Chapter 17.90
SITING ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES
Sections:
17.90.030 Essential public facilities review process.
17.90.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process to site essential public facilities (EPFs). Essential public facilities are defined in Section 17.02.020, Definitions. This process involves the community and identifies and minimizes adverse impacts. (Ord. 1229 §1(part), 2010)
17.90.020 Applicability.
A. Listed EPFs. All listed EPFs shall be reviewed through the EPF review process.
B. Unlisted Facilities. The director shall make a determination that a facility be reviewed pursuant to this section based on the following criteria:
1. The facility is a type difficult to site because of one of the following:
a. The facility needs a type of site of which there are few sites;
b. The facility can locate only near another public facility;
c. The facility has or is generally perceived by the public to have significant adverse impacts that make it difficult to site;
d. The facility is of a type that has been difficult to site in the past;
e. It is likely that the facility will be difficult to site; or
f. There is a need for the facility and the city of Wapato is in the facility service area. (Ord. 1229 §1(part), 2010)
17.90.030 Essential public facilities review process.
A. All EPFs shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. An EPF shall require a Class (3) review in all zones of the city and applications shall conform to Chapter 17.15, Class (3) Review. In the event of a conflict with any other WMC provision, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
B. The application for an EPF shall include a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement in the siting decision and to assist in determining possible mitigation measures. Informational public meetings within the city shall be scheduled pursuant to this process; the number of meetings shall be set by the director consistent with the size, complexity and estimated impacts of the proposal. The director shall determine the format and location(s) for the meetings, and shall require that public notice and meeting summaries acceptable to the city shall be either prepared or paid for by the EPF sponsor.
C. An applicant may have one or more alternative sites considered during the same process.
D. The director has the authority to require the consideration of sites outside of the city of Wapato. Alternative sites shall cover the service area of the proposed essential public facility.
E. An analysis of the facility’s impact on city finances shall be undertaken. Mitigation of adverse financial impacts shall be required.
F. The following criteria shall be used to make a determination on the application:
1. The applicant shall provide a justifiable need for the essential public facility and for its location within the city of Wapato.
2. The impact of the facility on the surrounding uses and environment, the city and, if applicable, the region.
3. Whether the design of the facility or the operation of the facility can be conditioned, or the impacts otherwise mitigated, to make the facility compatible with the affected area and the environment.
4. Whether the factors that make the facility difficult to site can be modified to increase the range of available sites or to minimize impacts in affected areas and the environment.
5. Whether the proposed essential public facility is consistent with the city of Wapato comprehensive plan.
6. If a variance is requested, the proposal shall comply with Chapter 17.21, Variances.
7. Essential public facilities shall also comply with all other applicable city and state siting and permitting requirements. (Ord. 1229 §1(part), 2010)
17.90.040 Burden of proof.
The applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed use meets all criteria set forth in Section 17.90.030(F). (Ord. 1229 §1(part), 2010)
17.90.050 Decision.
The city council may approve an application for an EPF, approve with conditions or require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements or local conditions. The city council may deny an application for an EPF 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. (Ord. 1229 §1(part), 2010)