33e ;�::21"%�L:'a;'4;XbYl.C:.4.e;' John Reynolds, Director, DSHS Lands and Buildings Division City of SeaTac Comments on SEPA DNS April 24, 2003 Page 5 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DNS. In summary, we believe that a number of mitigation issues were not adequately addressed by the environmental analysis and therefore a Determination of Nonsignificance is inappropriate. Our comments on the environmental analysis further support our position that due to the project's location in and adjacent to residential zones, the unsuitable public safety service response times, and problematic utility extension issues, this proposed site is an unsuitable choice for the proposed SCTF. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen C. Butler, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development C: City Council Bruce Rayburn, City Manager Robert McAdams, City Attorney Councilmember Julia Patterson, King County Council Senator Karen Keiser Representative Shay Schual -Berke Representative Dave Upthegrove Dr. Tim Brown, Assistant Secretary, DSHS Tom Fitzsimmons, Director, WA Dept. of Ecology Charlene Anderson, City of Kent Steve Lancaster, City of Tukwila Kelly Foster, Polygon Northwest Susan Carlson, Segale Business Park z 2 - z D - U U O, co O U) W W U) W W O LL r. = d F w Z � I-- O Z 1— LU U `O — o w W F U u. Z U - =: 0 rtirii1ie Ohali - Coalition against DSHS's SCTF Orillia Road Site Page 1 From: "DAVID ST.PIERRE" < DAVID @kdmlawfirm.com> • To: <AQuinn @BUCKGORDON.COM >, <mscarey @ci.seatac.wa.us >, <sbutler @ci.seatac.wa.us >, <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <slancaster @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <kolouskova @jmmlaw.com >, <gary.young @polygonhomes.com >, <SCarlson @segalebp.com> Date: 4/24/03 11:09AM Subject: Coalition against DSHS's SCTF Orillia Road Site As tasked at our last meeting, I was able to track down an attorney who regularly brings claims in federal court on plaintiffs' side on federal environmental matters. His name (many of you may already know him) is Peter Eglick of Helsel) Fetterman and he is currently counsel for the ACC against the third runway. I discussed with Peter our concerns and our desires to identify those federal causes of action that may allow us to challenge, in federal court, DSHS's siting of a SCTF on Orillia Road. We discussed the state statute in question and Peter agreed to share with us his opinions on these matters. The following is his response. It appears that the NPDES may hold the key to any federal court action that we may attempt. I have cc'd Peter with this response and I and Tukwila deeply thank him for taking time and effort to address this question for us. -David When responding, please reply to: David B. St.Pierre Kenyon Dornay Marshall, PLLC 11 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027 425 - 392 -7090 (voice) 206 - 628 -9059 (voice) 425 - 392 -7071 (fax) david @kdmlawfirm.com »> " Eglick, Peter J." <eglick @helsell.com> 04/23/03 06:18PM »> Hi David, Here's some help for Tukwila on the question which you posed, after looking quickly at what you sent over: We don't see much on the environmental justice front UNLESS there is some federal nexus we don't know about to bring the project within the Executive Order which established environmental justice as a requirement (EO 12898). Even assuming a federal nexus, the EO does not create a right of judicial review on its own: there would have to be some other federal claim to make. Re section 9 of ESSB 6594 which eliminates all state appeals: such elimination may be a violation of the Clean Water Act because 40 CFR 123.30 requires that states allow for judicial review of NPDES permit decisions. NPDES construction stormwater general permit coverage would likely be triggered here if there were five acres or more of clearing, grading, construction. In the absence of the state law, coverage under such an NPDES would be appealable to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) . Note: if section 9 is a violation of the CWA, it may be that any action challenging the violation might require 60 days advance notice. However, it could be that this type of challenge could be brought more quickly and /or would have to be brought in some other clever procedural way . Sa° _ ^?: f i9il7i 'd1Ydi'oaf.:+`.'ayeJv�',;1i v�:.ta:�;,41:1 z ' ~z 6 UO • LLI J F- � w w u_ Q = Z = F- 0 Z t- w U • � O N off = • 0 E-� u' O Z . co z EAR minjj, EMlniTe-Dhaliwal - Coalition against DSHS's SCTF Orillia Road Site I wracked my brains and just don't think there are a lot of folks out there who do this kind of work which is really different from the typical land use /environmental claim brought in federal court. Most of what one sees is ESA, timber, NEPA, CWA, etc. You might try Adam Berger at Schroeter, Goldmark who used to do the plaintiffs timber and NEPA litigation for SCLDF. We probably don't have the time ourselves to take this on in the next month or so, although we would otherwise be delighted to work with you and Tukwila. Finally, we spent a bit of time psyching out the info above, but please tell the City it was done gratis as a gesture of thanks for its support on the 3rw case. - -Peter Eglick CC: <Atty- Office @kdmlawfirm.com >, <BOB @kdmlawfirm.com >, <BRUCE @kdmlawfirm.com >, <DAVID @kdmlawfirm.com >, <JENNIFER @kdmlawfirm.com >, <JOE @kdmlawfirm.com >, <MARGARET @kdmlawfirm.com >, <MARY @kdmlawfirm.com >, <MIKE @kdmlawfirm.com >, <SHANNON @kdmlawfirm.com >, <SHERYL @kdmlawfirm.com >, <STEPHEN @kdmlawfirm.com> Page 2, :r_ =..rJ anA„ � icy,- ,arq`,e:.tu;a_H �:r �, L.;; 'f . .., .,.,.,,..•• n; tr" 5wz.. it ++it4ra:c��s� 3.L�, ��iTit." i1::.: 7:: r:. 4us` a:+:+ L"+ w". y' viuii': iL: Nr :uaratta:u: ?auiLUaz:`..a%srier z a • Z . J UO U 0 cn w w =' U) w 0 2 • d w .. Z �. I- 0 Z t- 0 0 w U Z w - O~ z Minnie Dhaliwal Growth Management Hearings From: "Adrienne Quinn" <AQuinn @BUCKGORDON.COM> To: "Sue Carlson" <SCarlson @segalebp.com >, <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Steve Lancaster" <slancaster@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, <mscarey @ci.seatac.wa.us >, <sbutler @ci.seatac.wa.us >, "Adrienne Quinn" <AQuinn @BUCKGORDON.COM >, <gary.young @polygonhomes.com >, <kolouskova @jmmlaw.com> Date: 4/21/03 3:21 PM Subject: Growth Management Hearings Board Claim Hello folks, > Please treat the following e-mail confidentially. > My conclusion regarding whether there are any potential challenges > to the SCTF that we could bring before the Central Growth Management > Hearings Board is that it would be difficult, but not impossible to bring > a challenge. The difficulties are 1) that the Central Board has limited > its jurisdiction more so than the other Boards; and 2) the usual > challenges brought before the Board are claims that certain comp plan > policies or development regulations do not comply with the GMA. These > challenges are required to be brought within 60 days of adoption of the > plan or regs. > With regard to the SCTF, we would not be challenging the adoption of > a plan or reg, but would be bringing what the Board might characterize as > a challenge to a site specific action. We would argue that it is much > broader than that because it pertains to state agencies' obligations to > comply with the GMA and the significance of policies pertaining to > potential annexation areas. > A claim based on the Orillia Road site could be as follows: > 1. RCW 36.70A.280 allows the Growth Boards to hear petitions alleging > "that a state agency.. planning under the GMA is not in compliance with > the requirements of the GMA." > 2. RCW 36.70A.103 requires state agencies to comply with local comp plans > and development regs except to the extent the plans and regs are > pre - empted by the sexual predator siting laws. •> 3. Tukwila's comp plan is not pre - empted, nor are the Countywide > Planning Policies. > 4. Consequently, DSHS is required to comply with the Tukwila Comp Plan > and Countywide Planning Policies. > 5. DSHS in their written response to comments received at the January > Hearing, which is posted on the web, states that they don't have to comply > with Tukwila's comp plan. We would state that this is the "decision" > that we are appealing. We would need to bring this action within 60 days > of the decision. The report appeared on DSHS's web site on 3/28. so we > would have to bring an action by 5/26.. > This challenge fits squarely within the plain language of the Growth > Management Act that requires state agencies to comply with the GMA. What > we would not know ahead of time is whether the Central Board has so > narrowly construed its jurisdiction that it would decide it would not have > jurisdiction here despite the plain language of the statute. Page i i •� .,,... y ..4. _,...,,.. _ .. _.,.. a _.. ..,,.. ... ... .... .. ..., .. .,. ,.. .. .,.... _.. .. ........ _,_ Minnie Dhaliwal Growth Management Hearings Board This claim, if made, should be brought by Tukwila to have any weight and preferably with SeaTac and Kent as parties in support of the Countywide Planning Policies. I have authority from my client to work on what would go to the Board. I would be interested in getting others reactions to this potential claim and, after we have sorted out if federal claims may also be brought, who the parties will be and who will do the work for the various suits. Thanks very much, > Adrienne > Buck & Gordon LLP > 1011 Western Ave. Ste. 902 > Seattle, WA 98104 > (206) 382 -9540 > This e-mail may contain confidential, privileged information and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please be advised that distributing or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please call immediately (206) 382 -9540, return this e-mail to Buck & Gordon at the above e-mail address, and delete this e-mail from your files. Thank you. > Page 2 z ;mo E4 5 J U: UO UO: U)W: J � W W O. � U � = d. Z � 1- O' Z �—; al la O to 0 I- W u1 ` H U - O: W U, U =. • O ~ r. 04/17/03 THU 16:49 FAX 3609027889 5.0 Zoning and Land Use Designations 5.1 King County Zoning Code Title 21A of the King County Code is a land use document which provides guidelines on the economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental requirements associated with the site and the type of proposed development. The zoning code contains zoning designations, permitted uses, density and design requirements, building setback requirements, parking requirements, and environmentally sensitive area requirements, to name a few. Refer to Exhibit 5A for a King County Zoning Code: Overview and Summary. KMB met with Mr. Greg Borba, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services to discuss general environmental and land use considerations for the proposed project. Mr. Borba indicated the project would likely be classified as a Community Residential Facility (CFR) as described in Chapter 21A.06.220 of the King County Zoning Code. Community residential facility ( "CRF "): living quarters meeting applicable federal and state standards that function as a single housekeeping unit and provide supportive services, including but not limited to counseling, rehabilitation and medical supervision, excluding drug and alcohol detoxification which is classified in Section 21A.08.050 as health services. The parcel is zoned R -1 (urban residential, 1 dwelling unit/acre) in the King County Zoning Code as shown on Exhibit 5B. As described in King County Code Section 21A.04.080, the purpose of the urban residential zone (R) is to implement comprehensive plan goals and policies for housing quality, diversity and affordability, and to efficiently use urban residential land, public services and energy. It is unclear whether the proposed SCTF facility would be a permitted use in this zone per King County Zoning Code. 5.2 King County Comprehensive Plan DSHS -LANDS & BLDGS DIV 1002 King County's comprehensive land use planning dates back to 1964. Its first comprehensive plan under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted in 1994. The GMA, passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990, seeks to further protect the quality of life in the Pacific Northwest. Comprehensive plans adopted in accordance with GMA must managed growth so that development is directed to designated urban areas and away from rural areas. The GMA requires each comprehensive plan to adhere to a set of thirteen goals and to include the following elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, rural, and transportation. The King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 represents the first major review and incorporates the first set of substantive changes since the County's current comprehensive plan was initially adopted in 1994. DSHS Orillia Road Preliminary Site Analysis !TY "::fT.'fiP•mmrq!?i... 75.511223n 5 -1 T• 04/17/03 THU 16:50 FAX 3609027889 DSHS —LANDS & BLDGS DIV VI 003 The King County Comprehensive Plan provides a legal framework for making decisions about land use in unincorporated King County. Public and private agencies, property owners, developers, community groups and King County staff use the Comprehensive Plan in several ways. First, the plan is the framework for other plans and regulations such as subarea plans and the King County Code that govern the location and density of land uses. It provides guidance to County officials for decisions on proposals such as zoning changes and developments. It also gives the public direction on the County's position on proposed changes in land use or zoning, environmental regulations, or broader policy issues. The plan also provides a basis for decisions about public spending on facilities and services. And, the plan presents other agencies, such as cities and special purpose districts, with King County's position on large -scale matters such as annexation, use of resource lands, environmental protection and others. The GMA allows local comprehensive plan amendments to be considered once each year. In King County, those annual amendments allow technical changes only, except for once every four years. Then, during the "Four -Year Cycle review process," substantive changes to policies, land use designations and the Urban Growth Area boundary can be proposed and adopted. The King County Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the adopted regulations. These include the King County Zoning Code and other code titles such as Water and Sewer Systems, Roads and Bridges, and Land Segregation. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Urban - Residential, 1 dwelling unit/acre as shown on Exhibit 5C. 5.3 Urban Growth Area The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate an Urban Growth Area where most growth and development forecasted for King County will be accommodated. By designating an urban growth area, King County and other counties in the State will: • limit sprawling development, • reduce costs by encouraging concentrated development, • improve the efficiency of human services, utilities and transportation, • protect rural areas, and • enhance open space. The Urban Growth Area (UGA) for King County is designated on the official Land Use Map adopted with this plan. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPI') provide the framework which the Metropolitan King County DSHS Orillia Road Preliminary Site Analysis 5 -2 Minnie Dhali■al -task list from 4/17 SCTF mtg. Page 1 From: "Adrienne Quinn" <AQuinn @BUCKGORDON.COM> To: "Sue Carlson" <SCarlson @segalebp.com >, <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Steve Lancaster" <slancaster @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <mscarey @ci.seatac.wa.us >, <sbutler @ci.seatac.wa.us >, <david @kdmlawfirm.com >, <gary.young @polygonhomes.com >, <kolouskova @jmmlaw.com> Date: 4/17/03 4:47PM Subject: task list from 4/17 SCTF mtg. = • Hello all, Here are the tasks each of us agreed to today: 6 v 1. Adrienne will review GMHB statutes to determine if we can bring a claim before the GMHB based on v O the Countywide planning policies; u 0 2. Friends of Orillia will amend their complaint to add claims based on DSHS's failure to comply with w = substantive SEPA and Ecology Review (if applicable) and will amend their complaint to say that DSHS '' does not comply with the criterion requiring that the property be obtained at a reasonable price. (Sue will w O forward appraisal to Duana /Gary and Adrienne will forward letter on same issue to Duana) 3. David will track down an attorney who regularly brings claims in fed. ct. on plaintiffs' side to determine g ¢ what federal law claims there might be regarding the statute. 4. Adrienne and Duana will also think about the fed claims issue as well. = d 5. Steve and Minnie will finalize their SEPA letter to DSHS; I-- _ 6. Sue is examining the option expiration issue; z i-- 7. All of us are going to check with our Ecology contacts and determine who at Ecology should be Z O reviewing this site; w w 8. Adrienne will call Yvonne Ward (Peasley Canyon) and find out if they are still in court. p: We have all agreed to keep each other informed we complete our tasks or gleen new information. 0 to Have I missed anything? 0 i- Thanks very much, w w Adrienne H H O . . z w U = 0 F_ .,.�... ...nu -n vi asl: aJ a. Z FROM: Robert F. Noe, City Attorney David St.Pierre, Assistant DATE: April 17, 2003 C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \Model S2.doc /C/04 /17/03 CITY OF TUKWILA MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, Director Of Community Development Minnie Daliwahl, Planner RE: Model Ordinance Addressing The Siting Of Secure Community Transition Facilities For Sexually Violent Predators. This memorandum summarizes the requirements and deadlines for addressing the siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTFs) for sexually violent predators. Background information and siting criteria are provided. Finally, a model ordinance is proposed that adopts either a conditional use permit or unclassified use permit process for the siting of such SCTFs. SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES RCW 36.70A.200 was amended in 2001 to require that cities and counties establish a process and adopt regulations for the siting of SCTFs, which are considered "essential public facilities." Local comprehensive plans and development regulations may not preclude the sitting of "essential public facilities." RCW 36.70A.200 was also amended in 2002 (Ch. 68, Laws of 2002, ESSB 6594) to clarify that the deadline for establishing a process and adopting regulations for the siting of SCTFs is September 1, 2002. After October 1, 2002, ESSB 6594 makes six counties (Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, and Thurston) and their cities, subject to "preemption" by the state if those counties and cities fail to comply with statutory planning requirements. For counties that have had five or more persons committed to the special commitment center for sexual offenders, state preemption would allow the state to ignore, as necessary, local plans, development regulations, and basically all other laws (including state environmental laws) to construct and operate SCTFs. This legislation is so new that, when consulted, MRSC determined that no jurisdiction has yet to adopt any such regulations to date and no model ordinances were available in this area. ,:s+rk, •AW4S414*4z4+ss6".: s; ,iirebtm+14ri144'u3ii+i4.'� • - � aiStiitk:' 4kSr:!: a::4an3: 541wx ;. ^:vs..'�^.uis�4ir�:Rirlsri7'� State law requires that any such ordinance must be forwarded to the state Office of Community Development (formerly CTED) for review 60 days before the ordinance can take effect. The September 30, 2002 deadline is quickly approaching, therefore, the City Attorney's office is proposing its own "model" ordinance (Attachment "A" hereto) that can be used as a starting point for immediate discussion. Z i � BACKGROUND AND SITING CRITERIA w In 2001, the Legislature enacted 3ESSB 6151, establishing the Joint Select Committee for o 0 Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities. The Committee was charged with reviewing and making any necessary revisions to the provisions for equitable distribution W = (addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8)), basic siting provisions and provisions for the operation of N li SCTFs. Based on the Committee's recommendations, the Legislature adopted ESSB 6594. In w terms of land use and environmental law, the bill establishes a preemption system for counties and their cities that do not comply with siting requirements. Any affected county that had at least five persons detained or committed under Chapter 71.09 RCW as of April 1, 2001, or that was Ill notified under 3ESSB 6151 that Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) expects to Z site beds in that county by May 2007, must adopt development regulations for SCTFs by October F— 0 1, 2002. If an affected county or its cities do not adopt sufficient regulations by that date, that w county's or that city's authority over siting SCTFs is preempted. The affected counties are King, Snohomish, Thurston, Clark, Kitsap and Spokane. No person may bring a cause of action for v civil damages against a county or city based on the good faith actions of a county or city to o F - provide siting for SCTFs in accordance with the law. = v LL' O If a city or county adopts development regulations in accordance with the law, DSHS must comply with those regulations to site an SCTF in that city or county. Cities and counties v may not adopt development regulations more restrictive than the requirements that the state has F_ imposed on DSHS where the state has established specific requirements for the siting or z operation of SCTFs. Regulations that are more restrictive than the statutory requirements enacted by the state are void. A determination that a city or county is preempted is final and not subject to appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Growth Management Act. DSHS may site SCTFs within a preempted county or a city within that county without regard to development regulations, permitting requirements or any other law including SEPA, the Shorelines Management Act, and the Hydraulics Code. DSHS may continue to consult with a city or county that has been preempted. Preemption does not make a city or county ineligible for specified grants, loans, or pledges and is not a basis for a private cause of action or an appeal under RCW 43.17.250(2). For facilities sited under the exemption from SEPA, DSHS must site construct, operate and occupy in an environmentally responsible manner and must make a threshold determination whether a SCTF sited under within a preempted jurisdiction would have a significant adverse environmental impact. If so, DSHS must prepare an environmental impact statement that meets the requirements of SEPA and the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology. This requirement is not a basis for any civil cause of action or administrative appeal and expires June 30, 2009. C: \ \ \'INDOWS \TEMP\Modcl S2.doc /C/04/17/03 -2- ii. " ..»4 DSHS must also hold siting hearings in preempted cities and counties. A preempted city or county may propose public safety measures specific to a particular site. The bill outlines specific procedures and timelines that DSHS and local governments must follow for complaints or proposals. If the city or county prevails on all issues through an administrative appeal, DSHS must reimburse the costs. The department's consideration of the proposed conditions by a local government may not be construed to affect the preemption. DHSH has information on its Secure Placement Criteria at http: / /www.dshs .wa.gov /geninfo /secure.html. DSHS's latest policy guidelines, dated October 1, 2001, and entitled: POLICY GUIDELINES: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities Transition, predate ESSB 6594 but are provided as Attachment "B"hereto for your reference. A Growth Management Hearings Board case, State of Washington Department of Corrections and DSHS v. City of Tacoma, CPSGMHB No. 00 -3 -0007, Final Decision and Order (November 20, 2000) and Finding Compliance (May 30, 2001) addressed a related issue. This decision found that Tacoma's regulations regarding work release centers and special property uses that apparently would include SCTFs were too restrictive. Under Tacoma's regulations, such facilities would only be allowed in M3 Manufacturing zone under a number of conditions (although existing facilities would be grandfathered). However, this case precedes the 2001 and 2002 amendments to GMA mentioned above. PROPOSED MODEL ORDINANCE A. Impact on City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's comprehensive plan already addresses the siting of "essential public facilities." Consequently, a comprehensive plan amendment is not immediately required to add SCTFs to the definition section of the plan. However, a comprehensive plan amendment may be required if the City currently allows essential public facilities in areas where it might not desire to allow SCTFs. B. Impact on Development Regulations. A draft "model" ordinance is provided as ATTACHMENT A that would adopt either a conditional use permit (CUP) or unclassified use permit (UUP) process for the siting of such SCTFs. The attached draft ordinance follows the minimum requirements mandated by state law with the clear intent of reserving the maximum control over site selection to the City. C: \WINDOWS\TEMP\Modcl S2.doc /C/04 /17/03 -3- .gill HYhNC u re 6 O 0 U J = F— U) u- w O LL Q CO = ►— _ z � O z I— w U t o O — I U '. w 1.= z Attorneys at Law Adrienne E. Quinn VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Reynolds, Director Department of Social & Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division P.O. Box 45848 Olympia, WA 98504 -5848 Dear Mr. Reynolds: April 8, 2003 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 206 - 382 -9540 206 -626 -0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com RECEIVED APR 9 2003 CI7 Y Ur` illIV ;IL.A MAYOR'S OFFICE On behalf of my client, Segale Business Park, I am submitting these comments regarding the Determination of Nonsignificance ( "DNS ") that DSHS issued for the proposed siting of a Secure Community Treatment Facility ( "SCTF ") on Orillia Road. As discussed in this letter, based on the statute that requires DSHS to site the SCTF in a manner that is "consistent with substantive objectives of chapter 43.21C (SEPA)," either a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance or a Determination of Significance, rather than a DNS is warranted for the proposed Orillia Road SCTF site. RCW 71.09.342(6). Accordingly, to comply with RCW 71.09.342(6), DSHS must prepare some further studies on the SCTF's impacts on housing, existing and proposed land uses in the area, and soils. Depending on the extent of the probable significant adverse impacts in these and other elements of the environment, DSHS may ultimately have to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with RCW 71.09.342(6). This letter explains why the SCTF's impacts on housing and surrounding land uses necessitate further study in order for DSHS to comply with SEPA's substantive objectives. Segale Business Park is also submitting with this letter a separate comment letter from GeoEngineers regarding the SCTF's probable significant adverse environmental impacts on soils. One of SEPA's primary substantive objectives is that projects must be compatible with existing and proposed land uses and plans. The foundation for this mandate is in the Legislative declaration in SEPA: In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: Y: \W P \SEGALE \SCTF\L040803.AEQ.DOC Mr. John Reynolds (b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings. RCW 43.21C.020(2)(b). To carry out this objective, DSHS must identify probable adverse impacts to the elements of the environment as listed on the SEPA checklist. Then, in its role as reviewer of its checklist, DSHS must require mitigation measures to address the significant adverse impacts that have been identified. DSHS does not have authority to choose which substantive SEPA objectives or which elements of the environment DSHS will evaluate. DSHS is required by RCW 71.09.342(6) to comply with all of the substantive objectives of SEPA. This entails analyzing all elements of the environment as indicated on the SEPA checklist. When the Legislature, under RCW 71.09.342(6), required DSHS to prepare a checklist and required DSHS to comply with SEPA's substantive requirements, it is likely that DSHS intended DSHS to fill out the checklist in accordance with SEPA's regulations. Consequently, DSHS is also required to fill out the checklist "with the most precise information known" and "answer accurately and carefully." WAC 197 -11 -960. Otherwise, the checklist cannot carry out the substantive objectives of SEPA because impacts would not be identified. If impacts are not even identified, there can be no assurance that the people of Washington would be ensured a safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings, one of SEPA's primary substantive objectives. In answering several questions on the environmental checklist, however, DSHS has violated the requirement that DSHS comply with the substantive objectives of SEPA. For example, in answer to the SEPA checklist question asking, what are the "proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any ?," DSHS answers the question by stating that it has preempted the local zoning code. Essentially, DSHS's answer to the question of what DSHS will do to ensure that the project is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, as required by SEPA, is "nothing." By acknowledging it has no plans to ensure that the proposed SCTF is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, DSHS is not complying with RCW 71.09.342(6), which requires that DSHS site the SCTF in a manner that is consistent with SEPA's substantive objectives. DSHS's authority to preempt local zoning and local plans does not give DSHS authority to preempt SEPA's substantive objective that any project must be consistent with existing and proposed land uses and plans to assure safe, productive, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings. Just because DSHS may be able to preempt local zoning codes to site the SCTF in a zone where the SCTF would otherwise be prohibited, does not mean that DSHS has no obligation to adopt measures to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. In fact, DSHS specifically does have an obligation to do so under RCW 71.09.341(6), which as noted above, requires DSHS to adhere to the substantive objectives of SEPA. Evaluation of a project's compatibility with surrounding uses and identification of mitigation measures are critical parts of properly implementing SEPA's substantive objectives. In order to carry out its statutory obligation to site the SCTF in a manner that is consistent with the substantive objectives of SEPA, DSHS is obligated to accurately fill out the Y: \W P \SEGALE\SCTP\L040803.AEQ.DOC - 2 April 8, 2003 „ m. , „mh,cn,1= ==rnwylvtrrry , Srr; . <ewm re.,901„ !cnnu.er..!�mene..e+..+.ep.. +•r r a.�¢.9N+cc +smme�.v+r! J Mr. John Reynolds 3 April 8, 2003 SEPA checklist. To evaluate what the proposed measures will be to ensure that the SCTF is compatible with existing and proposed land uses and plans, DSHS must conduct further study, perhaps as a study accompanying an MDNS, in order to analyze existing and proposed plans and evaluate various measures to ensure the compatibility with existing and proposed land uses in the area. It is also quite surprising, given the testimony of thousands of homeowners and property owners in the vicinity of the proposed Orillia Road site and the fact that this site is proposed for a residentially zoned area, that in response to the SEPA checklist question asking what are the "proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts," DSHS answers: This project would not have a negative housing impact. SEPA Checklist at 13. How many people does DSHS really think will buy a home next to a facility for violent sexual predators? Siting this facility in a residentially zoned area will have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on housing in the area. As a consequence, DSHS is obligated to conduct further study to evaluate the probably significant adverse impacts on housing and identify reasonable mitigation measures. The Washington Legislature did not exempt DSHS from the substantive requirements of SEPA. DSHS is required to accurately evaluate the impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures for the SCTF's impacts. As discussed in this letter, DSHS has not filled out the questions pertaining to surrounding land uses and housing in a way that complies with the mandate that DSHS comply with the substantive objectives of SEPA. DSHS does not have authority to choose whether or not to address certain impacts or elements of the environment. DSHS cannot preempt these substantive requirements of SEPA. Because the SCTF will have probable significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses and housing, DSHS is obligated, under RCW 71.09.342, to evaluate these probable significant adverse impacts and identify reasonable mitigation measures. The studies can be either part of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, or part of an EIS if DSHS determines that a significant amount of study is warranted. Although the amount of study required may be debatable, the requirement that some study is required on the issues of housing, surrounding land uses, and soils is not debatable. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very trul ours, 411.1Pw Adrienne E. • uinn AEQ:AEQ Enclosure: Geotechnical Review By GeoEngineers cc: The Honorable Steve Mullett, Mayor of Tukwila The Honorable Jim White, Mayor of Kent The Honorable Julia Patterson, King County Council Y: \W P\SEGALE\SCTF\L040B03.AEQ,DOC z = z Lu m 6 J U O 0 0 CD z. w • 0 2 = w z �. �- 0 z i— LIJ o U O co. � F-. w u- o . w z U= 0~ z. RECE 'APR 0 9 200 COMMUNi April 8, 2003 Dear Mr. Reynolds: JOHNSMONROEMITSUNAGA P L L C John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division P.O. Box 45848 Olympia, WA 98504 -5848 Facsimile: (360) 902 -7889 Re: Determination of Nonsignficance: Ori llia Road SCTF Site This office represents Friends of Ori llia Road, a non - profit organization comprised of residents and owners of property located in the immediate vicinity of the Orillia Road Site: a 1.2 acre parcel of property located at 4515 South 200th Street in south King County between Sea -Tac and Kent. DSHS has selected this property as a potential site for a secure community transition facility ( "SCTF ") pursuant to chapter 71.09 RCW. DSHS is required to make a threshold determination as to whether the SCTF would have a probable, significant, adverse, environmental impact. RCW 71.09.342 (b). DSHS issued a Determination of Nonsignficance ( "DNS ") on March 24, 2003, and is accepting written comments through April 8, 2003. Therefore, on behalf of Friends of Orillia Road, we submit the following comments. Our review of the SEPA checklist which DSHS prepared to support its DNS reveals that the checklist is inadequate and does not contain sufficient information to support a DNS. Further, probable significant adverse environmental impacts exist that require DSHS to prepare an environmental impact statement under RCW 71.09.342 (b), RCW 43.21C. 030 and RCW 43.21C.031. As a primary matter, DSHS has elected to act as its own "lead agency" in performing environmental review regarding the Orillia Road Site. Considering the extensive impacts of siting a SCTF, DSHS's simplistic approach to environmental review is a significant cause for concern. There is an inherent conflict of interest where DSHS, who is a project proponent, acts as its own lead agency. The consequences of this conflict are shown by DSHS's perfunctory and incomplete SEPA checklist and DNS which was prepared and issued simultaneously with the checklist. T: (425) 451 -2812 • F: (425) 451 -2818 Cypress Building 1500 114th Ave. SE • Suite 102 • Bellevue, WA 98004 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail Robert D. Johns Michael P. Monroe Darrell S. Mitsunaga Duana T. Kolous`kova WM. v.a�a:eu.,,. _...w.:ti,.,. John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division April 8, 2003 Page 2 z In addition, DSHS is required to consult with the Department of Ecology in planning, constructing and operating a SCTF. RCW 71.09.342 (6). It should be self evident that ce 2 the Department of Ecology would be involved in any environmental review and 0 determination in the planning phase for a SCTF. However, it appears from the SEPA cn checklist and DNS that DSHS entirely failed to consult with the Department of Ecology w in determining that the Orillia Road Site warrants a DNS. -J w DSHS must ensure that the SCTF is sited in "an environmentally responsible manner that 2 is consistent with the substantive objectives of chapter 43.21C RCW .... " Id. The g substantive objectives of chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act cn (SEPA) provide that it is the responsibility of the state of Washington and all its agencies I to use all practical means so that its citizens are assured "safe, healthful, productive, and z aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings." RCW 43.21C.020 (2)(b). Further, z o the state must act to "[a]ttain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences." RCW 43.21C.020 (2)(c). DSHS has failed to demonstrate in its SEPA o checklist that its consideration of the Orillia Road Site is environmentally responsible and w ill consistent with these substantive objectives. = v u • Question Numbers A.10; B.8.k: In responding to whether any government w z approvals or permits will be needed for the proposal, DSHS simply responds that, U under RCW 71.09.342, DSHS need not comply with any plans, development z regulations, permitting and inspection requirements, and other laws as they relate to King County because King County has failed to provide a siting process for an SCTF. DSHS's response is both incomplete and inaccurate. DSHS has failed to address the Countywide Planning Policies ( "CPPs ") which apply to all of King County, regardless of the governing jurisdiction. RCW 71.09.342 does not allow DSHS to ignore countywide planning policies. CPPs are not a local plan or development regulation. Instead, CPPs act as an umbrella to guide all local plans within the county, including the county's plan itself. Therefore, DSHS must comply with the CPPs in its siting process and in performing environmental review. Under the CPPs, urban services "shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed." Urban services include storm and sanitary sewer, domestic water systems, fire and police protection services, and public transit JOHNSMONROEMITSUNAGA PLLC IIIVRWVAV John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division April 8, 2003 Page 3 services. RCW 36.70A.030(19). The Orillia Road Site is located within the "potential annexation area" for the City of Tukwila. Therefore, the Tukwila must review and approve the extension of any urban services before the Orillia Road Site can be developed. RCW 71.09.342 does not exempt an SCTF from this required review and approval. DSHS has failed to address the City of Tukwila's role with respect to the Ori llia Road Site. Pursuant to the CPPs, DSHS must obtain Tukwila's approval before it can use any urban services in connection with the Orillia Road Site. Therefore, DSHS's response to whether any governmental approvals or permits is incomplete and inaccurate. DSHS must withdraw the DNS and revise the SEPA checklist to address the approvals it will need from Tukwila. • B.3.a.1; B.3.a.3: DSHS does not address the unquestionable significant adverse environmental impact it will have on the 1500 square foot wetland located on the Orillia Road Site. In responding to questions regarding surface water, DSHS disclosed that a wetland exists on site and that a Class 2 wetland exists 600 feet from the property to the southeast. DSHS has failed to classify the onsite wetland, to discuss whether this wetland is related to the offsite Class 2 wetland or other water source or provide any wetland reports assessing the functions and values of the wetland and how DSHS's impacts to the wetland will be mitigated. DSHS simply states it intends to fill the wetland, without any proposed mitigation. In contrast, prior to development in any other circumstance, the applicant would be required to delineate and classify the wetland and propose mitigation measures for filling and making physical improvements in the wetland and buffer area. As a state agency, service provider and an example to both local jurisdictions and the citizens of the state, DSHS should act consistently with development regulations that would apply to its proposed facility regardless of whether it has decided to disregard the permitting authority of the local jurisdiction. Instead, DSHS has taken advantage of its status as lead agency to evade its obligation to perform review and analysis of the wetland and propose mitigation measures with respect to filling a wetland. In addition, DSHS failed satisfy the checklist requirement to state the source of fill material that it will use to eliminate the wetland. JOHNSMONROEMITSUNAGA PLLC John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division April 8, 2003 Page 4 Based on DSHS's proposal to entirely fill (i.e. eliminate) the wetland, DSHS must withdraw the DNS, perform a wetland delineation and report, and provide mitigation for its significant adverse environmental impact as part of an EIS. • B.3.b.1; B.16.b: DSHS states it will abandon the existing well and connect the property to the public water main running along 200 Street. DSHS asserts water is available from Highline Utility District, but does not state whether it has obtained a certificate of availability and whether it has obtained approval from Tukwila for such hookup. DSHS must revise the SEPA checklist to list the approvals and permits that DSHS will require from Tukwila in order to site the SCTF on the Orillia Road Site. In addition, DSHS must demonstrate the availability of public water service. • B.3.b.1; B.3.b.2: DSHS intends to construct an onsite septic system to serve the twelve residents and 12 concurrent employees. DSHS fails to discuss how it can construct an extensive septic system to serve 24 individuals and housing for twelve residents on a 1.22 acre site. DSHS attached a "conceptual plan" to the checklist, which is nothing more than a conceptual site layout without any measurements or indicia of reliability. Such a conceptual plan would be unacceptable in any development scenario. In fact, in responses to Frequently Asked Questions contained on its website, DSHS acknowledged that it would require a minimum 3 acre site for a twelve bed facility using well and sewer. DSHS fails to address anywhere in its environmental review how a 1.2 acre site will adequately contain a twelve bed facility with septic and without assurance of public water connection. • B.3.c.1: DSHS fails to explain how stormwater runoff will be treated on site and, on its conceptual plan attached to the SEPA checklist, fails to show any stormwater treatment facility. • B.8.a: DSHS incorrectly describes the adjacent properties as "rural open space." In fact, these properties are within the urban growth area and are zoned for single family residential use. • B.8.f: DSHS incorrectly states the King County Comprehensive Plan land use designation is `urban'. The designation for the Orillia Road Site is "Urban Residential, One Dwelling Unit Per Acre." The surrounding area is also JOHNSMONRO EMITSUNAGA PLLC John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division April 8, 2003 Page 5 z =z designated as Urban Residential and planned for urban density residential w development. 6 QQ JU • B.8.h: DSHS states that no part of the site has been classified as an u) 0 environmentally sensitive area. However, DSHS entirely ignores the 1500 square w w foot onsite wetland, which it intends to fill without any review and mitigation. In fact, DSHS apparently has not even classified the wetland or determined its w 0 functions and values to the environment. u_Q • B.9.c: DSHS states that the proposed SCTF would not have a negative housing cn d impact. This response is hardly credible considering the extent of public concern I w regarding location of the SCTF. DSHS must revise its response to provide a z legitimate description of the negative housing impacts. z 0 w • B.12.a: DSHS incorrectly states that no designated or informal recreation v opportunities exist in the immediate vicinity. Frage Road, a designated scenic and 0 recreational road is located one -half mile from the Orillia Road Site. In addition, w the Green River, an informal recreation opportunity, is also located one -half mile z v from the Site. DSHS must withdraw the DNS and correct the checklist to address L I 0 these and any other recreation opportunities in the vicinity. iii z • B.14.d; B.14.f: DSHS states that the facility will generate up to 100 trips per day. 0 1— However, DSHS fails to disclose whether it has performed a trip generation and Z traffic impact study that would form the basis for this estimate. Further, 200 Street is a four -lane, main arterial. The Orillia Road Site is within the vicinity of a major intersection. Due to the location, sight distance and turning radius issues may constitute significant safety hazards. DSHS must at a minimum withdraw the DNS, perform the necessary traffic studies and include this information within their environmental review. The traffic study must also consider turning radius and perform a site distance analysis. In addition, even though it is clear the facility will generate a significant amount of new traffic, DSHS assumes the facility will not require any improvements to existing roads. Again, based simply on the magnitude of the project, frontage improvements to 200 Street would be necessary and should be addressed in the checklist and environmental determination. JOHNSMONROEMITSUNAGA PLLC John Reynolds, Director Department of Social and Health Services, Lands and Buildings Division April 8, 2003 Page 6 Overall, DSHS approaches the environmental review as if this project would have virtually no impact on the environment and surrounding community. This approach would be untrue even if the project were simply a six or twelve unit multifamily residential development. In fact, a private or other agency applicant for an equivalent structure would undergo extensive environmental review and be required to provide significantly more information and analysis in any environmental review regarding domestic water, septic, stormwater, impervious surfaces, structure and site planning. The DSHS proposed SCTF will have an even greater impact on the property and surrounding community than any other equivalent structure with a different residential use. DSHS plans to entirely eliminate an onsite wetland and will be siting a multifamily SCTF in the midst of a single family residential community. DSHS should perform an accurate, comprehensive and detailed environmental review. Based just on the analysis contained in this letter, DSHS must withdraw the DNS and ensure an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared, addressing all the potential significant adverse environmental impacts the SCTF would have at the Orillia Road Site. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding our comments. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Duana T. Kolouskova Direct Tel: (425) 467 -9966 Email: kolouskova @jmmlaw.com cc: Dennis Braddock, Secretary, DSHS Julia Patterson, King County Council Ethan Raupe, King County Executive Mike Martin, City of Kent Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Gary Young, Polygon Northwest Sue Carlson, Segale Business Park Eric Wells, Vice President, Riverview Community Association Clients TOHNSMONR OEMITSUNAGA PLLC 1608 -15 ltr to Reynolds 4 -8 -03 4 '', i'• �cL. ytti[ s�''" i ^ �7." t '° e�': r Fil< YS�L• .'� : `adrJ:t '. r.**Acfi'.L}'r.4 1fti Geo Engineers La Pianta LLC P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 April 7, 2003 Geotechnical Consultation Information Review Secure Community Transfer Facility Orillia Road and South 200 Street King County, Washington This letter summarizes our review of information provided by you regarding the proposed "Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF)." The proposed facility is located southeast of the intersection of Ori Ilia Road and South 200 Street and upslope from property owned by La Pianta LLC. The information reviewed consists of a "Preliminary Geologic Evaluation of the DSHS SCTF Facility" by Bradley -Noble Geotechnical Services, dated January 15, 2003, and pages 6, 7 and 17 of the SEPA checklist prepared for the SCTF site, dated March 21, 2003. We understand that the site is presently served by an on -site septic system. We understand that the proposed SCTF site may have up to 12 permanent residents plus 12 additional support staff on -site 24 hours per day. The new facility would be served by an on -site septic system. The system dosage is estimated to be 1,440 gallons per day from the facility according to the SEPA checklist. Documentation concerning how this estimated flow was derived was not included in the SEPA document. Typical wastewater flowrates for institutional facilities are contained in "Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1991." The typical wastewater daily flow rate, per inmate, from prisons is 115 gallons, according to the document. We understand that the facility will house 12 permanent residents (1,380 gallons) plus 12 additional support staff on -site 24 hours per day. It does not appear that the stated flow rate of 1,440 gallons per day accounts for all the wastewater potentially generated at the site during the post - developed condition. The release of septic effluent directly up- gradient from your property could have a significant impact on shallow groundwater quality at your site. An evaluation of the potential concentration of nitrates resulting from the planned development does not appear to have been completed. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate in groundwater is 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1), GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Are., Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone (253) 383 -1940 Fax (253) 383-4923 www.geoengineers.com m _�1 La Pianta LLC April 7, 2003 Page 2 according to the Washington State Department of Health. Nitrate is a common end - product of septic systems. A nitrate - loading analysis should be performed by the proponent to evaluate the potential impacts of the increased amount of septic effluent. It is possible that the significant increase in septic effluent at the SC1'N site could result in nitrate - contaminated groundwater at your property. We trust the above provides the information you require. Please contact us if you have questions or if we can be of further assistance. SWH:GWH:tw TAC01010291020103 1Finals1029102003L2 .Doc GeoEngineers Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. 5 Stephen W. Helvey, L.G., L.E.G., L.HG. Senior Hydrogeologist Gary WlHenderson, P.E. Principal File No. 02.91.020.03 DRAFT April 7, 2003 z Dennis Braddock, Secretary ;1 w State of Washington re Department of Social and Health Services PO Box 45010 U o Olympia, WA 98504 -5010 w = J F . RE: DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE w o. SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITIONAL FACILITY 2 4515 SOUTH 200 STREET, KENT g D Dear Mr. Braddock: a. _ . z The City of Kent objects to three areas of the Determination of Nonsignificance issued z o' for the proposed siting of a Secure Community Transitional Facility at the above- LII ? . referenced address. D O 1) Land and shoreline use w uj (B)(8)(e) and (f): The King County comprehensive plan land use designation for the property is Urban Residential, 1 dwelling unit per acre. The zoning 1 ?- p designation is R -1. The property lies within the City of Tukwila's Potential w z. Annexation Area, and their land use designation for the area also is single 0 _ family residential. Within approximately one -half mile of the site are areas z ~ the City of Kent has designated single family residential. A licensed day care facility also is located approximately one -half mile from the site. Constructing a 12 -bed Secure Community Transitional Facility within a designated residential area conflicts with the findings of the state legislature as they created the Growth Management Act and the planning goals of the Act, i.e., coordinated and planned growth with common goals to sustain economic development and the health, safety and high quality of life enjoyed by the state's residents. While the cities have planned for residential growth, the state is considering siting an arguably "secure" community transitional facility in a designated residential area. There could be some essential public facilities that would "fit" into a residential area; we argue the proposed facility is not one of them. Whether or not the State's activities fall under the purview of the Growth Management Act, it should follow the spirit of the law. (B)(8)(k): The response is inadequate. While it may be true that the State can preempt local government authority in this case, the response does not indicate what measures are proposed to ensure the facility is "compatible with Sincerely, existing and projected land uses and plans... ". As stated above, we would argue it would not be compatible with projected land uses and plans. 2) Recreation (B)(12)(a) and (c): Frager Road is located approximately one -half mile from the site. Frager Road is designated a Scenic and Recreational Road and is used by pedestrians, cyclists and sightseers. The Green River, also located approximately one -half mile east of the site, is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance protected under the Shoreline Management Act. Priorities for the shoreline include increased public access and recreational opportunities. Although not within the "line of sight" of the proposed facility, we believe these recreational facilities should be addressed in the checklist and measures provided to reduce or control impacts on the facilities. Avoidance of impacts, which may include not constructing the facility, should be considered. 3) Public services (B)(15)(a) and (b): There is no question this facility will create impacts on public services, especially police protection. Despite the security measures prescribed by state law, there have been escapes from similar facilities, and public comment has shown strong concern about public safety. It is likely the public will demand additional police protection in the surrounding areas, especially around the licensed day care facility within one -half mile of the site. The Department of Social and Health Services described in their "Orillia Road Question & Answer" document the intent to work with local law enforcement and emergency service agencies to coordinate response protocols. This means additional work plans for local emergency agencies, and mitigation measures to reduce or control those impacts should be addressed in the checklist. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please call me at (253) 856- 5700 if you need clarification or have any questions on our comments. Mike' Martin Chief Administrative Officer S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND \2002 \sctfsepaltr.doc z z � 0 0 co 0 • co J � CO L w 2 u_ a co = a w Z �. �- Z �- w uj 2 o ' o -. O 1- W 1 z • = O 1- . z :1'J,r ]i'3.,tif:.:u-';t:s; -« *,... mac,.: : ::y. .:s.+iPlr '�sz7att 7VS:'uliz�.b'.a1c,..0 ki'rr �t'w�+fto"h'a:u;:11CS' 4,4;141 4 'd#�in TO: City Council FROM: John McFarland RE: FOR YOUR INFORMATION Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF) Issue DATE: April 4, 2003 The attached letter from our City Attorney firm Kenyon Dornay Marshall (KDM), details a situation wherein KDM will be representing the City of North Bend on matters related to the potential siting of a SCTF in that community. It is possible that that representation may involve the filing of a lawsuit or request for injunctive relief. Mike Kenyon and Bob Noe met with the Mayor's Office to discuss concerns over possible conflicts of interest, in that removal of the North Bend site could place additional pressure on the Orilla Road site. It was agreed that if at any time it appeared that a conflict arose that KDM would withdraw from any legal arrangement that created that condition. In regard to the North Bend site, DSHS called the Mayor's Office today and advised that the DNR property (some 12 miles from the North Bend community) will be listed today as a potential site. Please let the Mayor's Office know if you have questions. Bob Noe will be present on Monday at the Council Meeting should you care to discuss this during the City Attorney Report. • „ w.,,.. s:..., .,,....�e :a,rrv:,x.a:+.vAtnac�.' •ai_.a.n: , : airliiAi ae.islSdi:.». tn1::.+ .'oti_:...:ti7.ci:'f.Ute'a:5.iyfd •A: ^`�.- THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM MICHAEL R. KENYON 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH STEVE C. KARIMI MARGITA A. DORNAY ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3820 STEPHEN R. KING LISA M. MARSHALL (425) 392 -7090 HEIDI L. BROSIUS ROBERT F. NOE (206) 628 -9059 DAVID B. ST.PIERRE BRUCE L. DISEND FAX (425) 392 -7071 KERRI A. BERGLAND MINDY A. ROSTAMI Z JOSEPH C. SCHULTZ 2 :,- Z ' � W March 31, 2003 RECEIVED QQ � J U APR 2 2003 w = CITY OF uf\WILA n u Mayor Steven M. Mullet MAYOR'S OFFICE w o 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 2 Tukwila, Washington 98188 g 5 u.a =a Re: SCTF Siting Issue - Potential Conflict of Interest Z i 1- O z 1- w uj D o Our law firm serves as City Attorney for both North Bend and Tukwila, among other o D- eities. Given the newspaper coverage of the public hearing this past Saturday regarding potential o secure community transition facility ( "SCTF ") siting at the Orillia Road location near Kent and i v south of Tukwila, I think it is important to raise the issue of a potential conflict of interest. 0 �_ P z As part of our service to North Bend, we have been directed by the terms of an express o City Council resolution to work with community groups and others in opposition to the proposed 0 ' siting by DSHS of a SCTF for sexual offenders at a location in unincorporated King County Z several miles east of the North Bend city limits. If that location is ultimately included on the DSHS list of approved potential sites, North Bend will take all other steps necessary to best ensure that the site east of North Bend is not ultimately selected. Dear Mayor Mullet: KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC In these efforts, we have not been directed on North Bend's behalf to advocate that the other currently identified sites (such as the Orillia Road location) are appropriate to site a SCTF or that any of those sites satisfy the DSHS criteria for siting. DSHS is responsible to identify an appropriate location, not the City of North Bend (or Tukwila) nor any other local jurisdiction. As you know, the Orillia Road site is located near the City of Kent and south of the city limits of Tukwila, but likely within Tukwila's potential annexation area. As part of our service to Tukwila, I understand that our firm has not been directed to take any action nor have any of our attorneys been even tangentially involved. Bob Noe, my law partner and Tukwila's city attorney, confirmed that for me this morning. F: LAPPS \Civ \Tukwila ■Letter\LTR00064 - SCTF - MulleLdoc/MCSI03131 /03 v54a...bax:,4...17dE.ssvr - a»,w..koz...a:w. • .. sw+.am SERVING WASHINGTON CITIES SINCE 1993 Mayor Steven M. Mullet March 31, 2003 Page 2 Under the Rules of Professional Conduct ( "RPC ") for attorneys, prohibited conflicts of interest are defined in RPC 1.7. RPC 1.7(a) addresses situations where a lawyer's representation of one client is "directly adverse" to another client. Since North Bend is not advocating the Orillia Road site as a suitable location, and Tukwila likewise is not advocating the site east of North Bend as a suitable location, the two cities' interests are not "directly adverse" and RPC 1.7(a) is inapplicable. Under RPC 1.7(b), however, a lawyer shall not represent a client when the representation of that client may be "materially limited" by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client unless (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the representation will not be adversely affected, and (2) the client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts (following authorization from the other client to make such a disclosure if such disclosure would require the disclosure of confidences or secrets of the other client). Here, under RPC 1.7(b)(1), I clearly and unequivocally believe that our representation of Tukwila will not be adversely affected in any way by our representation of North Bend. As indicated above, the Tukwila City Attorney's Office has not to date been involved at all in opposing the possible SCTF siting at Orillia Road, and Tukwila has not and is not advocating for the selection of the site east of North Bend. Under RPC 1.7(b)(2), I believe that the material facts are already stated above. All such facts are matters of public record, and accordingly do not require North Bend's consent to disclose. Namely, the site east of the City of North Bend is not currently identified on the DSHS list of possible sites for the location of a SCTF, but it may be added in the near future according to press reports. North Bend is not advocating the Orillia Road site in fact be selected. Given that, we do not believe that North Bend's interests are "directly adverse" to Tukwila's interests, nor do we believe that our firm's representation of Tukwila will be "materially limited" by our firm's continuing service as North Bend City Attorney. To the contrary, neither city is advocating that a SCTF be located in proximity to the other, and each city is instead emphasizing the deficiencies associated with the site or proposed site near its own city limits. If any of these material facts change, or if new material facts arise, we will of course review this matter again with you. If you have any questions, please let me know at your earliest convenience. If not, please countersign this letter and return a copy to me. If you disagree with this analysis, we will of course respect your decision, cease any further efforts on North Bend's behalf, and decline any F:\ APPS \C'iv \Tukwila \Lettet\LTR00064 - SCTF - Mullet.doc /MCS /03/31/03 *14. f.ri 616..:rSi'z'_.,,is4 *`�a'tiirl ii i[n ..:,�', ;�.i;; �, Ji �;.`en'r ",au`�iq= .tia;tar ?kiirAttkutis uowitt a , vAlow Noce e Mayor Steven M. Mullet March 31, 2003 Page 3 related service on Tukwila's behalf. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc: Members of the City Council John McFarland Robert Noe The terms of this letter are understood and agreed to by the City of Tukwila. iv\ Irv\ 4_02_4- Mayor Steven M. Mullet FAAPPS \Civ\Tukwila\Letter\ LTR00064 - SCTF - Mullet.doc/MCS/03/31/03 Very truly yours, KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC Michael R. Kenyo /47o3 Dat __)Psc)1( s C-v wr < -) --� OstiS . 1+e s vtat c Z + -114. l-4e�r, �. c�v 54.-M zte.7 Z aca lots v'e Q L s4,; 4 "Ak. 10•)r \-e (1.:44 wc,.4 Sor•¢ w,4 -k, Vac 11,4,-, 40 g s� < Secretary Dennis Braddock Washington Department of Social ' " and Health Services (�, a e-c; 6(o ?) P.O. Box 45322 ems Olympia, WA 98504 -5322 /�d oS! Subject: Proposed Secure Community Transition Facility at Orillia Road ATP March 29, 2003 Dear Secretary Braddock: In 1990 the State of Washington dramatically changed the way state and local jurisdictions manage urban area development and the provision of government services. The Growth Management Act established a partnership among the state, its counties and cities. An important part of that partnership is a requirement that urban and urbanizing areas shall ultimately come under the land use and growth management jurisdiction of cities through an orderly planning process. For a dozen years, Tukwila has worked diligently and in good faith with the its citizens, its neighbors and the State to fulfill the promise of rational, managed growth balancing local and statewide interests. Consistent with this local/state partnership, Tukwila undertook comprehensive planning for the Orillia Road unincorporated area and in 1995 formally designated the area for future annexation. The specific site in question was designated for future single family residential development. In 2002 the City responded to the State mandate to provide reasonable opportunities for the siting of secure community transition facilities by designating a specific portion of our planning area. Again, this was done in good faith and in recognition of our responsibility to shoulder our share of the burden imposed by needs greater than those of our community alone. A primary consideration in our plan for accommodating this statewide need was to keep these facilities clearly separated from residential areas, both existing and future. Siting a secure community transition facility at Orillia Road would be a clear violation of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. Since Tukwila is in full compliance with the state's SCTF siting requirements (RCW 37.70A.200) the state cannot preempt Tukwila's siting requirements. Other interested parties have more fully explained to DSHS why the Growth Management Act prohibits the agency from siting an SCTF at the Orillia Road location (see, for example, the January 22, 2003 letter to Secretary Braddock from Adrienne E.Quinn, Buck & Gordon LLP). They have also explained why DSHS would need Tukwila's permission to bring water or sewer service to the Orillia Road site. I will not repeat these explanations here. Please be aware, however, that the City of Tukwila will not approve the extension of sewer or water service to a facility that violates our Comprehensive Plan. We ask that the state honor Tukwila's growth management planning decisions, and the specific efforts we have taken to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities. To do otherwise would be a repudiation of the state's own programs for growth management and its mandates concerning SCTF siting. The Orillia Road site should be removed from the SCTF siting process without delay. Sincerely, Mayor Steven M. Mullet City of Tukwila, Washington Cc: Hon. Gary Locke Hon. Ron Sims Hon. Julia Patterson Tukwila City Council Secretary Dennis Braddock March 29, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Steve Lancaster - FW: Information concerning siting of Sexual Predator facility at Orillia Road Page 1 From: Susan Carlson <SCarlson @segalebp.com> To: "Steve Lancaster (E- mail)" <slancaster @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: FW: Information concerning siting of Sexual Predator facility at Orillia Road Steve - I sent this information out to all of the major newspapers this morning. You or Mayor Mullet may get a call because I took the liberty of including the mayor's letter in this message. The reason I did so was his comment about the City of Tukwila not providing sewer service to a use that does not meet the city's comprehensive plan for the area. That piece of information along with Kent's letter that says the same thing, plus goes into the timing and permitting issues with the soils engineers report just about makes it impossible to develop the Arnold property for this use. I wanted this in the papers before tomorrows meeting if possible. Sue > Original Message > From: Susan Carlson > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:24 AM > To: 'jeffreybarker @seattlepi.com' > Cc: Phil Talmadge (E -mail) > Subject: Information concerning siting of Sexual Predator facility at > Orillia Road > Jeff > As you know, DSHS has been considering locating the King County SCTF at > Orillia Road and S. 200th. This site is located adjacent to property that > is owned by Segale family. In an effort to ensure that the State has all > pertinent information regarding this site, we have asked several > professional consulting firms and public agencies to provide us with > information concerning the site. We now have the reports in hand and will > be submitting them to DSHS at the public hearing tomorrow. > This information includes: > 1. A letter from the Kent Public Works Department explaining that there > is no public sewer service at the Orillia Road site, nor will it be likely > that sewer service could be obtained in less than two years. Apparently, > the brokers who selected the site did not realize that there is a dry pipe > in the road, meaning that it does not connect to any sewer system. In > order to connect to Kent's sewer system, DSHS would have to construct a > pump station and cross the Green River for which DSHS would need to obtain > easements and may need Army Corps of Engineers approval. Moreover, as the > letter explains, these efforts may be in vain because there is very little > available sewer capacity in this area. > 2. A study from GeoEngineers, Inc. showing that it is not possible to > install an onsite septic system on the proposed Orillia Road site that > will comply with current codes and provide service for the number of > people who will inhabit the SCTF. Because of the high water table and > type of soils on the site, the site will not perk. The study also > concludes that given the type of soils and typography on the site, onsite > septic for the amount of effluent coming from an SCTF will likely cause a > pollution hazard. > 3. An appraisal by Bruce C. Allen & Associates, Inc. showing that based > on 28 comparables, DSHS has signed a purchase and sale agreement to buy > the Orillia Road site for more than three times the property's appraised Steve Lancaster - FW: Information concerning siting of Sexual Predator facility at Orillia Road Page 2 > value. Based on actual sales, the appraiser concluded that the appraised > value of the Orillia Road site is $300,000. We note also that in > reviewing DSHS's file, even the brokers who were working with DSHS > questioned whether DSHS wanted to continue considering this site because > it was so expensive. > These documents confirm that DSHS cannot comply with the timeline or > budget established for building the SCTF if it selects the Orillia Road > site. Moreover, to pursue the Orillia Road site, given the actual > appraised value of the site, would be an unconstitutional gift of public > funds to the Orillia Road property owner. > I have attached copies of these documents for your review. I am also > including a letter written by Tukwila Mayor Steve Mullet that states that > the City of Tukwila will not grant water or sewer service to this site > because it is not an allowed use in the City's Comprehensive Plan. > > Phil Talmadge is our spokesperson on this issue. Please call him at 206 - > 574 -6661 if you want comments or further information. > > PS: I don't have the City of Kent's letter electronically so if you send > me your fax number I will fax it to you. > Thank you > Sue Carlson > Director of Development «SctyBraddock030329mayor.doc» > «GeoEngineers.pdf» «summaryreportappraisal.pdf» > Segale Business Park > 206 -575 -2000 z , j J 00: op: W = ` J w •_ co = z �. I— O w ~ w. U � O- 0 I- W W ' U_ O Z, H = Z kingcountyjournal.com - Lawsuit filed over sex offender site Home Eastside So. County Business Boeing News Prep Sports Sports Opinion Obituaries Milestones Living Entertain. Women's Journal Site Map Search Archive World News MoneyWire Mytown Classifieds. Traffic Weather Lotto Crossword Dilbert Horoscope Movies Komo TV TV Listings Personals Home Delivery Advertising Jobs with Us About Us Cog / tart Us own oidinc i e' 96Yof,107 KING COUNTY _ r'7 sX f y ou had Comcast Internet King County Journal `. Home kingcounty journaLcom Archive I Mytown I Classifieds I Home Delivery I Advertising I Contact Us Lawsuit filed over sex offender site 2003 -03 -27 by Jamie Swift Journal Reporter A second south King County citizens group has taken legal action to stop the state from building a home for violent sex offenders near Kent, Tukwila and SeaTac. The nonprofit association Friends of Orillia Road recently filed the lawsuit against the state Department of Social and Health Services in King County Superior Court. Concerned Citizens of Auburn and Federal Way filed a similar lawsuit earlier this month. A hearing in that case is scheduled for May 2 at the Regional Justice Center. DSHS is considering building the 12 -bed sex offender facility near Orillia Road or between Auburn and Federal Way off Peasley Canyon Road -- although one or two more sites to be announced may be considered, state officials said. DSHS will host the final public hearing regarding the Orillia Road site Saturday morning at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission in Burien. The Friends of Orillia Road lawsuit states that residents of the neighborhood are 'already suffering reductions in property values as the result of the identification of the Orillia Road site as a potential location for (sex offender housing)." The lawsuit asks a judge to remove the site from consideration based on the following assertions: * The site is located within ' 'sight distance" of a school bus stop and a licensed day care, both of which are defined by state law as risk - potential facilities, the lawsuit claims. * The site, located in an unincorporated pocket of King County, is within the city of Tukwila's annexation area. Tukwila already has established future guidelines for that area, zoning it Low Density Residential. A sex offender facility on the Orillia Road site, the lawsuit claims, would violate Tukwila's comprehensive plan and development regulations. * The $975,000 price tag for the 1.2 -acre property at 4515 South 200th St., the lawsuit says, ' ' is far in excess of the fair market value of the Orillia Road site," and, therefore, ' 'an unconstitutional gift of public funds in violation of ... the Washington State Constitution." (The tax - assessed value of the property is $59,000, according to King County records.) Page 1 of 2 �ra�w•rarnn. falitc Su' t kingcountyjournal.com - Lawsuit filed over sex offender site Page 2 of 2 STOCK LISTINGS Izifgj ati ii DSHS officials maintain that the bus stop and child -care business are not within the ' ' line of sight" of the Orillia Road site as defined by law, because neither lies within 600 feet of the site. DSHS officials could not be reached Wednesday night for comment on the lawsuit. DSHS is being required by a federal judge to put a sex offender facility in King County to house violent sexual predators who progress in their treatment at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island. The King County halfway house will be home to as many as 12 sex offenders. They will work and shop in the community, but won't be allowed to leave the facility without an escort. Final public hearing: Orillia Road site -- 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission auditorium, 19010 First Ave. S., Burien. Jamie Swift can be reached at jamie .swift @kingcountyjournal.com or 253 -872- 6646. Eastside: King County Journal 1705 132nd Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 -2251 Phone: 425 -455 -2222 Fax: 425 -635 -0602 South County: King County Journal 600 Washington Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253 -872 -6600 Fax: 253 - 854 -1006 All materials Copyright © 2003 Horvitz Newspapers, Inc. Any questions? See our contact page. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 -1219 (206) 296 -6600 TTY (206) 296 -7217 Purpose of the checklist State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Chapter 43.21 C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. z } Z cc 2 J U 00 U U J = • w w 0 2 L Q. = a i _ w z = I-- 0 z I— w U o This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your o N : o I— . Instructions for the applicants proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. _ o Answer the questions briefly with the most precise information known, or give the best L I 0 description you can. . z Lit to You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your knowledge. 0 I In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations z or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations such as zoning, shoreline and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site Page 1 of 18 March 21, 2003 •G1M:+.. ✓.,0; 54 A. Background 1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable: Department of Social and Health Services / Secure Community Transitional Facility 2. Name of applicant: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Lands and Buildings Division 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P.O. Box 45848 Olympia, WA 98504 -5848 Attention: John Reynolds, Director (360) 902 -8154 4. Date checklist prepared: March 21, 2003 5. Agency requesting checklist: DSHS 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction Spring 2004. One phase of construction is anticipated at this time. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The site has been reviewed by a consultant team (KMB) who prepared a Preliminary Site Analysis report dated February 28, 2003. This document is on file at DSHS Lands and Buildings Division, Olympia. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. RCW 71.09.342 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, SEPA Checklist Orlllla Road Site Page 2 of 18 March 21, 2003 co 0 w = Government permits that would be sought are: J !- Fire System Permit to W Grading and Drainage Permit W O Building Permit 2 J 11. Give brief complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses c and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this = w checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not z z need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this Z H form to include additional specific information on project description.) w O This site is 1.22 acres. It is currently occupied by a single family 2 D residence. DSHS proposes to construct a 12- bed community transition v o living facility totaling approximately 6,400 SF in two structures, and to O = include necessary access drives and a parking area. The proposed facility o '— is to house individuals civilly committed to DSHS for mental health i v . treatment, in a highly supervised community transition program. I-- F z 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand v the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, i -1 and section, township and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a O z range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 4515 South 200 Street Section 22 Township 3 Range 4 Parcel #0322049052 SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site and operate secure community transition facilities within the borders of any of six counties, including King County, that have failed to comply with legislatively mandated planning. z Under RCW 71.09.342, King County is preempted because the County did z not provide a viable siting process consistent with state law. r‘ 2 Nevertheless, the department expects to follow King County's building 6 v . permit requirements where feasible. 0 0 This site is east of 1 -5 in unincorporated King County at the intersection of Orillia Road and South 200 St. See vicinity map attached. Page 3 of 18 March 21, 2003 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. Environmental elements 1. Earth SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site a. General description of the site (circle or check one): ❑ Flat IZI ❑ Hilly ❑ Steep slopes ❑ Mountainous ❑ Other 'Rolling b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of slope)? 20 %. The existing residence sits on a flat bench closer to the west side of the site. The site generally slopes from west to east at approximately 20 %. c. What general types of soil are found on the site (i.e., clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Alderwood and Kltsap soils - generally silty sands, silty sandy gravels and layers of sands and gravels. See the geotechnical letter report attached. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so describe. No, the Bradley -Noble Geotechnlcal Services letter report indicates that the soils are stable and suitable for support of foundations and pavement sections. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Locating the facility on the site will require grading for the structures and the parking facility. No fill is anticipated. Approximately 1200 cubic yards of grading would occur for the improvements. A balanced site is anticipated, with any excess material to be used along the south and west sides of the site. Page 4 of 18 March 21, 2003 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur due to the slope of the property, however, applicable Best Management Practices will be employed to control erosion. Silt fencing, and a sediment pond if necessary, will be installed on the site and be maintained during the period of construction activities. g. 2. Air SEPA Checklist Orilila Road Site About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (i.e., asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 42% of the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces. Three - quarters of the impervious area will be roadway and parking and one quarter will be building and roof area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control measures will be very effective in controlling erosion during construction. Measures would include silt fence along the east and south property lines, covering all soil stockpiles, and seeding disturbed areas as soon as weather permits, in accordance with applicable Best Management Practices recommended and /or required at the time the construction activities begin. 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? Construction vehicles and contractor vehicles will emit engine exhaust and create dust during construction. Construction would last 6 to 9 months. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None are known to exist. Page 5 of 18 March 21, 2003 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3. Water SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Disturbed areas will be watered as needed during construction to control dust. 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. There are no streams or water bodies in the vicinity. There is a small wetland (approximately 1500sf) on the site, and a Class 2 wetland to the southeast of the site located approximately 600 feet from the property line. 2. Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No waters are on or within 200 feet of the site. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. The small wetland on site may be filled, estimated at approximately 300 cubic yards. It is expected that the area of impact will be below the level that would require federal permits. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known? No surface water withdrawals or diversions will occur. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. Page 6 of 18 March 21, 2003 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site 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. No. Stormwater would be treated on site using appropriate treatment methods designed for the site, and discharged to county regional stormwater facilities via storm drains along 200 St. 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 water will be withdrawn from the site. The existing onsite well will be decommissioned per DOH guidelines. An on -site septic system would serve the site. System dosage is anticipated to be a maximum of 1440 gallons per day. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (i.e., 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. Domestic sewage will be discharged to a designed septic system onsite. The system would be designed to serve up to 12 residents and 12 employees concurrently using the site. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) 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. Stormwater will be collected off the asphalt parking lot and internal roadways. This stormwater will be treated on site and discharged to stormwater conveyance system off site as Page 7 of 18 March 21, 2003 I • ci <ti' -�s ".; sort.» i�` ti�itL: tia:, {JI' +P'< Y++4ia'r'.iw.;�r'' �u n; iet�cz�w;.y5 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4. Plants SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site required by King County Stormwater Management direction. Rooftop runoff will be infiltrated on site. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Oil or fuel spills could accidentally occur during construction. The contractor will be required to have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan for the duration of the project construction. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: All disturbed areas will be replanted as soon as practical to reduce stormwater runoff. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: O Deciduous tree: aided, 'maple, aspen, other El Evergreen tree: ir, cedar, pine, other RI Shrubs! El Grassi ❑ Pasture ❑ Crop or grain El Wet soil plants: cattail!, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other O Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Himalayan blackberry bushes and some trees, fruit and fir will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no listed or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Page 8 of 18 March 21, 2003 l; %11t?i? ∎∎.:V=4434 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: All disturbed areas will be re- vegetated with low maintenance plants that are generally native species. 5. Animals SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: O Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Great Blue Heron O 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. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. None known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NA 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. Electric energy will be used to heat and light the facility. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, it would not. Page 9 of 18 March 21, 2003 I ,ars..ia':rr _r;:r.{i??b ,4 ?a..4 v .w.uxU«iL z ;— Z re 00 J H � w w Z I— O Z w 0 Y O F- w w • 0 L I 0 . ..z. U =. O � z TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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: The facilities will meet or exceed state guidelines for energy and resource conservation. 7. Environmental health SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. In the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment performed by Advance Environmental the potential hazardous materials identified are: 1) Potential asbestos containing materials in the existing structures and improvements; 2) Potential lead - based paint in and on the existing structures and improvements; and 3) Potential arsenic and lead contamination in the soils from emissions of the Tacoma ASARCO Smelter. This site lies in the probable contamination plume of ASARCO. Soil sampling was not performed as part of the Phase 1 Analysis. During construction there is a potential risk of fire due to construction operations. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required: None are anticipated. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: If arsenic and lead are found in the soil the Department of Ecology recommends diluting the soil with clean fill dirt, or in extreme cases, having the contaminated soil removed from the property and bringing in clean fill. Page 10 of 18 March 21, 2003 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Noise SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (i.e., traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The adjacent roads are heavily used by large trucks and other vehicles. Proximity to SeaTac International Airport may contribute some noise. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long- term basis (i.e., traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. In the short term construction noise and vehicle traffic would be increased. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours. Long term, once the project is built, there would be an increase in the traffic to the site, but no noise - producing activities are associated with the use. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently occupied by a single family residence. The adjacent properties are rural open space. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site has not been used for agriculture. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are three structures on the site. These are a house, a small shed, and a storage building. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Current zoning is R -1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Urban. Page 11 of 18 March 21, 2003 I TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA Checklist Ori llla Road Site g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No, it has not. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Twelve residents maximum would reside at the facility. Total employment is estimated at 48.5 FTE. It is forecast that up to 12 employees would be working at any one time. j. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: The owners, who reside on the property, have listed the property for sale and had already planned to move from the site when the property is sold. k. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: King County adopted an ordinance in October 2002 "to preclude the siting of a secure community transition facility in unincorporated King County." Passing this ordinance permitted the State to consider the preemption of the King County Council decision as authorized in RCW 71.09.342. If a local government precludes the siting of an essential public facility or does not create a zoning ordinance that specifies where a secure community transition facility should be sited, the State may preempt local government authority and select a site for the facility. King County is preempted under RCW 71.09.342 because the county has not provided a viable siting process consistent with State law. However, the department makes every effort to consult with the local jurisdiction throughout the siting process. Page 12 of 18 March 21, 2003 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9. Housing SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. The proposed facility is to house individuals civilly committed to DSHS for mental health treatment, in a community transition program. It will not provide housing for the general public. Up to 12 residents will be accommodated. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. One single family dwelling would be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: This project would not have a negative housing impact. 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 proposed structures will be one -story in height, having exterior siding and composition shingle roofing as is typical to residential buildings in the region. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views will be obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed site will be landscaped. Currently blackberries are the predominant vegetation on the flat portion of the site where construction is planned. Page 13 of 18 March 21, 2003 I _J TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11. Light and glare SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site a. What type of light and glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? On site lighting will be necessary within the parking area and walkways and around the buildings, for security and safety. Lighting will be energy - efficient metal halide or fluorescent type. Lighting will be needed from sunset to sunrise. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not anticipated. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Fixtures will be carefully placed and selected to minimize glare and transmission of light off of the site. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in the immediate area. 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: NA Page 14 of 18 March 21, 2003 z 6 UO ( J F = .. • w w LLa = • 0 Z �. I— 0 Z LU o O • � O H ui O . Z . U= O F z TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 13. Historic and cultural preservation SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site 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. None are known to exist on or next to the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known to exist on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: If objects of cultural significance are identified during construction the contractor will be instructed to notify appropriate authorities and cease all work in the area. 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. Two major roadways serving the site are Orillia Rd. and South 200 St. The site is just east of 1 -5. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest transit stop is at 196 and 68 Street (West Valley Highway), just over one mile from the site. It is Bus Route 150 on the Metro Transit System, which runs north -south on the West Valley Highway. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Twenty parking spaces would be added by the project for employee parking and State vehicle parking. Parking spaces associated with the existing residence would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including Page 15 of 18 March 21, 2003 I I TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SEPA Checklist Ori llia Road Site driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. At full occupancy up to 100 trips per day could be generated by the project. Peak volumes will likely occur at staff shift changes, which have not yet been established. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Carpooling for staff will be encouraged to reduce the number of trips. The resident transportation will be reduced to the extent possible by combining trips where feasible. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. (See 15.b. below) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: The program will provide security safeguards in the residential facility. Staff will be present 24 -hours each day of the week. The ratio of staff to residents will be one -to -one during the sixteen normal waking hours, and two -to -three during the eight normal sleeping hours. During anytime that a resident is away from the facility, the resident will have a one - to-one escort. The facility will be equipped with fire and security alarm systems, as well as security cameras. All of these systems will have a back -up power capability. Residents will wear individual Page 16 of 18 March 21, 2003 i• a'4'41T14' M.' . _ 1«�f . ' :'.7$iYi7L`i:i6+1 z.1G'�a'3u5':N:;S'v�sa I z z w • � . O 0 � • w W J H U) u. w 0 gQ fn 3 = ▪ w Z I` I— 0 Z U � O - V • 0 Z . w - r o � z TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 16. Utilities SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site monitoring devices 24 -hours a day, unless the court of commitment orders otherwise. a. Check or circle utilities currently available at the site: El (Electricity{ ❑ Natural gas El El Refuse service) El Telephone) ❑ Sanitary sewer El 'Septic system ❑ Other Water b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. A new onsite septic system will be designed for the project requirements by a qualified engineer. Water service is available from the Highline Utility District, which operates a water main that runs along 200 St. The project will require power, telephone, cable TV, and cellular telephone service. Those services will need to be extended onto the site. Page 17ot18 March 21,2003 Jaa z Z: Ce . J U 0 0: •w i • w w o LL a to a � moo: U 0 �, 0 H w W: z'. ui H o ff' C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead a9ency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: SEPA Checklist Orillia Road Site ?(, a 01.010 3 Page 18 of 18 March 21, 2003 -1rw _v .47,7: S P ark • , c -, ,,, 4 1,1 . s loom st:8- 1 Ss . S18151Pi s 11'1 Bow Lae .... valley Ridge $16h S& P k LS :188th ' St S1&?-St (.. .. I I: ) " v • • tFA s%°'5- §._.1P ST • , Angle Lzike -,-- Park ArigIe . TygeWalley. _.,..: - Golf Course . - . . . I • . ...6 st 4. (II r f rA o co • to - Z. 4,, ..o•L. .„. $ )2A Z • F.: • 6 -,• cr) --- S21111i A - I a p > s 216th st i IS rs1,. al A • F t i l . 1 '7 : tri S 222ild St jg '. . 2 :0•Pi SI ',F,th Pi .c• $2201h St Tri4rkI , i- r 8 01 SI Orillia .., . o ..eJ ; co ..< ; / %/co W..- 1, ..q r th 'QC 4 ,......'k .,. S 190th &7: .31,ci SI I l i t .uriscoe Park 4• St • T - I ' N , S 196th St , . ..,:?.., N ... r • -.. 0 . V a n Dor ttIS Park 9 \ ,.f .,■F 212th St .1 .'303 r S 2161 51 0 SI = .• 31 ZM PI I s 226th St - s, =7 he • Bo ein 1 -Cornparty g • • —• •-!) .; T S235111 SI 6 200th f ' g .__..4.?„... 1g L s) 1 , S 217th St .i' S . 2 oth si cn s 224th st S2271h1 St ■=1.1 PURPOSE: DSHS SECURE =mike( TRANSITIONAL FACILITY PROJECT COORDINATES: 47' 25' 21" N 122' 15' 37' W (NAD 27) VERTICAL DATUM: NGVD29 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL NO. 0322045052 SECTION__,2a TOWNSHIP 3 N., R4 KING couNrt. VIAS11NGTON VICINITY MAP DSHS ORILLA ROAD SITE 4515 SOUTH 200TH STREET KENT, WA 138302 PROPOSED: CONSTRUCT SECURE CONMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY IN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY COUNTY OF: KING STATE: WA. APPLICATION 8Y: DSHS SHEET 1 OF 2 DATE: FEBRUARY 2003 T. ,41,04440644-44 • Minnie bhaliwal - Sex Offender Housing Update From: "DAVID ST.PIERRE" <DAVID @kdmlawfirm.com> To: <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 3/21/03 3:43PM Subject: Sex Offender Housing Update Minnie, Sex Offender Housing Update (SB 5550, SB 5047) Only one bill on siting Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF) to house violent sexual predators passed all current bill cutoffs. SB 5550, introduced by Senator Jim West (R- Spokane), would preclude the siting of SCTFs near public or private youth camps. This is consistent with the criteria currently being used by the Department of Social and Health Services to site the SCTFs. SB 5550 passed the Senate unanimously and is waiting a hearing in the House Criminal Justice and Corrections Committee. SB 5047, introduced by Senator Pam Roach, (R- Auburn), would have limited the siting of these SCTFs to industrial areas. This bill did not move out of the Senate Rules committee before Wednesday's cutoff. While the issue of siting a facility to house these violent sexual offenders is alive and well, this bill is not. For your convenience I have attached are WORD documents containing the bill digest, its staff report, and the bill itself for each bill. -David David B. St.Pierre Kenyon Dornay Marshall, PLLC 11 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027 425- 392 -7090 (voice) 206 - 628 -9059 (voice) 425- 392 -7071 (fax) david @kdmlawfirm.com Page 1 ..)41:44:1; k > Ya . * Y.hI:. ■' L L nutifd Sst. u6i &. .4 <ww .'rV • .. ,4...E 4; :i. ie>:�Sii?:i.;��t' •'�w:::..Y ,• 4 i�,::w::c�, "` "y:w1. �_ �;8.,s_+,a�. Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 5047.doc SB 5047 -S - DIGEST {+ (DIGEST OF PROPOSED 1ST SUBSTITUTE) +} Finds that the siting of secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators in residential neighborhoods presents unacceptable dangers and stresses to families. Finds that the goals of the growth management act to preserve and protect the rural character of our agricultural lands need reinforcement to preserve farming and that secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators threaten its efforts to preserve agriculture. Declares an intent to protect families from disproportionate fear and stress and the goals of the growth management act by limiting the siting of secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators to sites previously zoned for industrial use. SENATE BILL REPORT SB 5047 As Reported By Senate Committee On: Government Operations & Elections, February 26, 2003 Ways & Means, March 10, 2003 Title: An act relating to siting of secure community transition facilities. Brief Description: Limiting siting of secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators to properties zoned for industrial use. Sponsors: Senators Roach, Eide, T. Sheldon and Keiser. Brief History: Committee Activity: Government Operations & Elections: 1/24/03, 2/26/03 [DPS]. Ways & Means: 3/6/03, 3/10/03 [DPS (GO)]. SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS & ELECTIONS Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5047 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by Senators Roach, Chair; Fairley, Horn, Kastama, McCaslin and Reardon. Staff: Mac Nicholson (786 -7445) SENATE COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5047 as recommended by Committee on Government Operations & Elections be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by Senators Rossi, Chair; Hewitt, Vice Chair; Hale, Honeyford, Johnson, Page 1� Minnie Dhaliwal SSB 5047.doc Parlette, Roach, Sheahan and Winsley. Staff: Chelsea Buchanan (786 -7446) Background: In order to bring the state's sex offender civil commitment process into line with constitutional requirements, legislation was passed over the last biennium requiring counties, and the cities within those counties, to adopt development regulations for the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) for sexually violent predators. Six counties (King, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark, and Spokane), and the cities within those counties, were given a deadline of October 1, 2002 to develop such regulations. Counties and cities that failed to adopt conforming development regulations (regulations that are not more restrictive than statutory requirements) were preempted. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) must meet certain statutory requirements before siting SCTFs, including a public comment and hearing process in the preempted cities and counties, and choosing sites away from "risk potential" activities or facilities. "Risk potential" activities or facilities include public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed daycare and preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches and public libraries. DSHS must also look at law enforcement response time and proximity to available medical, mental health, sex offender, and chemical dependency treatment facilities in the SCTF siting process. The statutes specifically state that they shall not be construed to limit the siting of SCTFs to residential neighborhoods. Summary of Substitute Bill: The siting of SCTFs is limited to properties zoned for industrial use. Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill: The substitute bill amdnds the title and intent section to make it clear that the bill applies to siting secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators in industrial zones. Appropriation: None. Fiscal Note: Available. Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately. Testimony For (Government Operations & Elections): These sex offenders need to be put Page 2 Z a W 00 U) 0 CO L1J W = f — . W Q LL Q. co I 2 Z �. I— 0 Z I. uj U � 0 - . 0 1- . W W I I- u' O w Z U = H 0 Z Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 5047.doc in industrial areas and away from families and children. An escaped offender will cause less harm in an industrial area than in a residential neighborhood. Testimony Against (Government Operations & Elections): DSHS looked in industrial areas and could not find any that met the siting criteria. This bill would effectively undo all the work DSHS has done and may subject the state to monetary sanctions. Testified (Government Operations & Elections): PRO: Joe Daniels, City of SeaTac; Richard Reece, Concerned Citizens of Auburn and Federal Way; Amy Franz; Vern Needham; CON: Mark Seling, DSHS. Testimony For (Ways & Means): King County is pursuing a North Bend site. DSHS had looked to purchase industrial sites and had not found anything, but now it is looking to lease such a site. King County punted its responsibility by not creating siting regulations. The sponsor is willing to limit the bill to King County. Sexually violent predators should not be sited near state parks, recreation areas, or residential areas. There is too much of a fear factor for neighborhoods and people wanting to use recreation areas if these facilities are sited there. Testimony Against (Ways & Means): The state is currently out of compliance with the federal court. Judge Barbara Rothstein's February 2003 Finding of Fact specifically mentions this bill as an obstacle to siting. The state cannot afford the fines resulting from lack of court compliance. Testified (Ways & Means): PRO: Senator Pam Roach, prime sponsor; Jim King, Citizens for Parks and Recreation; CON: Sherry Appleton, Washington Defenders Association, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. S 0814.1 State of Washington By Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections (originally sponsored by Senators Roach, Eide, T. Sheldon and Keiser) READ FIRST TIME 02/27/03. SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5047 58th Legislature 2003 Regular Session AN ACT Relating to limiting siting of secure residential facilities for Page 31 Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 5047.doc Page 4 sexually violent predators to properties zoned for industrial use; amending RCW 71.09.260; creating a new section; and declaring an emergency. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1. The legislature finds that the siting of secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators in residential neighborhoods presents unacceptable dangers and stresses to families. Further, the siting of these facilities disproportionately frightens the children and parents of residential neighborhoods. The legislature also finds that the goals of the growth management act to preserve and protect the rural character of our agricultural lands need reinforcement to preserve farming and that secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators threaten its efforts to preserve agriculture. The legislature intends to protect families from disproportionate fear and stress and the goals of the growth management act by limiting the siting of secure residential facilities for sexually violent predators to sites previously zoned for industrial use. Sec. 2. RCW 71.09.260 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 206 are each amended to read as follows: The provisions of chapter 12, Laws of 2001 2nd sp. sess. shall (( {- not - })) be construed to limit siting of secure community transition facilities to (( {- residential neighborhoods -})) {+ properties zoned for industrial use +}. {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately. - -- END - -- .rutif ° :vG:::i +�i <LiY�•Jn:!m.?�._`_'3'' . ,- ,.�: a�«..::. uxW- r�kFCaa. in_ isyi .x pa3' tS�. nt..+,;; c;,,. mais:. i.. :,s.-�.".�eziuw+;s.,,s:Lr:.;:•� Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 555O.doc • SB 5550 -S - DIGEST {+ (AS OF SENATE 2ND READING 3/17/03) +} Prohibits secure community transition facilities from sited near public and private youth camps. SENATE BILL REPORT SSB 5550 As Passed Senate, March 17, 2003 Title: An act relating to prohibiting secure community transition facilities from being sited near public and private youth camps. Brief Description: being sited near public and private youth camps. Sponsors: Senate Committee (originally sponsored by Senators T. Sheldon, Thibaudeau, Winsley). Prohibiting secure community. transition facilities from West, Benton, Keiser, on Children Stevens, Kastama, Eide, Prentice, Kohl - Welles, Esser, Shin, Brief History: Committee Activity: Children & Family Services & Corrections: 2/12/03, 2/14/03 [DPS]. Passed Senate: 3/17/03, 49 -0. SENATE COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES & CORRECTIONS Staff: Fara Daun (786 -7459) being & Family Services & Corrections Roach, Kline, Johnson, Fairley, Oke and Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5550 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by Senators Stevens, Chair; Parlette, Vice Chair; Carlson, Deccio, Hargrove and McAuliffe. Background: In 2001, the Legislature passed 3ESSB 6151. The bill was enacted and became effective June 26, 2001. The act established the Joint Select Committee for Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities (Committee). The Committee was charged with reviewing and making any necessary revisions to the provisions for equitable distribution and siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTFs). The Committee Page 1 ;Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB produced a report and recommended legislation. That legislation became ESSB 6594, which was enacted on March 21, 2002. During the Committee work sessions, there were several proposals to adopt a broader list of risk potential facilities and activities. The only amendment the Committee made to that section was to define "school bus stop." The legislation also required King, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark, and Spokane counties, and the cities in those counties, to adopt or amend their development regulations to address the siting of SCTFs. Cities or counties that did not adopt regulations in compliance with the statutory requirements by October 1, 2002, would be preempted by operation of law and DSHS would be able to site without regard to existing development regulations or other laws. Summary of Bill: The definition of risk potential facilities and activities includes public and private youth camps. An SCTF may not be sited adjacent to, across the street from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential facility or activity unless the site was identified pursuant to a process for siting adopted by a city or county in compliance with the requirement to develop regulations for siting requirements under ESSB 6594. The legislation applies prospectively and does not apply to development regulations adopted or amended prior to the effective date of the act. Appropriation: None. Fiscal Note: Not requested. Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately. Testimony For: Thousands of children and youth are served by public and private youth camps every summer. The camps are also used by children on weekends during the off - season and rented out to families and community groups throughout the year. The campers are in unfamiliar territory and are vulnerable in a different way than children in schools. The precautions a school can take regarding safety are more extensive than those appropriate at a camp. Youth camps should be specifically added to the list of risk potential activities and facilities. Testimony Against: DSHS can already include camps and did include the camps mentioned earlier in its consideration of the Carnation site. However, the camps were outside the zone set by statute and their presence did not preclude the site. Testified: Judy Rosentswieg, Girl Scouts (pro); Kevin Glackin, Catholic Page 2 Z W JU re U O U D W = J N W W u.. d I Z F.. I- 0 Z F— U • 0 O — • .0 E-. W W. I • Z. id = .0 Z i Minnie Dhaliwal - SSa555O.doc Conference (pro); Tom Nielsen, American Camping Association (pro); Brad Farmer, Boy Scouts of America (pro); Sharon Foster, YMCAs of Washington (pro); Tim Brown, DSHS (no position specified). S 1304.1 State of Washington READ FIRST TIME 02/17/03. SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5550 58th Legislature 2003 Regular Session By Senate Committee on Children & Family Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators West, Stevens, Kastama, Roach, Kline, Johnson, Fairley, T. Sheldon, Thibaudeau, Benton, Keiser, Eide, Prentice, Kohl - Welles, Esser, Shin, Oke and Winsley) AN ACT Relating to prohibiting secure community transition facilities from being sited near public and private youth camps; amending RCW 71.09.342; reenacting and amending RCW 71.09.020; creating a new section; and declaring an emergency. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: Sec. 1. RCW 71.09.020 and 2002 c 68 s 4 and 2002 c 58 s 2 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows: Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Department" means the department of social and health services. (2) "Health care facility" means any hospital, hospice care center, licensed or certified health care facility, health maintenance organization regulated under chapter 48.46 RCW, federally qualified health maintenance organization, federally approved renal dialysis center or facility, or federally approved blood bank. (3) "Health care practitioner" means an individual or firm licensed or certified to engage actively in a regulated health profession. (4) "Health care services" means those services provided by health professionals licensed pursuant to RCW 18.120.020(4). (5) "Health profession" means those licensed or regulated professions set forth in RCW 18.120.020(4). (6) "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. (7) "Likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility" means that the person more probably than not will engage in such acts if released unconditionally from detention on the sexually violent predator petition. Such likelihood must be evidenced by a recent overt act if the person is not totally confined at the time the petition is filed under RCW 71.09.030. (8) "Mental abnormality" means a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others. Page 31 Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 5550.doc (9) "Predatory" means acts directed towards: (a) Strangers; (b) individuals with whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization; or (c) persons of casual acquaintance with whom no substantial personal relationship exists. (10) "Recent overt act" means any act or threat that has either caused harm of -a sexually violent nature or creates a reasonable apprehension of such harm in the mind of an objective person who knows of the history and mental condition of the person engaging in the act. (11) "Risk potential activity" or "risk potential facility" means an activity or facility that provides a higher incidence of risk to the public from persons conditionally released from the special commitment center. Risk potential activities and facilities include: Public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, public libraries, {+ public and private youth camps, +} and others identified by the department following the hearings on a potential site required in RCW 71.09.315. For purposes of this chapter, "school bus stops" does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit. (12) "Secretary" means the secretary of social and health services or the secretary's designee. (13) "Secure facility" means a residential facility for persons civilly confined under the provisions of this chapter that includes security measures sufficient to protect the community. Such facilities include total confinement facilities, secure community transition facilities, and any residence used as a court - ordered placement under RCW 71.09.096. (14) "Secure community transition facility" means a residential facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative under this chapter. 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 this chapter and operated by the secretary or under contract with the secretary. (15) "Sexually violent offense" means an act committed on, before, or after July 1, 1990, that is: (a) An act defined in Title 9A RCW as rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree by forcible compulsion, rape of a child in the first or second degree, statutory rape in the first or second degree, indecent liberties by forcible compulsion, indecent liberties against a child under age fourteen, incest against a child under age fourteen, or child molestation in the first or second degree; (b) a felony offense in effect at any time prior to July 1, 1990, that is comparable to a sexually violent offense as defined in (a) of this subsection, or any federal or out -of -state conviction for a felony offense that under the laws of this state would be a sexually violent offense as defined in this subsection; (c) an act of murder in the first or second degree, assault in the first or second degree, assault of a child in the first or second degree, kidnapping in the first or second degree, burglary in the first degree, residential burglary, or unlawful imprisonment, which act, either at the time of sentencing for the offense or subsequently during civil commitment proceedings pursuant to this chapter, has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated, as that term is defined in RCW 9.94A.030; or (d) an act as described in chapter 9A.28 RCW, that is an attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy to commit one of the felonies designated in (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection. (16) "Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility. (17) "Total confinement facility" means a facility that provides supervision and sex offender treatment services in a total confinement setting. Total confinement facilities include the special commitment center and any Page 41 Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 5550.doc similar facility designated as a secure facility by the secretary. Sec. 2. RCW 71.09.342 and 2002 c 68 s 9 are each amended 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 -})) {+ 71.09.285 +} 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 71.09.315(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 county may notify the department in writing 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 Page 5 j Z Z W 6 UO co CI U) W W H U WO g Q = Cf W Z'- F- O W W N U O co CI F- W W I U LI Z .. U � — 0 Z Minnie Dhaliwal - SSB 5550.doc Page ^6 1 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) {+ In no case may a secure community transition facility be sited 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 unless the site that the department has chosen in a particular county or city was identified pursuant to a process for siting secure community transition facilities +} (+ adopted by that county or city in compliance with RCW 36.70A.200. "Within the line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. (8) +) This section does not apply to the secure community transition facility established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(1). {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. This act applies prospectively only and not retroactively and does not apply to development regulations adopted or amended prior to the effective date of this act. {+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately. - -- END - -- City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director z = ►: 1 -, w re 111 J U O 0 CO 0 al • _ w • 0 u_ Q = _ z � I- 0 w This is in response to your email regarding Tukwila South. We have reviewed your ci to questions and following is the response to your questions: March 20, 2003 Elaine Taylor Land Use Administrator Lands and Building Division, DSHS P.O. Box 45848 Olympia WA 98504 -5848 Re: Questions regarding Tukwila South and Annexation. Dear Ms Taylor: o— OH w ui Question #1: Countywide Planning Policy L-33, as well as some of the policies in 1- the Annexation chapter of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, talk about interlocal w z '. agreements between the city and the County. Are any such agreements in place? U o � There are currently no such interlocal agreements between the city and the County. z Question #2: Countywide Planning Policy L35 says that a jurisdiction may designate a potential impact area beyond its potential annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. As part of the designation process, the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for the review of development proposals under consideration by other jurisdictions in the impact area. Have any of the jurisdictions adjacent to Tukwila or its annexation area done this? Does Tukwila have any interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions? At this time no area has been designated as a potential impact area. Tukwila does not have any interlocal agreement with adjacent jurisdictions addressing this area. Question #3. The plan lists the Tukwila South Master Plan Area as a Special Overlay (p. 191), and the area boundaries are shown in green on the city's Comprehensive Plan Map. Have any projects been proposed or 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 approved that would require the preparation of such as master plan? Are copies those plans available? No projects have been proposed that required preparation of a master plan. Question #4. Ordinance No. 1757, which adopted the city's comprehensive p /an, as amended, also adopted a number of ordinances, resolutions and plans by reference, including the Annexation Policy Plan, Resolution 626. We would like to be able to review a copy of this resolution, or any resolution or ordinance that superseded it. Attached is a copy of the Ordinance Number 1757 and Resolution Number 626. Also, please note that resolution 626 was repealed by resolution 990, which was repealed by resolution 992, which was repealed by 1155. If you have any other questions, you can contact me or Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner at 206 - 431 -3685. Steve Lancaster Director Community Development. niia t `iR.i."..[ii;Y7'rir. ikt..ti 41.4kru'yu4u177 City of Tukwila Washington -- /8o2y, la L(' Ordinance No. / 7 S 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A 1995 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND MAP FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA; AMENDING CHAPTER 21.04 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 487, 831, 844, 1039, 1230, 1246, 1359, 1429, 1430, 1444, 1466, 1470, 1479, 1484, 1486, 1516 Sect. 1 and 2,1539 and 1624; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 established statewide goals, guidelines and procedural requirements to guide the development, coordination and implementation of long - range plans; and WHEREAS, the City, King County and other jurisdictions with the County adopted Countywide Planning Policies to provide a general framework for the implementation of GMA in King County; and WHEREAS, the City, in order to implement the requirements and goals of GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, has undertaken the development of a new City Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Tomorrow citizens advisory committee, a voluntary organization of residents and business owners, having reviewed informational background reports and comments from property owners, drafted a long -term vision for the community and goals and policies for achieving that vision, and recommended the adoption of these in a new Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission, having received and studied recommendations from citizens and business owners, has prepared a new Comprehensive Plan and, after holding a public hearing thereon, has recommended the adoption of said Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after appropriate survey, investigation and study, has prepared a new 1995 Comprehensive Plan and having held two further public hearings thereon, hereby adopts the following Findings of Fact: A. After due public notice per TMC 2.04.150(9) and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council held a public hearing on June 1,1995 and on October 16,1995 to receive public testimony related to the amended Comprehensive Plan. B. In accordance with RCW 43.21C and WAC 197-11, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed Comprehensive Plan was prepared and issued on June 27,1995. C. The draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIS were made available to citizens and organizations, and were distributed to local jurisdictions and state agencies for the mandatory sixty -day review period. D. After the receipt and review of public comments on the Draft EIS, a Final EIS was prepared and circulated on October 9,1995, with an Addendum circulated on November 15,1995. COMPLN.DOC 11/29/95 1 E. The Draft EIS, Final EIS and Addendum adequately describe the potential environmental impacts of the adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, including alternatives and reasonable mitigation measures. F. The new Comprehensive Plan will provide for the generally advantageous development of the City, and the appropriate use of land throughout the community, through goals and policies describing how development is to occur and a future land use map showing the proposed physical distribution and location of various land uses. G. The Comprehensive Plan is designed to: (1) Encourage the continued economic vitality of the community; (2) Provide for the appropriate location, distribution and physical form of commercial, industrial and residential development; (3) Promote the coordinated development of unbuiit areas and to provide for mitigation of impacts due to increased development; (4) Sustain established residential neighborhoods; (5) Continue to provide the City's regional fair share of affordable housing, multi - family housing, manufactured housing, group homes and foster care facilities; (6) Facilitate adequate funding and appropriate timing of water, sewer, transportation, and other public facility improvements needed to serve anticipated development; (7) Lessen traffic congestion and improve traffic safety; (8) Provide a process for identification and siting of essential public facilities; (9) Protect life and property from fire, flooding and land subsidence; and (10) Protect the natural environment, including wetland, hillside, stream and shoreline areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas, as an essential contributor to the overall welfare of the City's residents. H. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan was prepared in consideration of, and is consistent with, the Countywide Planning Policies as amended by King County Ordinance No.11446, the State Growth Management Act RCW 36.70, and Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations WAC 365.195. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption and Applicability A. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan and Map is hereby adopted, and shall become binding as of the effective date of this Ordinance on all properties within the City of Tukwila. B. The goals, policies and implementation strategies contained within the 1995 Comprehensive Plan are hereby adopted as a basis for the evaluation of development and land use proposals pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.270, State Environmental Policy Act - Policies. Section 2. Tukwila Municipal Code Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.270, State Environmental Policy Act - Policies, is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.270 SEPA - Policies. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the City. (b) The City adopts by reference the policies in the following City codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code - TMC Title 18; COMPLN.DOC 11/29/95 2 (2) Shoreline Master Plan - Ordinance 898; (3) 1995 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as amended; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan - Ordinance 1315; (5) Subdivision Ordinance - TMC 17.04; (6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan - Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan - Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition - Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan - Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan - Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance - Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. Section 3. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 487,831, 844,1039 ,1230,1246,1359,1429,1430,1444, 1466,1470,1479,1484,1486,1516 Sect. land 2,1539 and 1624, are hereby repealed. Section 4. Severability and Constitutionality. Whenever conflicts exist between this Ordinance and federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of this Ordinance as a whole, or any other section, provision, or part thereof not adjudicated to be invalid or unconstitutional and its application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section S. Effective Date. This Ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force 5 days after publication of said notice as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY C ,pUNCIL OF THEY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this 4 ' ) day of ,1995. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Qic.Q� E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: g . • arA O Ice of the City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ///k/ ? .� PASSED BY THE CI Y COUNCIL: /4/¢/p.5 PUBLISHED: /,A Ca/ 9 5 EFFECTIVE DAT : ORDINANCE NO.: / 7 J r- ? COMPLN.DOC 11/29/95 Z `~ W W —I C.) O 0 U) 111 W I • W W O L a: 2 Cf I-- _ Z �. I— O Z I• uj U � O - ; • I— W u1 - U Ii 0 LLi 60. fad 0 W o ; W. Rants, Mayor O I- 3 CITY OF TUKWILA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. / 757 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A 1995 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND MAP FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA; AMENDING CHAPTER 21.04 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE; REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 487, 831, 84 4, 1039, 1230, 1246, 1359, 1429, 1430, 14 44, 1466, 1470, 1479, 1484, 1486, 1516 Sect. 1 and 2, 1539 and 1624; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. On /a /1. f.5", the City Council of the City of Tukwila, after survey, investigation and study, passed r dinance No. / 7.5 , Implementing the requirements and goals of the State Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies in the development of a new Comprehensive Plan; providing for severability and establishing an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed without charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text. APPROVED by the City Council at its meeting of /0/.//75 Published Published Seattle Times: /a /`9y� "- g e E. Cantu, City Clerk %.rf+w+u �x*+i <VSZiiti4:lJyA_ �NrGh4:�si i'?:' i"✓".• V1F , tdi�:�h ' �w " 'iu.�:iw� 4 : 1 ::� 3 i 1+)�1ii:rn�'Y:.Lti�r+LW CITY OF TUKWI WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO 4-2 () .�! I :� ., () f 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA ADOPTING BY J REFERENCE THE "ANNEXATION POLICY AND DATABOO K'. AND DECLARING THE CONTENTS THEREIN TO BE THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA. WHEREAS, the City Council had determined that a void exists as it relates to policy on the subject of annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council feels it prudent to establish policy on the subject of annexation; and • WHEREAS, the responsible official has reviewed an environmental questionnaire on the proposal policies pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act Guidelines and made a negative threshold determination; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Tukwila City Council as follows: Attest: Section 1. The attached document titled "City of Tukwila, Annexation Policy and Databook ", draft No. 5, dated February 27, 1978 as amended, is hereby adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 2. The contents of this "Annexation Policy and Data - book" are declared to be the policy of the City as it relates to annexation. Section 3. The Administration is authorized and encouraged to make the policies on annexation available to those interested and to implement said policies as opportunities arise. Section 4. A copy of this document is to be distributed to each of the major departments in the City. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA this ,3 day of , 1976. Clerk A proved as to form: Deputy City Attorney Mayo Al algal Ua a pprov d COUNCIL AC^'I N se 1 4 1 P I/ f i ._ p • CITY OF TUKWI WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. C190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE "ANNEXATION POLICY AND DATABOOK ". AND DECLARING THE CONTENTS THEREIN TO BE THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA. WHEREAS, the City Council had determined that a void exists as it relates to policy on the subject of annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council feels it prudent to establish policy on the subject of annexation; and WHEREAS, the responsible official has reviewed an environmental questionnaire on the proposal policies pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act Guidelines and made a negative threshold determination; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Tukwila City Council as follows: Attest: Section 1. The attached document titled "City of Tukwila. Annexation Policy and Databook ", draft No. 5, dated February 27, 1978 as amended, is hereby adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 2. The contents of this "Annexation Policy and Data - book" are declared to be the policy of the City as it relates to annexation. Section 3. The Administration is authorized and encouraged to make the policies on annexation available to those interested and to implement said policies as opportunities arise. Section 4. A copy of this document is to be distributed to each of the major departments in the City. of 9 Approved as to form: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA this . 3 "' day Deputy City Attorney , 1973. e71 XI 4 Mayo ./? Da a pp rov>d MU MC TYPE COUNCIL ^; I;O'N 745 Mects !If 'I ll l'IrE /O r' P CITY of TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO 7 r ;_1 '� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, -4'1-(=/) I: 1 ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE "TUKWILA ANNEXATION POLICY HANDBOOK" AND DECLARING THE CONTENTS THEREIN TO BE THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 626,AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 626 adopted annexation policies for the City April 4, 1978, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such policies are in need of revision, and WHEREAS, the City Council feels it is in the City's best interest to adopt new policies that reflect Tukwila's current thoughts regarding annexation, and w WHEREAS, the responsible official has reviewed an environmental Q: = questionnaire on the proposed policies pursuant to the State Environmental Policy -I o Act and made a negative threshold determination. Co o NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS: � w Section 1. The attached document titled "City of Tukwila g Annexation Policy Handbook" dated January 20, 1986is hereby adopted by reference u_< as though fully set forth herein. u� a = W Section 2. The contents of this "Tukwila Annexation Policy Z Handbook" are declared to be the policy of the City as it relates to annexation. F..p z � — Section 3. The Administration is authorized and encouraged = o to make the policies on annexation available to those interested and to implement said policies as opportunities arise. o D- ww I I- U to each of the major departments in the City. o Section 4. A copy of this document is to be distributed Section 4. Resolution No. 626, passed by the City Council of Tukwila, Washington, on April 3, 1978, and the annexation policies referenced therein, is hereby repealed. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this ,; � e`' day of �:�� ;��;c. 198k r r f r -4 Counc `President APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By ATTEST: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: / - O `'. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: / - "' RESOLUTION NO. axind An ers , City Clerk J = H w z U o � I. General Criteria Administration Proposal A. Land annexed to Tukwila should be able to contribute to development of the city. Areas to be annexed should have of interest -- economic, social, cultural -- with Tukwila's and business communities. the orderly a community residential Intent: This policy will ensure that annexations have generally a positive impact on Tukwila's development. N. Annexations should take place within Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use planning area. Intent: This policy will ensure that annexations occur within the logical boundaries for which Tukwila has been planning. C. Tukwila and King County should work together through interlocal agreements to implement regional policy which will support annexation and provide orderly transition of service provision. intent: Tukwila's annexation efforts have a greater chance of success if they are well- coordinated with regional policy and receive support from other jurisdictions. D. Large annexations should include a thorough study /assessment of the area under consideration, a financial impact analysis, and a plan for meeting the area's service needs. Small annexations should include a simpler annexation report. Intent: This policy will ensure that Tukwila has an accurate picture of the annexation area. This will include the potential costs and benefits to the community, and a plan for providing municipal services to the area. This approach is intended to make the annexation process smoother and more predictable. E. Each annexation process should emphasize public information and clear communication among the Tukwila community, city government and the area under consideration. Intent: This policy will encourage communication and sharing of - information to make successful annexation actions easier. '1N3W1100a 3H1 AO mnYfO 3H1013na SI 11 30I10N SIH1 NVH. N 310 SS31 SI 3V1V Jd SIHI NI 1N3Wf100a 3H1 AI :30110N CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION POLICIES 1985 Community Affairs Cttee Proposal 1.0 GENERAL STATEMENTS ON ANNEXATION 1.1 The City of Tukwila strongly encourages annexations within its planning area and contiguous to the City boundaries. CUMMEnTS: For purposes of planned growth and fiscal responsibilities, Tukwila should, for the immediate future, consider annexations within the planning area and adjacent special use districts. 1.2 Tne City of Tukwila will freely make available to persons /areas interested in annexation any information related to its taxes or services. Each annexation process should emphasize public information and clear com- munication among the Tukwila community, City government and the area under consideration. COMMENTS: Upon request, City Council members, the Mayor, and other appropriate persons as designated by the Mayor will be available to attend meetings, provide information and explain the City's annexation policy. 1.3 Tukwila and King County should work together through interlocal agreements to implement coordinated local policy which will provide municipal ser- vices. COMMENTS: Specific annexation proposals have a greater chance of success if they are coordinated with local policy and receive support from other jurisdictions. 1.4 An annexation report shall be presented to the City Council for all annexations. Major annexations should include a thorough study /assessment of the area under consideration, a financial report analysis, and a plan for meeting the area's service needs. CuMMEATS: This policy will ensure that Tukwila has an appropriate assessment of the annexation area. This will include the potential costs and benefits to the community, consideration of any existing Capital improvement Plans and, when necessary, a plan for providing municipal services to the area. This approach is intended to make the annexation process smoother and more predictable. Comparison of Proposals p.1 I. General Criteria; 1.0 General Statements on Annexation The C.A.C. version specifically welcomes annexations by saying that Tukwila "strongly encourages" annexations within its planning area and contiguous morerestrained regarding annexation ( lstipulating Administration land annexed to Tukwila should be able "to contribute to the orderly development of the City." (I.A). In other respects, the Administration and C.A.C. Versions are esser' fly the same on these issues. Administration Proposal Method and Annexation Size A. Tne size of the annexation area and the number of property owners involved should determine the method of annexation (i.e. petition or election). Intent: It is generally easier to use the petition method when few property - owners are involved, while the election method is more appropriate when there are many property owners in an annexation area. Either m ethod may result in a successful annexation. 8. Tukwila will consider annexations by any legal method. The City generally encourages the petition method for areas with less than 100 registered voters. Intent: It is generally easier to use the peitition method when rela- tively few property- owners are involved, while the election method is more appropriate when there are many property owners in an annexation area. C. Tukwila will consider annexations of any size but prefers to consider those of a sufficiently large size to maximize efficient processing and provision of municipal services. Intent: Annexations of all sizes will help Tukwila grow and reach its planning area boundaries. Larger annexations are generally a more efficient means to bring territory into Tukwila's juris- diction. I. Finance A. Tukwila officials should specify in the annexation study report the method of financing the capital improvements which are needed to pro- vide services to the annexed area Intent: This method will ensure that the financial impacts of an annexation's capital improvements have been considered and that a method of financing capital improvements has been determined before annexation. 8. Assuming Tukwila's bonded indebtedness shall be considered on a case by case basis. Intent: The general purpose facilities developed for any bond issue provide services for all Tukwila and any area joining Tukwila through annexation. Different tax rates which foster dif- ferent service expectations among citizen groups should be avoided. C. Tukwila will pay the basic costs of the annexation process including administration, environmental threshold determination, and filing fees. If a complex annexation requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Tukwila will consider assuming the costs on a case -by -case basis. Intent: Tukwila hopes to encourage annexations by taking on the routine costs of annexation. EIS work may be very costly and Tukwila will consider each case individually. '1N3Wf1a0a 3H130 A.LflVflO 3H1013na SI 11 30110N SIH1 NVH12IV310 SS31 SI 31AIt 13 SIH. NI 1N31A1f1000 3H1 AI :33110N CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION POLICIES 1985 Community Affairs Cttee Proposal 2.0 METHOD OF ANNEXATION The most appropriate means to accomplish annexations may be either an election or a petition, depending upon the size of the area and the number of property owners involved. COMMENTS: With few property owners involved, the petition method is generally easier. With many property owners involved, the election method may be the easier. 3.0 SLUE of ANNEXATION AREAS 3.1 The City allows and encourages annexation regardless of the size of the area. COMMENTS: The City has an open arms policy toward annexation. 3.2 Tukwila encourages annexations of a sufficiently large size for efficient processing and provision of municipal services. COMMENTS: Annexations of all sizes will help Tukwila grow and reach its planning area boundaries. Larger annexations are generally a more efficient means to bring territory into Tukwila's jurisdiction. II. 4.0 ANNEXATION COSTS III. 4.1 Tukwila will pay the basic costs of the annexation process including admi- nistration, environmental threshold determination, and filing fees. If an annexation requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Tukwila will consider assuming the costs on a case -by -case basis. COMMENTS: Tukwila hopes to encourage annexations by taking on the routine costs of annexation. EIS work can be very costly and Tukwila will consider each case individually. 4.2 Assuming Tukwila's bonded indebtedness shall be considered on a case -by- case basis. COMMENTS: The general purpose facilities developed for any bond issue provide services for all Tukwila and any area joining Tukwila through annexation. Different tax rates which foster different service expectations among citizen groups should be avoided. ** NOTE ** The Committee recommends that indebtedness be refinanced as general obligation thereby eliminating the bonded indebtedness issue from annexation consideration. Comparison of Proposals Method and Size; 2.0 Method of Annexation and 3.0 Size of Annexation.;_ Areas The Administration version recommends the petition method for small (less:; than 100 voters) annexations (II.8). The C.A.C. version is somewhat morel enthusiastic toward annexations by specifically stating that the City.: "allows and encourages annexation regardless of the size of the area. "' (3.1). The Administration version says that Tukwila will "consider annexation by any legal method." (II.C). Finance and 4.0 Annexation Costs The Administration version calls for the method of financing capital improvements to service the annexation area to be specified in th annexation study (III.A). The Administration version and the. C. version both recommend that bonded indebtedness be considered on- by-case basis (1II.8, 4.2). The C.A.C. version further recommends that bonded indebtedness be re � financed as general obligation in order to eliminate the bonded idebted- ness issue from annexation consideration (4.2 * *NOTE * *). f Both. versions also recommend that the Ctty of Tukwila pay routine annexa t - ion and consider paying EIS work on a case -by -case basis (III.C, p.2 V. Services C. 1. 2. 3. Intent: Administration Proposal A. The City should maintain service levels for Tukwila's existing citizens when new areas are considered for annexation. Intent: This policy will ensure that the present service levels to residents and businesses will not be diminished due to annexation. B. The City should provide for facilities and services for newly annexed areas according to the following guidelines: First, to maintain existing facilities and services; Second, to upgrade existing facilities and services to Tukwila standards; Third, to provide new facilities and services to support planned growth. Intent: This policy will provide a consistent basis for identifying needs and setting priorities to furnish facilities and ser- vices in newly annexed areas. 'Tukwila should determine whether or not to assume sewer or water districts in annexation areas on a subject to the requirements of RCW 35.13A. management of fire, case -by -case basis, Tukwila's planning areas include portions of several special purpose districts providing water, sewer, and fire services. In light of the individual factors pertaining to the opera- tion of each, the decision to assume administration should be made on a case -by -case basis. O. When a special purpose district becomes part of Tukwila through annexa- tion, management of any other special purpose districts in the vicinity should be contacted to determine if they desire to be annexed to Tukwila. Intent: This will enable one annexation to "piggy -back" on another to increase efficiency and encourage large annexations. It will also take into account individual situations. '1N3Wf1O00 3141 AO AinvnO 3H101 Sfla Si ll 3011ON SIH1 NVHl N 31O S931 SI 3lAINAIA SIHI NI 1N3WflOOa 3H1 Al :30110N CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION POLICIES 1985 Community Affairs Cttee Proposal 5.0 BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY The boundaries of the City are a result of petitioners' actions and what- ever form they take is of little significance. Cu'V€NTS: The City will need to develop its plans on how to best service an area regardless of the City's boundaries. 6.0 SERVICE 6.1 The City should maintain service levels for Tukwila's existing citizens when new areas are considered for annexation. COMMENTS: This policy will ensure that the present service levels to residents and businesses will not be diminished because of annexation. 6.2 The City should provide for facilities and services for newly annexed areas according to the following guidelines: 1. First, to maintain existing facilities and services; 2. Second, to upgrade existing facilities and services to Tukwila stan- dards; 3. Third, to provide new facilities and services to support planned growth. COMMENTS: This policy will provide a consistent basis for identifying needs and setting priorities to furnish facilities and services in a newly annexed area. 6.3 Tukwila should determine whether or not to assume management of fire, sewer, or water districts in annexation areas on a case -by -case basis sub - ject to the requirements of RCW 35.13A. COMMENTS: Tukwila's planning areas include portions of several special purpose districts providing water, sewer, and fire services. In light of the individual factors pertaining to the operation of each, the decision to assume administration should be made on a case -by -case basis. City Council members, the Mayor, and other appropriate persons as designated by the Mayor should contact the affected special purpose districts. . Comparison of Proposals 5.0 Boundaries The C.A.C. version states that, "the shape of Tukwila's boundaries are of little tangible importance." (5.0). This appears to run counter to the objectives of the Boundary Review Board to RCM 36.93.180 (4) i (7) which call for "prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries" and 'adjustmen of impractical boundaries" respectively. The Administration version. makes no mention of boundary shapes. IV. Services; 6.0 Service The Administration version recommends that when a special purpose district becomes part of Tukwila through annexation, management of other nearby special districts should be contacted to determine if they desire annexation to Tukwila (IV.0). The C.A.C. version does not mention this concern. The Administration version of and C.A.C. version are the same on other service related issues. p.3 Administration Proposal '1N3Wflaoa 3H130 A.UldfO 3H1013la Sl ii 20110N SIHI NVH1 NV310 SS31 SI 31INIV213 SIHI NI 1N3Wflaoa 3Hl AI :30I1ON 1985 Community Affairs Cttee Proposal CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION POLICIES 7.0 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS (EMPLOYEES) The City will retain the employees of special purpose districts when it assumes the ownership and administration of.the district. COMMENTS: There is presently state law requiring this. The State RCW reads as follows: 35.13.A.090 - Employment rights of district employees. Whenever a city acquires all of the facilities of a water district or sewer district, pursuant to this chapter, such a City shall offer to employ every full time employee of the district who is engaged in the operation of such a district's facilities on the date on which such city acquires the district facilities. When a city acquires any portion of the facilities of such a district, such a city shall offer to employ full time employees of the district as of the date of the acquisition of the facilities of the district who are no longer needed by the district. Whenever a city employs a person who has employed immediately prior thereto by the district, arrangements shall be made: (1) For the retention of service credits under the pension plan of the district pursuant to RCW 41.04.070 through 41.04.110; (2) For the retention of all sick leave standing to the employee's credit in the plan of such district; (3) For a vacation with pay during the first year of employment equivalent to that to which he would have been entitled if he had remained in the employment of the district. (1971 1st ex.s. c 95 § 9.) Comparison of Proposals 7.0 Special Purpose Districts (Employees) The C.A.C. version specifically states that the City will retain the employees of a special purpose district per RCW 35A.13.090 when it assumes ownership and administration of the district (7.0). This is a current city of Tukwila policy, as required by the RCW. The Administration version makes no specific reference to this since it is a statewide requirement. • p.4 Administration Proposal Land Use /Planning /Building A. Tukwila should consider the appropriate zoning district designations for proposed annexation areas at the same time that it evaluates the merits of an annexation request. 1. On properties that are substantially developed, Tukwila zoning designations should be applied that would most nearly reflect the existing pattern and intensity of development within the annexa- tion area. 2. un properties that are largely undeveloped, Tukwila zoning should be applied that would most nearly reflect the designation of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the planning area in the unincorporated county area. In the event that the Comprehensive Plan does not provide guidance within the county area, Tukwila should begin a zoning study at the time of the annexation pro- ceedings and designate a permanent zoning classification based on the results of the study. Intent: This policy provides guidance to review and adopt the zoning designations for annexation areas. It encourages zoning which both reflects actual land use and is consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. B. Tukwila should consider requiring simultaneous zoning for annexations on a case -by -case basis. Intent: Simultaneously adopting the zoning designation for the annexation area and the annexation itself will provide pre- dictability for the City of Tukwila, property - owners and residents involved in an annexation action. Evaluating each case individually will provide the greatest degree of flexi- bility for Tukwila. C. The land use which is proposed for an area to be annexed should be con- sistent with Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan and other land use requirements. This policy will ensure that zoning for areas under con- sideration for annextion shall be determined both according to Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and in consideration of existing uses in the area. 0. in newly- annexed areas buildings and facilities which do not comply with Tukwila's zoning and code requirements shall be considered non- conforming uses. Intent: Designating non - conforming uses will ensure that newly - annexed and existing uses are treated equally. Intent: '1N3Wfl3Oa 31-11 AO AinvnO 3H1 01 3n SI II 30I1ON SIHJ NVH121` 13 SS31 SI 3WH213 SIHI NI 1N3W1nOOa 3H1 AI :30I1ON CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ANNEXATION POLICIES 1985 Community Affairs Cttee Proposal 8.0 PLANNING AND ZONING 8.1 The land use proposed for an area to be annexed should be consistent with Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and other land use require- ments. COMMENTS: This policy will ensure that zoning for annexation areas shall be determined both according to Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and in consideration of existing uses in the area. 8.2 Tukwila should consider simultaneous zoning for annexations on a case -by- case basis. COMMENTS: Simultaneously adopting the zoning designation for the annexa- tion area and the annexation itself will provide predictability for the City of Tukwila, property owners, and residents involved in an annexation action. 8.3 In newly annexed areas, buildings and facilities which do not comply with Tukwila's zoning and other code requirements shall be considered non- conforming uses. COMMENTS: Designating non - conforming uses in newly annexed areas will ensure that they are treated the same as existing non- conforming uses in Tukwila. Comparison of Proposals V. Land Use /Planning /Building and 8.0 Planning and Zoning The Administration version recommends guidelines for zoning annexed areas as follows: (1) Zoning for substantially developed land should reflect the existing pattern and intensity of development; (2) Zoning for largely undeveloped land should reflect Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan designation. If Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan provides no guidance for the area, a zoning study should be carried out (V.A). The C.A.C. version does not address this point. The Administration version and the C.A.C. version are identical on other planning- related policies. p.5 CITY of TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO Y7 0042.010.001 JEH /ko 02/26/86 03/03/86 2r -__ )tiv.E:.1) _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING ANNEXATION POLICIES FOR THE CITY III AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 990. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 990 of the City adopts by reference certain policies to serve as guidelines for the City in future annexations, and WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of Resolution No. 990, the City's SEPA Responsible Official had not yet completed his review of the proposed policies and the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the same referred to in Resolution No. 990 was not issued until January 28, 1986, eight (8) days after the adoption of Resolution No. 990, and WHEREAS, said DNS is now final so that the Council may take final action on adopting the annexation policies, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Annexation Policies Adopted. The attached document entitled "City of Tukwila Annexation Policies" dated January 20, 1986 is hereby adopted by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Policy Declared. The contents of the "City of Tukwila Annexation Policies" adopted pursuant to Section 1 are declared to be the policy of the City as it relates to annexation. Section 3. Implementation. The Administration of the City shall make the policies on annexation available to those interested and implement said policies as opportunities arise. Section 4. Distribution. A copy of the annexation policies adopted by this resolution is to be distributed to each of the major departments of the City. z w 6 00 U) J H U) u_ wO H O N w w O W Z O z Section 5. Repealer. Resolution No. 990, passed by the City Council of the City of Tukwila on January 20, 1986, and the annexation policies referenced therein, are hereby repealed. PASSED BY THE ( CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, this .3 day of a'd- C.drif , 1986. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: 7 IT CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: 2 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ,4-3. F1Z RESOLUTION NO. 99 OUNCIL PRESIDENT YasrG:+t:,rVEXridb Z Z �U 00 . 0! W O: QQ LL Q 0 = d mo w . z �. I z i-: w O 0. .O D O I-- W • w. 1-- " O .. Z: W 0 = O • z CITY OF TUKWILA ANNEXATION POLICIES Adopted by Resolution #992, passed 03/03/86 1.0 GENERAL STATEMENTS ON ANNEXATION 1.1 The City of Tukwila strongly encourages annexations within its planning area and contiguous to the City boundaries. COMMENTS: For purposes of planned growth and fiscal responsibilities, Tukwila should, for the immediate future, consider annexations within the planning area and adjacent special use districts. 1.2 The City of Tukwila will freely make available to persons /areas interested in annexation any information related to its taxes or services. Each annexation process should emphasize public information and clear com- munication among the Tukwila community, City government and the area under consideration. COMMENTS: Upon request, City Council members, the Mayor, and other appropriate persons as designated by the Mayor will be available to attend meetings, provide information and explain the City's annexation policy. 1.3 Tukwila and King County should work together through interlocal agreements to implement coordinated local policy which will provide municipal ser- vices. COMMENTS: Specific annexation proposals have a greater chance of success if they are coordinated with local policy and receive support from other jurisdictions. 1.4 An annexation report shall be presented to the City Council for all annexations. Major annexations should include a thorough study /assessment of the area under consideration, a financial report analysis, and a plan for meeting the area's service needs. CuMMENTS: This policy will ensure that Tukwila has an appropriate assessment of the annexation area. This will include the potential costs and benefits to the community, consideration of any existing Capital Improvement Plans and, when necessary, a plan for providing municipal services to the area. This approach is intended to make the annexation process smoother and more predictable. 2.0 METHOD OF ANNEXATION The most appropriate means to accomplish annexations may be either an election or a petition, depending upon the size of the area and the number of property owners involved. COMMENTS: With few property owners involved, the petition method is generally easier. With many property owners involved, the election method may be the easier. CITY OF TUKWILA ANNEXATION POLICIES Page 2 3.0 SIZE OF ANNEXATION AREAS 3.1 The City allows and encourages annexation regardless of the size of the area. COMMENTS: The City has an open arms policy toward annexation. 3.2 Tukwila encourages annexations of a sufficiently large size for efficient processing and provision of municipal services. COMMENTS: Annexations of all sizes will help Tukwila grow and reach its planning area boundaries. Larger annexations are generally .a more efficient means to bring territory into Tukwila's jurisdiction. 4.Q ANNEXATION COSTS 4.1 Tukwila will pay the basic costs of the annexation process including admi- nistration, environmental threshold determination, and filing fees. If an annexation requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Tukwila will consider assuming the costs on a case -by -case basis. COMMENTS: Tukwila hopes to encourage annexations by taking on the routine costs of annexation. EIS work can be very costly and Tukwila will consider each case individually. • 4.2 Assuming Tukwila's bonded indebtedness shall be considered on a case-by- case basis. COMMENTS: The general purpose facilities developed for any bond issue provide services for all Tukwila and any area joining Tukwila through annexation. Different tax rates which foster different service expectations among citizen groups should be avoided. ** NOTE ** The Committee recommends that indebtedness be refinanced as general obligation thereby eliminating the bonded indebtedness issue from annexation consideration. 5.0 BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY The boundaries of the City are a result of petitioners' actions and what- ever form they take is of little significance. COMMENTS: The City will need to develop its plans on how to best service an area regardless of the City's boundaries. CITY OF TUKWILA ANNEXATION POLICIES Page 3 6.0 SERVICE 6.1 The City should maintain service levels for Tukwila's existing citizens when new areas are considered for annexation. COMMENTS: This policy will ensure that the present service levels to residents and businesses will not be diminished because of annexation. 6.2 The City should provide for facilities and services for newly annexed areas according to the following guidelines: 1. First, to maintain existing facilities and services; 2. Second, to upgrade existing facilities and services to Tukwila stan- dards; 3. Third, to provide new facilities and services to support planned growth. COMMENTS: This policy will provide a consistent basis for identifying needs and setting priorities to furnish facilities and services in a newly annexed area. 6.3 Tukwila should determine whether or not to assume management of fire, sewer, or water districts in annexation areas on a case -by -case basis sub- ject to the requirements of RCW 35.13A. COMMENTS: Tukwila's planning areas include portions of several special purpose districts providing water, sewer, and fire services. In light of the individual factors pertaining to the operation of each, the decision to assume administration should be made on a case -by -case basis. City Council members, the Mayor, and other appropriate persons as designated by the Mayor should contact the affected special purpose districts. 7.0 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS (EMPLOYEES) The City will retain the employees of special purpose districts when it assumes the ownership and administration of the district. COMMENTS: There is presently state law requiring this. The State RCW reads as follows: 35.13.A.090 - Employment rights of district employees. Whenever a city acquires all of the facilities of a water district or sewer district, pursuant to this chapter, such a City shall offer to employ every full time employee of the district who is engaged in the operation of such a district's facilities on the date on which such city acquires the district facilities. When a city acquires any portion of the facilities of such a district, such a city shall offer to employ full time employees of the district as of the date of the acquisition of _ t.' ^Mr+!'!Pk"nntntr .NSt@j �yr.?van CITY OF TUKWILA ANNEXATION POLICIES Page 4 CAC.1 -.4 7.0 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS (EMPLOYEES) - Continued the facilities of the district who are no longer needed by the district. Whenever a city employs a person who has employed immediately prior thereto by the district, arrangements shall be made: (1) For the retention of service credits under the pension plan of the district pursuant to RCW 41.04.070 through 41.04.110; (2) For the retention of all sick leave standing to the employee's credit in the plan of such district; (3) For a vacation with pay during the first year of employment equivalent to that to which he would have been entitled if he had remained in the employment of the district. (1971 1st ex.s. c 95 § 9.) 8.0 PLANNING AND ZONING 8.1 The land use proposed for an area to be annexed should be consistent with Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and other land use require- ments. COMMENTS: This policy will ensure that zoning for annexation areas shall be determined both according to Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and in consideration of existing uses in the area. 8.2 Tukwila should consider simultaneous zoning for annexations on a case -by- case basis. COMMENTS: Simultaneously adopting the zoning designation for the annexa- tion area and the annexation itself will provide predictability for the City of Tukwila, property owners, and residents involved in an annexation action. 8.3 In newly annexed areas, buildings and facilities which do not comply with Tukwila's zoning and other code requirements shall be considered non- conforming uses. COMMENTS: Designating non - conforming uses in newly annexed areas will ensure that they are treated the same as existing non - conforming uses in Tukwila. CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. // S 6' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING ANNEXATION POLICIES FOR THE CITY AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 992. WHEREAS, recent annexations to Tukwila included all the areas within the City's adopted Comprehensive Planning Area including the entire South Central School District and Fire District #1, and WHEREAS, the annexations served the desires of the City to increase population and welcome logical extensions of adjacent areas into the City, and WHEREAS, prudence dictates that the City adjust to serving the larger Tukwila before further annexations take place, and WHEREAS, financial and service area impacts of serving more areas should be considered carefully before more annexations occur, now, therefore, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TUKWILA , WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Annexation Policies Declared The policies set forth in this resolution shall be the stated annexation policies of the City. 1.0 GENERAL STATEMENTS ON ANNEXATION 1.1 The City of Tukwila will consider requests of communities or property owners within Tukwila's urban growth area to annex into the City. Each annexation will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to assess the feasibility of providing services to the community, the fiscal impacts to the City if the annexation occurred, and the benefits received by the City. COMMENTS: For purposes of planned growth and fiscal responsibilities, Tukwila should carefully consider annexations within the urban growth area and adjacent special use districts. 1.2 The City of Tukwila will freely make available to persons/ areas interested in annexation any information related to its taxes or services. Each annexation process should emphasize public information and clear communication among the Tukwila community, City government and the area under consideration. COMMENTS: Upon request, City Council members, the Mayor, and other appropriate persons as designated by the Mayor will be available to attend meetings, pro vide information and explain the City's annexation policy. 1.3 Tukwila and King County should work together through interlocal agreements to implement coordinated local policy which will provide municipal services. COMMENTS: Specific annexation proposals should coordinate with local policy and receive support from other jurisdictions. 1.4 An annexation report shall be presented to the City Council for all annexations. Major annexations should include a thorough study /assessment of the area under consideration, a financial report analysis, and a plan for meeting the area's service needs. COMMENTS: This policy will ensure that Tukwila has an appropriate assessment of the annexation area. This will include the potential costs and benefits to the community, consideration of any existing Capital Improvement Plans and, when necessary, a plan for providing municipal services to the area. This approach is intended to make the annexation process smoother and more predictable. 2.0 METHOD OF ANNEXATION The most appropriate means to accomplish annexations may be either an election or a petition, depending upon the size of the area and the number of property owners involved. 3.0 SIZE OF ANNEXATION AREAS 3.1 The City will consider requests for annexations regardless of the size of the area. COMMENTS: The City will balance the needs of the City and the desires of the annexation area for their mutual benefit in deciding to allow annexations. 3.2 Tukwila prefers annexations of a sufficiently large size for efficient processing and for a logical extension of municipal services. 4.0 ANNEXATION COSTS 4.1 Tukwila will consider paying the basic costs of the annexation process including administration, environmental threshold determination, and filing fees. If an annexation requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Tukwila will consider assuming the costs on a case -by -case basis. 4.2 Assuming Tukwila's bonded indebtedness shall be considered on a case -by -case basis. COMMENTS: The general purpose facilities developed for any bond issue provide services for all Tukwila and any area joining Tukwila through annexation. Different tax rates which foster different service expectation among citizen groups should be avoided. 5.0 BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY 5.1 The boundaries of an annexation are a result of petitioners' actions, although they should be within the City's Urban Growth Area. COMMENTS: The City will need to develop its plans on how to best service an area as a result of a potential annexation. 5.2 The City's urban growth area shall be considered the boundary of the City's annexation areas. 6.0 SERVICE 6.1 The City will strive to maintain service levels for Tukwila's existing citizens when new areas are considered for annexation. 6.2 The City should provide for facilities and services for newly annexed areas according to the following guidelines: 1. First, to maintain existing facilities and services; 2. Second, to upgrade existing facilities and services to Tukwila standards; 3. Third, to provide new facilities and services to support planned growth. COMMENTS: This policy will provide a consistent basis for identifying needs and setting priorities to furnish facilities and services in a newly annexed area. 6.3 Tukwila should determine whether or not to assume management of fire, sewer, or water districts in annexation areas on a case -by -case basis subject to the requirements of RCW 35.13A. COMMENTS: Tukwila's urban growth areas will include portions of several special purpose districts providing water, sewer, and fire services. In light of the individual factors pertaining to the operation of each, the decision to assume administration should be made on a case -by -case basis. City Council members, the Mayor, and other appropriate persons as designated by the Mayor should contact the affected special purpose districts. 7.0 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS (EMPLOYEES) The City will retain the employees of special purpose districts when it assumes the ownership and administration of the district. COMMENTS: There is presently state law requiring this. The State RCW reads as follows: 35.13.A.090 Employment rights of district employees. Whenever a city acquires all of the facilities of a water district or sewer district, pursuant to this chapter, such a City shall offer to employ every full time employee of the district who is engaged in the operation of such a district's facilities on the date on which such city acquires the district facilities. When a city acquires any portion of the facilities of such a distract, such a city shall offer to employ full time employees of the district as of the date of the acquisition of the facilities of the district who are no longer needed by the district. Whenever a city employs a person who was employed immediately prior thereto by the district, arrangements shall be made: (1) For the retention of service credits under the pension plan of the district pursuant to RCW 41.04.110; (2) For the retention of all sick leave standing to the employee's credit in the plan of such district; (3) For a vacation with pay during the first year of employment equivalent to that to which he would have been entitled if he had remained in the employment of the district.(1971 1st ex.s. c95 5 s 9.) 8.0 PLANNING AND ZONING 8.1 The land use proposed for an area to be annexed should be consistent with Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies, adjacent uses and other land use requirements. COMMENTS: This policy will ensure that zoning for annexation areas shall be determined both according to Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and in consideration of existing uses in the area. 8.2 Tukwila should consider simultaneous zoning for annexations on a case -by -case basis. COMMENTS: Simultaneously adopting the zoning designation for the annexation area and the annexation itself will provide predictability for the City of Tukwila, property owners, and residents involved in an annexation action. 8.3 In newly annexed areas, buildings and facilities which do not comply with Tukwila's zoning and other code requirements shall be considered non - conforming uses in Tukwila. COMMENTS: Designating non - conforming uses in newly annexed areas will ensure that they are treated the same as existing non - conforming uses in Tukwila. Section 2. A copy of these annexation policies shall be distributed freely to any persons or organizations interested in annexation to Tukwila. Section 3. Repealer Resolution 992, passed by the City Council of Tukwila, Washington on March 3, 1986, and the annexation policies referenced therein, are hereby repealed. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this /7 1990. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: hi&iAFORNEY: Filed with the City Clerk: 9_ /. 90 Passed by the City Council: 9- 7_ q a Resolution Number // ' "-' 9+ 5w.t^ vn W.rr.n:sr.... rITI”;wr.. ^a r y^: c:±trt ,+t >;;rz , ».ry are+?, ,. CITY W TUKWILA, day of , ernandez, ouncil Presid , ..V%r!Iq tt!grz xvl,,w,, MT,eIVlfs i : ,`✓ , t '!1A4tln?i' g.T M WT!'Mlt,?V,sw_ ?mtg n^mtn, Washington State Department of Social & Health Services Orillia Road Question & Answer RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED IN THE January 22, 2003 Public Meeting March 2003 PROPOSED SCTF SITE -- ORILLIA ROAD RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED IN THE JANUARY 22, 2003 PUBLIC MEETING z ;= z re w This document addresses questions and issues raised in the January 22, 2003 6 D public meeting about the proposed secure community transition facility (SCTF) N C] site near Orillia Road in unincorporated King County. w z J f- It does not, however, discuss the underlying laws and policies that determine w o how our society deals with sex offenders. For a more general discussion of 2 these laws and policies, please see the document entitled "What You Need to g Know About Community Protection, Sex Offenders, and the Law," which is n posted on the DSHS website at www.wa.gov /dshs /aeninfo /sccoverview.html w z= It is important to remember that SCTFs are transitional facilities meant to provide z o a highly structured, closely supervised setting for sex offenders who have been Lu civilly committed following completion of their prison sentences. These a 0 co individuals have participated successfully in intensive mental health treatment 0 and have been conditionally released by their court of commitment to the SCTF. w While living in an SCTF, these offenders will continue to participate in treatment, find jobs and /or attend classes, and begin the process of re- integration into the u- community. At the same time, they will be subject to intensive, 24 -hour w z monitoring by highly trained staff, and a very high level of security. This includes co the use of electronic monitoring devices and other state -of- the -art monitoring z equipment. Thus, selecting sites for SCTFs requires finding a balance between the need for security and community safety, and the court's imperative that these offenders be given the opportunity to re- integrate into the community. In siting SCTFs, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is implementing policies made by the Washington State Legislature and decisions made by the Federal District Court. In the final decision on selecting a site, the departmeht will take into account all of the issues and concerns raised by the public as well as the statutory requirements for siting a facility. The following responses are grouped into topic areas that reflect the concerns and questions raised by citizens who participated in the first public meeting for the Orillia Road potential SCTF site held on January 22, 2003. Orillia Road Q & A March 2003 Page 1 of 5 Availability of Timely Emergency Services According to data DSHS received from the King County Sheriff's Office, the average emergency response time for "immediate dispatch" calls to the Orillia Road area is 9.6 minutes. This is within the department's 15- Z minute threshold for emergency law enforcement response. DSHS staff will work with the King County Sheriff's Office and other local law cc w enforcement and emergency service agencies in surrounding communities such as the Cities of Seattle, Kent, Federal Way, Auburn, SeaTac, and _1 o Tukwila to coordinate response protocols. u) W WI The SCTF staff will be highly trained in emergency response, de- cn u.. escalation of behavior, fire suppression, first aid, and CPR and other emergency procedures. This training will include specific familiarity with the offense histories, behaviors and offense patterns of each resident. As � a further measure of protection, the facility will be built to meet all current = d life safety codes. z � II. Measures to Prevent Escape w o 2 SCTF residents are monitored 24 hours a day. They also wear electronic monitoring devices 24 hours a day unless otherwise ordered by the court. o wW SCTF staff members receive intensive training in emergency response and resident management. They will be fully informed about each " o resident's history, patterns of offense, behavior, and progress in treatment. o Residents are not allowed to leave the premises without highly trained z staff escorts who must remain in close proximity to the residents for the duration of each outing. Trips outside the facility are planned in advance, and local law enforcement agencies are notified and provided with information about the destination, route, resident, and the vehicle that will be used for the trip. Staff carry communications devices such as police radio phones and cell phones and personal panic devices. The facility, which will be enclosed by a chain link fence, is wired with state of the art alarm systems that notify staff of security breaches, and cameras that monitor the interior, exterior, and grounds of the facility constantly. Ill. Recreational Trail The "bike trail" described on either side of 200 Street is actually a bike lane on the street, not a publicly dedicated trail. Orillia Road Q & A March 2003 Page 2 of 5 The public trails on either side of the Green River were identified by DSHS prior to selecting this site for consideration. They are approximately one - half mile from the proposed site, and are beyond the distance at which it is possible to recognize someone. IV. School Bus Stop The law governing siting of SCTFs prohibits these facilities from being located near a school bus stop in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. The bus stop located near the Orillia Road site had been deactivated and was not in use during the time DSHS explored this site nor at the time this site was listed. DSHS investigated this matter and concluded that the Orillia Road site does not violate the statutory siting requirements: As part of the investigation, DSHS contacted Dr. David Moberly, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services of the Kent School District. Superintendent Moberly acknowledged in a letter to the department that the bus stop at Orillia Road and SE 200 Street was reactivated on January 16, 2003. The information he provided also indicates that the bus stop had not been in use the previous two school years. On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, DSHS announced that the Orillia Road property was under consideration as an SCTF site. This was one month before the Kent School District reactivated the school bus stop. If the Orillia Road SCTF site were to be selected as the final site, DSHS will work with the Kent School District on the location of the school bus stop. V. Child Care Facilities Washington law (RCW 71.09.285(2)) states: 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. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. DSHS staff have carefully tested the distance at which it is no longer possible to "reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals," and determined that distance to be 600 feet. As part of the investigation of Orillia Road property, DSHS staff visited the site of a licensed daycare Orillia Road Q & A Page 3 of 5 March 2003 home that is located approximately one -half mile from the proposed SCTF site. When looking from the daycare center to the Orillia Road property or vice versa, only the rooftop of the day care center and the house on Orillia Road are visible. From either direction, it is not possible to "visually distinguish or recognize" people as the law states in the definition of "within line of sight." � w re 2 VI. Planning and Zoning Issues 0 The proposed Orillia Road site is located in unincorporated King County. CO King County adopted an ordinance in October 2002, "to preclude the siting J of a Secure Community Transition Facility in unincorporated King County." w Since the King County ordinance did not meet the state law requirements, 2 RCW 71.09.342 (the state law on preemption) went into effect. In short, this law says that if local governments do not create zoning laws to allow for the siting of SCTFs consistent with state law requirements, the state = w law preempts local government authority and all other laws to enable z � . DSHS to site the necessary facilities. z o U.1 'Li The Orillia Road site is within King County's urban growth area and in the o future may be annexed by Tukwila. However, the department is required .o to make siting decisions based on current conditions rather than on speculation about the future. 0 VII. Sewer Connection to the Property . z U= At this time, a municipal sewer district does not serve the Orillia Road o SCTF site. As an alternative to a sewer connection, domestic sewage will be discharged to a designed septic system on site. VIII. Equitable Distribution of SCTFs Several comments at the January public meeting cited the existence of the King County Regional Justice Center and the federal Immigration and Naturalization Services detention facility as contributing to an inequitable burden on this community. RCW 71.09.250(8 -9) specifies that equitable distribution of SCTF facilities means avoiding concentration of "similar facilities" — defined as "residential facility beds operated by the Department of Corrections or the Mental Health Division of the Department of Social and Health Services." The law also references "the number of registered sex offenders classified as level 2 or level 3 and the number of sex offenders registered as homeless" in the affected jurisdiction. Orillia Road Q & A March 2003 Page 4 of 5 The law on equitable distribution directs the county and the cities in the county to work together and give these factors great weight in their planning processes for siting SCTFs. However, the King County jurisdictions did not coordinate their planning efforts on this matter. In the absence of any coordinated planning by the King County jurisdictions, however, DSHS will review and consider data on these facilities and the number of registered sex offenders as well as other factors when making the final site selection. IX. Property Values The department recognizes residents' concerns about the potential impact of an SCTF on local property values. However, there is currently no provision in the law for compensation of private property owners if there are such impacts. OriIlia Road Q & A March 2003 Page 5 of 5 February 27, 2003 Dr. Tim Brown, Assistant Secretary, DSHS Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 45322 z Olympia WA 98405 ~ w J 0 . RE: Proposed Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF) location at 200th 0 o Street /Orillia Road w w _1 Dear Dr. Brown: w o . 2 The City of SeaTac strongly opposes the proposed siting of a SCTF at the So. 200 St. /Orillia Q d Road location, immediately adjacent to our City. Not only is that site too small to feasibly N accommodate the State's need for Level III housing in King County, but the site selection I W process itself is flawed. The following list details the City's reasons for its opposition: z I zI W U • DSHS is required to ensure equitable distribution of correctional facilities and those o operated by DSHS' Mental Health Division. Such facilities are already concentrated in south w w King County to a greater degree than elsewhere in King County. Examples (not exhaustive): 1 • Federal Detention Center, SeaTac w z • Regional Justice Center, Kent o co • Benson Heights Rehabilitation Center, Kent z FAIRNESS • Chartley House, Auburn • Numerous group homes and treatment centers for substance abusers. PROXIMITY TO SENSITIVE SITES • The proposed site is within close proximity to facilities listed by DSHS as "risk potential sites." • It is less than one mile from Chinook Middle School, Tyee High School, and Valley Ridge Park (a popular park with many active facilities: skateboard park, basketball courts, tennis courts, ball and play fields, and play equipment for younger children). • It is barely one mile from Bow Lake Elementary School and Seattle Christian School in SeaTac. — Both Bow Lake Elementary School and Chinook Middle School serve hearing- impaired children through a special program. This population is by nature more vulnerable than the general population. • It is less than 1% miles from Valley View Elementary School and a King County Library. 4800 South 188th Street • SeaTac, WA 98188 -8605 City Hall: 206.973.4800 • Fax: 206.973.4809 • TDD: 206.973.4808 • www.ci.seatac.wa.us Dr. Tim Brown, DSHS February 27, 2003 Page 2 • It is less than 3 /a mile from Madrona Elementary School • It is less than Y2 mile from three bus stops z • It is less than Y2 mile from two Day Cares, barely Y2 mile from another, and within 0.7 = Z miles of three more day cares. EG 2 • The proposed site on Orillia Road is less than 1/2 mile from a large single- family 0 0 neighborhood in SeaTac. co W J = F-- • The proposed site is less than 3 /a miles from a large apartment complex in SeaTac. 0 w 2 PROXIMITY TO SCHOOL BUS STOP g J u. • We recently received word that the Kent School District has a school bus stop located within H W 300 feet. While this bus stop has been dormant in recent years, it is our understanding that z � . the existence of this bus stop is one of the "risk activities" that must be more than 600 feet z 0 away from a SCTF. ILI j ARBITRARY STANDARD OF 600 FEET 0 CP- o I-- W • DSHS arbitrarily chose 600 feet as the distance that SCTFs must maintain from "risk factor 10 locations." The minimum distance standard should be much greater. A predator could u ~o. quickly cover that distance in a very short time and initiate personal contact with a potential Ili z victim. v O 1— z EASY ESCAPE ROUTES • The site is located adjacent to major transportation corridors such as I -5, I - 405, SR 518, SR 509, and SR 518. It is also a short distance from the Seattle /Tacoma International Airport. This will provide both incentive and opportunity to escape and flee. POLICE RESPONSE TIME • No police agency regularly patrols the Orillia Road site. • Police response time is one criteria for siting the SCTF. The City of SeaTac contracts with the King County Sheriffs Office for police services. The City of SeaTac has no legal requirement to police unincorporated areas of King County. • The SeaTac City Council is debating whether to continue responding to the Orillia Road area. For planning purposes, DSHS should not count on SeaTac Units response times. Instead, DSHS should rely on King County Sheriffs Office units responding from White Center, Skyway or Federal Way. Our belief is that the response times for emergency calls from the Orillia Road site would exceed 15 minutes. r Dr. Tim Brown, DSHS February 27, 2003 Page 3 FIRE /EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME z • The proposed SCTF is located in a SeaTac fire district service area, but is not easily z cc 6 6 • The City of SeaTac has 17 DSHS sanctioned facilities in their community already. These o facilities are responsible for 4% of our emergency requests for service. One facility alone has w = a response every other day. u o • The response time to 200 and Orillia road is on average in excess of 7 minutes, while the City's standard is 5 minutes response time. This is actual data from the average of 18 calls for service on an annual basis a • Longer response times significantly decrease the chances of survival from a heart attack or z traumatic injury and significantly increase the amount of property damage caused by a fire. z O w w 2 o. • The City of SeaTac Fire Department is the sole provider of fire protection to the Orillia Road vo cn area in the vicinity of South 200 Street. This is done under a contract between King County Fire District 24 and the City of SeaTac. King County District 24 has no agreements with any = v other fire department. z. • King County District 24 has failed to make payment to the City for those services; as a result, v = . 1 accessible from SeaTac fire stations. District 24 is in default on the contract. • The City of Seatac Fire Department has no legal requirement to respond to any emergency at the proposed SCTF. FEASIBILITY • The proposed site is the smallest (1.2 acres, vs. 5.4 acres for the Peasley Canyon site), yet the most expensive ($975,000, vs. $199,950 for the Peasley Canyon site) of the sites that DSHS is considering. • The 2003 assessed value for this property is $59,000 ($52,000 -land and $7,000 - structure), yet DSHS is proposing to pay $975,000 for it. We believe the Department should pay a "fair Market" price for the site it acquires. • The proposed site is too small to support the number of residents and staff that DSHS plans to house. A proposed site plan included in DSHS Secretary Braddock's binder of information shows the twelve -bed SCTF on a hypothetical three -acre (net) site. We don't see how such a facility could be built on only 1.2 (gross) acres. kYrt'MH��mm��.+.y..++aV • �yF.Q.?�Vllt)N {�� .+avmpte�+�µ � ea+.( w�...... . ,::a;M�: „w.*e+'' ���u;:�t� � . ��ea"'.t= nia- •+GFr;,:3.a ;✓'�i Dr. Tim Brown, DSHS February 27, 2003 Page 4 • Sewer service is not available to the site. Extending sewer service will require a lengthy permitting process through several State agencies (possibly the federal Army Corps of Engineers as well), and expensive equipment and system upgrades. To our knowledge, z DSHS has done no soils suitability or other studies to determine if the number of residents = z and staff proposed can be adequately served by a septic system on the Orillia Road site. re 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES 0 0 0 co 0 U) W W = • The facility would drastically change the nature of future development in the area, including _I f- cr) within SeaTac. w 0 . • Over the next 5 to 10 years, SeaTac is expecting between 600 and 700 new housing u_ units to be developed on the hillsides south of the proposed DSHS site, just within the a City's boundaries. I _ . Z • Since that area is within 1 mile of the DSHS site, however, construction of the SCTF _. F. would mean that the City would not expect any new residential development. Z I-. • The result is that SeaTac's ability to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) goals will be severely limited, as residential development on surrounding properties will not occur so close to this type of sexual offender housing. O - a F-- w w • The City's future tax base will be adversely impacted. ti 0 : z' COMMUNITY CHARACTER • Property values in the area will plummet. • Property owners, if able to sell, would suffer financial loss. • Nearby residents' enjoyment of their property and sense of safety will be destroyed. z Dr. Tim Brown, DSHS February 27, 2003 Page 5 In summary, we believe that a SCTF should not be located in a residential area; that the Orillia Road site is too close to a large number of sensitive sites including popular parks and public and private elementary and secondary schools, some of which serve especially vulnerable populations; that the site is too small and too expensive, and requires very expensive i ~. infrastructure upgrades; and that recommended emergency service response times cannot be met w by agencies with jurisdiction at the site. We believe that the public good would be better served 6 by choosing a less expensive site not located in or near a residential area. Thank you for your 0 o co 0 ._ consideration. co w w 2: J �. u_ w g Q . = a : Z �.. F= o z 2 uj U co o uj z Sincerely, Bruce Rayburn, City Manager cc: SeaTac City Council Elizabeth Spencer, Deputy City Manager Robert McAdams, City Attorney Stephen Butler, Director of Planning and Community Development Scott Somers, Chief of Police Bob Meyer, Fire Chief Mayor Steve Mullet, City of Tukwila Mayor Jim White, City of Kent Beverly K. Wilson, DSHS Associate Superintendent for Conununity Programs z Minnie Dhaliwal - Questions` RegardingTukwila South, Annexation, etc. From: "TAYLOR, Elaine" <TAYLOEA @dshs.wa.gov> To: "'mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us "' <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 2/25/03 4:12PM Subject: Questions Regarding Tukwila South, Annexation, etc. Minnie -- Here's what I was asking, along with some better references. Thanks for your help. 1. Countywide Planning Policy L -33, as well as some of the policies in the Annexation chapter of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, talk about interlocal agreements between the city and the County. Are any such agreements in place? 2. Countywide Planning Policy L -35 says that a jurisdiction may designate a potential impact area beyond its potential annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. As part of the designation process, the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for the review of development proposals under consideration by other jurisdictions in the impact area. Have any of the jurisdictions adjacent to Tukwila or its annexation area done this? Does Tukwila have any interlocal agreements with adjacent jurisdictions? 3. The plan lists the Tukwila South Master Plan Area as a Special Overlay (p. 191), and the area's boundaries are shown in green on the city's Comprehensive Plan Map. Have any projects been proposed or approved that would require the preparation of such as master plan? Are copies those plans available? 