2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010

Transcription

1 2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 Comment Number & Date Received 1 June 22, June22, June 21, June 21, June 21, June 18, 2010 Name and Address Comment Response Zena Hartung 3240 Centerwood Ct. SE Olympia, WA Sonia Mendoza Department of Ecology SEPA Coordinator Dr. Jennifer Booker Via Wilfred Reissner Tilley Rd South Olympia, WA Trudy White rd Avenue SE Tenino, WA Meryl Bernstein Via Supports DNS and land use plan amendment. Remaining habitat needs to be protected Comments on future projects, actions, and evaluations that would take place on review of individual development applications. In favor of the recommendations for Maytown. Pleased with County s SEPA. Important for County to have a plan to protect Rocky Prairie. Agrees with SEPA for Maytown Land Use Project regarding a lower density land use. Maytown Sand and Gravel property serves as the headwaters of two salmon bearing streams. Development of this property could interrupt the balance of water and increase the potential for contamination. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. According to the Priority Habitat and Species information, Allen and Beaver Creeks do have salmonids. Chehalis Coho Salmon in both, and Cutthroat Trout in Beaver Creek. 7 June 16, 2010 Priscilla White rd Ave SE Tenino, WA This area is critical to the health of the Black River Watershed. Great to see the County s SEPA for the Maytown Land Use Project. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

2 Comment Number & Date Received 8 June 11, June 10, June 9, June 9, June 9, June 9, F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 Name and Address Comment Response Linda Saunders Director of Conservation Wolfhaven International Chanele Holbrook Shaw Environmental Director Heernett Foundation 7332 Churchill Rd. SE Tenino, WA Susan Finkel Isom Rd. Tenino, WA Lawrence Jacobson th Way SW Olympia, WA Bob Jacobs 720 Governor Stevens Ave SE Olympia, WA Friends of Rocky Prairie P.O. Box 140 Tenino, WA E.L. Johnson 2221 Water Street SW Olympia, WA Supports County s SEPA determination. Excited to see other nearby property get further protection. Lower density land use of the Rocky Prairie area presents an opportunity to protect rare species. Supports County s SEPA determination. Proactive approach by the county. Corridors are important to wildlife. Supports County s SEPA determination. Area is environmentally sensitive. Supports County s SEPA determination. Supports proposed action for protection of prairies. The SEPA makes clear that the proposed action would have no negative environmental impact. New classification for Maytown property is appreciated. The land near the wildlife preserve and Millersylvania Park is important. Maintaining rural character is valuable. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

3 2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 Comment Number & Date Received 15 June 9, June 11, June 22, 2010 Name and Address Comment Response Julie Jacobson Via Matthew Gibbs Via Jeff McCann th Place SE Maple Valley, WA In this sensitive area it is important to have a plan in place for fewer negative environmental impacts. Supports proposed action. Does not support the proposed action. Representative of the property owner. Several factors need to be considered: How much RRI zoned property would remain as of the latest Buildable Lands review? No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. Comment is supportive of proposed action. No action taken. While the comment does not support the proposed action, no significant environmental impacts are noted that would be caused by the proposed Comprehensive Plan land use plan changes. The questions raised in the comment letter were addressed in the staff report and during the Planning Commission review process. This includes future tax implications and the boundary of the proposed amendment. In summary: Is there an adequate amount of RRI zoned property to meet County s projected growth? Where is the next RRI zoned property in relation to this site? Would the typical rezone of this nature expect to raise or lower taxes on the subject properties and by how much? If the habitat is the true concern, why aren t other nearby properties with similar habitat included? The location and use of property designated RRI was examined by staff in the Spring of This examination was presented to the Board on March 11, In addition, the supply of industrial lands in Thurston County was studied this year as part of this and the Tumwater SW UGA Land Use Analysis project. According to the latest buildable lands report, there is more than an adequate supply of industrial lands in Thurston County for future employment growth even with the reductions proposed with this year s amendments. However, because it is rural RRI zoned property is not included in the report. The land use and zoning designations of the rural county were examined during the comprehensive review of rural zoning that took place in 1987 with Ordinance No and in 1993 with Ordinance No Ordinance No included the first GMA rural zoning districts. The RRI district was created in 1998 to conform with the GMA for rural industrial uses. The industrially zoned portion of this property was rezoned in 1999 to RRI. Another comprehensive review took place for rural residential zoning in As noted in the staff report, the RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

