2018 0724 Council Agenda Packet__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Moses Lake City Council
Karen Liebrecht, Mayor | David Curnel, Deputy Mayor | Mike Riggs, Council Member | Don Myers, Council Member
Daryl Jackson, Council Member | Ryann Leonard, Council Member| Dean Hankins, Council Member
Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam
Regular Meeting Agenda
July 24, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order – 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Summary Reports:
Mayor’s Report
Park & Recreation Advisory Board Appointments – Ryan Holterhoff and Chuck Perry
Additional Business
City Manager’s Report
Citizen’s Communications – Identification
Citizens who would like to address the Council must complete one of the blue speaker request cards and submit it to the
City Clerk. There is a (5) minute time limit per speaker.
Consent Agenda Motion
All items listed below are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member requests specific items to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda.
#1 a. City Council Meeting Minutes dated July 10, 2018
b. Bills and Checks Issued
c. Schneider Homes Easement Resolution 3735
Old Business – None scheduled
New Business
#2 Paver District Map Update MLMC 12.12 Ordinance – 1st Presentation
Presented by Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and consider adopting ordinance as presented
July 24, 2018 City Council Meeting – Page 2
#3 2172 Westshore Drive Request to Connect to Water and Sewer Motion
Presented by Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and approve connection with an extra territorial agreement
#4 School Resource Officers
Presented by Kevin Fuhr, Police Chief
Summary: Discussion
#5 Comp Plan Update
Presented by Gil Alvarado, Community Development Director/Deputy City Manager
Summary: Discussion
#6 Crypto Currency Regulations Work Program Motion
Presented by Gil Alvarado, Community Development Director/Deputy City Manager
Summary: Approve the Work Program as presented
Administrative Reports
Council Communications and Reports
Adjournment
Closed Session
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL
July 10, 2018
STUDY SESSION:
A tour and discussion of the Museum Assessment Program was conducted prior to the regular
meeting at the Museum & Art Center.
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Liebrecht in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 401 S. Balsam, Moses Lake,
Washington.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor Liebrecht, Deputy Mayor Curnel, Council Members Myers, Jackson, Leonard, Riggs, and Hankins.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mr. David Eck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. SUMMARY REPORT:
MAYOR’S REPORT
New Business item (4) - 2172 Westshore Drive Request to Connect to Water and Sewer was removed from tonight’s agenda.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Kiwanis and Rotary Club Donation
The two clubs were well represented at the meeting to present the proceeds from a recent golf tournament they sponsored. A check was presented in the amount of $13,291.84 to be designated toward the Police K-9 program.
New City Employee
City Manager John Williams provided a brief history and introduction of Executive Assistant Lia Gunderson. Council Stipend Review
MLMC 2.60.030 requires Council to consider review of their stipend during even
numbered years. Staff will put this topic on a future agenda for discussion. CONSENT AGENDA
#1 a. City Council meeting minutes June 26, 2018.
b. Claims in the amount of $825251.47; prepaid claim checks in the amount of
$5,858.84; claim checks in the amount of $721,148.99 and payroll checks in the amount of $427,844.13. c. Central Terminals Utility Easement Resolution 3731 d. Authorize Joe Davison Discharge to POTW
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – July 10, 2018
pg. 2
e. Accept Biosolids Application Project – Fire Mountain Farms, Inc.
f. Accept Dunes WWTF Headworks Project – Culbert Construction, Inc. g. Accept Sun Terrace Major Plat No. 6
Action taken: Deputy Mayor Curnel moved to approve the Consent Agenda, second by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 – 0.
PUBLIC HEARING
#2 Moratorium of Uses Relating to Cryptocurrency Deputy City Manager Gil Alvarado reviewed the process options that are required when a moratorium is put in place and that a Work Program will be presented for Council approval at the next meeting. Mayor Liebrecht opened the hearing at 7:12 p.m. One
written comment was distributed to Council at the meeting and five people provided
testimony. The hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m. Staff will provide Council with updates from the PUD as they are received. Council concurred to postpone approval of the Work Program until their next meeting. OLD BUSINESS
#3 Fire Alarm MLMC 16.36 and 16.52 Ordinance 2905 First presentation of the draft ordinance occurred on June 26th. The amendments will improve the reporting practices for the fire extinguishing systems.
Action taken: Council Member Leonard moved to adopt Ordinance 2905, second by Deputy
Mayor Curnel. The motion carried 7 – 0. NEW BUSINESS 1 of 2
#4 Item removed from agenda during the Mayor’s Report.
#5 Surplus Property Resolutions 3729 and 3730 The city no longer requires the properties owned by the city and staff recommends the properties be declared surplus and authorize a sale in a commercially reasonable manner.
Action taken: Council Member Hankins moved to adopt Resolution 3729 as presented, second by Council Member Myers. The motion carried 7 – 0. Action taken: Council Member Leonard moved to adopt Resolution 3730 as presented, second by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 – 0.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Liebrecht called an Executive Session at 7:37 p.m. to be held for 20 minutes pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and (i) to consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale and to discuss potential litigation with action to follow. The session was extended for 10
minutes.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – July 10, 2018
pg. 3
NEW BUSINESS 2 of 2 Purchase and Sale Agreement Sale of surplus property approved by Resolution 3729 and 3730. Action taken: Mayor Liebrecht moved to authorize the City Manager to sign and execute all
documents to complete the purchase and sale agreements as discussed in Executive Session, second by Deputy Mayor Curnel. The motion carried 7 – 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Deputy City Manager Gil Alvarado advised that Colville Fuels, LLC has been invoiced for
Municipal Services in amount of $32k. He also announced that a permit was issued today to Hampton Inn for the construction of hotel number seven in the vicinity of I-90 and Hwy 17. Parks and Recreation Director Spencer Grigg provided information on the installation of lighting and scoreboards at Paul Lauzier Athletic Complex and Kvamme Soccer Complex that are a
result of recent grants and donations to the city. City Manager John Williams reviewed the Finance Director’s memorandum about the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Guidelines and attached timeline that were distributed to Council at the meeting. He confirmed that information received from the PUD meetings on Cryptocurrency
will be forwarded to the Council and shared information from recent attendance to the AWC Annual Conference in Yakima. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS – no action taken.
ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. ______________________________________
Karen Liebrecht, Mayor ATTEST____________________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
STAFF REPORT
To: John Williams, City Manager
From: Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Date: June 27, 2018
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Resolution to accept a municipal easement from Schneider
Homes, Inc.
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: July 28, 2018
• Second Presentation: None
• Requested Action: Motion
Staff Report Summary
Schneider Homes, Inc. is granting a municipal easement for street and utility improvements for
the east half of Paxson Drive as it fronts the Barrington Point Major Plats 4 and 5.
Background
The Barrington Point subdivisions continue to develop south toward the end of Crestview Drive
requiring Paxson Drive to be extended to serve the new subdivisions. They have reached an area
of undeveloped property on the east side of Paxson without existing right of way or easements.
The owner of this property will grant an easement for municipal street and utility improvements.
When the property is developed in the future, the easement area will be dedicated as right of
way.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
None
Page 2 of 2
Options
Option Results
• Move to authorize the resolution as
presented
The easement will allow Paxson Drive to
continue to extend southward serving the
Barrington Point Major Plats.
• Modify the resolution Action could require staff to bring a revised
document to Council for consideration.
• Take no action The proponent of the Barrington Point Major
Plats would not be able to complete the
subdivisions as presented until some other
resolution is agreed upon.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution 3735 as presented.
Attachments
A. Resolution and easement recording with sketch
Legal Review n-a
RESOLUTION NO. 3735 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE FROM SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. Recitals: 1. Resolution No. 238 provides all grants of real estate, or any interest therein, to the City of Moses Lake, shall not be accepted until a resolution has been duly passed by the City Council. 2. Schneider Homes, Inc. has presented an easement to the City of Moses Lake. Resolved: 1. Easement for municipal purposes for the following described property is hereby accepted by the City of Moses Lake: A PARCEL OF LAND FOR MUNICIPAL RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 19 NORTH, RANGE 28 EAST W.M., GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE FULLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, FROM WHICH,
THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE MEANDER CORNER OF SAID SECTION BEARS S00° 22’10”E, 1536.93 FEET; THENCE N00°45’48”W ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 15,14.37 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY-BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, RECORDED IN BOOK 39 OF SURVEYS, PAGES 92 AND 93, UNDER AUDITOR’S FILE NUMBER 1076861, RECORDS OF GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE N89°14’11” E ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT, 30.00 FEET; THENCE S00°45’48” E PARALLEL TO SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, 14.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 15 AND 22; THENCE S00°22’10”E, PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A
DISTANCE OF 1003.79 FEET; THENCE S89°37’50”W, 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE N00°22’10”W ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY, 1003.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake on July 28, 2018. ________________________________ Karen Liebrecht, Mayor ATTEST:
_____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
STAFF REPORT
To: John Williams, City Manager
From: Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Date: July 18, 2018
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Ordinance – Amend MLMC 12.12 Sidewalk Construction
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: July 24, 2018
• Second Presentation: August 14, 2018
• Requested Action: Consideration
Staff Report Summary
The attached ordinance amends the borders of the Paver District in the downtown business district
by adding back the language describing the map boundaries and replacing the Paver District Map
in MLMC 12.12 as exhibit A.
Background
More than 20 years ago, the City designated the downtown business district to be constructed
with concrete brick pavers instead of grey concrete in an effort to beautify the traditional
downtown of the city. Other requirements for street trees and other improvements were also
included. In the beginning of this effort, the City partnered with the business owners and paid for
design of the projects and covered all costs above the cost of installing traditional concrete
sidewalks.
Many years ago, due to financial reasons, the City ceased their financial support of new paver
projects. This has led to many areas in the downtown business district that have sidewalks in need
of repair and replacement that have been neglected because of the high cost to install concrete
brick pavers.
Page 2 of 2
Staff is proposing that the Paver District be reduced in size to include those areas that already have
the majority of the sidewalks installed with brick pavers and remove the rest of the area from that
requirement to make it easier for those businesses to repair failing sidewalks.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Because the City is no longer participating in paver projects, no fiscal impact is anticipated.
Options
Option Results
• Move to adopt the revised Paver
District boundaries as presented
1st Presentation, no motion required
• Modify the revised Paver District
boundaries
Action could require staff to bring a revised
map of the Paver District to Council for
consideration.
• Take no action The City will not revise the Paver District
boundaries
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council to consider adopting the revised Paver District boundaries as
presented.