4. Ordinance No. 1757, which adopted the city's comprehensive plan, as amended, also adopted a number of ordinances, resolutions and plans by reference, including the Annexation Policy Plan, Resolution 626. We would like to be able to review a copy of this resolution, or any resolution or ordinance that superseded it. Elaine Taylor, Land Use Administrator /SCTF Lands & Buildings Division, DSHS P.O. Box 45848 Olympia WA 98504 -5848 Phone 360/902 -8184; FAX 360/902 -7889 tayloea @dshs.wa.gov «TAYLOR, Elaine.vcf» CC: "McNagny, Elizabeth" <MCNAGEC @dshs.wa.gov> Page 1 ! • 15 January 2003 Subject: Dear Mr. Anderson: Mr. Steven Anderson, AIA KMB Design - Development, Inc. 828 7th Avenue SE Olympia, Washington 98501 -1509 03010301a Page 1 of 3 Bradley -Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. P.O Box 12267, Olympia WA 98508 -2267 Phone 360 -357 -7883 • FAX 360.867 -9307 ( (S.;-; 1:- ''.../ . J JAN 15 2003 1 D • I< +B DSS :GN.DEVELOPMENT OLYMPIA' , 'NGTON Preliminary geologic evaluation of the DSHS SCTF site at 4515 200th Street, Kent, Washington. As requested, we have conducted a preliminary evaluation of the above site. Our scope of work has consisted of a site visit, research into the area geology and soils, and preparation of this letter presenting our observations and research. We understand that the site development will consist of one- or two- story, wood -frame structures . with associated parking. On -site infiltration of storm water and effluent may be required. Soils are described by using the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) identification as well as standard geologic soil classification. The Soil Conservation Service has prepared a soil survey of King County in their November 1973 publication, Soil Survey of King County Area by Snyder, Gale, and Pringle in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Volume One contains a discussion of soil morphology and information of area use. Volume two presents the mapped areas. The project site is located on the east- facing slope of the Green River Valley. The property is a sloping site that goes down from Orillia Road on the west side to the east boundary. The north boundary is South 200th Street and the south boundary is the adjacent property line. 03010301a Page 2 of 3 An existing single - family residence and associated out buildings are found on this site. From our field conversation with the owner, we understand that the residence is served by an existing drainfield. Domestic water is provided by a well. If the development of the site includes connecting to the city water service located in South 200th Street, the existing well will have to be abandoned in conformance with the Department of Ecology, Waterwell Division requirements as presented in the WAC 173-160-415. Site soils consist of granular soils of silty sands, silty sandy gravels and layers of sands and gravels. These soil are associated with the Everett series of soils in the SCS survey of King County. In the elevations forming the slopes above this site, the SCS identifies the soils as being AkF, Alderwood and Kitsap. These soils from the steeper slopes to the west of this site. Geologic classification of the area would suggest that the project area is made up of colluvium derived from upslope sources and deposits of granular soils during the retreat of the Vashon continental glacier, about 11,000 years, ago, that have subsequently been eroded by the Green River creating the present geomorphology. To the west of this. site, we expect that the granular soils of Vashon age are in unconformable contact with the soils older than Vashon age which form the steeper slopes to the west. Based on soil exposures in the test pits that were excavated at this site, we find that the soils are granular and suitable for support of foundations and pavement sections. We expect that to maximize the buildable area of this site, construction of retaining walls may be required. A retaining wall along the Orillia Road side will have to address both active soil pressure plus surcharge loading by traffic. Infiltration of both storm water and effluent appear to be possible at this site. Generally, areas identified as Everett soils have a deeper granular soil profile before impermeable layers are encountered. jr 4 't{ ti I Z z w J U 00 W • I - F. CO IL w 0 H . o p- O F- w W. U u' O .. Z. U w: O Z 1 03010301a Page 3 of 3 The site soils contain plastic fines. Soils with fines can "mud up" rapidly if site development work is attempted during the wet season. Control of silt -laden water and compaction control are more difficult with these soils during the rainy season. Based on our review of the site and geologic information, we do not consider slope stability to be an issue at this site. Good storm water management is required to protect the slopes from concentrated flows of storm water which could induce accelerated erosion or slope instability by point discharge. We do not consider the site to be a seismic hazard area. If you have any questions, or if we may be of additional service to you on this project, please contact, us at our Olympia office. Cordially, BRADLEY -NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES David C. S "rung, L.E.G. F. is �l�..Fe�.aY.r >�..,. _�,.. ;-' 4nr, ���k' �'`+�lliYtji.1.�u;caLii•�:�..'� �K�. - _Ni s , �- '.su'. • Z Z J U 0 co 0 wI U) u_ uj ga = a . w Z Z �. 1— O Z h' U O — W W I— r -, Z . U � 0 Z Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMUNI 1Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olympia, WA 98504 -5000 January 14, 2003 Re: Request for Public Records — Secure Community Transition Facility Siting Process I am writing to provide you with a status report on your public disclosure request pertaining to the siting process for a secure community transition facility. Of the documents you requested, a majority will be ready for your review by Friday, January 17, 2003. Please contact me to schedule a date and time to review the documents. We do have other public disclosure requests to review the documents, but we will try to accommodate all requests as quickly as possible. Our office is open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We will be closed on Monday, January 20 for the Martin Luther King Holiday. If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me at (360) 902 -8164 or Anna Turull at (360) 902 -8259. cc: Kristal Wiitala Knutson John Reynolds Beverly K. Wilson Scott Lockwood, ATG Sincerely, lizab McNagny McNa Y Public Disclosure Coordinator Lands & Buildings division RECS JAN 16 2003 0 :i: 444" .LI�Y�d.. `i''.: LPL' wk.: iEi��4iW... Sn. idJF�:: aW�a' nJ.. i�AYH: Ci✓+ w��W9. aA. v................ vw. M.. ww: uti�t .+i.+�Hf +'::;Wt(ni�r:a > '� z I I- 'a Jo o O . N J = w O LL Q. U) 3 = w E' _ z� zI- w U 0 o - O t_ w w ..z w o1 z 1 7,, r;.7.:: f,..z, . ... , ,!, •.::. r-, ., t,, '1 .% JAN 4 l:i ' 1 2003 Kristy Beardemphl ,. !:rya -�: _ = �;:��: ^; ' T ` azs.821.saas KMB Justice Facilities Group et ` " �'' V � 1 � `� "' z 425.821.3481 fax Q 8 00.488.0756 toil free ;= Z . Ce 828 7th Avenue SE w Olymp A 98501 www.triadasSOCCOm YmP is JU 0O• 0 U) 2w w O. u_Q = a H W • King County GIS Mapping System (Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports, Critical Drainage z H : Area Maps, Surface Water Management Division Drainage Investigation Section Problem Maps) z O • • City of Kent Sanitary Sewer Facility Map W w • King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio U a • 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) .O c a • US Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Maps w w •Ww U The Orillia Road Site is located on Parcel 0322049052 in the SE Quarter of Section 3, Township 22, LL P. January 13, 2003 RE: Secure Community Transitional Facility Site Drainage Analysis Triad Job No. 03 -001 Dear Kristy: Enclosed are my findings for Site #1 (Orillia Road), for the Secure Community Transitional Facility. Resources used to facilitate my evaluation were: Range 4 E. The parcel consists of 1.22 acres. Site Characteristics: The site contains three buildings, a paved driveway, blackberry brambles and a few trees. According to the owner, the property is currently on a well and septic tank/drainfield service. The existing house sits in the center of the lot at the high point. Drainage appears to flow northeast and east off of the high point. Several test pits have been explored throughout the site. The proposal is to construct a housing facility including an outbuilding, associated parking, septic system and a stormwater detention and water quality facility. Research Findings: • Any potential offsite tributary area for storm water is intercepted by South 200 Street and Orillia Road per the City of Kent Sanitary Sewer Facility Map, with 5 foot contours. Therefore, the only stormwater drainage to be detained/treated would be from the site itself. • A wetland named "Wetland. Lower Green River 3" is located south and east of the site; per the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. • An unclassified stream flows from Angle Lake, under Orillia Road, and past the proposed site on the north side of South 200 Street, prior to crossing under South 200 Street and through Wetland Lower Green River 3, per the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. • The site is located in a moderate erosion hazard area and a high susceptibility to ground water contamination area per the King County GIS Mapping System. • The site is in the Lower Green River -West Drainage Basin, the Green River. Valley Community Planning Area and the Duwamish -Green River Watershed. T ASSOCIATES 11814 115th Avenue NE Kirkland. WA 98034 -6923 Z Page 2 Kristy Beardemphi KMB Justice Facilities Group January 13, 2003 • Detention standards for development on this site consist of a Level 2 Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Treatment, per the 1998 KCSWDM, assuming that King County does not adopt the 2001 Department of Ecology manual prior to permit application. o Level 2 Flow control requires matching the developed 2 -year and 10 -year peak flows to the pre - developed 2 -year and 10 -year peak flows. In addition to matching the peak ;� w flows, it is required to match the flow durations for 50% of the 2 -year through the 50- ct g year peaks. Assuming general housing type development with till soils, Sea -Tac Rainfall 6 v Region with a Regional Scale Factor of 1.0, per Figure 3.2.2A in the 19998 KCSWDM, v O co 0 detention volume is estimated to be in the 10,000 - 14,000 cubic feet range depending co w upon the impervious area at build out. z LLI I- U) LL. Possible Detention Facility Options are: w O • Detention Pond 2 � • Detention Vault o The Pond or Vault could tie into an existing storm drain structure located c d on the northeast property corner behind the mailboxes /sidewalk. It H = appears that the structure is 10.-15 feet deep with an estimated 24" or 36" z I.- pipe. z i— • Infiltration Pond, If the soils are determined to be 'outwash by a Geotechnical • w Evaluation. U � o Basic Water Quality requires removal of 80 percent of the total suspended solids for c i - flows or volumes up to and including the water quality design flow or volume. Assuming i U 0.25 acre impervious and 0.97 acre grass per the conceptual site layout drawing provided F ' i--7 by KMB Design Development, volumes are estimated to be between 2,000 cubic feet and u' O 3,000 cubic feet depending on soil conditions (outwash or till). U O z Possible Water Quality options are: • Biofiltration Swale • Wetpond • Stormwater Wetland • Combined Detention and Wetpool Facilities o Potential Detention and Water Quality locations are as follows: • The low area between the existing driveway and the retaining wall for S. 200 Street if it is determined that the area is not a wetland or is below the threshold for filling. • The area east of the existing house, central to the east lot line. Issues that need to be addressed: • A Wetlands Biologist should evaluate the site for wetlands. o If there is a wetland, a buffer will need to be established. o A permit may be needed from the Army Corp of Engineers to use this area as a detention/water quality facility or as a general fill area. • A Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the site for soil composition. A conversation with Kristy Beardemphl indicated that a wetland is on site; however this would be inconsistent with the US Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Map showing outwash soils. • As -built plans for the storm drainage on S. 200 Street should be obtained prior to final design if this site is chosen. Page 3 Kristy Beardemphl KMB Justice Facilities Group January 13, 2003 • Pending receipt of historical drainage complaints. Other Sources used in the investigation of the site and not included in the report due to data not pertinent: • Flood Plain/Floodway (FEMA) Maps. Sincerely, TRIAD ASSOCIATES ebecca Cus an, Engineer RC • cc: Mick Matheson, P.E. z • < z • .6 : 0.0i .N 0 ' • • W J 1: LL ... WO g a ,. . _; • F-- • Z F— ,U 0: W Lt Z: W ; = O - ~ z SEPTIC SYSTEM FEASIBILITY REPORT ORILLIA ROAD JANUARY 7, 2003 Prepared for KMB Justice Facilities Group 828 — 7 AVENUE S.E. OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98501 PREPARED BY SEABRANDS ENGINEERING PURPOSE AND SCOPE On December 17 2002, Seabrands Engineering was retained by KMB Justice Facilities Group to prepare a feasibility report on three proposed sites for a Secure Community Transitional Facility (SCTF). The sites selected for review were at Peasley Canyon in Auburn, southeast of Carnation on 344 Ave N.E., and on Orillia Road in Kent. The feasibility report was to include, site visits, construction of log holes, a review of King County soils information, Soil Conservation Service soil classifications of the area, and meetings with the Seattle -King County Health Department. Additionally several types of septic systems were to be reviewed for applicability to the sites, and cost estimates were to be prepared for each system. BUILDING FACILITY The design assumptions for the SCTF maximum facility would be a 12 bed building with a staff of 12 for a total of 24 occupants there 24 hours a day. The Peasley Canyon and Carnation sites could possibly start with a 6 bed facility and later be expanded to a 12 bed facility by adding on to the original building or constructing a separate additional 6 bed facility. The septic system for each site should be designed for the maximum loading of residents so that costly upgrades and additions would not be needed at a later time. The Orillia Road site because of its smaller size could have a two -story building with the possibility of housing a maximum of 12 residents and 12 staff. In all of the facilities, each room is assumed to have its own sink. Toilet/shower facilities will be shared. The building will have two common living areas and two common kitchen areas for the residents to share. The building will also have one staff area consisting of a workstation /sink/toilet. One laundry facility will be provided for every 2 units to share. Following are the site - specific details for the three proposed sites. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Orillia site is located at 4515 South 200 th Street in Kent, and consists of a 1.22 acre site at the southeast corner of the intersection of Orillia Road and South 200 th Street. There is an existing occupied residence on the site and an existing well at the north end of the site. Dry sewers exist in South 200th Street, but a pump station and force main need to be constructed over the Green River to connect with the Metro sewer line on the east side of the river. There are several outbuildings on the site, and the septic tank and drainfield for the existing residence is located approximately 100 feet south of the residence. Water is available from the Highline Water District, and the existing well could be decommissioned if necessary to meet site layout conditions. There are existing gravel pits located immediately. north and west of the subject property. The undeveloped portion of the site has a sloped area to the east and is covered with a heavy growth of blackberries. The log holes were dug in this area, as it seemed to fit the site layout best, and the drainfield could be constructed on the slope. The Soil Conservation Service classifies the soil as (AkF) Alderwood and Kitsap soils, which have the characteristics of gravelly sand loam which can vary in short distances. They indicate that on steep slopes, the soil could be unstable and the effluent from a septic system could bleed out through the downslope side. On this particular site, the slope is not very steep and in general is less than 20 percent which is not considered a problem for slides or erosion. The soils throughout the east and southeast sides of the property in the sloped area of blackberries appeared to be fairly consistently composed of loamy sandy gravel and sandy gravel. There was no evidence of ground water or mottling which would indicate that ground water had risen in the area previously. There was some evidence of wetlands west of the entry driveway at the north end of the property. A culvert drains a depression in that area, and it appears that it was disturbed during the construction of SO 200 u, Street. The remainder of the site does not appear to have been disturbed, and the area where the log holes were dug appears to be native natural soil. See the following page for existing site layout including new log holes constructed. LHA1 0 -6 inches ---- -- topsoil 6-47 inches-------gravelly clay 47 -60 inches gravelly sandy clay LHA3 0 -6 inches topsoil 6 -22 inches loamy sandy gravel 22 -72 inches sandy gravel SOIL LOG INFORMATION • LHA2 0 -6 inches ---- - - - --- topsoil 6 -20 inches — compact loamy sandy gravel 20 -52 inches gravelly loam 52 -72 inches - sandy gravel LHA4 0 -8 inches -- topsoil 8 -25 inches loamy sandy gravel 25 -72 inches - ---- compact sandy gravel z w • . O 0 0 u) 0 J 2 (0 w w II o `i w w . E- p w ui CO z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR1'HAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. N O O O N CO n. 5 3 (D 0 (D Co (R EXISTING NOuSE EXISTING WELL...__ EXISTING 51-IED GRAPHIC SCALE (M FEET ) 1 Inch = 50 it- 46TH AVE. S. 50 0 25 50 100 ORILLIA SITE ORILLIA RD. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. I ORILLIA SITE Entry and swale at north end of property Blackberry slope on east side 13 Southeast side of property Driveway and east side of property Typical soil in log hole SEPTIC SYSTEM AND DRAINFIELD ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DOSAGE The quantity and quality of sewage estimated from the facility is best determined from historical records of existing facilities. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Seattle -King County Health Department both recommend that the estimation of the daily flow should be based on as accurate and applicable information as possible. Comparison should be made with the water use records of similar facilities. A sample of three to seven facilities, with use records of at least two years, should provide suitable wastewater flow estimation data. The EPA recommended flows for institutional sources is 110 gallons per day for the resident and 10 gallons per day for the employee. Based on a maximum of 12 residents and 12 employees, the loading for each site would be 1440 gallons. For detention time in the septic tank, the Health Department indicates that the tank size should be twice the daily flow which would be 2880 gallons. Of that total, 2/3 of the tank size should be a primary compartment, and 1/3 of the volume should be in the secondary compartment. Commercially available tanks are made in the 2000 - gallon and 1000 gallon sizes, and by interconnecting them; the requirements for volume can be met. RECIRCULATING GRAVEL FILTER A recirculating gravel is recommended by the Health Department and designers of institutional facilities to control the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) to bring it down to a level that can be accepted by the follow -on drainfield system. Normal residential BOD is in the range of 230 mg /I, and institutional BOD levels are in the range of 500 -600 mg /I. A recirculating gravel filter recycles the effluent from the septic tank through a gravel medium. Biological treatment occurs on the surface of the gravel media particles. The effluent is recirculated until the BOD level is down to an acceptable level to pump to the drainfield. Following is a basic layout of a recirculating gravel filter system. : Sii' Gi" n"..; lri.a:. ^�:s+!3'�':'efjut7�li;i4' e�ivVf 1.!:�.!LC % %1 it %�t3:iA�1.;` ?:t�F:± ':'ar,:.SS;Jirid7.'hk•.paf SEPTIC TANK y RECIRCULATING MIXING TANK RECIRCULATING SAND (GRAVEL) FILTER DRAINFIELD DRAINFIELD The recirculating gravel filter size in order to accommodate a loading rate of 3 gallons per square foot would be 32 feet by 32 feet and would be slightly above ground. The depth of the gravel bed would be 4 feet including the surface distribution system, the gravel media, and the undercollection system to transfer the effluent back to the recirculating /mixing chamber. The recirculating /mixing chamber will have a volume of 3000 gallons, and is commercially available from septic tank suppliers. The treated effluent is then transferred to the drainfield system specific to each site. Because of the long lengths of drainfield required for the larger that • , residential quantities of sewage, pressure distribution systems with a pump will be required for all systems to adequately distribute the effluent throughout the entire drainfield area. As a result of the varying soil conditions at each site, the length of trench for each system will vary, and will be conditioned upon the soil in the log holes constructed at each site in the drainfield and reserve area. Winter water table conditions will determine at some sites what the final adequate soil depths will be for a system. A Health Department requirement for drainfield systems is that a 100% reserve area be available in case the primary drainfield system fails in the future. For the three sites being considered, the septic tanks, recirculating gravel filter, and the recirculating /mixing chamber will be the same. The only variables will be the pressure distribution drainfield length. The individual site systems and estimated costs are as follows: z Iz w 6 J 0 0 U) U) w =. J w O g ¢ co _ � w z = I— O z I— LL! uj U co O s O h- Ww w z . U- (/) 0 z ORILLIA SITE INDIVIDUAL SITE SYSTEMS Soils on this site are classified as type 1B which have a loading rate of 1.2 gal /sq. ft. /day. The pressure distribution drainfield length of 3 -foot wide trench on this site would be 800 feet and 800 feet for the reserve area. The best area on the site for a drainfield would be the eastern slope in the vicinity of log holes LHA -2 thru LHA -4. The fixed costs for the septic tanks, recirculating gravel filter, recirculating /mixing chamber, and all pumps, controls and alarms would be $20,500. The estimated cost for the 800 feet of pressure distribution drainfield would be $4,000 for a total cost of $24,500 for the site. RECOMMENDATIONS All three sites appear to have adequate square feet of area on them to install a septic system, drainfield and reserve drainfield area. The Orillia site has the best soils, which requires the shortest length of drainfield. It appears that there are no winter water table problems on the site, and though it is smaller in size than the other sites, it still appears workable for the Secure Community Transitional Facility. Although site plans showing the building location, parking and driveways for each site are not drawn at this time, it is believed that the buildings and parking facilities can be worked around the areas selected for the drainfields at each site to make it useable. The Seattle -King County Health Department is the approving agency for designs, and a complete scaled design of the facility with log holes constructed in the proposed drainfield and reserve areas would need to be submitted together with calculations for the septic system and an approved water source for Health Department review. • Thank you for the opportunity to work on this feasibility study. If you have additional questions, I would be happy to answer them. Yours very truly, Seabrands Engineering Mary Seabrands L©camEs 9/ 11/ 03 I i+..kiw. s y- .4;Ys.c�. >i�..i -w:.. ti.vu:.:,,.c�.�b e.•.s.0 :�r a�:;iitir,.rie':++�,• r... z _1-, 6 U O o; U)W W =' W 0, Q' = W F- _ Z � 0 Z ,_ 0 p. - W, 11 Z l Dear Mr. Lancaster: Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 • Olympia WA 98504 -5322 December 18, 2002 Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Request for Public Records — Secure Community Transition Facility Siting Process c: Kristal Wiitala Knutson Nancy Farrell Sincerely, 9k1141 Anna M. Turull Administrative Secretary SCC Community Programs " 0 2002 COW,;u; l Y D VZ:LOP .3_NT This letter confirms receipt of your public records request under RCW 42.17.320 and WAC 388 -01 -090. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) received your request by FAX to Nancy Farrell, Special Commitment Center, on December 12, 2002. You request copies of any reports, analyses memoranda or recommendations related to the siting process for a secure community transition facility in King County. Due to the holidays and the number of requests for information we are receiving, we estimate that it will take approximately three weeks or until January 8, 2003 for us to review records related to your request. We will contact you on January 8 or earlier, to notify you of the estimated date when those records will be available to you. When we have determined the number of applicable documents, we will inform you of the charge for copies. Under WAC 388 -01- 080(2), DSHS may charge fifteen cents per page plus postage for regular photocopies. Upon receipt of a check payable to DSHS for the amount due, we will send you the records, or arrange for you to pick them up if you prefer. If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me at (360) 902 -8259. „ .IAA �'w3 <i++�N+yi i�'a4�i:zlib�i City of Tukwila Department of Community Development December 12, 200 c.,2, Nancy Farrell Special Commitment Center PO Box 88450 Steilacoom, WA 98388 -0647 SUBJECT: Public Information Request - SCTF Siting Process Dear Ms. Farrell: Please provide this office with copies of any reports, analyses memoranda or recommendations, prepared or obtained by DSHS to inform its deliberations and decision concerning the three potential secure community transition facilities in King County. We are willing to compensate your office for reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling this request. However, please contact the undersigned in the event these costs are likely to exceed $200. You may also contact me at 206/431 -3670 should you need any clarification concerning this request. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, L Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development Cc: John McFarland, City Administrator - VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL - RECEIVED DEC 13 2002 CITY Or i �nvvILA MAYOR'S OFFICE Steven M Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 o_K•:'\` + Wti.l,. ii(1' w' 8%l.. =K![ i.dGrock419 Am:.:Gk. ?.`i'r z Wi 6 U: U J w 0 Q. EL) w zF. {- 0 z1- w U � .0 �. wW I - O: i (0. F- H •0 • z s:3nrt" '::c ri o F�tin bE�W3a < - a'.` SUMMARY OF KEY STATUTORY SITING REQUIREMENTS • Planning. By September 1, 2002, cities and counties must establish or amend their processes for identifying and siting essential public facilities z and amend development regulations as needed to provide for siting of z _ secure community transition facilities (SCTFs). ce w • Non - Compliance with Planning Requirements. Failure to act by o o 9/1/2002 is NOT a condition that would disqualify county or city from u) w w receiving public works trust funds, water pollution control facility grants, -I i_ etc., or be a basis for a Growth Management Hearings Board Review or U) w w o private cause of action. 2 �Q • Preemption. After October 1, 2002, the state preempts and supersedes co 2 local plans, development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection i W requirements, and all other laws as necessary to enable the department to z = site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate SCTFs in the following z o counties or any of their cities that fail to complete the required planning w w consistent with state law by 9/1/2002: Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, m o Spokane, and Thurston Counties. o cn oi— • Immunity from liability. Cities and counties are immune from causes of z 0 action for civil damages related to the siting of SCTFs. Cities and counties u o and their law enforcement officers are also immune from causes of action w z for civil damages when officers responds in good faith to emergency calls o i involving SCTF residents. o I • Risk potential activities /facilities. Defined as public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care, licensed preschools, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and public libraries. Does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit. • Proximity to risk potential facilities. SCTF not permitted to be located adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within line of sight of a risk potential activities /facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to visually distinguish and recognize individuals. Give great weight to sites that are the farthest removed from risk potential locations. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 1 z • 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 .1- w jurisdiction). ' 0 . J U UO • Public Safety and Security Criteria. u) 0 J ♦ Visibility between SCTF and adjacent properties is limited or o barriers can be established to limit visibility; w ♦ Electronic monitoring devices /systems are available and are g functional in the area; • Existing building, if used for an SCTF, is suitable or can be feasibly = a modified; and Z �. • Adequate security and back -up system resources can be installed o at the site and contractor /maintenance services are available on w uj 24/7 basis. M o • Security panel must be commercial grade with tamper -proof switches and key -lock to prevent unauthorized access. • All staff must be issued personal panic devices. • All staff must be issued and wear photo ID badges. • Other Siting Requirements. ♦ Site must be in area with access (reasonable commute distance) to medical, mental health and sex offender treatment providers, and community services such as employment, educational and other services. • Treatment providers must be available — this means the providers are qualified, willing to provide services, and within a reasonable commute. ♦ Site must be in location suitable for programming, staffing and support considerations. ♦ The SCTF 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 U O 0 w H w w U H O z 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 must agree 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 and living skills training that may include education, alcohol or chemical dependency treatment, vocational training, and recreation. 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 living 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 SCTF resident 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 program staff work with community representatives to establish Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 1 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) Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. Rise, Prepare /Eat Breakfast, Clean Up Do Household Chores Escorted to Grocery Store Attend Transition Class Do Treatment Homework Prepare /Eat Dinner, Clean up Escorted to Individual Therapy Session Return to SCTF, Work on Journal Go to Bed 5:45 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 8 :00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 7 :00 p.m. 8 :30 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. Rise, Prepare /Eat Breakfast. Prepare Sack Lunch Do Household Chores Escorted to Job. Begin Work Shift Work shift concludes. Escorted to SCTF Prepare /Eat Dinner Escorted to Group Therapy Session Return to SCTF Do Therapy Homework, Work on Journal Go to Bed 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) Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 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 less restrictive community supervised living arrangement. 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 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 Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 1 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 a less restrictive 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. 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? Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 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 resident's treatment provider and assigned community corrections officer to monitor the 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 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 Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 3 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. �~ w • Proximity of SCTF site to risk locations. When a property is g considered for an SCTF, the law requires DSHS and local governments to consider and address many factors. Key considerations include the o - o distances between the SCTF and "risk potential activities and facilities" u) w such as child care centers, schools, school bus stops, public libraries. w The law also requires evaluating a site to determine if barriers exist or can - w be installed to shield visibility between the SCTF and adjacent properties, w if electronic monitoring services are available to the area, and if there is g reasonable access to community services such as treatment, employment, vocational training, etc. = a • Intensive staffing. The law requires the SCTF to provide intensive ? !- staffing ratios. In facilities with six or fewer residents, the facility must z o provide a ratio of one staff on duty for each resident during the day and 111 w evening hours, and two staff on duty for every three residents during the n night hours. o N o r- • Close supervision and escorts. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, _ 0 each SCTF resident must be closely supervised (on a one -to -one basis) r z by a trained staff or court- authorized escort when the resident leaves the o SCTF premises for any purpose. The staff /escort must remain with the cry resident for the duration of the outing, even when the resident may be P 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 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. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 4 • 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 = Z plan. • Individual electronic monitoring devices. Unless otherwise ordered by i; o the court, each resident must wear an individual electronic monitoring ° device. w w 9. If an SCTF is sited in our county, will the residents placed there be the in 0 same ones who were committed from our county? LL ¢ It is possible, but not a given. The court orders the placement and considers cn a many factors including whether housing is available that meets the court's w conditions and the individual's needs, a qualified community sex offender z treatment therapist has agreed to work with the resident and make regular z o reports to the court, the location of victims, etc. w w PLANNING AND SITING REQUIREMENTS FOR 0 0) SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES p 1— w w 10.What is being proposed? What does the law require? = U -O Two laws have been passed that address the siting of secure community c Cu transition facilities. In June 2001, the state enacted 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter F. z 12, Laws of 2001, E2). This law provides direction to DSHS and local z 1— 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 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 Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 5 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 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 Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 6 4 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 towns and cities within the county? Is my city Z required to find a site separate from sites our county may identify? F z cc At a minimum, the state law requires counties and cities within the county to 6 = notify each other of siting plans. The legislation does not further define how v o counties and cities must coordinate. Early coordination, with counties taking u) 0 a lead role, is advisable because it allows the seamless review of risk in _ potential facilities and equitable distribution factors. u) u_ All counties and cities must establish a process and development regulations 2 to provide for siting SCTFs. Except where countywide planning policies have g a otherwise dictated siting choices, development regulations should provide for co the possibility of siting each of the listed essential public facilities somewhere I W within each jurisdiction's planning area. DSHS expects that a coordinated Z = countywide analysis will determine that some areas within a county's 1— p boundaries will be preferred over others for siting SCTFs. w 1-' w 13.In August 2001, DSHS notified all 39 counties that SCTFs may need to c.) be sited within any of 12 identified counties sometime between May o 1— 2004 and May 2007. Our county was one of the 12 counties identified, ill w but it is not one of the six counties that are subject to preemption under E- r- ESSB 6594. Do different planning and siting requirements apply to our u_ z county? w z U — 0 H 0 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, DSHS would not 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 Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 7 z 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. et d. Counties and cities adopt comprehensive plan amendments and o o development regulations, as necessary, that define the siting process, co o criteria, and zones, areas or site(s) appropriate for siting SCTFs. w = e. When ready to site a facility in a particular area, DSHS will review w 0 available sites within the areas identified by the local jurisdiction(s) and approves sites that meet state requirements. If a jurisdiction has been g preempted, DSHS will consult with the local government and identify CO appropriate sites. As needed, DSHS will select one or more potential I W SCTF sites within the areas identified by the local jurisdiction(s). z 1- 0 f. DSHS, in consultation and coordination with the local jurisdiction(s) where sites under consideration are located, will hold public hearings on the sites as required by state law. 8 o - D E- g. DSHS will select the preferred site for the facility. = w - U h. If the local jurisdiction has not been preempted, DSHS will follow the local LL- p jurisdiction's permitting requirements. If the jurisdiction has been w z preempted, DSHS will consult with the local government and engage the v r services of other permitting and construction consultants and resources p as needed (e.g., the state fire marshal) to act in lieu of the local z government. 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. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 8 • 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 will 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 a consistency and seamless coverage. Data for the remaining counties and .- z cities will be limited at this time, but DSHS will continue to build the ec system so that over time, information will be available statewide. J oo 16. Who is responsible for the public's participation in the planning and c co o w siting process? w � The local jurisdiction is responsible for the public participation process 2 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. = a F- w Z = Where local government requires public notice and hearings associated with t permits, the DSHS public hearings requirement does not apply to the extent z they are duplicative of the local requirement. Local public hearing 2 ui . requirements would apply only in non - preempted jurisdictions. 0 0 17. What amount will be awarded in a planning grant? Does accepting the ° �_ = grant make it more likely that DSHS will site a facility in our v jurisdiction? o LI .. 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 o awards. DSHS is considering various award options such as providing z 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, this means: Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 9 { • The jurisdiction's local process and regulations must not preclude the siting of a SCTF. • The jurisdiction's 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 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 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 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. 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 in this analysis, DSHS has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that maps the locations of risk potential facilities and activities and equitable distribution factors. Recently, DSHS provided the GIS data to the six counties subject to preemption and their cities. The process for siting a facility in a timely manner means being able to complete construction or renovation of the facility so that it is available for occupancy when needed. A reasonable amount of time to complete the local land use permitting process is 180 days from the date of application or the start of the process. It is the department's expectation that a jurisdiction's other permitting processes and regulations (e.g., building permits) for SCTFs will be the same as that required for similar type facilities. 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 Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 10 ■ 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.? 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. Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 11 PROGRAM ISSUES: LAND USE 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 aC�.dshs.wa.gov Kelly Cunningham, Community Programs Manager 360- 902 -7541 360- 902 -8497 (fax) CunniKJ (dshs.wa.gov 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 @dshs.wa.gov Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 12 7n c a Gilashington State Department of Social & Health Services What You Need to Know About Sex Offenders, Community Protection, and the Law December 3, 2002 Department of Social & Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration Special Commitment Center PO Box 45322 Olympia, WA 98504 -5322 (360) 902-8259 Fax: (360) 902 -8497 TABLE OF CONTENTS Why aren't all dangerous sex offenders locked up for life? Page 1 a ~z Why are Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) cc necessary now? Page 2 0 What are local communities required to do? Page 3 w J H Are there more sex offenders now than there used to be? Page 5 `o o w Why do some sex offenders go to the Special Commitment g 7 Center (SCC), while others are released directly to the community? .. Page 5 co a =w What kind of treatment do SCC residents receive? Does it work? Page 5 z x 1- o Why are there different levels of supervision for different w categories of sex offenders? How does the sex offender D ❑ classification system work? .. Page 7 o - o 1- How does post - release supervision differ for SCC ; ` _ 0 residents and those who are released directly from prison 1.- o to the community? Page 8 w z o S What lies ahead? Will there be more or fewer sex offenders o 1 being released in the future? Page 9 Z How does the siting process for SCTFs work? Page 9 How will SCTFs operate? What security measures will they have? Page 10 How and where can people in affected communities get concerns, grievances, or requests for mitigation addressed? Page 11 How can I keep my family safe form sex offenders? Page 11 Where can victims go for help in dealing with sex offenses? Page 12 u? .: Y1. 4 w ''rrit 46C?" 1 �'�tia4GYavcra What You Need To Know About Sex Offenders, Community Protection, and the Law z Why aren't all dangerous sex offenders locked up for life? a I z cc w This is a question our society and our legislature have been struggling 6 with for over a decade. o o cnw In the late 1980s, three shocking, highly publicized crimes put protection _I F_ from sex offenders on the public agenda, and led to the passage of the w o 1 Community Protection Act. 2 J The Community Protection Act increased prison sentences for most sex u crimes. It also requires that communities be notified when dangerous sex 'I W offenders are released from prisons or juvenile institutions. You have z probably seen notices about sex offenders in your local newspaper, and 1--. o you might have received a flyer at your home if a sex offender moved into your immediate neighborhood. D o o - The Community Protection Act also called for the creation of the Special Cl F= Commitment Center (SCC), a special, locked mental health facility that is 1--17- 0 now located on McNeil Island, within the perimeter of a state prison. Because the SCC is a mental health facility, it is run by the state's . z Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), which oversees the U state's public mental health system. (The Department of Corrections z F- (DOC) oversees state prisons.) The idea of the Special Commitment Center is that certain sex offenders have mental abnormalities or personality disorders that contribute to their likelihood to re- offend, and that specialized mental health treatment can reduce this danger. When these offenders have completed their prison sentences, the law provides for the court to civilly commit them to the SCC for mental health treatment rather than releasing them to the community. Some people believed that creating the SCC would be a way to keep dangerous offenders locked up indefinitely. But a federal district court has ruled that this can't be the case. If offenders participate in mental health treatment and improve to the point that the community can be adequately protected, the federal court has ruled that the offenders have a constitutional right to be released to "less restrictive facilities," and to eventually return to society. 1 When the court issued this ruling, legislators tried other ways to keep dangerous sex offenders locked up longer. In 1996, they increased sentences for major sex offenses again, and passed "two- strikes" legislation that calls for life sentences for a second conviction of a serious sex crime. This didn't work very well because sex offenders often plead guilty to reduced charges, and because prosecutors and the courts are reluctant to send young offenders to prison for life if there is any hope at all that they will change their ways. They point out that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is relatively low compared to other kinds of crime, and that most offenders stop being violent when they get older. Because of these problems with the two- strikes law, the legislature, in 2001, passed yet another law. This time they replaced "determinate" sentences for sex offenders (that is, sentences with a fixed amount of time) with "indeterminate" sentences that can be extended when there is a risk of repeat crime. This law requires the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (similar to a parole board) to review the cases of sex offenders who were convicted after September 1, 2001, and to deny release if it finds that an offender is "likelier than not" to commit a similar crime if he is released. If it denies release, the Board must review the case again every two years. This law means that a sex offender can be kept behind bars for as long as he poses a danger to the community — for five years, ten years, or life. The result of all these changes in the law is that different offenders face different sentences depending on when they were convicted of their crimes. Offenders who were sent to prison in the mid- 1980s, for example, are subject only to the laws that were on the books at that time. When their prison terms expire, they are released. However, they must register with police as sex offenders, and if there is a high risk that they will re- offend, communities are notified about their release. These offenders may also be civilly committed to the Special Commitment Center if they have a mental abnormality or personality disorder and are considered more likely than not to re- offend. Why are Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) necessary now? Offenders are offered mental health treatment at the SCC. If they participate in treatment and learn to manage their behavior and control their impulses, state and federal courts have ruled that they have a constitutional right to be released into a "less restrictive alternative." In some cases, that may mean offenders are released to their families, with close monitoring and supervision from the Department of Corrections, the SCC, and local law enforcement. These offenders must continue to participate in community -based sex offender treatment, and, unless otherwise ordered by the court, they must wear electronic monitoring devices. In many cases, however, offenders don't have families who will take them in and share responsibility for supervising them. And even when families are willing, the court may not be convinced that they are capable of maintaining the level of vigilance that's needed. For these offenders, the SCC must create community -based transition facilities where newly - released SCC residents can live. If the state fails to create these facilities soon, it might be required to release offenders into the community without having facilities where they would be supervised and monitored. Further delays will also result in the state having to pay enormous federal court fines. What are local communities required to do? The state has ultimate responsibility for placing sex offenders and protecting all the residents of Washington. But the state can't carry out this responsibility without the help and cooperation of local communities. As you might expect, it's been extremely difficult to find a community willing to have a less restrictive facility for sex offenders. That's why the state legislature, in 2001, passed a law placing one such facility on McNeil Island, and calling on cities and counties to create special zoning regulations to spell out where more of these facilities can be located. The 2001 law required all local governments (cities and counties) to create zoning regulations to accommodate SCTFs. But in 2002, the legislature amended the law, and required local governments in the state's six most populous counties to do this, or to allow DSHS to choose sites. Cities and towns within Clark, Kitsap, King, Thurston, Snohomish and Spokane Counties (and the county governments themselves) were directed to create zoning laws to accommodate SCTFs because the courts in these counties had sent the biggest number of sex offenders to the SCC. (Pierce County was not included because it already has an SCTF on McNeil Island.) The legislature specified that if local governments in the six counties don't create zoning regulations to accommodate SCTFs — or if local ordinances don't comply with the state siting requirements — the Secretary of DSHS will make the decision about where to locate them. 3 - -J Local governments that have created zoning regulations for SCTFs have usually chosen to locate them in light industrial areas — not in shopping areas or residential neighborhoods. The 2001 law is very specific about how decisions should be made about where to put these facilities. SCTFs must not be located adjacent to, across the street or parking lot from, or "within line of sight" of a risk potential activity or location. "Line of sight" is further defined as "the ability to reasonably distinguish or recognize individuals." DSHS has determined through field tests using a measuring wheel that for practical sighting purposes, "line of sight" is approximately 600 feet if there is no visual obstruction such as a large building between the two points of measurement. The law also requires DSHS to balance two important factors: the average time it would take law enforcement to respond to an emergency call at the SCTF, and the distance between the SCTF and risk potential activities and facilities. The idea here is that SCTFs should be as far away from risk potential activities as possible — but not so remote that it would take police a long time to reach them. Risk potential activities and facilities include: • Public and private schools • School bus stops (does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit) • Licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities • Public parks • Publicly dedicated trails • Sports fields • Playgrounds • Recreational and community centers • Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques • Public libraries. The pressure to site and open one or more of these "Secure Community Transition Facilities" comes from the federal court, which has already seen years of delay in siting these facilities, and is not likely to tolerate any more. 4 ;.w -fir' ixviiuu .ci•��i'�ti':r:v�'.�✓�::i. Are there more sex offenders now than there used to be? Some studies show that there are actually fewer sex offenders than there used to be, but we'll never really know for sure, because our society used to sweep a lot of sex offenses under the rug. Even now, many sex offenses are never reported. z z w In the past, fewer victims reported offenses for fear of not being believed, - o or not wanting their privacy compromised, or because victims were often u blamed for somehow bringing these crimes on themselves. Today, people J are generally more willing to confront these crimes and hold the cn w perpetrator accountable for them. There are more support services for w o victims, better law enforcement practices, and less inclination to blame the g u victims. = a Community notification laws and media reports may make it seem like i th ere are more sex offenders, because we read about their offenses in the z 1- newspaper or receive notices when one moves into our neighborhood. It's z o important to remember that before 1990, there were probably just as many sex offenders in our community as there are now. We just didn't know 8 ° about them. o F - w u Why do some sex offenders go to the SCC, while others are released LI o directly to the community? The SCC is for people who meet the legal definition of predatory, repeat o offenders who are judged "more likely than not" to re- offend, and who z have a treatable mental abnormality or personality disorder. Offenders who don't meet this legal definition can't be sent there, because the purpose of the SCC is to provide mental health treatment. Thus, each year fewer than 5% of all sex offenders go to the SCC when they have completed their prison sentences. The remaining sex offenders — about 600 per year — are released from prison into the community. Their level of post - release supervision depends on the nature of their crime(s) and their likelihood to re- offend. What kind of treatment do SCC residents receive? Does it work? Sex offender treatment is similar in its approach to treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. The form of treatment used at the SCC has been shown to reduce — but not eliminate — recidivism. 5 fi At the SCC, treatment is tailored to the individual in order to accommodate people with physical, mental, or developmental disabilities such as mental retardation. • z The SCC treatment program is based on a standard, nationally accepted = F: model called "Relapse Prevention with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy." ;~ w Participants attend classes and group sessions, and undergo lie detector 6 tests and tests that measure what sexually arouses them. As part of -J o treatment, they must examine their own sexual behavior and offenses, co W identify the risk factors that might lead them to re- offend, and develop J i strategies to avoid or deal with those risks. They also learn anger cn u. management skills, learn to accept constructive feedback, and cultivate w 0 empathy and concern for others. g �a This treatment is organized into six phases, and participants are evaluated i d carefully as they complete each phase. The sixth phase prepares the I- _ participant for transition back to the community. This preparation begins Z o while participants are still in the SCC, and continues when they are z w LLJ released to a supervised community setting. j o o There is no set amount of time to complete treatment. Some offenders o may successfully complete all six phases in two or three years; others i w may take much longer. F- 1 �- o z Some SCC residents refuse to participate in treatment because they hope kii 0 that their confinement in the SCC will eventually be found to be an o I unconstitutional violation of their rights, and they will be released. z The SCC recommends less restrictive placements only for those residents who participate fully and complete all required treatment and show genuine, substantial personal change. However, although the SCC makes recommendations, it does not make the decision about who is released; an offender must get the approval of the county superior court. Before ordering a release, the court must determine that the community will be protected. Release is "conditional" - that is, the offender has to abide by the rules and conditions specified by the court, and can be sent back to the SCC if he doesn't. The court imposes many stringent conditions that take into account the person's offense history. For example, these conditions prohibit the person's access to the Internet and pornography, use of drugs and alcohol, or being near former victims. They also address other important considerations such as the person's interactions with children, the types of places where the person may not be allowed to go in the community, and restrictions on the person's employment, social and recreational activities. 6 Why are there different levels of supervision for different categories of sex offenders? How does the sex offender classification system work? Washington has three levels of sex offenders: w Level 1 Uo u) 0 The majority of registered sex offenders are classified as Level 1 w offenders. They are considered at low risk to re- offend. They are usually U) u _ first -time offenders, and they usually know their victims. w o Level 2 u. Level 2 offenders have a moderate risk of re- offending. They generally have more than one victim, and may have engaged in long -term abuse of Z o o a victim. These offenders may use threats to commit their crimes. These z crimes may be predatory; that is, the offender may "groom" victims by ? befriending them with the intention of creating an opportunity for sexual o �. abuse. These offenders may abuse a position of trust — such as o — babysitter or youth group leader — to commit their crimes. _ w w z. u) Level 3 offenders are considered to have a high risk to re- offend. They o usually have multiple victims, and may have committed prior crimes of violence. They may not know their victim(s) — or, to put it another way, they may attack strangers. Their crimes may show a manifest cruelty to the victim(s), and these offenders usually deny or minimize the crime. These offenders often have indications of a personality disorder or mental abnormality. Level 3 As you would expect, Level 1 offenders receive less post - release supervision than Level 2 or 3 offenders. (The majority of SCC residents are Level 3 offenders.) Communities, neighbors, and the news media are notified about all Level 3 offenders released in their vicinity. Local law enforcement agencies decide on a case -by -case basis how much community notification is warranted for a Level 2 offender. Information about Level 1 offenders is available on request. Information about all levels of sex offenders is also available to the public on local law enforcement offices and on web sites. 7 The length of time offenders must register after their release from prison depends on the nature of their crimes. Some are required to register for 10 or 15 years, while others are required to register for life. How does post - release supervision differ for SCC residents and those who are released directly from prison into the community? Most sex offenders who are released to the community from prison may live wherever they choose, and may also be homeless transients. They must register with local law enforcement agencies, and they are required to check in with them periodically. Those convicted of the most serious crimes and those who are transient are generally required to check in more frequently; those whose crimes were less serious (and those who have remained in the community without re- offending for several years) are usually required to check in less frequently. One of the biggest problems with post - release supervision is that many sex offenders can't find anyone who will rent to them, and they become transient. This makes it much harder for local law enforcement officials to keep tabs on them. It also makes it less likely that they will be stable enough to find jobs and lead law- abiding lives. The Department of Corrections and many other agencies are currently collaborating on ways to solve this problem. SCC residents face a much different set of conditions for their release. They must live in housing approved by the court — either in an SCTF or with family members who agree to monitor them in accordance with very strict rules. They are electronically monitored 24 hours a day, required to participate in sex offender treatment, and required to undergo lie detector and drug tests and searches. The law requires high staffing levels in an SCTF to assure there is intensive supervision. SCC residents on conditional release are also forbidden to leave home (or an SCTF) without an approved and trained "monitoring adult" who must keep them in sight at all times. They are only allowed to leave their home or SCTF for pre - approved purposes such as attending treatment or going to a job or job interview. Their trips for shopping and recreation are also carefully planned in advance. �' t.:• di;i s' ii`. �` v�3, ?�sw��, f' " "t`•��u.caz�fida:�:•.`�'..,,w - .1`n�i. «r " > :i".. �i The rules each SCTF resident must live by are individually tailored to take into account their offense history, and to provide the maximum security possible to the community. 8 What lies ahead? Will there be more or fewer sex offenders being released in the future? For the next few years, there will be more offenders released directly to the community, as people who committed crimes under older laws are released from prison. An estimated 560 sex offenders will be released each year for the next seven years. There will also be more offenders sent to the SCC when they complete their prison terms. DOC and the SCC estimate about 30 offenders per year will leave prison and enter the SCC. The total number of sex offenders likely to be released from SCC to community placements is projected to be 14 in June 2003, growing to 23 in June 2004. Eventually, it's hoped that the law passed in 2001 — the one that allows the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board to keep the most dangerous offenders in prison indefinitely — will reduce the number of dangerous sex offenders who return to our communities. However, the full impact of this change will not be realized for nearly 15 years. How does the siting process for Secure Community Transition Facilities ( SCTFs) work? The counties that have the most offenders in the SCC will be the first to be required to site SCTFs. That means that our most populous counties will come first. Not all offenders will return to the county they came from, but each county will be asked to house their fair share of the individuals being released — this share is based on the number they sent into the SCC. Although DSHS must decide where to locate SCTFs, it is required to work with local cities and county governments in making these decisions. Where local governments have created appropriate zoning laws that apply to SCTFs, DSHS will abide by them. Where local governments have failed to create zoning laws that meet the standards set by the state legislature, the Secretary of DSHS has the authority to make the decision about where to site an SCTF. During the past several months, DSHS has conducted extensive research throughout King County -- the county with the largest percentage of residents at the SCC -- to identify potential SCTF sites that are not near any of the "risk potential activities and facilities" such as child care centers or school bus stops. The department has obtained real estate sales options on three sites that met all requirements. These three sites will be 9 the focus of local public hearings to be scheduled in January and February 2003. Before a final site is chosen, DSHS is required to conduct two public hearings for each potential site so that the public can learn more about the issues and can check the work of DSHS researchers to ensure that no risk potentials have been missed. Following these hearings, the Secretary of DSHS must decide on a final location, and another public hearing must then be held in that location. How will SCTFs operate? What security measures will they have? SCTFs will be residences that house 3 -12 people, and provide a very high degree of security. In small facilities the law requires that there be high staffing levels to assure intensive supervision. Whenever a resident leaves the facility, he must be accompanied by a trained escort. Unless the court orders otherwise, the staff escort must stay with the resident at all times — even when the resident is going to a job interview or to work. Residents will only be allowed to leave the SCTF for specific purposes, with prior approval and planning. Each SCTF staff person will be required to pass a thorough background check, and to receive specialized training. They must also be informed about each resident's offense history and behavior patterns. Staff will not be armed, but they will be equipped with cell phones and police radio phones and trained in self-defense and emergency response procedures. The SCTF facility will have household and perimeter security systems, panic devices for all staff, and other technological measures to ensure safety. Residents must wear electronic monitoring devices unless otherwise ordered by the court. SCTFs will also have visual barriers such as fences or hedges that screen them from public view. The combination of all these mandated security measures means that SCTF residents will be far more closely monitored than any other sex offenders — or, for that matter, any other released violent offenders — in our communities. 1 0 How and where can people in affected communities get concerns, grievances, or requests for mitigation addressed? Before final site selection for SCTFs is made, there will be two public z hearings near each potential site. These hearings are designed to give = the public a chance to learn more about the SCTF process, to make their :� w opinions and concerns known, and to make sure DSHS has accurate and n complete information on each site. There will also be a final hearing in -I o the location that is selected. co w J = Once an SCTF is sited and in operation, neighbors and other citizens will w �; be provided with phone numbers and e-mail addresses that they can use ui 0 to contact authorities about any concerns or requests they may have. J LL Q Citizens can also play an important role by letting state legislators and = a other elected officials know if state laws or local law enforcement F- _ practices should be changed. Ultimately, all of our laws and our criminal z 1 ._ . justice system are the result of our democratic process, and our state and z o federal constitutions. 2 D U� How can I keep my family safe from sex offenders? 0 - 11J There are several things every family can do to be safe: 1- U- First and most important, talk to your children. They should know why id co o they shouldn't accept gifts or rides from strangers, why they shouldn't take i shortcuts by themselves, and what to do if a stranger knocks on the door. z Children should know that some secrets between children and adults are wrong, and what they should do if an adult (or another child or teen) behaves in ways that make them uncomfortable. Second, remember that children are not the only targets of sex offenders. All of us need to take sensible precautions in our homes and neighborhoods. Local law enforcement agencies are a good source of advice about how to protect personal and community safety. Third, find out more about the sex offenders in your community. Local police and sheriffs departments post this information on their web sites. You can also call your local police or sheriffs department and ask for this information. Law enforcement officials are generally glad to hear from you, and want to give you all the information and assistance they can to prevent crime. Police and sheriffs departments will also send a representative to meet with you and your neighbors to discuss these 11 issues if you ask them. Your safety matters to your local police, and they want to work with you. Fourth, know your neighbors. The safest communities are those where people look out for one another and pay attention to the comings and goings in their neighborhood. All of us — especially children — should know which neighbors we can turn to in any kind of emergency. Fifth, if you suspect that someone is being victimized, report your suspicions. If you don't, and a perpetrator is left at large, more victims may suffer. Finally, make thoughtful decisions about how you can influence our culture and our future. Think about what it would take for our society to stop producing so many sex offenders. This, ultimately, is the solution that everyone involved in this issue would most like to achieve. Where can victims go for help in dealing with sex offenses? Sex crimes are uniquely damaging and painful to victims. Many specialized services have been developed to help people recover, and to deal with aftereffects that may surface years later. These services include: King County • King County Sexual Assault Resource Center P.O. Box 300 Renton, WA 98057 (425) 226 -5062 Hotline: (800) 825 -7273 Seattle • Abused Deaf Women's Advocacy Services 2627 Eastlake Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 -3213 TDD: (206) 726 -0093 Relay: (800) 833 -6384 Hotline TDD: (206) 236 -3134 • Children's Response Center 925 116 NE, Suite 211 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 688 -5130 Hotline: (425) 688 -5130 12 • Harborview Center for Sexual Assault & Traumatic Stress 325 Ninth Ave. Mailstop 359947 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521 -1800 Hotline: (206) 521 -1800 13 : d. :is:tn c:t;P. ` u.u:.u�i , ,,iori.41 '� - w rvI J U 0 O o ; W L W O. g -3 LL Q` = CI: I! Z �; E- O Z ~; ll.I '1 V;, Ltl Z ; O S2 O h Z Steve Lancaster - -10 JP SCTF Mtg.doc Page 1 ;I Metropolitan King County Council News from Council District 13 Councilmember Julia Patterson www.metrokc.gov/mkcc News Release December 11, 2002 Patterson to Hold Community Meeting on Sex Offender Facility Officials will address questions and legislation related to Orilla Road site King County Councilmember Julia Patterson today announced that she will hold a community meeting on Thursday, December 19, 2002 to answer questions and concerns related to the recent announcement from the Department of Social and Health Services of the proposed siting of a Secure Community Transition Facility for level three sexual offenders near SeaTac. Councilmember Patterson will be joined by State Senator Karen Keiser, State Representative Shay Schual -Berke and State Representative Dave Upthegrove to address concerns over the proposed siting. "Residents of South King County deserve answers and information related to the troubling announcement that their neighborhood is on the short list for the sitting of a facility to house sexual offenders," said Councilmember Patterson. "I am organizing this meeting to make certain my constituents have all the facts and information they need to in order to respond." WHAT: A community meeting to address questions and concerns over the proposed development of a Secure Community Transition Facility for sex offenders at South 200"' Street and Orilla Road between Kent and SeaTac, in unincorporated King County. WHEN: Thursday, December 19` 2002 at 6:00 pm WHERE: Tyee High School — Gymnasium 4424 South 188t Street SeaTac, WA 98188 Contact: Julia Patterson (206) 296 -1013 WHO: King County Councilmember Julia Patterson, State Senator Karen Keiser, State Representative Shay Schual- Berke, State Representative Dave Upthegrove and concerned community members. For more information, contact Jon Scholes at (206) 296 -1013 or Karen Freeman at (206) 296 -0395 ### ntngton State Department or Social a Health Services DSHS To Consider Three Potential Sites In King County For Secure Transitional Sex Offi... Page 1 of 2 Thursday, December 12, 2002 News Release Listing I DSHS Main Page I Search I Contact Us I Privacy Contact:Tim Brown: (360)902 -7569 Contact 2: (360)902 -7569 December 4, 2002 DSHS To Consider Three Potential Sites In King County For Secure Transitional Sex Offender Housing Olympia - The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is working to schedule a series of public hearings in King County regarding potential sites for secure transitional sex offender housing. In compliance with state law, DSHS has obtained options on three potential sites in King County to locate a Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF) for civilly committed sex offenders. The three possible sites, all in unincorporated King County, are: • 4.8 acres of vacant land at 1801 - 344th Avenue N.E. southeast of Carnation, • 1.2 acres with an existing two -story house 4515 South 200th Street (at Orilla Road) between SeaTac and Kent, • 5.4 acres of vacant land in the 53- hundred block of 336th Street in Peasley Canyon between Federal Way and Auburn, DSHS is under a federal court order to provide more community -based transitional housing for sex offenders who complete appropriate treatment in the Special Commitment Center (SCC) on McNeil Island and are transitioned by a court to the less restrictive SCTF. Fines that have accrued to more than $6 million could be imposed on the state if DSHS does not comply with the federal court order to establish SCTFs. State law (RCW 71.09), amended by the legislature this year, requires DSHS to place SCTFs in the six counties that have committed the most people to the SCC:_King, Snohomish, Spokane, Kitsap, Thurston and Clark. Pierce County has a SCTF on McNeil Island. Since King County has sent by far the largest number of the sex offenders to the SCC, it was selected as the county for the next SCTF. Out of the 172 people currently in SCC programs, 58 are from King County. A series of two public hearings will be held for each potential site. Although dates, times and locations have not been determined, DSHS will work with local officials to try to schedule the legislatively mandated hearings in January and February. Public comments will also be solicited by mail and e-mail. Sometime in the spring of 2003, DSHS Secretary Dennis Braddock will select one of the three locations as the site where the department will construct and operate a SCTF. Following that selection, the law requires one more public hearing. Initial plans are to build a six -bed facility that eventually can be expanded to 12 beds. DSHS has followed the siting requirements in state law that, among other things, prohibit a SCTF : / /www.wa.gov /ds s/mediaeleases /2002 /pr02385.shtml DSHS To Consider Three Potential Sites In King County For Secure Transitional Sex Offi... Page 2 of 2 within the line of sight of schools, bus stops, day cares, parks, playgrounds, houses of worship and libraries. Each site has a reasonable response time by law enforcement. Security provisions of the law require that each resident of the SCTF wear an electronic monitoring device. At the facility there will be one supervising staff member for each SCTF resident during the daytime and evening, and two staff for every three residents at night. Whenever a resident is allowed to leave the SCTF on an authorized trip to a therapist, a job or other approved activity, he will be escorted, one -on -one, in close proximity during the entire outing by a well- trained staff = • member. re Actual cost of the King County SCTF is still to be determined because it is subject to several 0 variables including the price of the land, availability of utilities and condition of existing structures. u) p Construction could begin in mid -2003 with the facility ready for occupancy in early 2004. co H Earlier this year, the legislature passed the law that required the six counties and the cities within w "- 0 those counties to amend local ordinances to provide for the siting of SCTFs. DSHS can preempt local regulations if they do not allow SCTF siting. In October, DSHS notified the Metropolitan King County Council that the department apparently N d be required to preempt the county's zoning ban on SCTFs. However, DSHS will still consult with the H county throughout the siting, construction and operation of the SCTF. z I— O Overall, there are 172 residents of all Special Commitment Center programs, including 162 in the uj total confinement SCC facility, also on McNeil Island. The SCTF on McNeil Island houses two o residents. o cn a'. Residents are able to transition from the SCC by completing a stringent six -level treatment w w regimen and convincing a court they are ready to move to a community -based treatment facility. H Find more information at the DSHS Special Commitment Center Web site at. u_ p .z w December 4, 2002 For more ways to get in touch with the Department of Social and Health z Services go to the DSHS Contact Information web page. Technical Site Comments: DSHS Webmaster. http://www.wa.gov/cishs/mediareleases/2002/prO2385.shtml 12/12/2002 z Brief Description: Implementing the recommendations of the joint select committee on the = equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities. 1— cc 2 Sponsors: Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by 0 Senators Carlson, Costa, Hargrove and Long; by request of Jt Select Comm on the Equitable co 0 Distrib of Secure Community Transition Facil). w = Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections w O Senate Committee on Ways & Means 2 House Committee on Criminal Justice & Corrections g Q House Committee on Appropriations co a = w Background: In 2001, the Legislature passed 3ESSB 6151. The bill was enacted and became z '- effective June 26, 2001. The act established the Joint Select Committee for Equitable z O Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities (Committee). The Committee was uJ iii charged with reviewing and making any necessary revisions to the provisions for equitable n o distribution of secure community transition facilities ( SCTFs) and sections 213 through 218 ;0 to and 222 of the act, which establish the basic siting and operating criteria. The Committee o 1- was also charged with recommending a method for determining possible mitigation for future i v SCTFs. The Committee was mandated to provide a report to the Governor and to the chairs of the Senate Committee on Human Services and Corrections and the House Committee on z co Criminal Justice and Corrections including any recommended legislation. The report included v the text of this legislation. I • z During the hearings, significant.concerns were raised that local governments were unable to comply with the underlying requirement to plan for SCTFs under the essential public facilities law, in large part due to concerns about civil liability for complying with that law. There was also a great deal of public comment by some county commissioners while the Committee was meeting that expressed an unwillingness to site SCTFs under any circumstances, and expressed a desire for some form of preemption. Local officials were not all in agreement on the degree of preemption desired and some expressed a desire for continued participation after preemption. At the same time, Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) reported to the Committee that some local governments were considering making the siting and staffing requirements substantially more restrictive than contemplated by the Legislature in the adoption of the underlying bill and that meeting the requirements, even where possible, would greatly exceed the appropriated funding. There was discussion about the scope of the preemption in the underlying bill and testimony that the Governor's proposed language was expanded prior to passage to cover the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and that a trial court had not interpreted the language in that manner. A second major concern was the requirement that DSHS endeavor to site in a manner that achieved a five - minute law enforcement response time. Law enforcement testified that this Senate Bill Report FINAL BILL REPORT ESSB 6594 C 68 L 02 Synopsis as Enacted 1 ESSB 6594 'w. was not possible in most, if not all, jurisdictions. Law enforcement also testified that geography was not how response time was determined and that this provision drove SCTFs into areas where they posed the greatest risk to public safety. They were also concerned with liability under this provision and others. Summary: No person may bring a cause of action for civil damages against a county or city based on the good faith actions of a county or city to provide siting for SCTFs in accordance with the law. Eligibility for the planning grant provided under existing law is extended to 120 days after the effective date of this act. Planning and incentive grants provided in existing law are subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any county, which had at least five persons detained or committed under Chapter 71.09 RCW as of April 1, 2001, that was notified under 3ESSB 6151 that DSHS expected to site beds in that county by May 2007 and fails to complete adoption of their development regulations for SCTFs as required under the existing essential public facilities law by October 1, 2002, is preempted. Affected counties are: King, Snohomish, Thurston, Clark, Kitsap and Spokane. A determination that a city or county is preempted is final and not subject to appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Growth Management Act. DSHS may site SCTFs within a preempted county without regard to development regulations, permitting requirements or any other law including SEPA, the Shorelines Act, and the Hydraulics Code. This preemption provision also applies to the cities within the six counties. DSHS may continue to consult with a city or county that has been preempted. Preemption does not make a city or county ineligible for specified grants, loans, or pledges and is not a basis for a private cause of action or an appeal under RCW 43.17.250(2). For facilities sited under the exemption from SEPA, DSHS must site construct, operate and occupy in an environmentally responsible manner and must make a threshold determination whether an SCTF sited under a preemption would have a significant adverse environmental impact. If so, DSHS must prepare an environmental impact statement that meets the requirements of SEPA and the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology. This requirement is not a basis for any civil cause of action or administrative appeal and expires June 30, 2009. The provisions clarifying that the preemption of "all other laws" includes SEPA, the Shorelines Act and the Hydraulics Code and setting forth the preemption in those statutes expire June 30, 2009. Where a city or county adopts development regulations in accordance with the law, DSHS must comply with those regulations to site an SCTF in that city or county. Cities and counties may not adopt development regulations more restrictive than the requirements that the state has imposed on DSHS where the state has established specific requirements for the siting or operation of SCTFs. Regulations that are more restrictive than the statutory requirements enacted by the state are void. DSHS must hold siting hearings in preempted cities and counties. A preempted city or county may propose public safety measures specific to a particular site. The proposal must be in writing and delivered to DSHS by the hearing date. DSHS must respond to the proposed measures in writing within 15 business days. If the city or county finds the response inadequate, they may notify the department within 15 business days of the specific responses they find inadequate and the department must respond to the alleged inadequacies Senate Bill Report 2 ESSB 6594 r within seven business days. If the city or county fails to notify the department within 15 days, the department's response is final. If the DSHS response is not revised to the satisfaction of the city or county, the city or county may petition the Governor to appoint a designee with law enforcement experience for an emergency hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Governor's designee must hear the petition and then must make a determination within 30 days. The Governor's designee shall consider the DSHS response, and the effectiveness and cost of the proposed measures in relation to the purposes of civil commitment. The decision by the Governor's designee is final and not subject to judicial review. The county or city must bear the cost of the petition. If the city or county prevails on all issues, DSHS must reimburse the costs. The department's consideration of the proposed conditions may not be construed to affect the preemption. Law enforcement must respond to calls regarding residents of SCTFs as high priority calls, and a law enforcement officer who responds reasonably and in good faith to such a call shall not be held liable for civil damages based on the acts of the resident or the actions of the officer during the response. This immunity extends to the officer's employing city or county. School bus stops are risk potential activities or facilities, but do not include bus stops established primarily for public transit. A person with whom a resident has, or has had, a dating relationship is not eligible to be an escort. At the request of local government, DSHS must enter into a long -term contract memorializing the agreements between the state and the local government related to the operation of the facility. Any contract regarding mitigation must be separate. The contract must include language stating that the contract does not obligate the state to continue operating any aspect of the civil commitment program under Chapter 71.09 RCW or to operate the SCTF if sufficient funds are not appropriated by the Legislature. It also must include language stating that a local government is not obligated to operate an SCTF. A city or county may contract with DSHS to operate an SCTF. Mitigation for future facilities is limited to four categories: One -time training on the establishment of an SCTF: This training includes training for law enforcement and administrative staff and training by law enforcement of SCTF staff. Reimbursement is limited to wages and benefits for the city or county staff while being trained by the state and costs associated with preparation and delivery of training to SCTF staff. Information coordination: This refers to coordination between law enforcement agencies and between law enforcement and the SCTF related to facility residents. Reimbursement is limited to start-up costs. One -time capital costs: These are off -site costs associated with a need for increased security in specific locations and are limited to actual costs. Senate Bill Report 3 ESSB 6594 r Incident response costs: These are criminal justice costs associated with residents who violate conditions or who commit new crimes. Incident response costs do not include costs associated with civil cases based on the actions of a resident. Votes on Final Passage: Senate 49 0 House 55 41 (House amended) Senate 29 15 (Senate concurred) Effective: March 21, 2002 Senate Bill Report 4 ESSB 6594 z - z` 6 D . 0 0 W • W W = V) W O g Q : N d = W Z �. I— O` Z Lu 2 p ` N CI Hi W W; LL O. _ ✓ in O l • Z • FINAL BILL REPORT 3ESSB 6151 C 12 L 01 E2 Synopsis as Enacted Brief Description: Revising provisions relating to sex offenders. Sponsors: Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators Long and Hargrove). Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections Background: The presence of risk level III sex offenders and civilly committed sex offenders on court ordered less restrictive alternatives in the community has created considerable concern about the risks these high risk offenders present for community safety. There is concern that the state needs to address both the issues of appropriate housing and reintegration of persons being released from civil commitment and of the appropriate sentencing of sex offenders in a comprehensive manner so that both the civil and criminal processes effectively address the need to protect the community and permit the state to meet its constitutional and statutory duties. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is required by its constitutional and statutory duty as well as by court order to find less restrictive alternative placements for persons civilly committed to the Special Commitment Center (SCS) who have progressed in treatment to the point that they no longer need a total confinement setting. Lack of appropriate housing in the community and opposition to this sub - population has presented a barrier to the release to a less restrictive alternative setting for some of the committed persons. As the commitment center continues to grow, this barrier would increase without the state's assistance in creating appropriate housing. Consequently, DSHS has attempted, without success, to site three -bed units in the community while requesting funds from the Legislature for a larger facility which would normally be a step toward conditional release to a three -bed facility. Crimes committed prior to July 1, 1984 are under an indeterminate sentencing structure that permits the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) to return a paroled offender to prison for the remainder of his or her maximum term. The current determinate sentencing structure states a sentence in terms of a specific number of months and not a range of time. Determinate sentencing does not allow the state to return a person under supervision in the community to prison beyond the end of his or her defined term. In addition, the ability of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to supervise sex offenders in the community or place conditions on their behavior upon supervised release to the community varies dependent on the date of the person's crime. Not until July 1, 2000 could DOC adjust conditions to address a person's changing risk level to the community for crimes occurring after that date. Summary: DSHS is authorized to site and operate a 404 -bed relocation of the SCC and a secure community transition facility (SCTF) to house persons conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative on McNeil Island. This SCTF is limited to 15 transitional and nine pre- Senate Bill Report 1 3ESSB 6151 transitional beds. The McNeil Island SCTF is available to those persons receiving less restrictive alternative orders under RCW 71.09.090(1). The Department of Corrections is authorized to continue operating a prison for sex offenders and other offenders on McNeil Island. This includes access to adequate docking facilities at Steilacoom. Local comprehensive plans, development regulations, and all other laws are preempted and superseded with regard to these two facilities. The state's authority to site an essential public facility in conformance with comprehensive plans and development regulations is not affected and with the exception of these two facilities, state agencies must comply with those plans and regulations. No additional SCTFs may be required to be sited in Pierce County before July 1, 2008 and to the greatest extent possible, persons who were not residents of Pierce County must not be further released to Pierce County until after June 30, 2003. In addition to its other determinations, the court must consider whether a person is able to withstand changes in routine and situation without regressing to the point that the person presents a danger that cannot reasonably be addressed in the proposed placement. DSHS must enter negotiations for a mitigation agreement with the county and affected cities. Employers must notify all other employees of the person's status. Notification at educational institutions is accomplished through existing statutes. DSHS must make reasonable efforts to distribute the impact of the employment, education, and social services needs of the residents among the adjacent counties and not concentrate the impact in any one county. Before any person is placed in the SCTF on McNeil Island, there must be a 24 -hour law enforcement presence on the island which must coordinate with the prison Emergency Response Team. DSHS must hold three public hearings on the operations and security of the McNeil Island SCTF by August 1, 2001. Additional SCTFs may only be operated following appropriate public participation. This includes two public hearings in each of the three finalist communities and at least one more public hearing in the selected community. If only one site is under consideration, at least two public hearings must be held in that community. Fourteen days notice of the hearing must be given through radio, television and newspapers of general circulation, and to local persons and organizations. DSHS must provide the Legislature with a transportation plan by August 1, 2001 and must separate residents from minors and vulnerable adults who are not sexually violent predators when traveling between McNeil Island and the mainland. DSHS must facilitate local operational advisory boards. DSHS staff at the SCC and the McNeil SCTF must have self - defense and crisis response training. Escorts must also have training in the offender's pattern of offense. Until the facility reaches seven residents there must be a one -to -one staff to resident ratio during waking hours and two staff for every three residents at night. Staff must be trained in self - defense and incident de- escalation. DSHS must provide the Legislature with a staffing plan for the anticipated growth of the facility to its maximum capacity. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all SCTF residents must have 24 -hour electronic monitoring, based on the global positioning system where available and funded. Residents must be escorted by trained escorts within close proximity and under close supervision when away from the facility. Escorts may not be relatives of the residents. DSHS must adopt a violation policy for returning residents to the SCC or a higher level of security. The policy must include a mandatory immediate return to the SCC, unless the person is arrested, for Senate Bill Report 2 3ESSB 6151 any serious violation and may include returns to the SCC for other violations. Serious violations must include the commission of any crime, any unlawful use of a controlled substance, and any violation of a condition targeted at the person's documented pattern of offense. Where DSHS contracts with a provider to operate a secure community transition facility, great weight must be given to the provider's record with regard to violations. A joint select committee reviews and makes recommendations on equitable distribution z criteria for SCTFs, the siting criteria for these facilities, and a method for determining . z possible mitigation for future SCTFs. w With the exception of the SCTF at McNeil Island, no county may be required to provide v o more SCTF beds than the aggregate total number of persons committed from or with pending commitment petitions from that county. Counties and cities may choose to site beds in excess tu z of the required number and those that do would be eligible for a bonus incentive. The u) u essential public facilities planning provisions for SCTFs are extended to non -GMA counties. w O No county may preclude siting of SCTFs. u. 4 By August 31, 2001, DSHS must notify counties of the maximum number of beds that could = d be sited in the county and the projected minimum and maximum number of beds needed for F- _ the period of May 2004 through May 2007. Upon notification, counties must promptly notify Z the cities in the county. DSHS must cease current siting activities and future sites must be z O under the provisions of this act. 2 D uj U� Counties and cities are eligible to participate in an incentive program for siting SCTFs. To o H participate in the incentive program, counties and cities must give great weight to the w equitable distribution of SCTFs. Development regulations, comprehensive plans and other H v laws must be consistent with the criteria in statute and rule, facilities must have at least three L!- p beds, and sites must be approved by the department. The incentive program has four tii z co components: v OI z Counties and cities who commit to initiate the siting process for one or more SCTFs by February 1, 2002 shall receive a planning grant from the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. Any county or city that has issued all needed permits for an approved site by May 1, 2003 shall receive an incentive grant of $50,000 for each bed sited. Any county or city that has issued all needed permits for an approved site before January 1, 2003 shall receive an additional incentive bonus of 20 percent of the incentive grant. Any county or city that sites and permits SCTFs with beds in excess of the maximum that the county could be required to site shall receive a bonus of $100,000 per excess bed. Pierce County is eligible for the excess bed bonus for three SCTF beds on McNeil Island. Despite the prohibition on requiring siting in addition to this facility, Pierce County and its cities are eligible for the incentive program should they decide to site and actually permit additional facilities. Senate Bill Report 3 3ESSB 6151 r'' By October 1, 2001, DSHS must develop and publish policy guidelines for siting and operation of SCTFs in consultation with the joint select committee. The policy guidelines must balance average law enforcement response time against distance from risk potential activities and endeavors to achieve a maximum five minute response time. Sites may not be in direct proximity to risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time the site is listed for consideration. The guidelines must specify how DSHS will measure distance and establish a method for analyzing and comparing the remaining criteria. DSHS must have its analysis available at public hearings related to siting. To be considered, a potential site must meet the distance requirements set out in the policy guidelines, the property must be available for lease or purchase in the required time, reliable security and back -up systems must be available, and appropriate permitting must be available under the local zoning laws. DSHS must analyze and compare sites that meet the minimum consideration criteria according to the method established in rule. Entry level or trainee personnel must be supervised by more experienced personnel. The facility must have minimum security, alarm, and back -up systems including generator systems. The systems must be commercial grade, tamper - proof, and have panic devices for staff. There must be land and cellular telephone access and radio back -up. DSHS must work with local jurisdictions to develop locations for secure community transition facilities and to achieve equitable distribution within the counties. Secure community transition facilities are essential public facilities. Affected counties and cities must review their county -wide plan, comprehensive plans and development regulations and if necessary revise them to provide siting that is consistent with the siting criteria in statute. Affected counties and cities may use their normal review processes but the review must not occur later than the date specified in RCW 36.70A.130(1). Any person convicted of a first two - strikes sex offense committed after the effective date of the act and any person who has a prior two - strikes offense who is convicted of any other felony sex offense committed after the effective date of the act is subject to sentencing to a minimum and maximum term sentence. The minimum term is the term the offender would be subject to under the existing statute. The maximum term is the statutory maximum sentence for the offense. Class A felonies have a statutory maximum sentence of life. The statutory maximum sentence for Class B felonies is ten years and for Class C felonies is five years. Persons convicted of rape of a child in the first or second degree or child molestation in the first degree who were under 18 at the time of the crime are subject to a determinate sentence. As the end of his or her minimum term approaches, the offender is subject to a review by the End of Sentence Review Committee that assesses his or her risk level and that report is given to the ISRB and to law enforcement prior to the offender's release. DOC must make recommendations related to conditions of release to the ISRB based on methods recognized by experts in risk prediction. The ISRB decides whether to release the person to community custody or retain the person in prison. The ISRB must release the offender unless he or she is likelier than not to commit a predatory sex offense. If not released, the ISRB must set a new minimum term not to exceed two years and review the person again at the end of that period under the same standard. If the person is released, the ISRB must impose conditions of community custody on the person. The person remains under community custody for the maximum term. DOC must supervise the person in the community. Senate Bill Report 4 3ESSB 6151 One If the person violates a condition of community custody, the person is entitled to an administrative hearing and a sanction based on a graduated sanction system that became effective July 1, 2000, under the Offender Accountability Act. The graduated sanctions must be amended to permit community custody revocation to the full extent of the maximum term. Hearings, with the same procedures and time lines established under the Offender Accountability Act, are conducted by the ISRB unless the ISRB otherwise contracts with DOC to conduct the hearings. The rights of the offender are the same as those in existing law under the Offender Accountability Act, except that if community custody revocation is a possible sanction, the person has a right to an attorney. In the case of a person convicted of a Class A felony, community custody revocation could result in lifetime incarceration in prison. The crimes of assault in the second degree and kidnaping in the second degree when there is a finding of sexual motivation, the crime of indecent liberties with a finding of forcible compulsion, and the attempted crimes of child molestation in the first degree, indecent liberties by forcible compulsion, rape in the first or second degree, and rape of a child in the first or second degree are all Class A felonies. A person is guilty of sexually violent predator escape if he or she escapes from the SCC, a less restrictive alternative, an authorized absence, his or her escort, or if he or she tampers with his or her electronic monitor. Sexually violent predator escape is a Class A felony with a five -year minimum term and is sentenced under the indeterminate sentencing provisions. The crime of sexual misconduct with a minor is modified to include a broader spectrum of school employees. The ISRB is a member of the review team established under the dangerous mentally ill offender legislation from 1999. The provisions of law related to the ISRB have been amended with regard to this population of offenders to make them consistent with this act. Votes on Final Passage: Senate 35 11 First Special Session Senate 39 8 Senate 38 9 (Senate reconsidered) House 75 19 (House amended) Second Special Session Senate 29 11 House 67 14 (House amended) Senate 26 13 (Senate concurred) Effective: June 26, 2001 September 1, 2001 (Sections 301 -363, 501 and 503) Senate Bill Report 5 3ESSB 6151 ci Washington State Department of Social & Health Services DECEMBER 4, 2002 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Tim Brown, DSHS Assistant Secretary, 360- 902 -7798 Steve Williams, DSHS Media Relations, 360- 902 -7569 a NaW S R eledse NO. 002-385 w • 0 gQ = • d w z� F-- O z �— In compliance with state law, DSHS has obtained options on three potential sites in King 0 cn County to locate a Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF) for civilly committed sex o �- offenders. 