Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GPO 6.7 Decisions made by Kittitas County regarding utility facilities will be made in a manner consistent with <br />and complementary to regional demands and resources. <br />Staff Consistency Statement: The project proposal is consistent and complimentary to regional demands. <br /> <br />GPO 6.18 Decisions made regarding utility facilities should be consistent with and complementary to regional <br />demand and resources and should reinforce an interconnected regional distribution network. <br />Staff Consistency Statement: The project is consistent with reinforcing an interconnected regional <br />distribution network. <br /> <br />GPO 6.21 Avoid, where possible, routing major electric transmission lines above 55 kV through urban areas. <br />Staff Consistency Statement: The project avoids urban areas. <br /> <br />This application is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Kittitas County Comprehensive <br />Plan as outlined above. <br /> <br /> <br />VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW <br /> <br />An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (See Index #34) has been completed for this project under the <br />National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the US Bureau of Land Management as the lead agency. A Final <br />Environmental Impact Statement was published in October 2016 identifying an Environmentally Preferred <br />Alternative which reflects the route proposed in this Conditional Use application. This FEIS is a project lead <br />review, therefore, no further environmental review is required. Kittitas County CDS has adopted the EIS issued in <br />October 2016 by reference (See Index #30 and #31). <br /> <br />VII. AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />Applicable agencies, adjacent property owners, and interested parties have been given the opportunity to review <br />this proposal. All comments are on file and available for public review. The following are a summary of the <br />substantive comments submitted. <br /> <br />Washington State Fish and Wildlife reported a need for the applicant to continue working with them on <br />establishing the need for any HPA permitting for stream crossings along the project route. The applicant <br />responded by agreeing to continue working with WDFW (See Index #26). <br /> <br />Washington State Department of Transportation referenced the need for the applicant to maintain contact with <br />WSDOT and gain approval for any access connections or work performed in WSDOT rights-of-way prior to <br />beginning work. The applicant responded by citing that they are already working with WSDOT regarding the <br />issues raised and will continue to meet WSDOT requirements (See Index #27). <br /> <br />One public comment was submitted by Michael Scanes, on behalf of the Take 5 HOA. Mr. Scanes noted concerns <br />about the project utilizing Roza View Drive for access to the transmission line sites. The applicant responded that <br />they do not intend on using Roza View Drive for access (See Index #28). <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Index # 33