Attachments
A. Ordinance and Map
Legal Review
The following documents are attached and subject to legal review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel
• Ordinance Amend MLMC 12.12 July 18, 2018
ORDINANCE – 1st Presentation July 24, 2018
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTION 12.12.050 TITLED “PAVER DISTRICT DESCRIPTION” THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection 12.12.050 of the MLMC titled “Paver District Description” is established and the existing map is amended as follows:
12.12.055 Paver District Description. The Paver District which is defined as the following area:
Commencing at the north edge of Broadway Avenue and the centerline of Cedar Avenue, thence north easterly along the north edge of Broadway Avenue to the centerline of Alder Street, thence south easterly along the centerline of Alder Street to the centerline of Fourth Avenue, thence south westerly along the centerline of Fourth
Avenue to the centerline of Beech Street, thence north westerly along the centerline
of Beech Street to the south edge of Third Avenue, thence south westerly along the south edge of Third Avenue to the centerline of Cedar Street, thence along the centerline of Cedar Street to the point of beginning. See attached Exhibit A.
Section 2. Severability. If any section of this ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid
as written or as applied to any particular person or circumstances, no other section of the ordinance shall be deemed to be invalid, but rather, should be deemed to have been enacted independently and without regard to the section affected.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its
passage and publication of its summary as provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, WA and signed by its Mayor on August
14, 2018.
_____________________________________
Karen Liebrecht, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________ Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
Vote: Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Leonard Hankins
Aye Nay
Abstain
Absent Date Published: September 4, 2018
Date Effective: September 9, 2018
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
STAFF REPORT
To: John Williams, City Manager
From: Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Date: July 10, 2018
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Request to Connect to City Water and Sewer-
2172 Westshore Drive NE- Parcel #141745000
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: July 24, 2018
• Second Presentation: N/A
• Requested Action: Motion
Staff Report Summary
Chad C. and Michell Barrett request approval to connect to the City’s water and sewer systems to
serve a single family residence on their lot at 2172 Westshore Drive NE, Parcel #141745000. The
property is defined as contiguous lands and also is adjacent lands. The property is being
developed under County jurisdiction with one existing single family residence and placement of a
manufactured home on the same property with a separate address. The request and approval
will be for the manufactured home only. The City’s water and sewer systems have the capacity
to serve the lot. The property is located outside of city limits, but inside the UGA and is within
one half mile of city limits. If approved, the property owners will be required to sign an extra
territorial agreement (ETA) for the entire parcel. The ETA would state approval for a single
connection to serve 2172 Westshore Drive and additional connections to the same parcel would
require approval by the City Council. The ETA must be in place before a permit is issued for
connecting to city services
Page 2 of 2
Background
The water main and sewer force main on Westshore Drive NE was installed by the developers of
the Moses Pointe development beginning in 2000. The property is being developed under
County jurisdiction but the property owner wishes to connect to city services.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Per Resolution No. 3717, contiguous lands are required to be annexed into the City if within one
half mile of existing city limits but may be permitted to connect if it is impractical for the property
owner to annex. The property was previously platted as Tract 12, Stade Orchard Tracts Replat.
The value of this property and three additional properties with existing extra territorial
agreements in place total 36% of the property value needed to annex the additional nine
properties needed to extend the city limits to the Barrett property.
Options
Option Results
• Move to approve the request. The owners will provide an extra territorial
agreement and connect to City water and
sewer.
• Modify the easement Action would require staff to bring a revised
document to Council for consideration.
• Take no action
The proponent would not connect to City
utilities and pursue other options to provide
water and sewer to the manufactured home.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council to approve to connect to the City water and sewer system. If
approved, the owners will be required to sign an extra territorial agreement before issuing a
permit for the connections.
Attachments
A. Request via email, Vicinity Map
Legal Review – n-a
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
STAFF REPORT
To: John Williams, City Manager
From: Gilbert Alvarado, Deputy City Manager
Date: July 19, 2018
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Updates Discussion
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: July 24, 2018
• Second Presentation:
• Requested Action: None
Staff Report Summary
Over the last few months staff has mentioned to the City Council that we are working on the
2018 Comprehensive Plan updates as required by the timelines adopted in the Growth
Management Act (GMA). The City of Moses Lake and Grant County are both mandated to review
their Comprehensive Plans for consistency with the provisions of GMA and update if necessary.
Given the staffing changes in Community Development and Municipal Services, we are only
looking at satisfying the minimum review under GMA. A full review will need to be discussed with
the City Council along with budgetary needs to assist with that review.
Background
The City of Moses Lake is mandated to fully plan under GMA and must conduct a “periodic
review and update”. Our periodic review and update as mandated in 2018 under GMA. Attached
is the Periodic Update Checklist as provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce.
The Checklist is intended to identify components of our Comprehensive Plan that may need to be
updated in consideration of local conditions or to comply with any changes to GMA since our last
update.
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
To be determined with further study and investigation.
Options
Option Results
• Consideration of amendments to the
Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan.
Compliance with GMA mandated periodic
review and updates.
• Take no action Non-compliance with GMA which could have
financial impacts associated with State and
Federal grants and loans.
Staff Recommendation
The City Council should continue to move forward on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan periodic
review and updates if necessary.
