Skip to main content
Loading…

SECTION I County Operated Capital Facilities Necessary to Support Development

This section is included in your selections.
This section is included in your selections.

The GMA requires local governments to achieve several specific goals in their comprehensive plans. Goal 12, which is particularly relevant to capital facility planning, states:

“(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards” (RCW 36.70A.020(12)).

Goal 12 can be achieved either through regulation that prohibits or restricts new development until, and unless, the level-of-service is provided, or by planning for new facilities to serve the new development. This comprehensive plan is a basis for facilitating both methods.

An important distinction should be made between urban and rural development in the GMA context. Each capital facility may require different levels of service for different types (urban or rural) of facilities. Transportation facilities (roads) are an example; levels of service for urban roads are different than levels of service for rural roads.

“Development” is an important term that should be clearly defined in order to understand how to accomplish Goal 12. “Development” in the context of this CFP is intended to mean an intensification of land-use, based on definitions in Snohomish County Code (SCC) 30.91D.200 through SCC 30.91D 260. The county’s authority and responsibility for development approval is limited to the unincorporated areas of the county. This definition is consistent with the intent of Goal 12 and should be distinguished from the more general concept of “growth,” which is used herein to mean an increase in demand or need for capital facilities. Growth (in this context) may result from a number of possible causes, including but not limited to population increases, demographic changes, or changes in people’s behavior patterns, as well as from additional development. An example of this is the increase in demand for road capacity in a community. It could increase because of changes in demographics, income and travel behavior, even with little or no new development occurring. Furthermore, in the context of Goal 12, development takes place at a localized, parcel level of geographical detail, whereas growth occurs at a larger scale, such as that of the city, the UGA, or the county as a whole. The concept of growth (in the context of county services) also includes responding to demand from both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county.

If a certain capital facility has been determined to be “necessary to support development,” that means that the capital facility must be built or expanded (as necessary) to support an intensification of land use at the parcel or tract level. Separate determinations must be made for development within and outside of UGAs because of the differences in density and economically viable service levels that can be achieved in urban and rural areas.

The term “necessary” is also important to a clear understanding of Goal 12. The GMA does not directly or indirectly define which capital facilities are “necessary to support development” except for transportation facilities. Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) decisions have applied the Act’s definition for “public facilities” in the context of describing public facilities that need to be addressed in a capital facility plan. The Act’s definitions of “public facilities” and “public services” contain the following: “…streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.” This provides the starting point to determine what facilities are necessary for development. However, local discretion is widely acknowledged in GMHB decisions in making the final determination of what is or is not necessary for development for a particular area. Decisions about which capital facilities are necessary or not necessary for urban and/or rural development are subjective and dynamic, but the GMA definitions are helpful in providing the initial guidance. Ultimately, the elected officials of a community will make these decisions, although local practices, citizen preferences, and the community’s willingness to pay for capital facilities and public services will influence the decisions.

The first six items in the GMA definition cited above (streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals) are transportation facilities and are discussed and analyzed in the county’s Transportation Element1. Snohomish County does not directly provide three of the remaining six items (domestic water systems, sanitary sewers, and schools) however, these types of facilities, the capital facilities (or utilities) element must contain an inventory and a forecast of future needs. However, the other GMA-required CFP components are not required if the GMA planning jurisdiction does not actually control the financial planning authority for those facilities. Similarly, in the list of services, only law enforcement, parks/recreation, and environmental protection are provided directly by Snohomish County.

The table on the following page identifies capital facilities and public services that Snohomish County has determined to be necessary to support new urban and/or rural development. These are taken (either directly or indirectly) from the county’s comprehensive plan (GPP) or current development regulations.

PUBLIC FACILITIES NECESSARY TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT

U Necessary For Urban Development

R Necessary for Rural Development

GPP/Code Citation and Authority

Minimum Level of Service (LOS)

Implementation/ Enforcement1

Public Streets and Transit Routes

Public Roads

Goal TR 2
Obj. TR 1.C, Obj. TR 4.A, Obj. TR 4.E
Obj. TR 5.A
Ch 30.24 SCC
Ch 30.66B SCC
Ch 13.05 SCC

Arterial LOS and Transit Route standards in the Transportation Element. Compliance with Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS) for new facilities and improvements.

Transportation Needs Report (TNR)/ Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/Chapter 30.24 SCC road standards/Chapter 30.66B SCC Concurrency Management Chapter 13.05 SCC and Engineering Design and Development Standards.

Public Water Supply System

pp. UT-3-4 narrative; Obj. UT-2.A

Performance standards in providers’ system plans.