111 v u-- - O w z. U =' • 4.8 acres of vacant land at 1801— 344 Avenue N.E. southeast of Carnation, p DSHS TO CONSIDER THREE POTENTIAL SITES IN KING COUNTY FOR SECURE TRANSITIONAL SEX OFFENDER HOUSING OLYMPIA — The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is working to schedule a series of public hearings in King County regarding potential sites for secure transitional sex offender housing. The three possible sites, all in unincorporated King County, are: • 1.2 acres with an existing two -story house 4515 South 200` Street (at Orilla Road) between SeaTac and Kent, • 5.4 acres of vacant land in the 53- hundred block of 336 Street in Peasley Canyon between Federal Way and Auburn, DSHS is under a federal court order to provide more community -based transitional housing for sex offenders who complete appropriate treatment in the Special Commitment Center (SCC) on McNeil Island and are transitioned by a court to the less restrictive SCTF. Fines that have accrued to more than $6 million could be imposed on the state if DSHS does not comply with the federal court order to establish SCTFs. State law (RCW 71.09), amended by the legislature this year, requires DSHS to place SCTFs in the six counties that have committed the most people to the SCC: King, Snohomish, Spokane, Kitsap, Thurston and Clark. Pierce County has a SCTF on McNeil Island. Since King County has sent by far the largest number of the sex offenders to the SCC, it was selected as the county for the next SCTF. Out of the 172 people currently in SCC programs, 58 are from King County. A series of two public hearings will be held for each potential site. Although dates, times and locations have not been determined, DSHS will work with local officials to try to schedule the legislatively mandated hearings in January and February. Public comments will also be solicited by mail and e-mail. z ~ w Sometime in the spring of 2002, DSHS Secretary Dennis Braddock will select one of the three locations as the site where the department will construct and operate a SCTF. v Following that selection, the law requires one more public hearing. Initial plans are to build v o a six -bed facility that eventually can be expanded to 12 beds. J DSHS has followed the siting requirements in state law that, among other things, prohibit a w o SCTF within the line of sight of schools, bus stops, day cares, parks, playgrounds, houses of worship and libraries. Each site has a reasonable response time by law enforcement. g Q Security provisions of the law require that each resident of the SCTF wear an electronic 1 w monitoring device. At the facility there will be one supervising staff member for each SCTF z '- resident during the daytime and evening, and two staff for every three residents at night. z o Whenever a resident is allowed to leave the SCTF on an authorized trip to a therapist, a job 111 w or other approved activity, he will be escorted, one -on -one, in close proximity during the v 0 entire outing by a well - trained staff member. o c Ill Actual cost of the King County SCTF is still to be determined because it is subject to several 1 v . variables including the price of the land, availability of utilities and condition of existing LL- p structures. Construction could begin in mid -2003 with the facility ready for occupancy in w z early 2004. U i=" z Earlier this year, the legislature passed the law that required the six counties and the cities within those counties to amend local ordinances to provide for the siting of SCTFs. DSHS can preempt local regulations if they do not allow SCTF siting. In October, DSHS notified the Metropolitan King County Council that the department apparently will be required to preempt the county's zoning ban on SCTFs. However, DSHS will still consult with the county throughout the siting, construction and operation of the SCTF. Overall, there are 172 residents of all Special Commitment Center programs, including 162 in the total confinement SCC facility, also on McNeil Island. The SCTF on McNeil Island houses two residents. Residents are able to transition from the SCC by completing a stringent six -level treatment regimen and convincing a court they are ready to move to a community -based treatment facility. Find more information at the DSHS Special Commitment Center Web site at http: / /www.wa.gov /dshs /geninfo /sccoverview.html. Page 2 of 2 ■ Why no site in Seattle? KING COUNTY SCTF DSHS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DECEMBER 4, 2002 Did DSHS look carefully throughout King County for other potential sites? A real estate brokerage firm hired by DSHS conducted 13 searches in King County for properties based on slightly different criteria — lot size, price, etc. — each time. The properties identified by the broker were matched by DSHS against a map of buffer zones around risk potential sites. The match identified 167 parcels that DSHS staff visited and inspected. Forty -five properties were potentially viable, 26 were for sale and 11 made the cut. The 11 parcels best met program needs and community safety requirements. (The 15 sites that did not make the cut are still potentially viable.) Currently, there are no viable sites for . sale in Seattle outside of risk buffers. Three times the brokerage firm looked specifically at Seattle using criteria that went as high as a one - half acre site selling for $3 million. Only one site popped -up — a Puget Sound tidal zone parcel in West Seattle with a steep slope that could not support a building. Why no site in other cities in King County? Again, there were no currently viable, affordable sites for sale outside of risk buffers within the city limits of King County cities. What are the risk factors and how large are the buffers? DSHS uses a buffer zone of 600 feet around each risk potential site. The risk sites . identified by the law (RCW 71.09) include: ' • 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, and • Public libraries. Page 1 of 3 :f(I.,.�xi•:Ln'l::X;'VlijCl �NaV .�•.hil'.I�.�v.C'a!'L�.'+lS; aaa.l v:%�r:�i..w....... .. ... �. .,....i.. What are the police response times to the three potential sites? That depends on the priority given to each call by the King County Sheriff's Department. A highest priority call would have a response time of between four and eight minutes. A z lower priority call response would be less than 15 minutes. 1 z L w How much is DSHS willing to pay for each site? D JU DSHS negotiated options with the landowners to purchase the property for a set price. T co w he options are good for nine or ten months. The option fees paid will be deducted from w = F the price of the property purchased. Landowners will keep the option fees paid if their u) u_ land is not purchased. w The purchase prices for each site are: u. a $187,990 for 4.8 acres of vacant land at 1801— 344 Avenue N.E. southeast of Z Carnation. Option costs are a lump sum of $8,000 for the first four months and a 0 lump sum of $10,000 for an additional five months. w F' D Ca • $199,950 for 5.4 acres of vacant land in the 53- hundred block of 336` Street in o Peasley Canyon between Federal Way and Auburn. Option costs are a lump sum o l— of $1,995 for the first four months and a lump sum of $3,999 for an additional six z 0 F- months. F- 0 z • $975,000 for 1.2 acres with an existing house at 4515 South 200 Street (at Orilla cwi i Road) between SeaTac and Kent. Option costs are a lump sum $10,000 for the o F- first four months and a lump sum of $6,000 for an additional six months. z Will DSHS go for the least expensive site no matter what? No. How did DSHS pare the list of 11 sites down to the three finalists? DSHS Secretary Dennis Braddock instructed staff to try to obtain sites with reasonable highway access and with suitable response time by law enforcement. In working with landowners to obtain purchase options, some decided not to sell while others were unable to reach agreements for various reasons. Where are the other sites? The other sites are located throughout unincorporated King County. Some of these sites are no longer for sale to DSHS. Other sites are possible replacements if unforeseen problems eliminate one or more of the three finalists. Page 2 of 3 Why not place the SCTF at the Fire Training Academy east of North Bend or some other remote, wooded area? The Academy is difficult to get to with a secluded one -lane road, frequently covered in snow during the winter, which limits accesses to services and could hinder the already unacceptable response time of emergency vehicles. Utilities are inadequate with cell phone service sporadic. Other remote locations have similar problems. When and where will the public hearings be held? DSHS will work with local officials to determine the best locations and times for the hearings. Each of the three sites will have two hearings - probably one in January and one in February. Sometime during the spring of 2003, Secretary Braddock will chose the SCTF site from the three finalists. One more public hearing will be held to discuss the chosen site. # ## FOR MORE INFORMATION: Steve Williams, DSHS Media Relations, 360- 902 -7569 Page 3 of 3 z ~ cc J V U U) w J H U) u_ w gQ co = a z �. �- uj zE- w 0 o - o 1- w uj L I o .. z w v = 0 . z 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 must agree 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 and living skills training that may include education, alcohol or chemical dependency treatment, vocational training, and recreation. 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 living 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 SCTF resident 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 program staff work with community representatives to establish Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 1 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) Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 • t .::L:.::S>.:.. .w;m�.t 'f.,.[. ria taq , nK .W.� ,....�� �. }.' r ;v; ih.rcl +'� ��h:1t: vr.' {la; Scenario 1 • Scenario 2 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 6 :00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. Rise, Prepare /Eat Breakfast, Clean Up Do Household Chores Escorted to Grocery Store Attend Transition Class Do Treatment Homework Prepare /Eat Dinner, Clean up Escorted to Individual Therapy Session Return to SCTF, Work on Journal Go to Bed 5 :45 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 8 :30 p.m. 9:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. Rise, Prepare /Eat Breakfast. Prepare Sack Lunch Do Household Chores Escorted to Job. Begin Work Shift Work shift concludes. Escorted to SCTF Prepare /Eat Dinner Escorted to Group Therapy Session Return to SCTF Do Therapy Homework, Work on Journal Go to Bed 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) Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center April 2002 2 • t .::L:.::S>.:.. .w;m�.t 'f.,.[. ria taq , nK .W.� ,....�� �. }.' r ;v; ih.rcl +'� ��h:1t: vr.' {la; 70 vi Washington Stdte Department of Social & Health Services What You Need to Know About Sex Offenders, Community Protection, and the Law December 3, 2002 Department of Social & Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration Special Commitment Center PO Box 45322 Olympia, WA 98504 -5322 (360) 902-8259 Fax: (360) 902 -8497 TABLE OF CONTENTS z Why aren't all dangerous sex offenders locked up for life? . Page 1 w Why are Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) 6 necessary now? Page 2 W o W What are local communities required to do? Page 3 o Are there more sex offenders now than there used to be? Page 5 2 J Why do some sex offenders go to the Special Commitment u Center (SCC), while others are released directly to the community? Page 5 I w What kind of treatment do SCC residents receive? Does it work? Page 5 z o ww Why are there different levels of supervision for different 0 o categories of sex offenders? How does the sex offender o - classification system work? .. Page 7 W '- = w U How does post - release supervision differ for SCC u o residents and those who are released directly from prison w z to the community" Page 8 What lies ahead? Will there be more or fewer sex offenders z being released in the future? Page 9 How does the siting process for SCTFs work? Page 9 How will SCTFs operate? What security measures will they have? Page 10 How and where can people in affected communities get concerns, grievances, or requests for mitigation addressed? Page 11 How can 1 keep my family safe form sex offenders? Page 11 Where can victims go for help in dealing with sex offenses? Page 12 !:.;i n.:.e� �..('y7!wti",' ;Alt's ye w ,y�ra F..: L� �; a:i' x' .f ;:' 1 . r,.f -Y:�S What You Need To Know About Sex Offenders, Community Protection, and the Law Why aren't all dangerous sex offenders locked up for life? This is a question our society and our legislature have been struggling with for over a decade. In the late 1980s, three shocking, highly publicized crimes put protection from sex offenders on the public agenda, and led to the passage of the 1990 Community Protection Act. The Community Protection Act increased prison sentences for most sex crimes. It also requires that communities be notified when dangerous sex offenders are released from prisons or juvenile institutions. You have probably seen notices about sex offenders in your local newspaper, and you might have received a flyer at your home if a sex offender moved into your immediate neighborhood. The Community Protection Act also called for the creation of the Special Commitment Center (SCC), a special, locked mental health facility that is now located on McNeil Island, within the perimeter of a state prison. Because the SCC is a mental health facility, it is run by the state's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), which oversees the state's public mental health system. (The Department of Corrections (DOC) oversees state prisons.) The idea of the Special Commitment Center is that certain sex offenders have mental abnormalities or personality disorders that contribute to their likelihood to re- offend, and that specialized mental health treatment can reduce this danger. When these offenders have completed their prison sentences, the law provides for the court to civilly commit them to the SCC for mental health treatment rather than releasing them to the community. Some people believed that creating the SCC would be a way to keep dangerous offenders locked up indefinitely. But a federal district court has ruled that this can't be the case. If offenders participate in mental health treatment and improve to the point that the community can be adequately protected, the federal court has ruled that the offenders have a constitutional right to be released to "less restrictive facilities," and to eventually return to society. 1 When the court issued this ruling, legislators tried other ways to keep dangerous sex offenders locked up longer. In 1996, they increased sentences for major sex offenses again, and passed "two- strikes" legislation that calls for life sentences for a second conviction of a serious a sex crime. This didn't work very well because sex offenders often plead z guilty to reduced charges, and because prosecutors and the courts are w g reluctant to send young offenders to prison for life if there is any hope at all that they will change their ways. They point out that the recidivism rate o o for sex offenders is relatively low compared to other kinds of crime, and w w that most offenders stop being violent when they get older. 1- 0 Because of these problems with the two- strikes law, the legislature, in 2 2001, passed yet another law. This time they replaced "determinate" g Q sentences for sex offenders (that is, sentences with a fixed amount of time) with "indeterminate" sentences that can be extended when there is a w risk of repeat crime. This law requires the Indeterminate Sentence z Review Board (similar to a parole board) to review the cases of sex z o offenders who were convicted after September 1, 2001, and to deny w w release if it finds that an offender is "likelier than not" to commit a similar crime if he is released. If it denies release, the Board must review the o u) case again every two years. This law means that a sex offender can be ° ~ kept behind bars for as long as he poses a danger to the community — for 0 five years, ten years, or life. u. o z The result of all these changes in the law is that different offenders face o different sentences depending on when they were convicted of their o - crimes. Offenders who were sent to prison in the mid- 1980s, for example, Z are subject only to the laws that were on the books at that time. When their prison terms expire, they are released. However, they must register with police as sex offenders, and if there is a high risk that they will re- offend, communities are notified about their release. These offenders may also be civilly committed to the Special Commitment Center if they have a mental abnormality or personality disorder and are considered more likely than not to re- offend. Why are Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs) necessary now? Offenders are offered mental health treatment at the SCC. If they participate in treatment and learn to manage their behavior and control their impulses, state and federal courts have ruled that they have a constitutional right to be released into a "less restrictive alternative." In some cases, that may mean offenders are released to their families, with close monitoring and supervision from the Department of Corrections, the 2 SCC, and local law enforcement. These offenders must continue to participate in community -based sex offender treatment, and, unless otherwise ordered by the court, they must wear electronic monitoring devices. In many cases, however, offenders don't have families who will take them in and share responsibility for supervising them. And even when families are willing, the court may not be convinced that they are capable of maintaining the level of vigilance that's needed. For these offenders, the SCC must create community -based transition facilities where newly - released SCC residents can live. If the state fails to create these facilities soon, it might be required to release offenders into the community without having facilities where they would be supervised and monitored. Further delays will also result in the state having to pay enormous federal court fines. What are local communities required to do? The state has ultimate responsibility for placing sex offenders and protecting all the residents of Washington. But the state can't carry out this responsibility without the help and cooperation of local communities. As you might expect, it's been extremely difficult to find a community willing to have a less restrictive facility for sex offenders. That's why the state legislature, in 2001, passed a law placing one such facility on McNeil Island, and calling on cities and counties to create special zoning regulations to spell out where more of these facilities can be located. The 2001 law required all local governments (cities and counties) to create zoning regulations to accommodate SCTFs. But in 2002, the legislature amended the law, and required local governments in the state's six most populous counties to do this, or to allow DSHS to choose sites. Cities and towns within Clark, Kitsap, King, Thurston, Snohomish and Spokane Counties (and the county governments themselves) were directed to create zoning laws to accommodate SCTFs because the courts in these counties had sent the biggest number of sex offenders to the SCC. (Pierce County was not included because it already has an SCTF on McNeil Island.) The legislature specified that if local governments in the six counties don't create zoning regulations to accommodate SCTFs — or if local ordinances don't comply with the state siting requirements — the Secretary of DSHS will make the decision about where to locate them. 3 ktiw:iF:.c v. �W��:�r�r..��.� —.�..• .. t Local governments that have created zoning regulations for SCTFs have usually chosen to locate them in Tight industrial areas — not in shopping areas or residential neighborhoods. The 2001 law is very specific about how decisions should be made about where to put these facilities. SCTFs must not be located adjacent to, across the street or parking lot from, or "within line of sight" of a risk potential activity or location. "Line of sight" is further defined as "the ability to reasonably distinguish or recognize individuals." DSHS has determined through field tests using a measuring wheel that for practical sighting purposes, "line of sight" is approximately 600 feet if there is no visual obstruction such as a large building between the two points of measurement. The law also requires DSHS to balance two important factors: the average time it would take law enforcement to respond to an emergency call at the SCTF, and the distance between the SCTF and risk potential activities and facilities. The idea here is that SCTFs should be as far away from risk potential activities as possible — but not so remote that it would take police a long time to reach them. Risk potential activities and facilities include: • Public and private schools • School bus stops (does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit) • Licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities • Public parks • Publicly dedicated trails • Sports fields • Playgrounds • Recreational and community centers • Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques • Public libraries. The pressure to site and open one or more of these "Secure Community Transition Facilities" comes from the federal court, which has already seen years of delay in siting these facilities, and is not likely to tolerate any more. 4 Are there more sex offenders now than there used to be? Some studies show that there are actually fewer sex offenders than there used to be, but we'll never really know for sure, because our society used z to sweep a lot of sex offenses under the rug. Even now, many sex offenses are never reported. re w In the past, fewer victims reported offenses for fear of not being believed, - o or not wanting their privacy compromised, or because victims were often u) w blamed for somehow bringing these crimes on themselves. Today, people w are generally more willing to confront these crimes and hold the cn o er perpetrator accountable for them. There are more support services for w victims, better law enforcement practices, and less inclination to blame the victims. u Community notification laws and media reports may make it seem like Z w there are more sex offenders, because we read about their offenses in the newspaper or receive notices when one moves into our neighborhood. It's o important to remember that before 1990, there were probably just as many 2 0 sex offenders in our community as there are now. We just didn't know c about them. o ,. ww o Why do some sex offenders go to the SCC, while others are released o ..z The SCC is for people who meet the legal definition of predatory, repeat offenders who are judged "more likely than not" to re- offend, and who z directly to the community? have a treatable mental abnormality or personality disorder. Offenders who don't meet this legal definition can't be sent there, because the purpose of the SCC is to provide mental health treatment. Thus, each year fewer than 5% of all sex offenders go to the SCC when they have completed their prison sentences. The remaining sex offenders — about 600 per year — are released from prison into the community. Their level of post - release supervision depends on the nature of their crime(s) and their likelihood to re- offend. What kind of treatment do SCC residents receive? Does it work? Sex offender treatment is similar in its approach to treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. The form of treatment used at the SCC has been shown to reduce — but not eliminate — recidivism. 5 At the SCC, treatment is tailored to the individual in order to accommodate people with physical, mental, or developmental disabilities such as mental retardation. The SCC treatment program is based on a standard, nationally accepted model called "Relapse Prevention with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy." Participants attend classes and group sessions, and undergo lie detector tests and tests that measure what sexually arouses them. As part of treatment, they must examine their own sexual behavior and offenses, identify the risk factors that might lead them to re- offend, and develop strategies to avoid or deal with those risks. They also learn anger management skills, learn to accept constructive feedback, and cultivate empathy and concern for others. This treatment is organized into six phases, and participants are evaluated carefully as they complete each phase. The sixth phase prepares the participant for transition back to the community. This preparation begins while participants are still in the SCC, and continues when they are released to a supervised community setting. There is no set amount of time to complete treatment. Some offenders may successfully complete all six phases in two or three years; others may take much longer. Some SCC residents refuse to participate in treatment because they hope that their confinement in the SCC will eventually be found to be an unconstitutional violation of their rights, and they will be released. The SCC recommends less restrictive placements only for those residents who participate fully and complete all required treatment and show genuine, substantial personal change. However, although the SCC makes recommendations, it does not make the decision about who is released; an offender must get the approval of the county superior court. Before ordering a release, the court must determine that the community will be protected. Release is "conditional" -- that is, the offender has to abide by the rules and conditions specified by the court, and can be sent back to the SCC if he doesn't. The court imposes many stringent conditions that take into account the person's offense history. For example, these conditions prohibit the person's access to the Internet and pornography, use of drugs and alcohol, or being near former victims. They also address other important considerations such as the person's interactions with children, the types of places where the person may not be allowed to go in the community, and restrictions on the person's employment, social and recreational activities. 6 Why are there different levels of supervision for different categories of sex offenders? How does the sex offender classification system work? z Washington has three levels of sex offenders: cc 2 Level 1 0 o cn The majority of registered sex offenders are classified as Level 1 offenders. They are considered at low risk to re- offend. They are usually `� o first -time offenders, and they usually know their victims. Level 2 w Level 2 offenders have a moderate risk of re- offending. They generally Z have more than one victim, and may have engaged in long -term abuse of z o a victim. These offenders may use threats to commit their crimes. These w w crimes may be predatory; that is, the offender may "groom" victims by 0 befriending them with the intention of creating an opportunity for sexual o co abuse. These offenders may abuse a position of trust — such as 0 H babysitter or youth group leader — to commit their crimes. o 0 w z co 0 - Level 3 offenders are considered to have a high risk to re- offend. They o usually have multiple victims, and may have committed prior crimes of z Level 3 violence. They may not know their victim(s) — or, to put it another way, they may attack strangers. Their crimes may show a manifest cruelty to the victim(s), and these offenders usually deny or minimize the crime. These offenders often have indications of a personality disorder or mental abnormality. As you would expect, Level 1 offenders receive Tess post - release supervision than Level 2 or 3 offenders. (The majority of SCC residents are Level 3 offenders.) Communities, neighbors, and the news media are notified about all Level 3 offenders released in their vicinity. Local law enforcement agencies decide on a case -by -case basis how much community notification is warranted for a Level 2 offender. Information about Level 1 offenders is available on request. Information about all levels of sex offenders is also available to the public on local law enforcement offices and on web sites. 7 �„„ :r; _:i'fr,. _ :, .'.:�aa' .;uu'�i >H' {s .n:�i: m:t.vi:..�t .:i .i>..»: ::;u:;:ie.:.l�„.:�w:�., ��.✓. N..X. ;.iu:a;.� x Y r .t.:'? .i't.[ vfr YT.�F:3'A:L ` w.'. illul f4 .�:rsiri!/ IrACµil.�:GiS:.tesiv utiv: Rv; The length of time offenders must register after their release from prison depends on the nature of their crimes. Some are required to register for 10 or 15 years, while others are required to register for life. How does post - release supervision differ for SCC residents and those who are released directly from prison into the community? Most sex offenders who are released to the community from prison may live wherever they choose, and may also be homeless transients. They must register with local law enforcement agencies, and they are required to check in with them periodically. Those convicted of the most serious crimes and those who are transient are generally required to check in more frequently; those whose crimes were less serious (and those who have remained in the community without re- offending for several years) are usually required to check in less frequently. One of the biggest problems with post - release supervision is that many sex offenders can't find anyone who will rent to them, and they become transient. This makes it much harder for local law enforcement officials to keep tabs on them. It also makes it less likely that they will be stable enough to find jobs and lead law- abiding lives. The Department of Corrections and many other agencies are currently collaborating on ways to solve this problem. SCC residents face a much different set of conditions for their release. They must live in housing approved by the court — either in an SCTF or with family members who agree to monitor them in accordance with very strict rules. They are electronically monitored 24 hours a day, required to participate in sex offender treatment, and required to undergo lie detector and drug tests and searches. The law requires high staffing levels in an SCTF to assure there is intensive supervision. SCC residents on conditional release are also forbidden to leave home (or an SCTF) without an approved and trained "monitoring adult" who must keep them in sight at all times. They are only allowed to leave their home or SCTF for pre - approved purposes such as attending treatment or going to a job or job interview. Their trips for shopping and recreation are also carefully planned in advance. The rules each SCTF resident must live by are individually tailored to take into account their offense history, and to provide the maximum security possible to the community. 8 What lies ahead? Will there be more or fewer sex offenders being released in the future? For the next few years, there will be more offenders released directly to z the community, as people who committed crimes under older laws are i z released from prison. An estimated 560 sex offenders will be released w w each year for the next seven years. D 00 There will also be more offenders sent to the SCC when they complete N w their prison terms. DOC and the SCC estimate about 30 offenders per Lu i year will leave prison and enter the SCC. The total number of sex u) o offenders likely to be released from SCC to community placements is projected to be 14 in June 2003, growing to 23 in June 2004. - J LL a u Eventually, it's hoped that the law passed in 2001 - the one that allows = 0 the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board to keep the most dangerous Z offenders in prison indefinitely - will reduce the number of dangerous sex 1- o offenders who return to our communities. However, the full impact of this w 1— change will not be realized for nearly 15 years. 2 o iii D UN How does the siting process for Secure Community Transition o 1- ww LL 1 4: 7 3 The counties that have the most offenders in the SCC will be the first to be .z . required to site SCTFs. That means that our most populous counties will co come first. Not all offenders will return to the county they came from, but o I each county will be asked to house their fair share of the individuals being z released -- this share is based on the number they sent into the SCC. Facilities (SCTFs) work? Although DSHS must decide where to locate SCTFs, it is required to work with local cities and county governments in making these decisions. Where local governments have created appropriate zoning laws that apply to SCTFs, DSHS will abide by them. Where local governments have failed to create zoning laws that meet the standards set by the state legislature, the Secretary of DSHS has the authority to make the decision about where to site an SCTF. During the past several months, DSHS has conducted extensive research throughout King County -- the county with the largest percentage of residents at the SCC -- to identify potential SCTF sites that are not near any of the "risk potential activities and facilities" such as child care centers or school bus stops. The department has obtained real estate sales options on three sites that met all requirements. These three sites will be 9 ideSuc. Lt.. r3: �4r 1:* 3:::.: acao�3. tvra 'ue��s:u:da;:1YSi:• ir,:4l'.3i the focus of local public hearings to be scheduled in January and February 2003. Before a final site is chosen, DSHS is required to conduct two public z hearings for each potential site so that the public can learn more about the ? z issues and can check the work of DSHS researchers to ensure that no risk cc potentials have been missed. 0 Following these hearings, the Secretary of DSHS must decide on a final v w ill location, and another public hearing must then be held in that location. J I_ co w o How will SCTFs operate? What security measures will they have? 2 J SCTFs will be residences that house 3 -12 people, and provide a very high c degree of security. In small facilities the law requires that there be high z w staffing levels to assure intensive supervision. Whenever a resident z leaves the facility, he must be accompanied by a trained escort. Unless z o the court orders otherwise, the staff escort must stay with the resident at w w all times - even when the resident is going to a job interview or to work. m o Residents will only be allowed to leave the SCTF for specific purposes, o cn with prior approval and planning. 01- w Each SCTF staff person will be required to pass a thorough background �_ o check, and to receive specialized training. They must also be informed z about each resident's offense history and behavior patterns. Staff will not L be armed, but they will be equipped with cell phones and police radio o 1- phones and trained in self- defense and emergency response procedures. z The SCTF facility will have household and perimeter security systems, panic devices for all staff, and other technological measures to ensure safety. Residents must wear electronic monitoring devices unless otherwise ordered by the court. SCTFs will also have visual barriers such as fences or hedges that screen them from public view. The combination of all these mandated security measures means that SCTF residents will be far more closely monitored than any other sex offenders - or, for that matter, any other released violent offenders - in our communities. 10 ). ri .,.'•�•_ �;i �dk. idC:4'i:,.�1''tic :Y ;! How and where can people in affected communities get concerns, grievances, or requests for mitigation addressed? Before final site selection for SCTFs is made, there will be two public hearings near each potential site. These hearings are designed to give the public a chance to learn more about the SCTF process, to make their opinions and concerns known, and to make sure DSHS has accurate and complete information on each site. There will also be a final hearing in the location that is selected. Once an SCTF is sited and in operation, neighbors and other citizens will be provided with phone numbers and e-mail addresses that they can use to contact authorities about any concerns or requests they may have. Citizens can also play an important role by letting state legislators and other elected officials know if state laws or local law enforcement practices should be changed. Ultimately, all of our laws and our criminal justice system are the result of our democratic process, and our state and federal constitutions. How can I keep my family safe from sex offenders? There are several things every family can do to be safe: First and most important, talk to your children. They should know why they shouldn't accept gifts or rides from strangers, why they shouldn't take shortcuts by themselves, and what to do if a stranger knocks on the door. Children should know that some secrets between children and adults are wrong, and what they should do if an adult (or another child or teen) behaves in ways that make them uncomfortable. Second, remember that children are not the only targets of sex offenders. All of us need to take sensible precautions in our homes and neighborhoods. Local law enforcement agencies are a good source of advice about how to protect personal and community safety. Third, find out more about the sex offenders in your community. Local police and sheriff's departments post this information on their web sites. You can also call your local police or sheriff's department and ask for this information. Law enforcement officials are generally glad to hear from you, and want to give you all the information and assistance they can to prevent crime. Police and sheriff's departments will also send a representative to meet with you and your neighbors to discuss these 1 1 issues if you ask them. Your safety matters to your local police, and they want to work with you. Fourth, know your neighbors. The safest communities are those where z people look out for one another and pay attention to the comings and 1 z goings in their neighborhood. All of us - especially children - ly chil cc know which neighbors we can turn to in any kind of emergency. 6 D o Fifth, if you suspect that someone is being victimized, report your v i w suspicions. If you don't, and a perpetrator is left at large, more victims may suffer. `� L.L. w 2 Finally, make thoughtful decisions about how you can influence our g a culture and our future. Think about what it would take for our society to w D stop producing so many sex offenders. This, ultimately, is the solution I' w that everyone involved in this issue would most like to achieve. z 1- o Where can victims go for help in dealing with sex offenses? UJ uj 0 Sex crimes are uniquely damaging and painful to victims. Many o N specialized services have been developed to help people recover, and to o F= deal with aftereffects that may surface years later. These services = o include: o z co King County 0 • King County Sexual Assault Resource Center z IT P.O. Box 300 Renton, WA 98057 (425) 226 -5062 Hotline: (800) 825 -7273 Seattle • Abused Deaf Women's Advocacy Services 2627 Eastlake Ave E Seattle, WA 98102 -3213 TDD: (206) 726 -0093 Relay: (800) 833 -6384 Hotline TDD: (206) 236 -3134 • Children's Response Center 925 116 NE, Suite 211 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 688 -5130 Hotline: (425) 688 -5130 12 • Harborview Center for Sexual Assault & Traumatic Stress 325 Ninth Ave. Mailstop 359947 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 521 -1800 Hotline: (206) 521 -1800 13 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development October 1, 2002 Mr. Ike Nwankwo Growth Management Planner Office of Community Development PO Box 48350 Olympia WA 98504 -8350 Re: Code amendments regarding secure community transition facilities. Dear Mr. Nwankwo: Attached is a copy of the Ordinance number 1991 that amends Tukwila Municipal Code regarding Secure Community Transition Facilities. We first notified you of the proposed amendment on June 19, 2002. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 206 -431 -3685. Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner C: Beverly Wilson, Special Commitment Center Elaine Taylor, DSHS. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • .. ........ C:VLr�y:+uJ:G: Sir. ii( sYiie, �^ c�+ �. 1"', y�. Lf2} lr. rr. 4?: il��i.': �4i,' J :Vw•'+++� Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. / r9 / AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS RELATING TO ZONING AND PERMITTING FOR SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES FOR SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to implement Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594, which incorporates the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to implement RCW 36.70A.200 related to essential public facilities by recognizing the City's obligation to make provision for such facilities, while regulating the location of secure community transition facilities so as to allow them in a manner to mitigate their potential impacts and provide for their proper and safe operation; and • WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to implement RCW 71.09.285, which requires the City to consider the policy guidelines adopted by Department of Social and Health Services when providing for siting of secure community transition facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to avoid the location of secure community transition facilities on isolated "island" parcels that are totally encircled by parcels which are ineligible for location of such facilities due to incompatibility with the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has reviewed the siting criteria and has determined that there are potential sites within the City which meet the siting criteria; and WHEREAS, the Committee of the Whole took public testimony at the public hearing held on August 5, 2002, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 2002; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1974 §14, as codified at TMC 18.06.178, is amended as follows: 18.06.178 Correctional institution. "Correctional institution" means public and private facilities providing for: 1. the confinement of adult offenders; or 2. the incarceration, confinement or detention of individuals arrested for or convicted of crimes whose freedom is partially or completely restricted other than a jail owned and operated by the City of Tukwila; or Secure Communihj Transition Facility.doc 1 3. the confinement of persons undergoing treatment for drug or alcohol addictions whose freedom is partially or completely restricted; or 4. transitional housing, such as halfway houses, for offenders who are required to live in such facilities as a condition of sentence or release from a correctional facility, except secure community transitional facilities as defined under RCW 71.09.020. Section 2. A new definition is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06 as follows: 18.06.706 Secure Community Transitional Facility. "Secure community transitional facility" means a secure community transitional facility as defined under RCW 71.09.020, which defines it as "a residential facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative under this chapter. 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 this chapter and operated by the DSHS secretary or under contract with the secretary." Section 3. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §48, 1856 §33, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.26.050, are amended as follows: 18.26.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Regional Commercial Mixed Use district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC 18.66. 1. Conversions of rental multi- family structures to condominiums or owner- occupied multi- family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner- occupied multi- family housing. 2. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 3. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 4. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 5. Mass transit facilities. Section 4. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §51, 1865 §35, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.28.050, are amended as follows: 18.28.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Tukwila Urban Center district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Conversions of rental multi - family structures to condominiums or owner - occupied multi - family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner - occupied multi- family housing. Secure Community Transition Facilihj.doc 2 3. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 4. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 5. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 6. Mass transit facilities. Section 5. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §53 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.30.050, are amended as follows: 18.30.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Commercial Light Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 4. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 5. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 6. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 7. Mass transit facilities. Section 6. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §39 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.32.050, are amended as follows: 18.32.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Light Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Animal rendering. 3. Cement manufacturing. 4. Correctional institutions. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. Secure Community Transition Facility.doc 3 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 9. Mass transit facilities. Section 7. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §41 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.34.050, are amended as follows: 18.34.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Correctional institutions. 4. Electrical substation - transmission /switching. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Manufacturing, refining, or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials. 9. Railroad freight or classification yards. 10. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 11. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. 12. Mass transit facilities. Section 8. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §43 and 1758 0. (part), as codified at TMC 18.36.050, are amended as follows: 18.36.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. Secure Community Transition Facility.doc fii tnTr+r 9f!i`rJ r.4 4 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 4. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 5. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 6. Railroad freight or classification yards. 7. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 8. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. 9. Mass transit facilities. Section 9. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §58, 1865 §45, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.38.050, are amended as follows: 18.38.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Correctional institution. 4. Electrical substation - transmission /switching. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Manufacturing; refining, or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials. 9. Mass transit facilities. 10. Railroad freight or classification yards. Secure Community Transition Facility.doc 5 r 11. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 12. Secure community transition facility, subject to the following location restrictions: a. No secure community transition facility shall be allowed within the specified distances from the following uses, areas or zones, whether such uses, areas or zones are located within or outside the City limits: (1) In or within 1,000 feet of any residential zone. (2) Adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a "risk potential activity /facility" as defined in RCW 71.09.020 as amended, that include: (a) Public and private schools; (b) School bus stops; (c) Licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities; (d) Public parks, publicly dedicated trails, and sports fields; a • (e) Recreational and community centers; w (f) Churches, synagogues, temples and mosques; and cc 2 (g) Public libraries. o CO 0 (3) One mile from any existing secure community transitional facility or w = correctional institution. -' '- w 0 b. No secure community transition facility shall be allowed on any isolated parcel which is otherwise considered eligible by applying the criteria listed under TMC 18.38.050 -12.a, but is completely surrounded by parcels = d ineligible for the location of such facilities. Z o c. The distances specified in TMC 18.38.050 -12.a shall be measured as w under Department of Social and Health Services guidelines o specified established pursuant to RCW 71.09.285, which is by following a straight o to line from the nearest point of the property parcel upon which the secure o community transitional facility is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the o proposed land use is to be separated. . Z U= d. The parcels eligible for the location of secure community transition z facilities by applying the siting criteria listed above and information available as of August 19, 2002, are shown in Figure 18 -11, "Eligible Parcels for Location of Secure Community Transition Facilities." Any changes in the development pattern and the location of risk sites /facilities over time shall be taken into consideration to determine if the proposed site meets the siting criteria at the time of the permit application. 13. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. Section 10. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §61, 1865 §47, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.40.050, are amended as follows: 18.40.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Tukwila Valley South district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. Secure Community Transition Facilihj.doc 6 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Conversions of rental multi- family structures to condominiums or owner - occupied multi- family housing, but 'excluding the construction of new condominium or owner - occupied multi- family housing. 4. Electrical substation - transmission/ switching. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Manufacturing, refining, or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, z ~ matches, fertilizer or insecticides; except for accessory storage of such cc 6 materials. J U 0 9. Railroad freight or classification yards. w J 10. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other o . natural deposits together with associated structures. 2 L ¢ 11. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. = a w 12. Mass transit facilities. z 1 i— zi— Section 11. Ordinance Nos. 1770 §41 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC g 18.66.040, are amended as follows: o I- 18.66.040 Application requirements. = c w 4 : 0 A. Applications for unclassified use permits shall be Type 5 decisions and shall iii 0 F- B. An unclassified use permit application for a secure community transition Z . facility shall be accompanied by the following: be processed pursuant to TMC 18.108.050. 1. The siting process used for the secure community transition facility, including alternative locations considered. 2. An analysis showing that proper consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural or socio- economic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction or region. 3. Documentation demonstrating compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW for establishing the need for additional secure community transition facility beds and documentation demonstrating compliance with the "equitable distribution" requirements under the same chapter. Secure Community Transition Facilihj.doc 7 4. Proposed mitigation measures including the use of sight - obscuring buffers and other barriers from adjacent uses. At a minimum, the project must provide buffering similar to that required between residential and industrial zones. 5. DSHS must consult with the City's Police Department on the security requirements for both the facility and its residents. A statement from the City's Police Department indicating that the DSHS security and emergency procedures for the facility and its residents comply with the requirements of Chapter RCW 71.09 must be included in the Unclassified Use Permit application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also be included with the permit application. 6. Proposed operating rules for the facility. 7. A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process. Section 12. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §55,1816 §2, and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.66.060, are amended as follows: 11 18.66.060 Criteria. Ce JU The City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting an co o unclassified use permit: w = J H L 1. Where appropriate and feasible, all facilities shall be undergrounded. 0 2. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or j injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. = a 3. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, z landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the w o district it will occupy. ? U 4. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the o wW L 5. The proposed development shall to the maximum extent feasible be consistent z with and promote the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and applicable adopted area plans. o surrounding land uses. 6. The proposed unclassified use shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate all significant adverse environmental impacts on public and private properties. Full consideration shall be given to: (a) alternative locations and /or routes that reduce or eliminate adverse impacts; and (b) alternative designs that reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. 7. In the event that a proposed essential public facility of a countywide or statewide nature creates an unavoidable significant adverse environmental or economic impact on the community, compensatory mitigation shall be required. Compensatory mitigation shall include public amenities, incentives or other public benefits which offset otherwise unmitigated adverse impacts of the essential public facility. Where appropriate, compensatory mitigation shall be provided as close to the affected area as possible. Secure Community Transition Facility.doc 8 ti. 8. For uses in residential areas, applicants shall demonstrate that there is no reasonable nonresidential alternative site for the use. 9. For uses in residential areas, applicants shall demonstrate that the use provides some tangible benefit for the neighborhood. 10. Secure community transition facilities shall be meet the following additional criteria: (a) No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements. (b) The facility shall be located in relation to transportation facilities in a manner appropriate to the transportation needs of the secure community transition facility residents. Section 13. Ordinance No. 1834, §8 and 1768 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 18.104.090, is amended as follows: 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure. Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC 19.12. 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. 4. For applications which require any Shoreline permit, additional notice shall be provided as required by RCW 90.58. 5. For preliminary plats, additional published notice shall be provided as required by RCW 58.17.090(a). 6. The Director shall have the discretion in unusual circumstances (i.e., lengthy utility corridor or right-of-way construction projects) where posting and mailed notice would be impractical, to require the notice of application to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the proposal is located, in lieu of posting and mailed notice. Section 14. Ordinance No. 1768 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 18.104.160, is amended as follows: 18.104.160 Hearing Scheduling - Notice of Hearing. Secure Communihj Transition Facilihj.doc 9 z . 1 - 1- z re w aa � J U 00 0 w= w w 2 w a = W Z F. zI- W w 0 0 - 0I- w W 1- r- U o .. z w U = o � z -777•7 A. At least 14 days prior to any public hearings on Type 3, 4 and 5 decisions, open record appeal hearings on Type 2 decisions and closed record appeal hearings on Type 4 decisions, the Department shall issue a Notice of Hearing by mail pursuant to the provisions of TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. In addition, at least 14 days before such hearing, the Director shall post the Notice of Hearing on any posted notice board(s) erected pursuant to TMC 18.104.110. Such Notice of Hearing shall include the following information: 1. The file number. 2. The name of the applicant. 3. A description of the project, the location, a list of the permits included in the application, and the location where the application, the staff report, and any environmental documents or studies can be reviewed. 4. A site plan on 81/2 x 11 inch paper, if applicable. 5. The date, time, place and type of hearing. 6. The phone number of the Department and the name of the staff person who can provide additional information on the application and the hearing. B. The Director shall have the discretion to include additional information in the Notice of Hearing if the Director determines that such information would increase public awareness or understanding of the proposed project. Section 15. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 16. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNC OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this /9 a _ OF of (2u4 4a t , 2002. ATTEST / AUTHENTICATED: e t..4,c_c_ e E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk A OVED AS TO FORM: By , � --- Office of the City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE Y COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: 8' Z 3 / () Z EFFECTIVE DAT : e 2 ' ORDINANCE NO.: / 1 1 I Secure Community Transition Facility.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 10 KENT WASHINGTO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP Manager Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 -5895 Location Address: 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253 -856 -5454 Fax: 253 - 856 -6454 September 27, 2002 Mr. Ike Nwankwo Growth Management Planner Office of Community Development PO Box 48350 Olympia, WA 98504 -8350 RE: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES ##ZCA- 2002 -1. Dear Mr. Nwankwo: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(2), I am pleased to submit to you Ordinance No. 3615 that amends the Kent City Code regarding Secure Community Transition Facilities. The ordinance was adopted by our City Council on September 17, 2002. The South County Journal published a summary of the ordinance on September 21, 2002. We first notified you of the proposed amendment on July 17, 2002. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact nee at (253) 856 -5431. Sincerely, Charlene Anderson, AICP Planning Manager CAlpm :S: IPermit1PlanIZONECODEAMEND120021sctfocd- final.doc Enclosure: Ordinance & Affidavit of Publication cc: State agencies Project File z • ,1-Z J U, U U) 0 W = ' (0 u- w Q : = • d z I- I 0 Z h' ▪ LIJ ❑ O t o o I- = 0 u_ w z. 0 — O . z too r; e i..iiw?s�?cs?;is "r;7.44 PUBLIC NOTICES NOTICE OF ORDINANCES PASSED • BY THE KENT CITY COUNCIL The following is a summary of ordinances passed by the Kent City Council on September 17, 2002: Ordinance No.3614 • AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 12.01.040 and Chapter 12.05 of the Kent City Code by adding provisions related to closure or change in use of mobile home parks. Effective Date: October 17, 2002 Ordinance No.3615 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Kent City Code Title 15, Chapters 15.02, 15.04, 15.08, and 15.09 to provide for the siting of a secure community transition facility within the City of Kent. Effective Date: October 17, 2002 Each ordinance will take effect 30 days from the date of passage, unless subjected to referendum or vetoed by the Mayor, or unless otherwise noted. A copy of the complete text of any ordinance will be mailed upon request to the City Clerk. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk Published in the South County Joumal September 21, 2002. 10823 ORDINANCE NO. 36 /5 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Kent City Code Title 15, chapters 15.02, 15.04, 15.08, and 15.09 to provide for the siting of a secure community transition facility within the City of Kent. WHEREAS, a 1994 federal court order required Washington State to provide an opportunity for less restrictive alternative placement to inmates at McNeil Island being held as sexual offenders, but who are ready for conditional release; and WHEREAS, secure community transition facilities ( "SCTF ") provide sexual offenders with living arrangements that are less restrictive than total confinement; but provide supervision, security, and either provide sex offender treatment services or ensure that sex offender treatment services will be provided elsewhere; and WHEREAS, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6594 enacted March 2002, (amending ESSB 6151 enacted June 2001) requires cities to provide for siting of SCTF by September 1, 2002, consider the effect of "equitable distribution factors" in siting the SCTF, and impose development regulations no more restrictive than those specifically addressed in Chapter 71.09 RCW; and 1 Secure Community Transition Facilities WHEREAS, ESSB 6594 provides that no SCTF may be located within the "line of sight" of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration, and DSHS asserts that "line of sight" is equal to 600 feet, assuming the terrain is visually unobstructed; and WHEREAS, ESSB 6594 allows the State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to "preempt and supersede local plans, development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection requirements, and all other laws as necessary ..." for failure to comply; and WHEREAS, City staff's analysis of the Kent City Code, which classifies group home facilities for sexual offenders as Group Homes Class III facilities, indicates that after applying the existing Group Homes Class III regulations, there are a limited number of potential locations that meet the development criteria for locating SCTF; and WHEREAS, City 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 SCTF; and WHEREAS, City staff also presented this issue to the Land Use and Planning Board at its June 10, 2002, workshop, and the Board conducted a public hearing on the issue on July 22, 2002; and WHEREAS the Kent City Council adopted the following amendments to Title 15 of the Kent City Code in order to comply with ESSB 6594; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 2 Secure Community Transition Facilities z z w w iO 00 0 to w . 1 wO u_ ¢ w z = z o w w U O N O H u j . 0 u w Z U = z SECTION 1. — Amendment. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.141.5. Equitable distribution. 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. Sec. 15.02.173. Group home. A. Class I group hone. 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 I -A. A class I -A group home shall have a maximum of seven (7) residents 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 I -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 II 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 managerdifeetef shall have the discretion to classify a 3 Secure Community Transition Facilities 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 II -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 II -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 property with a sexual motivation and convicted or charged as a sexual or assaultive violent predator. Secure community transition facilities are considered Class III group homes. Secure community transition facilities shall have a maximum of three (3) residents, excluding resident staff, unless the state agency proposing to establish and operate the facility can demonstrate that it has equitably distributed other secure community transition facilities with the same or a greater number of residents in other jurisdictions or communities throughout the entire geographic limits of King County. Sec. 15.02.223. Less restrictive alternative. 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. 4 Secure Community Transition Facilities Sec. 15.02.338.5. Risk potential activity or Risk potential facility. Risk potential activity or Risk potential facility means an activity or facility that provides a higher incidence of risk to the public from persons conditionally released from the special commitment center. Risk potential activities and facilities include: Public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, public libraries, and others identified by the department following the hearings on a potential site required in RCW 71.09.315. The term "school bus stops" does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit. Sec. 15.02.341. Secure community transition facility. 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. SECTION 2. — Amendment. Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code, entitled, "District Regulations," is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 15.04. DISTRICT REGULATIONS 5 Secure Community Transition Facilities z w ce � 0O V) 0 - = 1-' co w w 1 Q . co = t- _ z � t- 0 zi- w U • rn O � O H w W i' 0 .. z w U= O ~ z Zonitng Districts ly P = Principally Permitted Uscs S = Special Uscs C = Conditional Uses A= Accessory Uses v • �+ Q . 7 e o0 < _ `J 3 v a 0 ` O " • — Q - 0 U ' Q 0 •` oD Q A 5 'p V a cn N Q v H C2 E c7 d c ry cc cn _N Q A 7o: 5 0.' >, E .. . c en a cn Q •� 711 N a .T E F ur d oi N `T cc cn N_ Q m u , T E N d c •o cn vc Q a eJ v L C T E cd a c 000 v) u Q 'D v >, . E 1.�. -. 7 2 X U Ti. 7 Q ce 2 , N ^ C O (-. A ' fl tY >, E = •... 7 L N IT c 2 N o C O F. •A 'D T E '-. C 7 2 10 IT c4 2 . 0 N 72 a >, w — . -5 :,.. ,.' C C 3 0 C7 c4 22 a = D • aJ c.. .' .y 5 Q E .p d ) z e •N Q ` ) N t T 6 '' 'L it . e aJ ID X c4 2 . ,.z. b D C t] E U a u E o 2 u G n. z 2 w E O U V n y c U b O ° y .O Oa 'y V U z N Q 7 v E O U . >'. C E U U 0 = y 0 - c— e E E O U C O > ° Q U 0 La N O v aJ C .` c E O V e: 3 0 C 0 oj U 0 ` Q pi) C 3 W 7 2 R '` CJ E O U 2 v c • '^ op C 3 .. W 2 cC 2 t7 'u i U E O N 2 U ` Q 73 cJ E E O U a) 0 U 0 ` Q y E 0 ¢ 02 ` 3 E u Q n0 ` y 7 - .- - — Q . G ' 5 2 E _ O U ` ` •7p c y 2 n .- N -o C .. 7, = ^i 2 N t0 _ C '. ea 0 m 2 u y CD •u v E O 0 M U c0 U 0 One single- family dwelling per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A(1)A(1)A(1)A(1) One duplex per lot P One modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P Duplexes P P (22) P P P P Multifamily townhouse units P (19) (20) P P (19) (20) P P P P P P P (2) (4) (2) (2) C (5) C (15) Multifamily dwellings P P P P P P P P (2) (4) (2) 2) C (5) C (15) Multifamily dwellings for senior citizens P P P P P (2) (2) (2) C (15) Mobile homes and manufactured homes P Mobile home parks P P (13) (13) P P (13) (13) P P (13) (13) P Group homes class 1 -A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C P Group homes class 1 -B P P P P P P P P P P C C C P Group homes class I -C C C C C P P PP P P C C C P Group homes class 11 -A C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class II-B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class 11 -C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class 1 1 1 C C C C C C C C C Rebuild /accessory uses for existing dwellings P(6) P P P P P P P P (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) P P P (6) (6) (6) P P (6) (6) P (6) Transitional housing P P ( ( Guest cottages and houses A ( (21) A ( (21) A A ( ( (21) (21) A AA A ( ( ( ( (21) (21) (21) (21) A ( (21) Rooming and boarding of not more than three persons A A AA A A A A A A A Farm worker accommodations A ( A ( A (17) A ( Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use A A A A (18) (18) A A A A (18) (18) (18) (18) A A (18) (18) A A (18) (18) A A (18) (18) A A A A A A A AA A A A A Accessory dwelling units A (10) A A (10) (10) A A A A (10) (10) (10) (10) A A (10) (10) A A (10) (10) A (10) A A A (10) (10) (10) r` Sec. 15.04.020. Residential Land Uses. 6 .0 nr �R"'Z ^t`!'pNh Drive -in churches; welfare facilities (including emergency shelters); Drive -in churches, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated, facilities for rehabilitation or correction, etc. Storage buildings and storage of recreational vehicles I Service buildings Home occupations Accessory living quarters • any MIX II II II 0 P n y p 9 v 3. n p e, p Na„ Q g N m t9 C N A 6 C H N Zonin o, > E a A -10 Agricultural District n ° a AG Agricultural General District n a > > SR -I Residential Agricultural District n a = a SR -2 Single- Family Residential District n o. > 5 a SR -3 Single - Family Residential District A a 5 a SR -4, 5 Single - Family Residential District n ;, a 5 a SR -6 Single - Family Residential District n a 5 a SR -8 Single - Family Residential District n a 5 a MR -D Duplex Multifamily Residential District n _a a 5 a MR -T12 Multifamily Residential Townhouse n ; a 5 a MR-T16 Multifamily Residential Townhouse n a 5 a MR-G Garden Density Multifamily Residential stricts _ __ n ;, a a MR -M Medium Density Multifamily Residential n , a a MR -H High Density Multifamily Residential District > > "4 a MHP Mobile Horne Park Combing District n a ° > NCC Neighborhood Convenience Commercial n ° > Z a CC Community Commercial District n = a Z a DC Downtown Commercial District in > Z a DCE Downtown Commercial Enterprise District n 5 a 5 a CM -I Commercial Manufacturing -1 District ;; n a Z a CM -2 Commercial Manufacturing -2 District ?, n - > v a GC General Commercial District n - > a s 0 Office District n _::: a a > MA Industrial Agricultural District n - a A > M I Industrial Park District n = a a > MI-C Industrial Park - Commercial n � a > > M2 Limited Industrial District n = > a > M3 General Industrial District n ; a `> GWC Gateway Commercial District NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Sec. 15.04.030. Residential Land Use Development Conditions. 1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one (1) per establishment, for security or maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted. 2. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted only in the mixed -use overlay when included within a mixed use development. 3. [Reserved]. 4. Multifamily residential uses, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and not located on the ground floor. 5. Multifamily residential uses, when not combined with commercial or office uses. 6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. 7. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of twenty (20) residents at any one (1) time and four (4) resident staff. 8. Guesthouses not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing of farm owners, operators or employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the maximum density. Accessory dwelling units are allowed subject to the provisions of Section 15.08.350. 11. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 12. Except for transitional housing, with a maximum of twenty (20) residents and four (4) staff, which are principally permitted uses. 13. Subject to the combining district requirements of the Mobile Home Park Code, KCC 12.05. 8 Secure Community Transition Facilities 14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of Section 15.08.359. 15. Multi- family residential use shall be permitted as a conditional use only when included in a mixed use development. 16. Recreational vehicle storage is permitted as an accessory use in accordance with Section 15.08.080. 17. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 18. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 19. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the time of application for a rezone to an MR -T zone: SR -8, MR -D, MR -G, MR -M, MR -H, 0, O -MU, NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE. 20. All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR -T zone shall be condominiums and recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 RCW prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city. 21. Subject to 15.08.160(A) and (B) Accessory buildings. 22. One duplex per lot is permitted. 23. Secure community transition facilities are permitted only in the GWC zoning distri ct. 24. Class II and class III group homes, other than secure community transition facilities, are not allowed in this zoning district. A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to 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. 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. 9 Secure Community Transition Facilities "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." During the conditional use permit process for a secure community transition facility, "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. This distance shall 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. For the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the City shall not be subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a state -wide, regional, or county -wide nature. SECTION 3. - Existing Chapters. The existing chapters of Title 15 of the Kent City Code that are amended by this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 4. - Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 10 Secure Community Transition Facilities SECTION S. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after passage as provided by law. ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, 1TY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: et.c.-0-4-c/L/ TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: /7 day of APPROVED: PUBLISHED: a / day of • ••• • • • cv '•. • • • • Cr 14 • • PACivinOrdinance\Sectr t'ranstr :.e • • / 7 day of 11 , 2002. , 2002. , 2002. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. 3 ' /s' passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBIN, CITY CLERK Secure Community Transition Facilities City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Council of the whole FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director RE: Secure Community Transitional Facilities. DATE: August 7, 2002. After receiving the public comments at the public hearing on August 5, 2002, the Council had asked the staff to address the public comments and the City Attorney to review the DSHS comment letter in order to determine what provision of the ordinance needed to be amended. Based on public comments received, discussion of the Council of the Whole and the review of the DSHS comment letter, following is the discussion of items that needed further review: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 1. The City Attorney has reviewed the DSHS comments related to the limit on the number of residents and his opinion is that the provision in the proposed ordinance is legally defensible. The provision limits the number of residents to four or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements. 2. The two parcels shown on the eligible parcels map that are close to South 128 Street were of major concern to the residents in the area. The map showed a total of approximately 68 parcels with a total of about 303 acres. If the two parcels are removed from the eligible parcels list it will leave a total of approximately 66 parcels that are about 301 acres. If all parcels south of Boeing Access Road are removed from the eligible parcel list, it will leave approximately 51 parcels with a total of about 282 acres. Any decrease in the number of parcels eligible for the location of SCTFs could increase the risk to be found preclusive. However we believe the availability of approximately 51 parcels is sufficient to withstand any legal challenges. We are still working on the legal mechanism to remove the objectionable parcels from the eligible parcel list. 3. The application requirements for providing a security plan are explained in the ordinance as "a detailed security plan for both the facility and its residents must be reviewed by the City's Police Department, and their general findings must be included in the Unclassified Use Permit application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also be included with the permit application ". The comment letter 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z re w 6 JU O 0 N CO 11.1 J = H wO u- • j. co a = w t z F.. I-- 0 z r w uj 2 U 0 _ O 52 • I- w W _ O w z U = O~ z NEXT STEP from DSHS suggests that this provision be revised as "DSHS must consult with the City's Police Department on the security requirements for both the facility and its residents. A statement from the City's Police Department indicating that the DSHS security and emergency procedures for the facility and its residents comply with the requirements of chapter RCW 71.09 must be included in the Unclassified Use Permit application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also be included with the permit application ". Staff will amend the ordinance to incorporate the changes suggested by DSHS. z z rt W 6 JU UO 4. A "whereas" clause about the public comment obtained at the public hearing will be w J H' added to the ordinance. W 5. The definition of a SCTF will be amended to clarify that the secretary referenced is the 2 DSHS secretary. J LL Q 6. Attached is the section of RCW that mentions the staffing ratios required for a SCTF. All w - changes related to SCTFs made as part of two bills passed by legislature in 2001 and z "-. 2002 are incorporated in the online version of RCW that can be viewed at www.mrsc.org z o' (RCW Chapter 71.09) W W Do C.) N ' CI I- Staff will incorporate any revisions to the proposed ordinance that the Council may suggest = o following their discussion. Staff will then bring the ordinance for adoption on August 19, 2002. The u~.. 0 ordinance must be adopted by September 1, 2002 to avoid preemption by the State. u. Z. co U O �- . z 4t;,' ", T :.-,.:v=:.f.); r ,- ;'WURi.�XizzATa RCW 71.09.300 Transition facilities -- Staffing. Page 1 of 1 (1) Secure community transition facilities shall meet the following minimum staffing requirements: (a) At any time the census of a facility is six or fewer residents, the facility shall maintain a minimum staffing ratio of one staff per resident during normal waking hours and two awake staff per three residents during normal sleeping hours. (b) At any time the census of a facility is six or fewer residents, all staff shall be classified as residential rehabilitation counselor II or have a classification that indicates a higher level of skill, experience, and training. (c) Before being assigned to a facility, all staff shall have training in sex offender issues, self - defense, and crisis de- escalation skills in addition to departmental orientation and, as appropriate, management training. All staff with resident treatment or care duties must participate in ongoing in- service training. (d) All staff must pass a departmental background check and the check is not subject to the limitations in chapter 9.96A RCW. A person who has been convicted of a felony, or any sex offense, may not be employed at the secure community transition facility or be approved as an escort for a resident of the facility. (2) With respect to the facility established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(1), the department shall, no later than December 1, 2001, provide a staffing plan to the appropriate committees of the legislature that will cover the growth of that facility to its full capacity. [2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 216.] NOTES: Intent -- Severability -- Effective dates -- 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250. http: // search. mrsc. org /nxt/gateway.dll /rcw /rcw %20 %2071 %20 %20title /rcw %20 %2071 %... 08/07/2002 RCW 71.09.305 Transition facility residents -- Monitoring, escorting. (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the court: (a) Residents of a secure community transition facility shall wear electronic monitoring devices at all times. To the extent that electronic monitoring devices that employ global positioning system technology are available and funds for this purpose are appropriated by the legislature, the department shall use these devices. (b) At least one staff member, or other court- authorized and department- approved person must escort each resident when the resident leaves the secure community transition facility for appointments, employment, or other approved activities. Escorting persons must supervise the resident closely and maintain close proximity to the resident. The escort must immediately notify the department of any serious violation, as defined in RCW 71.09.325, by the resident and must immediately notify law enforcement of any violation of law by the resident. (2) Staff members of the special commitment center and any other total confinement facility and any secure community transition facility must be trained in self - defense and appropriate crisis responses including incident de- escalation. Prior to escorting a person outside of a facility, staff members must also have training in the offense pattern of the offender they are escorting. The escort may not be a relative of the resident. (3) Any escort must carry a cellular telephone or a similar device at all times when escorting a resident of a secure community transition facility. (4) The department shall require training in offender pattern, self - defense, and incident response for all court - authorized escorts who are not employed by the department or the department of corrections. [2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 217.3 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 Intent -- Severability -- Effective dates -- 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250. http: // search. mrsc. org /nxt/gateway.dll /rcw /rcw %20 %2071 %20 %20title /rcw %20 %2071 %... 08/07/2002 Minne Dhaliwal City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8350 • (360) 725 -2800 October 4, 2002 RECEIVED OCT 0 8 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: Thank you for sending this department the following development regulation: Ordinance No. 1991 relating to zoning and permitting for secure community transition facilties. We received the notice on October 04, 2002 and forwarded a copy of the notice to other state agencies. If you have not sent the plan to the agencies on the list (enclosed) , that reviewed your draft document, please do so. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 725 -3056. Sincerely, g " -' U,nA A 4 Ike Nwankwo Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services 0 : Ye:.. ::s.`.:',,::JV.vtl'Yw:.ti.�:L:�V WltitiliL6 Z z Q � w J U. O 0 w w w ; w =. fn LL„ w 0 - LL ¢ '. 0) 3 = a - w Z F. I-0 Z I O • co CI I-- w w F ■ - U ' u_ — 0 O : Ii O ~ Z 1 • Nlirini Dhaliwel•- Fwd: RE: SCI" F- - Tukwila's`proposed•ordinance From: "BOB Noe" <BOB @kdmlawfirm.com> To: <DAVID @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: Tue, Aug 6, 2002 11:51 AM Subject: Fwd: RE: SCTF- Tukwila's proposed ordinance Minnie - David and I have discussed what transpired last night at the Council Meeting. We are of the opinion that the "red dot" can be easily eliminated. David will be in City Hall this afternoon and would be happy to speak with you then about the dot. Also, with respect to the DSHS letter, David will address any of your concerns this afternoon. I have reviewed the DSHS letter and find nothing that alarms or concerns me in it. Thanks. Bob Noe Page z Q W J U; U O: U U: v) W = W • O :CO • dl W: Z O Z I-: • • U �. •O — •Z - U O. W • . O • Z Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 • Olympia WA 98504 -5322 August 5, 2002 C cvti. C. 18 RECEIVED 'AUG 0 7 2afl2' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This letter is in reply to your letter of July 12, 2002, in which you asked our legal department to comment on your proposed requirement to limit the size of a secure community transition facility (SCTF). As I explained in our subsequent telephone conversations, our assistant attorney general, Scott Lockwood, is currently involved in several pressing assignments for the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). At this time, the department's priorities are such that he cannot commit the resources needed to do a full legal analysis of your question. However, I will summarize my conversations with Mr. Lockwood on this subject. Since our letters and phone calls on this subject have been "crossing in the mail," I will also comment on your recent suggested revision regarding facility size in the City's proposed code As you know, the department is planning to site one 12 -bed facility in King County. The facility would be designed and built in phases as two six -bed buildings on one site. Building and operating four three -bed facilities instead of one 12 -bed facility would nearly double the capital costs and increase ongoing annual operating costs by 46 percent. These increases would be on top of an already expensive program. The operating costs of one three -bed facility — after the initial startup expenses in the first two years — would be an estimated $1.068 million per year. The 12 -bed facility would be an estimated $2.936 million per year. It would cost an additional $1.336 million per year to house 12 residents in four facilities instead of one. We have not calculated the difference in cost for operating three four -bed facilities rather than four three -bed facilities. However, it is obvious that either approach would be significantly more expensive that one larger facility. In establishing state operating and capital budgets, the legislature must make decisions based on a prudent use of the state's resources. Restricting the size of the secure community transition facility to three or four beds, and requiring several facilities at different locations, is clearly not a prudent use of resources. Such a restriction by local jurisdictions on the facility size would appear to be designed to be preclusive. It would greatly elevate the cost without any analysis and justification to show that the increased cost is essential to and enhances public safety. As I stated in my letter and testimony of June 27, 2002, to the Tukwila Planning Commission, determining the size of an SCTF is within the scope of the department's decision - making authority granted by the legislature. In your letter, you reference RCW 0 Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila August 5, 2002 Page 2 71.09.255(2)(c) as a basis for the City's proposed size limitation. Please note that RCW 71.09.255 pertains to incentive grants to local jurisdictions for planning for the siting of SCTFs. To use this section of the law as the basis for City's limitation on facility size would be taking the law out of context. A minimum size is not a maximum size. There is no reference in the law that gives local jurisdictions the authority to limit the size of the facility. The issue of equitable distribution of SCTFs is addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8). The following is a key statement in this section: In coordinating and deciding upon the siting of secure community transition facilities, great weight shall be given by the county and the cities within the county to...[the number and location of existing residential facility beds operated by the department of corrections or the mental health division of the department of social and health services and the number of registered sex offenders classified as level II or level III and the number of sex offenders registered as homeless in each jurisdiction in the county]..." (Emphasis added) A plain reading of this section makes clear the legislature's intent for the county and cities within the county to work closely together and with the department to determine where facilities are most appropriately sited. It does not suggest that local jurisdictions have the right to determine the size of the facilities, but rather where the facilities would be most appropriately located to avoid an undue burden on a community that may already have a significant number of mental health and correctional residential facilities or registered sex offenders. In directing each county and the cities within the county to work together, the legislature recognized that the equitable distribution of SCTF requires coordination across jurisdictions. If each jurisdiction, looking only to its own jurisdiction, were to develop an "equitable distribution" policy that arbitrarily limits the size of the facility with the effect of significantly increasing the cost, the result would not be equitable distribution of facilities, but preclusion. Jurisdictions that make such unilateral decisions— with no consultation from other jurisdictions in the county and with the department — are clearly not planning for the siting of SCTFs consistent with the state law. We have reviewed your revised proposed ordinance on the issue of facility size. Although we still have concerns about the reference limiting the size to four beds, we believe that the new wording is an improvement. We would encourage the county and cities to develop a coordinated equitable distribution policy consistent with the requirements of RCW 71.09.250(8). If that were done, it would then be appropriate to require the department to demonstrate compliance with the policy. We suggest the following revision to your revision. This wording assumes the existence of a countywide coordinated policy: No facility shall house more than the number of persons allocated to King County pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(6)(a). DSHS must demonstrate that Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila August 5, 2002 Page 3 the facility is in compliance with the siting criteria of chapter 71.09 RCW, including the equitable distribution policy established by King Co and the cities within the county pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(8). If the City of Tukwila determines that it is not feasible or likely that the county and cities will develop a coordinated equitable distribution policy, then we suggest the following wording: No facility shall house more than the number of persons allocated to King County pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(6)(a). DSHS must demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with the siting criteria of chapter 71.09 RCW. Finally, 1 would like to point out that RCW 71.09.265(2) pertains only to the residents of the McNeil Island Secure Community Transition Facility. This section directs the department to disperse the activities of the McNeil Island SCTF residents to communities in adjoining counties in order to lessen the impact of the 24 -bed McNeil Island facility on Pierce County. This section is not applicable to the issues of facility siting or size. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue and your suggested revision to the proposed ordinance. I look forward to the informational meeting and public hearing this evening. We appreciate the good faith efforts of the City to plan for the siting of secure community transition facilities. c: Scott Lockwood Sincerely, Beverly K.'Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center z z z • cc w JU 00 N0: cnw w = W u.. w u.<' = w z � z. I- 0 w ~ o' 0 2 U. L O Ili Z. 0 =: z • DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 v Olympia WA 98504-5322 Tukwila City Council City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Amendments to the Tukwila Municipal Code regarding the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities Dear Council Members: STATE OF WASHINGTON August 5, 2002 Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed amendments to the City of Tukwila's municipal 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, and look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the City to adequately and appropriately address this important need. We especially appreciate the good faith efforts of your staff, Minnie Dhaliwal, and the members of the Planning Commission in responding to this complex issue. 