The URL can be used to link to this page

02092016HOSES LAKE Moses Lake City Council Todd Voth, Mayor I Karen Liebrecht, Deputy Mayor I Bill Ecret, Council Member I Ryann Leonard, Council Member I David Curnel, Council Member I Don Myer, Council Member I Mike Norman, Council Member February 9, 2016 -6:00 pm Budget/Council Policy Study Session City Council Meeting Agenda Call to Order -7:00 pm Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Citizen's Communications -Identification Citizens who would like to address the council during Public Questions/Comments or during a Public Hearing, should complete one of the blue speaker request cards and submit it to the Executive Secretary. Public Questions/Comments is a time in which you may address Council on any topic RELATED TO CITY MA TIERS that is not already on tonight's agenda. Any public hearings that are noted on tonight's agenda will be announced when opened. Presentations and Awards Employee presentation from Community Development Department Consent Agenda 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 Councilmember 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. Approval of Minutes -January 26, 2016 b. Approval Bills and Checks Issued c. Lakeview Park Major Plat & Findings of Fact d. Set Date for Public Hearing -2016 Park & Recreation Comprehensive & Open Space Plan February 9, 2016, City Council Meeting -Page 2 Consent Agenda -continued e. Set Date for Public Hearing -MLMC 6.07 Animals -Chicken f. Set Date for Public Hearing -MLMC 18.20 Residential Zone -Manufacturing Homes Commission Appointments Consideration of Bids & Quotes Petitions/Communications/Public Hearings #2 a. Public Hearing -Ordinance -Amend MLMC 18.40 Industrial Zones -Surface Mining Ordinances/Resolutions Request to Call for Bids Referrals from Commissions Other Items for Council Consideration #3 a. Establish Water Use Efficiency Goals b. Cascade Park Day Use Restroom Arson c. WinCo Binding Site Plan -Appeal Public Questions/Comments-Non-Agenda Items Council Communications City Manager Reports Executive Session Discuss with Legal Counsel Representing the Agency Litigation -RCW 42.30.1 lO(i) Adjournment MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL January 26, 2016 DRAFT Council Present: Todd Voth, Karen Liebrecht, Bill Ecret, David Curnel, Don Myers, Mike Norman, and Ryann Leonard The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Voth. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Richard Bisnett, Human Resources Director, led the Council in the flag salute. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION -None PRESENTATION AND AWARDS Police Department: Bradley Zook, Police Officer, was introduced to the Council, and given the oath of office .. Community Development: Lori Witters, Department Secretary, was introduced to the Council. Public Works: Mike Moro, Public Works Superintendent, and Joey Clifner, Mechanic, were introduced to the Council. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes: The minutes of the January 12 meeting were presented for approval. Approval of Claims, Prepaid Claims, Checks, and Payroll: Vouchers audited and certified by the Finance Director as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims, certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the Council for approval and is retained for public inspection at the Civic Center. As of January 26, 2016 the Council does approve for payment claims in the amount of $981 ,625.62; prepaid claims in the amounts of $64,892.09 and $3,511.28; claim checks in the amount of $1,697,760.63; and payroll in the amount of $390, 145.24. Action Taken: Mr. Curnel moved that the Consent Agenda be approved, seconded by Mrs. Leonard, and passed unanimously. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS -None CONSIDERATION OF BIDS AND QUOTES -None PETITIONS. COMMUNICATIONS, OR PUBLIC HEARINGS WATER USE EFFICIENCY GOALS The Municipal Water Law requires municipal water suppliers to publicly establish water use efficiency goals which should run concurrently with the updates of the Water System Plan. The Water Division has recommended that the goal for the Moses Lake Water System be to continue to reduce the average annual consumption per residential connection by 2% by 2022. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments. Action Taken: Mr. Ecret moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Mr. Curnel, and passed unanimously. Mike Moro, Public Works Superintendent, gave some background on the Water System Comprehensive Plan and the goal of conserving water. The City's goal is to conserve 2% per year for the next 6 years, which is a reasonable goal to accomplish with new technology and user education. City Council Minutes: 2 January 26, 2016 After some discussion by Council, staff was requested to review the City's current rate structure with the possibility of changing from the more water used the less is charged to the more water used the more is charged. It was pointed out that the water use efficiency goal and the rate structure are different issues and will be provided to Council separately. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE -AMEND 18.20 -RESIDENTIAL ZONES -18T READING An ordinance was presented which amends Chapter 18.20, Residential Zones, to bring it into compliance with state law regarding the placement of manufactured homes. This amendment would allow manufactured homes in all residential zones. Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director, pointed out that in 2004 the legis lature passed a bill that stated that cities could no longer distinguish between manufactured housing and traditional stick built housing. Changes were made to the Single Family and Two Family Residential Zone and the Multi-Family Residential Zone to allow manufactured homes but they were still proh ibited in the Single Family Residential Zone. In 2014 the City's was notified of the non-compliance by the City's insurance carrier. The City has until March 1 to become compliant with the state law. There was some discussion concerning any requirements that should be placed on manufactured homes in single family residential zones. The ordinance amending Chapter 18.20 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Residential Zones" was read by title only. Staff was requested to include development standards for the manufactured homes in the Single Family Residential Zone. REQUEST TO CALL FOR BIDS -None REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS -None OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION GRANT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL -APPOINTMENT The Grant County Economic Development Council requested a representative from the City Council to serve on their board. Action Taken: Mr. Curnel moved that Mr. Norman be appointed to the Grant County Economic Development Council, seconded by Mrs. Liebrecht, and passed unanimously. WATER/SEWER SERVICE -NAKONECHNYY Aleksey and Maria Nakonechnyy requested permission to connect Lot 14, Block 2, Lincoln Plat, located at 9126 Space Street, to the City's water and sewer system without annexing the property to the City. The property is within one half mile of the City's limits but it would be impractical to annex since there are additional parcels and right-of-way between the lot and the City's limits. Action Taken: Mr. Ecret moved that the request for City services be granted without requiring annexation but with the stipulation that an Extra Territorial Utility Agreement be required, seconded by Mr. Norman, and passed unanimously. PLATTING DEEMED INSUFFICIENT -621 EWING Fabian Pimentel, submitted a building permit application for Lot 35, lock 1, Lakeview Terrace #2, located at 621 Ewing Place, which is a legally platted parcel, and requested a deferral of the required improvements. City Council Minutes: 3 January 26, 2016 Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director, mentioned that property platted years ago was not required to install municipal improvements that are now required with current plats. In order to rectify the deficiencies, staff cannot issue a building permit for improvements on insufficiently platted property unless the properties are brought into conformance with the current codes or the City Council grants a waiver, deferral, or deviation from the requirements to install the deficient plat improvements. He mentioned that if the Council approves a waiver, a covenant for the additional improvements would be required of the owner. Action Taken: Mrs. Liebrecht moved that the request be granted with the stipulation that a covenant be required for construction of the improvements in the future, seconded by Mr. Curnel, and passed unanimously. PLATTING DEEMED INSUFFICIENT -721 IRONWOOD Michael Fabian submitted a building permit application for Lot 4, North Terrace Addition #3, located at 721 Ironwood, which is a legally platted parcel, and requested a deferral of the required improvements. Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director, mentioned that property platted years ago was not required to install municipal improvements that are now required with current plats. In order to rectify the deficiencies, staff cannot issue a building permit for improvements on insufficiently platted property unless the properties are brought into conformance with the current codes or the City Council grants a waiver, deferral, or deviation from the requirements to install the deficient plat improvements. He mentioned that if the Council approves a deferral, a covenant for the additional improvements would be required of the owner. Action Taken: Mrs. Leonard moved that the request be granted with the stipulation that a covenant be required for construction of the improvements in the future, seconded by Mr. Norman, and passed unanimously. NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS -None COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS -None CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS -None The regular meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. ATTEST Todd Voth, Mayor W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director DATE 2/04/16 TIME 14:24:19 LAKE PAGE 1 XAPPRVD CITY OF MOSES T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 2M COMPANY INC 00004450 ACE HARDWARE 00006538 AMERICAN LINEN 00004927 CASCADE ANALYTICAL INC 00005014 CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 607 00000271 COMMERCIAL TIRE 00005968 CSWW, INC dba NO 40 OUTFITTERS 00001701 0000076235 547.89 ====================== TOTAL: 547.89 0000076178 23. 