Attachments
A. UGA Amendments/Land Use Designation Amendments
B. Periodic Update Checklist
Legal Review – n-a
BROADWAY AVEK IN D E R R D
STRATFORD RDSR-17
R O A D 4CURRY DRMILLER ST WENATCHEE RDDOUGHERTY RD NE
O LY M PIC D R
PA R K W A Y D R STRATFORD RDM A P L E DR
A P P L E R D
S U N N Y DR
PARK DRORCHARD DRS A G E D A L E R D
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPLANNING DIVISION
LEGEND
AGENDA SITE
MOSES LAKE
Path: \\GIS-SERVER\gis\Masters\MAP PRODUCT\COUNCIL MAPS.mxd Date: 7/19/2018
975 0 975487.5 Feet
µ
550 0 550275 Feet
Cordell Parcel
PARCEL 170485000
PARCEL 170485000
TOWHEE STTOWHEE STTUTTLERDROAD 1.8 NE
EA G L E D R
W R EN S TPARTRIDGE DRQ
U
AIL D
R
FAIRWAYDRHA WK ST EGRE
T
S
T STADERDEAGLE DRMALAGA DRQUAIL DRW
E
S
T
S
H
O
R
E D
R
J
E
NNI
FE
R
L
N
VILLA DR
ELSIE RDROAD F.5AL S TE D RD
PART R IDGE DR
ROAD 1.9
MAE VA L LEY R D
JONATHA N R D
W R E N S T
H AWK STEGR
E
T
STM A E VA LL E Y RD
ROA D 1.8 NE
MAE VA L LEY R DROAD F Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPLANNING DIVISION
LEGEND
AGENDA SITE
MOSES LAKE
Path: \\GIS-SERVER\gis\Masters\MAP PRODUCT\COUNCIL MAPS.mxd Date: 7/19/2018
860 0 860430 Feet
µ
490 0 490245Feet
Herring Farms
PARCEL 170845000
PARCEL 170845000
HAMILTON RDBURR AVE SILVA STDEBONAIR ST
APACHE ST
BUD LNWISER LNBELL RDBONANZA ST
INDUSTRIAL ST CITATION RDWHEELER RDROAD LROAD LWHEELER RD
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPLANNING DIVISION
LEGEND
AGENDA SITE
MOSES LAKE
Path: \\GIS-SERVER\gis\Masters\MAP PRODUCT\COUNCIL MAPS.mxd Date: 7/19/2018
1,200 0 1,200600 Feet
µ
725 0 725362.5 Feet
Row Crop Parcel
PARCEL 313169000
PARCEL 313169000
LOCUST LN
PENINSULA DRBROADWAYAVEMARLO AVE
PHEASANT STPHEASANTSTPHEASANT STLOCUST LN PHEASANT ST Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPLANNING DIVISION
LEGEND
AGENDA SITE
MOSES LAKE
Path: \\GIS-SERVER\gis\Masters\MAP PRODUCT\COUNCIL MAPS.mxd Date: 7/19/2018
175 0 17587.5 Feet
µ
100 0 10050 Feet
T & M Properties
PARCELS 100129000 & 100130000
PARCEL 100129000
PARCEL 100130000
Contact Information:
Paul Johnson, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services
Phone:360-7253048, email: paul.johnson@commere.wa.gov
Periodic Update Checklist for Cities – Updated June 2016
Covers laws through 2016
This checklist is intended to help cities that are fully planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
to conduct the “periodic review and update” of comprehensive plans and development regulations
required by RCW 36.70A.130(4). Cities can use the checklist to identify components of their
comprehensive plan and development regulations that may need to be updated to reflect the latest
local conditions or to comply with changes to the GMA since their last update.
This checklist includes components of the comprehensive plan and development regulations that are
specifically required by the GMA. Statutory requirements adopted since 2003 are emphasized in
highlighted text to help identify new components of the GMA that may not have been addressed in
annual updates or other amendments outside of the required periodic update process. Cities within the
Puget Sound Regional Council boundaries may want to use this checklist in tandem with PSRC checklists.
A separate checklist is available for counties.
How to fill out the checklist
With the most recent version of your comprehensive plan and development regulations in hand, fill out
each item in the checklist. Select the check box or type in text fields, answering the following questions:
Is this item addressed in your current plan or regulations? If YES, fill in the form with citation(s) to
where in the plan or code the item is addressed. We recommend using citations rather than page
numbers because they stay the same regardless of how the document is printed. If you have questions
about the requirement, follow the hyperlinks to the relevant statutory provision or rules. If you still
have questions, visit the Commerce Web page or the Commerce planner assigned to your region.
Is amendment needed to meet current statute? Check YES to indicate a change to your plan or
regulations will be needed. Check NO to indicate that the GMA requirement has already been met.
Local updates may not be needed if the statute hasn’t changed since your previous update, if your
county has kept current with required inventories, or if there haven’t been many changes in local
circumstances.
Use the “Notes” column to add additional information to note areas where your county may elect to
work on or amend sections of your plan or development regulations that are not strictly required by the
GMA, or to indicate if the item is not applicable to your jurisdiction.
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
2 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
How to use the completed checklist
Commerce strongly encourages you to use the completed checklist to develop a detailed work plan (see
Appendix B) for your periodic update. The checklist can be used to inform the contents of a council
resolution that defines what actions will be taken as part of the GMA periodic update.
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
3 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
I. Required Comprehensive Plan Elements and Components
1. A Land Use Element that is consistent with countywide planning policies (CWPPs) and RCW
36.70A.070(1).
a. A future land use map showing city limits and urban growth
area (UGA) boundaries.
RCW 36.70A.070(1) and RCW 36.70A.110(6)
WAC 365-196-400(2)(d), WAC 365-196-405(2)(i)(ii)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. Consideration of urban planning approaches that increase
physical activity. RCW 36.70A.070(1), Amended in 2005
WAC 365-196-405 (2)(j)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. A consistent population projection throughout the plan
which should be consistent with the Office of Financial
Management forecast for the county or the county’s sub-
county allocation of that forecast.
RCW 43.62.035, WAC 365-196-405(f)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. Estimates of population densities and building intensities
based on future land uses.