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 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. • 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 `Munxv L ) \aKw o :C;cu�liGitai¢�7d Tukwila Planning Commission August 5, 2002 Page 2 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. • 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 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. Also enclosed for your information is another letter from Secretary Braddock, dated July 19, 2002, on the issue of emergency response time. Tukwila Planning Commission August 5, 2002 Page 3 Specific Comments z _i-: DSHS offers the following comments on the City of Tukwila's revised draft cc 2 ordinance to amend the City's municipal code for siting secure community D transition facilities. Since several of our earlier concerns have been adequately i; o addressed in the revised proposal, we will comment only on those issues that may u) W be of concern. CO LL, Section 9, amending TMC 18.28.050: Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy m Industrial District: Unclassified uses. � Q Proximity to Residential Zones. The proposed amendment would allow secure = a community transition facilities in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Z I I ndustrial (MIC /HI) District as an unclassified use, subject to certain location o restrictions. Section 18.38.050.12.A (i) specifies that no SCTF shall be allowed z F- within 1,000 feet of any residential zone or use. 2 o o We appreciate that the City's planning staff followed our recommendation and o F- conducted a thorough geographic analysis of the potential effect of this = w requirement. If the City's analysis is correct and the requirement is not preclusive, 1- we do not object to this requirement. w z . o co Separation of One Mile From Any Existing Secure Community Transitional o I Facility or Correctional Facility. It is our understanding that this section of the z ordinance implements the city's equitable distribution policy. The proposed amendment 18.38.050.12.A(iii) requires a one mile separation between an SCTF and any existing SCTF or correctional facility. The proposed revised draft has corrected the references to the term "correctional facility." Your staff has informed us that the City's analysis of the effect of this separation requirement indicates that the proposal would not be preclusive. If that is correct, we have no objection to the requirement. Mitigation Requirements. The criteria for approval of unclassified use permits that are listed in the existing Chapter 18.66 of the existing zoning code include required mitigation of unavoidable significant adverse environmental or economic impacts on the community. ESSB 6594 Section 17 allows DSHS to enter into negotiation for mitigation agreements with cities, counties and educational institutions, subject to availability of funds, and limits those agreements to specific types of costs incurred. Your staff has stated that the City would not misuse its authority under this provision as a means to preclude a secure community 1 Tukwila Planning Commission August 5, 2002 Page 4 transition facility, in violation of RCW 36.70A.200. With that assurance, we have no objection. Section 11, amending TMC 18.66.040: Application Requirements In addition to the Type 5 decision requirements for an unclassified use permit 0 o application, pursuant to TMC 18.108.050, the proposed ordinance requires an ai w unclassified use permit application for an SCTF to include the following: -J F- Lu 0 Providing a Detailed Security Plan. We appreciate the City's efforts to revise the wording in this requirement to reflect our previously stated concerns about ga sharing security plans in a public document. We understand the City's interest in N ensuring the safe operation of the proposed SCTF. We also can appreciate that z the City would want to assess the facility' security as part of the evaluation of the z application. z o w We suggest a slight revision in the proposed ordinance that would satisfy the interests of both the City and the state, and allay our concerns about ": : N o � DSHS must consult with the City's Police Department on the security _ 0 requirements for both the facility and its residents. A statement from o the City's Police Department indicating that the DSHS security and Z . emergency procedures for the facility and its residents comply with o requirements of chapter RCW 71.09 must be included in the o Unclassified Use Permit application. A description of the general z security and operational requirements shall also be included with the permit application. Section 12, amending TMC 18.66.060: Criteria Maximum number of residents. The City's revised proposed criterion 18.66.060.10.a. for secure community transition facilities now states: "No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements." Although the revised wording of this proposed requirement is an improvement to address our previously stated concerns, it is still a concern. As I explained in my testimony to the City's Planning Commission, the department is planning to site one 12 -bed facility in King County. The facility would be designed and built in phases as two six -bed buildings on one site. Building and Tukwila Planning Commission August 5, 2002 Page 5 operating four three -bed facilities instead of one 12 -bed facility would nearly double the capital costs and increase ongoing annual operating costs by 46 percent. These increases would be on top of an already expensive program. The ;t- operating costs of one three -bed facility — after the initial startup expenses in the Lij first two years — would be an estimated $1.068 million per year. The 12 -bed facility would be an estimated $2.936 million per year. It would cost an additional ° o $1.336 million per year to house 12 residents in four facilities instead of one. We w w have not calculated the difference in cost for operating three four -bed facilities -J F- rather than four three-bed facilities. However, it is obvious that either approach U) o ui would be significantly more expensive that one larger facility. �. In establishing state operating and capital budgets, the legislature must make decisions based on a prudent use of the state's resources. Restricting the size of the secure community transition facility to three or four beds, and requiring several z facilities at different locations, is clearly not a prudent use of resources. Such a z o restriction by local jurisdictions on the facility size would appear to be designed to 111 w be preclusive. It would greatly elevate the cost without any analysis and justification to show that the increased cost is essential to and enhances public o �. safety. ° F- w uj U As I stated in my letter and testimony of June 27, 2002, to the Tukwila Planning o Commission, determining the size of an SCTF is within the scope of the w z department's decision - making authority granted by the legislature. In your letter, _ you reference RCW 71.09.255(2)(c) as a basis for the City's proposed size z l- limitation. Please note that RCW 71.09.255 pertains to incentive grants to local jurisdictions for planning for the siting of SCTFs. To use this section of the law as the basis for City's limitation on facility size would be taking the law out of context. A minimum size is not a maximum size. There is no reference in the law that gives local jurisdictions the authority to limit the size of the facility. The issue of equitable distribution of SCTFs is addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8). The following is a key statement in this section: In coordinating and deciding upon the siting of secure community transition facilities, great weight shall be given by the county and the cities within the county to...[the number and location of existing residential facility beds operated by the department of corrections or the mental health division of the department of social and health services and the number of registered sex offenders classified as level II or level III and the number of sex offenders registered as homeless in each jurisdiction in the county]..." (Emphasis added) Tukwila Planning Commission August 5, 2002 Page 6 A plain reading of this section makes clear the legislature's intent for the county and cities within the county to work closely together and with the department to determine where facilities are most appropriately sited. It does not suggest that local jurisdictions have the right to determine the size of the facilities, but rather where the facilities would be most appropriately located to avoid an undue burden on a community that may already have a significant number of mental health and correctional residential facilities or registered sex offenders. In directing each county and the cities within the county to work together, the legislature recognized that the equitable distribution of SCTF requires coordination across jurisdictions. If each jurisdiction, looking only to its own jurisdiction, were to develop an "equitable distribution" policy that arbitrarily limits the size of the facility with the effect of significantly increasing the cost, the result would not be equitable distribution of facilities, but preclusion. Jurisdictions that make such unilateral decisions— with no consultation from other jurisdictions in the county and with the department — are clearly not planning for the siting of SCTFs consistent with the state law. We would encourage the county and cities to develop a coordinated equitable distribution policy consistent with the requirements of RCW 71.09.250(8). If that were done, it would then be appropriate to require the department to demonstrate compliance with the policy. In that light, we suggest the following revision to your revision. This wording assumes the existence of a countywide coordinated policy: No facility shall house more than the number of persons allocated to King County pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(6)(a). DSHS must demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with the siting criteria of chapter 71.09 RCW, including the equitable distribution policy established by King Co and the cities within the county pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(8). If the City of Tukwila determines that it is not feasible or likely that the county and cities will develop a coordinated equitable distribution policy, then we suggest the following wording: No facility shall house more than the number of persons allocated to King County pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(6)(a). DSHS must demonstrate that the facility is in compliance with the siting criteria of chapter 71.09 RCW. Again, we appreciate the good faith efforts the City is taking to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the designation and siting process for Tukwila Planning Commission August 5, 2002 Page 7 essential public 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. Enclosures Sincerely, c: Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila Holly Gadbaw, DCTED KO/2/ Zcil Beverly K. Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center :J.;::i.:�f"..ix �,f...vyt�..w'�' �'�..�4':�•:3�6CSL�a::n'n`NV.1 ..�N�S" ._S.�l:Wal! L�.., :.a r • To: Tukwila City Council From: Dennis Dunne, resident of Tukwila 1 have never addressed the City Council before, but the importance of this issue requires me to make my opinion known. First, I would like to draw your attention to a few facts that you may not be aware of while you are in this process of amending sections of our zoning codes to allow "secure" community transition facilities for sexually violent predators in our town. King County currently has 215 convicted Registered Offenders (level 1 -3 combined) whose address is unknown by authorities, they are classified as Transient or homeless. There are 19 Registered Offenders (levels 2 & 3 combined) in Zip code 98168, which comprises a large section of our city. 7 Registered Offenders in Zip code 98188 and 9 in Zip Code 98178, these two zip codes also cover sections of Tukwila. This makes a total of 250 Registered Offenders who could be moving about in Tukwila at any given moment. With this many already here, do we really need more? I am enclosing a list of each Offender's names as they are listed on the King County Sheriff's web -site. Please take the time to check each name, you may find someone you know. Have you forgotten how many news items were reported this week alone regarding child kidnappings, sexual assaults, and murders in our region? I insist you refuse to even consider allowing such a facility in our city. To allow such a facility in our community, you will not be representing the wishes of the citizens who trust you to protect and serve them. You will be just as guilty of any attacks on our children, as the person who actually commits the crime, since you would be allowing them the opportunity to re -offend in our neighborhoods. Are you willing to live with that? I have worked here in Tukwila for the last 15 years, and lived here 12 years. Should a facility of this nature be built I think many residents may chose to sell out and move elsewhere, I know I will. I do not know how to write a letter to convince you how wrong such a decision would be for our community, but I must try. I do understand that no plans to build such a facility are underway at this time. However, knowing how the system works, I am sure that statement is only included to delude the public. Changing the zoning code now would just allow the state to force us to accept something undesirable later. I know it, and you know it tool RECEIVED AUG 0 2 HHOZ CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK 1 ak) i'.1 v'%2:' .(} c'a } 1r .A,'(lktY• " -Qui`fa?.,�b. :441"4 . '. 9 riCrnfrkW: • iu.N'1:4✓..s^: e•- y, ..i,wnwaati; • Homeless Sex Offenders - Comprehensive Listing (The Total Number of Homeless Or Transient Sex Offenders is 215) Name Level Year of Birth Race Sex Height Weight color color Code Code Offense ABBOTT, TIMOTHY JAMES 1 1976 W M 5 ft. 06 ' 120 Ibs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor • purposes ABDRAHMAAN, KHATIB MASHHUD 2 1956 B M 5 ft. 11 in ' 255 lbs. • BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ABLES, KENNETH EDWARD 1 1951 W M 6 ft. 01 in ' 260 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties AGUIRRE, CHRISTOPHER LEE 1 1981 W M 5 ft. 10 in 140 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree ALLEN, JOHN LEE 2 1960 W M 6 ft. 02 in 225 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ALLEN, ROGER LEE 1 1962 B M 5 ft. 09 in 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree ANDERSON, EUGENE 1 1964 B M 5 ft. 11 in 1521bs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties ANDERSON, KENNETH RAYMOND 1 1972 W M 5 ft. 11 in ' 160 lbs. RED BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation BACA, KIM 1 1962 W • M 5 ft. 10 in ' 180 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree BAILES, THOMAS WARREN 3 1981 I M 5 ft. 08 in 225 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree BAILEY, DAVID ERIC 2 1954 W M 6 ft. 00 in 190 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient 98108 Child Molestation ' degree BALLUTA, ROGER SERGIE 3 1967 I M 5 ft. 05 in 145 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Sexual Assa I 1 11 11 11 1 II 11 Listing of t or 1 ransient Sex (Menders In King County King County Em r-,1 �'. yCL'16 igc1 p 1- -; 4y F. i�,.Y>74ti i n r'.+ f HOMELESS /TRANSIENT OFFENDER LISTING http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm Page 1 of 14 8/1/02 BARNES, WILL JEFFREY 1 1960 B M 5 ?.06 128 lbs. BLK BRO Homeess or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree BARR, ANDREW JOHN 2 1965 W M 6 ft. 02 in 240 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 2nd degree BARR, LOUIS THOMAS 1 '1956 B M 6 ft. 01 in 201 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless Child or Molestation ' transient degree BARRON, JOHN DARGAN 1 1947 W M 6 ft. 03 in 250 lbs. GRY HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Sexual Abu: BECKENHAUER, KENZIE ARTHUR 3 1981 W M 5 ft. 11 in ' 150 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree BELER, KEVIN DEAN 2 1967 B M 6 ft. 02 in 195 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree BEVINS, MARK DUANE 2 1981 W M 5 ft. 11 in 198 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degree BISHOP, MORGAN PRENTICE 1 1975 W M 5 ft 09 in ' 150 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree BLAND, BLAND, MARCO 3 1970 B M 5 ft. 10 in 205 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Rape 1st degree BOWDEN, HORST DIETER 3 1956 W M 5 ft. 07 in. 187 lbs. BLD BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st p degree BOWDEN, ROBERT WAYNE 1 1964 W M 5 ft. 11 in ' 170 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd p degree BOWDEN, RONALD KIM 1 1957 W M 6 ft. 01 in 190 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties BRITTON, THEODORE ROBERT 2 1968 W M 6 ft. 00 in ' 225 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree BROOKS, ALFRED LEE 1 1960 B M 5 ft. 11 in 260 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 1st degree BROWN, JOSEPH 2 1956 B M 6 ft. 02 in 230 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Rape 2nd degree BROWN, MARK AARON 1 1961 W M 5 ft. 06 in 165 lbs. BRO GRN Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree BROWN, STEVEN VINCENT 1 1974 B M 5 ft. 08 in ' 135 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Voyeurism Listing of Homeless ur 1 ransient Jex Uttenclers In King County Page 2 of 14 http: / /www.metrokc.gov /scr /sheriff /homelessListing.cfin . n -,..2. 517,,, .rv.,.,.a n.�. `•= q�x:.�,.am..evP� r! n;.cry"fn7HM•s eaea T e ar+..Y u ' A .. ZA 8/1/02 BUFFINGTON, MICHAEL JOHN 1 1960 W M 5 ft. 10 in 200 lbs. BLN GRN Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Sexual Assa BURGE, RAYMOND WAYNE 1 1938 W M 6 ft . 00 in. 200 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree BUSH, MICHAEL DOUGLAS 1 1979 W M 6 ft . 04 .' 240 lbs. BRO Homeless HAZ or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree CARPENTER, OTOMFOE JAY 3 1974 B M 6 ft. 00 in. 180 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Ra a 3rd degree CARROLL, MICHAEL 3 1958 B M 5 ft. 11 in. 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree CARTER, DOUGLAS FARRELL 3 1966 B M 6 ft. 02 in. 192 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree CARTER, JAMES EDWARD 2 1953 B M 5 ft . 10 m. 218 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 2nd degree CATRON, NEVADA COTY 1 1967 W M 5 ft . 10 in 185 lbs. BRO GRN Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation degree CHADDERDON, RICHARD CHARLES 3 1932 W M 6 ft. 05 in. 306 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree CLARK, MICHAEL LEE 2 1950 B M 5 ft. 09 in. 160 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree CLAXTON, GLANVILLE LOWENTHAL 3 1960 B M 5 ft. 10 in ' 200 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree COLLINS, ROGER JAMES 3 1971 W M 5 ft. 09 in 210 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicate with a Minor Immoral Purposes COMBS, EDDIE JAMES 1 1948 B M 5 ft. 10 in 155Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties CULP, SCOTT DEAN 3 1964 W M 6 ft. 00 . in. 175Ibs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 3rd degree DALSING, MICHAEL RAY 1 1957 W M 5 ft. 10 in 160 lbs. BRO GRY Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties DAVIDSON, JACK EARL 1 1985 W M 4 ft . 11 in 130 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree DAVIS, HENRY LYNN 2 1951 B M 6 ft. 02 in 215 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree Listing o1 Homeless Ur 1 ransient Sex Offenders In King County http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm Page .3 of 14 8/1/02 DAVIS, ROY VICTOR 1 958 B M . 5 ft. 11 In 145 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 3rd degree g DELAPENA, RAMON GEORGE 1977 B M 5 ft. 07 1n ' 160 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98122 Ra p 2nd degree g DEMRY, RAY D 2 1958 B M 6 ft. . 00 in, 230 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Ra Rape 2nd degree g DOPP, BRANDON ALLEN 1 1983 W M 6 ft. 09 1n ' 280 Ibs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree DOWDELL, WILLIAM 2 1966 B M 6 ft. 00 in' 175 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault will Sexual Motivation 21 degree DUMAS, WILLIE EUGENE 3 1948 B M 5 ft. 09 in• 189 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault witl Sexual Motivation 21 degree EASTLAND, PAMELA KIM 2 1961 B F 5 ft. 08 in. 200 Ibs: BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98104 Child Molestation ' degree EDENSHAW, RANDOLPH ERNEST 2 1977 I 5 ft. 10 1n ' 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98122 Rape of a Ch 3rd degree EDWARDS, MICHAEL GARY 1 1946 M 5 ft . 09 in 155 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree ENGEL, BOBBIESUE ELIZABETH 1 1980 W F 5 ft. 04 1n ' 154 lbs. BLN HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree ENGELKE, DONALD PHILLIP 1 1947 ' 1 W M 5 ft. 09 1n ' 140 Ibs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor • Immoral Purposes ERMINE, ARNOLD PATRICK 1 1 1950 I M 6 ft. 02 1n ' 190 Ibs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 2nd degreE ESPINOSA, EDGARDO ANTONIO 1 1980 H M 5 ft. 07 1n ' 160 Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98104 Communicati with a Minor • Purposes EVANS, ROBERT STAFFORD 2 1948 B M 5 ft. 04 1n ' 200 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degreE FARRELL, JAMES KEVIN 1 1955 W M 5 ft. 11 In 185 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior FAWCETT, BENJAMIN HARRIS 1 1943 W M 5 ft. 06 1n ' 145 Ibs. BLK BLK Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree I 1 r - -11 1(" r 11 11 - 11 - 11 11 11 Listing o1 Homeless Ur 1 ransient Sex Uttenclers In King County http: / /www.metrokc.gov /scr /sheriff /homelessListing.cfm :.J Page 4 01 14 8/1/02 , • rtl W!"."*Amvit K, .r7te .mS. ,n ,. ^ .,::'T.' '. ? �...r. ; •wwa• , �v'�.� .^.C.: ` :,:.ea::. n wr,W y, FERRIER, LOYD KEITH 2 1953 W M 5 ft. 05 in 150 lbs. BLN GRN Homeless or transient 98104 Child Molestation degree FLAJOLE, MATTHEW CHARLES 1 1963 W M 5 ft. 08 in ' 160 lbs. HAZ BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault will Sexual Motivation 2i degree FORD, JERRY EUGENE 1 1971 W M 6 ft. 03 in 180 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree FORD, SEARAUN LAVOI 3 1974 B M 6 ft. 00 � 190 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98122 Ra p 2nd degree g FORTENBERRY, LEONARD FRANCIS 2 1936 W M 5 ft. 11 in ' 158 Ibs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 1st degree FRAZIER, STANLEY LEON 3 1954 B M 6 ft. 00 in. 207 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree GARRETT, GERALD LAWRENCE 2 1968 B M 6 ft. 00 � 200 Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree g GASTON, WILLIAM ALLEN 3 1967 B M 5 ft. 07 in. 184 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degreE GATES, CHARLES EDWARD 2 1964 W M 5 ft. 10 in ' 200 Ibs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree GILES, JUSTIN DWAYNE 2 1982 W M 5 ft. 11 in• 175 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch degree GILLESPIE, CHARLES DOUGLAS 1 1954 B M 6 ft. 01 in ' 205 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st p degree GLEASON, DANIEL EDWARD 1 1953 W M 5 ft. 05 in. 160 Ibs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree GOSENBERG, GARY ROSS 3 1938 W M 5 ft. 09 In 185 Ibs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory RaI 1st degree GRANT, EDDIE ROY 1 1953 B M 5 ft. 08 in. 190 Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault wit! Sexual Motivation 1 degree GREEN, ANTHONY WAYNE 3 1977 W M 5 ft. 10 in ' 227Ibs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree GREEN, WILLIAM RAY 2 1963 W M 5 ft. 05 in. 158 Ibs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient 98002 Rape of a Ch 2nd degreE jGUHI DAVID 3 1952 W M l 1 6 ft. 00 280 Ibs. BLK GRN Homeless or Homeless or Indecent Listing or Homeless CJr I ransient hex Offenders In King County http:// www. metrokc. gov /scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm Page 5 of 14 8/1/02 ,ARTHUR IL II I 11 in. II II I 11 transient transient I Liberties HACKLER, DALE RAY 3 1952 W —II M 5 ft. 07 in. 1651bs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless Indecent or Liberties transient HALL, AUBREY SEAN 3 1978 W M 6 ft. 00 in. 230 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless Rape of a Ch or 1st degree transient HALL, BUDDY BLACKCOAL 1 1961 I M 5 ft. 07 in 165 lbs. GRY BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Sexual Assa HALL, TERRY JOSEPH 2 1954 B M 5 ft. 04 in. 140 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 2nd degree HARP, RICHARD IRWIN 3 1956 W M 5 ft. 09, in. 170 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 1st degree HARRIS, BRIAN KEITH 2 1959 B M 5 ft. 09 in. 270Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree HARRISON, JERRY DAVIS 3 1959 B M 6 ft. 01 in. 200 lbs., BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree HARTWELL, ERIC EUGENE 2 1962 W M 6 ft. 02 in 200 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties HATFIELD, SHANE LYNN 1 1970 I M 5 ft. 11 in 200 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor ' Immoral Purposes HAVILAND, BRYON JOSEPH 1 1975 W M 6 ft. 04 in 220 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree HAYNEN, VERNON HUGH 3 1968 W M 5 ft. 07 in. 165 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 1st degree HAYTER, JR, JERALD ALLEN 1 1971 W M 5 ft. 06 in 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree HERNANDEZ, ROBERTO CHRISTOPHER 1 1982 H M 5 ft. 06 � 157 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Incest 2nd degree HOLCOMB, MICHAEL DAVID 2 1970 W M 5 ft. 07 in 170 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Rape . HOLLEN, JR, JAMES ANTHONY 1 1954 W M 5 ft. 11 in ' 175Ibs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties HOLLIS, GEORGE FRANCIS 3 1947 W M 6 ft. 04 in ' 2001bs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Kidnapping 1 degree (HOWARD, 11 11 11 11 115 ft. 1011 11 11 1Homeless1lHomelessll Listing or Homeless Ur 1 ransient ex Uttencters In King (Aunty http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm t'IP?;JY. .7J s4' f; r N' dfi :- !.°.. Page 6of14 8/1/02 mR+�' ^'^ -n ... v .... r ^..+^.•'.-.., �.-,. r-.- r... �n s-.-. a? s} rsu , .s^.;t4 ^.?..y�sT.;.a?nwenx+!Y: "`^�fi�?:T MICHAEL RAYMOND I 1 I� + 1954 I W M in. 1 165 1 lbs. JI I BRO 1111 BLU or transient or transient Sexual Assa HOWELL, TIMOTHY KEVIN 2 1972 W M 6 ft. 00 in 200 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree HUGHES, RICHARD LEE 3 1946 B M 5 ft. 09 in. 244 lbs. GRY BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault witl Sexual Motivation 21 degree INGRAM, TERRY DONALD 1 1963 B M 5 ft. 09 in 190 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Sexual Assa JANSEN, JOHN TERRY 1 1970 I M 5 ft. 08 in 165 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient ., Homeless or transient Child Molestatior JEROME, JOLLY 1 1944 W M 5 ft. 05 fn 185 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree JOHNSON, ADOLPHUS LEERVIS 1 1964 W M 5 in. 09 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Molestatior JOHNSON, MICHAEL MAURICE 3 1953 W M 5 ft. 09 In' 150 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd p degree JOY, DAVID MITCHELL 1 1964 W M 5 ft. 11 in 217 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior KING, JAMES WESLEY 1 1960 B M 5 ft. 09 in 150 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Ex posure KLAAS, ROBERT ALLEN 1 1946 W M 5 ft. 08 in. 235 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor ' Immoral Purposes KOESTER, ERIC SCOTT 2 1969 W M 5 ft. 04 in. 145 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient 98104 Statutory Ral 1st degree KOHL, ROBERT DEAN 2 1960 W M 6 ft. 00 in 130 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree LACHER, • MICHAEL LAWRENCE 1 1965 W M 6 ft. 01 In. 200 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape LARSON, WILLIAM DOUGLAS 2 1960 W M 5 ft. 07 In ' 150 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor ' Immoral Purposes LEE, ROY MICHAEL 2 1952 W M 5 ft. 06 in. 175 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient 98119 Communicati with a Minor . Immoral Purposes I II 11 11 in II II ll IlHomelessllHomelessll Listing ox Homeless ur transient ex uttenaers In Icing UoUnty http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm Page '/ of 14 8/1/02 LEMIEUX, PAUL HARRY 1 I W M l 11115 5 ft 06 in 1 165 lbs. GRY BLU ij or transient I or transient I Rape LEWIS, DAVID EUGENE 2 1962 B M ft. 11 in 2401bs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree LONG, CHARLES EDWARD 1 1953 W M 5 ft. 04 in ' 150Ibs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties LOWE, ALONZO 3 1957 B M 5 ft. 03 in. 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Ra a 1st p degree LUCERO, MICHAEL DUARTE 1 1954 H M 5 ft. 08 in 1801bs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties LYLE, IRVIN BABE 3 1951 W M 5 ft. 08 in 1701bs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree MARTEN, CURTIS ANDREW 3 1965 W M 5 ft. 08 in ' 185Ibs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties MAULTSBY, RANDOLPH ALONZO 1 1944 B M 5 ft. 11 in ' 278 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree McBEE, KENNETH LAVERNE 1 1945 W M 5 ft. 10 in ' 170 lbs. BRO GRY Homeless or transient 98104 Rape 3rd p degree McBRIDE, MICHAEL ANDREW 1 1979 W M 5 ft. 09 in 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree McDOWELL, ZELIMIR SHEM 3 1980 B M 5 ft. 10 in. 135 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient 98104 Rape of a Ch 1st degree MEYERS, ROBERT KURT 3 1965 W 5 ft. 06 M in 170 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient 98104 Statutory Ral 1st degree MINGA, RYAN CHRISTOPHER 1 1980 W M 5 ft. 06 in 130 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree MITCHELL, MARTINEZ DAVON 1 1977 B M 1 ft. 90 in ' 510 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault witf Sexual Motivation 2i degree MORRIS, JOSEPH KIRBY 2 1949 I M 5 ft. 06 in 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree MORRISON, THOMAS LYLE 1 1951 W M 5 ft. 06 in 165 lbs. BRO HAZ 'Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degree MOSS, CURTIS HAROLD 1 1956 W 6 ft. 08 M in 2501bs. BRO GRN Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree 1 11r1ri1 11 11 11 11 11 11 Listing ar Homeless Ur 1 ransient Sex Uttencters In Icing County Page 8 of 14 http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm 8/1 /02 MULLIN, GARY L 3 1942 W M 5 ft. 09 in. 195 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree MURPHY, LABRON 5 ft. 06 in. . BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 3rd p degree NAMAUU, HOWELL KAIAMA 2 1946 A M 5 ft. 06 in. 160 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98134 Rape 2nd p degree NELSON, JAMES BENNETT 3 1960 W M 5 ft. 06 in. 185 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree NEUMANN, LAURENCE GENE 1 1940 W M 5 ft. 10 in 155 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 2nd degree NEW MAN, VICTOR JAMES 3 1963 W M 5 ft. 09 in 195 lbs. BLK HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties NICKERSON, ALLAN JOHN 1 1950 W M 5 ft. 11 in 250 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties NINO, ROMAN MATTHEW 2 1964 W M 6 ft. 03 in 185 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient 98104 Attempted Rape 2nd degree NOLEN, ROBERT DEWAYNE 1 1968 B M 5 ft. 11 in. 300Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape NORRIS, RUDOLPH VEE 3 1949 B M 5 ft. 10 in. 195 lbs. BRO BRO or transient Homeless or transient p e 1st Rape degree OLICK, GLELA 2 1944 1 M 5 ft. 05 in. 150 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties OLLIVIER, BRANDON GENE 3 1978 W M 6 ft. 03 in. 210 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or 98104 transient Child Molestation ' degree PARKE, JOHN DALE 1 1954 W M 5 ft. 09 in 150 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 1st degree PARKS, PETER 3 1952 B M 6 ft. 00 in 190 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree g PATTERSON, KARL JAMES 1 1954 W M 5 ft. 09 in 185 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties PENDLETON, TIMOTHY MICHAEL 1 1977 W M 5 ft. 11 in. 250 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree PETTIFORD, DAMON B 2 1971 B M 5 ft. 11 in 200 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation degree Listing of Homeless or i ranslent ex uiienClers In lung uounty http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm hp. rage 9 or 14 8/1/02 POWELL, RANDOLPH 3 1958 B M 5 ft. 09 in. 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree PRAYER, GARY DUANE 2 1976 W M 5 ft. 09 in 187 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degreE RAMIREZ, RAMON ARIAS 1 1942 H M 5 ft. 05 in 149 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties REED, CURTIS ANTHONY 3 1959 W M 6 ft. 00 in 210 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Raj 1st degree _ REEDY, BENNET f 2 JAMES 1961 W M 5 ft. 07 � 135 Ibs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient 98104 Rape 3rd degree g REIMAN, ROBERT 1 ASHLEY 1941 W M 5 ft 09 in ' 200 lbs. RED BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degreE RICE, MATTHEW 1 RILEY 1981 W M 5 ft 08 in ' 140 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Rape 2nd degree RILEY, TROY DANIEL 1 1961 W M 5 ft. 05 in 130 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor Immoral Purposes ROBERTS, RANDY 1 BERNARD 1957 B M 5 ft. 10 in ' 250 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault witl Sexual Motivation 2i degree ROBINSON, THEOPHYLLIS 1 THOR _ 1978 B M 6 ft. 01 in ' 160 lbs. BLK BLK Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree RODRIGUEZ, ARMANDO 1 1955 H M 5 ft. 06 in 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Unlawful Im risonmei p ROLLINS, JUSTIN 1 - ROBERT _ 1979 W M 6 ft. 00 in ' 200 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree ROMERO, TIM RAY 3 1974 1 M 5 ft. 03 in 169 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation degree RONQUILLO, ROBERTO 1 OLIN/AS 1957 H M 5 ft. 07 in ' 200 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Child Molestatior ROTARIUS, 1 JOSEPH ALLEN 1977 W M 6 ft. 00 in. 190 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98104 Rape of a Ch 3rd degree ROTH, ROBERT JAMES 1 1962 W M 5 ft. 11 in 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 3rd degree RUSS, I , I 16 ft. 011 1 I Homeless Homeless Communicati with a Minor Listing of Homeless Ur 1 ransient Nex Utlenclers In Being Uounty http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm ct rage 1 U 01 14 8 /1/02 .a,=.+..z., rmat .... . ...... . 7''t"'S _�J I WALLACE FREDERICK 3 1196511 B 11 M I in. 200 lbs. BLK ij BRO or transient or transient I Immoral Purposes SANCHEZ, FRANK SANTIAGO 1 1959 A M 5 ft 09 in' 159 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98104 Child Molestation ' degree SANDERS, RONALD 2 1954 B M 6 ft. 02 in. 200 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Rape 2nd degree SAUNDERS, EUGENE CORTEZ 2 1981 B M 5 ft. 10 in 152 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties SAVAGE, FREDERICK DEMETRIUS 2 1971 B M 6 ft. 01 m' 160 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Sexually Motivated Felony SCHWEHR, JOHN MICHAEL 1 1952 W M 5 ft. 10 in. 116 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties SCOTT, JOHN 1 1942 B M 5 ft. 07 in' 200 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 2nd degree SCOTT, TIMOTHY EDWARD 2 1964 W M 6 ft. 00 in' 215 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor • purposes SECORD, JOHN MICHAEL 3 1966 W M 5 ft. 06 in 155 lbs. BLN BRO Homeless or transient 98104 Child Molestation ' degree SHANNON, JAMES L 1 1973 B M 5 ft. 04 in. 140 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation SHILTS, BILLY RAY 1 1950 W M 5 ft. 06 in. 185 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation degree SHOUSE, RONNY LEE 2 1958 W M 5 ft. 07 in 150 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties SIMON, GREGORY MARK 3 1957 B M 6 ft. 00 in' 195 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree SIPARY, AMBROSE GORDON 1 1958 I M 5 ft. 07 m' 190 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape a 3rd p degree SMITH, RAYFORD LEE 1 1953 B M 6 ft. 01 in. 180 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Assault witl Sexual Motivation 2i degree SMITH, TIMOTHY ALAN 2 1955 1 M 5 ft. 08 in 150 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree STEVENS, ARNE HUGH 1 1967 W M 6 ft. 00 in 189 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Ran 1st degree Listing ot Homeless Ur I ransient Sex Menders In King County http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm l'age 11 ot 14 8/1/02 w STEWART, ROBERT IVAN 3 1948 W M 6 ft. 01 in, 200 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rae 1st degree SUNDSTROM, BRADLEY TRENT 3 1962 W M 5 ft. 10 in ' 165Ibs. BLO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degree TAMAS, IOSIF 1 1951 W M 5 ft. 04 in. 148 lbs. BRO - BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor Purposes TAYLOR, LARRY WILLIAM 3 1948 6 M 5 ft. 06 In 130 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 2nd degree THOMAS, DANNY ALLEN 2 1961 B M 6 ft. 00 in. 190 lbs. BLK GRN Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree THOMPSON, MICHAEL LARRY 3 1945 W M 5 ft. 04 in ' 1201bs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent . Liberties TOLLENAAR, CLINTON GRANT 2 1960 W M 5 ft. 06 in ' 250 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree TORRES, JOSE AGUILAR 1 1955 H M 5 ft. 05 in 1401bs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Communicati with a Minor' Immoral Purposes TURNER, BRANDON LEE 1 1973 W M 5 ft. 09 in 165 lbs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 1st degree DUSTIN RAY 2 1976 W M 5 ft. 07 in 150 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree UNGER, DOUGLAS WAYNE 1 1961 W M 6 ft. 01 � 1601bs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Statutory Rai 3rd degree VAN ALLEN, GARRY WINSTON 2 1953 W M 5 ft. 08 in ' 1751bs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties VANHORN, SHAUN MICKEL 2 1968 W M 5 ft. 11 in. 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degree VOGAN, RANDY EUGENE 3 1959 W M 5 ft. 09 in 2581bs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd degree WAINWRIGHT JESSE LEE 3 1977 W M 6 ft 02 in 240 lbs BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Attempted Child Rape 1 degree WALTON, GREGORY TYNEZ 3 1975 B M 5 ft. 10 in ' 160 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98103 Rape 2nd degree WATKINS, 1 1950 l l 3 l B M 5 ft. 07 160 lbs. . BLK BRO Homeless Homeless or or Rape 2nd Listing of Homeless Ur 1 ransient Nex Uttenciers 111 Kling County http: / /www.metrokc.gov /scr /sheriff /homelessListing.cfm Page 12 01 14 8/1/02 (KENNETH A II JI II_1I in. I 1 1 transient transient II degree WATKINS, MICHAEL EUGENE 3 _II 1977 B M 5 ft. 09 in 159Ibs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Indecent Liberties WATSON, ALLEN JAMES 3 1983 B M 5 ft. 07 in 156 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient 2 Rape 2nd degree WATTS, MICHAEL JAMES 1 1957 B M 6 ft. 02 in ' 210 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd p degree WEBB, CLINT 2 1956 B M 5 ft. 11 in. 145 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 3rd degree WEIBL, BRENT AUSTIN 2 1983 W M 5 ft. 10 in 160 lbs. BLN BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation ' degree WESELY, JASON DELON 1 1980 W M 5 ft. 09 in 145 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestation 2 degree WHIPPLE, JASON PATRICK 1 1980 W M 5 ft. 08 in ' 248 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 2nd p degree WHITE, ANTHONY GLEN 1 1955 B M 5 ft. 10 in. 170 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree WHITING, • STEVEN JAMES 1 1970 W M 5 ft. 07 in. 185 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 1st degree WHITSON, DANIEL ARTHUR 3 1969 W M 5 ft. 09 in ' 235 lbs. BRO BLU 'Homeless or transient 98122 Child Molestation ' degree WILKERSON, JAMES MICHAEL 1 1977 W M 5 ft. 05 in ' 145Ibs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degree WILLIAMS, ARTHUR CLARENCE 1 1979 I M 5 ft. 05 in ' 1651bs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Child Molestatior 2nd degree WILLIAMS, BARRY CHARLES 1 1958 W M 6 ft. 00 in 200Ibs. BRO HAZ Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree WILLIAMS, JIMMY RAY 1 1959 B M 6 ft. 00 in 210 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient 98108 Rape of a Ch 1st degree WILLIAMS, JUSTIN DAVIS 1 1970 . W M 5 ft. 11 in 160 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 3rd degree WILLIAMS, ROBERT JAMES 1 1947 B M 5 ft. 09 in 220 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 1st degree WILLIAMS, THELBERT 2 1934 W M 6 ft. 03 in • 315 lbs. WHT BLU Homeless or Homeless or Child Molestation If' Listing of Homeless Ur 1 ransient Sex Menders In King County http: / /www.metrokc.gov /scr /sheriff /homelessListing.cfn 'w.�e, ct }EM3 }K'�tGca�' '�xlit'?'l".fia'S�•t^' warm,.- `..w•+s�n�f'.,"Tt�n, Page 13 oI 14 8/1/02 (SHELBY l • ,ul l-J transient transient degree I WILLIAMSON, TOBY L 2 1978 W M 5 ft. 06 in. 170 lbs. BRO BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape e of a Ch 3rd degree WILSON, STEPHEN DARRYL 2 1962 B M 5 ft. 10 In ' 165 lbs. BLK BRO Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape 3rd degree WOOD, KEVIN MARK 1 1963 W M 6 ft. 02 in 180 lbs. BRO BLU Homeless or transient Homeless or transient Rape of a Ch 2nd degree Listing of Homeless Ur 1 ransient Sex Offenders In King County The Sex Offender Database is updated regularly. (Last update: 07/31/2002) King County Sheriffs Office King County I News I Services { Comments 1 Search iiaal�te Zip Cade Seatek Seatck Sex Offender Registration 1 Sheriffs_ Directory Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http:// www. metrokc. gov/ scr /sheriff/homelessListing.cfm Page 14 01'14 8/1/02 i ie.:r.C4Yti`�!iYu s;rrx. ir>,:.+t:ist'tr?r..: ' t'. pa;. cl ,rtr. : 'u+*yc.i�:.:�4:i.ys::: awy+;u...+:.- .svr<rsA;cr,.a:��us:Yr; sauycw:orxvv:u:.,wrw. w� THERE ARE 9 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN ZIP CODE 98178 Name Level Year of Birth Race Sex Height Weight Hair color Eye color Address Offense DANFORTH, ROBERT REIVES 3 1945 W M 5 ft. 11 in 242 lbs GRY HAZ 82XX S 121 S Rape 2nd degree MICHAEL, DELBERT W 3 1932 W M 5 ft. 10 in. 200 ibs. RED GRY 57XX S RYAN ST Statutory Rape 1st degree MORGAN, DAVID LINCOLN 2 1961 A M 5 ft. 04 in 146 lbs. BLK BRO 114XX RAINIER AVE S SPACE Assault with Sexual Motivation 2nd degree ORTALIZA, JOSEPH ROY 2 1961 A M 5 ft. 08 In ' 200 lbs. BLK BRO 56XX S FOUNTAIN ST Child Molestation 2nd degree PHILLIPS, JERRY LEE 2 1965 B M 5 ft. 08 in 209 lbs. BLK BRO 60XX S 129 ST Rape 2nd degree SANCHEZ, JOSE 2 1954 H M 5 ft. 07 in 270 lbs. BLK BRO 125XX 69 AVE S Rape of a Child 3rd degree STOLL, PATRICK JOSEPH 2 1950 W M 6 ft. 03 in 280 lbs. BRO BLU 118XX 78 AVE S Rape 2nd degree SUMMERS, DAYLON KEITH 2 1966 B M 5 ft. 02 in. 167 lbs. BLK BRO 107XX 66 AVENUE S Communicating with a Minor for Immoral Purposes THOMAS, JR, ROY 3 1965 B M 5 ft. 11 in 230 lbs. BLK BRO 104XX 62 AVE S Rape 1st degree Search results tor your selected zip code King County i'•' ; ai ZIP CODE SEARCH RESULTS Hume Sea.tek Zip Cade Seatek The Sex Offender Database is updated regularly. (Last update: 07/31/2002) King County Sheriffs Office Sex Offender Search Main Page I Sheriffs Main Page King County I News 1 Services 1 Comments ! Search http://www.metrolcc.gov/scr/sheriff/zipresulN3.cfm Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. rage 1 of 2 8/1/02 THERE ARE 19 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN ZIP CODE 98168 Name Level Year of Birth Race Sex Height Weight Hair color Eye color Address Offense ALDER, RONALD LESLIE 2 1950 W M 5 ft. 08 in 160 lbs. BLN HAZ 133XX 34 AV S Communicating with a Minor for Immoral Purposes BERRY, BRYAN DOUGLAS 2 1961 W M 5 ft. 10 in 220 lbs. GRY BLU 118XX 14 AVE S Rape of a Child 1st degree BRAGGS, FRED DOUGLAS 3 1957 B M 5 ft. 07 in 155 lbs. BRO BRO 28XX S 140 ST Rape 1st degree g CARDINAL, MARQUISE ELLISON 2 1966 B M 5 ft. 07 in. 205 lbs. BLK BRO 148XX MILITARY RD S Rape 2nd p degree ECKLES, FLOYDALE LAMONT 3 1972 B M 6 ft. 00 in ' 220 lbs. BLK BRO 144XX PACIFIC HWY Child Molestation 3rd degree FENTON, WILLIAM A 3 1966 W M 5 ft. 10 in 250 lbs. BRO HAZ 120XX OCCIDENTAL AVE S Rape of a Child 3rd degree HANSEN, LYNN FREDERICK 3 1959 W M 5 ft. 11 in 180 lbs. BRO HAZ 148XX MILITARY RD Indecent Liberties HEMMINGSEN JAMES DAVID 3 1972 W M 6 ft. 01 in 200 lbs BRO BLU 40XX S 146 ST Indecent Liberties HOLMES, DONALD THEO 2 1946 B M 6 ft. 01 in 180lbs. BLK BRO 149XX INTERURBAN Indecent Liberties KINGBIRD, JORDAN DONOVAN 3 1972 I M 6 ft. 00 in 190Ibs. BLK BRO 20XX S 108 ST Rape 3rd degree g LOBACK, DAVID JEFFREY 3 1958 W M 5 ft. 10 in 2401bs. BRO HAZ 135XX PACIFIC HVVY S Rape of a Child 1st degree MATTHEWS, CHARLOTTE MARIE 2 1961 B F 5 ft. 00 in 165 lbs. BLK BRO 149XX 57 AVE S Rape 3rd degree MITCHELL, KAREAN 3 1975 B M 5 ft. 08 in. 145 lbs. BLK BRO 120XX 16 AVE S Assault with Sexual Motivation 2nd Search results for your selected zip code King County iLx sO O .?NTOSIRR1.Eiti: 2 ZIP CODE SEARCH RESULTS l'age 1 of 2 http://www.metrokc.gov/scr/sheriff/zipresulN3.cfm �_'�);i {it :tilt'a`_`+� ?�izr,Yi:�t�rtsS aa�i:'S�` s,'_fi•{'::�5�,`;'#l�e';r` � 8/1/02 ,, 'L'i'' ^' ir i ^^e. azz=av •nm-" rmMCe LDAVON DU IUf 11 11 11 11 degree MOSLEY, NATHANIEL 2 1952 B M 5 ft. 08 in 240Ibs. BLK BRO 148XX MILITARY RD S Child Molestation 1st degree OVERTON, KEVIN LEE 2 1971 W M 6 ft. 03 in. 190 lbs. BRO BRO 120XX S 23 AVE S Child Molestation 1st degree RAKISH, PAUL LOUIS 2 1953 W M 5 ft. 11 in. 185 lbs. BRO BRO 22XX S 128 Sexually Motivated Felony REINHART, STEVEN WESLEY 2 1954 W M 5 ft. 06 in. 140 lbs. GRY HAZ 28XX SOUTH 127 ST Child Molestation 1st degree RILES, ROLAND ERICK 2 1954 B M 5 ft. 09 in 178 lbs. BLK BRO 41XX S 130 ST Rape of a Child 1st degree SOLIZ, GILBERTO 3 1954 H M 5 ft. 10 in 210 lbs. BLK BRO 128XX 22 AVE S Rape 2nd degree Search results tor your selected zip code • Seca& Zip Cade I Seatck The Sex Offender Database is updated regularly. (Last update: 07/31/2002) King County Sheriffs Office Sex Offender Search Main 1 Sheriffs Main Page King County 1 News I Services 1 Comments 1 Search http://www.metrokc.gov/scr/sheriff/zipresulN3.cfm Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting thls and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. Page 2of2 8/1/02 149:4 ,;y Tri(l",r,.ix'iw°:S:s:.i'.7 ' <+Aii 'td'y C:Sls<:'+Jth s >.�;i <'ht,�Vx.m':a ::,, -,,., ... .., NEXT STEP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Council of the whole FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director. RE: Secure Community TransitionalFacilities. DATE: July 30, 2002. Staff had briefed the Council of the Whole on July 22, 2002, regarding proposed code amendments related to secure community transition facilities (SCTFs). It was decided to hold a public hearing on August 5, 2002. The notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners and tenants in the City of Tukwila within half mile of the parcels eligible for the location of a SCTF. An information meeting is also scheduled on August 5, 2002, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., to answer any questions the public might have. The Council also requested the following information: 1. Are the parcels along the King County Airport eligible for the location of SCTFs? The parcels along East Marginal Way that are part of the King County Airport development are separate legal lots and thus are eligible for location of SCTFs. If the Department of Social and Health Services selects any parcel along the airport, the State could condemn it to locate a SCTF. 2. Is the Museum of Flight considered a "risk potential facility" due to the number of school field trips conducted there and should the parcels adjoining the museum be deleted from the eligible parcel list? "Risk potential facility" is defined under RCW 71.09.020 to include schools, school bus stops, licensed day cares and licensed preschools, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and public libraries. Since private museums are not considered risk potential sites under the State Law, including a provision in the City Code that requires separation requirement from the Museum of Flight would be more restrictive than the State Law and would be a basis for preemption by the State. Also, the staff has amended the language for essential public facilities category under the unclassified uses of various zoning districts. This category captures all essential public facilities that are not specifically called out as separate land use categories. For example SCTF and mass transit facilities are listed separately in the code and thus are not considered under the essential public facilities heading in the code. The language in the ordinance has been amended from "essential public facilities, except those uses specifically listed as permitted, conditionally permitted, or listed as an unclassified use in any of the districts established by this title" to "essential public facilities, except those uses listed separately in any of the districts established by this title ". Staff will incorporate any revisions to the proposed ordinance that the Council may suggest following their discussion and after obtaining public input at the public hearing. Staff will then bring the ordinance for adoption on August 19, 2002. The ordinance must be adopted by September 1, 2002 to avoid preemption by the State. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director • Q Secure Community Transition Facility.doc MENSMEMSMOSEMODEVEMMEMIMMIat AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUIMILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS RELATING TO ZONING AND PERMITTING FOR SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES FOR SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTAELISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to implement Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594 which incorporates the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities; and 'WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to implement RCW 36.70A.200 related to essential public facilities by recognizing the City's obligation to make provision for such facilities, while regulating the location of secure community transition facilities so as to allow them in a manner intended to mitigat&their potential impacts and provide for their proper and safe operation; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to implement RCW 71.09.285, which requires the City to consider the policy guidelines adopted by Department of Social and Health Services when providing for siting of secure community transition facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has reviewed the siting criteria and has determined that there are potential sites in the City which meet the siting criteria; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1974, §14, as codified at TMC 18.06.178, is amended as follows: 18.06.178 Correctional institution. "Correctional institution" means: public and private facilities providing for. 1. the confinement of adult offenders; or 2. the incarceration, confinement or detention of individuals arrested for or convicted of crimes whose freedom is partially or completely restricted other than a jail owned and operated by the City of Tukwila; or 3. the confinement of persons undergoing treatment for drug or alcohol addictions whose freedom is partially or completely restricted; or 4. transitional housing, such as halfway houses, for offenders who are required to live in such facilities as a condition of sentence or release from a correctional facility, except secure community transitional facilities as defined under RCW 71.09.020. Section 2. A new definition is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06 as follows: 18.06.706 Secure CommunityTransitional Facility. .1 • • • "Secure community transitional facility" means a secure community transitional facility as defined under RCW 71.09.020, which defines it as "a residential facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative under this chanter. A secure community transition facility has supervision and security. and either provides or ensures the p rovision 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 this chapter and operated by the secretary or under contract with the secretary." Section 3. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §48, 1856 §33, and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.26.050, are amended as follows: 18.26.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Regional Commercial Mixed Use district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC 18.66. 1. Conversions of rental multi - family structures to condominiums or owner - occupied multi - family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner- occupied multi - family housing. 2. Essential public facilities, except those uses specifically listed separately as pennitted or- conditienally permitted in.any of the districts established by this title. 3. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 4. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 5. Mass transit facilities. Section 4. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §51, 1865 §35, and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.28.050, are amended as follows: 18.28.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Tukwila Urban Center district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified.Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Conversions of rental multi - family structures to condominiums or owner- occupied multi - family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner- occupied multi- family housing. 3. Essential public facilities, except those uses specifically listed separately es- penxitted in any of the districts established by this title. 4. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 5. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 6. Mass transit facilities. Section 5. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §53 and 1753, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.30.050, are amended as follows: Secure Connnunity Transition Faciiity.doc 2 • 18.30.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Corunercial Light Industrial district; subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Essential public facilities, except those uses speeifieally listed separately as-pe> ted or er—eendifienally-peEmitted in any of the districts established by this title. 4. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 5. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 6. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 7. Mass transit facilities. Section 6. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §39 and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.32.050, are amended as follows: s. 18.32.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Light Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of' this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Animal rendering. 3. Cement manufacturing. 4. Correctional institutions. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses speei€:eally listed separately as- pelted er - eendi`ionaily petted in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 9. Mass transit facilities. Section 7. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §41 and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.34.050, are amended as follows: 18.34.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of • this title. Sccure Community Transition Facility.doc • 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Correctional institutions. 4. Electrical substation - transmission/switching. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses specifically listed separately meted in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Manufacturing, refining, or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials. 9. Railroad freight or classification yards. 10. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 11. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. 12. Mass transit facilities. .VA., h:' 2tt: i.i. ; .i': ?FaiiSi.'s. >.3Y4vY1Xc'n k+'t..t2:ti�i�:4N6%1' 1t'. .<,. J.t .�. : N�C�sL:I ?.J�VYh f:4 J4.Rn�L/. NMil' Section 8. Ordinance Nos. 1865 §43 and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.36.050, are amended as follows: 18.36.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Essential public facilities, except those uses specifically listed separately es- pelted in any of the districts established by this title. 4. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 5. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 6. Railroad freight or classification yards. 7. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 8. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. 9. Mass transit facilities. Secure Community Transition Facility.doc 4 Z re 2 6 00 0) 0 U) 11J W I H � WO g< d W Z= F- Z o W U O D O I- W W 2 0 I- O Z W U= O ~ Z x.rw:T "T rfH•. Section 9. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §58, 1865 §45, and 1753, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.33.050, are amended as follows: 18.38.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). 2. Cement manufacturing. 3. Correctional institution. 4. Electrical substation - transmission/switching. 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses speeifieally listed separately as-permitted mealy- permitted in any of the districts established by this title. 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. 8. Manufacturing, terming, or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials. 9. Mass transit facilities. 109. Railroad freight or classification yards. 1149. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 12. Secure community transition facility, subject to the following location restrictions: a. No secure community transition facility shall be allowed within the specified distances from the following uses, areas or zones, whether such uses, areas or zones are located within or outside the City limits: 11 In or within 1,000 feet of an y residential zone. f2) Adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a "risk potential activity /facility" as defined in RCW 71.09.020 as amended that include: (a) Public and private schools; (b) School bus stops; (c) Licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities; (d) Public parks. publicly dedicated trails, and sports fields; (e) Recreational and community centers; (f) Churches, synagogues, temp and mosques: and (g) Public libraries ( 3) One mile from any existing secure community transitional facility or correctional institution. b_ The distances specified in TMC 18.38.050- 12.a(2) shall be measured as snecified under Department of Social and Health Services guidelines established pursuant Secure Community Transition Facility.doc SW 4,41 . 1s i�lw , r; Gvb�. ;�a�aRa.;:w�rau.c;�Wb�tY3�.na�. • 7.x1Lrtat' l.;nfieu�!:.i:: k:,� li1w':k}/�h 5 TwatawygLow, to RCW 71.09.285, which is by followine a straieht line from the nearest point of the property parcel upon which the secure community transitional facility is to be . located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the proposed land use is to be separated. 13-1-1. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. 12.Mass Transit Faeilities: Z Section 10. Ordinance Nos. 1976 §61, 1365 §47, and 1753, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.40.050, are amended as follows: I w Ce 18.40.050 Unclassified uses. 5 00 , The following uses may be allowed within the Tukwila Valley South district, subject to the 0 uj requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of W = this title. F ' CO u_ 1. Airports, landing fields and heliports (except emergency sites). W 2. Cement manufacturing. u�.. co o 3. Conversions of rental multi- family structures to condominiums or owner- occupied = w multi - family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner- Z h occupied multi - family housing. i— 0 Z I- 4. Electrical substation - transmission/ switching. W W D p 5. Essential public facilities, except those uses specifically listed separately as- permitted, 0 V) er -eend a11y- permitted in any of the districts established by this title. 0 1- W W 6. Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants. 1 1- - u- 0 7. Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Z Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. U co 1- _ 8. Manufacturing, refining, or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less 0 than tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or Z insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials. Secure Cmnntunity Transition Facility.doc 9. Railroad freight or classification yards. 10. Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil, and other natural deposits together with associated structures. 11. Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency. 12. Mass transit facilities. Section 11. Ordinance Nos. 1770 §41 and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.66.040, are amended as follows: 18.66.040 Application requirements. A. Applications for unclassified use permits shall be Type 5 decisions and shall be processed pursuant to TMC 18.108.050. B. An unclassified use . ermit a lication for a secure communi transition facilit shall be accompanied by the following: 1. The siting process used for the secure community transition facility, including, alternative locations considered. • : 2. An analysis showing that proper consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on anv one rscial. cultural or socio- economic group. and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood. community, jurisdiction or region. 3. Documentation demonstrating compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW for establishing the need for additional secure community transition facility beds and documentation demonstrating compliance with the "equitable distribution" requirements under the same chapter. 4. Proposed mitigation measures including the use of sight- obscuring buffers and other barriers from adjacent uses. At a minimum, the project must provide buffering similar to that required between residential and industrial zones. 5. A detailed security plan for both the facility and its residents must be reviewed by the City's Police Department, and their general findings must be included in the Unclassified Use Permit application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also be included with the permit application. 6. Proposed operating rules for the facility. 7. A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process. Section 12. Ordinance Nos. 1365 §55, 1816 §2, and 1758, §1 (part), as codified at TMC 18.66.060, are amended as follows: 18.66.060 Criteria. 1. Where appropriate and feasible, all facilities shall be undergrounded. 2. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, • yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. 4. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses. The City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting an unclassified use permit: 5. The proposed development shall to the maximum extent feasible be consistent with and promote the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and applicable adopted area plans. 6. The proposed unclassified use shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate all significant adverse environmental impacts on public and private properties. Full consideration shall be given to: (a) alternative locations and/or routes that reduce or eliminate adverse impacts; and (b) alternative designs that reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. 7. In the event that a proposed essential public facility of a countywide or statewide nature creates an unavoidable significant adverse environmental or economic impact on the community, compensatory mitigation shall be required. Compensatory mitigation shall include public amenities, incentives or other public benefits which offset otherwise unmitigated adverse impacts of the essential public facility. Where Secure Community n•ansition Facili4adoc 7 • • • • appropriate, compensatory mitigation shall be provided as close to the affected area as possible. • 8. For uses in residential areas, applicants shall demonstrate that there is no reasonable nonresidential alternative site for the use. 9. For uses in residential areas, applicants shall demonstrate that the use provides some tangible benefit for the neighborhood. z 10. Secure community transition facilities shall be meet the following criteria: H W (al No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested 6 D by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance U U O with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 u) ❑ RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements. 07 W (b) The facility shall be located in relation to transportation facilities in a manner J t appropriate to the transportation needs of the secure community transition facility W u- residents. 2 }} Section 13. Ordinance No. 1834, §8 and 1768 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 5 18.104.090, is amended as follows: to d 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure. Z = t— Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: Z O W 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, j p the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to 0 c" departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not ❑ I-- required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign W W Permit Denial pursuant to TMC 19.12. U u. O 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Z Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that U u) the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single family residence H 2 need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general Z'- circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. 4. For applications which require any Shoreline permit, additional notice shall be provided as required by RCW 90.58. 5. For preliminary plats, additional 'published notice shall be provided as required by RCW 58.17.090(a). 6. The Director shall have the discretion in unusual circumstances (i.e., lengthy utility corridor or right -of -way construction projects) where posting and mailed notice would be impractical, to require the notice of application to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the proposal is located, in lieu of posting and mailed notice. Section 14. Ordinance No. 1768 §2 (part), as codified at TMC 18.104.160, is amended as follows: 18.104.160 Hearing Scheduling - Notice of Hearing. Secure Community Transition Facility.doc 8 .4, A. At least 14 days prior to any public hearings on Type 3, 4 and 5 decisions, open record appeal hearings on Type 2 decisions and closed record appeal hearings on Type 4 decisions, the Department shall issue a. Notice of Hearing by mail pursuant to the provisions of TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. In addition, at least 14 days before such hearing, the Director shall post the Notice of Hearing on any posted notice board(s) erected pursuant to TMC 18.104.110. Such Notice of Hearing shall include the following information: 1. The file number. 2. The name of the applicant. 3. A description of the project, the location, a list of the permits included in the application, and the location where the application, the staff report, and any environmental documents or studies can be reviewed. 4. A site plan on 81/2 x 11 inch paper, if applicable. 5. The date, time, place and type of hearing. 6. The phone number of the Department and the name of the staff person who can provide additional information on the application and the hearing. B. The Director shall have the discretion to include additional information in the Notice of Hearing if the Director determines that such information would increase public awareness or understanding of the proposed project. Section 15. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 16. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, of a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2002. AI I EST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Office of the City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 4 r;:61L '��,y,` Secure Community Transition Facility.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 9 July 29, 2002 Gity of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Beverly K. Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center P.O. Box 45322 Olympia WA 98504 -5322 RE: Response to comments submitted regarding proposed code amendments to the Tukwila Municipal Code concerning secure community transition facilities. Dear Ms. Wilson: w Thank you for coming to the Planning Commission meeting and providing comments on the ? o proposed code amendments to the Tukwila Municipal Code regarding secure community U 0) transition facilities (SCTFs). We have reviewed your comments and have made some o modifications to the proposed amendments. Following is our response to each of the items raised = v in your June 27, 2002, letter: I- o z 1. Proximity to residential zones: We have reviewed the requirement of 1000 feet separation Ili 0) from residential zones and have found after applying the separation requirement there are 69 I parcels eligible for siting of secure community transition facilities. The total area of eligible z parcels is approximately 300 acres. Based on this analysis we believe the 1000 feet separation requirement does not preclude the location of SCTFs. We hope this addresses your concern. 2. Proximity to residential use: The 1000 feet separation from residential uses has been deleted from the proposed ordinance. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 3. Separation of one mile from any existing SCTF or correctional institution: The term in the proposed ordinance has been changed to "correctional institution" instead of "correctional facility ". Correctional institution is a defined term under Tukwila Municipal code. There is currently only one correctional institution in the city (jail in the city hall building) which is more than one mile away from the MIC/H zone. We believe this requirement does not preclude the siting of SCTFs. 4. Mitigation requirements: The decision criteria for an unclassified use permit requires mitigation of unavoidable significant adverse environmental or economic impacts to the community. This is an existing requirement in our codes and is applicable to all uses subject to an unclassified use permit. Please note that SEPA requires mitigation for significant adverse impacts and the code is merely repeating the requirements of SEPA. Your concern 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 z z w re 2 J 00 u) L1.1 w = J � w LLQ co 1 Z = 1- 0 Z 1- that city might use this requirement to deny approval for a SCTF assumes that city will misuse its SEPA authority and we believe the ordinance language is valid. Staff is recommending to the City Council to keep this requirement in the proposed ordinance. 5. Analysis of undue impacts: Your concern is that this requirement will be misapplied to Z preclude a SCTF from ever being approved. This requirement is proposed to implement the w intent of equitable distribution requirements of the State Law and to assess the alternative cc 2 sites considered by DSHS and to analyze the impact to a particular sub - region or a particular 6 neighborhood. Staff is recommending to the City Council to keep this requirement in the o co o proposed ordinance. w w J H 6. Use of extensive buffering: The word "extensive" has been deleted and the requirement has w o been restated as "proposed mitigation including the use of sight obscuring buffers and other 2 barriers from adjacent uses. At a minimum the project must provide buffering similar to that required between residential and industrial zones." to a = w 7. Providing a detailed security plan: The city understands your concern regarding sharing ? detailed security plan as part of the public hearing process. The staff is recommending to the z o City Council that the detailed security plan must be reviewed by the City's Police 1.1.1 ? . Department and their general findings be included in the Unclassified Use Permit v o co application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also be o included with the permit application. 8. Maximum number of residents: Your letter states that DSHS plans on siting one 12 -bed e_ p facility in King County and the city's requirement of three bed limitation is more restrictive w Z than state law. At the hearing you also mentioned that DSHS attorneys have said that the three -bed limitation will be legally challenged. Per letter dated July 12, 2002, we had 1 I I requested a response from your legal department on the reasons why this requirement would be challenged when it meets the statutory as stated under Section 204(2)(C) of 3ESSB 6151 Laws of 2001, codified at RCW 71.09.255(2)(c), as "The minimum size for any facility is three beds ". However you informed us that you are unable to provide a response from your legal department at this time. Nevertheless, we have amended the requirement to state, "No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's `equitable distribution' requirements." We are still very much interested in your response to our July 12, 2002, letter and this proposed revision. 9. On site facilities: The city understands that this is a program issue and DSHS has full jurisdiction over this. This requirement has been deleted from the proposed ordinance. 10. Notification requirements: The ordinance has been amended and one mile notification requirement has been replaced with the following: "Notice requirements shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 ". 2 Please let us know if this addresses your concerns or if you have additional comments. Also per our conversation you confirmed that you would attend the informational meeting and City Council public hearing on August 5, 2002. We had also mailed you a notice of the public hearing. Hope to see you there. Also, we would appreciate hearing back from you prior to the hearing if you have additional comments. Again thank you for your input. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner southcountyjournal.com - Cities prepare to house sex offenders Click Here For Details r7 Dinner for two on the Spirit or N ohwest I of Washinc ton Dinner Train. 4 Summer Adventure g . Fun tCrossword Dltbert ` ;•'; F.tvlefonec KOM °}`fV;f. Local:;New Bu'siness::': `Technology; iBoeing;Coun Pr , 7F Sports';" lOpipk Obituaries tiittirg e tvl& ar Crouilseon Healt W.omen's :Journal- .Entertainment %,'.; &Traff eat Listirii Persona Siabs;crlb'ei Circulation Jobs';at the'. tContact Home Cities prepare to house sex offenders 2002 -07 -19 by Jamie Swift Journal Reporter online King County Journal southcountyjournal.com King County cities are preparing guidelines for the housing of violent sexual predators after they are released from the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island. The state -- under pressure from the courts and now facing nearly $5 million in penalties for taking too long to set up transitional housing for sex offenders -- has set a Sept. 1 deadline for King County and its cities to have the regulations in place. Counties with more than five sex offenders in the Special Commitment Center -- Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark and Spokane, and their cities -- are under the same deadline. Pierce County is exempt because McNeil Island is in Pierce County. Officials said a 12- to 15 -bed facility will be placed in King County -- because 41 of the 168 sex offenders civilly commitment at the Special Commitment Center are from King County, more than any other county. 'There's got to be a limit' Auburn planning director Paul Krauss is concerned one of these facilities -- which the state refers to as Secure Community Transition Facilities -- will be placed somewhere in South King County. "You will find an overwhelming preponderance of Essential Public Facilities located in South Seattle, South King County, Hilltop in Tacoma and White Center," Krauss said. Krauss said these essential facilities -- including group homes, mental health and substance abuse facilities, among others -- are over represented in these areas because the land is cheap and there is a "perception that low - income communities or communities of color are easier to dump these things on. "But there's got to be a limit," Krauss said. In modifying the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code before the Sept. 1 deadline, Krauss said there will be language that demands the state illustrate that socioeconomic factors were not taken into consideration, should Auburn be chosen for a sex - offender facility. The choice should be made blindly and income should not be a factor," Krauss said. "I mean, they're not going to put one of these things on Mercer Island." DSHS considers many issues http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/htm1/99203 Page 1 of 4 cl Frei 1 07/19/2002 . southcountyjournal.com - Cities prepare to house sex offenders Page 2 of 4 Krauss is likely right, said Beverly K. Wilson, associate superintendent for community programs for the state Department of Social and Health Services, which operates the Special Commitment Center. Wilson doesn't foresee a sex - offender facility going up on Mercer Island or in Beaux Arts. "We must consider what's affordable and what's available," Wilson said. "We'll look at a whole host of issues, including what makes sense. And we'll try not to burden an already burdened community." State law sets forth specific siting guidelines and security measures for Secure Community Transition Facilities, including separation requirements from what are considered "risk potential facilities" such as schools, parks, and churches. Local land use regulations can help determine the planning process for these facilities and ensure the highest possible level of protection for residents, DSHS officials said. The SCC on McNeil Island However, both Krauss and Wilson agree that the guidelines the cities and counties draft, for the most part, can be preempted by the state. That's because the Legislature earlier this year expanded the definition of Essential Public Facility to include Secure Community Treatment Facilities for sex offenders. Cities such as Covington and Federal Way have decided to simply not write any regulations. Still, Federal Way's assistant city manager Derek Matheson said, "There are definite advantages to having the guidelines in place before the deadline." Officials said it is likely the state will stay within "good- faith" and "reasonable" guidelines. Most cities are making progress toward implementing guidelines before September, hopeful the state will live by them. The Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island is a total confinement facility designed to provide long -term rehabilitative treatment for sex offenders who have served their prison sentences, but are deemed not ready to re -enter society. "This is a mental health issue, not a criminal issue," Wilson said. There must be evidence that a sex offender has a mental abnormality and is likely to reoffend before a judge can order him held indefinitely at the Special Commitment Center. Only the most dangerous sex offenders are sent to the Special Commitment Center -- about 3 percent of the approximately 1,000 sex offenders released from prison each year. Still, a federal court judge ruled in 1994 that the commitment center must give offenders the opportunity to graduate to "less restrictive" facilities, off of McNeil Island. The decision stemmed from a 1991 civil rights complaint alleging constitutional violations of Special Commitment Center residents. The U.S. Supreme Court in January, in a 7 -2 decision, ruled that sex criminals must be treated the same as other people singled out for involuntary commitment. 8 offenders already released Eight offenders have since been placed in less restrictive facilities. Three went home to live with family; three were placed in special needs homes; and two were placed in the state's only current Secure Community Transition Facility for sex offenders, which is on McNeil Island, outside the Special Commitment Center. None have reoffended, Wilson said. http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/htm1/99203 southcountyjournal.com - Cities prepare to house sex offenders Page 3 of 4 However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state was dragging its feet in regard to establishing less restrictive facilities. In 1999, the court found the state in contempt of court and began fining the state $50 per day per commitment center resident until adequate transitional facilities are established on the mainland. The financial penalty is now nearing $5 million and is still accruing. Wilson said she is hopeful that at the next semiannual court review in December, Judge Barbara Rothstein will find that the state has progressed enough to stop the fines. Wilson said DSHS is progressing toward placement of a transitional facility for sex offenders in King County and the other counties. She said she doesn't know when the facilities will open or exactly where. The number of sex offenders housed in these facilities will be based on how many sex offenders, during their annual reviews, are found by a judge to be ready for a less restrictive facility. Likely, Wilson said, a 12- to 15 -bed facility will be built in King County. It won't be 'like a jail' Wilson said the Secure Community Transition Facilities won't "be like a jail with a barbed - wire fence." But there will be a high level of security and residents will not be allowed to come and go as they please. Sixteen hours a day there must be one supervisor per resident, Wilson said. The other eight hours there will be two supervisors for every three residents. When an offender goes to work, a supervisor will go with him and stay with him. Wilson realizes there will be a public backlash, but she explains that there are hundreds of sex offenders already living free in Washington state. In Kent, for example, there are 206 registered sex offenders receiving little to no supervision. Sex offenders who continue to progress in their rehabilitation could be set free from the Secure Community Transition Facilities or sent to an even less restrictive facility -- which is yet to be developed. Here are some updates on how King County and South County cities are progressing toward passing guidelines for the sex - offender facilities, as well as upcoming public hearings on the issue: King County * The county is still considering its response to state regulations. At minimum, the county likely will adjust its group homes ordinance to disallow sex - offender facilities in residential areas. Public meeting -- There will be a public meeting for county residents at 5 p.m. on July 30 at the Department of Development and Environmental Services building in Renton, 900 Oakesdale Ave. S.W. Auburn * The city of Auburn is working on language in its comprehensive plan that would demand the state to show that socioeconomic factors did not play a role in the decision- making process, if Auburn is chosen for a facility. The city would also require the facility to be in an industrial area. http://vvww.southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/htm1/99203 07/19/2002 southcountyjournal.com - Cities prepare to house sex offenders Page 4 of 4 Public meeting -- There will be a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Aug. 6 at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main St. Kent * Kent is considering modifications to its comprehensive plan and zoning codes as they relate to the transitional facilities. Public meeting -- There will be a public meeting at 7 p.m. Monday at Kent City Hall, 220 Fourth Ave. S. Renton * Renton is just beginning to work on the guidelines. A public hearing will be scheduled. Covington * Covington is not intending to amend its regulations. Tukwila * The city of Tukwila is looking at changes to its zoning code and requirements to keep sex - offender facilities in industrial areas. Public meeting -- There will be a public meeting at 7 p.m. Monday at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Enumclaw * Enumclaw already had its public hearing on this issue. The city's guidelines would require sex- offender housing to be located in a light industrial area; and only by conditional -use permit. Federal Way * Federal Way will not pass guidelines. The City Council, officials said, did not want to appear as though the city was "courting" such a facility. Time constraints were also a factor. SeaTac * The city of SeaTac is proposing to allow the facilities only in high commercial and industrial zoning districts. Jamie Swift can be reached at jamie .swift @southcountyjournal.com or 253- 872 -6646. South County Journal 600 South Washington, Kent WA 98032 Hours: Monday - Friday 8:OOam to 5:OOpm Phone: 253- 872 -6600 Fax: 253 -854 -1006 All materials Copyright © 2002 Horvitz Newspapers, Inc. Any questions? See our contact page. http://www.southcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/99203 07/19/2002 r � f;+C:AF , "•'•d'.. i1� =e+2. +1''w�' 'r`Gria:iY.:.s;:.- a ,: G.i •K,::P::;vt:>.e "4% $l :$l ... ;. reg..pt no face ac- campaign- tington Re- d to forfeit ;et because ign- finance ivestigating butions to from a na- he commit - ibutions for s who ran in ins could be y over to the done in the 3lican com- r in a March c Disclosure ie letter and !cords. But it 3fficials until ;tigation into separate and is of different PDC is inves- imittee's fail - lating out -of- ittees. Such report their iington cam- Tided wheth- plaint against al State Elec- oug Ellis, PDC ;ton law says ididates and the money it it. ve candidates tey to the state ,ns as large as N, B6 '1N2Wl000 3H1 JO )1111VflO 3H1 Ol 3n0 SI 1I 90110N SIHJ NVHJ 21V910 9591 SI 31/11VN3 SIHl NI 1N31Nf1000 3H1 Al :20110N DAN DeLONG / P -I Felipe Williams, 9, right, gasps for air during a breath - holding contest with Rayana Dent, 9, outside their homes along South Oregon Street ink le. hits ercury‘ gasp! BY MARGO HORNER P -1 reporter When it rains here, we're sol- diers; we venture into the soggy outdoors with hardly a wince. But the moment the mercury starts to creep above, say 75, we seem to recoil in horror. "Ugh, it's way too hot," said Car- oline Sweat, who lives in Kent. When it gets this hot, she and her husband spend most of their summer days indoors, in the air conditioning. And they only eat out in air - conditioned restaurants. "I hate it," Sweat said. "It's too hot to sleep." Nearly everywhere else in the country, 90 degrees would have been considered a cool relief. "People who live in Seattle don't understand," said Ardis Santwire, visiting Edmonds from 'Ilicson, Ariz., where temperatures yester- day hovered at a balmy 94. "When it's like 80 degrees here, people just wither on the vine." Temperatures here yesterday hit 87 degrees in Seattle, 90 in Bremerton, 80 in Everett and 93 in Shelton. That's shy of the 100 - degree re- cord set July 20, 1994, but quite a bit higher than the average tem- perature of 75 degrees for July. In Death Valley, Calif., though, locals have one word for yesterday's weather: Winter. It was 125 degrees there yester- day. "If you're riding on a bicycle and you get a gust of wind, it's like a fur- nace," said Max Lein, who works at 8 Furnace Creek Inn and Ranch Re- sort there. "It can be dangerous." But here, the recent weather hasn't been life- threatening, said Cliff Mass, a meteorologist and pro- fessor at the University of Washing- ton. Temperatures should begin dropping to the mid -70s this week. "This is one of the most pleasant places in the whole U.S. to be," Mass said. "The people who com- plain about the heat, they're weath- SEE HOT, B2 Cities gearing up to With releases from prison pending, issue of community placement turns urgent BY JEFFREY M. BARKER P -1 reporter KENT — It's not a surprise that nobody wants violent sex offenders in their back yard. But a federal court has ordered the state to put them in someone's neighborhood in a transition pro- gram to get those deemed likely to reoffend out of the state's rehabili- tation center for sex offenders and back into their communities. And that has cities and counties across the state scrambling to keep planned transitional housing away from neighborhoods. Public hearings have been scheduled throughout the area over the next few weeks. Authorities in Kent and'ilikwila last night took up the issue. Those cities, like many in King County, are adopting zoning regulations that would restrict tran- sitional housing to industrial areas. "Obviously, it's not something that communities are welcoming with open arms," said Beverly Wil- repel sex offenders son, associate superintendent of community programs at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Is- land, where more than 160 convict- ed sex offenders take classes and re- ceive therapy after they have served their prison sentences. `But this is a constitutional issue." Since the center was estab- lished in 1991, not one sex offender has been released back into the community. About 30 of the 1,000 sex of- fenders released from prison each year are deemed too dangerous to re -enter society and are civilly com- mitted to the facility by a Superior Court judge. But not one resident has been granted unconditional re- lease from the center. And because there is no clear path out of the facility, a federal court judge in 1994 likened the treatment to an extended prison stay and called it unlawful. Those in treatment must be allowed the op- portunity to graduate to less restric- tive surroundings off of McNeil Is- land, outside the walls of the prison there. The state is looking to establish secure community transition facili- ties in six counties: Clark, King, Kit - sap, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston. Pierce County is exempt be- SEE OFFENDERS, B2 lie U\.0 1la, VA ..•■ - bonuses, allow a developer to exi normal building restrictions in change for providing affords; housing. Hedreen got, but never it such a waiver in 1996 for a hotelF was planned, then scaled bacl' part of the Washington State Cor tion and Trade Center. He want use it for a different buildint. Eighth Avenue and Olive Way. 1; The council approved by ty, vote the rule change June 24, bi Y. mayor vetoed it three days latei,_. Nickels argued that the dev er's waiver expired years ago, th never had a deal with Hedreet t changing rules for the benefit a t developer wasn't good city poli Hedreen had a written ment with the state, but not th E Still, he said city officials assure, they'd work in good faith to ma deal work. "The mayor's office was v€[ volved in the formation of tha 1. tract," Hedreen said in an inter., last week. "We did not make any pron s said Council President Peter t brueck, who yesterday votes Richard Conlin, Nick Licata ani li garet Pageler to sustain the ve. Council members Jim Cor. Jan Drago, Richard McIver, Ju castro and Heidi Wills voted tc ride the veto, but fell one vote Supporters said that the ci f an agreement with the develoF note that the city got affordable ing out of the deal. Sarah Jaynes, spokeswon the Seattle Alliance for Good J t; Everyone, said she was glad t'.? city wasn't giving away son W without getting public benefit P -I reporter Phuong Cat Le can be reached at 206 - 903 -0370 • or phuongletbeattlepi.com f/. P -I his this ices i the t all :ant - sun- i nrs to aan m 1 tin ied ported :ping ng th :said . art de in ide us, ;hbor, ter OFFENDERS: Seven may be out next year FROM Bl cause McNeil Island is within its borders. By 2007, as many as 15 sex of- fenders could be moved from McNeil Island into King County, DSHS officials estimate. In Sno- homish County, three to seven of- fenders may need housing. And three could be returned to reside in Kitsap County. As soon as next year, seven Spe- cial Commitment Center residents could be ready for transition into community life. 'They're getting to a point where they are ready," Wilson said. Secure Community Transition Facilities will have a minimum of three beds each. Each resident will be paired with a trained staff person — there will never be fewer than two staff members per three residents. They cannot be placed adjacent to, across the street from, or within the line of sight of schools, day -care facilities, parks, bus stops or churches. Cities in South King County fear they will be the immediate choice of where to place one of the transition facilities. In Auburn, planners are work- ing language into the comprehen- sive plan that would require the state to show it tried to place the fa- cility elsewhere before putting it in the city. "Because of the affordability of the property, we already have a great deal of public facility repre- sentation — not to equate the two," said Shirley Aird, a city planner in Auburn. "The proclivity seems to be to build essential public facilities in South King County." So, she has written zoning code amendments that not only restrict sex offender transitional housing to industrial areas but that require the state to show that land values and the city's socioeconomic data didn't command the decision. "The idea is to try to protect the current residents of the city," Aird said. PUBLIC MEETINGS 1 King County: 5 p.m., next Tuesday, at the Department of Development and Environmental Services building in Renton, 900 Oakesdale Ave. S.W. 1 Kirkland: 7 p.m. Thursday at City Hall, 123 Fifth Ave. 1 Bellevue: 7 p.m. July 31 at City Hall, 11511 Main St. Redmond: 8 p.m. Aug. 6 at City Hall, 156 70 N.E. Eighth St. 1 Aubum: 7 p.m., Aug. 6 at City Hall, 25 W. Main St. P -I reporter Jeffrey M. Barker can be reached at 206-870-7852 or jeffreybarker @seattlepi.com Trapped under all- terrain vehicle, man shoots himself Tukwila also is planning to re- strict sex - offender facilities to a large, somewhat isolated industrial area in northern part of the city....: Kitsap and Snohomish . coun- ties, and most of the cities within. . those counties, are not writing their own guidelines, Wilson said. .That means that the Department of So- cial and Health Services will be able to put a facility wherever it sees fit. Federal Way officials took 'the same approach, "not wanting :to make Federal Way a target by doing some of the citing process for;the state," Assistant City Manager De- rek Matheson said. Industrial areas are OK, Wilson said. "To assume full integration right away would be a mistake," she said, adding that residents would • have access to jobs, treatment and social services despite being in a non - residential part of a city. =, Wilson said low land values will play into the decision. "Looking for rock -bottom prices in the most overburdened, poorest areas — that's not what we want to do," Wilson said. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS him Sunday and alerted authori- ties. LYONS, Ore. — A Salem man "It appears that he may have killed himself after becoming been trying to turn around on the pinned under his all- terrain vehicle, trail, backed off a ledge, and got -hp ,,ithnririec cairl ninnedl tinder his vehicle. He .then 1.�`.+9e`e''f'rsrt)` ,:,:.� ...... `... r . , wr.w r'J.'C1i'.'xT1?*?%ntTN!` _ 1itf'F.'Mi ✓.P( .SRUFRFgt4L'lE1xy'::1f.T'✓Y. '!M A�SA"�t. Dear Elected Officials: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES July 19, 2002 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: mil .r 13 ".�4!d�iiraul 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. z It may also include an area that encompasses more than one local jurisdiction. 2 .J • The distance between the SCTF site being considered and risk potential locations and U o the density of risk potential locations. w = J • The types of nearby risk potential locations and the frequency or level of use of the risk potential locations. w o • The proximity and availability of public safety personnel in other nearby locations to u- 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. 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 Sin - - ly, DENNIS BRA DOCK . Secretary = 1 -w z = � z I- w • w U � o - w w z U= o z City of Tukviiila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Council of the whole FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director RE: Secure Community Transitional cilities. DATE: July 17, 2002. Last month the Council of the Whole was briefed on issues involved with regulating secure community transition facilities ( SCTFs). The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has forwarded their recommendations for your consideration. The Community Affairs and Parks Committee was briefed on the Planning Commission's recommendations on July 9, 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission concurred with the staffs recommendations and requested that the city attorney took a closer look at the comment letter presented at the hearing by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to be sure that the proposed amendments would prevail if legally challenged. Their consensus was the city must offer maximum protection to its citizens and yet not preclude the location of SCTFs. Also, they did not want anything in our codes that could be a basis for preemption by the State. The specific items that the Planning Commission wanted the city attorney to address were: 1. The three bed limitation: MEMORANDUM Based on further review of DSHS comment letter by the city attorney, staffs final recommendation is to change the three -bed requirement as follows: 2. The requirement of separation from residential areas and other correctional institutions. Based on further review by the city attorney, staff's final recommendations are: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor The majority of the Planning Commission felt the city should limit the size of the facility to three beds if this provision can be legally defended and if it would not be a basis for the State to preempt. "No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements ". 5 • Delete the requirement of 1000 feet separation from residential uses (not zones). • Based on further analysis the 1000 feet separation from residential zones and one mile separation from correctional institutions does not preclude the location of SCTFs. After applying the buffer requirements there are approximately 69 sites eligible for siting of SCTFs that are a total of approximately 300 acres. • Planning Commission recommended adding a provision to the method of measurement that the method may be altered when there is a natural or man-made barrier, such as six - lane freeway or a river (except in cases where there is an existing bridge). Based on further review by the city attorney, the final recommendation is that no ambiguity should be added to the method of measurement and the ordinance should state that the distance is to be measured in a straight line. 3. One -mile notification provisions. Based on review of DSHS comments by the city attorney the ordinance has been amended as follows: Notice requirements shall be in accordance withRCW 71.09.315 as amended. 4. Proximity of certain properties to the Boeing recreational facility. The Planning Commission recommended deleting certain properties that were across the river from the Boeing recreation facility to be considered appropriate for the location of SCTFs because of the location of two bridges. Based on review by the city attorney the properties in question would be considered within the line of sight of a risk potential site and should not be considered as sites eligible for location of SCTFs. Staff has revised the map to take out the sites along the east side of the Duwamish River along the Boeing recreation facility. Planning Commission had recommended that city attorney should also look at all the items raised in the DSHS comment letter. The following changes have been made upon further review of DSHS comment letter by the staff and the city attorney: 1. A finding has been added to the ordinance that the City of Tukwila has reviewed the siting criteria and has determined that there are potential sites in the City, which meet the siting criteria:. 2. The word "extensive" buffering requirements from adjacent uses has been clarified as follows: Proposed mitigation measures including the use of sight obscuring buffers and other barriers from adjacent uses. At a minimum the project must provide buffering similar to that required between the residential and industrial zones. 2 • 1 ��} *^ ,: �'. �s� lu�5. : ip: ' gi'i:�: > ;; ,1 Y_�:p + U�i�.!'e i'nnr'; 3. The requirement to provide a detailed security plan as part of the unclassified use permit application has been amended as follows: A detailed security plan for the facility and the residents must be reviewed by the City's Police Department and their general findings be included in the Unclassified Use Permit 1 z application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also be included with the permit application. J U U O requirement to provide on -site dining, on -site laundry, w 4. The re = q P g, ,and on -site recreation J facilities to serve the residents has been deleted. w • 0 J U- SUMMARY OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS: cn a i W ~ _ zF- I. Location of SCTFs and the required review process. z o LU • w These facilities should be listed as an unclassified use in the MIC/H zone subject to the following 0 o • Q o 1— w W 1) No SCTF shall be allowed within 1,000 feet of any residential zone; L 2) Adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a ui o "risk potential activity" as defined in RCW 71.09.020, as amended that include but are not limited to public and private schools; school bus stops; licensed day care and licensed preschool o facilities; public parks, publicly dedicated trails and sports fields; recreational and community centers; churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques; and public libraries; location restrictions: 3) Within one mile from any existing SCTF or any correctional institution. The distances discussed above are to be measured by following a straight line from the nearest point of the property parcel upon which the SCTF is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the proposed land use is to be separated. II. Specific code criteria for approval of SCTFs The criteria for unclassified use permit for SCTF should be amended and include the following: 1) No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements. 