72 0000076178 34.48 0000076178 37.69 0000076067 70.07 0000076232 53.31 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076244 TOTAL: 0000076203 0000076203 219.27 299.30 299.30 557.23 1,421.06 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076241 0000076241 0000076241 1,978_.29 22.44 22.44 325.93 ====================== TOTAL: 370.81 0000076207 684.06 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076170 0000076170 0000076036 684.06 11.32 349.86 21. 54 MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES MASKING TAPE/PAINT TRAY LINER SAMPLE TESTING SAMPLE TESTING SHOP TOWELS/UNIFORMS SHOP TOWELS/UNIFORMS SHOP TOWELS/UNIFORMS TIRES/WHEEL BALANCE/REPAIR MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES DATE 2/04/16 TIME 14:24:19 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E PAGE 2 XAPPRVD T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 02/09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 0000076036 32 .68 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076036 7.54 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076223 86.29 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076223 225.43 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076223 75.52 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076223 16.17 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076105 3.86 MISC AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 0000076223 296.03 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076223 21. 30 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 1,147.54 DATABAR 00007974 0000076295 774.06 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000076295 774 . 04 MAIL !ITILITY BILLS 0000076295 790.56 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000076295 774 . 06 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000076295 774.06 MAIL UTILITY BILLS ====================== TOTAL: 3,886.78 EVERGREEN IMPLEMENT INC 00005234 0000076209 813 .. 75 MISC R&M PARTS ====================== TOTAL: 813.75 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC #3007 00005482 0000076213 435.07 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 435.07 INLAND PIPE & SUPPLY COMPANY 00003727 0000076216 9.11 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 9.11 LAKE AUTO PARTS 00001102 DATE 2/04/16 TIME 14:24:19 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G L A K E T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 3 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= LAKE AUTO PARTS 00001102 LEE CREIGLOW CBO 00005899 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 00003519 NORCO ENTERPRISES INC 00006590 PENHALLURICKS EXPRESS BUILDING 00006579 PLATT ELECTRIC COMPANY 00001549 RATHBONE SALES INC 00005021 0000076187 821. 38 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076218 10.56 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076218 46.71 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076218 22.43 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076218 152.17 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 1,053.25 0000076285 5,220.00 PROF SERVICE/PLAN CHECKING ====================== TOTAL: 0000076242 TOTAL: 0000076265 0000076222 5,220.00 19 .97 19.97 389.56 171.97 FLAT REPAIR CYLINDER RENTAL/MISC SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 0000076240 0000076229 0000076229 TOTAL: 0000076039 0000076184 0000076227 0000076227 0000076227 561. 53 758.34 13.90 MISC SUPPLIES 65.59 MISC SUPPLIES 837.83 14.50 MISC SUPPLIES 100.51 MISC SUPPLIES 75.93 MISC SUPPLIES 940.90 MISC SUPPLIES 194.16 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 1,326.00 0000076230 55.87 MISC SUPPLIES DATE 2/04/16 TIME 14:24:19 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G LAKE T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 4 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 00005456 0000076230 36.96 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076293 0000076293 TOTAL: 92.83 75.00 8.49 83.49 ============================= REPORT TOTAL : 19,586.77 MISC SUPPLIES SHIPPING CHARGES SHIPPING CHARGES DATE THU, FEB 4, 2016, 2:24 PM TIME 14: 24: 22 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 02/09/2016 TOTALS BY FUND FUND NO 000 116 410 490 493 498 519 528 GENERAL FUND STREET WATER/SEWER SANITATION FUND NAME STORM WATER AMBULANCE FUND EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUILD MAINTENANCE TOTAL CHANGES TO BE MADE SHOULD BE LISTED BELOW VEND NO. P.O. NO. AMT LISTED CORRECTED AMT CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE PAID AMOUNT 7,085.23 857. 72 5,778.57 790.56 846.10 1,077.22 2,500.84 650 .53 19,586.77 ACTION TO BE TAKEN TOTALS PAGE XAPPRVD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CLAIMS APPROVAL * * * * WE, THE UNDERSIGNED COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE MERCHANDISE * * OR SERVICES SPECIFIED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT ABOVE CLAIMS ARE APPROVED, AS NOTED, FOR PAYMENT * * IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,586 .77 THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 * * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER * * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FINANCE DIRECTOR * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department CITY OF MOSES T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G LAKE T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 1 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= A & H PRINTERS 00000001 A T & T MOBILITY 00004826 AG WEST DISTRIBUTING CO INC 00006842 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC 00005052 ARROW INTERNATIONAL INC 00007629 ASSOC OF GRANT CO CITIES 00004953 BASIN LOCK & SECURITY 00003714 BASIN PROPANE LLC 00007006 BATTERY SYSTEMS 00004673 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 00006022 BUD CLARY FORD 00006454 0000076172 140.28 0000076267 93.33 0000076268 390 .06 ====================== TOTAL: 623.67 0000076282 117.95 TOTAL: 117.95 0000076197 28 .05 ====================== TOTAL: 28.05 0000076196 1,110 .25 ====================== TOTAL: 1,110.25 0000076160 560.79 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076294 TOTAL: 0000076247 0000076199 560.79 25 .00 25.00 113.30 9. 71 ====================== TOTAL: 123.01 0000076200 8.09 ====================== TOTAL: 8.09 0000076198 27 .12 ====================== TOTAL: 27.12 0000076248 928 . 37 ====================== TOTAL: 928.37 0000076202 134. 97 BUSINESS CARDS /VOTH PRINTING INSPECTION FORMS CHARGES/GPS SERVICE GASKET-VITON COLD PATCH MEDICAL SUPPLIES ANNUAL DUES/2016 KEY /VEHICLE 170 GAS KEYS PROPANE BATTERIES MEDICAL SUPPLIES SCREEN ASSEMBLY DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 LAKE PAGE 2 XAPPRVD C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= BUD CLARY TOYOTA CHEVROLET 00000150 BUSINESS INTERIORS & EQUIPMENT 00003619 CAROL CROSS 00004253 CAROL HOHN 00006772 CENTURYLINK 00003599 00001502 00003599 00001502 00003599 00001502 TOTAL: 134. 97 0000076201 54.29 TOTAL: 54.29 0000076289 2,760.60 ====================== TOTAL: 2,760.60 0000076192 189.70 TOTAL: 189.70 0000076182 175.00 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076177 0000076177 0000076177 0000076177 TOTAL: 0000076175 0000076174 175.00 8.00 8.00 40.00 40.00 96.00 44.59 155.48 ====================== TOTAL: 200 .07 0000076177 90.00 ====================== TOTAL: 90.00 0000076175 455.0B ====================== TOTAL: 455.0B 0000076177 20.50 ====================== TOTAL: 20.50 MISC REPAIR PARTS MAINT AGREEMENTS/COPIERS MAC CONSIGNMENT SALES BUILDING MAINTENANCE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C OUNCIL MEETING L A K E T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 3 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 00003599 00001502 00003599 00001502 00003599 00001502 00003599 00001502 00003599 00001502 0000076175 184.96 ====================== TOTAL: 184 .96 0000076177 4.00 ====================== TOTAL: 4.00 0000076175 275.84 ====================== TOTAL: 275.84 0000076177 10.00 ====================== TOTAL: 10.00 0000076175 127.26 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076177 0000076177 0000076173 0000076173 127.26 69.90 65.90 61.90 61. 90 ====================== TOTAL: 259.60 0000076174 46. 84 TOTAL: 46.84 0000076173 61.92 ====================== TOTAL: 61. 92 0000076175 44.59 TOTAL: 44.59 0000076177 8.00 ====================== TOTAL: 8.00 TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE WATER TURN OFF NOTIFICATIONS WATER TURN OFF NOTIFICATIONS TELEPHONE SERVICE WATER TURN OFF NOTIFICATIONS TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 LAKE PAGE 4 XAPPRVD C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S COUNCIL MEETING T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O . Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 00003599 00001502 00003599 CHICAGO DISTRIBUTION CENTER 00007397 CITY OF MOSES LAKE 00008201 00008106 COLUMBIA BASIN DAILY HERALD 00000210 COLUMBIA BEARING BDI 00000274 CONFLUENCE HEALTH 00005069 CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE 00006284 0000076175 2,801.67 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076177 0000076177 2,801.67 17.90 4.00 ====================== TOTAL: 21. 