A. 
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process for the review and permitting of essential public facilities (EPFs) in a manner consistent with the provisions of state law and the city's comprehensive plan and in the best interests of the residents of Enumclaw.
B. 
This process is intended to ensure that EPFs, as needed to support orderly growth and delivery of public services, are permitted in a timely and efficient manner. It is also intended to provide the city with additional regulatory authority to require mitigation of impacts that may occur as a result of EPF permitting. Finally, it is intended to promote enhanced public participation that will produce permitting decisions consistent with community goals.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)
A. 
The processes established by this chapter apply to EPFs as defined in EMC § 15.04.020. Essential public facilities which meet the definition but are not listed in EMC § 15.04.020 will also be reviewed according to the essential public facility review process. Examples of EPFs include those facilities that are 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 opiate substitution treatment program facilities and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020 (RCW 36.70A.200). EMC § 19.32.160 contains additional siting and performance standards for secure community transition facilities.
B. 
The processes established by this chapter do not apply to residential health and social service facilities protected by state or federal law as residential uses permitted or conditionally permitted in residential zones. Those uses shall be sited through a process consistent with the provisions of the underlying zoning district.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)
A. 
Conditional Use Permit. Except as stipulated in EMC § 19.31.020(B), EPFs are allowed only as conditional uses in the LI zone.
B. 
Consistency with Regional Siting Process. Before applying for a conditional use permit, the applicant for an essential public facility must have complied with all applicable requirements for the siting of such a facility in accordance with state, regional and local laws and policies including the comprehensive plan and King County countywide planning policies.
C. 
Public Participation Plan. Public participation plans for EPFs are required to encourage local public participation in the development of the proposal, including site selection and mitigation design. Early notification of affected citizens and jurisdictions must be provided as follows:
1. 
At least 120 days prior to the submittal of an application for such a facility, a public participation plan must be submitted to the city for its review and approval.
2. 
At least 90 days before submitting an application for such a facility, applicants shall notify the affected public and jurisdictions of the general type and nature of the proposal, identify sites under consideration for accommodating the proposed facility, and identify opportunities to comment on the proposal. Applications for specific projects shall not be considered complete without proof of such a published notice in a local newspaper of general circulation.
D. 
Site Selection Methodology. The applicant must search for and investigate alternative sites before submitting a proposal for review. The proposal must include a detailed explanation of the process used to identify and evaluate alternative sites.
E. 
Expansion of Existing EPFs. A public participation plan and adherence to the site selection methodology as set forth in subsections C and D of this section is required for the expansion of any existing EPF.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)
An application for EPF conditional use permit approval must comply with all other applicable requirements for the proposed use – including SEPA, as applicable – and demonstrate the following:
A. 
Public Need. Applicants must demonstrate the need for their proposed EPFs or the expansion of an existing EPF. Included in the analysis of need should be the projected service population, an inventory and distribution of existing and planned comparable facilities, and projected demand for this type of essential public facility.
B. 
Consistency with Applicant's Plans. Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the applicant's own long-range plans for facilities and operations.
C. 
Consistency with Enumclaw's Comprehensive Plan. Applicants must demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. In evaluating this consistency, consideration must be given to critical area designations, population and employment holding capacities, and the land use, capital facilities and utilities elements.
D. 
Relationship to Service Area Population. Applicants must demonstrate that the facility's service area population includes a significant share of the host community's population, and that the proposed site should be able to reasonably serve its overall service area population.
E. 
Site Suitability. Applicants must demonstrate that the project site meets the facility's minimum site and infrastructure requirements, including projected expansion needs. Site requirements include the minimum type and sufficiency of size, topography, geology, and on-site mitigation needs. Infrastructure requirements include the minimum type and sufficiency of transportation, public services and utilities.
F. 
Equitable Distribution of Essential Public Facilities. Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed facility avoids placing an undue burden on any one racial, cultural, or socioeconomic group, and that there will not be a resulting concentration of similar facilities in a particular neighborhood, community, jurisdiction, or region. Interjurisdictional agreements must be developed to mitigate any disproportionate financial burdens that may fall on the local jurisdiction within which a facility of statewide or regional nature is located.
G. 
Consistency with Federal, State and Local Regulations. Applicants must demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable federal, state and local regulations as well as countywide planning policies.
H. 
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. Applicants must demonstrate that the site, as developed for the proposed project, will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
I. 
Adequate Mitigation. Applicants must demonstrate that mitigation measures for the impacted area(s) and community(ies) will be adequate to substantially reduce or compensate for anticipated adverse environmental impacts on the local environment and will be adequate to substantially reduce or compensate for anticipated adverse fiscal impacts on the city.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)
EMC Title 15 establishes the procedure for conditional use (Type IV) permits and shall comply with the review criteria contained in EMC § 19.31.040.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)
Review and appeal processes must not be used to preclude an EPF. Cost and delay do not, prima facie, make an EPF permit review process unfair and untimely, nor be deemed to preclude an EPF. A reasonable consideration schedule must be established based on the size and complexity of EPF proposals.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)
A. 
Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project applicant.
B. 
No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF, unless the applicant signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department's acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter.
(Ord. 2330 § 5, 2006)