RCW 36.70A.070(1); WAC 365-196-405(2)(i)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
e. Provisions for protection of the quality and quantity of
groundwater used for public water supplies.
RCW 36.70A.070(1)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
f. Identification of lands useful for public purposes such as
utility corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage
treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities,
recreation, schools, and other public uses.
RCW 36.70A.150 and WAC 365-196-340
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
g. Identification of open space corridors within and between
urban growth areas, including lands useful for recreation,
wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas.
RCW 36.70A.160 and WAC 365-196-335
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
4 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
h. If there is an airport within or adjacent to the city: policies,
land use designations (and zoning) to discourage the siting
of incompatible uses adjacent to general aviation airports.
[RCW 36.70A.510, RCW 36.70.547, New in 1996)]
Note: The plan (and associated regulations) must be filed
with the Aviation Division of WSDOT. WAC 365-196-455
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
i. If there is a Military Base within or adjacent to the
jurisdiction employing 100 or more personnel: policies, land
use designations, (and consistent zoning) to discourage the
siting of incompatible uses adjacent to military bases.
RCW 36.70A.530(3), New in 2004. See WAC 365-196-475
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
j. Where applicable, a review of drainage, flooding, and
stormwater run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and
provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse
those discharges that pollute waters of the state.
RCW 36.70A.70(1) and WAC 365-196-405(2)(c)
Note: RCW 90.56.010(26) defines waters of the state.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
k. Policies to designate and protect critical areas including
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat protection areas,
frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and
geologically hazardous areas. In developing these policies,
the city must have included the best available science (BAS)
to protect the functions and values of critical areas, and give
“special consideration” to conservation or protection
measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous
fisheries.
RCW 36.70A.030(5), RCW 36.70A.172, BAS added in 1995.
See WAC 365-195-900 through -925, WAC 365-190-080
Note: A voluntary stewardship program was created in 2011
as an alternative for protecting critical areas in areas used for
agricultural activities. Counties had the opportunity to opt
into this voluntary program before January 22, 2012. See
requirements of the voluntary stewardship program.
RCW 36.70A.700 through .904.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
5 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
l. If forest or agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance are designated inside city: a program authorizing
Transfer (or Purchase) of Development Rights.
RCW 36.70A.060(4), Amended in 2005
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
2. A Housing Element to ensure the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods and
is consistent with relevant CWPPs, and RCW 36.70A.070(2).
a. Goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.
RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b) and WAC 365-196-410(2)(a)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing
needs over the planning period.
RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a) and WAC 365-196-410(2)(b) and (c)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. Identification of sufficient land for housing, including but
not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for
low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily
housing, group homes, and foster care facilities.
RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. Adequate provisions for existing and projected housing
needs for all economic segments of the community.
RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d) and WAC 365-196-410
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
e. If enacting or expanding an affordable housing program
under RCW 36.70A.540: identification of land use
designations within a geographic area where increased
residential development will assist in achieving local growth
management and housing policies.
RCW 36.70A.540, New in 2006. WAC 365-196-870
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
f. Policies so that manufactured housing is not regulated
differently than site built housing.
RCW 35.21.684, 35.63.160, 35A.21.312, and 36.01.225,
Amended in 2004
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
6 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
g. If the city has a population of over 20,000: provisions for
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be allowed in single-
family residential areas.
RCW 36.70A.400, RCW 43.63A.215(3)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
3. A Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element to serve as a check on the practicality of achieving other
elements of the plan, covering all capital facilities planned, provided, and paid for by public entities
including local government and special districts, etc.; including water systems, sanitary sewer
systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection
facilities. Capital expenditures from Park and Recreation elements, if separate, should be included in
the CFP Element. The CFP Element must be consistent with CWPPs, and RCW 36.70A.070(3), and
include:
a. Policies or procedures to ensure capital budget decisions
are in conformity with the comprehensive plan.
RCW 36.70A.120
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public
entities. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and WAC 365-196-415(2)(a)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. A forecast of needed capital facilities.
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b) and WAC 365-196-415 (b)
Note: The forecast of future need should be based on
projected population and adopted levels of service (LOS)
over the planning period.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. Proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new
capital facilities.
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(c) and WAC 365-196-415 (3)(C)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
e. A six-year plan (at least) identifying sources of public money
to finance planned capital facilities.
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) and RCW 36.70A.120
WAC 365-196-415
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
f. A policy or procedure to reassess the Land Use Element if
probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs.
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e) WAC 365-196-415(2)(d)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
7 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
g. If impact fees are collected: identification of public facilities
on which money is to be spent.
RCW 82.02.050(4) and WAC 365-196-850
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
4. A Utilities Element which is consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(4) and includes:
a. The general location, proposed location and capacity of all
existing and proposed utilities.
RCW 36.70A.070(4) and WAC 365-196-420
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
5. A Transportation Element which is consistent with relevant CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.070(6) and
includes:
a. An inventory of air, water, and ground transportation
facilities and services, including transit alignments, state-
owned transportation facilities, and general aviation airports.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(A) and WAC 365-196-430(2)(c).
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. Adopted levels of service (LOS) standards for all arterials,
transit routes and highways.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B), New in 1997.
WAC 365-196-430
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. Identification of specific actions to bring locally-owned
transportation facilities and services to established LOS.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(D), Amended in 2005.
WAC 365-196-430
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. A forecast of traffic for at least 10 years, including land use
assumptions used in estimating travel.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(i), RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(E)
WAC 365-196-430(2)(f).