90 0000076175 183. 89 TOTAL: 183 .89 0000076177 4.00 ====================== TOTAL: 4.00 0000076270 51. 07 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076298 0000076298 51.07 127.44 413. 05 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076276 0000076273 540.49 8,638.05 11,649 .13 ====================== TOTAL: 20,287.18 0000076162 610.00 ====================== TOTAL: 610.00 0000076205 31. 98 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076254 TOTAL: 0000076288 0000076288 31. 98 277. 76 277. 76 68.85 18 ,128.03 TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE LONG DISTANCE TEL SERVICE MAC RESALE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE RETAIN PE2 POW MAE VLLY SWR RETN PE3 FPJ~RS ELE SWR GEN 15 PUBLICATIONS BELT SERVICES TRANS STATION/DISPOSAL LOADS TRANS STATION/DISPOSAL LOADS DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 L A K E PAGE 5 XAPPRVD C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S TABULATION OF CLAIMS C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE 00006284 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DIST 00000819 COUNTRY FABRICS 00006265 CROWN PAPER & JANITORIAL 00007120 D & L SUPPLY COMPANY INC 00006974 DEPT OF LICENSING 00005162 DURHAM GEO SLOPE INDICATOR 00007809 E F RECOVERY 00007244 EASTERN CASCADE DIST 00006909 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 00005914 ERIKA MUELLER 00006078 FABER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY OOOOOSOl 0000076288 9,223.50 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076204 0000076204 27,420.38 135. 91 48.41 ====================== TOTAL: 184.32 0000076277 384.00 ====================== TOTAL: 384.00 0000076208 679.99 ====================== TOTAL: 679.99 0000076210 5,650.40 ====================== TOTAL: 5,650.40 0000076206 232.00 ====================== TOTAL: 232 .00 0000076183 583.70 ====================== TOTAL: 583.70 0000076159 808.50 ====================== TOTAL: 808.SO 0000076260 80.50 ====================== TOTAL: 80.SO 0000076259 lS.00 ====================== TOTAL: lS.00 0000076193 385.00 ====================== TOTAL: 385.00 0000076239 77 .31 TRANS STATION/DISPOSAL LOADS LAMPS/TS STRIPPER/CLAMP METER LAMPS/TS STRIPPER/CLAMP METER SEWING CLASS INSTRUCTION JANITORIAL SUPPLIES LIDS/RINGS/VALVE BOX TOPS/BTMS PROF LICENSE RENEWAL WATER LEVEL INDICATOR EPCR HOSTED / NOVEMBER DRINKING WATER SERVICES MAC CONSIGNMENT SALES MISC SUPPLIES DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department CITY TABULATION L A K E PAGE 6 XAPPRVD 0 F M 0 S E S 0 F C L A I M S MEETING C 0 U N C I L T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= FARMERS ELECTRIC II LLC 00006596 FASTENAL COMPANY 00007372 FERRELLGAS 00002207 GALLS, LLC 00000133 GARRY OTI'MAR 00004434 GEMPLERS INC 00000609 GINGER OAKES 00005100 GRAINGER PARTS OPERATIONS 00002755 GRANT COUNTY TECHNOLOGY 00005535 0000076211 0000076211 0000076211 49.98 27.84 48.67 ====================== TOTAL: 203.80 0000076272 239,739.15 ====================== TOTAL: 239,739.15 0000076212 842.35 ====================== TOTAL: 842. 35 0000076214 129.15 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076266 0000076251 129.15 2,076 .13 345 .13 ====================== TOTAL: 2,421.26 0000076249 9.00 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076271 0000076271 9.00 786.45 727.45 ====================== TOTAL: 1, 513. 90 0000076194 350.00 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076215 0000076215 0000076215 350.00 153.18 101.81 30.82 ====================== TOTAL: 285.81 0000076255 60.00 FLOOR DRY FLOOR DRY FLOOR DRY PE 3 SEWER GENERATOR PROJ 2015 MISC SUPPLIES/FIRST AID DOCK CYLINDERS UNIFORMS UNIFORM PANTS / PYPER MISC DUMPING SUPPLIES/SHIPPING SAVER SUPPLIES/SHIPPING SAVER MAC CONSIGNMENT SALES MAINT & JANITORIAL SUPPLIES MAINT & JANITORIAL SUPPLIES MAINT & JANITORIAL SUPPLIES SERVICES DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E PAGE 7 XAPPRVD T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= GRANT COUNTY TREASURER 00000607 HACHE'ITE BOOK GROUP 00008039 HOCHSTATTER ELECTRIC 00000705 INTL ASSOC OF POLICE CHIEFS 00000803 JACKSON FLIGHT CENTER 00005419 JERRYS AUTO SUPPLY 00005835 KAMAN FLUID POWER LLC 00001302 KRIS CHUDOMELKA 00007058 LAKE BOWL 00001109 LAKESIDE DISPOSAL 00004080 LAND SURVEYORS ASSOC OF WASH 00005713 TOTAL: 60.00 0000076283 467.92 ====================== TOTAL: 467.92 0000076228 217.80 ====================== TOTAL: 217.80 0000076269 138. 86 ====================== TOTAL: 138. 86 0000076253 150.00 ====================== TOTAL: 150.00 0000076238 647.40 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076158 0000076217 0000076217 647.40 51. 20 33.38 1,324.71 ====================== TOTAL: 1,409.29 0000076225 20.37 ====================== TOTAL: 20.37 0000076191 28.35 ====================== TOTAL: 28.35 0000076190 87.13 ====================== TOTAL: 87.13 0000076301 176,845.27 ====================== TOTAL: 176,845.27 0000076181 1,090.00 2% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX MAC RESALE WATER HEATER ELEMENT/REPAIR MEMBERSHIP SNOW PLOWING OIL MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES FITTING MAC CONSIGNMENT SALES HOT SPOT COMP MEDALS CONTRACT PAYMENT LSAW REGISTRATION DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 8 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= LINDSAY/CULLIGAN 00005289 LOCALTEL COMMUNICATIONS 00004374 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 00003799 MAYFIELD FITNESS 00007251 MOBILE FLEET SERVICE 00006815 MOON SECURITY SERVICES INC 00006510 MOSES LAKE STEEL SUPPLY 00001268 MULTI AGENCY COMM CENTER E911 00006695 ====================== TOTAL: 1,090.00 0000076189 0000076189 0000076219 26 .16 MAC/PR WATER 20.16 MAC/PR WATER 25.08 B01TLED WATER ====================== TOTAL: 71.40 0000076180 916.75 INTERNET SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 916.75 0000076257 213. 80 INVESTIGATION SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 213. 80 0000076287 7.23. 73 MAINT/EXERCISE EQUIP ====================== TOTAL: 723. 73 0000076221 84 .70 AIR SPRING ====================== TOTAL: 84.70 0000076258 51. 50 MONTHLY MONITORING ====================== TOTAL: 51. 50 0000076179 2,443.85 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076179 53. 51 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076179 23.55 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076179 6. 37 MISC SUPPLIES 0000076179 147 .57 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 2,674.85 0000076256 41,197.94 USER FEE 0000076246 1,014.20 USER FEES / FEBRUARY 0000076246 8,613.54 USER FEES / FEBRUARY DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G LAKE T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 9 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O . Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= NAEGELI DEPOSITION AND TRIAL 00007683 NATIONAL BOOK NETWORK 00006534 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING 00007608 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE INC 00006727 OREILLY AUTO PARTS 00004593 PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC 00004865 PITNEY BOWES INC 00005702 POW CONTRACTING 00005344 PROTECT YOUTH SPORTS 00004626 QUILL CORPORATION 00004811 REBEKKA VAN DER DOES 00004973 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 00006229 ====================== TOTAL: 50,825.68 0000076281 7,591.08 ====================== TOTAL: 7, 591. 08 0000076263 84 .35 ====================== TOTAL: 84.35 0000076224 847.27 TOTAL: 847.27 0000076185 3,844.97 TOTAL: 3,844.97 0000076226 196. 52 ====================== TOTAL: 196.52 0000076264 132.23 TOTAL: 132 .23 0000076291 152.12 ====================== TOTAL: 152.12 0000076274 177,770.96 ====================== TOTAL: 177, 770.96 0000076261 99.00 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076245 0000076245 99.00 75.40 75.40 ====================== TOTAL: 150.80 0000076195 42 .00 ====================== TOTAL: 42.00 WINCO TRANSCRIPTION / RECORDER MAC RESALE SIGN MATERIAL PROF SERV /WASTEWATER INVEST MISC SUPPLIES MAC RESALE INK/POSTAGE MACHINE PE2 MAE VALLEY SEWER 2015 COACH BACKGROUND CHECKS MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES MAC CONSIGNMENT SALES DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 10 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= SIGNS NOW 00007051 SIMON & SCHUSTER INC 00005202 S IRENNET. COM 00007692 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 00007570 SUNTRUST 00007361 SUPPLYWORKS 00003053 THE WESLEY GROUP 00004986 TIM RICH CONSULTING LLC 00003351 0000076176 255.00 0000076176 214.67 0000076231 181. 89 ====================== TOTAL: 651. 56 0000076188 802.37 0000076188 526.88 ====================== TOTAL: 1,329.25 0000076262 129.52 ====================== TOTAL: 129.52 0000076243 415.70 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076164 0000076164 415.70 2,445.56 1,505 .96 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076165 0000076165 0000076165 0000076165 3,951.52 105,312.36 5, 241. 81 1,176.65 58.59 ====================== TOTAL: 111,789.41 0000076233 1,520.62 ====================== TOTAL: 1,520.62 0000076186 100 .00 ====================== TOTAL: 100 .00 0000076234 420.00 ====================== TOTAL: 420.00 MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES PAINT PARK SIGNS PARK SIGNS MAC RESALE LED LIGHTS BLUE & RED COPIER PAPER, COMP SUPPLIES COPIER PAPER, COMP SUPPLIES #40A LEASE PYMT/2016 #40A LEASE PYMT/2016 #40A LEASE PYMT/2016 #40A LEASE PYMT/20 16 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES LABOR RELATIONS CONSULT TROUBLESHOOTING/REPROGRAMMING DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S TABULATION OF CLAIMS C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G LAKE T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02/09/2016 Expenditure Account PAGE 11 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= TOTER, LLC C/O WASTEQUIP LLC 00004048 U S BANK -EFI' 00007071 US BANCORP 00005477 00007308 00005477 00007308 VERIZON WIRELESS 00002107 0000076299 5,198.96 LIDS/GARBAGE CANS ====================== TOTAL: 0000076166 0000076166 0000076297 0000076166 0000076297 5,198.96 2,936.25 1,468.13 57,982.74 1,468.12 11,596.56 ====================== TOTAL: 75, 451. 