County approval of district plans Chapter 30.53A SCC.

Public Wastewater System

pp. UT-4-5 narrative; Obj. UT 3.A

Performance standards in providers’ system plans.

County approval of district plans WAC 246-272-01001, RCW 57.16.010, General requirements - Chapter30.29 SCC.

Community Park Land and Recreation Facilities

Community Park Land and Recreation Facilities

Goal PR 3
30.66A SCC

Capacity based LOS in the Park and Recreation Element.

Park Minimum LOS is actually measured on the LOS for key recreational park components that may comprise all four park types, rather than numbers or acreage.

Chapter 30.66A SCC,
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Parks and Recreation Element (PRE), Parks Improvement Plan (PIP).

Neighborhood Parks

Trails

Trails

Regional Parks

Regional Parks

Surface Water Management System (Urban)

Surface Water Management System (Rural)

pp CF-7-8 narrative; Chapter 30.63A SCC

(1)Compliance with Chapter 30.63A SCC standards

(2) Minimum level of investment in surface water capital facilities was set at $8.35 M investment in surface water capital facilities over a six-year period

CIP/Chapter 30.63A SCC standards and requirements.

Fire Service

Policy CF 11.A.2

Sufficient fire flow to provide protection for planned intensities of future development adopted in the comprehensive plan.

CIP and Snohomish County development regulations.

Electric Power

Electric Power

p. UT-6 narrative;

Minimum level of investment in electric power capital facilities is annually evaluated and set by PUD investment for electric power capital facilities over a seven-year period.

Utility Element/ Goal UT4, Obj UT-4.A, Policy UT 4.A.1, UT 4.B.2.

Public Schools

Public Schools

Obj. CF-10A
Chapter 30.66C SCC

Educational and facility standards in district’s CFP

Adoption of district CFPs/ Chapter 30.66 C SCC requirements

Transportation facilities and the remaining three facility types – parks, recreational facilities, and surface water management – are facilities and services that Snohomish County directly provides. The county retains considerable latitude to determine what specific capital facility components are necessary to support urban or rural development, and how to best provide those necessary facilities.

A minimum level-of-service must be established for all facilities or services on this list, especially where Snohomish County is the direct provider. All provider agencies generally include various performance standards for major components of their systems within their plans. These become the LOS standards for those plans. These standards can be met either through development regulations requiring the specified performance standard be met for development approval, or through construction of the appropriate facilities by the county or other public provider agency. A process for more direct and explicit monitoring of facility level-of-service is provided through the annual statement of assessment within the 6-year CIP. This helps ensure that any future funding shortfall resulting in a drop of service level below that minimum standard would be detected, and the appropriate comprehensive plan re-assessment undertaken.

This section is included in your selections.

There are three major categories of public facilities addressed in this section of the CFP: those necessary to support urban development, those necessary to support rural development, and those necessary to support both urban and rural development. Each is depicted by the following icons: urban ( U), rural ( R), urban and rural ( UR).

The discussion of each type of capital facility contains: a summary of the minimum level of service, a summary of the existing inventory, and a forecast of future needs.

Section 1.3 - Park Land and Recreational Facilities ( UR)
This section is included in your selections.
This subsection is included in your selections.

The Park and Recreation Element (PRE) of the Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan identifies existing inventory information for Parks facilities, levels-of-service standards, demand and need analysis, implementation measures, long-range project descriptions, and specific strategies for intergovernmental coordination, as it relates to provision of park and recreation facilities through the year 2035. The Snohomish County Park Improvement Plan (PIP) is a component of the annual CIP and contains an overall financial strategy for Parks capital facilities, including land acquisition. The General Policy Plan (GPP) should be relied on for details of Parks goals, objectives, and policies.

This subsection is included in your selections.

The Snohomish County Parks Department previously operated under a level-of-service methodology that provided standards for acquisition and development of parks classified as community parks only. The 2015 PRE provides a level-of-service methodology that is based upon providing minimum levels of service of critical components that may be located in neighborhood parks, community parks and regional parks. Regional trails are independent park entities and are assigned a separate minimum level of service.

The following table summarizes minimum levels of service for these components detailed in the PRE:

Parks Minimum Level of Service (LOS) Summary

Summary Capacity Measures

Unit Measure

Minimum LOS Standard

Active Recreation Facilities

1

3,250

Passive Recreation Facilities

1

3,650

Waterfront

1 Mile

11,500

Campsites

1

1,050

Parking Spaces

1

120

Regional Trails

1 Open Mile*

8,750

*An open mile is completely developed and ready for public use.