4 2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 Comment Number & Date Received 17 June 22, 2010 Name and Address Comment Response Jeff McCann Comment Continued. Much of the property is designated as Mineral Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance, which is consistent with Growth Management Act Goals. The Mineral Resource designation seems to be very appropriate activities for RRI. Could changing the zoning now be looked at as a bad faith ordinance? residentially zoned portion of this property was considered for Rural 1/20. However, it was decided that more site specific analysis needed to take place prior to 1/20 designation. This property has been vacant since it was zoned RRI. The latest proposal, the South Sound Logistics Center, is inconsistent with the rural character of the surrounding area. This would be inconsistent with the GMA for designation of industrial LAMIRDs. According to the Comprehensive Plan, an industry that has no orientation to rural or resource based activities is not dependent upon a rural location. A property of this size is more appropriately designated a Major Industrial Development under the GMA (36.70A.365 RCW). Such developments include large scale natural resource uses. This property has not been considered for such large scale uses. The gravel mine permit proposal is unaffected by the rezoning assuming all conditions of the permit are met. Only future uses are affected. The MDNS for the mine limits other uses on the property. An expansion of these uses would require an amendment to the Special Use Permit. The proposed rezoning and land use analysis has been in process since the Fall of 2007, about 2 1/2 years prior to the sale of the property to Maytown Sand and Gravel. It should be noted that the Rural 1/20 permits gravel mining with a special use permit, and does not preclude designation as Mineral Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance. According to the criteria for designation as RRI in the comprehensive plan, areas to be designated as RRI should have minimal potential for natural resource management and utilization. RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

5 2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 Comment Number & Date Received 18 June 22, 2010 Name and Address Comment Response Jim Magstadt Maytown Sand and Gravel Via Property owner. No significant environmental impacts noted in comment letter. Economic impacts are noted, however, economic factors are not considered for a SEPA evaluation. Summary of concerns: If County approves proposal, there will be no protection for County land owners. The proposal subverts the protection of landowners who oppose action and decreases their land values. MSG has invested millions buying property with gravel mine permit and RRI zoning. The RRI zoning district is supposed to ensure that industrial uses are compatible with rural character. MSG is aware of the limitations in the gravel mine use permit approval and the RRI zone. No action taken. While the comment does not support the proposed action, no significant environmental impacts are noted that would be caused by the proposed Comprehensive Plan land use plan changes. The questions raised in the comment letter were addressed in the staff report and during the Planning Commission review process. In summary: The proposed rezoning and land use analysis has been in process since the Fall of 2007, about 2 1/2 years prior to the sale of the property to Maytown Sand and Gravel in March April A moratorium on new RRI uses has been in place since April 15, 2008 for the express purpose of preventing new RRI uses until such time as the County could consider the proposed land use plan changes. One of the primary considerations is the location and scale of rural industrial use in this location. The purchase and sale agreement was added as part of the record for the land use consideration following the sale of the property to Maytown Sand and Gravel, LLC. The land use and zoning designations of the rural county were examined during the comprehensive review of rural zoning that took place in 1987 with Ordinance No and in 1993 with Ordinance No Ordinance No included the first GMA rural zoning districts. The RRI district was created in 1998 to conform with the GMA for rural industrial uses. In all of these instances, the County could have considered industrial zoning in this location because of the pre existing industrial use. The industrially zoned portion of this property was rezoned in 1999 to RRI. A study about the supply and demand for rural industrial uses was not submitted as part of the 1999 amendment. This property has been vacant since it was zoned RRI. The latest proposal, the South Sound Logistics Center, is inconsistent with the rural character of the surrounding area. In addition, the Batten RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

6 2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 Comment Number & Date Received 18 June 22, 2010 Name and Address Comment Response Jim Magstadt Maytown Sand and Gravel Continued The elimination of the zoning curtails property owners rights to apply for additional permitted uses. Compromise would leave RRI zoning on Batten and MSG property, and downzone residential property to R 1/20. Downzoning would limit property owners due process for permitting uses currently allowed under RRI. property does not show a history of industrial use based on a review of previous aerial photography dating back to Both of these would be inconsistent with the GMA for designation of industrial LAMIRDs. The designation criteria for the RRI designation is located in the Comprehensive Plan, and not the zoning code. According to the Comprehensive Plan, an industry that has no orientation to rural or resource based activities is not dependent upon a rural location. A property of this size may be more appropriately designated a Major Industrial Development under the GMA (36.70A.365 RCW). Such developments include large scale natural resource uses. This property has not been considered for such large scale uses. Another comprehensive review took place for rural residential zoning in where the residentially zoned portion of this property was considered for Rural 1/20. However, it was decided that more sitespecific analysis needed to take place prior to R 1/20 designation. The proposed land use change does not remove all economically viable use of the property in question. The gravel mine permit proposal is unaffected by the rezoning, assuming all conditions of the permit are met. Only future uses are affected. The MDNS for the mine limits other uses on the property. An expansion of these uses would require an amendment to the Special Use Permit, the MDNS, and the negotiated settlement with the Black Hills Audubon Society. During testimony at the Public Hearing, representatives of the Black Hills Audubon Society indicated that it is their understanding that no further industrial uses would be requested for the site, and that the site would be used for conservation purposes following the mining operation. Future use of the site is mentioned in the Port of Tacoma comment for the March 10, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing where it was indicated that future use of the property would be for conservation. RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

7 2 F Maytown Land Use Evaluation SEPA Comment Review June 2010 RRI = Rural Resource Industrial GMA= Growth Management Act MSG = Maytown Sand and Gravel

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33