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
e. A projection of state and local system needs to meet current
and future demand.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(F) and WAC 365-196-430(2)(f)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
8 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
f. A pedestrian and bicycle component.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vii), Amended 2005
WAC 365-196-430(2)(j)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
g. A description of any existing and planned transportation
demand management (TDM) strategies, such as HOV lanes
or subsidy programs, parking policies, etc.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi) and WAC 365-196-430(2)(i)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
h. An analysis of future funding capability to judge needs
against probable funding resources.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(A) and WAC 365.196-430(2)(k)(iv)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
i. A multiyear financing plan based on needs identified in the
comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which serve as
the basis for the 6-year street, road or transit program.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(B) and RCW 35.77.010
WAC 365-196-430(2)(k)(ii)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
j. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs: a
discussion of how additional funds will be raised, or how
land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that LOS
standards will be met. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(C) and
WAC 365-196-430(2)(l)(ii)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
k. A description of intergovernmental coordination efforts,
including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation
plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems
of adjacent jurisdictions and how it is consistent with the
regional transportation plan.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(v); WAC 365-196-430(2)(a)(iv)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
6. Provisions for siting essential public facilities (EPFs), consistent with CWPPs and RCW 36.70A.200.
This section can be included in the Capital Facilities Element, Land Use Element, or in its own
element. Sometimes the identification and siting process for EPFs is part of the CWPPs.
a. A process or criteria for identifying and siting essential
public facilities (EPFs). [RCW 36.70A.200, Amended in 1997
Yes
No
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
9 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
and 2001]
Notes: EPFs are defined in RCW 71.09.020(14). Cities should
consider OFM’s list of EPFs that are required or likely to be
built within the next six years. Regional Transit Authority
facilities are included in the list of essential public facilities
RCW 36.70A.200, amended 2010. WAC 365-196-550(d)
Location(s)
b. Policies or procedures that ensure the comprehensive plan
does not preclude the siting of EPFs. RCW 36.70A.200(5)
Note: If the EPF siting process is in the CWPPs, this policy
may be contained in the comprehensive plan as well.
WAC 365-196-550(3)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
7. Consistency is required by the GMA.
a. All plan elements must be consistent with relevant county-
wide planning policies (CWPPs) and, where applicable,
Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs), and the GMA.
RCW 36.70A.100 and 210
WAC 365-196-400(2)(c), 305 and 520
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. All plan elements must be consistent with each other.
RCW 36.70A.070 (preamble), and WAC 365-197-400(2)(f)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. The plan must be coordinated with the plans of adjacent
jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.100 and WAC 365-196-520
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
a. Shoreline Provisions
Comprehensive plan acknowledges that for shorelines of the
state, the goals and policies of the shoreline management act
as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 are added as one of the goals
of this chapter as set forth in RCW 36.70A.020 without
creating an order of priority among the fourteen goals. The
goals and policies of the shoreline master program approved
under RCW 90.58 shall be considered an element of the
comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.480, WAC 365-196-580
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. Public participation, plan amendments and monitoring.
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
10 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
Note: House Bill 2834, passed in 2012, eliminates the requirement for cities planning under the
GMA to report every 5 years on its progress in implementing its comprehensive plans.
a. A process to ensure public participation in the
comprehensive planning process.
RCW 36.70A.020(11), .035, and .140; WAC 365-196-600(3)
The process should address annual amendments (if the
jurisdiction allows for them) [RCW 36.70A.130(2), Amended
in 2006], emergency amendments [RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b)],
and may include a specialized periodic update process. Plan
amendment processes may be coordinated among cities
within a county [RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)] and should be well
publicized.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. A process to assure that proposed regulatory or
administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional
taking of private property. See Attorney General’s Advisory
Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private
Property for guidance. RCW 36.70A.370
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
II. Required Components of Development Regulations WAC 365-196-810
10. Regulations designating and protecting critical areas are required by RCW 36.70A.170, RCW
36.70A.060(2) and RCW 36.70A.172(1).
Note: A voluntary stewardship program was created in ESHB 1886 (2011) as an alternative for
protecting critical areas in areas used for agricultural activities. Counties may choose to opt into
this voluntary program before January 22, 2012. Go to http://scc.wa.gov/vsp/ for more
information on the voluntary stewardship program.
a. Classification and designation of each of the five types of
critical areas (wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded
areas, and geologically hazardous areas), if they are found
within your city.
RCW 36.70A.170; WAC 365-196-830(2)
Note: Senate Bill 5292 adopted in 2012 clarified that certain
water-based artificial features or constructs are excluded
from being considered part of a fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
11 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
b. Findings that demonstrate Best Available Science (BAS) was
included in developing policies and development regulations
to protect the function and values of critical areas. In
addition, findings should document special consideration
given to conservation or protection measures necessary to
preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
RCW 36.70A.172(1); WAC 365-195, WAC 365-195
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. Regulations that protect the functions and values of
wetlands. RCW 36.70A.060(2) and RCW 36.70A.172(1)
WAC 365-190-090
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. A definition of wetlands consistent with RCW
36.70A.030(21) WAC 365-190-090, WAC 173-22-035
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
e. Delineation of wetlands using the approved federal wetlands
delineation manual and applicable regional supplements
[RCW 36.70A.175, RCW 90.58.380 (1995) (2011)]
WAC 173-22-035
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
f. Regulations that protect the functions and values of critical
aquifer recharge areas (“areas with a critical recharging
effect on aquifers used for potable water” RCW
36.70A.030(5)(b)). RCW 36.70A.060(2), RCW 36.70A.172(1)
and WAC 365-190-100
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
g. Regulations to protect the quality and quantity of ground
water used for public water supplies. RCW 36.70A.070(1)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
h. Regulations that protect the functions and values of fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas.
