1. Type One—Regional EPFs. These are major essential public facilities that provide public services to more than one county and where the provider has statutory authority to site and construct the facility and where a regional, inter-governmental siting process has been followed. These facilities may include, but are not limited to, regional transportation facilities, such as regional airports; State correction facilities; and state educational facilities.

2. Type Two—Local EPFs. These are local or inter-local facilities serving residents or property serving Skagit County. A “Local EPF” means an essential public facility that is not a regional EPF.

3. In order to enable the city to determine the project’s classification, any public or private entity proposing to site an EPF in the city shall provide to the director its intent to site the EPF, once it is known that the EPF is likely or required to be built, the application materials set forth in AMC 17.75.050.

4. The director shall review the application upon receipt and determine whether the proposed project shall be identified as an EPF and if so whether the EPF shall be classified as a Regional EPF or Local EPF. A determination shall be made within forty-five days following the director’s written notice to applicant of receipt of sufficient material and information set forth in AMC 17.75.050. The director shall provide notice of determination to the applicant and publish notice of the determination in a newspaper of general circulation within Skagit County.

5. The director’s determination shall be an administrative determination subject to appeal and procedures established in AMC 17.08.080 for an administrative appeal process.

1. Type One Facilities. In addition to such other notice as may be required by law before the siting decision, and at least ninety days before submitting an application for a Type One essential public facility, the prospective applicant 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 in the absence of proof of a published notice and notice to the city regarding the proposed project. Published notice shall be in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. This notice shall include the information described above and shall be published at least ninety days prior to the submission of the application. It is expected that an Environmental Impact Statement may be required for most Type One facilities in accordance with the SEPA environmental review process. Nothing from this Section will preclude the city from consulting with the Skagit Council of Governments and may provide the project sponsor and affected jurisdictions with their comments or recommendations regarding alternative project locations during this process. The purpose of this provision is to enable potentially affected jurisdictions and the public to collectively review and comment on alternative sites for major facilities before the project sponsor has made their siting decision.

2. Type Two Facilities. Type two essential public facilities shall be required to provide a notice of application.

1. An EPF shall be a conditional use in all zones. In the event of a conflict with any other provision within the Anacortes Municipal Code, the provisions of this section shall govern.

2. In addition to the conditional use permit application fee, an additional cost reimbursement agreement with the applicant may be required for additional costs, including but not limited to costs for independent consultant review set forth in subsection (D) below, associated with review of an EPF application under the criteria established in this chapter.

1. The department may require independent consultant review of the proposal to asses its compliance with the decision criteria contained in this chapter.

2. If independent consultant review is required, the applicant shall deposit funds or other security in an amount and in a form acceptable to director to defray the cost of such review. Unexpended funds will be returned to the applicant following the final decision on the application without interest.

1. The proposal shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and intent of the underlying zoning of the proposed site;

2. 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;

3. If applicable, the project would serve a significant share of the city’s population, and the proposed site will reasonably serve the project’s overall service population;

4. The applicant has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology;

5. The project is consistent with the applicant’s own long-range plans for facilities and operations;

6. The project has fewer impacts in the particular geographic area in contrast with other available locations;

7. 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 City Code, and state or federal law;

8. The proposal complies with applicable requirements of all other applicable provisions of the City Code;

9. 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;

10. 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;

11. 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;

12. 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;

13. Major public facilities which generate substantial traffic should be sited near major transportation corridors;

14. The project sponsor has proposed mitigation measures that are consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act Chapter 8.26 RCW, 468-100 WAC, as now and hereafter amended when otherwise required by law.

1. The sponsor 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;

2. The proposal complies with applicable requirements of AMC Chapter 19.36 Conditional Uses and all other applicable provisions of the City Code;

3. 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;

4. 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;

5. The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates for any probable significant adverse impact on critical areas or resource lands, except for lineal facilities, such as highways, where no feasible alternative exists.

6. 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; and

7. The project sponsor has proposed mitigation measures that are consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act Chapter 8.26 RCW, 468-100 WAC, as now and hereafter amended when otherwise required by law. (Ord. 2992 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 2794 § 1 (Att. A), 2008)