The county collects and imposes impact fees for parks under the authority provided by RCW 82.02, the provisions of state law which govern GMA-based impact fees, and SCC 30.66A. Those provisions allow impact fees to be imposed on new development and used to provide park improvements that are reasonably necessary as a result of new development and that will provide benefits to new development. Impact fees would be applied to items on the Parks Minimum Level of Service Summary (above). Impact fees cannot generally be used to address existing deficiencies. Existing deficiencies, if any, are addressed in the annual Statement of Assessment in the CIP.

This subsection is included in your selections.

The PRE of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan considers recreational demands based on population projections (number, demographics, and other trends), level-of-service standards, interests expressed by stakeholders/public, policy identified priorities and priorities identified by staff. These identified demands are then evaluated to determine specific recreational needs and projects that will meet those needs. Projects which are required to meet level-of-service standards are evaluated annually through a Statement of Assessment, which is included in the CIP and helps monitor progress in meeting standards for parks which have been identified as “necessary to support development.” Projects which are not required to meet level-of-service standards are completed as funding is available and it is appropriate to pursue and complete the project.

Section 1.4 - Surface Water Management UR
This section is included in your selections.

Managing stormwater run-off is an important public function that becomes progressively more important if an area transforms from rural to suburban to urban. The drainage network in Snohomish County historically consisted of creeks and wetlands. Most of the rain was captured by vegetation or infiltrated into the ground when a storm occurred. The natural drainage systems were able to handle the stormwater runoff and overflowed only during periods of heavy rain. The constructed components of the drainage system have become more widespread and important as development has occurred.

Discharge of the county’s drainage systems to the natural surface water systems results in the county being subject to the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The county has been required to upgrade regulations, inspect and maintain stormwater facilities, provide capital improvements, and implement other programs to improve and protect water quality, in order to comply with the NPDES permits.

This subsection is included in your selections.

1.4.A.1  The Drainage Network

The drainage network in the county consists of a variety of drainage system types, purposes, construction standards, and ownerships/responsibilities. The total drainage network consists of constructed and “natural” drainage systems, although only the constructed portion of the network is regulated by the county’s NPDES permit. “Natural” systems include creeks, wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Constructed drainage components include underground systems such as pipes, vaults, driveway or cross culverts, and catch basins. Above ground components include ditches, biofiltration swales, above-ground pipe systems, and stormwater detention ponds. Any of these drainage components can be either public or private. The drainage network also flows back and forth between public and private systems, adding a layer of complexity to the management of the drainage network.

Drainage System Components and their PurposesDrainage systems convey, detain, infiltrate and/or treat stormwater. Conveyance systems, such as ditches, driveway culverts, or underground piped systems, carry stormwater downstream from one place to another. Stormwater detention systems, such as detention ponds or underground vaults, reduce the impact of the increased stormwater runoff that results from increased impervious surfaces from development activity. These systems temporarily store water from upstream development, releasing it slowly downstream, to reduce the potential for downstream flooding or erosion. Stormwater treatment systems, such as biofiltration swales or “wet ponds”, treat stormwater from upstream developments, reducing or removing pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and nutrients.

InventoryThe county maintains inventory information on nearly 750 miles of enclosed pipe systems; nearly 42,000 catch basins; 55,000 drain points; 18,000 culverts; and almost 41,000 enclosed pipes, as of March 2013. The county also maintains a drainage inventory of the over 600 county-owned or -operated stormwater facilities, as well as over 1400 privately-owned residential or commercial stormwater facilities. These 2000 facilities include stormwater detention, retention, and treatment facilities. The extensive amount of drainage inventory data makes traditional tabular or mapped presentation of the drainage features and feature attributes in a report such as this impractical. The Surface Water Management Division (SWM) has produced a web-based search tool, available on the county’s website that produces the drainage inventory for any specific area, as well as providing the additional drainage inventory information, such as pipe sizes and catch basin types.

The following exhibits depict the county’s existing drainage inventory:

Exhibit SWM-1 depicts a snapshot of typical inventory data that is available on the SWM portion of the county’s website.

Exhibit SWM-2 depicts the locations of county-owned or operated stormwater facilities, including detention ponds, pipes or vaults, as well as water quality treatment facilities.

Exhibit SWM-3 through SWM-6 depict constructed infrastructure density per 1/16 section. The maps were created by overlaying the constructed drainage network with a 1/16 section grid and assigning a density of miles of constructed drainage network per 1/16 section. Map SWM-3 shows the constructed drainage infrastructure density for the South County; Map SWM-4 is for the Southeast portion of the county; Map SWM-5 is for the East County; and Map SWM-6 is for the northern portion of the county.