RCW 36.70A.060(2) and RCW 36.70A.172(1)
WAC 365-195-925(3), 365-190-130
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
i. Regulations that protect the functions and values of
frequently flooded areas.
RCW 36.70A.060(2) and RCW 36.70A.172(1)
WAC 365-190-110, WAC 173-158-040
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
j. Definition of “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas”
does not include such artificial features or constructs as
Yes
No
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
12 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation
canals, or drainage ditches that lie within the boundaries of
and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation district
or company. New in 2012. RCW 36.70A.030(5)
Location(s)
k. Provisions to ensure water quality and stormwater drainage
regulations are consistent with applicable Land Use Element
policies. RCW 36.70A.070(1)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
l. Regulation of geologically hazardous areas consistent with
public health and safety concerns.
RCW 36.70A.030(9), RCW 36.70A.060(2) and RCW
36.70A.172(1) WAC 365-190-120
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
m. Provisions that allow “reasonable use” of properties
constrained by presence of critical areas.
RCW 36.70A.370. See Attorney General’s Advisory
Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private
Property for guidance
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
n. If your city is assuming regulation of forest practices as
provided in RCW 76.09.240: forest practices regulations that
protect public resources, require appropriate approvals for
all phases of conversion of forest lands, are guided by GMA
planning goals, and are consistent with adopted critical areas
regulations.
RCW 36.70A.570, Amended in 2007, 2010 and RCW
76.09.240 Amended in 2007, 2010
Note: Applies only to counties fully planning under the GMA
with a population greater than 100,000 and the cities and
towns within those counties where a certain number of Class
IV applications have been filed within a certain timeframe.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
11. Shoreline Master Program
See Washington State Department of Ecology’s SMP Submittal Checklist
a. Zoning is consistent with Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
environmental designations.
RCW 36.70A.070; RCW 36.70A.480 and WAC 365-196-580
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. If SMP regulations have been updated to meet Ecology’s
shoreline regulations: protection for critical areas in
Yes
No
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
13 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
shorelines is accomplished solely through the SMP.
RCW 36.70A.480(4), Amended in 2003 and 2010 and RCW
90.58.090(4). WAC 365-196-580
Location(s)
12. The Zoning Code should contain the following provisions:
a. Family daycare providers are allowed in areas zoned for
residential or commercial uses. Zoning conditions should be
no more restrictive than those imposed on other residential
dwellings in the same zone, but may address drop-off and
pickup areas and hours of operation.
RCW 36.70A.450, WAC 365-196-865
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. Manufactured housing is regulated the same as site-built
housing. RCW 35.21.684, 35.63.160, 35A.21.312 and
36.01.225, All Amended in 2004
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. If the city has a population over 20,000 accessory dwelling
units (ADUs) are allowed in single-family residential areas.
RCW 43.63A.215(3)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. If there is an airport within or adjacent to the city: zoning that
discourages the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to
general aviation airports.
RCW 36.70A.510, RCW 36.70.547, New in 1996)
Note: The zoning regulations must be filed with the Aviation
Division of WSDOT. WAC 365-196-455
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
e. If there is a Military Base within or adjacent to the jurisdiction
employing 100 or more personnel: zoning that discourages
the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to military bases.
RCW 36.70A.530(3), New in 2004. WAC 365-196-475
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
o. Residential structures that are occupied by persons with
handicaps must be regulated the same as a similar
residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated
individuals. RCW 36.70A.410, WAC 365-196-860
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
p. Cities adjacent to I-5, I-90, I-405, or SR 520 and counties --
for lands within 1 mile of these highways -- must adopt
regulations that allow electric vehicle infrastructure (EVI) as
a use in all areas except those zoned for residential or
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
14 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
resource use, or critical areas by July 1, 2011.
RCW 36.70A.695, New in 2009
q. Development regulations of all jurisdictions must allow
electric vehicle battery charging stations in all areas except
those zoned for residential or resource use, or critical areas
by July 1, 2011. RCW 36.70A.695, New in 2009
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
13. Subdivision Code regulations
a. Subdivision code is consistent with and implements
comprehensive plan policies.
RCW 36.70A.030(7)and 36.70A.040(4)(d), WAC 365-196-820
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. Code requires written findings documenting that proposed
subdivisions provide appropriate provision under RCW
58.17.110(2)(a) for: Streets or roads, sidewalks, alleys,
other public ways, transit stops, and other features that
assure safe walking conditions for students; potable water
supplies [RCW 19.27.097], sanitary wastes, and drainage
ways (stormwater retention and detention); open spaces,
parks and recreation, and playgrounds; and schools and
school grounds. WAC 365-196-820(1)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
c. Subdivision regulations may implement traffic demand
management (TDM) policies.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi)
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
d. Preliminary subdivision approvals under RCW 58.17.140 are
valid for a period of five, seven, or nine years. [RCW
58.17.140 and RCW 58.17.170.
Amended 2010 by SB 6544. Expires 2014.
Amended 2012 by HB 2152
Note: House Bill 2152, adopted by the Legislature in 2012,
modified timelines. The preliminary plat approval is valid
for: seven years if the date of preliminary plat approval is on
or before December 31, 2014; five years if the preliminary
plat approval is issued on or after January 1, 2015; and ten
years if the project is located within city limits, not subject
to the shoreline management act, and the preliminary plat
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
15 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
is approved on or before December 31, 2007.
