The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Growth Management Act and the Poulsbo comprehensive plan by establishing processes for the siting and expansion of essential public facilities in the city of Poulsbo as necessary to support orderly growth and delivery of public services. The city’s goal in promulgating the regulations under this chapter is to ensure the timely, efficient and appropriate siting of EPFs while simultaneously acknowledging and mitigating the significant community impacts often created by such facilities. Nothing in this chapter should be construed as an attempt by the city to preclude the siting of essential public facilities in compliance of applicable state law.
(Ord. 2013-04 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2013)
A. 
Essential Public Facility, Local. A local EPF is owned, operated, or sponsored by the city of Poulsbo, a special purpose district, or another unit of local government and which serves the city-wide population. An EPF is “sponsored” by a local government when it is to be owned or operated by a non-governmental entity pursuant to a contract with the local government to provide the EPF.
B. 
Essential Public Facility, Regional. A regional EPF is owned, operated, or sponsored by Kitsap County or a regional agency whose boundaries encompass the city and which serves the countywide population or an area that is greater than the city limits. An EPF is “sponsored” by the county or a regional agency when it is to be owned or operated by a nongovernmental entity pursuant to a contract with the county or regional agency to provide the EPF.
C. 
Essential Public Facility, State. A state EPF is owned, operated, or sponsored by the state of Washington.
(Ord. 2013-04 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2013)
A. 
A conditional use permit shall be required before any local essential public facility may be located or expanded within the city of Poulsbo, regardless of the zoning district in which such facility is or is proposed to be located, and processed consistent with Chapter 18.230.
B. 
Included in a complete application for a conditional use permit shall be the following items:
1. 
The project sponsor has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by a detailed written analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed.
2. 
The project sponsor has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology, and as verified by the city.
(Ord. 2013-04 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2013)
A. 
A proposal for the siting or expansion of a state or regional essential public facility shall follow the procedures for the underlying permit, e.g., site plan, binding site plan, subdivision, building permit, etc.; provided, that the state or regional essential public facility and its location have been evaluated through a demonstrated state or regional siting process, which included review and evaluation of alternative sites.
1. 
When a proposed state or regional essential public facility has not been reviewed and evaluated through a state or regional siting process, it will be processed as a conditional use permit.
a. 
When a proposed state or regional essential public facility has not been reviewed and evaluated through a state or regional siting process, the following shall be included with its conditional use permit application:
i. 
The project sponsor has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by a detailed written analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed.
ii. 
The project sponsor has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology, and as verified by the city.
B. 
Any proposal for the siting or expansion of a state or regional essential public facility shall hold a public hearing prior to the issuance of any such permit in order to obtain public input on the permit criteria and conditions of approval; provided, that a local public hearing was not previously held through the state or regional siting process.
1. 
If the underlying permit ordinarily requires a public hearing, the public hearing required by this section shall be consolidated with the required public hearing and heard by the same hearing body or officer.
2. 
If the underlying permit does not ordinarily require a public hearing, the review authority shall conduct the public hearing as part of the permit review process.
(Ord. 2013-04 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2013)
A permit for a local, regional or state essential public facility shall be approved upon the satisfactory finding of the following:
A. 
The proposed facility has been reviewed appropriately and has satisfied all provisions of this section, and has met all development standards of the underlying zoning district. If an essential public facility does not meet all such provisions, the applicant must demonstrate that compliance with such provisions would preclude the siting of all similar facilities anywhere within the city. If the applicant is able to make such a demonstration, the review authority shall authorize the essential public facility to deviate from the provisions of this code to the minimum extent necessary to avoid preclusion.
B. 
The review authority shall impose reasonable conditions upon an essential public facility in order to ensure that:
1. 
Necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure safe transportation access and transportation concurrency.
2. 
Necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure that public safety responders have capacity to handle increased calls or expenses that will occur as the result of the facility.
3. 
The project sponsor has the ability to and shall pay for all capital costs associated with on-site and off-site improvements.
4. 
The facility will not unreasonably increase noise levels in residential areas, especially at night.
5. 
Visual screening will be provided that will mitigate the visual impacts from streets and adjoining properties. Visual screening must be of such quality and design as to complement the neighborhood in which the local essential public facility is located. Screening complements the neighborhood when it meets or exceeds the quality and design of other screening in the neighborhood.
6. 
Any and all probable significant adverse environmental impacts are mitigated.
C. 
The review authority shall not impose conditions in such a manner as to preclude the siting or expansion of any essential public facility in the city of Poulsbo. In the event that a state or regional essential public facility cannot, by the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval, be made to mitigate the impacts described in subsection B of this section, the review authority shall approve the siting or expansion of the state or regional essential public facility with such reasonable conditions of approval as may mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
(Ord. 2013-04 § 2 (Exh. A (part)), 2013)