80 0000076284 111 ,975.33 ====================== TOTAL: 111,975.33 0000076171 63,703.66 ====================== TOTAL: 63,703.66 0000076284 3,373.67 ====================== TOTAL: 3,373 .67 0000076171 4,633.34 ====================== TOTAL: 4,633.34 0000076286 54. 37 0000076286 31.17 0000076286 68.78 0000076286 19.03 0000076286 662.19 0000076286 70 .11 0000076286 13 .21 0000076286 38.88 DEBT SERVICE PYMT/2006 GO BOND DEBT SERVICE PYMT/2006 GO BOND DEBT SERVICE PYMT/15GO BONDS DEBT SERVICE PYMT/2006 GO BOND DEBT SERVICE PYMT/15GO BONDS #39 LEASE PYMT/2016 #41 LEASE PYMT/2016 #39 LEASE PYMT/2016 #41 LEASE PYMT/2016 CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE DATE 2/05/16 TIME 09:46:40 LAKE PAGE 12 XAPPRVD C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 02 /09/2016 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= WA ASSN SHERIFF POLICE CHIEFS 00002250 WA CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY 00006720 WASH FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC 00002208 WESTERN PETERBILT INC 00006802 WM RECYCLE AMERICA 00006595 WSU PRESS CONTROLLER 00004684 ZIGGYS #13 00006567 0000076286 0000076286 0000076286 19.46 58 .30 9. 71 ====================== TOTAL: 1,045 .21 0000076252 305.00 ====================== TOTAL: 305.00 0000076292 156.00 ====================== TOTAL : 156.00 0000076169 150 .00 ====================== TOTAL: 150.00 0000076236 207.14 ====================== TOTAL: 207.14 0000076168 723 .20 ====================== TOTAL: 723.20 0000076220 101. 08 ====================== TOTAL: 0000076237 0000076237 101. 08 68.24 84 .65 ====================== TOTAL: 152.89 ============================= REPORT TOTAL: 1,130,600.63 CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE CELL PHONE SERVICE MEMBERSHIP INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE MEMBERSHIP DUES AIR FILTER TIPPING FEE MAC RESALE MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES DATE FRI, FEB 5, 2016, 9:46 AM TOTALS PAGE TIME 09: 46: 40 XAPPRVD TOTALS BY FUND FUND NO --------- 000 103 116 281 286 410 477 486 487 490 493 495 498 503 517 519 528 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 02/09/2016 FUND NAME AMOUNT ---------------------------------------------------- GENERAL FUND 70,676.10 GRANTS AND DONATIONS 20.16 STREET 3 t 715, 95 G.O.B. 2006 REDEMPTION 4,404 .38 2015 REFUNDING GO BONDS 57,982.74 WATER/SEWER 8,980.39 WATER SEWER CONSTRUCTION 437,797.29 G.O.B. 2006 REDEMPTION 1,468.12 2015 GO BONDS REDEMPTION 11,596.56 SANITATION 210,180.86 STORM WATER 89.74 AIRPORT 869.24 AMBULANCE FUND 11, 159.41 SELF-INSURANCE 156.00 CENTRAL SERVICES 10 ,600.56 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 296, 903 .48 BUILD MAINTENANCE 3,999.65 TOTAL 1,13 0,600 .63 CHANGES TO BE MADE SHOULD BE LISTED BELOW VEND NO. P.O. NO. AMT LISTED CORRECTED AMT ACTION TO BE TAKEN CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE PAID * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CLAIMS APPROVAL * * WE, THE UNDERSIGNED COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE MERCHANDISE * OR SERVICES SPECIFIED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT ABOVE CLAIMS ARE APPROVED, AS NOTED , FOR PAYMENT * IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,130,600 .63 THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FINANCE DIRECTOR * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manger Gi lbert Alvarado, Community Development Director February 3, 2016 MOTION Lakeview Park Major Plat Legislative History: February 9, 2016 Consent/Motion The Municipal Services Department has submitted an application for a one-lot preliminary plat of 3.56 acres. The site is the existing Lakeview Park at 840 S. Clover Drive. The site is zoned Public, which corresponds to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Public Facilities. The Planning Commission recommended that the preliminary plat be approved with conditions. Attached are the Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Planning Commission. As no appeal was taken from this decision of the Planning Commission, the Council's approval of this decision incorporates and adopts the Findings, Conclusion and Decision of the Planning Commission. Background N/A Fiscal and Policy Implications The City Council has adopted a policy that City of Moses Lake property ownership shall be platted parcels. All unplatted parcels shall be platted as time permits. Page 1of2 Options 0 tion Results • Approve a motion to adopt the Lakeview Achieve City Council policy of platting property Park Preliminary Plat __J__:wned by the City of Moses Lake. • Take no action. I Delay meeting the intent of City Council policy. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat and accept the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Attachments I Findings of Facl Map Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • None Page 2 of 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE LAKEVIEW PARK MAJOR PLAT AND WAIVER REQUESTS FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION 1. HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1.1 Date. A public hearing was held upon proper notice before the Commission on December 10, 2015. 1.2 Proponent. The Municipal Services Department of the City of Moses Lake is the proponent of this plat. 1.3 Purpose. The proponent has submitted an application for a one-lot preliminary plat of 3.56 acres. Waivers were requested for all street and utility improvements. The site is the existing Lakeview Park at 840 S. Clover Drive; Assessor Parcel #11-0333-000. The property is more fully described on the face of the plat. 1.4 Evidence. The Commission considered the following materials in reaching its decision: A. The plat application submitted 9-25-15. B. Staff report dated 12-2-15, and attachments. C. Testimony from Anne Henning, staff; and Wayne Ostler, staff representing the proponent. 2. FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Based upon the evidence presented to it, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: 2.1 The proponent is the owner of the property legally described above located within City limits. 2.2 The site contains an existing developed City park and water reservoir. No additional development is planned at this time. The site is very flat, from an elevation of 1178' at the western boundary to 1180' near the eastern boundary. No portion of the site has been classified as an environmentally sensitive area. 2.3 Clover Drive and Lark Avenue are classified as tertiary streets. Dahlia Drive is classified as a residential street. All three streets are paved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, however, Clover Drive does not have curb or sidewalk on the east (non-project) side. Water mains in Lark and Dahlia are 6" instead of the standard 8". Sewer main are lacking in Lark, Clover, and a portion of Dahlia. However, all properties in the area are adequately served with water and sewer, so no improvements are necessary, and there are no pedestrian destinations on the east side of Clover Drive, so no sidewalk is needed. 2.4 The site is zoned Public, which corresponds to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Public Facilities. To the north of the park is Lakeview Elementary School. To the east is a sound barrier wall and then SR-17. To the south and west is a residential neighborhood zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2.5 The Development Engineering Manager provided a list of comments and corrections that must be addressed before the final plat is submitted for review. 2.6 The Bureau of Reclamation commented on an error in the Township number in the title of the plat. Since the project is within the Moses Lake Irrigation District and does not involve any Columbia Basin Project facilities, they had no other comments at this time. 2.7 The East Columbia Basin Irrigation District commented that the plat is outside ECBID boundaries and does not have any District facilities running through it. Therefore, they have no comment. 2.8 The Grant County Assessor's office commented on an error in the Township number in the title of the plat. They had no other comments. 2.9 The Stormwater Program Manager commented that this plat is within a sub-basin that drains directly to the lake. Therefore, they look for opportunities to localize stormwater controls and reduce the total amount of stormwater that reaches the lake. If streets were being constructed or modified, they would ask for stormwater best management practices for the right-of-way. However, since no street construction will be done, no stormwater improvements are being requested. 2.10 A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on November 24, 2015, under the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (WAC 197-11). 2.11 The nearest intersections for which the Comprehensive Plan sets a specific transportation level of service (LOS) are Pioneer/Wheeler/5th, Pioneer/Hill, and Pioneer Nelson, which are set at D, C, and D, respectively. The LOS as of 2010 were C, B, and B. For the remaining intersections, where the Comprehensive Plan does not set a specific LOS, the LOS is set at D. Platting the property will not change the traffic generated by the site. 2.12 Comprehensive Plan Residential Policy 4.3 is that residential neighborhoods should provide for appropriately-scaled schools, churches, home occupations , small-scale neighborhood commercial uses, parks, opens spaces, day care facilities, and other appropriate uses. 2.13 Parks/Open Space Goal 11 is to preserve open spaces which contribute to community character, protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas, and enhance recreational, educational, and aesthetic opportunities. 