14. Concurrency , Impact Fees, and TDM
a. The transportation concurrency ordinance includes specific
language that prohibits development when level of service
standards for transportation facilities cannot be met.
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)
ESB 5923 (laws of 2015) requires counties, cities, and towns
to delay the starting of the six-year time frame until after
deferred impact fees are due. For more information see
MRSCs Impact Fee Deferral Program web page. Adopted in
2015
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. If adopted: impact fee methods are consistent with RCW
82.02.050 through 100
Note: The timeframe for expending or encumbering impact
fees has been extended to ten years. RCW 82.02.070 and
RCW 82.02.080, Amended in 2011. WAC 365-196-850
ESB 5923 (laws of 2015) requires counties, cities, and towns
to adopt a deferral system for the collection of impact fees
for new single-family detached and attached residential
construction. by September 1, 2016. Adopted in 2015For
more information see MRSCs Impact Fee Deferral Program
web page.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
If required by RCW 70.94.527: a commute trip reduction
(CTR)ordinance to reduce the proportion of single-occupant
vehicle commute trips.
RCW 70.94.521-551, Amended in 2006. WAC 468-63
Note: See WSDOT’s CTR web page for more information.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
15. Siting Essential Public Facilities (EPFs)
Regulations are consistent with Essential Public Facility siting
process in countywide planning policies or city comprehensive
plan, and do not preclude the siting of EPFs.
RCW 36.70A.200(5) and WAC 365-196-550
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
16. Project Review Procedures
Project review processes integrate permit and environmental Yes Yes
Addressed
in current
plan or
regs? If yes,
where?
Changes
needed to
meet
current
statute?
Notes
16 | P eriodic update checklist for cities – June 2016
review for: notice of application; notice of complete
application; one open-record public hearing; allowing
applicants to combine public hearings and decisions for
multiple permits; notice of decision; one closed-record appeal.
RCW 36.70A.470, RCW 36.70B and RCW 43.21C
WAC 365-196-845
No
Location(s)
No
17. General Provisions: The GMA requires that development regulations be consistent with and
implement the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.030(7) and .040(4)(d). Regulations should also
include:
a. A process for early and continuous public participation in
the development regulation development and amendment
process. RCW 36.70A.020(11),.035, .130 and .140
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
b. A process to assure that proposed regulatory or
administrative actions do not result in an unconstitutional
taking of private property. RCW 36.70A.370, WAC 365-196-
855 Note: See Attorney General’s Advisory Memorandum:
Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property.
Yes
No
Location(s)
Yes
No
This checklist covers the requirements of the Growth Management Act through the laws of
2016. It does not address related issues, or things that are not required but that are commonly
found in comprehensive plans and the implementing regulations.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/periodic-update/
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
STAFF REPORT
To: John Williams, City Manager
From: Gilbert Alvarado, Deputy City Manager
Date: July 18, 2018
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Moratorium of Uses Relating to Cryptocurrency
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: May 22, 2018
• Second Presentation: June 12, 2018
• Requested Action: Adopt Work Program – July 24, 2018
Staff Report Summary
In accordance with Ordinance No. 2900, the City Council is to conduct a public hearing within
sixty (60) days after the adoption of the Ordinance. A public hearing was held on July 10, 2018 to
take testimony on the merits of the moratorium that was imposed on uses relating to
cryptocurrency mining operations. The public hearing was opened and closed by the City Council
with action to follow on the Work Program at their July 24, 2018 regular scheduled meeting.
Attached is a Work Program detailing the time period and action in accordance with RCW
36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220. The City Council should consider the attached Work Program
in accordance with the adopted Ordinance and as stated at the July 10th public hearing before the
Council.
Ordinance No. 2900, Section 2. Findings, included recitals that were adopted by the City Council
as Findings of Fact in support of the moratorium imposed. The Council should confirm the
adopted Finding of Fact as part their action on the Work Program.
Page 2 of 2
Background
Ordinance No. 2900 provides staff the time needed to study the impacts of cryptocurrency
mining operations on the electrical distribution network and capacities of the network within the
city limits. Land use considerations will also be studied in terms of compatibility and future
development patterns. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 2900 requires the development of a Work
Program.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
To be determined with further study and investigation.
Options
Option Results
• Adopt Work Program Compliance with Section 6 of Ordinance No.
2900 adopted by the City Council on June 12,
2018 and state statute.
• Take no action Non-compliance with Section 6 of Ordinance
No. 2900 adopted by the City Council on June
12, 2018 and state statute.
Staff Recommendation
The City Council should consider and adopt a Work Program as well as confirm the Findings of
Fact in accordance with state statute and Ordinance No. 2900.
Attachments
A. Work Program
Legal Review n-a
Ordinance 2900
WORK PROGRAM
Timeline Action Review
June 2018 through August 2018 Coordinate with Grant Co. PUD
to identify potential issues
Staff
September 2018 through
November 2018
Initiate public participation
program to assist with Zoning
Code and Policy development
Planning Commission; Staff
December 2018 through
February 2019
Final Draft Zoning Code
amendments; Conduct Public
Hearing
Planning Commission; Staff;
Legal
March 2019 Review Planning Commission
recommendation
Legal; Executive Staff
April 2019 through June 2019 Consider Planning
Recommendation
City Council; Executive Staff;
Legal