2) The facility shall be located in relationship to transportation facilities in a manner appropriate to their transportation needs. III. Application requirements for SCTFs An unclassified use permit application for a secure community transition facility shall be accompanied by the following: z ;i z 1) The siting process used for the secure community transition facility, including alternative ce locations considered. 6 D 2) An analysis showing that proper consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of U o the facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural, or socio- economic group, u) w and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular w = neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region. u) p 3) Documentation demonstrating compliance with State Law for establishing the need for w additional beds and documentation demonstrating compliance with the "equitable g distribution" requirements under the State Law. u. 4) Proposed mitigation measures including the use of sight obscuring buffers and other barriers I w from adjacent uses. At a minimum the project must provide buffering similar to that required z = (- between the residential and industrial zones. .4. f- o 5) A detailed security plan for the facility and the residents must be reviewed by the City's w w Police Department and their general findings be included in the Unclassified Use Permit D o application. A description of the general security and operational requirements shall also o be included with the permit application. ° 1 _ 6) Proposed operating rules for the facility. w w U 7) A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting ~. u. o process. w z 8) Notice requirements shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315. o w H 0 I NEXT STEP The ordinance must be adopted by September 1, 2002 to avoid preemption by the State. In order to meet the deadline, Council could conduct the public hearing on August 5, 2002 and adopt the ordinance on August 19, 2001 Attachments: A. Memo dated 7 -02 -02 from Steve Lancaster to CAP. • • B. Proposed draft ordinance C. Map showing eligible parcel with 1000 buffer from residential zones and eliminating parcel in the vicinity of risk potential sites. D. Map with aerial photos. E. DSHS comment letter. F. CAP meeting minutes. G. Planning Commission meeting minutes. 4 ra. , • ...: q; � : z ,:, z City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 5, 2002, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila Washington, to consider the following: An ordinance amending various sections of the zoning code to meet the State Law requirements to allow the siting of secure community transition facilities for sexually violent predators coming out of Special Commitment Center at McNeil Island. The proposal is to allow these facilities in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy (MIC/H) zone with 1000 feet separation from residential zones and other locational restrictions such as not adjacent to or within line of sight of schools, churches, daycares, libraries etc. There is currently no proposal to locate such a facility in Tukwila. However to meet State Law requirements, all local jurisdictions must amend their codes to allow future location of such facilities. The Department of Social and Health Services is responsible for the final selection of the site and will need City Council approval to locate such a facility in the City of Tukwila. Public notice will be provided in the event an application for location of such a facility is received by the City. You may have received this notice because your property is within half mile of the sites eligible for location of secure community transition facilities. Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice - approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. For those unable to attend the meeting in person, you may submit written testimony to the City Clerk's office until 5:00 p.m. on Monday August 5, 2002. There will also be an informational meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 5, 2002, in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall where staff will be available to answer your questions. You can also call Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner at 206 - 431 -3685 if you have any questions about this notice or the proposed amendments. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's office by noon on August 5, 2002 if we can be of assistance (206 -433 -1800 or TDD 206 - 248 - 2933). Dated this Flo day of ��� , 2002. Date of publication: Seattle Times, July 19, 2002 City of Tukwila Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 Page 1 From: "BOB Noe" <BOB@kdmlawfirm.com> To: <jpace@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, <slancaster@ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2002 2:42 PM Subject: SCTF bed limitation. Minnie, Steve and Jack - Please find my memo in response to your question regarding the 3 bed limitation provision in the proposed ordinance attached. Let me know if you need anything else. Steve - Please call me when you have a chance to discuss this matter further. Thanks. Bob Noe • z < M LII cc 6= • 0 - 0: 0 ' w Lu: LU • - J g7S (0 a • IA Z F.., I- 0: Z I- () o 5-12 0 I- : w M w • LL. 0-. o • TO: Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development Jack Pace, Deputy Director Q Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner ; z FROM: Robert F. Noe, City Attorney _1 0 o co 0 DATE: July 16, 2002 w = J H RE: Siting of SCTFs and the proposed three -bed limitation. w O LL J LL Q c D '. = a . I -w You have asked me to review Section 12(10)(a) of the City's proposed ordinance relating z 1_ to SCTFs to determine whether it is consistent with State law. That section provides "[n]o z o facility shall house more than three persons, excluding resident staff." 2 0 CI O ( 12 . o 1-- w — Section 12(10)(a) could be, but is likely not consistent with State law. Although there is v a possibility that it could be consistent with State law, it would be best to avoid any potential I'_- 0 conflict. Cu z: U ( i ) P _ O I I. Issue. II. Short Answer. III. Discussion. CITY OF TUKWILA MEMORANDUM A. State law sets no minimum number nor does it set a maximum number for beds in a SCTF. The State appears to argue that Section 204(2)(c) of the State law establishes the minimum number of beds for any SCTF at three and that no jurisdiction may pass legislation establishing a number for allowable beds below that minimum. The State also appears to argue that because three is the "minimum" number of beds allowed under State law, the City cannot set that number as the "maximum" allowed under the City's ordinance. The three -bed minimum in Section 204, however, appears only in the context of "incentive grants." Section 204(2) provides: (2) The incentive grants provided under this section are subject to the following provisions:... (c) The minimum size for any facility is three beds; ... The three -bed minimum is not set forth as required under any other provision of the State law. DSHS seems to be taking the position that it is not economically feasible for it to operate C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\ME000008 - SCTlbedmemo.doc/COT /07/16/02 SCTFs that have less than three beds. The State law does not establish a minimum number of beds based upon DSHS's determination of economic feasibility. Additionally, the State law does not provide any maximum number for beds except in the case of McNeil Island. B. The State law, by necessity, provides flexibility to DSHS for determining the number of beds in any SCTF. The law, as drafted, contemplates that the total number or maximum amount of SCTF beds required will change over time. It first contemplates that some jurisdictions may develop SCTFs under the statute's "Incentive Program" (Section 204), thus reducing the need for additional SCTF beds. It then contemplates that DSHS will, thereafter, examine numbers and issue a report regarding the total number of SCTF beds that are required to be sited in each county. See Section 201(6)(c) and (7)(a) of the statute. In the event a jurisdiction has provided more beds than is required under the DSHS report, that jurisdiction will receive additional money under the incentive provisions of Section 204. Because the City's ordinance seeks to establish a maximum number of beds before DSHS has completed the analysis contemplated in Section 201(6)(c) and (7)(a) of the statute, the City's ordinance arguably does not comport with State law. Depending on DSHS's conclusions and their reported need for additional SCTF beds, the three -bed maximum may or may not be sufficient. As indicated, the State law sets no maximum number of beds, instead, it remains flexible according to need. To be consistent, the City's ordinance would also have to be flexible to meet a demonstrated legitimate and established need. C. "Equitable Distribution" is required. If the City keeps its maximum number flexible consistent with State law, the City can require as part of the UUP process that DSHS demonstrate that there is "equitable distribution" as is required under Section 2O1(9)(a) of the State law. IV. Recommendation. The onus for establishing the need for additional SCTF beds is on the State under the State law. As a result, I believe that our ordinance can be drafted to reinforce the notion that the State bears the burden of demonstrating both the need for the SCTF beds and the burden of demonstrating that they have complied with the equitable distribution requirements. Consequently, I recommend requiring in Section 11 of our ordinance the following: 1. Documentation demonstrating compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW for establishing the need for additional SCTF beds and documentation demonstrating compliance with the "equitable distribution" requirements under the same chapter. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\ME000008 - SCTFbcdmemo.doc /COT/07/16/02 -2- _,1 Requiring this documentation places the burden, as is consistent with the statute, on DSHS. DSHS must demonstrate both the need for additional beds and its compliance with the equitable distribution provision of the statute. At Section 12(10) of the ordinance I recommend deleting subsection (a) and replacing that subsection with the following: (a) No facility shall house more than four persons or the number of persons requested by DSHS after DSHS both demonstrates a need for additional beds in compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW and it demonstrates compliance with Chapter 71.09 RCW's "equitable distribution" requirements. This allows the City to cap the maximum number of beds at four unless, consistent with State law, DSHS can demonstrate an additional need, and it can demonstrate compliance with the equitable distribution provisions. The .. number "four" avoids any potential facial conflict between our ordinance and the statute's language providing that the "minimum size for any facility is three beds" in the "incentive grants" context. As indicated above, DSHS appears ready to argue that the language in Section 204(2)(c) sets a minimum bed limit for all purposes and that it will challenge any city action setting that same number as a maximum. C: \WINDOWS \TEMP\ME000008 - SCTFbcdmemo.doc/COT/07/1 6/02 -3- p•. July 12, 2002 Dear Ms. Wilson: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Beverly K. Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center P.O. Box 45322 Olympia WA 98504 -5322 RE: Response to comments submitted regarding proposed code amendments to the Tukwila Municipal Code concerning secure community transition facilities. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Thank you for coming to the Planning Commission meeting and providing comments on the proposed code amendments to the Tukwila Municipal Code regarding secure community transition facilities (SCTFs). We are reviewing your comments and have addressed most of your concerns. The one issue that you were most concerned about was the three -bed limitation. Your letter states that DSHS plans on siting one 12 -bed facility in King County and the city's requirement of three -bed limitation is more restrictive than the State Law. The three -bed requirement that is proposed came from Section 204(2)(C) of 3ESSB 6151 Laws of 2001, codified at RCW 71.09.255(2)(c), as "The minimum size for any facility is three beds ". At the hearing you also mentioned that DSHS attorneys have said that the three -bed limitation will be legally challenged. Please provide a response from your legal department on the reasons why this requirement would be challenged when it meets the statutory requirements. Also, please note that RCW 71.09.265(2) requires that SCTF facilities be "equitably distributed among the counties and within jurisdictions in the county." It is our understanding that the State Law requires these facilities to be spread around the various parts of the County and the State cannot put almost the entire allotment for King County in a single location. We would like to get your response on this issue prior to the City Council briefing on July 22, 2002. As I mentioned before we are reviewing your other comments and will provide a response to each of the issues raised in your June 27, 2002, letter after the City Council briefing. Again thank you for your input and hope to get your response on the three -bed limitation provision soon. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 i Mmnie Dhaliwal - Fwd: Re: committee minutes Page 1 From: Steve Lancaster To: Minnie Dhaliwal Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: committee minutes These are the edits I sent to Lucy. Let me know if you disagree with anything. I've asked Jack to set some time when the three of us can talk about next steps. CC: Jack Pace Minnie Dhaliwal Re: committee minutes From: Steve Lancaster To: Lucy Lauterbach Date: Wed, Jul 10, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: committee minutes Lucy: My suggested edits are indicated below using stfike-thfetigh and underline. THANKS! Steve L. »> Lucy Lauterbach 07/10/02 01:50PM »> Can you please review these minutes for accuracy for your issues? I would appreciate receiving your comments by Thursday COB if possible. Thanks! Community and Parks Committee July 9, 2002 Present: Joe Duffle, Chairman; Joan Hernandez, Pam Carter Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, David St. Pierre, Steve Lancaster, John McFarland, Rhonda Berry, Brian Shelton, Minnie Dhaliwal, Paul Surek; Lucy Lauterbach; Consultant David A Clark, citizens Wendy Huggett, Curt Treadwell, Mrs (Hopper ?) Page 1 Crestview Park Issues Bruce had documented his responses to some of the citizen requests and issues. The park has been re- dedicated, but some problems with neighbors still remain. Ms. Huggett said there is a bench placed at the northwest corner of the park, and because the height of the park is high above the surrounding homes, the bench looks directly into Ms. Huggett's home. She said up to 50 people a day sit and look into her yard and house. Vegetation was planted, but it's too low and the laurel hedge the water district had planted, died. Bruce noted he had taken down the smaller basketball hoop to reduce noise to neighbors, and has made sure the park gets closed at dusk. There was a discussion about whether the definition of "dusk" caused problems, since what's dark to some will be called dusk by another. David St Pierre said the federal register has a definition of sunset and twilight. John suggested having set hours for winter and for summer. Pam thought all parks in the city should have similar hours to make legal use and enforcement easier. This park is closer to homes than most other parks in the City, and because the park looks down into the homes could require special hours. The police may have some ideas about when park problems occur in the evenings. Bruce will research this issue and return with some suggestions. The citizen who lives below the trees at the park said privacy was an issue, as people walk and run through the woods often. Curt said it's good the park is bringing more people in to use it, but that security and privacy for homeowners were issues that need to be dealt with. John said he would write the Water District about possible solutions for the bench. Paul said the maze is very popular, though the gravel around it does spread. Staff put gravel down because the grass at another maze is to hard to trim and often looks unkempt. Information. Cascade Park Update Street work should begin soon on one side of the park. Request for bids on park construction will go out at the end of July. The staff asked if they could go straight to Council to award the contract, and the committee said they could. There is a timeline because the grass needs to be planted by October 15th. Pam commented that Cascade Park needs to be added to the drug free zone ordinance. Art concepts will be brought to the next meeting. Information. Foster Clubhouse Discussion David Clark handed out design plans for the clubhouse. One change since this was last discussed was that the four restroom stalls for women and for men, have been increased to 6 women's' stalls and 4 men's' stalls. That change costs about $12,000. Dave had some samples of cultured p agitowirplemm Minnie Dhaliwal - Re: committee minutes Page 2 rock for the front of the building. It is a concrete veneer that looks similar to river rock and cut stone, but is just a veneer. Though it is not quite as sturdy and durable as real river rock, river rock costs much more and concrete rock looks quite similar. Joan said she had a question about the wood siding on the exterior. She said she liked the look of shakes siding as on Fire Station #53 in Allentown. Another question was about the water feature, which is now shown on the golf course side of the clubhouse; it had originally been proposed for the front of the building. Staff talked about costs for the building, and their concern that golf revenues have fallen in the past year or so as more courses are built and the economy is falling. When Joan asked if the opening had been pushed back to 2004, Bruce explained one issue is the City hasn't found an appropriate vendor for the restaurant. They will try with another RFP soon. Dave said they may require plastic spikes for golf shoes, as they are easier on both the course and the clubhouse. information. Southcentral Pool /Bridge Transfer John explained that when the City first annexed the pool and Fort Dent, they found only 3% of the Fort Dent use was by Tukwila. The pool was also used by people outside of Tukwila, but is now mostly used by Tukwila citizens. When the City started negotiating with King County and the City of Seattle for figuring the cost of the South Park bridge, we were trying to pay money to turn the bridge over to Seattle or King County. Negotiations between the County and Seattle stalled when Seattle made unreasonable demands on Tukwila for taking over our share of the bridge. More recent negotiations have been with King County only. Negotiations started with taking the pool and paying $4 million for the bridge to get out of any future obligation for the bridge. That has now been reduced to $3 million for the bridge. The pool subsidy is now 75% under King County, but Bruce's background is in aquatics, and he believes we could get that subsidy down to $50,00 - $75,000 per year. An independent survey and assessment of the pool will be needed, and Bruce will ascertain what improvements have been made by King County in the past year or two. The business manager at Tukwila School District has made some very strict requirements in order for the City to take the pool over, but John hopes these can be worked out behind the scenes. Regarding Fort Dent Park, it currently requires a $475,000 subsidy. Negotiations are ongoing with a private company that would like to convert six fields to soccer, including one covered field, and rent them out. If such an arrangement is worked out, the City will ensure performance standards for reservations, and Tukwila will get priority for use. Information. Secure Community Transitional Facilities This issue had been to both committee and Council, and was sent to the Planning Commission as well. DSHS commented at the Planning Commission hearing. The committee considered the recommendations from the Planning Commission and the concerns raised by DSHS. The Commission had, like the staff and Council, liked the three bed maximum facility provision. DSHS commented in a letter on Tukwila's provisions that DSHS would be forced to challenge that provision if it were passed. Steve said staff is still reviewing this issue, and may come back with a different recommendation when the issue moves to COW. David said that although DSHS could challenge it, the state law stipulates facilities can have a minimum of three beds, so he is fairly certain the City could win any challenge. Other cities the Kenyon firm advises are also using the three bed minimum provision. DSHS has stated its preference would be to site a six bed facility, and then to add another six bed facility on the same site at a later time. Staff said they would make it clear that each facility must be a certain distance from another facility. All three committee members said they preferred keeping the three beds, though Pam was willing to negotiate up to 6 and Joan would go up to 4 if necessary. DSHS was also concerned about a provision for "extensive" buffering from adjoining uses, so staff recommended changing that to the same provisions required between industrial and residential uses. Because it was pointed out at the hearing that the Boeing recreational facility, which is popular with families and kids, was directly across from one of the potential sites, that site was removed from the map showing potential sites. Upon further review it was determined these areas should be removed from eligibility, since they fell within the "line of sight" criterion of the state guidelines. Minnie Dhaliwal - Re: committee minutes DSHS had challenged the one mile notification requirement, and David St Pierre agreed it should be reduced to 1 /2 mile. Finally a requirement for a security plan could compromise the DSHS facility. A compromise may be made that would allow police to review detailed plans and then return them to DSHS, report their general findings to the City Council as part of the Unclassified Use Parmit process. Pam Carter suggested that a description of general security and operational requirements similar to those contained in the DSHS guidelines be required as part of the UUP application, to provide assurance that these will be followed. The remaining issues raised by DSHS were resolved through minor word changes to the draft ordinance, or were unfounded due to the generous area and numerous parcels that would be available for SCTFs under the proposed odinance. Because staff is trying to adopt the new ordinance by September 1, they will need to go straight to COW when they make the necessary adjustments to the ordinance. Recommend ordinance to COW. Page 3 1 z 2 u6= J U 00 cn • LL w = w � = • a . F- w . _, z o z 0 N i 0E w W`• H V . O W Z; H =: 0 F • Z Minr'ie Dhaliwal - secure community transition facilities Page 1 From: Bob Johns < Johns @JMMLAW.com> To: 'Minnie Dhaliwal' <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 7/3/02 2:32PM Subject: secure community transition facilities Hi Minnie: Here are my comments and thoughts on the SCTF issues andthe DSHS comment letter: 1. Proximity to Residential Zones and Uses: I disagree with the State comments that the proposed requirement regarding 1000 foot separation from residential zones and uses is a basis for preemption. The statute does say that the rules must include a restriction related to site distance from certain risk potential facilities. That is a minimum requirement and the statute clearly acknowledges that other siting criteria are permitted, provided they do not totally preclude SCTF's. The statute does not establish any maximum siting criteria other than the "no preclusion rule." The real issue for Tukwila is whether, in the real world, the combination of the restriction of SCTF's to the MIC /HI zone, the 1000' separation from residential zones and uses and the other siting criteria eliminate all of the potential SCTF sites. My review of your map indicates that this is not the case with regard to the 1000' rule for residential zones and uses and that there are potential sites that meet both criteria. However, the staff should do a careful analysis of this AND you_should include a specific finding _in the ordinance that City has reviewed the criteria and determined that there are potential sites in the City which meet the siting criteria. 2. Separation from Other Correctional Facilities: The State's first comment is that there is coinfusion about the terms in the proposed ordinance due to the interchangeable use of "correctional institution" and "correctional facility ". This comment is valid and you should change the language in proposed Section 9(12)(A)(3)(iii) to "correctional institution ". The second comment by the State is that they are concerned that the practical application of this standard may preclude the siting of any SCTF in the City. As with the rule about separation from residential zones and uses, this is a practical issue: Are there potential sites in the City for an SCTF if this rule is applied? The map you prepared and sent to me does not identify existing correctional facilities or SCTF's, so it is not possible for me to figure out whether a 1000' separation rule for correctional facilities would effectively preclude a new SCTF in the City. This analysis should be done. As noted above, a finding should be included in the ordinance indicating that there are potential SCTF sites in the City which meet the siting criteria 3. Mitigation Requirements: The State expresses a concern that the provision in TMC 18.66 requiring mitigation of significant adverse environmental impacts and economic impacts may be used to preclude any SCTF site. The State's concern is misplaced. SCTF's are not exempt from SEPA and the City is required to apply SEPA to any application for an SCTF. SEPA requires mitigation for significant adverse impacts, so to that extent, the code is merely repeating the requirements of SEPA. The balance of the State's concern is that the City might, on some future application, use this authority to deny any and all applications for approval of an SCTF, thereby violating the "no preclusion" rule. This is exactly the same issue that v 5ris4r':dl`S,G.3:"u'.'4 it awai4vAa ;. 'S"�f4i, of " ^aP31W'.Y4:4uVCi.a.t,W .. i'kmii• • •.NS.tN+:.4 Minr,je Dhaliwal - secure community transition facilities Page 2 Sound Transit raised when the City amended its Codes to designate transit faciliites as essential public facilities which were to be reviewed and approved as unclassified uses. When Sound Transit appealed to the GMHB, claiming that the City "might" use this requirement toi deny approval for any transit facility, the Board rejected the claim completely, pointing out that Sound Transit's appeal assumed the City would misuse its authority under SEPA. The same is true of the State's concern about SCTF's -- the ordinance language is valid and the Board will not assume that the City will misuse its SEPA authority. 4. Analysis of Undue Impacts: Again, the State's concern is not with the language of the proposed ordinance, but with a concern that it will be misapplied to preclude any SCTF from ever being approved. I do not believe the concept needs to be changed, although the use of the word "utmost" does appear odd and seems to imply a need for DSHS to have studied every conceivable site. An applicant is not required to perform such a study under any applicable law (SEPA or the SCTF law). I would suggest deleting the word "utmost" and substituting "proper" or some similar word that does not appear to suggest that DSHS is required to study every theoretically possible SCTF site. 5. Buffering: Again, the State expresses a concern that the language of the proposed ordinance ( "extensive buffering ") may conflict with the State law, which requires that the existence of or ability to provide "barriers" be a factor in siting SCTF's. While there is no conflict because the state standards are minimums and not maximums, it would probably be a good idea to make the language of our regulations more consistent with the statutory language. I would recommend rewording Section 11(3) to say: "Proposed mitigation measures, including the use of sight- obscuring buffers or other barriers between the SCTF and risk potential facilities and residential uses The important thing to remember is that the proposed code language does not require such buffers or barriers in every case. It simply says "provide a plan ". If such buffers or barriers are not feasible, that is simply an impact to be considered when comparing potential SCTF sites. 6. Security Plan: The State does have a legitimate concern about disclosure of security measures. I recommend deleting proposed Section 11(4) and substituting a provision that says: "A proposed agreement between the City and DSHS for implementationof appropriate security measures. Such agreement shall include provision for ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness °of security measures - and modification of such.measures as necessary to provide reliable security for the SCTF and the community." 7. Maximum Number of Residents: The State law says the minimum number of residents in an SCTF is 3 and the proposed ordinance says the maximum is 3. This provision of the ordinance is almost certainly preempted and I would recommend deleting it. Having said that, the State's comment letter raises a serious problem that DSHS may be overlooking. Their letter says they want to build one 12 -bed facility in King County. They are ignoring RCW 71.09.265(2) which requires that SCTF facilities be "equitably distributed among the counties and within jurisdictions in the county." They are plainly required to spread these facilities around the various parts of the County and cannot put almost the entire allotment for King County in a single location. So, as a way to allow Tukwila to force DSHS to comply with the statutory equitable distribution rule, I strongly recommend adding a ik;};u�tiU:5slit}sstX;r�Saf — .. ,• z ~ w cc 2 J0 O 0 cn 0 cn J H w a cn I Cr Z � I— 0 Z �— w ui U � O - O E- ww I - F - • O w z = . O ~ z ._Mmn Dhaliwal 7 secure community transition facilities Page 3 . provision to Section 11 which provides that the application include: "Proof of compliance with applicable provisions of RCW ch. 71.09, as now or hereafter amended, including requirements for equitable distribution of SCTF facilities." 8. On-site facilities: The State's letter objects to the proposed requirement in Section 12(10) of the ordinance that would require on -site dining, laundry and recreational facilities on the grounds that these are programmatic decisions for DSHS. The State law is not clear on this point. While this proposed provision does seem very narrow, it is not unheard of for the City to require recreational facilities and other amenities for other types of residential uses. It may make more sense to modify this provision to something slightly more general like: "Adequate provision shall be made for the recreational, housekeeping and other needs of the residents in a manner which is consistent with services typically available to residents of group homes and other communal residential facilities." 9. Notice to Neighbors: In your email you indicated that DSHS also objected orally to the provision in Section 13(A) requiring notice to owners and occupants within one mile of the site. This provision is clearly inconsistent with RCW 71.09.310, which requires mailing to a radius of one -half mile. Unlike the siting standards, this is not a situation where the state law sets a minimum standard, with discretion to impose other standards. We should change our proposed ordinance to require notice only to a half mile radius. I hope this helps. If there are other issues or questions, please let me know. Bob Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga 1500 114th Avenue SE, Suite 102 Bellevue, WA 98004 425 - 467 -9960 425 - 451 -2818 (fax) johns @jmmlaw.com z Z ° o! 6 6 0 U) w w z: J (/) u_ wO 2 g ¢ co = d. I-- 2 : Z I— O Z I— LL! uj 0 -U O N 0 I— 22 U O w z :. = ' O Z ;NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEARTHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT:. BACKGROUND City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM z TO: Community Affairs and Parks mittee w FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ce 2 • RE: Secure Community Transitional Facilities. v o DATE: July 2, 2002. co 0 ILI -i_ Last month the Community Affairs and Parks Committee and the Council of the Whole were briefed on issues involved with regulating secure community transition facilities. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has forwarded their recommendations for your consideration. co Li. w gQ co I d I Z �. �- 0 Z ~ 0 ON 0 I- ww t— H .z Cu — I 0 • The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) consulted with the joint select committee 0 z to develop and publish policy guidelines for equitable distribution, siting and operation of the SCTFs (see attached). Secure community transition facilities (SCTF) are less restrictive living arrangements for sexually violent predators coming out of Special Commitment Center at McNeil Island. Following are some key highlights of the recent legislative changes pertaining to such facilities: • SCTF are considered as "essential public facilities" and cities /counties planning under Growth Management Act are required to establish a process and adopt regulations for siting of SCTFs. Local comprehensive plans and development regulations may not preclude the siting of "essential public facilities ". • Cities and Counties must plan for siting of SCTFs by September 1, 2002 to avoid preemption. If the City /County is preempted the Department of Social and Health Services could site a SCTF in that jurisdiction without regard to any local development regulations, permitting requirements or any other law. • 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. Regulations that are more restrictive than the State Law are void. • The total number of secure community transition facility beds that may be required to be sited in each county may be no greater than the total number of persons civilly committed from that county or detained at the SCC under a pending civil commitment petition. The number of county beds legally required for King County based on resident distribution as of April 2001, is 41. DSHS estimates a minimum of five beds will be needed in King County by May 2004, and a maximum of 15 beds may be needed by May 2007. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 ;tcrxir .e�v- .•�r..ae Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Iq SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Following is a summary of the staff's recommendations to the Planning Commission. I. Location of SCTFs and the required review process. z zf-: These facilities should be listed as an unclassified use in the MIC/H zone subject to the following re location restrictions: D .J U 00 1) No SCTF shall be allowed within 1,000 feet of any residential zone or use; co w W_ 2) Adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a co u "risk potential activity" as defined in RCW 71.09.020, as amended that include but are not W o limited to public and private schools; school bus stops; licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities; public parks, publicly dedicated trails and sports fields; recreational and community "- a co centers; churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques; and public libraries; I w Z 1- 3) Within one mile from any existing SCTF or any correctional institution. o z F- The distances discussed above are to be measured by following a straight line from the nearest 2 o point of the property parcel upon which the SCTF is to be located, to the nearest point of the oo u) parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the proposed land use is to be 01— separated. The method of measurement may be altered depending on topographic conditions, = v size of parcels or substantial intervening barriers. F. z. II. Specific code criteria for approval of SCTFs o o '— The criteria for unclassified use permit for SCTF should be amended and include the following: z 1) No facility should house more than three persons, excluding resident staff. 2) The facility shall be located in relationship to transportation facilities in a manner appropriate to their transportation needs. 3) The facility shall provide on -site dining, on -site laundry or laundry service, and on -site recreation facilities to serve the residents. III. Application requirements for SCTFs An unclassified use permit application for a secure community transition facility shall be accompanied by the following: 1) The siting process used for the secure community transition facility, including alternative locations considered. 2) An analysis showing that utmost consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural, or socio - economic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region. 3) Proposed mitigation measures including the use of extensive buffering from adjacent uses. 4) A detailed security plan for the facility and the residents. 5) Proposed operating rules for the facility. 6) A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process. z 7) Mailing labels for owners and occupants of record of property within one mile of the site. z �w 2 PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS o o co o Planning Commission concurred with the staff's recommendations and requested that the city attorney took a closer look at the DSHS comments to be sure that the proposed amendments would N u- wo prevail if legally challenged. Their consensus was that the city must offer maximum protection to its g citizens and yet not preclude the location of SCTFs. Also, they did not want anything in our codes g that could be a basis for preemption by the State. L I - a = w _ The specific items that the Planning Commission wanted the city attorney to address were: z I- 0 1. The three bed facility limitation. w w Do The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the city should limit the size of the facility p (.0 to three beds if this provision can be legally defended and if it would not be a basis for the 01— State to preempt. = v w z i I David St. Pierre, the assistant city attorney has reviewed this provision. His response is that o the three bed requirement that is proposed came from Section 204 (2)(C) OF 3ESSB 6151 z Laws of 2001, codified at RCW 71.09.255(2)(c), as "The minimum size for any facility is three beds ". DSHS may wish to have a minimum 5 or 15 -bed facility, however, the law only states that they cannot have less than a three -bed facility. The three bed limit was proposed by him solely for the purpose of allowing the minimum sized SCTF allowable under law. City Attorney's response: 2. The requirement of separation from residential areas and other correctional institutions. There was some discussion on the method of measurement. RCW 71.09.285 states that in no case shall the DSHS policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential site. "Within the line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. DSHS guidelines specify that distance between potential SCTF site and existing risk sites typically should be measured "as the crow flies" in a straight line from point to point. Also, the guidelines specify that this method of measurement may be altered when natural or man -made barriers, such as six -lane freeway or a river, may exist that make this an invalid method of measurement. The Planning Commission recommended that the 1000 feet measurement should be altered when there is a natural barrier such the river (except where there is a bridge across the river and it is no longer a natural barrier) and the fenced freeway. City Attorney's response: z The city attorney's response is that the 1000 foot rule and the 1 mile limit are his et 2 recommendations but not mandatory. The 1000 foot rule was taken from provisions of adult entertainment ordinances that have been upheld as reasonable by the courts and v a designed to give the city strict control over the siting of SCTFs as much as possible. N LU. J H DSHS policy requires, as authorized under Section 213(2) of 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, o in Laws of 2001), only that facilities not be located: adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in g existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. v_ a w Should the city need a smaller protective distance ( <1000f1) in order to have one or more I-- = available sites, then that would be a decision for the city to make. The ordinance should O be amended to include a separation requirement from residential zones only and the w w separation from residential uses should be removed. n o o c The 1 -mile rule was taken from a combination of adult entertainment and correctional a I- facilities ordinances so as to limit the concentration of such activities. Should you need a = v smaller protective distance ( <1 mile) in order to have one or more available sites, then that would be a decision for the city to make. w z U = DSHS can only absolutely prevail in a court challenge if the city offers no locations (or p F maybe only one or two) for a SCTF because the regulations are so restrictive. Simply Z being contrary to DSHS policy intent (but not the state law) does not make Tukwila's ordinances invalid. No ambiguity should be added to the method of measurement and the ordinance should state that the distance is to be measured in a straight line. 3. One mile notification requirements. DSHS did not mention the proposed requirement for mailing labels within one mile of the subject site in their comment letter but they raised it at the hearing. Beverly Wilson from DSHS said that this requirement is more restrictive than % mile notification requirement specified under Section 219 (2)(d) of ESSB 6151 and thus would be void. ■ • City attorneys response: DSHS is correct. Section 219 (2)(d) of 3ESSB 6151 states: (d) To provide adequate notice of, and opportunity for interested persons to comment on, a proposed location, the secretary or the chief operating officer of the service provider shall provide at least fourteen days' advance notice of the meeting to all newspapers of general circulation in the community, all radio and television stations generally available to persons in the community, any school district in which the secure community transition facility would be sited or whose boundary is within two miles of a proposed secure community transition facility, any library district in which the secure community transition facility would be sited, local business or fraternal organizations that request notification from the secretary or agency, and any person or property owner within a one - half mile radius of the proposed secure community transition facility. Before initiating this process, the department of social and health services shall contact local government planning agencies in the communities containing the proposed secure community transition facility. The department of social and health services shall coordinate with local government agencies to ensure that opportunities are provided for effective citizen input and to reduce the duplication of notice and meetings. We should not require DSHS to provide more than 1/2 mile property owner notification. One easy option is to simply state that notice requirements will be in accordance with the above law "AS AMENDED," thus, should the state change its notification requirements, Tukwila would not have to amend its ordinance. Whatever method you choose, the 1 mile radius should be reduced to 1/2 mile for practical applications at this time. 4. Proximity of certain properties to the Boeing recreational facility. This concern was brought forward at the hearing by Greg Sherlock, 12435 Tukwila International Boulevard. The Planning Commission agreed that due to the location of the two bridges across the Duwamish River certain properties are too close to the recreation facility to be considered appropriate for the location of SCTFs. City Attorney's response: The properties that are of concern would be considered within the line of sight of a risk potential site as hence do not meet the proposed location criteria and are not eligible sites for location of SCTFs. Staff has revised the map to take out the sites along the east side of the Duwamish River along the Boeing recreation facility. 5 SUMMARY Attachment B is the ordinance that incorporates the changes that the Planning Commission and the city attorney have recommended. The following changes have been incorporated in the proposed ordinance: z II. 1. Based the G. analysis by the City the 1000 feet separation from residential zones re 2 does clude ie location of SCTFs. The option for the method of measurement to be 6 = alte ed in case of substantial intervening barriers has been removed. The map has been p revised to remove the properties across the river from the Boeing recreational facility. c in The staff is analyzing the impacts of reducing the buffer to 500 feet and will have a map J at the meeting to show the eligible parcels with 500 feet buffer from residential zones. co wo w Q = I- w z� 1- 0 Z I— w uj U� O — • I-- w w Forward the proposed amendments for the Council of the Whole review on July 22, 2002. - o The ordinance must be adopted by September 1, 2002, to avoid preemption by the State. w U - 0 A. Attachments: A. DSHS policy guidelines. z NEXT STEP 2. The requirement of buffer from residential uses has been removed. 3. The city's notification requirements have been amended to state that they will be in accordance with the state law. 4. The word "extensive" in the requirement for buffering from adjacent uses been replaced by "buffering similar to that between residential and industrial zones ". B. Proposed draft ordinance. C. 3ESSB 6151 D. ESSB 6594 E. Map showing MIC /H zone with 1000 feet buffer from residential zones and eliminating parcels in the vicinity of potential risk sites. Risk site data was compiled by DSHS. F. DSHS comment letter. 6 SUMMARY Attachment B is the ordinance that incorporates the changes that the Planning Commission and the city attorney have recommended. The following changes have been incorporated in the proposed ordinance: 1. Based on the GIS analysis by the City the 1000 feet separation from residential zones rt W does not preclude the location of SCTFs. The option for the method of measurement to be altered in case of substantial intervening barriers has been removed. The map has been o 0 revised to remove the properties across the river from the Boeing recreational facility. co W The staff is analyzing the impacts of reducing the buffer to 500 feet and will have a map at the meeting to show the eligible parcels with 500 feet buffer from residential zones. u_ WO 2 2. The requirement of buffer from residential uses has been removed. § < `o 3 3. The city's notification requirements have been amended to state that they will be in accordance with the state law. Z 1- 0 4. The word "extensive" in the requirement for buffering from adjacent uses been replaced w by "buffering similar to that between residential and industrial zones ". 2 o U 0 cn. D 1- w Forward the proposed amendments for the Council of the Whole review on July 22, 2002. o The ordinance must be adopted by September 1, 2002, to avoid preemption by the State. — z u.i U I I- A. Attachments: A. DSHS policy guidelines. 0 NEXT STEP B. Proposed draft ordinance. C. 3ESSB 6151 D. ESSB 6594 E. Map showing MIC/H zone with 1000 feet buffer from residential zones and eliminating parcels in the vicinity of potential risk sites. Risk site data was compiled by DSHS. F. DSHS comment letter. 6 •iinnie Dhaliwal - Re: SCTF P ge 1 From: "David St.Pierre" <dst.pierre @ci.tukwila.wa.us> To: <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: Mon, Jul 1, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: SCTF Minnie, I have reviewed DSHS's comments. I have only two responses, one on the 1000 foot rule (and 1 mile limit) and one on the three bed requirement. All other DSHS comments are interesting and can be considered by the Planning Commission but are no provisions of the proposed ordinance are "illegal" per se, however, opinions may differ on the "effects" of Tukwila's restrictions. Only a court could decide that question. Three bed requirement: DSHS is blowing smoke. The three bed requirement that is proposed came from Section 204 (2)(C) OF 3ESSB 6151 Laws of 2001, codified at RCW 71.09.255(2)(c), as follows: RCW 71.09.255(2)(c): Transition facilities? ?Incentive grants. (c) The minimum size for any facility is three beds; and ... DSHS may wish to have a minimum 5 or 15 bed facility , however, the law only states that they cannot have less than a three bed facility. The three bed limit was proposed solely for the purpose of allowing the minimum sized SCTF allowable under law. If however, the Planning Commission wishes a larger facility, they are free to recommend one. 1000 foot rule and 1 mile limit: The 1000 foot rule and the 1 mile limit are recommendations but not mandatory. The 1000 foot rule was taken from provisions of adult entertainment ordinances that have been upheld as reasonable by the courts and designed to give the city strict control over the siting of SCTFs as much as possible. DSHS policy requires, as authorized under Section 213(2)of 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2001), only that facilities not be located: 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 (See Page 5 (para III D. 1.) of the DSHS policy guidelines attached to your original memo from this office.) Should you need a smaller protective distance ( <1000ft) in order to have one or more available sites, then that would be a decision for the city to make. The 1 mile rule was taken from a combination of adult entertainment and correctional facilities ordinances so as to limit the concentration of such activities. Should you need a smaller protective distance ( <1 mile) in order to have one or more available sites, then that would be a decision for the city to make. Remember, DSHS can only absolutely prevail in a court challenge if the city offers no locations (or maybe only one or two) for a SCTF because the regulations are so restrictive. Simply being contrary to DSHS policy intent (but not the state law) does not make Tukwila's ordinances invalid. -David :Oa" Yii Yt 7CiL4G}: CietCf+d' .KtwV`f5. i i 0- H:.fi': wiYwtutie+�..•.,(xMV faaSY. u.., w+...+» r. u. n. a. rn.`A+: {Wi..ictii4114104vt 44 _ II Minnie Dhaliwal- Re: SCTF From: "David St.Pierre" <dst.pierre @ci.tukwila.wa.us> To: <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: Mon, Jul 1, 2002 4:04 PM Subject: Re: SCTF I believe DSHS is correct. Section 219 (2)(d) of 3ESSB 6151 states: (d) To provide adequate notice of, and opportunity for interested persons to comment on, a proposed location, the secretary or the chief operating officer of the service provider shall provide at least fourteen days' advance notice of the meeting to all newspapers of general circulation in the community, all radio and television stations generally available to persons in the community, any school district in which the secure community transition facility would be sited or whose boundary is within two miles of a proposed secure community transition facility, any library district in which the secure community transition facility would be sited, local business or fraternal organizations that request notification from the secretary or agency, and any person or property owner within a one -half mile radius of the proposed secure community transition facility. Before initiating this process, the department of social and health services shall contact local government planning agencies in the communities containing the proposed secure community transition facility. The department of social and health services shall coordinate with local government agencies to ensure that opportunities are provided for effective citizen input and to reduce the duplication of notice and meetings. Minnie, consequently, requiring DSHS to provide more than 1/2 mile property owner notification would not be appropriate. One easy option is to simply state that notice requirements will be in accordance with the above law "AS AMENDED," thus, should the state change its notification requirements, Tukwila would not have to amend its ordinance. Whatever method you choose, the 1 mile radius should be reduced to 1 /2 mile for practical applications at this time. BTW, the notification is for "any person or property owner" and NOT just property owners. I have no idea how the legislature expects DSHS to identify "any person" within the 1/2 mile radius, let alone how Tukwila could even enforce such a provision. -David »> "Minnie Dhaliwal" <mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 07/01/02 11:31AM »> Hi David, Thanks for looking at this. I have forwarded your response to Jack and Steve and may have some follow up questions after our discussion. However I have one question for you at this time. DSHS did not mention the proposed requirement for mailing labels within one mile of the subject site in their comment letter but they raised it at the hearing. Bev Wilson said that this requirement is more restrictive than 1/2 mile notification requirement specified under Section 219 (2)(d) of ESSB 6151 and thus would be void. Do you think we have to limit notification to 1 /2 mile? Thanks.. Minnie Fade-1] ;Minnie Phaliwal - Re: SCTF »> "David St.Pierre" <dst.pierre @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 07/01/02 08:58AM »> Minnie, I have reviewed DSHS's comments. I have only two responses, one on the 1000 foot rule (and 1 mile limit) and one on the three bed requirement. All other DSHS comments are interesting and can be considered by the Planning Commission but are no provisions of the proposed ordinance are "illegal" per se, however, opinions may differ on the "effects" of Tukwila's restrictions. Only a court could decide that question. Three bed requirement: DSHS is blowing smoke. The three bed requirement that is proposed came from Section 204 (2)(C) OF 3ESSB 6151 Laws of 2001, codified at RCW 71.09.255(2)(c), as follows: RCW 71.09.255(2)(c): Transition facilities? ?Incentive grants. (c) The minimum size for any facility is three beds; and ... DSHS may wish to have a minimum 5 or 15 bed facility , however, the law only states that they cannot have less than a three bed facility. The three bed limit was proposed solely for the purpose of allowing the minimum sized SCTF allowable under law. If however, the Planning Commission wishes a larger facility, they are free to recommend one. 1000 foot rule and 1 mile limit: The 1000 foot rule and the 1 mile limit are recommendations but not mandatory. The 1000 foot rule was taken from provisions of adult entertainment ordinances that have been upheld as reasonable by the courts and designed to give the city strict control over the siting of SCTFs as much as possible. DSHS policy requires, as authorized under Section 213(2)of 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2001), only that facilities not be located: 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 (See Page 5 (para III D. 1.) of the DSHS policy guidelines attached to your original memo from this office.) Should you need a smaller protective distance ( <1000ft) in order to have one or more available sites, then that would be a decision for the city to make. The 1 mile rule was taken from a combination of adult entertainment and correctional facilities ordinances so as to limit the concentration of such activities. Should you need a smaller protective distance ( <1 mile) in order to have one or more available sites, then that would be a decision for the city to make. Remember, DSHS can only absolutely prevail in a court challenge if the city offers no locations (or maybe only one or two) for a SCTF because the regulations are so restrictive. Simply being contrary to DSHS policy intent (but not the state law) does not make Tukwila's ordinances invalid. -David When responding, reply to: David B. St.Pierre Page 2 z _I- 1— JU 0 O co 0 J = H CO W w g Q I w z H I- O z t- w Do U t o 0 I— ww U' O .. w O . z MEMORANDUM To: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director From: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner Date: June 28, 2002 Re: DSHS comments on proposed code amendments regarding secure community transition facilities. Beverly Wilson, Associate Superintendent for Community Programs, Special Commitment Center presented comments and concerns on behalf of DSHS at the Planning Commission meeting last night. Planning Commission discussed the proposed code amendments and passed their recommendation on the Council and wanted the City Attorney to take a close look at the comments presented by DSHS. In the written comments State questions the requirement of 1000 feet separation from residential zones and raises the issue that this requirement could be so limiting that it could actually preclude the siting. At the hearing when we presented the map that showed the eligible parcels left after eliminating all MIC/H parcels within 1000 feet of any residential zones, Beverly Wilson stated that their only concern with 1000 feet separation requirement is that it should not preclude the siting and as long as city has shown there are eligible parcels left after applying 1000 feet separation, they do not have a concern. The comment letter also states that 1000 feet separation from residential use (separate from residential zone issue) is more restrictive that State law. The letter also states that State Law does not consider residential use as a risk potential site similar to schools, daycares, churches, parks etc. and this could be a basis of preemption. It is our understanding that there is only one residence along East Marginal Way in the MIC/H area. We could amend the proposed ordinance to take out any reference to separation from residential use. The State is also concerned about one mile separation from any existing SCTF or correctional facility. Again their concern is whether a separation of one mile limits the area available to the extent that siting of a facility is precluded. We explained at the hearing that the only correctional facility is the jail in the city hall building, which is more than one mile away from MIC/H zone. Beverly Wilson stated that if that is the case then they do not have a concern. The other item that was discussed had to do with the limitation of maximum number of residents to three. Beverly Wilson stated that DSHS is extremely concerned about this requirement and DSHS and their legal department feel that the size limitation in essence results in preclusion, as it is cost - prohibitive for the State to operate a three -bed facility. There was no agreement reached on this issue. I have given copies of DSHS comment letter to the David St. Pierre, Assistant City Attorney and Bob Johns, Contract Attorney for their review and will update you on their responses. rai ;L.tac:.� City of Tukwila Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 • Olympia WA 98504 -5322 June 27, 2002 z � re w QQ JU U U 0 J i =' CD w w u_ ¢ a Dear Commissioners: z wi Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed amendments Z to the City of Tukwila's municipal code. We appreciate the City's interest in j o working with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to assure o that its approach to siting secure community transition facilities (SCTF) meets the ° o l= requirements of state law, and look forward to continuing to work in partnership w c with the City to adequately and appropriately address this important need. I o . .z. As you know, RCW 36.70A.200, as amended by ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws Cu co of 2002), requires all counties and cities to establish a process and amend o 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: RE: Amendments to the Tukwila Municipal Code regarding the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities • 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. 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. 0 r aimmiagxo Tukwila Planning Commission June 27, 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 of 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. Tukwila Planning Commission June 27, 2002 Page 3 Specific Comments z DSHS offers the following comments on the City of Tukwila's draft ordinance to W amend the City's municipal code for siting secure community transition facilities. - J C.) Section 9, amending TMC 18.28.050: Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy o Industrial District: Unclassified uses. w J (- Proximity to Residential Zones. The proposed amendment would allow secure U) o community transition facilities in the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial (MIC /HI) District as an unclassified use, subject to certain location restrictions. Section 18.38.050.12.A (i) specifies that no SCTF shall be allowed ° within 1,000 feet of any residential zone or use. w We have no objection to siting a SCTF in a industrial zone. We question, o however, whether the requirement that no SCTF be allowed within 1,000 feet of w w any residential zone would be so limiting that it could actually preclude the siting. o RCW 36.70A.200(5) states that no local comprehensive plan or development o regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities, including SCTFs. ° u We suggest that the City conduct a thorough geographic analysis before making this requirement to be sure it is not preclusive. w o z Proximity to Any Residential Use. The proposed amendment o 18.38.050.12.A.(i) would require that an SCTF must be located at least 1,000 0 (- feet from any residential use. State law requires that a SCTF must not be Z located adjacent to, across the street or parking lot from, or within line of sight of risk potential facilities. The law defines a list of risk potential facilities such as schools, child care centers, and park, but does not require SCTFs to be separated by any specific distance from other residential uses. Therefore, this requirement would be more restrictive than the requirements in state law and would be a basis for preemption. Separation of One Mile From Any Existing Secure Community Transitional Facility or Correctional Facility. It is our understanding that this section of the ordinance implements the city's equitable distribution policy. The proposed amendment 18.38.050.12.A.(iii) requires a one mile separation between an SCTF and any existing SCTF or correctional facility. RCW 71.09.250(8) requires cities and counties to consider equitable distribution in coordinating and deciding upon the siting of secure community transition facilities. RCW 71.09.250(9) defines equitable distribution. Section 1 of the proposed ordinance offers a definition of "correctional institution" but not of "correctional facility." If the use of "correctional facility" is consistent Tukwila Planning Commission June 27, 2002 Page 4 with the definition of "correctional institution," it is broader that the equitable distribution requirements in state law. We would have a concern if it includes types of facilities that are not referenced in the state law. Our concern here is whether a separation of one mile limits the area available for siting an SCTF to the extent that siting a facility is precluded. We suggest that the city conduct additional geographic analysis before making this requirement to be sure it is not preclusive. Mitigation Requirements. The criteria for approval of unclassified use permits that are listed in the existing Chapter 18.66 of the existing zoning code include required mitigation of unavoidable significant adverse environmental or economic impacts on the community. ESSB 6594 Section 17 allows DSHS to enter into negotiation for mitigation agreements with cities, counties and educational institutions, subject to availability of funds, and limits those agreements to specific types of costs incurred. Our concern is that this policy could be applied to preclude a secure community transition facility, in violation of RCW 36.70A.200. Section 11, amending TMC 18.66.040: Application Requirements In addition to the Type 5 decision requirements for an unclassified use permit application, pursuant to TMC 18.108.050, the proposed ordinance requires an unclassified use permit application for an SCTF to include the following: Analysis of Undue Impacts. The legislature addressed the issue of equitable distribution through the requirements of RCW 71.09.250(8) and 71.09.250(9). In RCW 71.09.250(9)(a), cities are asked to consider equitable distribution in terms of residential beds operated by the department of corrections or the mental health division of DSHS, and the number of level II or III and homeless registered sex offenders. In proposed TMC 18.66.40.2, the City is requiring the application to include "An analysis showing that utmost consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on anyone racial, cultural, or socio- economic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region." We recognize and support the city's concern. However, since the city is limiting itself to the industrial zoning district for siting SCTFs, and land supply may be limited, we are concerned that this requirement could be used to preclude a facility. Use of Extensive Buffering From Adjoining Uses. One of the siting criteria in state law (RCW 71.09.290) is whether limited visibility between the facility and adjacent properties can be achieved prior to the placement of any resident. Another is the existence of or ability to establish barriers between the site and the risk potential facilities and activities. Tukwila Planning Commission June 27, 2002 Page 5 In siting the facility, DSHS will comply with state law, as well as the setback, landscaping, minimum lot area, and lot coverage requirements for the City's MIC /HI Zoning District. Our concern is with the type of buffering that might be required under the proposed ordinance, and what "extensive" means. Providing a Detailed Security Plan. In regard to the detailed security plan and proposed operating rules, we understand the City's interest in ensuring the safe operation of the proposed SCTF. We also can appreciate that the City needs enough information about the proposed facility to be able to evaluate the application. For security reasons, however, we prefer not to make these documents a part of the public record by including them in the application. We would be happy to provide a general description of the program, how it functions, and how the proposed facility meets the requirements of state law. We believe that an essential component of operating a safe facility is a strong partnership between DSHS and the local law enforcement agency and the local community. ESSB 6594 (Chapter 68, Laws of 2002), Section 16, provides the opportunity for the local jurisdiction where the facility is sited and DSHS to enter into a long -term agreement regarding operating procedures of the facility. We believe that such an agreement, rather than the zoning code, is the best place to memorialize the respective roles and responsibilities of the state and the local government. Security measures for the program can be better handled on an on- going basis through the agreement between the City and DSHS, through the local operational advisory board for the SCTF that would be established under RCW 71.09.320, and through informal working partnerships between DSHS and local law enforcement. To have an effective partnership, we must be able to address issues on an ongoing basis, not just at the time of siting the facility. Section 12, amending TMC 18.66.060: Criteria Maximum number of residents. The City's proposed criterion 18.66.060.10.a. for secure community transition facilities states: "No facility shall house more than three persons, excluding resident staff." As required by RCW 71.09.250(6)(a), DSHS has projected a need for a minimum of 5 beds to a maximum of 15 beds in King County between now and 2007. Our plan is to site one 12 -bed facility in King County, which would be built as two six - bed buildings on one site. Determining the size of a SCTF is within the scope of the department's decision - making authority granted by the legislature. Because of the statutory requirements for intensive supervision, security measures, and programming, siting and operating several very small facilities in King County would be cost - prohibitive. Thus, your proposed ordinance limiting the capacity of the facility would be more restrictive than the state law and preclusive. The department would be forced to challenge this requirement is the City were to enact it. Tukwila Planning Commission June 27, 2002 Page 6 On - Site Facilities. The City's proposed criterion 18.66.060.10.c. for secure community transition facilities states: "The facility shall provide on -site dining, on -site laundry or laundry service, and on site recreation facilities to serve the residents." We view this as a program issue, not a land use issue. The legislation specifically gives DSHS authority to make the decisions on security and program. Since SCTFs are residential facilities, all of these services and facilities are part of an SCTF program, and would be included in SCTF building designs. It is unclear to us why the City is considering adding these requirements. If it is an attempt to make these program features part of the ordinance as a security measure for the purpose of keeping the residents confined to the facility, it could be construed as a more restrictive measure than the security measures provided in RCW 71.09.295 through 71.09.315. The purpose of these facilities is to provide the residents a safe, gradual transition back into the community. Again, we appreciate the planning efforts the City is taking to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the designation and siting process for essential public 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. Enclosure c: Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila Holly Gadbaw, DCTED Sincerely, veg Ap Beverly K. WI son Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center .'ntiw:;...:v +a.i'�i.k7a[ =.r >(i;.C.a"2'z`�c' 3J•n1vL1. 4 +':�;.tii�,...• ".,vSti�; ,L. Bill Arthur made a declaration. His spouse and daughter are employed by competitors. He stated this would not effect his objectivity; he wanted to know if anyone objected to him hearing the case. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JUNE 27, 2002 W The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Livermore at 7:00 p.m. v o cn co Lu Present: Chair David Livermore, Vice Chair Kirstine Whisler, Commissioners: Vern U Meryhew, Bill Arthur, Margaret Bratcher, and George Malina. co u _ Absent: Henry Marvin 2 0 ga Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Minnie Dhaliwal, and Wynetta Bivens. u_ MARGARET BRATCHER MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Z FROM MAY 23, 2002. GEORGE MAUNA SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS 1— 0 UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. w GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES FROM THE JOINT 8 MEETING WITH SEA TAC FROM JUNE 17, 2002. MARGARET BRATCHER SECONDED THE o t — MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. _ W E- E_ Chair Livermore, swore in those wishing to provide testimony. LL. 0 Z w IV. CASE NUMBER: L02 -002 0 APPLICANT: Lori Chase for AT & T Wireless Z REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit approval to install a Wireless Communications Facility of seven antennae in two sectors on the penthouse wall and roof of the existing retail building occupied by the business "Amour on the Boulevard ". LOCATION: 5301 Southcenter Boulevard Lori Chase, for the applicant, had no objections. Jack Pace gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions listed below. Prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing the applicant agreed to all conditions. 1. The parapet wall mounted antennae shall be installed so that the mounting structure will be located behind the antennae and shall not extend above or below the antennae, thereby minimally visible from the right of way. The antennae will be painted to match the parapet wall color. 2. The vent/tube structure that will screen the two antennae on the northern half of the building will be installed so that: it is set -back 10 feet from the roof edge; the mounting framework will not be visible above the roof parapet; and the vent/tube will be painted to match the parapet wall color. 3. The ground located electrical equipment will be screened by a slatted wood fence (cedar) and further screened by landscaping of the variety of deciduous and coniferous plants shown on the attached landscape plan. It is the applicant's responsibility to assure the continued health and survival of the installed plants. y5. , r� .- ? �iiu�` =;. '.fr'�•�n�,>�3`�i*�'..:F �.;i:��;z2z�S; :: 1t. ix•>J6YtVkaaTN ' A , 'IN'., afa+'itiNldrY;e : sr ,zA:: �v2 4d i��?'muY�Ei:».44' ic:iX�,,, ,,,, Itiaua Planning Commission Page 2 The proposed sheet metal shroud for• the connecting ground to roof cables will be located on the building east elevation (toward I -5) and be painted to match the existing wall color. Lori Chase, for the applicant, concurs with staff and has incorporated the conditions in the plan. z There were no further comments. w Public Hearing closed by Chair Livermore. o: J U 0 The Commission deliberated. u W J I-- GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, N u_ FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS, FOR CASE NUMBER LO -002 FOR A CONDITION USE w o PERMIT. BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. g �¢ co d V. CASE NUMBER: L02 -009 _ APPLICANT: Paul Wozniak for VoiceStream Wireless Z !' REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit approval to install a Wireless Communications Facility w O of three 2 antennae in three sectors on the roof of Building "B of the Intergate Office v Complex. LOCATION: 12301 Tukwila International Blvd w w 1— U Bill Arthur made a declaration. His spouse and daughter are employed by competitors. He stated this would t' p not effect his objectivity; he wanted to know if anyone objected to him hearing the case. w Z 0 O~ Paul Wazniak, for the applicant, had no objections. Jack Pace gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The screen wall mounted antennae shall be installed so that the mounting structure and connecting electronic cables will be minimally visible on the screen wall. The antennae will be painted to match the existing screen wall color. 2. The roof top electrical equipment will be located behind the existing screen wall and shall not be visible from the surrounding rights -of -way parcels. Paul Wazniak, for the applicant, concurred with staff and asked for approval of the project. Greg Sherlock, a citizen asked the applicant, if the project would have any potential health hazards. Paul Woziak, stated there were no health hazards and the antennae is the lowest levels of antennae. There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chair Livermore. The Commission deliberated. Q:\SCTFU'C meeting minutes.doc OW • AY6401 .. {:LiN /.w:1vYWJAvw.• .i....... _. z Planning Commission Page 3 GEORGE MAUNA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS, FOR CASE NUMBER L0 -009 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. KIRSTINE WHISLER SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. VI. CASE NUMBER: L02 -022 APPLICANT: City Of Tukwila PROPOSAL: Code Amendments related to secure community transition facilities for sexually violent predators. Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. She explained that the secure community transition facilities (SCTFs) are facilities for sex offenders coming out of Special Commitment Center at McNeil Island. She gave a brief overview of recent legislative changes that make it necessary for the city to evaluate if any code changes are required to meet the State Law. She said that the SC fl s are treated as essential public facilities under the State Law and cities cannot preclude the location of such facilities. The City must adopt new regulations by September 1, 2002 to avoid preemption by the State and if the new regulations are more restrictive than the statutory requirements enacted by the State they will be null and void. She discussed the pro and cons of adopting new regulations or letting the state preempt local regulations. She said that the staff s recommending adopting the following regulations to address these types of facilities - allow SCTFs as unclassified use in the MIC/H zone subject to the following location restrictions: within 1000 feet of a residential zone or use; adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within line of sight of a "risk potential site" as defined by State Law; within one mile from another SCTF or any correctional facility. She said that the following specific code criteria should be adopted for approval of SCTFs: no facility should house more than three persons excluding resident staff, the facility should be located in relationship to transportation facilities; the facility should provide on site dining, on -site laundry and on -site recreation facilities to serve the residents. She stated that the application requirements for SCTFs should be accompanied by the following: 1) The siting process used for the secure community transition facility, including alternative locations considered. 2) An analysis showing that utmost consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural, or socio - economic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region. 3) Proposed mitigation measures including the use of extensive buffering from adjacent uses. 4) A detailed security plan for the facility and the residents. 5) Proposed operating rules for the facility. 6) A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process. 7) Mailing labels for owners and occupants of record of property within one mile of the site. Q : \SCTF\PC meeting minutes.doc 4 7 Planning Commission Page 4 2, Beverly K. Wilson, Associate Superintendent for Community Program, Special Commitment Center, DSHS, presented a comment letter on behalf of DSHS. She gave a brief overview of the program and answered questions from the Commissioners related to the SCTFs. She answered questions about the composition of the residents of SCTFs. She said that the facility they will site will be for adult males and if they have a female for conditional release they will devise an individualized placement. They have had two male adolescents and they will be adults by the time they are released. She also clarified that the law requires the Special Commitment Center conditionally released residents register and community notification rules apply when they are conditionally released by the court. She then presented the following comments and concerns related to Tukwila's proposed code amendments: 1) The concern that 1000 feet separation from residential zones may preclude the siting of SCTFs if it resulted in no available sites. 2) The city's requirement of 1000 feet buffer from residential uses is more restrictive than the State Law as residential uses are not considered potential risk sites per the State Law. 3) One -mile separation from other SCTFs and correctional institutions may preclude the location of SCTFs. 4) The mitigation requirement in the unclassified use permit criteria could be applied to preclude SCTFs. 5) The requirement for "analysis of potential sites so that the facility may not have undue impact on any one racial, cultural or socio - economic group and that there will not be concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction or region ", may be used by the city to preclude SCTFs. 6) Wanted to know the type of buffering required under the proposed ordinance, and what "extensive" means. 7) Concern about providing detailed security plan due to security reasons. 8) The requirement to limit the size of the facility to a three -bed facility is more restrictive than the State Law and is preclusive. DSHS plans to site a 12 -bed facility in King County and siting and operating a three -bed facility would be cost prohibitive. She said DSHS would be forced to challenge this requirement if the city were to enact it. 9) One -mile notification requirement is more restrictive than half -mile notification requirement in the State Law and hence the requirement will be void. Minnie Dhaliwal provided a response to the State's comments. She said that the 1000 feet separation from residential zones does not preclude the location of SCTFs as the map showed the available sites after applying the 1000 feet buffer. Also, there is only one correctional facility in the City (jail in city hall building) that is more than one mile from MIC/H zone. The mitigation requirement in the unclassified use permit criteria is an existing requirement for all unclassified uses and no changes are proposed to this requirement at this time. The requirement for analysis of alternative sites is proposed because of the equitable distribution requirement. The security plan does not need to reveal details that may jeopardize the security plan. and this requirement was proposed so that there is co- ordination with the City's police department. The three- bed'limit was proposed by the city attorney and he will review the State's comment letter. We will also have the city attorney look into notification provisions. Greg Sherlock, a citizen said that due to the location of the two bridges the properties across the river from the Boeing recreation facility would inappropriate for locating a SCTF. He said that as a Boeing employee he knows that facility is used by a lot of families on the weekends. Public Hearing closed by Chair Livermore. The Commission deliberated. Q:\SCTF\PC meeting minutes.doc y L , lsGld „ „Y,`ia�iY6'.I�XT�l:.id6 tD. w It. Planning Commission Page 5 Bill Arthur said he would like the city attorney take a double look at the three -bed facility limitation and one mile notification requirement. He said he thinks the river is no longer a natural barrier when there is a bridge and would like the properties near Boeing recreation facility to be removed from the eligible parcel map. He also stated that we should somehow note that this would be a unisex facility. Vern Meryhew said he too would like the city attorney to look into the one -mile notification provision and the three -bed limitation. He said buffering requirements should be specific and similar to those between residential and industrial uses. Kirstine Whisler said we need one -mile notification, as we would like to notify our community. On the three -bed limitation she said we need to be as efficient as possible and if a three bed facility is cost prohibitive such provision is not good government and good planning on our part as all tax payers would pay for it. She said there is not much difference between a three -bed facility and a six -bed facility. However 12- bed facility may be too big. If DSHS attorney is objecting to this provision, they should be able to put it on paper. George Malina said he agreed with the staff's recommendation and would also like the city attorney to take a look at the DSHS comment letter. David Livermore said that we need maximum protection for our citizens and yet not preclude such a facility. We should take only our fair share and a limitation of a three bed facility will provide a better chance at rehabilitation of individuals if fewer individuals. But we have to rely very very strongly on our lawyers. We want to be sure it stands up in court. He also felt that the river is not a natural barrier and adequate fencing will be needed for security reasons. We want strong assurances by our attorney as we don't want to see this as a means to be preempted. City attorney should also look at the proximity to residential areas provision as it is not spelled in black and white in the state law and also if one mile notification can fly legally. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FORWARDED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TAKING A DOUBLE LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: BUFFER FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS; THREE BED FACILITY LIMIT; ONE MILE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT; PROXIMITY OF CERTAIN SITES TO BOEING RECREATIONAL FACILITY DUE TO TWO BRIDGES ACROSS THE DUWAMISH RIVER. KIRSTINE WHISLER SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Director's Report • Special worksession - tour completed projects (2n Thursday in September) • 2004 Comprehensive Plan updates (August or September) Adjourned at 10:30 Respectfully Submitted Wynetta Bivens Administrative Secretary Q : \SCTFIPC meeting minutes.doc R Cam. fl �� +D JUN 2 8 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8350 • (360) 725 -2800 Minne Dhaliwal City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Suite 100 Tukwila , WA 98188 Enclosure STATE OF WASHINGTON June 26, 2002 RE: DRAFT DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT Dear Ms. Dhaliwal : Thank you for sending this department the following development regulation: Draft ordinance related to secure community transition facilities. We received the notice on June 24, 2002 and forwarded a copy of the notice to other state agencies. If you have not sent the plan to the agencies on the list (enclosed) , please do so. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 725 -3056. Sincerely, Ike Nwankwo Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services ,H 6 P . U OO W 0: W =: J 1- w O, ga d . H Z 1= 0, Z I— 2 Di U 0. :0 H, w w. u O, u Z, i L F- 0 ~ June 20, 2002 Elaine Taylor Land Use Administrator Special Commitment Center /Lands and Building PO Box 45848 Olympia WA 98504 -5848 Re: Secure Community transition facilities. Dear Ms. Taylor: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director As per our phone conversation today you had requested copies of the City's Comprehensive Plan policies that pertain to the siting of essential public facilities. A copy of the draft ordinance was e- mailed to you on June 19, 2002. Attached are sections of the Comprehensive Plan policies that address essential public facilities. I have also included a copy of ordinance 1864 (passed in 1999) that addresses essential public facilities and amends certain section of the Comprehensive Plan. No Comprehensive Plan changes are proposed at this and the City is looking at amending only the development regulations. Also, we issued SEPA determination for the proposed amendments and I have included a copy of that decision. As I mentioned on the phone, Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed amendments is scheduled on June 24, 2002 and the City Council public hearing is scheduled on August 5, 2002. If there is any change in the schedule I will let you know. Please call me at 206- 431 -3685 if you plan on attending any of the public hearings or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 4.11: waya:y z � w 6 J U 0 0 co 0 w z J I_ w � u . �a = w Z I- I— 0 Z I— w U • O O - C/2 O I-- W W . U : L O w z. • = O � Z • Dear Elected Officials: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olympia, WA 98504 -5000 June 20, 2002 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. 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. 1 Port of Seattle v. City of Des Moines, CPSGMHB 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. IL 1 z w 6 0 00 • o CO CU J w • 0 2 u. = a w Z = F-0 Z • ~ U • � O - O F- W I— u w z • = P F z 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(asdshs.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. Enclosures Sincerely, c: Planning Directors Mark Seling Beverly Wilson Elizabeth McNagny Dick Van Wagenen Association for Washington Cities DENNIS BRADDOCK Secretary Tim Brown John Reynolds Elaine Taylor Scott Lockwood Leonard Bauer Washington State Association of Counties \ C\ City of Tukwila ila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED JUNE 19, 2002 HEARING DATE: June 27, 2002 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Hearing was published in the Seattle Times on June 14, 2002. FILE NUMBER: L02 -022 — Code Amendment APPLICANT: City of Tukwila PROJECT: Code amendments pertaining to secure community transition facilities for sexually violent predators. SEPA DETERMINATION: DNS was issued on June 20, 2002. STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Minnie Dhaliwal :ti'al " ?^ ?ii "' A. Planning vs. preemption handout. B. DSHS policy guidelines. C. Proposed draft ordinance. D. 3ESSB 6151 E. ESSB 6594 F. Map showing MIC/H zone and risk site data compiled by DSHS 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Last year the Council adopted the ordinance to regulate a wide variety of group homes and correctional institutions. There have been some recent legislative changes related to secure community transitional facilities for sex offenders that make it necessary for the city to evaluate if any additional regulations need to be adopted to address these types of facilities. The Community and Parks Committee and the Council of the Whole were briefed on issues involved with these types of facilities. They have asked the Planning Commission to review the proposed changes. This report contains the information obtained by staff and also lays out 6 the policy options and recommendations for your consideration. 6 v U O BACKGROUND ° w= Sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences, but are found by state superior CO 0 0 courts to meet the definition of "sexually violent predator" under the state law, are civilly N committed to the Special Commitment Center (SCC) located at McNeil Island, where they g 5 remain in total confinement program receiving ongoing treatment until the court determines "- that they are ready for placement in a less restrictive living arrangement. A less restrictive = w alternative placement may be in the person's own home in the community or in a facility z program operated or contracted by Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). 1— O "Secure community transition facility" (SCTF) is the statutory name for such a facility. w w n o State Law was amended last year to establish SCTFs as "essential public facilities" and o m required cities and counties planning under Growth Management Act to establish a process o E - . and adopt regulations for siting of SCTFs. Local comprehensive plans and development = v regulations may not preclude the siting of "essential public facilities ". The law also required - F- DSHS to consult with the joint select committee to develop and publish policy guidelines for w z. equitable distribution, siting and operation of the SCTFs (see attached DSHS policy o guidelines). 0 The law states that the total number of secure community transition facility beds that may be required to be sited in each county may be no greater than the total number of persons civilly committed from that county or detained at the SCC under a pending civil commitment petition. The number of county beds legally required for King County based on resident distribution as of April 2001, is 41. DSHS estimates a minimum of five beds will be needed in King County by May 2004, and a maximum of 15 beds may be needed by May 2007. This year the Legislature adopted Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594, which amended the provisions enacted last year and incorporates the recommendations of the joint select committee on the equitable distribution of SCTFs. Following are some key highlights of the bill: • It requires counties and cities to plan for siting of SCTFs by September 1, 2002. • Limits specific siting criteria to those listed under RCW 71.08.285. Regulations that are more restrictive than the statutory requirements enacted by the state are void. • It subjects jurisdictions in six counties to "preemption" after October 1, 2002, if SCTFs are not allowed within the jurisdiction. DSHS may site SCTFs within a preempted city without regard to development regulations, permitting requirements or any other law. 2 z Currently Tukwila Municipal Code considers SCTFs under the category of an essential public facility, which is listed as an unclassified use in a number of zoning districts. They do not fall under the definition of a correctional institution as the residents have completed their prison terms and are undergoing a mental health treatment at SCC. Although the program operates within the confines of a correctional facility, it is not a prison or criminal justice program but a specialized mental health treatment program and the residents are committed through a state superior court civil procedure. POLICY OPTIONS There are two parts to this discussion of the different policy options. First part raises the issue of whether we want to adopt any development regulations or not. The second part discusses the different code items that need to be addressed if it is decided that the city should adopt development regulations to address the siting of secure community transition facilities. PART I Should the city adopt specific development regulations for SCTFs? Option #1 Add SCTFs as a specific land use category. This allows for placing conditions specific only to this use. Also, the city could limit the zones and areas where such facilities can be located as long as the city does not preclude the siting of these facilities. In addition specific review and notification procedures could be established for these types of facilities. Option #2 At present SCTFs are considered under the category of an essential public facility in Tukwila Municipal Code. An essential public facility is listed as unclassified use in MUO, 0, RC, TUC, C /LI, LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC/H zones. The city could notify the state that Tukwila Municipal Code meets the state law requirements and allows SCTFs under the category of an essential public facility in the zones listed above. Also, the State could use preemptive powers to locate a SCTF in cities that do not address essential public facilities in their Comprehensive Plans /development regulations and do not inform the state how SCTFs are addressed under their code. This would make the decision the total responsibility of DSHS and the preempted cities would lose the ability to strongly influence the siting of such facilities by limiting the zones where they would be acceptable. DSHS must hold siting hearings in the preempted city and the city may propose public safety measures specific to a particular site. The bill outlines specific procedures and timelines that DSHS and local governments must follow for complaints and proposals. If the city finds that specific measures are inadequate it must notify DSHS. Following notification, the city may petition the Governor to designate a person with law enforcement action to mediate the dispute. The determination of the mediator is final. The cities that choose to be preempted shall have access to a mediation process in which they can serve as an advocate for its citizens' interests. Attached is a handout that details pros and cons of why a city should choose to adopt plans for siting SCTFs or choose to be preempted by the State. 3 Community and Parks Committee recommended adopting specific regulations. Please note that if it is decided that the city should adopt specific development regulations then they must be adopted prior to State's deadline of September 1, 2002 deadline to avoid preemption by the State. z PART II re 2 6 This part discusses the code issues that need to be addressed related to the siting of secure v o community transition facilities. Staff recommendation is listed after each code item. N 0 J = H A. Location of these facilities and the required review process. N u.. w These facilities should be allowed as an unclassified use in MIC /H zone subject to the g following location restrictions: "- a 1) No SCTF shall be allowed within 1,000 feet of any residential zone or use; Z 0 2) Adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of z t u sight of a "risk potential activity" as defined in RCW 71.09.020, as amended that include but are not limited to public and private schools; school bus stops; licensed 8 day care and licensed preschool facilities; public parks, publicly dedicated trails and o � - sports fields; recreational and community centers; churches, synagogues, temples, and = 0 mosques; and public libraries; t=. 0 ..z 3) Within one mile from any existing SCTF or any correctional facility. v — The distances discussed above are to be measured by following a straight line from the z nearest point of the property parcel upon which the SCTF is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or land use district boundary line from which the proposed land use is to be separated. The method of measurement may be altered depending on topographic conditions, size of parcels or substantial intervening barriers. DSHS guidelines specify the method for measuring the distance between potential SCTF site and risk potential sites. RCW 71.09.285 states that DSHS shall develop policy guidelines that balance the average response time of emergency services against the proximity of the proposed site to the risk potential sites but in no case shall the policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential site. "Within the line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. DSHS guidelines specify that distance between potential SCTF site and existing risk sites typically should be measured "as the crow flies" in a straight line from point to point. Also, the guidelines specify that this method of measurement may be altered when natural or man -made barriers, such as six -lane freeway or a river, may exist that make this an invalid method of measurement. 4 B. Specific code criteria for approval of SCTFs The criteria for unclassified use permit for SCTF should be amended and include the following: 1) No facility should house more than three persons, excluding resident staff. 2) The facility shall be located in relationship to transportation facilities in a manner appropriate to their transportation needs. 3) The facility shall provide on -site dining, on -site laundry or laundry service, and on- site recreation facilities to serve the residents. C. Application requirements for SCTFs An unclassified use permit application for a secure community transition facility shall be accompanied by the following: 1) The siting process used for the secure community transition facility, including alternative locations considered. 