40.260.077 Essential Public Facilities
A. Purpose.
1. The purpose of this section is to establish a process for identifying and siting of essential public facilities (EPF) that are difficult to site.
2. Essential public facilities are defined in Section 40.100.070.
3. Comprehensive plans and development regulations cannot preclude the siting of essential public facilities within jurisdictional boundaries. Nothing in this chapter should be construed as an attempt by Clark County to preclude the siting of such facilities within the county when the essential public facility is consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act and other state statutes and regulations.
B. Applicability and Exemptions.
1. Applicability. Essential public facilities that are determined difficult to site by the responsible official will be subject to this section. The responsible official shall determine if an application is an essential public facility and difficult to site, if one or more of the following criteria is met per WAC 365-196-550(2):
a. The public facility needs a specific type of site such as size, location, available public services, of which there are few choices.
b. The public facility needs to be located near another public facility or is an expansion of an essential public facility at an existing location.
c. The public facility has, or is generally perceived by the public to have, significant adverse impacts that make it difficult to site.
d. Use of the normal development review process would effectively preclude the siting of an essential public facility.
e. Development regulations require the proposed facility to use an essential public facility siting process.
2. Exemptions. Essential public facilities that have been evaluated through a state or regional siting process, per WAC 365-196-550(3)(d).
C. Application and Review Process.
1. Applications that seek approval for an essential public facility as defined by Section 40.100.070 shall follow the procedures established in Section 40.510.025 for a Type II-A process and Section 40.520.030 for a conditional use permit, and as part of the pre-application conference with the applicant.
2. If, after the pre-application review, the responsible official finds the use is difficult to site, the application will be reviewed under this section and Sections 40.510.030, Type III Quasi-Judicial Decisions, and 40.520.030, Conditional Use Permits, along with any additional requirements per Clark County Code, as part of the pre-application conference process.
3. If the use is identified as an EPF and determined not to present siting difficulties, it will be reviewed through a Type II-A process in Section 40.510.025, the conditional use permit process in Sections 40.520.030, and 40.520.040, Site Plan Review, and any additional requirements per Clark County Code.
D. Application Submittal Requirements if Determined Difficult to Site.
1. A complete application for a conditional use permit for an essential public facility that has been determined to be difficult to site shall include all items required by Section 40.510.050, Application Submittal Requirements, Section 40.520.030, Conditional Use Permits, and the following information:
a. A detailed written description of the proposed and potential public services to be provided, including a proposed site plan, the proposed service area of the facility, the source or sources of funding, and identification of any applicable public regulatory agencies or regional state or federal project agency sponsors and the federal or state authority which the agency has been granted for siting decision-making; and
b. A written statement of the need, in statistical or narrative form, for the proposed project currently and over the following ten (10) year period; and
c. An inventory of known, existing or proposed facilities, by name and address, within Clark County, or within the region, serving the same or similar needs as the proposed project; and
d. An explanation of the need and suitability for the proposed facility in the proposed county location(s); and
e. Documentation showing the minimum siting requirements for the proposed facility. Site requirements may be determined by the following factors: minimum size of the facility, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and mitigation need. The applicant shall also identify future expansion needs of the facility;
f. A written analysis providing documentation of alternative site investigation and indicating whether any alternative sites have been identified that meet the minimum site requirements of the facility;
g. An assessment of the suitability of the proposed location in the county in terms of local, county, regional and/or state needs in order to minimize public costs (where appropriate) and environmental impacts, to discern the suitability of the facility’s location in the county or within another jurisdiction, to determine the number of jurisdictions affected or served by the proposed EPF, and to decide what, if any, inter-jurisdictional approach is most appropriate or available; and
h. An analysis of the environmental, social, economic, financial and infrastructure impacts of the proposed EPF, including an assessment of the proportionate financial impacts on affected jurisdictions, agreements that allocate the financial burdens of the proposed project on the county and other jurisdictions, and the approximate area in which the proposed project could potentially have adverse impacts. These impacts may include an increase in traffic congestion, public safety risks, noise, glare, emissions, and/or other environmental impacts; and
i. A written analysis demonstrating that the proposal is consistent with the applicant’s own long-range plans for facilities and operations;
j. An analysis of the proposal’s consistency with the county’s comprehensive plan and development regulations, and plans and policies of other affected jurisdictions, including but not limited to Clark County county-wide planning policies; and
k. Documentation of public involvement efforts to date, including public and agency comments received, and plans for future public participation; and
l. All application materials required by other chapters of Clark County Code for components of the project not covered by this chapter, such as platting requirements, critical area code compliance, traffic concurrency, comprehensive plan and zoning, etc., so that code compliance for all components of the project can be reviewed together; and
m. Such information as requested by the director as determined necessary to complete the preliminary analysis or to otherwise assist the director, staff, and the hearing examiner in making the final determination on the application.