2.14 Community Image and Design Policy 15.2 is for the area to continue to provide high quality and attractive parks and recreational areas throughout the City. 2.15 General Capital Facilities Goal 1 is to provide public facilities and services in a manner th at protects investment in existing facilities, maximizes the use of existing facilities, expands facilities in a cost-efficient manner, and promotes orderly urban growth. 2.16 Capital Facilities-Parks and Recreation Goal 2 is for the City to provide an integrated system of parks, recreation facilities, trails, greenbelts, and open space as community assets, both in form and function. 3. CONCLUSIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. From the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission makes the following conclusions: 3.1 The decision of the Planning Commission must be supported by the evidence presented and must be consistent with the standards and criteria for review specified in state statutes and city ordinances. The standards and criteria for review of preliminary plat applications are found in Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Title 17 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code (MLMC), and Title 20 MLMC. 3.2 The requirements of MLMC 20.09.020 are met: 1. Comprehensive Plan/Municipal Code: The development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies on parks, including parks in residential areas, preserving open space, high quality parks, and capital facilities. If waivers are granted for street and utility improvements, the development meets the requirements and intent of Titles 17 and 18 of the Municipal Code. 2. Adequate provisions for necessary improvements: improvements already exist. The necessary 3. Impacts: No impacts have been identified under Chapters 14 through 19 that will not be mitigated through existing regulations and conditions. 4. Public health, safety, welfare, and interest: The development is beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest because it plats and formalizes existing City-owned property into a major plat in compliance with state law and makes it suitable for further future development consistent with the intent of the Public Zone. 5. Transportation Level of Service: Platting the property will not affect the traffic generated by the site, therefore it will not affect the level of service of transportation facilities. 6. Parks Level of Service: The development does not lower the level of service of neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established in the Comprehensive Plan because it will continue to be a park to serve the local area. 7. Dedications: All required street rights-of-way have previously been dedicated. 3.3 The waiver of street improvements, including sidewalks on the east side of Clover Drive is justified since there are no other pedestrian facilities on that side of Clover Drive, and there are no destinations for a pedestrian since the street abuts a sound wall next to SR-17. Pedestrians on Clover would use the existing sidewalk on the west side of Clover. 3.4 The waiver of upsizing water mains is justified because the surrounding area is adequately served by the existing 6" water mains, so there would be no benefit to the public or the surrounding residents to requiring new water mains. 3.5 The waiver of installing sewer mains is justified because the surrounding area is adequately served by the existing sewer mains, so there would be no benefit to the public or the surrounding residents to requiring additional sewer mains. 4. DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, it is the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake that the request for a preliminary major plat as submitted on the property designated above be approved with the following conditions: 4.1 The comments of the Development Engineer shall be addressed before final plat submittal. 4.2. The requested waivers of street and utility improvements shall be granted. Approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2016. Vicki Heimark, Planning Commission Chair Attachment 2 To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Spencer Grigg, Parks and Recreation Department Director February 4, 2016 MOTION Request to set public hearing for presentation of 2016 Parks and Recreation Park, Comprehensive and Open Space Plan Legislative History: Motion Staff is requesting approval from the Moses Lake City Council to set a public hearing on February 23, 2016, to present our 2016 Parks and Recreation Park, Comprehensive and Open Space Plan. Background The current Parks and Recreation Park, Comprehensive and Open Space Plan was adopted on February 23, 2010 and will expire on February 23, 2016. Fiscal and Policy Implications The Parks and Recreation Department must submit their new 2016 Park, Comprehensive and Open Space Plan to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO} by March 1, 2016, in order for the City to remain eligible for grants-in-aid. Page 1of2 Options Option Results • Motion -----"-~-----·---• Take no action. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Moses Lake City Council approve the Parks and Recreation Department scheduling a public hearing on February 23, 2016, to present their 2016 Parks and Recreation Park, Comprehensive and Open Space Plan. Attachments N/A Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by legal Counsel N/A Page 2 of 2 To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF HOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director February 3, 2016 MOTION Set Date for Public Hearing -Amend MLMC Title 6 Animals Legislative History: Consent/Set Date for Public Hearing Staff has drafted a proposed Ordinance that would permit the keeping of chickens in the Residential Zones within the city limits. The Ordinance has been presented as requested by City Council at previous regular City Council meetings. Background A local citizen made presentations to the City Council on the topic of permitting chickens within the city limits. Initially the Council did not act on the presentations and request to permit chickens. In 2015 the Council directed staff to bring back an Ordinance what would permit chickens in the Residential Zones within the city limits. Fiscal and Policy Implications None Page 1 of2 Options Option • Set Date for Public Hearing Results Public Hearing would permit the general public to provide testimony on the proposed Ordinance. ·-----·-.... -·~---·---------·--------------·-----------·-·---·-- • Take no action. Staff Recommendation The proposed Ordinance would not be considered until such time as directed by the City Council. Staff recommends that City Council set a public hearing date for February 23, 2016. Attachments Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • None Page 2 of 2 To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director February 3, 2016 MOTION Set Date for Public Hearing -Amend 18.20, Residential Zones Legislative History: January 26, 2016 Consent/Set Date for Public Hearing A public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to MLMC, 18.20, Residential Zones to permit manufactured housing in all Residential Zones should be set. The public hearing is a follow- up to the January 26th City Council meeting where the proposed amendments were discussed. The Council gave staff direction with regards to drafting new development regulations that would balance traditional stick-built construction with manufactured housing construction. Background Currently the City of Moses Lake prohibits manufactured housing in the R-1 Zone, which is no longer permitted under the provisions of SB 6593 passed by the Washington State Legislature in 2004. The city's insurance carrier, Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), has also indicated that compliance with the provisions of SB 6593 is mandated by State law. Compliance will need to occur by March 1, 2016 in order to meet the requirements of our compact with WCIA. Page 1 of2 Fiscal and Policy Implications None Options Results Option ·--------+-1 1 Consideration of proposed amendments as mandated by State law. • Set Date for Public Hearing -·----··----------· • Take no action. Staff Recommendation I I Violdte stat~ law RCW 35.21.684 and WC/A insurance compact compliance Staff recommends that City Council set a public hearing date for February 23, 2016. Attachments Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • N?A Page 2 of 2 To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAl<E CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director February 3, 2016 MOTION Public Hearing -Ordinance Amend MLMC 18.40, Industrial Zone Legislative History: December 8, 2015 January 12, 2016 Public Hearing A public hearing has been scheduled to consider the proposed amendments to MLMC, 18.40, Industrial Zones to permit Surface Mining as a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed amendment would not outright permit Surface Mining but rather the land use would be reviewed in accordance with MLMC 18.51, Conditional and Unmentioned Uses for appropriateness on a case by case basis. Background The City Council received a communication from Kevin Richards, Western Pacific Engineering on behalf of the Port of Moses Lake which proposed an amendment to the Municipal Code to allow Surface Mining as a permitted land use in the Heavy Industrial Zone. There was discussion by the Council on the request and directed staff to bring back an Ordinance to allow Surface Mining as a Conditional Use Permit. Page 1of2 Fiscal and Policy Implications The fiscal implications apply to the Port of Moses Lake and City of Moses Lake. The Port would benefit from the revenues from the surface mining operation and the City of Moses Lake would benefit from any sales tax generated. None Options Option Results proposed amendments to MLMC application for a surface mining operation. 