2) An analysis showing that utmost consideration was given to potential sites such that siting of the facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural, or socio- economic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region. 3) Proposed mitigation measures including the use of extensive buffering from adjacent uses. 4) A detailed security plan for the facility and the residents. 5) Proposed operating rules for the facility. 6) A schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process. 7) Mailing labels for owners and occupants of record of property within one mile of the site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting specific regulations for siting SCTFs and forwarding the proposed amendments discussed above for review and public hearing to the City Council. 5 v.n.+ie3f;trte>i.:4'uE`S�)+i.�t 4J ':. U.: ifll: Y. i da4,4174:uir ix.v Ya4'.:rx:>fo.:::2::JIk� �. PLANNING VS. PREEMPTION UNDER SENATE BILL 6594 Secure Community Transition Facilities for Sexual Predators Why a city should adopt plans for siting transition facilities • Local Control & Neighborhood Protection - Planning gives a city greater control over siting of facilities and the ability to protect residential, etc., areas. • Procedural Protection - Planning allows a city to create extensive review procedures to the protect public interest (unless more extensive reviews would be null and void — see other column). • Permanent Protection - The state could loosen its siting criteria in the future to create more sites, but state could not change city- adopted criteria. Procedural Complexity - City criteria that are different from those of the state would be new and thus more complicated for the state, which might make state more likely to look at a city where it can use its own criteria.. Already Involved - A city would have a role in the siting process via building permits even if preempted, so it may not make sense for a city to back out of one -half of the siting debate. • Citizen Expectations - Citizens expect their city to play a role in the siting process — even if preempted. Planning would be more proactive than preemption. • Grant Funds - A city that goes through the process could be eligible for state funding/mitigation. • Finality of Preemption - Preemption is final and cannot be reversed even if a city wants to plan in the future. • Consistency with Home Rule — Cities often lobby for more local control and should not voluntarily abdicate local control. Why a city should not adopt plans and thus be preempted by the state • Time Constraints — A city must adopt development regulations by 9/1/02, which requires extensive staff work, planning commission review, city council review, etc. • Incentives Risk - If a city plans and thus creates a map of suitable zones /sites, it could create an incentive for the state to site a facility in that city because some of the siting work is already done. (Unless several other cities also have maps.) • Null and Void Risk - A city adopting more restrictive requirements than allowed in the bill could have its criteria found to be null and void. • Existing Other Regulatory Authority - A preempted city might still be able to influence the siting process via building permits. • Existing Protection — The state has been focusing primarily on rural areas. In addition, existing state criteria may already offer relatively few sites in a city (which makes new development regulations unnecessary — though state criteria could change — see other column). • Public Safety Rights - A preempted city can still offer comments to the state on public safety concerns during the siting process (but comments have little "teeth "). • Hands Tied — A preempted city can argue that it has no role in siting facilities and send concerned citizens to the state. • Liability Protection — A preempted city would not have any ordinances•subject to legal challenge. • County Action - King County is not likely to adopt regulations. (Does this matter to cities, though ?) Attachment A City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee LeS FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCU Director RE: Secure Community Transitional Facilities. DATE: June 6, 2002. Last year the Council adopted the ordinance to regulate a wide variety of group homes and correctional institutions. There have been some recent legislative changes related to secure community transitional facilities for sex offenders that make it necessary for the city to evaluate if any additional regulations need to be adopted to address these types of facilities. BACKGROUND Sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences, but are found by state superior courts to meet the definition of "sexually violent predator" under the state law, are civilly committed to the Special Commitment Center (SCC) located at McNeil Island, where they remain in total confinement program receiving ongoing treatment until the court determines that they are ready for placement in a less restrictive living arrangement. A less restrictive alternative placement may be in the person's own home in the community or in a facility program operated or contracted by Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). "Secure community transition facility" (SCTF) is the statutory name for such a facility. State Law was amended last year to establish SCTFs as "essential public facilities" and required cities and counties planning under Growth Management Act to establish a process and adopt regulations for siting of SCTFs. Local comprehensive plans and development regulations may not preclude the siting of "essential public facilities ". The law also required DSHS to consult with the joint select committee to develop and publish policy guidelines for equitable distribution, siting and operation of the SCTFs (see attached DSHS policy guidelines). The law states that the total number of secure community transition facility beds that may be required to be sited in each county may be no greater than the total number of persons civilly committed from that county or detained at the SCC under a pending civil commitment petition. The number of county beds legally required for King County based on resident distribution as of April 2001, is 41. DSHS estimates a minimum of five beds will be needed in King County by May 2004, and a maximum of 15 beds may be needed by May 2007. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor I 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 1/100 • Tukwila, Washington 98/88 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206.431 -3665 _J This year the Legislature adopted Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594, which amended the provisions enacted last year and incorporates the recommendations of the joint select committee on the equitable distribution of SCTFs. Following are some key highlights of the bill: • It requires counties and cities to plan for siting of SCTFs by September 1, 2002. z • Limits specific siting criteria to those listed under RCW 71.08.285. Regulations that are more w 6 .J U 00 • It subjects jurisdictions in six counties to "preemption" after October 1, 2002, if SCTFs are w w not allowed within the jurisdiction. DSHS may site SCTFs within a preempted city without Lu I regard to development regulations, permitting requirements or any other law. cn u_ w Currently Tukwila Municipal Code considers SCTFs under the category of an essential public facility, which is listed as an unclassified use in a number of zoning districts. They do not fall under the definition of a correctional institution as the residents have completed their prison = a terms and are undergoing a mental health treatment at SCC. Although the program operates Z Ill within the confines of a correctional facility, it is not a prison or criminal justice program but a 0 specialized mental health treatment program and the residents are committed through a state w F ' a uj superior court civil procedure. ? o 0 O - o I-- w w There are two options for the City to address the regulation of SCTFs. I' Y- z restrictive than the statutory requirements enacted by the state are void. POLICY OPTIONS Option #1 Add SCTFs as a specific land use category. This allows for placing conditions specific only to this use. Also, the city could limit the zones and areas where such facilities can be located as long as the city does not preclude the siting of these facilities. In addition specific review and notification procedures could be established for these types of facilities. Option #2 At present SCTFs are considered under the category of an essential public facility in Tukwila Municipal Code. An essential public facility is listed as unclassified use in MUO, 0, RC, TUC, C /LI, LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC/H zones. The city could notify the state that Tukwila Municipal Code meets the state law requirements and allows SCTFs under the category of an essential public facility in the zones listed above. Also, the State could use preemptive powers to locate a SCTF in cities that do not address essential public facilities in their Comprehensive Plans /development regulations and do not inform the state how SCTFs are addressed under their code. This would make the decision the total responsibility of DSHS and the preempted cities would lose the ability to strongly influence the siting of such facilities by limiting the zones where they would be acceptable. DSHS must hold siting hearings in the preempted city and the city may propose public safety measures specific to a particular site. The bill outlines specific procedures and timelines that DSHS and local governments must follow for complaints and proposals. If the city finds that specific z COW Briefing June 24, 2002 Planning Commission work session and hearing June 27, 2002 CAP Briefing July 9, 2002 COW Briefing July 15, 2002 COW Hearing August 12, 2002 measures are inadequate it must notify DSHS. Following notification, the city may petition the Governor to designate a person with law enforcement action to mediate the dispute. The determination of the mediator is final. The cities that choose to be preempted shall have access to a mediation process in which they can serve as an advocate for its citizens' interests. Attached is a handout that details pros and cons of why a city should choose to adopt plans for siting SCTFs z or choose to be preempted by the State. _ i1 CL 11/ 6 ,J U U0 CD U cn J i. N u w gQ U = d z 1— 0 z I— LL] in U 0 c o 0 I-- I 0 u 0 id U = 0 � RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adopting specific regulations for siting SCTFs. These facilities could be allowed as an unclassified use in MIC/H zone subject to the following restrictions: 1) No facility shall house more than 3 persons. 2) No SCTF shall be allowed within 1,000 feet of any residential zone; or in the vicinity of public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, and sports fields, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques, and public libraries; or within one mile from any existing SCTF or any correctional facility. 3) Require an analysis of alternative location consideration, an analysis showing that siting of such a facility will have no undue impact on any one racial, cultural, or socio- economic group; and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region; detailed security plan and operating rules for the facility; and a schedule and analysis of all public input solicited or to be solicited during the siting process. NEXT STEP If the committee decides to do code amendments staff can provide more specific regulations for the Council of the Whole briefing on June 24, 2002. The next step after COW briefing would be to forward code changes for the Planning Commission review and recommendation. Based on the State's September 1, 2002, deadline for adoption, following is a tentative schedule for this code amendment: Attachments: A) Handout on pros and cons of both options. B) Policy Guidelines on the siting and operation of SCTFs prepared by DSHS. 3 z PLANNING VS. PREEMPTION UNDER SENATE BILL 6594 Secure Community Transition Facilities for Sexual Predators Why a city should adopt plans for siting transition facilities • Local Control & Neighborhood Protection - Planning gives a city greater control over siting of facilities and the ability to protect residential, etc., areas. • Procedural Protection - Planning allows a city to create extensive review procedures to the protect public interest (unless more extensive reviews would be null and void — see other column). • Permanent Protection - The state could loosen its siting criteria in the future to create more sites, but state could not change city- adopted criteria. • Procedural Complexity - City criteria that are different from those of the state would be new and thus more complicated for the state, which might make state more likely to look at a city where it can use its own criteria.. ▪ Already Involved - A city would have a role in the siting process via building permits even if preempted, so it may not make sense for a city to back out of one -half of the siting debate. • Citizen Expectations - Citizens expect their city to play a role in the siting process — even if preempted. Planning would be more proactive than preemption. • Grant Funds - A city that goes through the process could be eligible for state funding/mitigation. • Finality of Preemption - Preemption is final and cannot be reversed even if a city wants to plan in the future. • Consistency with Home Rule — Cities often lobby for more local control and should not voluntarily abdicate local control. Whv a city should not adopt plans and thus be preempted by the state • Time Constraints — A city must adopt development regulations by 9/1/02, which requires extensive staff work, planning commission review, city council review, etc. • Incentives Risk - If a city plans and thus creates a map of suitable zones /sites, it could create an incentive for the state to site a facility in that city because some of the siting work is already done. (Unless several other cities also have maps.) • Null and Void Risk - A city adopting more restrictive requirements than allowed in the bill could have its criteria found to be null and void. • Existing Other Regulatory Authority - A preempted city might still be able to influence the siting process via building permits. • Existing Protection — The state has been focusing primarily on rural areas. In addition, existing state criteria may already offer relatively few sites in a city (which makes new development regulations unnecessary — though state criteria could change — see other column). • Public Safety Rights - A preempted city can still offer comments to the state on public safety concerns during the siting process (but comments have little "teeth "). • Hands Tied — A preempted city can argue that it has no role in siting facilities and send concerned citizens to the state. • Liability Protection — A preempted city would not have any ordinances subject to legal challenge. • County Action - King County is not likely to adopt regulations. (Does this matter to cities, though ?) •a ;i • " .:,,f. . Ei�+.f'w''*.: �: �:SSLtndP: C •ika�h iFTi�l� v': z.,� MICHAEL R. KENYON MARGITA A. DORNAY LISA M. MARSHALL ROBERT F. NOE BRUCE L. DISEND SANDRA S. MEADOWCROFr KENYON DORNAY MARSHALL, PLLC TO: FROM: Robert F. Noe, City Attorn David St.Pierre, Assistant DATE: May 29, 2002 THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3820 (425) 392 -7090 (206) 628 -9059 FAX (425) 392 -7071 CITY OF TUKWILA MEMORANDUM Steve Lancaster, Director Of Community Development Minnie Daliwahl, Planner RE: Model Ordinance Addressing The Siting Of Secure Community Transition Facilities For Sexually Violent Predators. SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES ELIZABETH A. ABBOTT STEVE C. KARIMI STEPHEN R. KING HEIDI L. BROSIUS DAVID B. ST.PIL.',KE DARIN H. SPANG This memorandum summarizes the requirements and deadlines for addressing the siting of secure community transition facilities (SCTFs) for sexually violent predators. Background information and siting criteria are provided. Finally, a model ordinance is proposed that adopts either a conditional use permit or unclassified use permit process for the siting of such SCTFs. RCW 36.70A.200 was amended in 2001 to require that cities and counties establish a process and adopt regulations for the siting of SCTFs, which are considered "essential public facilities." Local comprehensive plans and development regulations may not preclude the sitting of "essential public facilities." RCW 36.70A.200 was also amended in 2002 (Ch. 68, Laws of 2002, ESSB 6594) to clarify that the deadline for establishing a process and adopting regulations for the siting of SCTFs is September 1, 2002. After October 1, 2002, ESSB 6594 makes six counties (Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, and Thurston) and their cities, subject to "preemption" by the state if those counties and cities fail to comply with statutory planning requirements. For counties that have had five or more persons committed to the special commitment center for sexual offenders, state preemption would allow the state to ignore, as necessary, local plans, development regulations, and basically all other laws (including state environmental laws) to construct and operate SCTFs. This legislation is so new that, when consulted, MRSC determined that no jurisdiction has yet to adopt any such regulations to date and no model ordinances were available in this area. -1- G: \City Attorney \Tukwila\MEMOS\Mode1 S2.doc/1705/29/02 SERVING WASHINGTON CITIES SINCE 1993 State law requires that any such ordinance must be forwarded to the state Office of Community Development (formerly CTED) for review 60 days before the ordinance can take effect. The September 30, 2002 deadline is quickly approaching, therefore, the City Attorney's office is proposing its own "model" ordinance (Attachment "A" hereto) that can be used as a starting point for immediate discussion. BACKGROUND AND SITING CRITERIA In 2001, the Legislature enacted 3ESSB 6151, establishing the Joint Select Committee for Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities. The Committee was charged with reviewing and making any necessary revisions to the provisions for equitable distribution (addressed in RCW 71.09.250(8)), basic siting provisions and provisions for the operation of SCTFs. Based on the Committee's recommendations, the Legislature adopted ESSB 6594. In terms of land use and environmental law, the bill establishes a preemption system for counties and their cities that do not comply with siting requirements. Any affected county that had at least five persons detained or committed under Chapter 71.09 RCW as of April 1, 2001, or that was notified under 3ESSB 6151 that Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) expects to site beds in that county by May 2007, must adopt development regulations for SCTFs by October 1, 2002. If an affected county or its cities do not adopt sufficient regulations by that date, that county's or that city's authority over siting SCTFs is preempted. The affected counties are King, Snohomish, Thurston, Clark, Kitsap and Spokane. No person may bring a cause of action for civil damages against a county or city based on the good faith actions of a county or city to provide siting for SCTFs in accordance with the law. If a city or county adopts development regulations in accordance with the law, DSHS must comply with those regulations to site an SCTF in that city or county. Cities and counties may not adopt development regulations more restrictive than the requirements that the state has imposed on DSHS where the state has established specific requirements for the siting or operation of SCTFs. Regulations that are more restrictive than the statutory requirements enacted by the state are void. A determination that a city or county is preempted is final and not subject to appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Growth Management Act. DSHS may site SCTFs within a preempted county or a city within that county without regard to development regulations, permitting requirements or any other law including SEPA, the Shorelines Management Act, and the Hydraulics Code. DSHS may continue to consult with a city or county that has been preempted. Preemption does not make a city or county ineligible for specified grants, loans, or pledges and is not a basis for a private cause of action or an appeal under RCW 43.17.250(2). For facilities sited under the exemption from SEPA, DSHS must site construct, operate and occupy in an environmentally responsible manner and must make a threshold determination whether a SCTF sited under within a preempted jurisdiction would have a significant adverse environmental impact. If so, DSHS must prepare an environmental impact statement that meets the requirements of SEPA and the rules adopted by the Department of Ecology. This requirement is not a basis for any civil cause of action or administrative appeal and expires June 30, 2009. G: \City Attomey \Tukwila\MEMOS\Model S2.doe/1705/29/02 -2- DSHS must also hold siting hearings in preempted cities and counties. A preempted city or county may propose public safety measures specific to a particular site. The bill outlines specific procedures and timelines that DSHS and local governments must follow for complaints or proposals. If the city or county prevails on all issues through an administrative appeal, DSHS must reimburse the costs. The department's consideration of the proposed conditions by a local government may not be construed to affect the preemption. DHSH has information on its Secure Placement Criteria at http: / /www.dshs .wa.gov /geninfo /secure.html. DSHS's latest policy guidelines, dated October 1, 2001, and entitled: POLICY GUIDELINES: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities Transition, predate ESSB 6594 but are provided as Attachment "B"hereto for your reference. A Growth Management Hearings Board case, State of Washington Department of Corrections and DSHS v. City of Tacoma, CPSGMHB No. 00 -3 -0007, Final Decision and Order (November 20, 2000) and Finding Compliance (May 30, 2001) addressed a related issue. This decision found that Tacoma's regulations regarding work release centers and special property uses that apparently would include SCTFs were too restrictive. Under Tacoma's regulations, such facilities would only be allowed in M3 Manufacturing zone under a number of conditions (although existing facilities would be grandfathered). However, this case precedes the 2001 and 2002 amendments to GMA mentioned above. PROPOSED MODEL ORDINANCE A. Impact on City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's comprehensive plan already addresses the siting of "essential public facilities." Consequently, a comprehensive plan amendment is not immediately required to add SCTFs to the definition section of the plan. However, a comprehensive plan amendment may be required if the City currently allows essential public facilities in areas where it might not desire to allow SCTFs. B. Impact on Development Regulations. A draft "model" ordinance is provided as ATTACHMENT A that would adopt either a conditional use permit (CUP) or unclassified use permit (UUP) process for the siting of such SCTFs. The attached draft ordinance follows the minimum requirements mandated by state law with the clear intent of reserving the maximum control over site selection to the City. G: \City Attorney \Tukwila\MEMOS Model S2.docl1/05/29/02 -3- Dear Planning Director: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 • Olympia WA 98504 -5322 April 29, 2002 DSHS has geographic information system (GIS) data that we intend to distribute in mid -May to the jurisdictions in Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston Counties. The data is designed to assist your jurisdiction with the planning process for siting Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF). We will send you the GIS data in digital format on a disk. Upon receiving the GIS data disk, please forward it to the staff in your office assigned to this project. If you would like the data sent directly to someone other than yourself, please provide contact information to Elaine Taylor, SCTF Land Use Administrator, before May 6, 2002. She may be reached via telephone at (360) 902 -8184 or email at TAYLOE cnr dshs.wa.gov. Elaine Taylor is available for consultation should your office not have GIS capabilities. She can also help you acquire free software, which will allow you to use the data received. If you have questions about the siting process for Secure Community Transition Facilities please call Elaine Taylor. If you have questions about the Special Commitment Center and the SCTF program, please call me at (360) 902 -8257. Sincerely, 641,1'1/ Beverly K. Wilso Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center v c: Elaine Taylor, SCTF Land Use Administrator Curtis Mack, DSHS GIS Specialist z z re . 6 - U 00 co o CD LLI J I CO u-: W o 2 • LLQ • = • Ill z � I— 0 Z I- w • • o I- wW I v o W z. - • I o � z Enclosures FEB 0 4 2002 STATE OF WASHINGTON ®EV L 'PM N Ear DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES PO Box 45322 • Olympia WA 98504 -5322 January 23, 2002 Subject: Siting Secure Community Transition Facilities — Information for Planners Dear County and City Planning Directors: The 2001 Legislature recognized that secure community transition facilities (SCTF) will soon be needed in all areas of the state. To accomplish that goal, the Department of Social and Health Services is committed to working with and assisting counties and cities to plan for these facilities. We have enclosed information in response to questions from planners in our recent meetings with individual local jurisdictions and at the Office of Community Development's (OCD) 2002 Growth Management Act (GMA) Update Workshops last November. We are also enclosing other background information and a copy of a letter to elected officials regarding planning grants. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your staff, planning commission members, elected officials, and others to answer questions and provide further information regarding secure community transition facilities. We want to work with you in the early stages of your drafting of revisions to comprehensive plans and development regulations, even before you send the 60 -day notice to OCD. We would appreciate notice and advance copies of drafts under review by your planning commission or elected officials, as well as notice of hearings and other meetings where you plan to discuss the requirements for SCTFs or review draft documents. For information about siting requirements, and how the SCTF program relates to other GMA requirements, please contact Elaine Taylor at 360- 902 -8184. Please send notices of hearings and copies of draft comprehensive plan provisions and development 'regulations to her at the above - referenced address or by e-mail at tayloea @dshs.wa.gov. We look forward to working with you on this challenging task. Sincerely, - r-d?A‘eir kko/sol a) u�_":i_: " ^x, is D ECEI VED Beverly K. Wilson Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center z = '- W I J 0O UO tri to 0 LL w 0 gQ a = z � I- 0 z I-- w w U O- 0 I— w I- p Z . • = O I-. . z Dear Elected Officials: OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8350 • (360) 725 -2800 Subject: Planning Grants for Siting Secure Community Transition Facilities Many of you have inquired regarding the availability of planning grants to support the planning process for siting one or more secure community transition facilities (SCTF). RCW 71.09.255(3) enacted last year as part of 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2001, E2) states: "Any county or city that makes a commitment to initiate the process to site one or more secure community transition facilities by February 1, 2002, shall receive a planning grant as proposed and approved by the department of community, trade, and economic development." We regret that neither department received budget appropriations for this purpose and, therefore, we are unable to provide you with application materials for these grants. Although the 2001 Legislature did not appropriate funds for the planning grants, it had been our hope that some administrative savings in other departmental budget areas could be found that would enable us to provide at least limited funding. Due to the severe budget reductions now facing the state of Washington, we do not have that flexibility. The Joint Select Committee for the Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities is proposing several changes to the statutory SCTF planning and siting requirements enacted last year. The committee's legislative proposal would move the February 1, 2002 local government commitment date for planning grants to 120 days following the enactment of the legislation. The committee's proposal would also make planning and siting incentive grants contingent upon funds appropriated by the Legislature. We will notify you as soon as possible about any legislative policy or budget changes enacted that will enable us to provide planning grants. Te b(-1. Ike Nwankwo Interim Managing Director Growth Management Services Local Government Division Office of Community Development c: County and City Planning Directors STATE OF WASHINGTON January 23, 2002 Sincerely, ® '8 Beverly K. W ils • n Associate Superintendent for Community Programs Special Commitment Center Department of Social and Health Services P. O. Box 45322 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5322 C) z W ce 6 UO .0 LIJ J = cn LL . w 2 g J` u. = w z � 1 O z l-- .0 • o 52. a 1- W W. • U • z: • u) O H z • 1. What is the Special Commitment Center? DSHS SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS BACKGROUND INFORMATION January 2002 Answers to Questions about the DSHS Special Commitment Center and Statutory Requirements for Planning and Siting Secure Community Transition Facilities 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 a total confinement facility, it is not a prison or criminal justice program. It is a specialized sexual deviancy 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 treatment 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 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 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." It offers 24 -hour staffing and line -of -sight supervision by escorts when residents leave the facility. 3. How does a state superior court decide when an SCC resident is ready for conditional release from the SCC total confinement facility? What are the grounds for making that decision? Each committed individual receives an annual review by qualified professionals to determine the person's progress in treatment. A civilly 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 Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 1 Miskr y,^°'2`T.t: �!'^.P.�t:.2^:^"^�•vr JL ^w. v: l... qt "v��rPrrwv�TY+C'."".S.'�P:P^^.: MrM'•N� . . 4. Why is it necessary to establish LRA housing? 6. How many sex offenders reside in the SCC? January 2002 conditionally released, the court may order the person's conditional release to a less restrictive alternative placement. The determination that an individual is ready for conditional release is based on the individual's behavior, psychological testing, and expert testimony. 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, for the civil commitment program to meet the standard of "constitutionally adequate mental health treatment ", residents 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, Federal District Court Judge William Dwyer 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 hearing, the court found that the state's enactment of legislation (3ESSB 6151) establishing the McNeil Island Secure Community Transition Facility was a significant positive step. The court continued the accrual of the contempt sanctions (now more than $4 million), however, until the state has established one or more LRA facilities on the mainland. 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. As of January 2002, there are 151 residents residing in the Special Commitment Center total confinement facility, including one woman who is housed at a special unit in the Department of Social and Health Services Health. and Rehabilitative Services Administration 2 January 2002 Washington Corrections Center for Women at Purdy. There are also seven SCC residents who have received court- ordered conditional releases. Three of these individuals are living in private residences with their families, three are in a special needs 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 are placed into Phase 6 - Discharge Readiness to begin their preparation for a community transition placement. Residents begin the seventh treatment phase in their less restrictive alternative placements, during which the residents must continue to participate in intensive treatment with a court- approved community seX offender treatment provider. The SCTF staff work as a team with the treatment provider and the community corrections officer to monitor each resident's progress in 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 enforcement are essential to assuring community protection. Security measures include: • To protect the community when the person is conditionally released, the court of commitment orders specific conditions that the person must follow. The law requires serious violations of court- ordered conditions, including any alleged criminal offenses, must be reported immediately 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. • When a property is considered for an SCTF, the law requires DSHS and local governments to consider and address many factors. Key factors include the average law enforcement response time of the area; the distances between the SCTF property and "risk potential activities and facilities" such as child care centers, schools, school bus stops, etc.; whether barriers exist or can be installed to shield visibility between the SCTF and adjacent properties; the availability of electronic monitoring services; and access to community services such as treatment, employment, etc. • The law requires the SCTF to provide intensive staffing ratios. In facilities with six or fewer residents, there must be a ratio of one staff on duty for each resident during the day and evening hours, and two staff for every three residents during the night hours. Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 3 !i.....1","^"- .nr.rav— re v ,,v-- .,. -sr evv,m nm,vrv. , rssnv.tr, ,.,mn Vv V41PY.4:. • Unless otherwise ordered by the court, each SCTF resident must be closely supervised (on a one -to -one basis) by a staff person 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. • 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. • 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 pass a thorough state and federal criminal background check and not have a history of any felony convictions. • 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. • 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. 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, a qualified community sex offender treatment provider (therapist) has agreed to work with the resident and make regular reports to the court, the location of victims, etc. 10. What is being proposed? What does the new law require? 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 for identifying and siting SCTFs, and include SCTFs in their development regulations. Counties and cities not fully planning under GMA also must establish a planning process PLANNING AND SITING REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 4 January 2002 YMlT!X<YNt ; January 2002 and development regulations to provide for siting SCTFs. The law also provides specific siting requirements and community safety standards that DSHS and local governments must follow. 11. What is the role of the local jurisdiction? What is the role of DSHS? SCTFs are essential public facilities of a statewide nature. Under RCW 36.70A.200, no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities, including SCTFs (see WAC 365 - 195 -340 on comprehensive plans, and WAC 365- 195 -840 on development regulations). 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. The regulations recommend jurisdictions agree to mitigate any disproportionate financial burden that may fall on the jurisdiction that becomes the site of a facility of a statewide, regional, or countywide nature. Local jurisdictions 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 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. To help local jurisdictions in the planning process, DSHS will provide program information, GIS mapping and other technical support. As part of this support, DSHS is building a comprehensive geographic information system to assist in the mapping and review of potentially suitable areas for siting SCTFs. Once a local jurisdiction has identified appropriate area(s), 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. 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? Ideally, a county and its cities would follow the recommendations in WAC 365- 195 -340 to define a cooperative inter - jurisdictional approach to siting SCTFs. 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. Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 5 rfi. rw..wr.., ..-,q r^�. c«. r.. y. �q ar.. r , +rtn , .r..;J;watt:.•.npx:4�^ ,, rr ^1S:;c!'y!',(?f•M^t«;S i'43• ;z, :'' �- .f _.„21121t, 14. What steps does DSHS suggest for coordinating with local jurisdictions? Although we anticipate there will be local variations, we suggest the following steps: January 2002 13.On August 31, 2001, DSHS notified all 39 counties that secure community transition facilities will need to be sited within 12 of the 39 counties sometime between May 2004 and May 2007. Our county was one of the 12 counties on the list. Are the planning and siting requirements different for our county and its cities than the requirements that apply to all counties under RCW 36.70A.200? As required by law, DSHS projected the minimum and maximum number of additional SCTF ;z w beds (beyond those provided at the McNeil Island SCTF) that may be needed between May 2004 and May 2007. On August 31, 2001, DSHS notified all counties of the projected i o numbers. The law required the counties, in turn, to promptly notify their cities of the N o projected numbers. The DSHS letter informed counties that SCTFs are projected for w = needed in counties that had three or more residents in the SCC as of April 1, 2001, with -3 I- Pierce County excluded. These 12 counties are Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, Franklin, Grays Harbor, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima. 2 All counties and their cities are legally required to develop a process for siting SCTFs and to g a adopt development regulations that provide for the siting of SCTFs consistent with = a applicable statutory requirements. To assure that SCTFs can be sited and ready for _ occupancy when they will be needed, the 12 identified counties and their cities must meet Z the September 1, 2002 deadline for updating comprehensive plans and development z regulations. To succeed in meeting this deadline, jurisdictions may benefit from adopting a 2 coordinated approach and working closely with DSHS to provide more specific siting n a guidance. o The 27 other counties and their cities may decide, at this time, to identify only general areas = a for siting SCTFs that are consistent with statutory criteria. The jurisdictions in the 12 o counties, however, may determine that it is in their communities best interests to identify w z. several specific areas or properties that meet statutory requirements and would be o w appropriate locations for an SCTF. For example, if a local jurisdiction owned an appropriate o property and wanted to identify it for future SCTF use, it could be zoned "essential public z facility," or something equivalent, with SCTFs established as a permitted use in that district. a. DSHS, counties and cities share data on risk potential locations, law enforcement response time, and locations specified in equitable distribution requirements. b. DSHS charts the data available and provides counties and cities with Geographic Information System (GIS) maps. c. Counties and the cities within the county 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. d. Counties and cities decide on appropriate criteria consistent with the state law, and apply GIS mapping to assure that the local plans and regulations will not preclude the siting of a SCTF. :4Y 4 �.. Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 6 e. Counties and cities adopt comprehensive plan amendments, as necessary, and development regulations that define the siting process, criteria, and areas or site(s) appropriate for siting SCTFs. f. DSHS reviews available sites within the areas identified by the local jurisdiction and z approves sites that meet state requirements. As needed, DSHS selects one or more a potential SCTF sites within the areas identified by the local jurisdiction. ;E_- w CC g. DSHS, in consultation with the local jurisdiction, holds public hearings on the potential 6 sites as required by state law. 0 o h. DSHS selects the preferred site for the facility. 2u i. DSHS complies with the local jurisdiction's permitting requirements. W o 15. What GIS data is DSHS collecting and what will the GIS maps show? � DSHS is gathering data that include: 1- _ z1._ • Locations of the risk potential facilities referenced in the law. These risk potential z o facilities include public and private schools, licensed day care facilities, licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, playgrounds, and sports fields, D o recreational and community centers, school bus stops, churches, synagogues, temples, o P— end mosques, and public libraries. ° !_ W =U • The concentration of Level II and Level III sex offenders and transient Level II and III sex �_ o. z offenders residing in local jurisdictions. u.i U0 • The concentration of Department of Corrections' and DSHS Mental Health Division o I z residential facilities in local jurisdictions. • Average emergency response times of local law enforcement, as available. • Areas such as wetlands, national forests, mountains, etc. that would not be suitable for building. DSHS will be able to develop maps providing detailed information about specific local areas. These maps can be shaded to compare the relative risk — low, medium, high — of different sites or areas based on the number and locations of risk potential facilities and concentration of sex offenders and residential beds, etc. If your county has not been contacted by DSHS regarding GIS data needs, please contact Vicki Kim at 360 - 902 -0764. Cities may wish to coordinate their efforts through their county's GIS department to assure consistency and seamless coverage. 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 revisions to its comprehensive plan and development regulations. Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 7 January 2002 January 2002 DSHS is responsible for the public participation process during the final site selection. This process occurs after DSHS has reviewed the area(s) identified by the local jurisdiction as appropriate for siting an SCTF, and has selected potential sites. The local government is responsible for meeting the public notice and hearing requirements associated with permitting. In that case, DSHS public notice and hearing requirements do not apply to the extent they would duplicate the requirements of local land use regulations. 17. What happens if our county and its cities do not engage in this process, or if we go through the planning exercise, but refuse to select a site or cannot agree on a site? The Growth Management Act requires the comprehensive plan of any county or city planning under GMA to include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities, including secure community transition facilities. It also requires that the counties and cities adopt or amend their development regulations to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities consistent with state law. Counties and cities not planning under GMA must also establish a process for siting SCTFs and adopt or amend their development regulations as necessary. Local comprehensive plans and development regulations may not preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in sanctions under the Growth Management Act, such as making the city or county ineligible for state funding through the Public Works Trust Fund. DSHS must provide a status report to the legislature in December 2002 on the results of the planning process for siting SCTFs. If it appears that an insufficient number of beds will be sited in a timely manner, the department's report must recommend a progression of methods to facilitate siting in counties and cities including, if necessary, preemption of local and use planning process and other laws. 18. Where can we get more information? DSHS staff welcome the opportunity to meet with local elected officials and staff, planning commission members, and others. For more information about the Special Commitment Center and SCTF program or to arrange a meeting with DSHS, please contact Beverly Wilson, SCC Associate Superintendent for Community Programs, at (360) 902 -8257. For information about planning requirements, please contact Elaine Taylor, DSHS Land Use Administrator for SCTFs, at (360) 902 -8184. Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration 8 t Department of Social and Health Services Geographic Information System for Siting Secure Community Transition Facilities z October 22, 2001 ~ w D Background 0 o CO • In Fall 2000, DSHS convened the Secure Placement Advisory Committee CO i F. (SPAC) for the purpose of helping DSHS develop formal siting criteria for u) u- small community -based facilities, now known as Secure Community ° Transition Facilities (SCTF). ci cK u. a • The committee - made up of representatives of county and city elected Co w officials, county and city law enforcement, victim's advocacy, sex offender 1.- w treatment professionals, prosecutors and public defenders, family members of 1- o Special Commitment Center (SCC) residents, and the general public - w focused much of its debate on whether or not to require a fixed - distance 2 o buffer zone or boundary between SCTF sites and "risk potential" sites such as o co schools, school bus stops, child care centers, etc. o i- w w • U • Another major issue of concern to the committee was the average response 1- 1-= time of local law enforcement. The local law enforcement representatives on w z the SPAC explained that there are wide variations in these averages, o depending upon the density of population and resources available in the 1--- • '- specific jurisdictions. Depending upon these variables, the average response z time may range from less than five minutes to 30 minutes, or even longer. • To assist the committee, the Special Commitment Center asked the DSHS Research and Data Analysis Division (RDA) to prepare maps illustrating the effect of requiring fixed distance boundaries around risk potential sites. • RDA had access to limited data sets on the locations of schools, school bus stops, and DSHS - licensed child care homes and centers. These data were plotted on maps of Thurston, Pierce and Franklin Counties. • Although the data used were incomplete, the maps illustrated for the committee that requiring fixed - distance buffer zones between SCTFs and risk t potential locations was an unworkable approach. 1 .41 uIZSMt d .w., . '' f ��4,n. >s.h: r >..A . 4 iC Geographic Data Were Used to Evaluate Selected Sites • Once the DSHS siting criteria were adopted in November 2000, the Secure Placement Advisory Committee acted as a site selection advisory committee to the department. w • DSHS selected 11 sites on state -owned properties for review and evaluation cc by the SPAC. To assist the SPAC, the DSHS Research and Data Analysis o Division prepared maps of each of the 11 sites. o cn • The local maps included data on the locations of schools, school bus stops, CO licensed child care centers and homes, places of worship, parks and sports w o fields. These locations were confirmed through on -site visits by a DSHS staff using a hand-held GPS device to input data. u j = w F- The Geographic Information System (GIS) Being Developed Now z � z • The system that DSHS is developing now will include more comprehensive • 11 ' U � o D- o F- • DSHS is gathering additional data that include: = w • Locations of the risk potential facilities referenced in the law. (There may be some risk potential facilities that will not be available to us in current u z data bases. DSHS will work with local governments to obtain additional c cn GIS data.) 1 FI- • Concentration of Level II and Level III sex offenders residing in local z jurisdictions • Concentration of correctional and mental health facilities in local jurisdictions • Average emergency response times of local law enforcement • Areas such as wetlands, national forest, mountains, etc. that would not be suitable for building. data. • DSHS will be able to develop maps that will provide more detailed information about local areas. • The maps can be shaded to compare the relative risk -- low, medium, high -- of different sites or areas, based on the number and locations of risk potential facilities and concentration of sex offenders and residential beds, and response times. 2 v �T,'.;'? ti:'. .'4 ?s�:ui.;+.ltdd:�t:.sRC',.Y'a `'' ll u..1. u.�us.,.o.R : Limitations of the GIS Data • There are some areas of the state for which some of the data may simply not be available or cannot be obtained. DSHS will work cooperatively with local jurisdictions to share and obtain data. _I- • The GIS data cannot be displayed to illustrate the effect of the "not within line cc wn or sight" requirement. Line of sight is highly dependent on elevation and 6 local obstructions that cannot be captured in a GIS of this scale. -1 o N • The GIS maps cannot replace personal visits to specific sites. The maps will w help local jurisdictions and DSHS narrow down the areas under o consideration, but once an area is selected for further review and evaluation, w personal visits will be needed to confirm data and locate specific parcels of land suitable for siting. U- ▪ a • The data will not address the actual availability or ownership of a parcel of Z w z1- w • w n o D- o t- WW 2 tL o .. Z W f = o land. 3 Z To interested Persons: On June 26, 2001, Governor Gary Locke signed into law 3ESSB 6151, an act relating to the management of sexual offenders in the civil commitment and criminal justice systems. Among its many provisions, the law requires the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to develop and publish policy guidelines on the siting and operation of secure community transition facilities. For your information, a copy of the department's guidelines are enclosed. Secure community transition facilities (SCTF) are less restrictive alternative community -based facilities for civilly committed sexual offenders on court- ordered conditional release from the DSHS Special Commitment Center. A court of commitment can order an individual's conditional release from the Special Commitment Center when the court has determined that the individual's progress in treatment is such that the community can 'be adequately protected. Therefore, as required by the law and addressed in the policy guidelines, secure community transition facilities must provide highly structured and intensively supervised settings. As required by the court and the state law, SCTF residents, as part of their community transition plan, must continue their sex offender treatment with certified providers. The 2001 Legislature recognized that secure community transition facilities will soon be needed in all areas of the state. To accomplish that goal, the law directs DSHS to work with and assist • counties and cities to provide for the equitable distribution of such facilities. The law also requires counties and the cities within the county to notify each other of siting plans to promote the establishment and equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities. DSHS is ready to work with local governments in this venture. As explained in the policy guidelines, the department stands ready to consult with and provide specific technical assistance to local governments in this process. DSHS staff contacts are listed in the appendix of the policy guidelines. Thank you for your interest and participation in this challenging task. Enclosure c: Governor Gary Locke STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES October 1. 2001 DENNIS BRADDOCK Secretary z • 6 U 0 J w o 2 g Q. co d � z � zI- U O - aI- W 2 f- � : o w z o 1 z STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES POLICY GUIDELINES: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities Published in Fulfillment of the Requirements of • Chapter 12, Laws of 2001, E2, Section 201(6) (b) Department of Social and Health Services Health and Rehabilitative Services Administration Timothy R. Brown, Ph. D., Assistant Secretary October 1, 2001 Prepared by The Special Commitment Center Mark Seling, Superintendent a. z cc 2 W - U 0 O : (0 o W 2' - i - • w 0 g Q cn CI . I Z I- I-O Z H. uj o - 0H wW O : ui Z; O • Z .:la,,,:,,•'�'.wuc.:S :L'%.�,s".t'.%�...:ii:�F Lii:LC:Ge`i'u`�r.. : e a. 1 u. isw :a:..X. >sa:.5��i ":Cts."adinL'.n 7i;:"•3 SU. �vzi.aac :a v ti:r'a a •,4w2,irstaai Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October. 1, 2001 I. Introduction A. Background On June 26, 2001, Governor Gar. Locke sicned it :c: aw 3ESSE . (Chapter 12, _aws of 2001, E2). This omnibus legislation addresses four important policy issues related to the control and treatment of sexually violent predators who are civilly committed under Chapter 71.09 RCW to the Special Commitment Center (SCC). The new law: 1. Authorizes the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to establish and operate a 24 -bed secure community transition facility on McNeil Island for SCC residents on court- ordered conditional release from total confinement; 2. Reforms the state's sentencing structure for persons who commit serious sexual offenses; 3. Establishes procedures DSHS and local governments must follow to site additional secure community transition facilities in other areas of the state; and 4. Provides limited liability coverage for certified sex offender treatment providers meeting certain requirements. B. Statutory Directive to DSHS to Publish Policy Guidelines This document is in fulfillment of Section 201(6)(b), which requires DSHS "[to consult] with the joint select committee established in section 225 of this act, [to] develop and publish policy guidelines for the siting and operation of secure community transition facilities by October 1, 2001." The law also directs counties and cities to adopt or amend as needed their local procedures and regulations "to provide for the siting of such facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities." The DSHS policy guidelines are based on the new law's facility siting and operating requirements that address public safety, site security, and general site and program characteristics. In addition to requiring DSHS to publish policy guidelines, the law directs DSHS to work closely with local governments on the siting of future secure Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 2 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Conununity Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 community transition facilities (SCTF). The law also requires DSHS to approve selected SCTF sites. When approving future SCTF sites, DSHS will give priority consideration to public safety and security as required by law. C. DSHS Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments To assist local jurisdictions in determining potential suitable sites for secure community transition facilities, DSHS is developing a geographic information system (GIS). This system will have the capacity to generate local area maps depicting available data such as: 1. Locations of most existing risk potential activities and facilities; 2. Distances between potential SCTF sites and risk potential sites; 3. The number and location of existing residential facility beds operated by the Department of Corrections or the DSHS Mental Health Division in each jurisdiction; 4. The number of registered level II and level III sex offenders in specific areas (for example, a rate per 1000 population), including those who are listed as homeless (to the extent their locations are available from the counties); and 5. The average law enforcement emergency response time of local areas (to the extent these data are available from the local jurisdictions). The department welcomes the opportunity to wprk with local governments throughout this process. DSHS staff are available to provide technical support and consultation to local governments on the DSHS GIS data and the DSHS policy guidelines, and assist local governments in amending, as needed, their local comprehensive plans, development regulations, zoning codes, and conditional use permit procedures. DSHS staff contacts are listed in the appendix of this document. Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 3 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 II. Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities The legislature requires DSHS to work with and assist local governments to provide for the equitable distribution' of secure community transition facilities. in the process of coordinating and decidinc upon the sitinc of these facilities, Section 201(3) requires the counties and cities to give great weight to: A. The number and location of existing residential facilities operated by the Department of Corrections and the DSHS Mental Health Division in each jurisdiction in the county; and B. The number of registered sex offenders classified as level II or level III and the number of sex offenders registered as homeless residing in each jurisdiction in the county. III. Minimum Siting Requirements in 3ESSB 6151 In the process of siting secure community transition facilities, the law requires local governments and the DSHS guidelines to address several significant factors relating to public safety, SCTF program components, and site characteristics. The law defines some of these factors as mandatory requirements that must be met when a facility is sited. For others, however, the law allows local governments some flexibility and discretion. Sections 204, 205, and 213 of 3ESSB 6151 direct local governments to consider the DSHS guidelines and establish development regulations, ordinances, plans, laws, and criteria decisions that are consistent with statutory requirements. This section describes the statutorily mandated or minimum siting criteria that are defined and required in the law. Subsequent sections of this document contain DSHS' guidelines intended to assist local governments in the decision - making process. A. DSHS' Approval of Selected Sites 1 Section 201(9)(a) defines "equitable distribution" as the "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." Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 4 The law requires DSHS to approve any sites selected.` DSHS will not approve any sites that do not meet all minimum requirements established in the law and included in Section III (this section) of the DSHS guidelines. As stated earlier, in approving sites, DSHS will give priority consideration :c public safety and security factors. B. Local Plans and Regulations May Not Preclude SCTF Siting Secure community transition facilities are defined as "essential public facilities.i As such, no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of an SCTF. The siting requirements of 3ESSB 6151 are rooted in the concept of "fair share." Over time, these facilities need to be sited in all geographic areas of the state. In allowing local governments some discretion in the process of determining where to site SCTFs, the law recognizes that all jurisdictions are not equal. Differences in population density, availability of community • and government resources, topography, etc., will make some areas more or less appropriate than others to be SCTF sites. Therefore, local governments are encouraged to work together to implement comprehensive plans, ordinances, regulations, and permit procedures that meet the public safety and other requirements of the law and do not preclude siting. As stated earlier, DSHS stands ready to be of assistance to local governments. C. Minimum Facility Size The minimum size for any secure community transition facility is three beds. D. Public Safety Minimum Requirements 1. Proximity of SCTF to Risk Potential Activities and Facilities. The law directs that the DSHS guidelines must not permit the location of a SCTF adjacent to, immediately across a street 2 Section 204(2)(d) 3 Section 205(1) 4 Section 204(2)(c) Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 5 z z �w 6 00 CO CI J r C w u_ Q co = d z �. }- 0 z �- w 0 Ca 0— I L I O ..z w U= 0 • Z Policy Guidelines: The Siring and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 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. The law defines "risk potential 'activity" or "risk potential facility to mean "an activity or facility that provides a higher incidence of isk • to the public from persons conditionally released from the special commitment center." Included in this definition are the following: a. Public and private schools; b. School bus stops; c. Licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities; d. Public parks, publicly dedicated trails, and sports fields; e. Recreational and community centers; f. Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques; and g. Public libraries See Part IV for the suggested method for measuring distances between potential SCTF locations and risk potential activities or facilities. 2. Site Security Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 6 Security systems for all secure community transition facilities must meet the following minimum qualifications: a. The security panel must be a commercial grade panel with tamper -proof switches and a key -lock to prevent unauthorized access. 4i*r+1f;1! b. There must be an emergency electrical supply system that includes a battery back -up system and a generator. 5 Section 213(2). This section also defines "within line of sight" to mean that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. 6 Section 102(7) 7 Section 215 z w re n J U O 0 U 0 w= • u_ w J • ? a = F— W Z F- Z w w 2 o cn .0 o — CI F— LU uu 91 0 .. z w z a Section 214(1)(d) Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 c. The system must include personal panic devices for all staff. z d. The security system must be capable of being monitored 1 and signaled either by telephone through either a land or :� w cellular telephone system or by private radio network in the event of a tot dial -tone failure or through equivalent o technologies. u o e. When on duty, SCTF staff must wear DSHS- issued photo- u) LL identification badges at all times. w o 3. SCTF Program Components u. co d a. Treatment Providers Available _ z 1 .. The law requires that appropriate mental health and sex w o offender treatment providers must be available within a 2 m reasonable commute. DSHS recognizes that the definitions of o ° "available" and "reasonable commute" may vary from one area o I . to another. "Availability" is measured by considering a number w w of factors including the qualifications of the available providers, 1- their willingness to provide services, commute time and cost, `—` o etc. id N P I . As a rule of thumb, DSHS considers a one -hour commute time z z to be reasonable. However, this is an approximation. Actual commute times may vary depending upon travel routes, traffic, weather, and the norms for the area. For example, people who live in rural areas may have to travel more than an hour one - way for doctors' appointments and other services. b. Program Staffing Requirements Section 216 provides specific program staffing requirements for secure community transition facilities. Since these requirements do not have a direct effect on the siting of SCTFs, they are included in the appendix of this document. Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 7 9 Section 214(1)(c) 10 Section 214(1)(b) Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community. Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 4. SCTF Site Characteristics Minimum required site characteristics include: a. As described in Section !!1.r.2. potential SCTF site . have available and reliable security monitoring services and appropriate back -up systems. b. The site or building must be available for purchase or lease for the anticipated use period. c. Appropriate permitting for a secure community transition facility must be possible under the zoning code of the local jurisdiction. 1V. Measuring the Distance Between Potential SCTF Sites and Existing Risk Potential Sites The law requires the DSHS guidelines to specify how distance from the potential SCTF site and risk potential sites must be measured, including variations in that method based on the size of the SCTF property. A. Typical Measurement Method Distance between potential SCTF sites and existing risk sites typically should be measured "as the crow flies" in a straight line from point to point. Natural or man -made barriers, however, may exist that make this an invalid method of measurement. For example, the SCTF site a risk potential facility are located on opposite sides of a six -lane fenced freeway. Another example may be a river or large crevasse running between the two sites. In either case, the "as the crow flies" measurement would be an inappropriate method to determine distance. The shortest reasonable distance, for example, may be the distance as measured down the street from one site and across a bridge to the other site. .Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 8 z • • z 111 2 00 w z H w g Q = d z = 1- o z t- uj 0 0 - O I-- w • w LL H u i z U = O . z Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 B. Measurement Method for Larger Properties It is possible that a potential SCTF site could be located on property that is significantly larger than a typical residential lot. For example, a SCTF may to located within several acres in a semi -rural area. in this case, a risk potential facility that is adjacent to or across the street from the perimeter of the SCTF property does not automatically disqualify the SCTF property from further consideration. The local jurisdiction should measure the distance "as the crow flies" between the risk potential facility and the existing or potential location of the SCTF building. Again, as in the method above, this measurement method may be modified to account for natural or man -made barriers. If the measured distance is such that it is not possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals, then the property may be considered further. V. Identification and Review of Potential SCTF Sites Section 213 of the law requires DSHS to develop guideline's that "balance the average response time of emergency services to the general area of a proposed secure community transition facility against the proximity of the proposed secure community transition facility site to risk potential activities and facilities in existence at the time the site is listed for consideration." As indicated in Part III.D.1, the statute further clarifies that this balance must: . • "Endeavor to achieve" an average law enforcement response time not greater than five minutes; and In no case, permit secure community transition facilities to be sited in locations that are 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. To identify suitable sites' and achieve this balance, Section 204(2)(a) requires that "counties and the cities with the county must notify each other of siting plans to promote the establishment and equitable A "site" could be one parcel of land or a zone that includes at least one parcel that meets all requirements for siting a secure community transition facility. .iv ..I h��rrv...SwaRn�C' Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 9 z w re 2 J U . O 0 co WI J F. w �a = � w z i— t— :Do U o - ca w uj L I o w Z U= 0 z ,, • Policy Guidelines: The Siring and Operation of Secure Conununity Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 distribution of secure community transition facilities." Therefore, it is recommended that each county and the cities within the county collaborate in this identification and review process. Some counties may < 11 find it helpful to do the work as a consortium. DSHS provides the ,- w ollc�.;ing guidance to ;oc, =l urisdictior,s -or `he :den�ificaticn =nd review � process: o o U) 0 A. First Step: Identify Potential SCTF Site(s) and Determine the w Average Law Enforcement Response Time of the Local Area(s) w w The local jurisdictions should identify potential SCTF site(s) and determine which are in areas with an average law enforcement � - emergency response time of five minutes or less, and which are in = a areas with an average response time greater than five minutes. To Z qualify for the second -step review, sites in areas with average o response time greater than five minutes must be in areas that are w w w within a reasonable range of five minutes, or with minimal changes, could be within a reasonable range. Local jurisdictions should 8 o— document in writing the mitigating circumstances that support c consideration of sites in areas with average response times greater = = than five minutes. o ..z. B. Second Step: Perform a Qualitative Review of Potential Sites o '' . Local jurisdictions should use the following questions to perform a . z qualitative review of the potential sites in areas with reasonable average response time. There may be other factors unique to the local area that local jurisdiction(s) may want to consider. If so, the local jurisdictions should document what those factors are and the justification for their consideration. The following questions are not listed in priority order: 1. Where are the existing risk potential activities or facilities located in relation to the potential SCTF site? The law requires that great weight be given to sites that are located the farthest from any risk potential activity or facility. (Refer to Part IV.B for measuring distance). 2. How many and what type of risk potential facilities exist within an area surrounding a potential SCTF site? The jurisdiction may wish to determine this number within circles of varying Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 10 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 distance from the potential SCTF site. For example, one circle may have a radius equal to the time it takes an average person to walk one or two miles. Other circles may be drawn representing fixed distances from the SCTF site. 3. Are there factors that make an existing risk potential facility more vulnerable than others? For example, how frequently is the facility used? Who typically uses the risk potential facility? Do children or other vulnerable persons frequent the location with little or no supervision? Do people typically frequent the site in large groups? In small groups? Individually? Is there site security available at a risk potential facility that makes it less vulnerable than others? 4. What is the topography of the potential SCTF site and /or nearby risk potential sites? Are there natural or man -made barriers (e.g., rivers, crevasses or rugged territory, fences or berms) that exist or could be constructed at reasonable cost? 5. What is the general character of the surrounding area? Is it densely populated with family residential areas nearby? Is it in an area that currently has a mixed use? 6. What are the traffic patterns and access in the—surrounding area? Are there reasonably direct routes that law enforcement or other personnel can follow to respond promptly to an emergency? C. Third Step: Address Final Review Questions In the second and third steps, local jurisdictions may determine that some of the potential SCTF sites should be eliminated from further consideration. As a final step, local jurisdictions should review the remaining sites against the statutory requirements to balance response time and distance from risk potential facilities, consider equitable distribution factors, the availability of treatment providers, and zoning. DSHS provides the following questions for this review: 1. What is the average response time of the area(s) being reviewed? In comparing potential SCTF sites, the jurisdiction should "endeavor to achieve" a five- minute response time. Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 11 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 Therefore, if all other factors are equal, jurisdiction(s) should give great weight to sites within areas that have relatively short response times. r4 1 4 2. if the area response time is greater than five minutes, what s the capacity of the local law enforcement agency to respond o o and secure the area in order to minimize the potential flight of cn w. an SCTF resident? U) w w o 3. Are there existing correctional or mental health residential 2 �. facilities in the surrounding area? How many? How many level II and level III sex offenders reside in the area? N ▪ a � w 4. What is the zoning of the area? What zoning' changes, if any, z would need to be made to accommodate the SCTF? z o w 5. What is the availability of certified sex offender . treatment .providers and potential educational and employment o - . opportunities in the surrounding area? w u w H U 1 1 . b VI. Comparing and Selecting Potential SCTF Sites iu U = DSHS will work with local jurisdictions in the process of comparing and selecting potential SCTF sites. When local jurisdictions have identified potential SCTF sites meeting the requirements, DSHS will review the local jurisdiction(s) recommendations • and, as required by the law, make selections after considering the following: A. The jurisdiction(s) have satisfactorily addressed the issue of law enforcement emergency response time. B. Limited visibility can be achieved and maintained between the SCTF facility and adjacent properties before any persons are placed in the facility. C. There are natural barriers that exist or barriers that can be established between the SCTF site and risk potential activities or facilities that are nearby. Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 12 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Connnuuuty Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 D. If an existing building is to be used for the SCTF, it is suitable as is or can be feasibly modified. i~ 1 -w E. Electronic monitoring services that allow specific monitoring of re individual residents are available in the area. o U O F. Traffic and access patterns associated with property are acceptable and do not create an undue burden on the neighboring territory. J o G. It is feasible to comply with zoning requirements within the necessary time frame. 7- . S2 H. The facility has sufficient capacity for at least three residents and w appropriate space for staff and program operations. z , . o I. Contractor(s) are available to install, monitor, and. repair the necessary uj security and alarm systems. o U O - J. The rental, lease, or sale terms of the SCTF property are reasonable. w This includes considering the length of the rental or lease agreement 0 and the option to renew. o z Cu K. There is reasonable proximity to available medical, mental health, sex _: offender, and chemical dependency treatment providers and facilities. z ~. L. The location is suitable for programming, staffing, and support. M. There is reasonable proximity to employment, educational, vocational, and other treatment plan components. N. For purposes of this consideration "availability of qualified treatment providers," takes into account provider qualifications and willingness to provide services, average commute time, and cost of services. Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 13 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 1. Staffing Requirements APPENDIX Section 216 requires secure community transition facilities to meet the following minimum staffing requirements: A. At any time the census of a facility is six or fewer residents, the facility must maintain a minimum staffing ratio of one staff per resident during normal waking hours and two awake staff per three residents during normal sleeping hours. B. At any time the census of a facility is six or fewer residents, all staff must be classified as residential rehabilitation counselor II or have a classification that indicates a higher level of skill, experience, and training. C. Before being assigned to a facility, all staff must have training in sex offender issues, self - defense, and crisis de- escalation skills in addition to departmental orientation and, as appropriate, management training. All staff with resident treatment or care duties must participate in ongoing in- service training. D. All staff must pass a DSHS check and the check is not subject to the limitations in chapter 9.96A RCW. A person who has been convicted of a felony, or any sex offense, may not be employed at the secure community transition facility or be approved as an escort for a resident of the facility. Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 14 Policy Guidelines: The Siting and Operation of Secure Community Transition Facilities October 1, 2001 ii. DSHS Staff Contacts for Technical Assistance Please direct requests for assistance to either of the following: Beverly Wilson, ,Associate Superintendent Community Planning and Policy DSHS Special Commitment Center P.O. Box 45322 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5322 360.902.8257 wilsobk2 cni dshs.wa.gov OR Elizabeth McNagny, Housing Policy and Land Use Administrator DSHS Lands and Buildings Division P.O. Box 45848 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5848 360.902.8164 mcnaoec cCt7dshs.wa.gov Department of Social and Health Services The Special Commitment Center 15 oSss 5 5..5:r5. ` ,i3.1 ^ , rt - 1.kY41' ^ 4 '46: ua Ri3s�si' l".s tie'.. tar atiYaiw ' ''v.s.'.:s%:.ti :ued:'....rh:;, Washington State DEPARTMENT OF SOCLAL &HEALTH SERVICES FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, October 1, 2001 http: / /www.wa.gov /dshs No. 001 -255 FOR MORE INFORMATION Beverly Wilson 360- 902 -8257 Elizabeth McNagny 360 - 902 -8164 Steve Williams 360- 902 -7569 DSHS PUBLISHES SITING GUIDELINES FOR SEX OFFENDER SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILTJIES OLYMPIA — Guidelines counties and cities will use to find sites to locate Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF) for sex offenders are now published on the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) Web site at http: / /www.wa.gov /dshs /ueninfo /secure.html. The facilities are for sex offenders moved out of the Special Commitment Center (SCC) by the courts for further treatment. This fulfills a provision of legislation (3ESSB 6151) passed earlier this year that required DSHS to consult with a joint select committee created by the bill and then publish the guidelines by October 1, 2001. The Secure Community Transition Facilities. are smaller housing units required by the federal court to provide a community -based treatment setting for SCC sex offenders who have progressed successfully through multiple levels of treatment over several years. The community facilities will be the next step in treatment for those who convince a court they have completed the treatment regimen at the SCC and can be conditionally released from total confinement to the highly supervised SCTF where they will continue to undergo treatment. In Senate Bill 6151, the State Legislature decided there must be an equitable distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities throughout the state. The Legislature directed local governments to consider DSHS guidelines in adapting local regulations to accommodate such facilities. Since a SCTF is considered an essential public facility, no local plan or regulation may preclude a SCTF. Under the guidelines, DSHS must approve any site selected by the local government. Each site must be large enough to contain a SCTF with a minimum of three beds. In no case may a SCTF be sited adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential facilities defined in the law as schools, school bus stops, preschor:. facilities, day care facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, recreational a:.:..: community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques or public libraries. The law requires DSHS guidelines to endeavor to achieve an average law enforcement response time to the SCTF of not greater than five minutes. The guidelines must also balance the response time with the proximity to the defined risk potential facilities. z w o J U 00 CD o J = U) u_ w co �Q = W z I zi- Lu U u) O - CI I- ww t w z U = o � . z COUNTY RESIDENTS OF MINIMUM SCTF MAXIMUM SCTF SCC ON 4 -1 -01 BEDS (2004) BEDS (2007) 1. Chelan 3 3 3 2. Clark 6 3 3 3. Cowlitz 3 3 3 4. Franklin 3 3 3 5. Grays Harbor 4 3 3 6. King 41 5 15 7. Kitsap 6 3 3 8. Pierce 21 N /A* N /A* 9. Snohomish 20 3 7 10. Spokane 5 3 3 11. Thurston 8 3 3 • 12. Whatcom 4 3 3 13. Yakima 4 3 3 SITING GUIDELINES PAGE 2 OF 3 Every site must have access to reliable security monitoring services and back -up systems to accommodate sophisticated security measures. Permitting must be possible under the local zoning code. SCTFs with six or fewer residents must have one staff on duty for each resident during the :morning and afternoon shifts, and at least two staff on duty at night. The law also requires intensive staff training and background checks. As required in the legislation, these guidelines follow the August 31, 2001, notification of all counties in Washington State of the number of SCTF beds that may be needed in each county. Twelve of the thirteen counties that had at least three residents committed to the SCC on April 1, 2001, are required by the law to plan for at least a three -bed Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF) to be available, if needed, for the period May 2004 through May 2008. King and Snohomish Counties are required to plan for siting a greater number of beds based on their proportionate share of SCC residents. ( *NOT APPLICABLE. PIERCE COUNTY IS EXEMPT FROM THE LIST BECAUSE IT IS THE SITE OF A 24 -BED SCTF ON MCNEIL ISLAND. THE LAW REQUIRES AN "EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION" OF COMMUNITY - BASED SCTF FACILITIES TIIAT WILL NOT CAUSE A "DISPROPORTIONATE GROUPING" IN ANY ONE COUNTY.) Twenty -six counties that had two or fewer residents in the SCC on April 1, 2001, are not required to plan for an SCTF. However, the legislature provided monetary incentives for any county that voluntarily provides facilities for more than its fair share of SCTF beds. Statewide, DSHS projects a need for at least 49 community -based SCTF beds by mid -2007. The new SCTF under construction at the North Complex on McNeil Island will house 15 SCTF beds and 9 pre - transitional beds. r• z = z .f-- w Q : 2 J U 0O J = U LL wO 2 u _ cn = ui z = ►— O z t- 0 0 0- 0I- w W IL z Lli U= o~ z • {4 SITING GUIDELINES PACE OF3 DSHS is under federal court order to provide SCTF facilities in communities throughout the state for those sex offenders who successfully complete all phases of treatment in the SCC and are ready for community -based treatment as part of their transition back into society. The current population of the SCC is 144 with 142 men at McNeil Island and 2 women at the Corrections Center in Purdy. rr August 31, 2001 (Inside Address 7 to each County Exec and County Commission /Council Chair) Subject: Projected Minimum and Maximum Number of Additional Secure Community Transition Facility Beds Needed, May 2004 — May 2007 Dear STATE OF WASHING DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES On June 26, 2001, Governor Locke signed into law 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2001, E2). This law addresses the management of sex offenders in the civil commitment and criminal justice systems and the siting and operation of secure community transition facilities for civilly committed persons under Chapter 71.09 RCW. Section 201(6)(a) of the law requires the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to report to all counties the minimum and maximum number of additional secure community transition facility beds needed between May 2004 and May 2007. In addition to providing you with the required notice, we view this letter as the first step in working with your county and other local jurisdictions on this challenging task. As you may know, the new law authorizes DSHS to site and operate a secure community transition facility on McNeil Island. The authorized capacity of the McNeil Island facility is 15 transitional beds and 9 pre - transitional beds. The legislature, however, recognized that there will be a future need for additional facilities in other areas of the state. With that understanding, the legislature established in 3ESSB 6151 procedures the local jurisdictions and DSHS must follow to plan for and site the future facilities needed. The legislature also recognized the need for these facilities to be established in various geographic areas. In Section 201(8), the legislature directs DSHS to work with local governments for the equitable distribution of these facilities. Assumptions and Model Used to Project Additional Beds Needed For the purposes of projecting the minimum and maximum additional beds needed between May 2004 and May 2007, we made the following assumptions: • The 15 transitional beds at the McNeil Island facility will provide needed capacity through the late winter or early spring of 2003. z z W 6U O 0 w = • LL 0 Q . W • o I w Z = 1- 0 Z f- o: U o- o w W I- - L z w U = . z Notice to Counties August 31, 2001 Page 2 The nine pre - transitional beds may not provide additional capacity because these beds, according to Section 201(2)(c), are "for residents whose progress toward a less secure residential environment and transition into more complete community ~ w involvement is projected to take substantially longer than a typical resident of the special commitment center." For this projection, we are taking a conservative o approach of not counting these nine beds towards the forecasted statewide need. 0) ❑ As the McNeil Island facility continues to develop, we will make future w determinations about how these nine beds will be used. ,, o w To forecast the minimum and maximum number of beds needed statewide, DSFIS requested the expert assistance of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy u a (WSIPP). The Institute developed a forecast model of the minimum and maximum i a number of Special Commitment Center (SCC) residents expected to be eligible for a _ less restrictive alternative placement between May 2004 and May 2007. The model is z based on the number of SCC residents in treatment and their progress as of April 2001. w Enclosed with this letter are two tables that provide the required information: o o— ❑� Table 1 shows the WSIPP forecasted statewide total minimum and maximum number w w of additional beds that will be needed between May 2004 and May 2007. +_- o Table 2 shows three numbers for each of the 39 counties: 1. The total numberof secure community transition facility beds that may be required to z be sited in each county between the legislation's effective date July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2008, per section 204(1) of the law. As the law states, this number for each county "may be no greater than the total number of 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 [as a sexually violent predator] had been made on April 1, 2001." For purposes of this discussion, we refer to this number as the "April 1, 2001 count." 2. The minimum number of beds in each county that DSHS projects will be needed by May 2004. 3. The Maximum number of beds in each county that DSHS projects will be needed by May 2007. Method Used to Assign County Minimum and Maximum Numbers Section 204(2)(c) mandates that the minimum allowable size of any secure community transition facility is three beds. Therefore, DSHS did not assign any of the forecasted minimum and maximum additional beds needed to the 26 counties that had zero, one, Notice to Counties August 31, 2001 Page 3 or two persons in the April 1, 2001 count. Per Section 201(7)(c), Pierce County may not be required to site facilities in addition to the McNeil Island facility until after June 30, 2008. Thus, the forecasted beds are assigned to the remaining 12 counties (Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, Franklin, Grays Harbor, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima) that had at least three persons in the April 1, 2001 count. In assigning these beds, DSHS took several factors into account, including the need for facilities in various geographic areas of the state. Nonetheless, because of many variables beyond our control, the process for assigning numbers could not be precise. For example, we can make assumptions, based on limited historical data, about SCC residents' progress in treatment, but we cannot predict with certainty, the decisions superior courts and juries will make about petitions for conditional release of individual SCC residents. The minimum and maximum numbers we assigned to King and Snohomish County reflect their proportionate share of the April 1, 2001 SCC resident count. We then assigned three beds to each of the remaining ten counties, as their targeted minimum and maximum number. Although this assignment results in totals higher than forecasted minimum and maximum additional beds needed, it attempts to reflect the fact that SCC residents come from all•parts of the state and, therefore, it would be most appropriate to have facilities distributed throughout the state. We acknowledge the fact that it will take time to develop a full array of facilities in different locations. In order to meet our legal obligations, it will be wise to assure we will have capacity for the out years. For the time period following June 30, 2008, we will have more data and experience on which to base future needs. Incentive Grants Section 204(2)(c) mandates that the minimum allowable size of any secure community transition facility is three beds. Therefore, as shown in Table 2, we are alerting all counties that had three or more residents in the SCC April 1, 2001 count, that they should begin the planning process for siting a future facility. Counties with zero, one, or two residents in the April 1, 2001 count may not be required to site a facility. However, the legislation provides incentives to all counties that participate in the planning and ultimately site a facility. DSHS supports that approach and strongly encourages any. county or city that can comply with the legislative siting criteria to plan for and site facilities. As required by the 3ESSB 6151, DSHS is preparing siting guidelines, in consultation with the Washington State Legislature's Joint Select Committee created in the legislation. We will send you this information as soon as it is available. These guidelines will address the legislative requirements for siting facilities in areas that have • z . w 6 U0 N LLI w d = t-- z � zI- uj U 0- 0 E- w �o z w = o '' . z Notice to Counties August 31, 2001 Page 4 reasonable access to certified treatment providers, employment, education, and other community support services. z Z `~ W 00 • Any county or city that makes a commitment to initiate, by February 1, 2002, the CD w process to site one or more secure community transition facility shall receive a planning grant as proposed and approved by the Department of Community, Trade, o and Economic Development; W • Any county or city that issues, by May 1, 2003, all necessary permits for one or more u secure community transition facilities that comply with the requirements of Section D. d 204 shall receive an incentive grant of $50,000 for each bed sited. z o • To encourage the rapid permitting of sites, any county or city that issues all w w necessary permits by January 1, 2003, for one or more secure community transition o facilities, shall receive a bonus in the amount of twenty percent of the amount of the o —. incentive grant received for the total number of beds sited; WW U • Any county or city that establishes beds in excess of the maximum number required o for that county shall receive a bonus payment of $100,000 for each such bed. w z U N Resources Available For the Planning Process o ►_- . The incentive grants authorized in Section 204 of the new law are described below: We look forward to the opportunity of working with your county and other jurisdictions as you develop and implement your planning process for siting secure community transition facilities. We are preparing information on the following topics, which we will share with you within the next few weeks: • Guidelines, prepared in consultation with the Joint Select Committee of the Washington State Legislature, for siting and operating of secure community transition facilities (Section 201(6)(b) and Sections 213 and 214); • Guidelines for planning and incentive grants (Section 204); • Guidelines for facility security (Section 215); and • Community notification and public hearing process for future facility sites (Section 219). To assist jurisdictions in this planning and siting process and in providing for the equitable distribution of these facilities, the department is creating a statewide geographic information system that will include data on: Notice to Counties August 31, 2001 Page 5 • The locations and number of correctional and mental health facili beds o the Department of Corrections and DSHS; tY Aerated by • The number of registered level II or level III sex offenders in each jurisdiction; • The locations of risk potential activities specified in Section 102(7) of the legislation; g ion; • The locations of police stations and sheriff's offices; and • The location of identified certified sex offender treatment providers who ma b contracted to work with this population. , Y be With this information system, DSHS will have the capacity to chart maps of these for use by all counties and local jurisdictions in the local lannin data staff will be ready and available to consult with you and prov technical assistance to local jurisdictions. in this effort. We recognize that the process established by the legislature will require all of us to work in earnest and under very tight timelines. We appreciate your participation and partnership. If you have any questions, lease feel free to contact Timothy R. Brown, Ph. D., Assistant Secretary for Health and Rehabilitative Services, at 3 60.902.7799. DSHS staff will also be contacting your county staff soon to discuss this letter and arrange informal meetings to move this process forward. Enclosures Sincerely, DENNIS BRADDOCK Secretary c: Governor Gary Locke All Washington State Legislators Dick Van Wagenen Joe Lehman Washington State Association of Counties Association of Washington Cities Busse Nutley z z � w 00 0 U) w . w LLa = a . u± F. w ui U � o !- w L I o z 0 — P. 0 TABLE I Forecasted Minimum and Maximum Secure Community Transition Facility (SCTF) Beds ed ` May 2004 to May 2007 Based on Annual Statewide Forecast Less Authorized Beds at McNeil Island SCTF Notes: 1. Forecasted number of beds is based on a model developed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, August 2001. 2. The beds at the McNeil Island secure community transition facility are the 15 transitional beds authorized by the legislature in 3ESSB 6151 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2001, E2) and are anticipated to be used for statewide needs. The nine pre - transitional beds are not included. 'rl;: ` �:' <k.',�,`•S.A:tiy'G�K :��,^:�'`• r"'��."�` ii''.:4: ?;5:�`�`.'nii'a�ti ct COUNTY Number of County Beds Legally Required Per Section 204(7)(a) Projected Minimum Number of County Beds Needed May 2004 Projected Maximum i Number of County. Beds Needed May 2007 Adams 0 0 . 0 Asotin 1 0 0 Benton 1 0 0 Chelan 3 3 3 Ciallam 0 0 p Clark 6 3 3 Columbia 0 0 • 0 Cowlitz 3 3 3 Douglas 0 0 0 Ferry 0 0 0 Franklin 3 3 3 Garfield 0 0 0 Grant 1 0 0 Grays Harbor • • 4 3 3 Island 1 0 0 Jefferson 0 0 0 King 41 5 15 ' Kitsap 6 • 3 3 Kittitas 2 0 0 Klickitat 0 0 0 Lewis 0 0 0 Lincoln 0 0 0 Mason 2 0 0 Okanogan 0 0 0 Pacific 0 0 0 Pend Oreille 0 0 0 Pierce 21 NA NA San Juan 0 • 0 0 Skagit 0 0 0 Skamania 0 0 • 0 Snohomish 20 3 7 Spokane 5 3 3 Stevens 0 0 0 Thurston 8 3 3 Wahkiakum 0 0 0 Walla Walla 2 0 0 _ Whatcom 4 . 3 3 Whitman 1 0 0 Yakima 4 3 3 Statewide TOTAL • 139 38 52 — 6y Vounty: Secure Community Transition Facility Beds That May Be Required Per 3ESSB 6151, Section 204(7)(a) and Projected Minimum and Maximum Additional Beds Needed 1. Counties with a count of three or more beds have been highlighted. 2. Pierce County is listed as NA because it is exempt from siting any additional beds under 3ESSB 6151, Section 201(7)(c). YM �S� ��1r.�•ir,•Y. Z*'� "T"'�.r Ytrr^ F' Jvi` c '-' „ "t�- Si��tR�tV<f}YI""M,tM'N� .e. ter... � --.... ..w.m. ^r.ma .. ar �......r....x........... t1\' rrw�.N�Y••.pxrwFwt+rmrv+nm.. +•+• •. - w,.t�'n�v.Y.vrnw.. ..A��:ii+.•r�a••: • •ry a +- w o: 2 J O 0 0 CO III J} CO LL w u. SP.a = W ►— _ z � �- 0 z�- • o O H wW I 1— � u. 0 Luc) Z o ' COUNTY RESIDENTS OF MINIMUM LRA MAXIMUM LRA SCC ON 4 -1 -01 BEDS (2004) BEDS (2007) 1. Chelan 3 3 3 2. Clark 6 3 3 3. Cowlitz 3 3 3 4. Franklin 3 3 3 5. Grays Harbor 4 3 3 6. Kin_ 41 5 15 7. Kitsap 6 3 3 8. Pierce 21 N /A* N /A* 9. Snohomish 20 3 7 10. Spokane 5 3 3 11. Thurston 8 3 ' 3 12. Whatcom 4 3 3 13. Yakima 4 3 3 For your convenience, this news release will be posted on the DSHS Internet site today at 5:00 PM RI 7 so ? Washington State DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL &HEALTH SERVICES FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, August 31, 2001 http: / /www.wa.2ov /dshs No. 001 -226 FOR MORE INFORMATION Tim Brown 360 - 902 -7799 Steve Williams 360- 902 -7569 DSHS INFORMS COUNTIES OF THEIR SHARE OF SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITY BEDS FOR SCC RESIDENTS OLYMPIA — Meeting a deadline established by the Legislature, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) today notified all counties in Washington State of the number of secure transitional facility beds that may be needed in each county later this decade for sex offenders moved out of the Special Commitment Center by the courts. Notification was required in a bill (3ESSB 6151) passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year. Twelve of the thirteen counties that had at least three residents committed to the SCC on April 1, 2001, are required by the law to plan for at least a three -bed "less restrictive alternative" (LRA) facility to be available, if needed,. for the period May 2004 through May 2008. King and Snohomish Counties are required to plan for siting a greater number of beds based on their proportionate share of SCC residents. (*Not Applicable. Pierce County is exempt from the list because it is the site of a 24 -bed LRA on McNeil Island. The law requires an "equitable distribution" of community -based LRA facilities that will not cause a "disproportionate grouping" in any one county.) ,. e.�.�.. ` ..