This subsection is included in your selections.

The county defined the minimum level-of-service (LOS) for surface water systems based on two standards in the original adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The adopted minimum LOS standard has not changed since 1995, except, in 2005, a “target LOS” was added to reflect an emphasis on resolving frequent flooding problems. SWM is re-evaluating the services provided to rate payers and evaluating the geographic extent of the SWM revenue districts in 2013-2014, as part of SWM’s Service District Reassessment Study (SDRS).

The existing LOS consists of two standards:

1)The county’s stormwater regulations for new development; and

2)A minimum level of investment over six years in surface water capital facilities - $8.35 million.

The first of these two standards, the county’s stormwater regulations for new development, is defined in Snohomish County Code 30.63A, as well as the county’s Drainage Manual and the relevant sections of the county’s Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS). The regulations and standards define how new development mitigates for many of its impacts. The regulations and standards include requirements for sizing stormwater detention, treatment, and conveyance facilities, as well as requirements for construction materials and construction techniques.

The other standard that defines the county’s minimum LOS for surface water is a minimum public (county) investment in surface water capital facilities. A minimum level of investment in surface water capital facilities was set at $8.35 million over a six-year period in the adopted 2005 Capital Facilities Plan, and has remained at the same level. This investment in capital facilities addresses a variety of surface water needs and typically includes improvements to drainage or water quality infrastructure, flood control facilities, and aquatic habitat. The county has maintained or exceeded this level of investment in surface water capital facilities since the adoption of the 2005 Capital Facilities Plan. The recommended SWM level of investment in the 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2015-2020 totals $106.7M, well above the $8.35M needed to meet the adopted LOS. The minimum level of investment (service) standard will be evaluated and may be changed as part of SWM’s SDRS, given the disparity between the minimum level of service and the CIP totals.

There is also a target LOS, reflected in the General Policy Plan, that, by 2025, the most frequent urban flooding problems known to occur within county right-of-way or that are associated with drainage systems maintained by the county would be resolved. Specifically, the most frequent flooding problems would be defined as those that occur at least an average of once every two years. Revenue sources currently used by the county for surface water capital improvements include base SWM service charges (limited to SWM revenue district boundaries), SWM Urban Growth Area (UGA) service charges (additional SWM service charges to be used for projects within unincorporated UGAs), real estate excise taxes (REET2, usable throughout the county), county Road funds (limited to right-of-way use), and grants.

This subsection is included in your selections.

1.4.C.1  Impacts of Future Growth-General Impacts

Development changes the landscape and results in surface water impacts to the county’s natural and constructed drainage systems. Development, without mitigation, generally results in increased stormwater and higher peak flows. This likely would cause downstream road and property flooding, creek erosion, and a loss of aquatic habitat. Development, without mitigation, also results in increased water pollution. Construction of roofs, driveways, and roads results in heavy metals entering drainage systems. Inadequate construction controls result in sediment being carried into streams. Actions of residents and property owners, such as fertilizing lawns and inadequate pet cleanup, send nutrients and fecal coliform into downstream drainage systems and creeks.

1.4.C.2  Impacts of Future Growth - Cumulative Impacts

Analysis performed through SWM’s Master Drainage Planning (MDP) Program generally predicted that future growth would increase both the volumes of surface water runoff and the peak flows. These flow increases were predicted to occur in spite of the construction of on-site detention facilities that are required for new development according to current county standards. The extent of these predicted increases varied depending on factors such as existing land use, proposed future land use, soils, basin size, the potential for infiltration, and other hydrologic conditions. An increase in either the peak flows or in the volume of stormwater runoff could potentially impact existing flooding problems by increasing the depth of flooding, the area that is flooded, how often the flooding occurs, or the length of time an area remains flooded. An increase in the peak flow or volume of stormwater runoff may, in some cases, also create new flooding problems that do not currently exist.

An increase in either the peak flows or the volume of stormwater runoff could also potentially impact existing streams and aquatic habitat. These potential impacts generally include increased channel erosion and sedimentation, reduced habitat diversity, increased pollutant loads, higher water temperatures, reduced low flows during dry weather periods, and increased fish passage barriers. These types of impacts have the potential to reduce the quality and quantity of existing aquatic habitat.

Cumulative impacts are generally in the following four categories:

1) Impacts from storm events that are either larger or smaller than what is regulated:County regulations require stormwater quantity and quality mitigation to be designed based on specific storm events, generally ranging from ½ of a 2-year storm to a 100-year storm event. However, storm events that are smaller or larger are not fully mitigated with development regulations and standards and may cause some additional impacts.

