Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Development updates: Rockwool review, permit reporting and a public Q&A on data‑center EIS process
Summary
Acting Community Development Director Melissa Shoemake updated the board on permit‑tracking improvements, re‑enforcing in‑person office hours to speed processing, Rockwool permit review with Safe Built, and answered public questions about whether a planned data‑center would require a SEPA/CEPA environmental impact statement.
Acting Director Melissa Shoemake told commissioners Jan. 5 that her office is refining permit‑tracking reports, plans to re‑enforce in‑person office hours (10 a.m. to 3 p.m.) to give staff heads‑down time on complex reviews, and is managing large reviews including the Rockwool main building permit (Safe Built comments due Jan. 12). She said Rockwool’s submittal is large and complex and the county and Safe Built will likely hold a follow‑up meeting in February to minimize back‑and‑forth.
Shoemake reported 81 open code‑enforcement cases (unchanged month to month) and said staff have closed and opened cases at similar rates; she described efforts to reduce duplication in permit entries and to increase in‑house capacity for smaller commercial projects.
In a public exchange responders raised questions about a largely reported potential data‑center project tied to an LLC called Advanced Phase and whether the county could accept pre‑application, non‑disclosure discussions or whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) could be prepared in advance. Shoemake said no firm applicant had contacted the county and related that the Port had requested and received a binding code interpretation finding that a data center is an allowed use in the industrial zone. She and staff described the SEPA/CEPA threshold process: a lead agency must determine whether a project requires a full environmental impact statement or whether the county can issue a determination of non‑significance with mitigation. She also noted a planned‑action EIS is possible when a sponsor and jurisdictions coordinate in advance but said previous efforts (a planned‑action EIS for the Wallula Gap business park) were declined by the port.
Commissioners asked whether applicants must disclose energy and water‑use estimates during pre‑application meetings; Shoemake said SEPA review typically requires disclosure of resource uses (energy, water) during environmental review and that such information could not generally be withheld under SEPA rules.