�r a)+ • ;, DSHS Informs Counties Twenty-six counties that had two or fewer residents in the SCC on April 1, 2001, are not required to plan for an LRA. However, the legislature provided monetary incentives for any county that voluntarily provides facilities for more than its fair share of LRA beds. Statewide, DSHS projects a need for at least 49 community -based LRA beds by mid -2007. A new LRA under construction at the North Complex on McNeil Island will house 15 LRA beds and 9 pre - transitional beds. DSHS is under federal court order to provide LRA facilities in communities throughout the state for those sex offenders who successfully complete all phases of treatment in the SCC and are ready for community -based treatment as part of their transition back into society. The current population of the SCC is 144 with 142 men at McNeil Island and 2 women at the Corrections Center in Purdy. # # # J Section 201: Section 204: Section 205: Section 206: Section 213: Section 214: Section 215: Section 216: Section 217: Section 219: Sections of 3ESSB 6151 Siting and Operating Secure Community Transition Facilities General requirements and definitions ♦ 201(7)(a) Maximum legal requirement ♦ 201(7)(b) Authority to distribute bonus grants " " 201(8) liej9 TEtitilta'bTa''dittributlon Grant Process • 204(3) Planning grants • 204(4) Basic incentive grants ♦ 204(5) Rapid permitting bonus • 204(6) Excess bed bonus Amendments to the Growth Management Act for Essential Public Facilities Siting not limited to residential areas Siting — Response time and proximity to risk potential areas General siting criteria Security systems Staffing requirements Electronic monitoring and escort requirements Public notification for locating facilities k 4 EFFECTIVE DATE: 6/26/01•- Except sections 301 through 363, 501, and 503, which become effective 9/1/01. Passed by the Senate June 21, 2001 • YEAS 26 NAYS 13 BRAD OWEN President of the Senate Passed by the House June 21, 2001 YEAS 67 NAYS 14 FRANK CHOPP Speaker of the House of Representatives CLYDE BALLARD Speaker of the Rouse of Representatives Approved June 26, 2001, THIRD ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6151 Chapter 12, Laws of 2001 57th Legislature 2001 Second Special Session SEX OFFENDERS- -CIVIL COMMITMENT GARY LOCKE Governor of the State of Washington CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT CERTIFICATE I, Tony M. Cook, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is THIRD ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6151 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. TONY M. COOK FILED Secretary June 26, 2001 - 11:51 a.m. Secretary of State State of Washington Z w J U0 . co p` u)w J F- w O: ? . co d w Z � I- 0 Z w 2 o - O F - : W W: (...) LL Z W F- 2 • Z State of Washington READ FIRST TIME 04/06/01. THIRD ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6151 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 2001 2nd Special Session 57th Legislature 2001 Regular Session By Senate' Committee on Human Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators Long and Hargrove) 1 AN ACT Relating to the management of sex offenders in the civil 2 commitment and criminal justice systems; amending RCW 71.09.020, 3 36.70A.103, 36.70A.200, 9.94A.715, 9.94A.060, 9.94A.120, 9.94A.190, 4 9.94A.390, 9.94A.590, 9.94A.670, 9.95.005, 9.95.010:, 9.95.011, 5 •9.95.017, 9.95.020, 9.95.032, 9.95.052, 9.95.055, 9.95.064, 9.95.070, 6 9.95.080, 9.95.090, 9.95.100, 9.95.110, 9.95.115, 9.95.120, 9.95.121, 7 9.95.122, 9.95.123, 9.95.124, 9.95.125, 9.95.126, 9.95.130, 9.95.140, 8 9.95.190, 9.95.250, 9:95.280, 9.95.310, 9.95.320, 9 9.95.340, 9.95.350, 9.95.360, 9.95.370, 9.95.900, 9A.28.020, 9A.36.021, 10 9A.40.030, 9A.44.093, 9A.44.096, 9A.44.100, 9A.76. - - -, and 72.09.370; 11 reenacting and amending RCW 9.94A.030, 9.94A.320, 18.155.020, and 12 18.155.030; „adding new sections to chapter 71.09 RCW; adding new 13 sections to chapter 72.09 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 9.94A 14 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 9.95 RCW; adding a new section to 15 chapter 4.24' RCW; creating new sections; repealing RCW 9.95.0011 and 16 9.95.145; prescribing penalties; providing an effective date; providing 17 expiration da and declaring an emergency. 18 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: P. 1 3ESS5 6151.SL ., 1 PART I 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS 3 NEW SECTION. Sec. 101. The legislature intends the following 4 omnibus bill to address the management of sex offenders in the civil 5 commitment and criminal justice systems for purposes of public health, 6 safety, and welfare. Provisions address siting of and continued 7 operation of facilities for persons civilly committed under chapter 8 71.09 RCW and sentencing of persons who have committed sex offenses. 9 Other provisions address the need for sex offender treatment providers 10 with specific credentials. Additional provisions address the continued 11 operati, gn„ or. . criminal_ justice facilities at 12 McNeil Island, because these facilities are impacted by the civil 13 facilities.on McNeil Island for persons committed under chapter 71.09 14 RCW. 15 Sec. 102. RCW 71.09.020 and 2001 c 286 s 4 are each amended to 16 read as follows: ^17 Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in 18 this section apply throughout this chapter. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 constituting such peraon a mcnacc to the health and safety of others.)) 28 "Department' means the department of social and health services. 29 (2) "Less restrictive alternative" means court - ordered treatment in 30 a setting less restrictive than total confinement which satisfies the 31 conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092. 32 (3) "Likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not 33 confined in a secure facility" means that the person more probably than 34 not will engage in such acts if released unconditionally from detention 35 on the sexually violent predator petition. Such likelihood must be 36 evidenced by a recent overt act if the person is not totally confined 37 at the' time the petition is filed under RCW 71.09.030. 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 2 1 (4) "Mental abnormality" means a congenital or accruired condition 2 affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the 3 person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree 4 constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others. 5 (5) "Predatory" means acts directed towards: (a) Strangers; (b) 6 individuals with whom a relationship has been established or promoted 7 for the primary purpose of victimization; or (c) persons of casual 8 acquaintance with whom no substantial personal relationship exists. 9 (((5))) (6) "Recent overt act" means any act or threat that has 10 either caused harm of a sexually-violent nature or creates a reasonable 11 apprehension of such harm in the mind of an objective person who knows 12 of the history and ,.mental _condition, of.,the person engaging in the act. 13 14 u-an at - iv • _ aci •- • o 'd 15 to the public from persons conditionally released from the special 16 commitment center. Risk potential activities and facilities include: 17 Public and private schools. school bus stops. licensed dal/ care and 18 licensed preschool facilities. public parks< publicly dedicated trails 19 sports fields. playgrounds. recreational and community centers 20 churches. synagogues. temples. mosques. and public libraries. 21 (8) `Secretary" means the secretary of social and health services 22 or _tte_zecretary's designee. 23 (9) "Secure facility" means a residential facility for persons 24 civilly confined under the provisions of this chapter that includes 25 security measures sufficient to protect the community. Such facilities 26 include total conf'nement• facilities.. secure.' community transition 27 fagilitie , and any residence used as a court - ordered placement under 28 RCW 71.09.096. 29 (10) °Secure community transition facility" means a residential 30 facility for_Aersons civilly committed and conditionally released to a 31 less restrictive alternative under this chapter. A secure community 32 transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides 33 or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services. Secure 34 o _ • o 35 .- a -b ' 36 community -based facilities established under this chapter and operated 37 by the secretary or under contract with the secretary. 38 (11) "Sexually violent offense" means an act committed on, before, 39 or after July 1, 1990, that is: (a) An act defined in Title 9A RCW as ((- (-6 -)-)) (7) "Risk potential activity" or "risk potential facility" Lit I !. r t • lL. -• P. 3 are 0 t t 3ESSB 6151.SL ': m."- .a % w n x;. ; - ,"'.."- S .,'K+m r:. A. t'?':!,. z == ?.SUa'pC y!+..,Nj,`3'r;T .sue- .A z a• = z �~ w C QQ � J U O 0 co O CO J • w w LL? • a H z � F— O zt— w U O- o I- w I- -- u'O w Z — • I O ~ z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ..12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25' 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree by forcible compulsion, rape of a child in the first or second degree, statutory rape in the first or second degree, indecent liberties by forcible compulsion, indecent liberties against a child under age fourteen, incest against a child under age fourteen, or child molestation in the first or second degree; (b) a felony offense in effect at any time prior to July 1, 1990, that is comparable to a sexually violent offense as defined in (a) of this subsection, or any federal or out -of -state conviction for a felony offense that under the laws of this state would be a sexually violent offense as defined in this subsection; (c) an act of murder in the first or second degree, assault in the first or second degree, .assaul.t_of. a. ,chilgLiriot1 e•..first. or' second .degree, kidnapping in the first or second degree, burglary in the first degree, residential burglary, or unlawful imprisonment, which act, either at the time of sentencing for the offense or subsequently during civil commitment proceedings pursuant to this chapter ((71.09 RCW)), has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated, as that term is defined in RCW 9.94A.030'; or (d) an act as described in chapter 9A.28 RCW, that is an attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy to commit one of the felonies designated in (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection. (( or his or her dcsignce.)) - � - e .-1 • s — a . ... } of .•" , - . - -9 • convicted of or charaed with a crime of violence and who suffers person likely to enaaae in predatory confined in a secure facility. (13) "Total confinement facility" sexual from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the acts of sexual violence_ if not means a facility that provides supervision and sex offender treatment services in a total confinement setting. Total confinement facilities include the special commitment center and any similar facility designated as a secure facility by the sec etary. 37 PART II 38 SITING AND OPERATION OF SECURE COMMUNITY TRANSITION FACILITIES 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 4 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 201. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 2 RCW to read as follows: 3 (1)(a) The secretary is authorized to site, construct, occupy, and 4 operate a secure community transition facility on McNeil Island for 5 persons authorized to petition fora less restrictive alternative under 6 RCW 71.09.090(1) and who are conditionally released and a special 7 commitment center on McNeil Island with up to four hundred four beds as 8 a total confinement facility under this chapter, subject to 9 appropriated funding for those purposes. The secure community 10 transition facility shall be authorized for the number of beds needed 11 to ensure compliance with the orders of the superior courts under this 12. s chapter •° and the-• >federal—distriat.:court for-the district of . 13 Washington. The total number of transitional beds shall be limited to 14 fifteen. The residents occupying these beds shall be the only 15 residents eligible ,for transitional services occurring in Pierce 16 county. In no event shall more than fifteen residents of the secure 17 community transition facility be participating in off- island 18 transitional, educational, or employment activity at the same time in 19 Pierce county. The department shall provide the Pierce county sheriff, 20 or his or her designee, with a list of the fifteen residents so 21 designated, along with their photographs and physical descriptions, and 22 it shall be immediately updated whenever a residential change occurs. 23 The Pierce county sheriff, or his or her designee, shall be provided an 24 opportunity to confirm•the residential status of each resident leaving 25 McNeil Island. 26 (b) For purposes of this subsection, "transitional beds" means beds 27 only for residents in halfway house status who are judged by a 28 qualified expert to be suitable to leave the island for treatment, 29 education, and employment. 30 (2)(a) The secretary is authorized to site, either within the 31 secure community transition facility established pursuant to 32 subsection (1) of this section, or within the special commitment 33 center, up to nine pretransitional beds. 34 (b) Residents assigned to pretransitional beds shall not be 35 permitted to leave McNeil Island for education, employment, treatment, 36 or community activities in Pierce county. 37 (c) For purposes of this subsection, " pretransitional beds" means 38 beds for residents •whose progress toward a less secure residential 39 environment and transition into more complete community involvement is fId P. 5 'YTta;rt. 0— ,= rcq:Ma ;Tor..an; t.et. sc aMr!fMrtr" � ! t 74 3ESSB 6151.SL 1 projected to take substantially longer than a typical resident of the 2 special commitment center. 3 (3) Notwithstanding RCW 36.70A.103 or any other law, this statute 4 preempts and supersedes local plans, development regulations, 5 permitting requirements, inspection requirements, and all other laws as 6 necessary to enable the secretary to site, construct, occupy, and 7 operate a secure community transition facility on McNeil Island and a 8 total confinement facility on McNeil Island. 9 (4) To the greatest extent possible, until June 30, 2003, persons 10 who were not civilly committed from the county in which the secure 11 community transition facility established pursuant to subsection (1) of 12 this section, is locatedt.may,,not� ,be 5eondstionai•ly. released to a setting 13 in that same county less restrictive than that facility. 14 (5) As of the effective date of this section, the state shall 15 immediately cease any efforts in effect on such date to site secure 16 community transition facilities, other than the facility authorized by 17 subsection (1) of this section, and shall instead site such facilities 18 in accordance with the provisions of this section. ^ 19 (6) The department must: 20 (a) Identify the minimum and maximum number of secure community 21 transition facility beds in addition to the facility established under 22 subsection (1) of this section that may be necessary for the period of 23 May 2004 through May 2007 and provide notice of these numbers to all 24 counties by August 31, 2001; 25 (b) In consultation with the joint select committee established .in 26 section 225 of this act, develop and publish policy guidelines for the 27 siting and operation of secure community transition facilities by 28 October 1, 2001; and 29 (c) Provide a status report to the appropriate committees of the 30 legislature by December 1, 2002, on the development of facilities under 31 the incentive program established in section 204 of this act. The 32 report shall include a projection of the anticipated number of secure 33 community transition facility beds that will become operational between 34 May 2004 and May 2007. If it appears that an insufficient number of 35 beds will be operational, the department's report shall recommend a 36 progression of methods to facilitate siting in counties and cities 37 including, if necessary, preemption of local land use planning process 38 and other laws. 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 6 1 (7)(a) The total number of secure community transition facility 2 beds that may be required to be sited in a county between the effective 3 date of this section and June 30, 2008, may be no greater than the 4 total number of persons civilly committed from that county, or detained' 5 at the special commitment center under a pending civil commitment 6 petition from that county where a finding of probable cause had been 7 made on April 1, 2001. The total number of secure community transition 8 facility beds required to be sited in each county between July 1, 2008, 9 and June 30, 2015, may be no greater than the total number of perscns 10 civilly committed from that county or detained at the special 11 commitment center under a pending civil commitment petition from that '12 county where a 'finding. of-probable °:'had. been as of July 1, 13 2008. 14 (b) Counties and cities that provide secure community transition 15 facility beds above the maximum number that they could be required to 16 site under this subsection are eligible for a bonus grant under the 17 incentive provisions in section 204 of this act. The county where the 18 special commitment center is located shall receive this bonus grant for 19 the number of beds in the facility established in subsection (1) of 20 this section in excess of the maximum number established by this 21 subsection. 22 (c) No secure community transition facilities in addition to the 23 one established in subsection (1) of this section may be required to be 24 sited in the county where the special commitment center is located 25 until after June 30, 2008, provided however, that the county and its 26 cities may elect to site `additional' secure community transition 27 facilities and shall be eligible under the incentive provisions of 28 section 204 of this act for any additional facilities meeting the 29 requirements of that section. 30 (8) In identifying potential sites within a county the location 31 of a secure community transition facility, the department shall work 32 with and assist local governments to provide for the equitable 33 distribution such facilities. In coordinating and deciding upon the 34 siting of secure community-transition facilities, great weight shall be 35 given by the county and cities within the county to: 36 (a) The number and location of existing residential facility beds 37 operated by the department of corrections or the mental health division 38 of the department of social and health services in each jurisdiction in 39 the county; and p. 7 3ESSB 6151.SL 1 (b) The number of registered sex offenders classified as level II 2 or level III and the number of. sex offenders registered as•homeless 3 residing in each jurisdiction in the county. 4 (9)(a) "Equitable distribution" means siting or locating secure 5 community transition facilities in a manner that will not cause a 6 disproportionate grouping of similar facilities either in any one 7 county, or in any one jurisdiction or community within a county, as 8 relevant; and 9 (b) "Jurisdiction" means a city, town, or geographic area of a 10 county in which district political or judicial authority may be 11 exercised. 12 NEW SECTION. Sec. 202. A new section is added to chapter 72.09 13 RCW to read as follows: 14 The secretary is authorized to operate a correctional facility on 15 McNeil Island for the confinement of sex offenders and other offenders 16 sentenced by the courts, and to make necessary repairs, renovations, 17 additions, and improvements to state property for that purpose, 18 notwithstanding any local comprehensive plans, development regulations, 19 permitting requirements, or any other local laws. Operation of the 20 correctional facility and other state facilities authorized by this 21 section and other law includes access to adequate docking facilities on 22 state -owned tidelands at the town of Steilacoom. 23 Sec. 203. RCW 36.70A.103 and 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 4 are each amended 24 to read as follows: 25 State agencies shall comply with the local comprehensive plans and 26 development regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this 27 chapter except as otherwise provided in sections 201 (1) through (3) 28 and 202 of this act. 29 The provisions o this act do not affect the state's authority to 30 Bite any other essential public facility under RCW 36.70A.200 in 31 conformance with ocal comprehensive plans and development regulations 32 adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW. 33 NEW SECTION. Sec. 204. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 34 RCW to read as follows: 35 (1) Upon receiving the notification required by section 201 of this 36 act, counties must promptly notify the cities within the county of the 3ESSB 6151.SL . p. 8 f 1 maximum number of secure community transition facility beds that may be 2 required and the projected number of beds to be needed in that county. • 3 (2) The incentive grants provided under this section are subject to 4 the following provisions: 5 (a) Counties and the cities within the county must notify each 6 other of siting plans to promote the establishment and equitable 7 distribution of secure community transition facilities; 8 (b) Development regulations, ordinances, plans, laws, and criteria 9 established for siting must be consistent with statutory requirements JU 10 and rules applicable to siting and operating secure community U p cn 11 transition facilities; w 12 (c). The' minimum -.size:'pfor. ::any:,facility is. three beds; and w u- O 13 (d). The department must approve any sites selected. 14 (3) Any county or city that makes a commitment to initiate the g Q 15 process to site one or more secure community transition facilities by = = U' 16 February 1, 2002, shall receive a planning grant as proposed and Z ILI 17 approved by the department of community, trade, and economic 1-0 18 development. ELI ui 19 (4) Any county or city that has issued all necessary permits by May (..) N 20 1, 2003, for one or more secure community transition facilities that ot- 21 comply with the requirements of this section shall receive an incentive = v 22 grant in the amount of fifty thousand dollars for each bed sited. I'- z 23 (5) To encourage the rapid permitting of sites, any county or city U 24 that has issued all necessary permits by January 1, 2003, for one or 25 more secure community transition facilities that comply with the 26 requirements of this section shall rteive the amount of 27 twenty percent of the amount provided under subsection (4) of this 28 section. 29 (6) Any county or city-that establishes secure community transition 30 facility-beds in excess of the maximum number that could be required to 31 be sited in that county shall receive a bonus payment of one hundred 32 thousand dollars for each bed established in excess of the maximum 33 requirement.' 34 (7) No payment shall be made under subsection (4), (5), or (6) of 35 this section until all necessary permits have been issued. 36 Sec. 205. RCW 36.70A.200 and 1998 c 171 s 3 are each amended to 37 read as follows: P. 9 3ESSB 6151.SL r 1 (1) The cDmprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning 2 under '((this chaptcr)) RCW 36.70A.040 shall include a process for 3 identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public 4 facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to 5 site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or 2 6 regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state 7 and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and 8 in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental 9' health facilities, ((end) ) group homes. and secure community transition 10 facj.lities as defined in RCW 71.09.020. 11 (2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall. not 12 ..later• •thazr:Abe deadline.t..suec f >-i . RCW 36.70A.130, establish a' 13 process, or amend its existing process, for identifying and siting 14 essential tblic facilities. and adopt or amend its development 15 regulations as necessary to Provide for the siting of secure community 16 transition faxilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable 17 to these facilities. 18 (31 Anv o~tv or county not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall. not '19 .mater thane deadline specified in RCW 36.70A.130. establish a 20 process for d tina secure community transition facilities and adopt or 21 end its delopment regulations as necessary to provide for the 22 siting of soh facilities consistent with statutory requirements 23 applicable to these facilities. 24 (4) The iffice of financial management shall maintain a list of 25 those essential state public facilities that are required or likely to 26 be built witlin the next "six years. The office of financial management 27 may at any tie add facilities to the list. 28 (51 No bcal comprehensive plan or development regulation may 29 preclude thesiting of essential public facilities. 30 NEW SEC'N. Sec. 206. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 31 RCW to read a. follows: 32 The proviions of this act shall not be construed to limit siting 33 of secure comnity transition facilities to residential neighborhoods. 34 NEW SECTTT. Sec. 207. Beginning on the effective date of this 35 section, thestate shall immediately enter into negotiations for a 36 mitigation areement with: (1) The county in which the secure 37 community trasition facility established pursuant to section 201(1) of 3ESSB 6151.51, p. 10 1 this act is located; (2) each community in which the persons from that 2. facility will reside or regularly spend time in pursuant to court 3 orders for regular work or education, or to receive social services, or 4 will regularly be transported through to reach those other communities; 5 and (3) educational institutions in the communities identified in 6 subsections (1) and (2) of this section. The negotiations must be 7 toward an agreement that will provide state funding, as appropriated 8 for this purpose, in an amount adequate to mitigate anticipated or 9 realized increased costs resulting from any increased risks to public 10 safety brought about by 'the presence of sexually violent predators in 11 those communities due to the siting of the secure community transition 12 . facil ty.,,..establ.i, shed.,,.,pursuant to_....section ..,201(1) .. of this act . This 13 section expires June 30, 2003. • 14 NEW SECTION. Sec. 208. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 15 RCW to read as follows: 16 (1) The department shall make reasonable efforts to distribute the 17 impact of the employment, and social services needs of the 18 residents of the secure community transition facility established 19 pursuant to section 201 (1) of this act among the adjoining counties and 20 not to concentrate the residents' use of resources in any one 21 community. 22 (2) The department shall develop policies to ensure that, to the 23 extent possible, placement of persons eligible in the future for 24 conditional release to a setting less restrictive than the facility 25 established •pursuant. to section • 201(1)-of this will be equitably. 26 distributed among the counties and within jurisdictions in the county. 27 . NEW SECTION. Sec. 209.. The department of social and health 28 services shall, by August 1, 2001, and prior to operating the secure 29 community transition facility established pursuant to section 201(1) of 30 this act, hold at least three public hearings in the affected 31 communities within the county where the facility•is located. 32 The purpose of the public hearings is to seek input from county and 33 city officials, local law enforcement officials, and, the public 34 regarding operations and security measures needed to adequately protect 35 the community from any increased risk to public safety brought about by 36 the presence . of persons conditionally released from the special 37 commitment center in these • communities due to the siting of the p. 11 3ESSB 6151.SL 1 facility. The department shall ensure that persons have a full 2 opportunity to speak to the issues to be addressed during each hearing. 3 NEW SECTION. Sec. 210. The secretary of social and health 4 services shall coordinate with the secretary of corrections and the 5 appropriate local or state law enforcement agency or agencies to 6 establish a twenty- four -hour law enforcement presence on McNeil Island 7 before any person is admitted to.the secure community transition 8 facility established under section 201(1) of this act. Law enforcement' 9 shall coordinate with the emergency response team for McNeil Island to 10 provide planning and coordination in the event of an escape from the 11 special' commitment -cen ter:.or.- the' secure community transition facility. 12 In addition, or if no law enforcement agency will provide a law 13 enforcement presence on the island, not more than ten correctional 14 employees, as selected by the secretary of corrections, who are members 15 of the emergency response team for the McNeil Island correctional 16 facility, shall have the powers and duties of a general authority peace 17 officer while acting in a law enforcement capacity. If there is no law 18 enforcement agency to provide the law enforcement presence, those 19 correctional employees selected as peace officers shall provide a 20 twenty- four -hour presence and shall not have correctional duties at the 21 correctional facility in addition to the emergency response team while 22 acting in a law enforcement capacity. 23 NEW SECTION. Sec. 211. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 24 RCW to read as follows: 25 (1) By August 1, 2001, the department must provide the appropriate 26 committees of the legislature with a transportation plan to address the 27 issues of coordinating the movement of residents of the secure 28 community transition facility established pursuant to section 201(1) of 29 this act between McNeil Island and the mainland with the movement of 30 others who must use the same docks or equipment within the funds 31 appropriated'for this purpose. 32 (2) If the department does not provide a separate vessel for 33 transporting residents-of the secure community transition facility 34 established in section 201(1) of this act between McNeil Island and the 35 mainland, the plan shall include at least the following components: 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 12 z z w 0 00 U O J COL w L Q I O. Z = F- 1- 0 Z 1.11 w U O N O H w w H tL O Z w U = 1 (a) The residents shall be separated from minors and vulnerable 2 adults, except vulnerable adults who have been found to be sexually' '3 violent predators'. 4 (b) The residents shall not be transported during times when 5 children are normally coming to and from the mainland for school. 6 (3) The department shall designate a separate waiting area at the 7 points of debarkation, and residents shall be required to remain in 8 this area while awaiting transportation. 9 (4) The department shall provide law enforcement agencies in the 10 counties and cities in which residents of the secure community 11 transition facility established pursuant to section 201(1) of this act 12 regularly, participate in,..employment,•. or, social services, or 13 through which these persons are regularly transported, with a copy of 14 the court's order of conditional release with respect to these persons. 15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 212. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 16 RCW to read as follows: 17 When considering whether a person civilly committed under this 18 chapter and'conditionally released to a secure community transition 19 facility is appropriate for release to a placement that is less 20 restrictive than that facility, the court shall comply, with the .21 procedures set forth in RCW 71.09.090 through 71.09.096. In addition, 22 the court shall consider whether the person has progressed in treatment 23 to the point that a significant change in the person's routine, 24 including but not limited to a change of employment, education, 25 residence, or sex offender treatment provider mill not' cause the person 26 to regress to.the point that the person presents a greater risk to the 27 community than can reasonably be addressed in the proposed placement. 28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 213. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 29 RCW to read as follows: 30 (1) Except with respect to the secure community transition facility 31 established pursuant to section 201 of this act, the secretary shall 32 develop policy guidelines that balance the average response time of 33 emergency services to the general area of a proposed secure community 34 transition facility against the proximity of the proposed site to risk 35 potential activities and facilities in existence at the time the site 36 is listed for consideration. p. 13 3ESSB 6151.SL z _'- z w aa • � J U O 0 U o J • = CO w w gQ CO = a I -w Z = zI- W • w U� O - CI I- LI-z Cu co 0 . z 1 (2) In balancing the competing criteria of proximity and response 2 time the policy guidelines shall endeavor to achieve an average law 3 enforcement response time not greater than five minutes and in no case 4 shall the policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, 5 immediately across a street or parking.lot from, or within the line of 6 sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time 7 a site is listed for consideration. "Within the line of sight" means 8 that it is possible to reasonably visually. distinguish and recognize 9 individuals. 10 (3) The policy guidelines shall require that great weight be given 11 to sites that are the farthest removed from any risk potential 12 activity-,-:- - • . 13 (4) The policy guidelines shall specify how distance from the 14 location is measured and any variations in the measurement based on the 15 size of the property within which a proposed facility is to be located. 16 '(5) The policy guidelines shall establish a method to analyze and 17 compare the criteria for each site in terms of . public safety and 18 security, site characteristics, and program components. In making a 19 decision regarding a site following the analysis and comparison, the 20 secretary shall. give priority to public safety and security 2 considerations. The and comparison of the criteria are to be 22 documented and made available at the public hearings prescribed in 23 section 219 of this act. 24 (6) Policy guidelines adopted by the secretary under this section 25 shall be considered by counties and cities when providing for the 26 siting of secure community trahsitibri' as under RCW 27 36.70A.200. 28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 214. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 29 RCW to read as follows: 30 The secretary shall establish policy guidelines for the siting of 31 secure community transition facilities, other than the secure community 32 transition facility established pursuant to section 201 of this act, 33 which shall include at least the following minimum requirements: 34 (1) The following criteria must be considered prior to any real 35 property being listed for consideration for the location of or use as 36 a secure community transition facility: 37 (a) The proximity and response time criteria established under 38 section 213 of this act; 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 14 1 (b) The site or building is available for lease for the anticipated 2 use period'or for purchase; 3 (c) Security monitoring services and appropriate back -up systems 4 are available and reliable; 5 (d) Appropriate mental health and sex offender treatment providers 6 must be available within a reasonable commute; and 7 (e) Appropriate permitting for a secure community transition 8 facility must be possible under the zoning code of the local 9 jurisdiction. 10 . (2) For sites which meet the criteria of subsection (1) of this 11 section, the department shall analyze and compare the . criteria in 12 subsections. .(3.J...:. through:::..:.( -5.)..:.of..... this section using the method 13 established in section 213 of this act. 14 (3) Public safety and security criteria shall include at least the 15 following: 16 (a) Whether limited visibility between the facility and adjacent 17 properties can be achieved prior to placement of any person; (b) The distance from, and number of, risk potential activities and 19• facilities, as measured using the rules adopted under section 213 of 20 this act; 21 (c) The existence of or ability to establish barriers between the 22 site and the risk potential facilities and activities; 23 (d) Suitability of the buildings to be used for the secure 24 community transition facility with regard to existing or feasibly 25 modified features; and 26 (e) The availability of electronic 'monitoring. that allows a 27 resident's location to be determined with specificity. 28 (4) Site characteristics criteria shall include at least the 29 following: 30 (a) Reasonableness of rental, lease, or sale terms including length 31 and renewability of a lease or rental agreement; 32 (b) Traffic and access patterns associated with the real property; 33 (c) Feasibility of complying with zoning requirements within the 34 necessary time frame; and 35 (d) A contractor or .contractors are available to install, monitor, 36 and repair the necessary security and alarm systems. 37 (5) Program characteristics criteria shall include at least the 38 following: p. 15 3ESSB 6151.SL z _� z QQ � JU 0 c o Lu J = � w 2 d = z � ►- O z I- w uj 2 U O - oI- wW P EI O L6 3 Z U= O . z 1 (a) Reasonable proximity to available medical, mental health, sex 2 offender, and chemical dependency treatment providers and facilities; 3 (b) Suitability of the location for programming, staffing, and 4 support considerations; 5 (c) Proximity to employment, educational, vocational, and other 6 treatment plan components. 7 (6) For purposes of this section "available" or "availability" of 8 qualified treatment providers includes provider qualifications and 9 willingness•to provide services, average commute time, and cost of 10 services. 11 STEW SECTION:' .'•s 2 3':` 'A `new section is: added to chapter 71.09 12 RCW to read as follows: 13 (1) Security-systems for all secure community-transition facilities 14 shall meet the following minimum qualifications: 15 (a) The security panel must be a commercial grade panel with 16 tamper -proof switches and a key -lock to prevent unauthorized access. 17 (b) There must be an emergency electrical supply system which shall 18 include a battery back -up system and a generator. 19 (c) The system must include personal panic devices for all staff. 20 (d) The security system must be capable of being monitored and 21 signaled either by telephone through either a land or. cellular 22 telephone system or by private radio network in the event of a total 23 dial -tone failure or through equivalent technologies. 24 (e) The department shall issue photo- identification badges to all 25 staff which must be'worn at all times. 26 (2) Security systems for the secure community transition facility 27 established pursuant to section 201(1) of this act shall also include 28 a fence and provide the maximum protection appropriate in a civil 29 facility for. persons in less than total confinement. 30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 216. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 31 RCW to read as follows: 32 (1) Secure community transition facilities shall meet the following 33 minimum staffing requirements: 34 (a) At any time the census of a facility is six or fewer residents, 35 the facility shall maintain a minimum staffing ratio of one staff per 36 resident during, normal waking hours and two awake staff per. three 37 residents during normal sleeping hours. 3ESSB 6151.SL JON- 'STrXMHS.If, y.J!k� V'!.TT. ^ytr.51, 19,,, p. 16 A'k.K%GP?YL'T? 1 (b) At any time the census of a facility is six or fewer residents, 2 all staff shall be classified as residential rehabilitation counselor 3 II or have a classification that indicates a higher level of skill, 4 experience, and training. - 5 (c) Before being assigned to a facility, all staff shall have 6 training in sex offender issues, self- defense, and crisis de- escalation 7 skills in addition to departmental orientation and, as appropriate, 8 management training. All staff with resident treatment or care duties r4 9 must participate in ongoing in- service training. - 10 (d) All staff must pass a departmental background check and the cop 11 check is not subject to the limitations in chapter 9.96A RCW. A person w 12- who has' ;. eonvieter3:xof : a fe any ,,;or• any. sex offen ie,. may not be w O 13 employed at the secure community transition facility or be approved as 14 an escort for a resident of the facility. Q 15 (2) With respect to the facility established pursuant to section z 16 201(1) of this act, the department shall, no later than December 1, z 17 2001, provide a staffing plan to the appropriate committees of the z O _ 18 legislature that will cover the growth of that facility to its full ? o • 19 capacity. 0 co OH w w 20 NEW S CTION. Sec. 217. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 F-0 21 RCW to read as follows: I L L - (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the court: U 23 (a) Residents of a secure community transition facility shall wear p F' 24 electronic monitoring devices at all times. To the extent that 25 electronic monitoring devices that employ global positioning system 26 technology are available and funds for this purpose are appropriated by 27 the legislature, the department shall use these devices. 28 (b) At least one staff member, or other court - authorized and 29 department - approved person must escort each resident when the resident 30 leaves the secure community transition facility for appointments, 31 employment, or other approved activities.. Escorting persons must 32 supervise the resident closely and maintain close proximity to the 33 resident. The escort must immediately notify the department of any 34 serious violation, as defined in section 221 of this act, by the 35 resident and must immediately notify law enforcement of any violation 36 of law by the resident. 37 (2) Staff members of the special commitment center and any other 38 total confinement facility and any secure community-transition facility p. 17 h., 3ESSB 6151.SL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 corrections.- 13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 218. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 14 RCW to read as follows: 15 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 217 of this act, 16 residents of the secure community transition facility established 17 pursuant to section 201(1) of this act must be escorted at any time the 18 resident leaves the facility. 19 NEW SECTION. Sec. 219. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 20 RCW to read as follows: 21 (1) Whenever the department operates, or the secretary enters into 22 a contract to operate, a. secure community transition facility except 23 the secure community transition facility established pursuant to 24 section 201(1) of this act,.the secure. transition facility 25 may be operated only after the public notification and opportunities 26 for review and comment as required by this section. 27 (2) The secretary shall establish a process for early and 28 continuous public participation in establishing or relocating secure 29 community transition facilities. The process shall include, at a 30 minimum, public meetings in the local communities affected, as well as 31 opportunities for written and oral comments, in the following manner: 32 (a) If there are more than three sites initially selected as 33 potential locations and the selection process by the secretary or a 34 service provider reduces the number of possible sites for a secure 35 community transition facility to no fewer than three, the secretary or 36 the chief operating officer of the service provider shall notify the 37 public of the possible siting and hold at least two public hearings in 3ESSB 6151.SL must be trained in self- defense including incident de- escalation. of a facility, staff members must pattern of the offender they are e relative of the resident. (3) Any escort must carry a cellular telephone or a similar device at all times when escorting a resident of a secure community transition facility. (4) The department shall require training in offender pattern, self - defense, and incident response for all court - authorized escorts who are not employed by the department or the department of p. 18 and appropriate crisis responses Prior to escorting a person outside also have training in the offense scorting. The escort may not be a• n. �xn?.s»'N+a` Sit, uR+: a�a�' rr, +ex•r?t�,s+.;azr,.- a�- vx+,.�... :,- 7' °- +'— '" - - °" �..`..:' �' ��a.-. rs.- u+.. �•...., �, mo. .. »x- n^cwwct^.�.,y ».y- �.�x<a,n; m.�.�?cg. 1 each community where a secure community transition facility may be 2 sited. 3 (b) When the secretary or service provider has determined the 4 secure community transition facility's location, the secretary or the 5 chief operating officer of the service provider shall hold at least one 6 additional public hearing in the community where the secure community 7 transition facility will be sited. 8 (c) When the secretary has entered negotiations with a service 9 provider and only one site is under consideration, then at least two 10 public hearings shall be held. 11 (d) To provide adequate notice of, and opportunity for interested 12 persons to comment :.on; :.apropos .lopati - the secretary or the chief 13 operating officer of the service provider shall provide at least 14• fourteen days' advance, notice of the meeting to all newspapers of 15 general circulation in the community, all radio and television stations 16 generally available to•persons in the community, any school district in 17 which the secure community transition facility would be sited or whose 18 boundary is within two miles of a proposed secure community transition _ • 19 facility, any library district in which the secure community transition 20 facility would be sited, local business or fraternal organizations that 21 request notification from the secretary or agency, and any person or 22 property owner within a one -half mile radius of the proposed secure 23 community transition facility. Before initiating this process, the 24 department of social and health services shall contact local government 25 planning agencies in the communities containing the proposed secure 26 community transition facility. The department "of social and health 27 services shall coordinate with local government' agencies to ensure that 28 opportunities are provided for effective citizen input and to reduce 29 the duplication of notice and meetings. 30 (3) If local government land use regulations require that a special 31 use or conditional use permit be submitted and approved before a secure 32 community transition facility can be sited, and the process for 33 obtaining such a permit' includes public notice and hearing requirements 34 similar to those required under this section, the requirements of this 35 section shall not apply to the extent they would duplicate requirements 36 under the local land use regulations. 37 (4) This section applies only to secure community transition 38 facilities sited after the effective date of this section. p. 19 3ESSB 6151.SL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEW SECTION. Sec. 220. RCW to read as follows: (1) The secretary shall that allows each community 3ESSB 6151.SL A new section is added to chapter 71.09 develop a process with local governments in which a secure community transition facility is located to establish operational advisory boards of at least seven persons for the secure community transition facilities. The department may conduct community awareness activities to publicize this opportunity. ThE operational advisory boards developed under this section shall be implemented following the decision to locate a secure community transition facility in a particular community. (2) The operational advisory boards may review and make recommeandations :the; and operations of the secure community transition facility and conditions or modifications necessary with relation to any person who the secretary proposes to place in the secure community transition facility. (3) The facility management must consider the recommendations of the community advisory boards. Where the facility management does not implement an advisory board recommendation, the management must provide a written response to the operational advisory board stating its reasons for its decision not to implement the recommendation. (4) The operational: advisory boards, their members, and any agency represented by a member shall not be liable in any cause of action as a result of its recommendations unless the advisory board acts with gross negligence or bad faith in making a recommendation. 26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 221. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 27 RCW to read as follows: 28 (1) The secretary shall adopt a violation reporting policy for 29 persons conditionally released to less restrictive alternative 30 placements. The policy shall require written documentation by the 31 department and service providers of all violations of conditions set by 32 the department, the department of corrections, or the court and 33 establish criteria for returning a violator to the special commitment 34 center or a secure community transition facility with a higher degree 35 of security. Any conditionally released person who commits a serious 36 violation of conditions shall be returned to the special commitment 37 center, unless arrested by a law enforcement officer, and the court 38 shall be notified immediately and shall initiate proceedings under RCW p. 20 1 71.09.098 to revoke or modify the less restrictive alternative 2 placement. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the 3 department to return a person to the special commitment center based on 4 a violation that is not a serious violation as defined in this section. 5 For the purposes of this section, "serious violation" includes but is 6 not limited to: 7 (a) The commission of any criminal offense; 8 (b) Any unlawful use-or possession of a controlled substance; and 9 (c) Any violation of conditions targeted to address the person's 10 documented pattern of offense that increases the risk to public safety. 11 (2) When a person is conditionally released to a less restrictive 12 alternative'under this' chapter.' and° , r • is - under the supervision of the 13 department of corrections, notice of any violation of the person's 14 conditions of release must also be made to the department of 15 corrections. 16 (3) Whenever the secretary contracts with a service provider to 17 operate a secure community transition facility, the contract shall •, 18 include a requirement that the service provider must report to the • 19 department of social and health services any known violation of 20 conditions committed by any resident of the secure community transition 21 facility. 22 (4) The •secretary shall document in writing all .violations, 23 penalties, actions by the department of social and health services to 24 remove persons from a secure community transition facility, and 25 contract terminations. The secretary shall compile this information 26 and submit it to the appropriate committees of the legislature on an 27 annual basis. The secretary shall give great weight to a service 28 provider's record of violations, penalties, actions by the department 29 of social and health services or the department of corrections to 30 remove persons from a secure community transition facility, and 31 contract terminations in determining whether to execute, renew, or 32 renegotiate a contract with a service provider. 33 FEW SECTION. Sec. 222. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 34 RCW to read as follows: 35 Whenever the secretary contracts with a provider to operate a 36 secure community transition facility, the secretary shall include in 37 the contract provisions establishing intermediate contract enforcement 38 remedies. p. 21 3ESSB 6151.SL 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 223. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 2 RCW to read as follows: 3 A conditional release from a total confinement facility to a less 4 restrictive alternative is a release that subjects the conditionally 5 released person to the registration requirements specified in RCW 7 6 9A.44.130 and to community notification under RCW 4.24.550. 7 When a person is conditionally released to the secure community 8 transition facility established pursuant to section 201(1) of this act, 9 the sheriff must provide each household on McNeil Island with the 10' community notification information provided for under RCW 4.24.550. 11 • •t .NEW. SECTION...:... Sec;:.•r224. A••new< .is. added to chapter 71.09 12 RCW to read as follows: 13 An employer who hires a person who has been conditionally released 14 to a less restrictive alternative must notify all other employees of 15 the conditionally released person's status. Notification for 16 conditionally released persons who enroll in an institution of higher 17 education shall be made pursuant'to the provisions of RCW 9A.44.130 18 related to sex offenders enrolled in institutions of higher education 19 and RCW 4.24.550. This section applies only to conditionally released 20 persons whose court approved treatment plan includes permission or a 21 requirement for the person to obtain education or employment and to 22 employment positions or educational programs that meet the requirements 23 of the court- approved treatment plan. 24 NEW SECTION. • Sec.. 225:" (1)' " A joint" select committee on the 25 equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities is 26 established. 27 (2) The joint select committee shall consist of the following 28 persons: 29 (a) One member from each of the two largest caucuses of the senate, 30 appointed by the president of the senate, at least one member being a 31 member of the 'senate human services and corrections committee; 32 (.b) One member from each of the two largest caucuses of the house 33 of representatives, appointed by the co- speakers of the house of 34 representatives, at least one member being a member of the house 35 criminal justice and corrections committee; 36 (c) One member from the department of social and health services; 37 (d) One member from the Washington state association of counties; 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 22 ^.r 9 m -yer. ;±aver 1 (e) One member from the association of Washington cities; 2 (f) One member representing crime victims, appointed jointly by the 3 president of the senate and the co- speakers of the house of 4 representatives; 5 (g) One person selected by the governor; and 6 (h) Two persons representing local law enforcement, one z 7 representing cities and one representing counties. ? w 3 (3) The chair of the joint select committee shall be a legislative ce 9 member chosen by the joint select committee members. v O 10 (4) The joint select committee shall review and make co w 11 recommendations regarding: u) i u) LL 12 (a) Any riecessary or revi to ensure equitable w 0 13 distribution of secure community transition facilities throughout the J 14 state; c 15 (b) Any necessary revisions to the provisions related to siting and = el = 16 operating secure community transition facilities in sections 213 z �' 1-0 17 through 218 and 222 of this act; and w F- w 18 (c) Except with respect to the facility established pursuant to U o 19 section 201(1) of this act, ,a method for determining possible o 20 mitigation measures for compensating communities for any increased = w 21 risks to public safety brought about by the siting of a secure � 22 community transition facility in a community. w Z 23 (5) The joint select committee shall present a report of its v o O 24 findings and recommendations to the governor and the appropriate 25 committees of the legislature, including any proposed legislation, not 26 later than November 15, 2001. 27 (6) The joint select committee may, where feasible, consult with 28 individuals from the public and.private sector in carrying out its 29 duties under this section. 30 (7) Nonlegislative members of the joint select committee shall 31 serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for t expenses 32 as provided in RCW 43.03.050. and 43.03.060. Legislative members of the 33 joint select committee shall be reimbursed for travel expenses as 34 provided in RCW 44.04.120. 35 (8) Staff of senate committee services and the office of program 36 research of the house of representatives shall provide support to the 37 joint select committee. 38 (9) This section expires March 1, 2002. p. 23 3ESSB 6151:SL 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 226. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 2 RCW to read as follows: 3 Nothing in this act shall operate to restrict a court's authority 4 to make less restrictive alternative placements to a committed person's 5 individual residence or to a setting less restrictive than a secure 6 community transition facility. A court - ordered less restrictive 7 alternative placement to a committed person's individual residence is 8 not a less restrictive alternative placement to a secure community 9 transition facility. 10 PART III 11 . . SENTENCING. STRUCTURE ..- . 12 Sec. 301. RCW 9.94A.030 and 2001 c 287 s 4 and 2001 c 95 s 1 are 13 each reenacted and amended to read as follows: 14 Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in 15 this section apply throughout this chapter. 16 (1) "Board" }Weans the indeterminate sentence review board created 17 under chapter 9.95 RCW. 18 (2) "Collect," or any derivative thereof, "collect and remit," or 19 "collect and deliver," when used with reference to the department, 20 means that the department, either directly or through a collection 21 agreement authorized by RCW 9.94A.145, is responsible for monitoring 22 and enforcing the offender's sentence with regard to the legal 23 financial obligation, receiving payment thereof from the offender, and, 24 consistent with current law, delivering' dailythe entire payment to the 25 superior court clerk without depositing it in a departmental account. 26 . (( -(-})) 111 "Commission" means the sentencing guidelines 27 commission.. 28 ((- (-3+)) (4 "Community corrections officer" means an employee of 29 the department who is responsible for carrying out specific duties in 30 supervision of sentenced offenders and monitoring of sentence 31 conditions. 32 (( ( la "Community custody" means that portion of an offender's 33 sentence of confinement in lieu of earned release time or imposed 34 pursuant to RCW 9.94A.120(2)(b), 9.94A.650 through 9.94A.670, 35 9.94A.137, 9.94A.700 through 9.94A.715, or 9.94A.383, served in the 36 community subject to controls placed on the offender's movement and 37 activities by the department. For offenders placed on community 3ESSB 6151.SL p. 24 State of Washington 57th Legislature 2002 Regular Session By Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections (originally sponsored by Senators Carlson, Costa, Hargrove and Long; by request of Jt Select Comm on the Equitable Distrib of Secure Community Transition Facil) READ FIRST TIME 02/08/2002. ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6594 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 2002 Regular Session 1 AN ACT Relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the 2 joint select committee on the equitable distribution of secure 3 community transition facilities; amending RCW 36.70A.200, 71.09.020, 4 71.09.285, 71.09.305, 71.09.255, and 36.70A.103; adding a new section 5 to chapter 4.24 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 71.09 RCW; adding 6 a new section to chapter 34.05 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 7 43.21C RCW; adding a new section to chapter 90.58 RCW; adding a new 8 section to chapter 77.55 RCW; creating a new section; providing 9 expiration dates; and declaring an emergency. 10 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The purpose of this act is to: 12 (1) Enable the legislature to act upon the recommendations of the 13 joint select committee on the equitable distribution of secure 14 community transition facilities established in section 225, chapter 12, 15 Laws of 2001 2nd sp. sess.; and 16 (2) Harmonize the preemption provisions in RCW 71.09.250 with the 17 preemption provisions applying to future secure community transition 18 facilities to reflect the joint select committee's recommendation that p. 1 Attachment E ESSB 6594 . PL 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 the preemption granted for future secure community transition 2 facilities be the same throughout the state. 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 RCW 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 RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020. (2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall, not later than ((the —de dline spccificd in RCW 3G.70A.130)) September 1, 2002, 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 (( 2002, establish ESSB 6594.PL io a process facilities and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of such facilities requirements applicable to these facilities. (4) The office of financial management those essential state public facilities that for siting secure community transition 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 person may bring a cause of action for civil damages based on the good faith actions of any county or city to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities in accordance with this section and with the requirements of chapter 12, Laws of 2001 2nd 5p. sess. For purposes of this subsection. "person" includes. but is p. 2 September 1, consistent with statutory shall maintain a list of are required or likely to 1 not limited to, any individual, agency as defined in RCW 42.17.020, 2 corporation, partnership, associati n, �nc�1 imi _ed liability entity. 3 (7) Counties or cities sit'ng facilities pursuant to subsection (2) 4 or (3) of this section shall comply with section 7 of this act. 5 (8) The failure of a county or city to act by the deadlines 6 established in subsections (2) and (3) of this section is not 7 (a) A condition that would disqualify the county or city for 8 grants, loans, or pledges under RCW 43.155.070 or 70.146.070; 9 (b) A consideration for grants or loans provided under RCW 10 43.17.250(2); or 11 (c) A basis for any petition under RCW 36.70A.280 or for any 12 private cause of action. 13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 4.24 RCW 14 to read as follows: 15 (1) Law enforcement shall respond to a call regarding a resident of 16 a secure community transition facility as a high priority call. 17 (2) No law enforcement officer responding reasonably and in good 18 faith to a call regarding a resident of a secure community transition 19 facility shall be held liable nor shall the city or county employing 20 the officer be held liable, in any cause of action for civil damages 21 based on the acts of the resident or the actions of the officer during 22 the response. 23 Sec. 4. RCW 71.09.020 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 102 are each 24 amended to read as follows: 25 Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in 26 this section apply throughout this chapter. 27 (1) "Department" means the department of social and health 28 services. 29 (2) "Less restrictive alternative" means court - ordered treatment in 30 a setting less restrictive than total confinement which satisfies the 31 conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092. 32 (3) "Likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not 33 confined in a secure facility" means that the person more probably than 34 not will engage in such acts if released unconditionally from detention 35 on the sexually violent predator petition. Such likelihood must be 36 evidenced by a recent overt act if the person is not totally confined 37 at the time the petition is filed under RCW 71.09.030. p. 3 ESSB 6594.PL 1 (4) "Mental abnormality" means a congenital or acquired condition 2 affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the 3 person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree 4 constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others. 5 (5) "Predatory" means acts directed towards: (a) Strangers; (b) 6 individuals with whom a relationship has been established or promoted 7 for the primary purpose of victimization; or (c) persons of casual 8 acquaintance with whom no substantial personal relationship exists. 9 (6) "Recent overt act" means any act or threat that has either 10 caused harm of a sexually violent nature or creates a reasonable 11 apprehension of such harm in the mind of an objective person who knows 12 of the history and mental condition of the person engaging in the act. 13 (7) "Risk potential activity" or "risk potential facility" means an 14 activity or facility that provides a higher incidence of risk to the 15 public from persons conditionally released from the special commitment 16 center. Risk potential activities and facilities include: Public and 17 private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed 18 preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports 19 fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, 20 synagogues, temples, mosques, ((ftftd)) public libraries, and others 21 identified by the department following the hearings on a potential site 22 required in RCW 71.09.315. For purposes of this chapter, "school bus 23 stops" does not include bus stops established primarily for public 24 transit. 25 (8) "Secretary" means the secretary of social and health services 26 or the secretary's designee. 27 (9) "Secure facility" means a residential facility for persons 28 civilly confined under the provisions of this chapter that includes 29 security measures sufficient to protect the community. Such facilities 30 include total confinement facilities, secure community transition 31 facilities, and any residence used as a court - ordered placement under 32 RCW 71.09.096. 33 (10) "Secure community transition facility" means a residential 34 facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a 35 less restrictive alternative under this chapter. A secure community 36 transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides 37 or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services. Secure 38 community transition facilities include but are not limited to the 39 facilities established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250 and any ESSB 6594.PL +,!ia % p. 4 ens xt r �w wsrc'^ .- V z _ . w re O 0 u o LU J i— • L w gQ _ • a w z I F- 0 Z • ~ o U o � o w I- P u O w z • = O ~ . z I .' 1 community -based facilities established under this chapter and operated 2 by the secretary or under contract with the secretary. 3 (11) "Sexually violent offense" means an act committed on, before, 4 or after July 1, 1990, that is: (a) An act defined in Title 9A RCW as 5 rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree by forcible 6 compulsion, rape of a child in the first or second degree, statutory 7 rape in the first or second degree, indecent liberties by forcible 8 compulsion, indecent liberties against a child under age fourteen, 9 incest against a child under age fourteen, or child molestation in the 10 first or second degree; (b) a felony offense in effect at any time 11 prior to July 1, 1990, that is comparable to a sexually violent offense 12 as defined in (a) of this subsection, or any federal or out -of -state 13 conviction for a felony offense that under the laws of this state would 14 be a sexually violent offense as defined in this subsection; (c) an act 15 of murder in the first or second degree, assault in the first or second 16 degree, assault of a child in the first or second degree, kidnapping in 17 the first or second degree, burglary in the first degree, residential 18 burglary, or unlawful imprisonment, which act, either at the time of 19 sentencing for the offense or subsequently during civil commitment 20 proceedings pursuant to this chapter, has been determined beyond a 21 reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated, as that term is 22 defined in RCW 9.94A.030; or (d) an act as described in chapter 9A.28 23 RCW, that is an attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy 24 to commit one of the felonies designated in (a), (b), or (c) of this 25 subsection. 26 (12) "Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been 27 convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers 28 from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the 29 person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not 30 confined in a secure facility. 31 (13) "Total confinement facility" means a facility that provides 32 supervision and sex offender treatment services in a total confinement 33 setting. Total confinement facilities include the special commitment 34 center and any similar facility designated as a secure facility by the 35 secretary. 36 Sec. 5. RCW 71.09.285 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 213 are each 37 amended to read as follows: P. 5 ESSB 6594.PL 1 (1) Except with respect to the secure community transition facility 2 established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250, the secretary shall develop 3 policy guidelines that balance the average response time of emergency 4 services to the general area of a proposed secure community transition 5 facility against the proximity of the proposed site to risk potential 6 activities and facilities in existence at the time the site is listed 7 for consideration. 8 (2) In ( ( 9 10 11 case shall the policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent 12 to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line 13 of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the 14 time a site is listed for consideration. "Within the line of sight" 15 means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and 16 recognize individuals. 17 (3) The policy guidelines shall require that great weight be given 18 to sites that are the farthest removed from any risk potential 19 activity. 20 (4) The policy guidelines shall specify how distance from the 21 location is measured and any variations in the measurement based on the 22 size of the property within which a proposed facility is to be located. 23 (5) The policy guidelines shall establish a method to analyze and 24 compare the criteria for each site in terms of public safety and 25 security, site characteristics, and program components. In making a 26 decision regarding a site following the analysis and comparison, the 27 secretary shall give priority to public safety and security 28 considerations. The analysis and comparison of the criteria are to be 29 documented and made available at the public hearings prescribed in RCW 30 71.09.315. 31 (6) Policy guidelines adopted by the secretary under this section 32 shall be considered by counties and cities when providing for the 33 siting of secure community transition facilities as required under RCW 34 36.70A.200. IMP IMP IN IV IP o 35 Sec. 6. RCW 71.09.305 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 217 are each 36 amended to read as follows: 37 (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the court: ESSB 6594.PL p. 6 )) no 1 (a) Residents of a secure community transition facility shall wear 2 electronic monitoring devices at all times. To the extent that 3 electronic monitoring devices that employ global positioning system 4 technology are available and funds for this purpose are appropriated by 5 the legislature, the department shall use these devices. 6 (b) At least one staff member, or other court - authorized and 7 department- approved person must escort each resident when the resident 8 leaves the secure community transition facility for appointments, 9 employment, or other approved activities. Escorting persons must 10 supervise the resident closely and maintain close proximity to the 11 resident. The escort must immediately notify the department of any 12 serious violation, as defined in RCW 71.09.325, by the resident and 13 must immediately notify law enforcement of any violation of law by the 14 resident. The escort may not be a relative of the resident or a person 15 with whom the resident has, or has had, a dating relationship as 16 defined in RCW 26.50.010. 17 (2) Staff members of the special commitment center and any other 18 total confinement facility and any secure community transition facility 19 must be trained in self - defense and appropriate crisis responses 20 including incident de- escalation. Prior to escorting a person outside 21 of a facility, staff members must also have training in the offense 22 pattern of the offender they are escorting. ((The escort may not be a 23 relative of the resident.)) 24 (3) Any escort must carry a cellular telephone or a similar device 25 at all times when escorting a resident of a secure community transition 26 facility. 27 (4) The department shall require training in offender pattern, 28 self - defense, and incident response for all court - authorized escorts 29 who are not employed by the department or the department of 30 corrections. 31 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW 32 to read as follows: 33 The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340 34 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department. Nothing in 35 this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting 36 development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the 37 proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those 38 specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. Regulations p. 7 ESSB 6594.PL z _ +- z 6 0O u O Ow w LLQ 2 w z = t- H 0 Z t- W W U � O N a t- wW Li-- O ..z U =. O z 1 1 that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically 2 addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections 3 prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public 4 safety. 5 Sec. 8. RCW 71.09.255 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 204 are each 6 amended to read as follows: 7 (1) Upon receiving the notification required by RCW 71.09.250, 8 counties must promptly notify the cities within the county of the 9 maximum number of secure community transition facility beds that may be 10 required and the projected number of beds to be needed in that county. 11 (2) The incentive grants and payments provided under this section 12 are subject to the following provisions: 13 (a) Counties and the cities within the county must notify each 14 other of siting plans to promote the establishment and equitable 15 distribution of secure community transition facilities; 16 (b) Development regulations, ordinances, plans, laws, and criteria 17 established for siting must be consistent with statutory requirements 18 and rules applicable to siting and operating secure community 19 transition facilities; 20 (c) The minimum size for any facility is three beds; and 21 (d) The department must approve any sites selected. 22 (3) Any county or city that makes a commitment to initiate the 23 process to site one or more secure community transition facilities by 24 ((Fcbruary 1, 2002)) one hundred twenty days after the effective date 25 of this act, shall receive a planning grant as proposed and approved by 26 the department of community, trade, and economic development. 27 (4) Any county or city that has issued all necessary permits by May 28 1, 2003, for one or more secure community transition facilities that 29 comply with the requirements of this section shall receive an incentive 30 grant in the amount of fifty thousand dollars for each bed sited. 31 (5) To encourage the rapid permitting of sites, any county or city 32 that has issued all necessary permits by January 1, 2003, for one or 33 more secure community transition facilities that comply with the 34 requirements of this section shall receive a bonus in the amount of 35 twenty percent of the amount provided under subsection (4) of this 36 section. 37 (6) Any county or city that establishes secure community transition 38 facility beds in excess of the maximum number that could be required to ..,,, a ,r ry; : ` i;<�'�' • 'i n+'.�rriu 3� • � ':,- a� +-r`w 't�jL ESSB 6594.PL p. 8 1 be sited in that county shall receive a bonus payment of one hundred 2 thousand dollars for each bed established in excess of the maximum 3 requirement. 4 (7) No payment shall be made under subsection (4), (5), or (6) of 5 this section until all necessary permits have been issued. 6 (8) The funds available to counties and cities under this section 7 -r- o • -nt ••n funds being appropriated by the legislature 8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW 9 to read as follows: 10 (1) After October 1, 2002, notwithstanding RCW 36.70A.103 or any 11 other law, this section preempts and supersedes local plans, 12 development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection 13 requirements, and all other laws as necessary to enable the department 14 to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate secure community 15 transition facilities within the borders of the following: 16 (a) Any county that had five or more persons civilly committed from 17 that county, or detained at the special commitment center under a 18 pending civil commitment petition from that county where a finding of 19 probable cause has been made, on April 1, 2001, if the department 20 determines that the county has not met the requirements of RCW 21 36.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities. 22 This subsection does not apply to the county in which the secure 23 community transition facility authorized under RCW 71.09.250(1) is 24 located; and 25 (b) Any city located within a county listed in (a) of this 26 subsection that the department determines has not met the requirements 27 of RCW 36.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition 28 facilities. 29 (2) The department's determination under subsection (1)(a) or (b) 30 of this section is final and is not subject to appeal under chapter 31 34.05 or 36.70A RCW. 32 (3) When siting a facility in a county or city that has been 33 preempted under this section, the department shall consider the policy 34 guidelines established under RCW 71.09.275 and 71.09.290 and shall hold 35 the hearings required in RCW 71.09.315. 36 (4) Nothing in this section prohibits the department from: 37 (a) Siting a secure community transition facility in a city or 38 county that has complied with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 with p. 9 ESSB 6594.PL 1 respect to secure community transition facilities, including a city 2 that is located within a county that has been preempted. If the 3 department sites a secure community transition facility in such a city 4 or county, the department shall use the process established by the city 5 or county for siting such facilities; or 6 (b) Consulting with a city or county that has been preempted under 7 this section regarding the siting of a secure community transition 8 facility. 9 (5)(a) A preempted city or county may propose public safety 10 measures specific to any finalist site to the department. The measures 11 must be consistent with the location of the facility at that finalist 12 site. The proposal must be made in writing by the date of: 13 (i) The second hearing under RCW 71.09.315(2)(a) when there are 14 three finalist sites; or 15 (ii) The first hearing under RCW 71.09.315(2) (b) when there is only 16 one site under consideration. 17 (b) The department shall respond to the city or county in writing 18 within fifteen business days of receiving the proposed measures. The 19 response shall address all proposed measures. 20 (c) If the city or county finds that the department's response is 21 inadequate, the city or county may notify the department in writing 22 within fifteen business days of the specific items which it finds 23 inadequate. If the city or county does not notify the department of a 24 finding that the response is inadequate within fifteen business days, 25 the department's response shall be final. 26 (d) If the city or county notifies the department that it finds the 27 response inadequate and the department does not revise its response to 28 the satisfaction of the city or county within seven business days, the 29 city or county may petition the governor to designate a person with law 30 enforcement expertise to review the response under RCW 34.05.479. 31 (e) The governor's designee shall hear a petition filed under this 32 subsection and shall make a determination within thirty days of hearing 33 the petition. The governor's designee shall consider the department's 34 response, and the effectiveness and cost of the proposed measures, in 35 relation to the purposes of this chapter. The determination by the 36 governor's designee shall be final and may not be the basis for any 37 cause of action in civil court. 38 (f) The city or county shall bear the cost of the petition to the 39 governor's designee. If the city or county prevails on all issues, the ESSB 6594.PL p. 10 z z W UO 0 U) w J H cn u. W O . g a I W z = F-- I- O z I- LL! Lu 00 N; 0H WW LL- O .. W U = 0 . z 1 department shall reimburse the city or county costs incurred, as 2 provided under chapter 34.05 RCW. 3 (g) Neither the department's consideration and response to public 4 safety conditions proposed by a city or county nor the decision of the 5 governor's designee shall affect the preemption under this section or 6 the department's authority to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and 7 operate the secure community transition facility at that finalist site 8 or at any finalist site. 9 (6) Until June 30, 2009, the secretary shall site, construct, 10 occupy, and operate a secure community transition facility sited under 11 this section in an environmentally responsible manner that is 12 consistent with the substantive objectives of chapter 43.21C RCW, and 13 shall consult with the department of ecology as appropriate in carrying 14 out the planning, construction, and operations of the facility. The 15 secretary shall make a threshold determination of whether a secure 16 community transition facility sited under this section would have a 17 probable significant, adverse environmental impact. If the secretary 18 determines that the secure community transition facility has such an 19 impact, the secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement 20 that meets the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030 and 43.21C.031 and the 21 rules promulgated by the department of ecology relating to such 22 statements. Nothing in this subsection shall be the basis for any 23 civil cause of action or administrative appeal. 24 (7) This section does not apply to the secure community transition 25 facility established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(1). 26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 34.05 RCW 27 to read as follows: 28 A petition brought pursuant to section 9(5) of this act shall be 29 heard under the provisions of RCW 34.05.479 except that the decision of 30 the governor's designee shall be final and is not subject to judicial 31 review. 32 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW 33 to read as follows: 34 An emergency has been caused by the need to expeditiously site 35 facilities to house sexually violent predators who have been committed 36 under this chapter. To meet this emergency, for purposes of RCW 37 71.09.250 and section 9 of this act, "all other laws" means the state p. 11 ESSB 6594.PL �.. 1 environmental policy act, the shoreline management act, the hydraulics 2 code, and all other state laws regulating the protection and use of the 3 water, land, and air. 4 This section expires June 30, 2009. 5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. A new section is added to chapter 43.21C 6 RCW to read as follows: 7 An emergency has been caused by the need to expeditiously site 8 facilities to house sexually violent predators who have been committed 9 under chapter 71.09 RCW. To meet this emergency, secure community 10 transition facilities sited pursuant to the preemption provisions of 11 section 9 of this act and secure facilities sited pursuant to the 12 preemption provisions of RCW 71.09.250 are not subject to the 13 provisions of this chapter. 14 This section expires June 30, 2009. 15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW 16 to read as follows: 17 An emergency has been caused by the need to expeditiously site 18 facilities to house sexually violent predators who have been committed 19 under chapter 71.09 RCW. To meet this emergency, secure community 20 transition facilities sited pursuant to the preemption provisions of 21 section 9 of this act and secure facilities sited pursuant to the 22 preemption provisions of RCW 71.09.250 are not subject to the 23 provisions of this chapter. 24 This section expires June 30, 2009. 25 NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. A new section is added to chapter 77.55 RCW 26 to read as follows: 27 An emergency has been caused by the need to expeditiously site 28 facilities to house sexually violent predators who have been committed 29 under chapter 71.09 RCW. To meet this emergency, secure community 30 transition facilities sited pursuant to the preemption provisions of 31 section 9 of this act and secure facilities sited pursuant to the 32 preemption provisions of RCW 71.09.250 are not subject to the 33 provisions of this chapter. 34 This section expires June 30, 2009. ESSB 6594.PL p. 12 ` '"'.. '".' .4 1 Sec. 15. RCW 36.70A.103 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 203 are each 2 amended to read as follows: 3 State agencies shall comply with the local comprehensive plans and 4 development regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this 5 chapter except as otherwise provided in RCW 71.09.250 (1) through (3) 6 section 9 of this act. and 72.09.333. 7 The provisions of chapter 12, Laws of 2001 2nd sp. sess. do not 8 affect the state's authority to site any other essential public 9 facility under RCW 36.70A.200 in conformance with local comprehensive 10 plans and development regulations adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A 11 RCW. 12 NEW SECTION. Sec. 16. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW 13 to read as follows: 14 (1) At the request of the local government of the city or county in 15 which a secure community transition facility is initially sited after 16 January 1, 2002, the department shall enter into a long -term contract 17 memorializing the agreements between the state and the city or county 18 for the operation of the facility. This contract shall be separate 19 from any contract regarding mitigation due to the facility. The 20 contract shall include a clause that states: 21 (a) The contract does not obligate the state to continue operating 22 any aspect of the civil commitment program under this chapter; 23 (b) The operation of any secure community transition facility is 24 contingent upon sufficient appropriation by the legislature. If 25 sufficient funds are not appropriated, the department is not obligated 26 to operate the secure community transition facility and may close it; 27 and 28 (c) This contract does not obligate the city or county to operate 29 a secure community transition facility. 30 (2) Any city or county may, at their option, contract with the 31 department to operate a secure community transition facility. 32 NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW 33 to read as follows: 34 (1) Subject to funds appropriated by the legislature, the 35 department may enter into negotiation for a mitigation agreement with: 36 (a) The county and /or city in which a secure community transition 37 facility sited after January 1, 2002, is located; p. 13 ESSB 6594.PL 1 (b) Each community in which the persons from those facilities will 2 reside or regularly spend time, pursuant to court orders, for regular 3 work or education, or to receive social services, or through which the 4 person or persons will regularly be transported to reach other 5 communities; and 6 (c) Educational institutions in the communities identified in (a) 7 and (b) of this subsection. 8 (2) Mitigation agreements are limited to the following: 9 (a) One -time training for local law enforcement and administrative 10 staff, upon the establishment of a secure community transition 11 facility. 12 (i) Training between local government staff and the department 13 includes training in coordination, emergency procedures, program and 14 facility information, legal requirements, and resident profiles. 15 (ii) Reimbursement for training under this subsection is limited 16 to: 17 (A) The salaries or hourly wages and benefits of those persons who 18 receive training directly from the department; and 19 (B) Costs associated with preparation for, and delivery of, 20 training to the department or its contracted staff by local government 21 staff or contractors; 22 (b) Information coordination: 23 (i) Information coordination includes data base infrastructure 24 establishment and programming for the dissemination of information 25 among law enforcement and the department related to facility residents. 26 (ii) Reimbursement for information coordination is limited to 27 start -up costs; 28 (c) One -time capital costs: 29 (i) One -time capital costs are off -site costs associated with the 30 need for increased security in specific locations. 31 (ii) Reimbursement for one -time capital costs is limited to actual 32 costs; and 33 (d) Incident response: 34 (i) Incident response costs are law enforcement and criminal 35 justice costs associated with violations of conditions of release or 36 crimes by residents of the secure community transition facility. 37 (ii) Reimbursement for incident response does not include private 38 causes of action. ESSB 6594.PL p. 14 z a } w 6 ,J UO J = H U u- W uQ 2 O W z � 1- 0 z I- W U • � O P O H w w . H � u' O w Z U = , O ~ z 1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW 2 to read as follows: 3 (1) To encourage economies of scale in the siting and operation of 4 secure community transition facilities, the department may enter into 5 an agreement with two or more counties to create a regional secure 6 community transition facility. The agreement must clearly identify the 7 number of beds from each county that will be contained in the regional 8 secure community transition facility. The agreement must specify which 9 county must contain the regional secure community transition facility 10 and the facility must be sited accordingly. No county may withdraw 11 from an agreement under this section unless it has provided an 12 alternative acceptable secure community transition facility to house 13 any displaced residents that meets the criteria established for such 14 facilities in this chapter and the guidelines established by the 15 department. 16 (2) A regional secure community transition facility must meet the 17 criteria established for secure community transition facilities in this 18 chapter and the guidelines established by the department. 19 (3) The department shall count the beds identified for each 20 participating county in a regional secure community transition facility 21 against the maximum number of beds that could be required for each 22 county under RCW 71.09.250(7)(a). 23 (4) An agreement for a regional secure community transition 24 facility does not alter the maximum number of beds for purposes of the 25 incentive grants under RCW 71.09.255 for the county containing the 26 regional facility. 27 NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. If any provision of this act or its 28 application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 29 remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other 30 persons or circumstances is not affected. 31 NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. This act is necessary for the immediate 32 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the 33 state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect 34 immediately. - -- END -- p. 15 ESSB 6594.PL .w'.i�tic4v {'•::'= i3;t��v'T;:i �r', Yii�tr, Cis.4r.:'�:i1iJ:t:.. `a�:.l.rric�:ldr *∎∎f' rt p:.0 v; IV!i riie Dhaliwal -Your ideas requested Incentives for siting of sex predator housing From: "Dave Catterson" <davec @awcnet.org> To: < planner @city -of- airway- heights.org >, <ian @cityofanacortes.org >, <cstrong @ci.arlington.wa.us >, <pkrauss @ci.auburn.wa.us >, < eric. holmes @ci.battle- ground.wa.us >, <mterry@ci.beilevue.wa.us >, <pdecker @cob.org >, <pberry @ci.bremerton.wa.us >, <robo @ci.burien.wa.us >, <burlplan @nwlink.com >, <msnell @ci.camas.wa.us >, <planning @ci.carnation.wa.us >, <jshugger @cen.quik.com >, <dosborn @nwi.net >, < kbowman @ci.college- place.wa.us >, <plandir @colville.wa.us >, <cosibldg @olynet.com >, <adempsey @ci.covington.wa.us >, <jkilgore @cityofdesmoines.com >, <Ibarnett @east- wenatchee.com >, <clifton @ci.edmonds.wa.us >, <barkley @ci.ellensburg.wa.us >, <elma @centurytel.net >, <vpeters @gcpud.net >, <proberts @ci.everett.wa.us >, < kathy .mcclung @ci.federal- way.wa.us >, <planning @ci.ferndale.wa.us >, <forksedc @olypen.com >, <vodopichj @lesa.net >, <anitap @grandview.wa.us >, <bsokol @ci.kenmore.wa.us >, < rick - white @ci.kennewick.wa.us >, <eshields @ci.kirkland.wa.us >, <jlitt @ci.lacey.wa.us >, <tpeterson @ci.lake- forest- park.wa.us >, <Isplanning @kendra.com >, <dbugher @ci.lakewood.wa.us >, <jsayce @willapabay.org >, <don.cardon @ci.longview.wa.us >, <jcutts @ci.lnnwood.wa.us >, <kevin. mcdonald @ci.maple- valley.wa.us >, < ghirashima @ci.marysville.wa.us >, <mccleary@techline.com >, <richard .hart @ci.mercer- island.wa.us >, <bill @cityofmillcreek.com >, <millwoodwa @aol.com >, <jadamson @cityofmilton.net >, <hwest @cityhall.monroe.net >, <wincewicz @yahoo.com >, <rickc @ci.mount- vernon.wa.us >, <csmith @ci.mountlake- terrace.wa.us >, <hmccartney @ci.mukilteo.wa.us >, <miken @ci.newcastle.wa.us >, <terryg @sehome.com >, <bennsr @yahoo.com >, < Istockton @ci.north- bend.wa.us >, <psmith @osgov.com >, <smukerje @ci.olympia.wa.us >, <edavis @ci.pacific.wa.us >, <smithr @ci.pasco.wa.us >, < rwenman @ci.port- orchard.wa.us >, <ggross @cityofpoulsbo.com >, < pete .dickinson @ci.pullman.wa.us >, <tomu @ci.puyallup.wa.us >, < rlewandowski @ci.redmond.wa.us >, <nwatts @ci.renton.wa.us >, <billk @ci.richland.wa.us >, <ricks @ci.richland.wa.us >, <cityofridgefield @uswest.net >, <stephen @seatac.wa.gov >, <rick.krochalis @ci.seattle.wa.us >, <tstewart @ci.shoreline.wa.us >, <beardslee @ci.snohomish.wa.us >, <madolfae @spokanecity.org >, <jmercer @spokanecity.org >, <stephanie @ci.stanwood.wa.us >, <sumas @gte.net >, <leonardb @ci.sumner.wa.us >, <jwilkers @ci.tacoma.wa.us >, <slancaster @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <rogerg @olywa.net >, <mmatlock @olywa.net >, < dswindale @ci.university- place.wa.us >, <david.scott @ci.vancouver.wa.us >, <rmartin @ci.walla- walla.wa.us >, <andersom @teleport.com >, <dstalheim @cityofwenatchee.com >, <drhodes @westrichland.org >, <rays @ci.woodinville.wa.us >, <bcook @ci.yakima.wa.us> Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2001 11:05 AM Subject: Your ideas requested - Incentives for siting of sex predator housing Hello Planning Directors: Your ideas requested by Thursday June 14 Background: As you know, the legislature has been wrestling with the issue of siting Less Restrictive Alternative (LRA) housing for sexual predators that have served their jail sentence but are a high risk to re- offend. The state is under pressure to comply with a court order. They are considering legislation that would place a 15 bed LRA facility on McNeil Island in Pierce County. But this would not solve the whole problem. More LRA facilities will be needed. Even if the McNeil Island facility is built, additional facilities will be needed by the end of 2003. The legislature is struggling to find a way to distribute the burden of siting these facilities around the state. The latest "fair share" idea is to require counties to accommodate the number of sex predators that came from that county. Example: Seven sex predators that are currently being held at the state's sex predator commitment center came from Page 1 z 4-z � w JU O 0 c w J H � w w II O - O 1- W W 0 u. O ..z O z 'ii eas requested - Incentives for siting of Sex housing Thurston County. Thurston County would be required to site a 7 bed LRA facility. (See list below for the fair share distribution broken out by county). We anticipate that each county would work with their cities and use their Essential Public Facilities siting process to site the LRA. (We recognize that some counties that do not plan under GMA may not have an official siting process.) Your ideas requested: Recognizing that LRAs are undesirable in any community, and are therefore very difficult to site, the legislature is trying to come up with some incentives that would lead counties and their cities to site an LRA facility (or facilities) sooner rather than later. In other words, counties that complete the siting process by a certain date would be eligible to receive the incentive. Others that wait, would still be required to site a facility at some point but would not be eligible for the incentive. Please share with us your ideas on what an effective incentive might be. The incentives could be financial, regulatory relief, etc. All ideas are welcome at this point. We have been asked to provide our ideas by Thursday morning (June 14), so we would need to hear from you by then. Thanks in advance for your ideas. We'll keep you posted. Please respond directly to me and not to the whole list. Thanks. Dave Catterson Municipal Government Analyst Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin St SE Olympia WA 98501 davec @awcnet.org (360)753 -4137 http: / /www.awcnet.org Proposed LRA siting obligation by county (# of sex predators to be housed in LRA) King 39 Snohomish 20 Pierce 21 Thurston 7 Kitsap 6 Clark 6 Grays Harbor 4 Whatcom 4 Yakima 4 Chelan 3 Cowlitz Franklin Mason Walla Walla Asotin Benton 3 3 2 2 1 1 Page 2 i .: WL"33i,d!3b'a tiS"myk:L•'l.:ti N 5° ;NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. i iiliii.i..I.iII n iinlili nil (a it ulli i 0 0,011 L__,. = 1" • --; — — ; = • '1 • • — I=LI .kr= 1:1 :. "11111r ••••11:: ■•• Mi . • , • 59 .1•1111• lett 0/011: •.. EDI% ilnl=tt1 111 was ra =11 41ilifilit'11111111111111.111P:11=1111:11 minim gimiuma-.7 EVA lIttI 12 'wg 4 a"-^- 11122 lIg11111Ealik 7 Ant :HE'.71■117i1111111111I1111,! I:: II! i;;;111fi - ;114:1 . 1111111% - 1-21::1:111111111211: !miner :111115 ;11111111!■411=4111111111111111111n 'WO m „, r 4;41111,_. 2 1,-";;;LI 117 „ „„„ 1111ii11111; .• ;• ..... w11111111, 1111 E .'"•••• 1111 Iii ;I111! IIIIiji 5141. :11qt..111 07H 11A 1 I 1 • GIS I 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Eligible Parcels for Location of Secure Community Transition Facility Figure 18-11 NORTH Scale: 1 1"=.5 mile