18.40, Industrial Zones. --------·· ---- an • Take no action. A surface mmmg operation remains an Staff Recommendation unpermitted land use within the corporate limits. Staff recommends that City Council open the public hearing and consider the merits of the proposed amendments to the MLMC 18.40, Industrial Zones. Staff would also recommend approval of the amendments as proposed. Attachments I : I oro•o'"" SEPA Determination Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • N/A Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL ZONES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.40 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Industrial Zones" is amended as follows: 18.40.030 Allowed Uses: A The Industrial Land Uses table indicates where categories of land uses may be permitted and whether those uses are allowed outright or by conditional use permit. Only industrial zones are included in this table. Land uses not listed are prohibited unless allowed through the process specified in MLMC 18.40.030.E. Further interpretation of these zones may be obtained as specified in MLMC 20.03.020.B. Land uses are also subject to any footnotes contained within this chapter. B. The uses are arranged in three (3) categories. There are primary uses, those uses the industrial zones were designed to accommodate; accessory uses; and other uses that are compatible with or support the primary uses, or are not appropriate for other zones because of impacts. C. The symbols used in the table represent the following: 1. An "A" in a table cell indicates that the use is allowed subject to the applicable standards in this code in the zone listed at the top of the table. 2. A "C" in a table cell indicates that the use is allowed by conditional use permit, subject to the conditional use provisions in MLMC 18.51 and any additional standards specified. 3. An "X" in a table cell indicates the use is not allowed in the zone listed at the top of the table. D. Procedural requirements for permits are described in MLMC Title 20. E. Uses similar to those listed may be established as allowed or conditionally allowed through the interpretation procedures in MLMC 20.03.020.B. In determining whether a use should be permitted, the Community Development Director shall refer to the purpose statements found in 18.40.010 and the 1987 version of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. TABLE 1: LAND USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORIES MLIP L-1 H-1 Primary uses Assembly of parts A A c Bus barns and maintenance facilities c A x Hazardous waste treatment and storage, from off-site x x c Hazardous waste treatment and storage, generated on-site 1 A A A Machine shop A A A TABLE 1: LAND USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORIES MLIP L-1 H-1 Manufacturing, processing, or packaging of products using raw materials c c c Manufacturing, processing, or packaging of previously prepared materials2 A A A Manufacturing, processing, or packaging of food products, excluding meat c A A products, seafood products, distilling, fermenting, canning, slaughtering, rendering , curing, and tanning Manufacturing, processing, or packaging of food products such as meat x c A products, seafood products, distilling, fermenting, and canning. Excludes slaughtering, rendering, curing, and tanning Slaughtering, rendering, curing, and tanning x x c Outside storage as a primary use3 x A A Printing, publishing, and allied products manufacturing including such A A A processes as lithography, etching, engraving, binding, and blueprinting Recycling collection site and recycling facilities c A A Solid waste processing facilities x x c Storage, warehousing, and distribution facilities A A A Technological uses such as scientific research, testing and experimental c A A development laboratories Transportation services such as freight consolidation, shipping documents A A A preparation, rental of railroad cars, packing and crating Uses that serve the agricultural industry, such as feed and seed stores, farm A A A equipment repair and sales, and agricultural services such as soil preparation services, lawn care services, potato curing, seed cleaning, and sorting, grading, packing, and packaging of fruits and vegetables Welding or metal fabrication A A A Wrecking yards, salvage yards, or junk yards x A A Accessory Uses Accessory use appurtenant to any primary use and not otherwise prohibited A A A Construction site storage in cargo containers or semi-trailers4 A A A Day care, primarily for children of on-site employees or customers c A A Dwelling unit for on-site security or maintenance personnel and family5 c A A Offices related to permitted uses conducted on the same site A A A Storage in cargo container, in compliance with MLMC 18.76 c c c TABLE 1: LAND USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORIES MLIP L-1 H-1 Other allowed uses Animal shelter, kennel, or veterinary clinic with outdoor boarding of animals or c A c care of livestock Building material or lumber yard, retail or wholesale x A x Commercial and service uses that are permitted in the C-2 Zone shall be x A or x allowed within 1,000' of West Broadway or Marina cs Commercial recreation requiring large land area and/or generating noise, such x c c as go-carts, target shooting, race tracks, etc Contractors establishments, including offices, shops, and storage yards A A x Government or public facilities compatible with the intent of the zone, such as A A A maintenance shops, substations, well houses, lift stations, local and regional utilities Industrial laundry or dry cleaning plant c A A Mini-storage A A x Nurseries and greenhouses for the growing and sale of plants A1 A x Power generating facilities x c A Public park A A A Repair and service of vehicles and equipment A A x Retail and wholesale sales of goods or products manufactured on site, or A A A utilized in manufacturing, repairing, or servicing activities which are permitted in the zone Sales or service use, which primarily serve the needs of the industrial district or A A c its employees without attracting a significant number of patrons from outside th e district, are compatible with the permitted types of industrial uses, and will not interfere with the orderly development of the industrial area, including but not limited to the following examples: 1. Sale and rental of electronic equipment, forklifts, heavy equipment, trucks, and office equipment 2. Services: dry cleaner, barber shop, shoe repair, sandwich shop, restaurant, espresso stand, vehicle wash, gas station, convenience store. These uses must be located on an arterial street or within 1000' of similar types of uses.8 3. Professional and business services, such as engineering, mailing, copying, fumigating, servicing of fire extinguishers, sign painting and lettering 4. Other retail and service uses within the same structure as a permitted manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, or office use and occupying no more than 20% of the floor area, unless a larger area is approved by the Planning Commission Storage buildings for private use A x x TABLE 1: LAND USES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES USE CATEGORIES MLIP L-1 H-1 Surface mining, including extraction from deposits of rock, gravel, sand, earth, and minerals, along with rock crushing and related accesso!Y activities.9 x x c Towing services or vehicle impound yards A A A IWirAl<><>C: r.nmm1mir.~tinn far.ilitv in r.nmnli<>nr.A with Ml MC rn 7R A A A Footnotes for Table 1 1. in compliance with the performance standards of the State of Washington siting criteria for on- site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities and the requirements of this chapter; provided that, on-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities are accessory to and subordinate to a primary use which is a generator of hazardous waste. 2. Previously prepared materials are those which have been subjected to a process of dilution, blending, separation, waste extraction, refinement, or similar process so that further preparation, treatment, or processing does not generate raw refuse matter in quantity or form which would preclude prompt and effective removal of such matter from the site. 3. Other than contractors yards. 4. Construction storage facilities may be located ten (10) days prior to start of construction and shall be removed within ten (10) days of finish of construction. Start of construction shall be defined as ten (10) days prior to the physical presence of construction activity on the site for which a building permit has been issued. Finish of construction shall be defined as the date of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The sole purpose of the dwelling is to furnish housing for an employee, including family, engaged in on-site security or maintenance. Only one such residence is allowed per site. 6. Allowed if allowed in the C-2 and conditional use if a conditional use in the C-2. 7. Wholesale sales only. 8. In the H-1 Zone these uses shall not exceed one thousand (1 ,000) square feet in total per lot area. ~ The submission requirements of a conditional use permit for surface mining, rock crushing, and related accesso!}'. activities shall include the following information: A Vicinity Map. General vicinity map of the proposed area. fL Topography and site map. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground details of terrain and area drainage as well as the boundaries and dimensions of the site. C. Grading Plan. Dimensions, elevations or finished contours to be achieved by the grading, proposed drainage channels, and related construction. ~ Storm Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. A conceptual storm drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with each application and shall be approved by the City prior to the mining permit being approved. A final storm drainage and erosion control plan must be approved prior to any materials being removed. The plan must also address the continued maintenance and operation of the storm drainage and erosion control system. and, if determined necessary by the city. a performance bond or similar financial guarantee shall also be provided to guarantee the maintenance and operation of the system. ~ Location of development. Location of any crushers. sorters. scales. buildings, or structures on the property where the work is to be performed. and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent property owners which are within 50' of the property, or which may be affected by the proposed operation. E:. Dust Control. A dust control plan shall be submitted which shows how dust or other particulate matter will be controlled within the mining site and on the public streets. Reasonable precautions shall be taken with storage, transportation, processing, roadways and other open areas so as to prevent dust or other particulate matter from becoming airborne. G. Department of Natural Resources Permit. Prior to a surface mining operations permit being applied for the owner/operator shall submit evidence from the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources that the state considers the proposal as a surface mine and will require a permit and reclamation plan . .ti_ A written statement describing how the proposal meets the requirements of MLMC 18.51 .010, Conditional and Unmentioned Uses. Section 2. 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 and signed by its Mayor on February 23, 2016. Todd Voth, Mayor ATTEST: W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE CITT OF MOSES LAKE Name of proposal: Amend Moses Lake Municipal Code 18.40, Industrial Zones Description of proposal: Amend the Industrial Zones to allow surface mining and rock crushing as a conditional use within the Heavy Industrial Zone. Conditions are required in the submittal of the conditional use permit application, and a Department of Natural Resources permit and reclamation plan will be required. Proponent: City of Moses Lake Location of proposal: Within the Heavy Industrial Zones, including south and east of the Grant County International Airport, the Wheeler Corridor, and East Broadway Extended. Lead agency: City of Moses Lake The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The decision was made after review of a completed checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) Comment Period: This DNS is issued under 197-11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by February 9, 2016, to the Responsible Official. Responsible Official: Anne Henning, P.O. Box 1579, Moses Lake, WA, 98837; (509)764-3747 Date: January 25, 2016 Appeals You may appeal this determination to the Moses Lake Planning Commission, P. 0. Box 1579 (321 S. Balsam), Moses Lake, WA 98837, no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 9, 2016, by writing to the Responsible Official at the above address. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the Responsible Official to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. To: From: Date: Proceeding Type : Subject: • First Presentation: • Public Hearing: • Second Presentation • Action Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Gary Harer, Municipal Services Director February 9, 2016 Motion Establish Water Use Efficiency Goals Legislative History: January 12, 2016-Set Public Hearing I January 26, 2016 I February 9, 2016 Motion A public meeting must be held to provide an opportunity for consumers and the public to participate and comment on proposed water use efficiency goals. The City Council should review and consider all comments received from the public while evaluating the water use efficiency goals. The Water Division has suggested the following goal for the Moses Lake Water System: To continue to reduce the average annual consumption per residential connection by 2 percent by 2022. Background The Municipal Water Law requires municipal water suppliers to publicly establish water use efficiency goals for their customers. The goals should run concurrently with the updates of the system's Water System Plan and promote good stewardship of the State's water resources. Staff is addressing the Department of Health's comments on our draft Water System Plan and the water use efficiency goal is one of the final comments left before submitting the final product. Fiscal and Policy Implications The Department of Health requires the City's Water System Plan to be updated every six years to meet the requirements of the City's water system permit. Options Option I Results --.--A-p_p_r_o-ve-a motion to adopt the I The City will meet this requirement-from the suggested goal, a modified goal, or 1 DOH, the Water System Plan can be submitted additional goals and approved, and the City can maintain a Green Operating Permit. • Take no action. Staff Recommendation The City's water system will be out of compliance and the operating permit will be j downgraded. I Staff recommends the City Council adopts a water use efficiency goal based on staff's suggestion and any public comments that are received. Attachments Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • None To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Spencer Grigg, Parks & Recreation Director January 28, 2016 MOTION Cascade Park Day Use Restroom Arson Legislative History: I February 9, 2016 I Motion On October gth, 2015 the day use restroom at Cascade Park received extensive fire damage due to arson. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council regarding which of the potential options would be the best choice for the city to pursue to either repair or replace the damaged building Background This is a highly used park with a campground, boat launch, soccer complex and multi-activity day use area. While the campground has a restroom, it is a significant distance from the other park amenities and our current policy prohibits entry into the campground by non-registered campers (i.e. day users). WCIA reimbursed the city $67,610.54 (repair estimate minus depreciation and deductible). Page 1of3 Fiscal and Policy Implications As the park restrooms are actually purchased and owned by the city's Sewer Division, this purchase would not directly impact the general fund as their budget fund is a proprietary fund which has adequate funds to pay to either repair or replace the structure. Council has previously taken action and dedicated rental revenues from the cellular antennas mounted on city water towers to purchase or construct restrooms from this proprietary fund. Kvamme Soccer Complex, which is part of the day use area, is heavily utilized by the community for numerous soccer tournaments, T-Ball programs, etc. Loss of use of the area for these programs could reduce the financial impacts from out of town soccer tournament teams and registrations for existing community recreation programs. Again, WCIA reimbursed the city $67,610.54 (repair estimate minus depreciation and deductible) for this incident. Additionally, the new facility will be connected to a city sewer main and existing septic tank and drain field will be abandoned as required by City Code. Options --·--·;---·R;p~f;-·--e~::::; structure with+ Estim~-te for repair ;e~~:t:ailing wage came in comparable materials (combustible) I at $88,996. This would require demolishing all and features. I but the external walls and rebuilding a like i (combustible) structure. ! I • Build a new restroom with comparable I Estimate for construction of a comparable materials (combustible) and features. I building at prevailing wage came in at I $103,095. This would require demolition of I the damaged building and rebuilding of a like I i (combustible) structure. I ----·--;-fi;buffd-~ ne;-~estro;-~-~ith non=· I Estimate for reconstruction at prevailing w;;g;-- ' combustible materials (i.e. concrete I came in at $91,000. This would require block) and features. j demolition of the damaged building and j rebuilding a concrete block (non-combustible) I building. ·-·-··-·-·--~----··P--;;r~h~;~ a (State Bid Item, no bidding 1 ·-·E~timate fo-;-purcha;iss"i3s;ooo-:-This ;-ptio-;- packet required) a CXT pre-fabricated I would add to the existing OCT restrooms in the concrete restroom and install onsite. I city's inventory (10 existing). This would i require demolition of the existing building I (additional expense) of the damaged building. ! -·-·--·-·-·----·-··--·-·-·-·-·--·--·--·------------·-·---·-·--------+----·--·-------------·--·--------• Demolish the damaged structure and I This would require demolition (additional rent and pay for numerous portable I expense) of the damaged building. This would Page 2 of 3 chemical toilets during the Summer & Fall seasons. Staff Recommendation Spring, I also require rental or purchase of no less than 16 portable units to provide a comparable 1 number of commodes. At least of the units I would need to be ADA accessible. Service I would be determined by level of use but a I minimum of weekly servicing would be I anticipated. Additionally, aside from not I I having sinks and hand wash capability, there I would be no way around the odor challenges I and most years at least one portable toilet is I vandalized beyond repair, including arson in I several cases. I Staff recommends purchase and installation of a C><T pre-fabricated concrete restroom. We have 10 of these units already in use at a variety of locations and have found them to be very well designed and constructed (fire-proof). They would likely have a usable life of at least double any of the other options. Additionally, the funding mechanism for the cost of this project is already active and in motion with annual revenues from cell