E. Decision Criteria.
1. The following criteria shall be used to make a determination on the application:
a. The proposal shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and types of uses of the underlying zoning of the proposed site;
b. The project applicant has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by an analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed;
c. If applicable, the project would serve a significant share of the county’s population, and the proposed site will reasonably serve the project’s overall service population;
d. The applicant has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology;
e. The project is consistent with the applicant’s own long-range plans for facilities and operations;
f. The project has fewer impacts in the particular geographic area in contrast with other available locations;
g. The applicant has provided a meaningful opportunity for public participation in the siting decision and development of mitigation measures that is appropriate in light of the project’s scope, applicable requirements of the county code, and state or federal law;
h. The proposal complies with applicable requirements of all other applicable provisions of the county code;
i. The project site meets the facility’s minimum physical site requirements, including projected expansion needs. Site requirements shall be determined by the minimum size of the facility, setbacks, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and on-site mitigation needs;
j. The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates significant adverse impacts to life, limb, property, the environment, public health and safety, transportation systems, economic development and other identified impacts;
k. The proposal shall not have any probable significant adverse impact on critical areas or resource lands, except for lineal facilities, such as highways, where no feasible alternative exists;
l. The proposal incorporates specific features to ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or planned character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property;
m. Major public facilities which generate substantial traffic should be sited near major transportation corridors;
n. The project applicant has proposed mitigation measures that are consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, Chapter 8.26 RCW, as now and hereafter amended when otherwise required by law;
o. The proposal will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity;
p. The proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific features, conditions, or revisions that ensures it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property; and
q. Essential public facilities shall also comply with all other applicable state and federal siting and permitting requirements.
F. Decision.
1. The hearings examiner may approve an application for an essential public facility that is difficult to site, approve with conditions or require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements or local conditions. The hearing examiner may deny an application for an essential public facility if the placement of the use would be unreasonably incompatible with the surrounding area or incapable of meeting the criteria required for approval or with specific standards set forth in this code.
2. The hearings examiner, giving substantial weight to the recommendations of the staff report, shall review the application under the following criteria:
a. Whether the proposed action as recommended by county staff is consistent with the criteria established under Section 40.260.077(E);
b. Whether modifications to recommended conditions or restrictions, if any, are adequate to mitigate impacts in a manner which meets the standards of this code and any related development agreement; and
c. Whether project conditions cumulatively are reasonable and would not preclude development of the EPF.
3. Recognizing that RCW 36.70A.200(2) prohibits the county from precluding the siting of an essential public facility, if the permit application proposes siting of a project in a location other than the county’s preferred location (if a preferred location is recommended) by county staff or otherwise designated under the county’s comprehensive plan or this title, the applicant shall present information as to why the county’s preferred location, rather than the location applied for, will preclude development of the project. In addition, the applicant would be responsible for providing supporting data and documentation for both their preferred site and the county’s preferred location for whichever is chosen. The applicant shall provide any engineering, financial and other studies and information necessary to explain its position, unless it has already done so through the comprehensive planning process. However, financial studies will not be required for linear transportation projects, such as roads and highways, proposed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The hearing examiner, with additional analysis and input from county staff and the applicant, if requested, shall make findings and a decision as to whether siting the project at the county’s preferred location would be impossible, impracticable, or otherwise preclusive. The said findings and decision shall not be deemed, however, to preclude the authority of a regional decision-making body, under law now existing or subsequently amended, to determine where a regional EPF shall be sited, assuming applicable laws and legal requirements are complied with. This section shall not apply to the siting of secure community transmission facilities.
4. If the county doesn’t have a preferred location, the applicant shall be responsible for providing supporting data and documentation for both their preferred site, or alternative sites pursuant to Section 40.260.077(D)(1)(f) for whichever is chosen.
5. As a condition of approval pursuant to this section, the hearing examiner may:
a. Increase requirements in the standards, criteria, or policies established by this title;
b. Stipulate the exact location as a means of minimizing hazards to life or limb, property damage, impacts to the environment, erosion, underground collapse, landslides, or transportation systems;
c. Impose conditions necessary to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts identified as a result of the project;
d. Require the posting of construction and maintenance bonds sufficient to secure to the county the estimated cost of construction, installation and maintenance of required improvements; and
e. Impose any requirement that will protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(Added: Ord. 2023-11-28)