30.42D.060 Decision criteria for local essential public facilities.
(1) The hearing examiner may impose reasonable conditions (including mitigation measures) on a proposal for a local EPF. As a condition of approval the hearing examiner may:
(a) Increase requirements in the standards, criteria, or policies established by this title;
(b) Stipulate the exact location of a local EPF as a means of minimizing hazards to life or limb, property damage, impacts to the environment, erosion, underground collapse, landslides, and transportation systems;
(c) Impose reasonable conditions necessary to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts identified as a result of the project; and
(d) Require the posting of construction and maintenance bonds or other security as provided in chapter 30.84 SCC, sufficient to secure to the county the estimated cost of construction, installation and maintenance of required improvements.
(2) The hearing examiner may approve or approve with conditions, a conditional use permit for a local EPF when the proposal complies with the applicable requirements of chapters 30.42C and this chapter. The hearing examiner also may consider whether the proposal is consistent with the following factors:
(a) The proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies under Goal 12 in the Capital Facilities chapter of the General Policy Plan;
(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 will not result in a disproportionate burden on a particular geographic area;
(g) The applicant has provided an 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 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;
(i) The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates adverse impacts to life, limb, property, the environment, public health and safety, transportation systems, economic development and other identified impacts;
(j) The proposal incorporates specific features to ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property; and
(k) The applicant has proposed mitigation measures that provide assistance to displaced or impacted businesses including assistance in relocating within the county.
(3) The conditional use permit application for a proposed EPF may be denied if the hearing examiner finds that the denial does not preclude the local EPF from being sited within the county, and either:
(a) The proposal does not comply with the requirements of chapter 30.42C SCC or this chapter; or
(b) The proposal is not consistent with the factors listed in subsection (2) of this section with the imposition of mitigation measures; or
(c) The imposition of reasonable mitigation measures does not adequately mitigate detrimental effects on uses or properties within the immediate vicinity of the proposal site. (Added by Ord. 13-067, Sept. 25, 2013, Eff date Oct. 11, 2013).