2) Impacts from development that is too minor to require drainage mitigation:Some projects have minor impacts to stormwater, and, therefore, are not required to provide stormwater detention or water quality treatment. However, a number of such projects, cumulatively, could increase peak flows or flow volumes, or could impact water quality.

3) Impacts resulting from adding volumes or peak flows to existing poorly-functioning systems:County regulations require development to analyze drainage systems immediately downstream to ensure that the systems are able to handle the increased stormwater runoff. Impacts could occur, however, because of systems that structurally fail in the future, or undersized systems that are further downstream.

4) Water quality impacts from new developments.There tends to be a cumulative increase in water pollution from new developments despite the following restrictions:

a.County regulations require water quality treatment related to new development in many cases.

b.County codes are designed to require the removal of most of the pollution that results from new development.

1.4.C.3  Other Potential Impacts

Impacts of future water quality standards could also impact or drive the capital program. An example is the State of Washington’s consideration of adopting modified fish consumption standards, which would result in much more stringent water quality standards. This decision could then impact the county’s capital program by increasing the amount of water quality improvements done annually.

1.4.C.4  Summary of Future Needs

Meeting the surface water management minimum LOS is necessary to reduce the general and cumulative impacts described above. The first part of the LOS standard, adherence to the county’s regulations and standards, provides the majority of the mitigation for medium to large developments. The regulations and standards require development to reduce the impacts of increased runoff and decreased water quality by installing stormwater detention and water quality treatment systems. The regulations also require planned construction and specific construction techniques, such as erosion control, to reduce the impacts of construction on the downstream drainage systems. These regulations and standards are currently in place and are required for new development. Significant downstream impacts would occur without these regulations and standards. A significant increase in expenditure of public funds would also be required to construct stormwater facilities to mitigate for those impacts.

The second part of the surface water LOS, a minimum investment in surface water facilities, set at $8.35M in six years, is required in order to reduce the cumulative and non-regulated impacts of development by providing high-priority publicly-funded surface water facilities to reduce flooding, improve water quality, and improve aquatic habitat. Increased road and property flooding, erosion, water quality problems, and habitat degradation are likely to occur without this minimum investment.

The list of surface water projects to address the impacts listed above is developed through a number of ongoing SWM programs, including Drainage Complaint Response, Water Quality Facility Planning, NPDES-required Basin Planning, River Assessments, and SWM’s MDP program. Exhibit SWM-7 shows the areas that have completed Master Drainage Plans. Lists of all identified potential surface water projects are available in the SWM offices. Analyzing additional areas will likely result in the discovery of additional problem areas and proposed additional projects to reduce road and property flooding, address water quality problems and improve aquatic habitat.

The short term future infrastructure needs for surface water management is a six-year list of publicly-funded surface water management projects, designed to mitigate the highest priority cumulative impacts. This list is published as part of the county’s annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This list is also updated annually and adopted as part of the CIP by the county council during the annual budget adoption process.

The CIP requires an annual ‘Statement of Assessment,’ which reviews the surface water management LOS relative to the list of surface water management capital projects to ensure that the LOS is being met for the next six years. The proposed 2015-2020 six-year list of surface water projects totals $106.7M, well above the minimum investment required by the LOS.

Section 1.5 - Surface Transportation UR
This section is included in your selections.
This subsection is included in your selections.

The Transportation Element (TE) of the Snohomish County GMA Comprehensive Plan contains an inventory of transportation facilities, levels of service standards, implementation measures, long-range project descriptions, expenditure and revenue forecasts toward the year 2035, plus an overall financial strategy for transportation capital facilities.

The General Policy Plan should be relied on for details of surface transportation policies.

This subsection is included in your selections.

The county has established technical procedures for determining when an arterial is deficient relative to adopted LOS standards. These standards are discussed in Chapter III of the Transportation Element.

Snohomish County requires development to pay a proportionate share of the costs of new roads and road improvement projects (identified in the Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan) that are reasonably related to new growth and development.

The county imposes and collects impact fees for transportation facilities to do this, under the authority provided by RCW 82.02.050-.090, the provisions of state law which govern GMA-based impact fees. Those provisions allow impact fees to be imposed on new development and used to provide system-wide transportation improvements that are reasonably necessary as a result of impacts of new development and that will provide benefits to new development.

This subsection is included in your selections.

The Transportation Element for the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan contains an inventory of transportation facilities, levels-of-service standards, implementation measures, long-range project descriptions, expenditure and revenue forecasts toward the year 2035 plus an overall financial strategy for transportation capital facilities. The Transportation Element also contains details about future transportation needs.