Laserfiche WebLink
t ZI <br />15. The BOCC finds that the McDonald ACUP is desirable and essential to the public as <br />required under KCC 17.60A.015(1). <br />16. The BOCC finds that the McDonald ACUP is not detrimental to the public as required <br />under KCC 17.60A.015(2)(a). <br />17. The BOCC finds that the McDonald ACUP is not an economic burden upon the public, <br />there is no evidence of detriment as to this operation as required under KCC <br />17.60A.015(2)(b). <br />18. The BOCC finds that it has independent authority to determine compliance with Ch. <br />69.50 RCW and Ch. 314.55 WAC as an exercise of its zoning authority and apart from <br />merely recognizing the issuance of a license by the Liquor and Cannabis Board. <br />19. The BOCC finds that Kittitas County Code does not describe marijuana production or <br />processing as agriculture. <br />20. The BOCC finds that, under such authority as RCW 82.04.213(3) and Kim v. PCHB, 115 <br />Wn.App. 157 (2003), marijuana production and processing is considered an industrial <br />use. <br />21. The BOCC finds that it was not demonstrated, as required by KCC 17.60A.015(3), how <br />the McDonald ACUP met the development standards of Kittitas County Code, <br />specifically, how there was adequate provision for potable (not irrigation) water for an <br />industrial use under Ch. 13.35 KCC. <br />22. The BOCC finds that Ch. 314.55 WAC's provision concerning proximity to a school is <br />satisfied because the "school" in question here does not meet the statutory definition of a <br />school. <br />23. The BOCC finds that there is adequate protection for livestock, pets, and humans, no <br />detriment to scenic views, nor an increase in crime caused by the proposed project, but <br />because water use is not mitigated, the criteria in KCC 17.60A.015(4) are not satisfied. <br />24. The BOCC finds that the requirements in KCC 17.60A.015(5) are met because there is no <br />evidence, specific to this project, of harm to livestock or increase in crime. <br />25. The BOCC finds that the requirements in KCC 17.60A.015(6) are satisfied and that the <br />material and argument to the contrary is not specific to this project, but rather generally <br />about marijuana, and is not new because the BOCC considered all of this when it <br />established marijuana production as an administrative conditional use in the zone. <br />26. The BOCC finds that the requirements in KCC 17.60A.015(7) are satisfied and that the <br />material and argument to the contrary is not specific to this project, but rather generally <br />3 <br />