antenna space on city properties. We see arson attempts every year in one or more of our restrooms and this is the second time that we've lost a stick-built restroom as a result of criminal activities. Attachments A. Police Report B. Investigation Report from Evergreen Adjustment Services, Inc. c. CXT Taos Restroom Drawing Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • n/a Page 3 of 3 10/08/15 08 :36 Moses Lake Police Department Offense Report Incident Number : 15ML14282 Nature: Assist Agency Case Numbers: Page: Addr : 2001 W VALLEY RD; Cascade Park Area: GS103 GS103 City: MOSES LAKE St: WA Zip: 98837 Contact: . ULYANCHUK Complainant: 115541 Alert Codes: Lst: ULYANCHUK Fst: NADEZHDA Adr: 3087 SNOW GOOSE ST NE Rae: W Sx: F Tel: (509)765-0959 Cty: MOSES LAKE Reported: ASST Observed: Offense Codes: ASST Circumstances : Agency Assist Agency Assist Responding Officers: Montgomery Beau 124 Rspnsbl Officer: Montgomery Beau Agency: MLPD Mid: IVANOVNA St : WA Zip: 98837 Received By: M17 Last RadLog: 08:46:36 10/06/15 CMPLT How Received: T Telephone Clearance: OR 321 1 When Reported: 07:32:49 10/06/15 Disposition: Disp Date: 10/06/15 Occurrd between : and: Modus Operandi: Factor INVOLVEMENTS: 07 :32:03 10/06/15 07 :32:03 10/06/15 Description Date Description Judicial Sts: Misc Entry: Method Relationship 10/08/15 08:36 Moses Lake Police Department Offense Report Page : 321 2 Suspect started a fire in the Women's side of the restrooms located near the boat launch at Cascade Park. ML Fire is conducting an investigation and will coordinate with law enforcement with any new information. The suspect lit toilet paper and toilet seats on fire. The fire spread to the structure of the building which is damaged beyond use. No suspect identified at this time. Tue Oct 06 11:57 :58 PDT 2015/124 Tue Oct 06 14:38 :15 PDT 2015/104 Responsible LEO : Approved by: Date r l EA S I EVERGREEN ADJUSTMENT . SERVICE, INC. Wednesday, November 11, 2015 Gordy Van, Senior Adjuster Washington Cities Insurance Authority PO Box 88030 Tukwila, WA 98138 MEMBER I INSURED: DATE OF Loss: COMPANY FILE: REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Moses Lake, City of October 6, 2015 N/A Payment Request Loss LOCATION: OUR FILE: 2001 West Valley Rd., Moses Lake, Washington 98837 D15-2217 RESERVES I ESTIMATE: Kind Member / Insured Indemnity Reserve Amount Paid REAL/Building Moses Lake, City of 95,000.00 [67,610.54) Reserve is based upon the EAS repair estimate, plus a contingency factor. Amount paid includes the payment request contained within this report. ASSIGNMENT: We received this assignment on 1017 /2015. We made contact with the .City, and General Adjuster Keith Gorman completed his site inspection on 10/9/2015. COVERAGE: In reference to the Washington Cities Insurance Authority [WCIA] "Property Joint Protection Program" and the Underwriter's Policy, we note the effective dates are December 1, 2014 to December 1, 2015. W.e understand the "Individual Member Deductible" is $5,000 with a second coverage layer provided by the WCIA at a $750,000, per occurrence limit. Excess this amount, the "Underwriters" provide a final layer that covers property loss to a $300,000,000 aggregate occurrence limit, for all combined members. All risk perils apply, subject to the described exclusions. Replacement Cost Valuation [RCV] is in effect, subject to the Members actual repair and/or replacement of damaged property, as described under section "12. VALUATION". RISK: The property involved in this event is the "Comfort Station" located within City's Cascade Park property. It is comprised of approximately 600 SF area, and contains a Men and Women restroom facilities, separated by a central mechanical room. The stick frame-structure has Evergreen Adjustment Service, Inc. 9750 Greenwood Ave. N, Suite 103 Seattle, WA 98103 email: office@evergreenadjustment.com Phone: 800-933-4235 I 206-297-2030 Fax: 206-297-2033 Wednesday, November 11, 2015 Moses Lake, City of Page 2 of 3 T1 -11 siding and a metal roof system. It was constructed in 1999, and was in good condition at the time of the event. OWNERSHIP/LEGAL INTEREST: Ownership of this building rests with the City; no other ownership interests have been identified. CAUSE OF Loss: We understand this fire event was reported to the City FD by a witness, who observed smoke emanating from the Cascade Park "comfort station". The City fire department quickly responded and successfully extinguished the fire. Based upon the initial information received from the City, we understand the City FD believes this to be an incendiary event. During our inspection, we noted a single point of origin, located within the Woman's restroom. It would appear someone ignited the plastic toilet seat protection dispenser, mounted above the toilet on north end of west partition wall1. It is suspected a butane lighter was the source of ignition. 2 The burning plastic dripped down, flowing behind the FRP3 wall panels. It ignited the wall framing and spread up the wet-wall chase, and into the attic space, causing extensive damage to the roof truss system. Fire, heat and smoke traveled through electrical and plumbing runs, affecting the mechanical room and Men's restroom, before the fire was extinguished. From information obtained from City personnel, we understand there were no witnesses who might have observed a responsible party. We requested a copy of the City FD report; our receipt is still pending. Loss/DAMAGE INFORMATION: BLDG/REAL: There was extensive fire and smoke damage sustained to the roof system, requiring its complete replacement. The fire spread caused extensive damage throughout the structure, requiring a complete interior gut to framing. Given the severity of the damage, it was necessary to assess the damage from both a repair and replacement point of view. We developed the enclosed repair and replacement estimates, in the amounts of $88, 996.08 and $103,095.05 respectively. With the repair cost verified to be less than replacement, it will be utilized as the basis of the City's claim. The estimate accounts for the State prevailing wage requirement for Grant County. Both estimates have been forwarded to the City for review. Rather than repair the building, we understand the City will likely replace it with a modular concrete structure, at a budgeted cost of approximately $200,000. 1 See sketch; page 16 of the EAS repair estimate 2 EAS image "23", located on page 12 3 Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic [FRP] paneling Wednesday, November 11, 2015 Moses Lake, City of Page 3 of 3 As exhibited in the repair estimate and our loss statement, applicable depreciation equates to $16,385.544• Accounting for the City's deductible, we have derived a net ACV repair ·cost of $67,610.54. RECOVERY: Presently, a responsible party has not been identified. Our receipt of the requested City Fire Department report is pending; we will comment further if there are any avenues to pursue. There are no salvage opportunities involved. PAYMENT REQUEST: Based upon our loss statement and support documents, we recommend an initial payment be distributed as follows: Payee City of Moses Lake Gilbert Alvarado, COD PO Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837-0244 INTENDED DISPOSITION: Ref: ACV cost to repair the Cascade Park comfort station, less a $5,000 deductible We have placed our file on a 60-day diary, pending our receipt of: • City Fire Department report • City expense to secure building • Replacement cost documentation Best regards, EVERGREEN ADJUSTMENT SERVICE, INC. Arlan R. Danner, G.A. direct: 425.922.6100 I f: 425.642.5475 adanner@evergreenadjustment.com Enclosed with this Report EAS Loss Statement -version 1 EAS Estimate to Replace EAS Estimate to Repair · EAS Images EAS overview Images E-mail Communications Available Upon Request c: Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Dir. -Moses Lake, City of mailto: galvarado@cityofml.com AD/ad015-2217r 4 Potential RCV claim Check Amount $67,610.54 ' a. ~ I ~ "' (\J -' "' 1'-6" EXTERIDR LIGHT n>CTURE ~ ..., .J ~ m•~ ~ r~ ~rln:: 11 ' 11 : 1-rrr ~;~ I~ r1 1 I ,1 ~ ! ! ·~ 11 11 I ·iti 3068 ~ 3068 11 + ~ DOOR 11 DOOR ~ V/VENT ·-=-11 ·1 VIVENT 0 ~ 11 ~ I • 11 ., • + ~ 11 A...._ W;:J e--~ I I " I 11 I 11' I ,~ 11 ~ 11 I ~ 11 I I 11 II I I. \_ ADA OPTIONAl. I. DRINKING FOUNTAIN ,,.,,_ .. ,. 1 :xi•-o• FRONT ELEVATION FOR REF ERENCE ONLY 4' DIA PLUMBING VENT PIPE\ OPTIONAL EXHAUST f'ANS <TYP 2 PLCS> 3068 DOOR V/VENT • -e OPTIONAL SKYLIGHTS <TYP 4 PLCSl BARNliCJOD TEXTURE TYP ALL EXTERIOR liALLS t 1'-6" ,_, 1'-6' 1'-n" REAR ELEVATION --TAOS CXT STAllWID IWlllC :.... ....... -==~·=c:-.. =$.." ... -::=:'.t==c' . ...., ....... ,..... _ _...., an' ......... ., .... _., ... "'-'1111,. ~~~.:::::&,~:..-::. --... _ VANDAL RESISTANT VALL HUNG 2-BULB 4' fLOUREC£NT LIGHT rtXT~ OCCUPANCY SENSOR i'ICTlVi'ITED <240-CP-2-32rL-T8-HPr -!20-F"Nt.> 9V NIGHT LIGHT TO BE PHOTOCELL i'ICTIV ill TED OCCUPi'INCY SENSOR OPERill TED EXHAUST FAN CONCEALED TYPE FLUSH VAL VE VI PUSH BUnON, TYP l l/2' STAINLESS STEEL GRAB BAR "' "' J, 11 c:ll!'eJ -----. !::; 18' 77 1/2' -----,!'--- DUPLEX OUTLET ' HAND DRYER -r ASTAIRE REHO TE POVER MODEL -HD03 AS MFR. BY HUMPHREY, INC. II I '\I '\: ,Uiii OPTIDNAL l8'x36' SS HIR~ TOILET TISSUE DISPENSER ~ --n-1 .1 • 0 ........ 11 ~ M .. ill E 41· ----,j<-40 112· I 34· J 21· 1· 36' 40' II II I 112' STAINLESS STEEL VERTICAL GRAB BAR INTERIOR ELEYATION -WQMEN'S RESTROOM INTERIOR ELEVATION -MEN'S RESTROOM YOHENS OPPOSITE HAND HAND DRYER -F ASTAIRE REMOTE P!l'JER HODEL -HD03 AS ..-R. BY lfJHPHREY, INC. OPTIONAL 18'x36' SS MIRROR ' I 11 ' / DUPLEX OUTLET .1 trU.~l_JL II o 0. VANDAL RESISTANT VALL HUNG 2-BULB 4' FLOURECENT LIGHT rtXTURE OCCUPANCY SENSOR ACTIVATED <240-CP-2-32FL -TS-HPF-120-FNL> 9V NIGHT LIGHT TO BE PHOTOCELL ACTIVATED OCCUPANCY SENSOR OPERATED EXHAUST FAN CONCEALED TYPE FLUSH VALVE V/ PUSH BunDN, TYP I 1/2' STAINLESS STEEL GRAB Bi'IR • ~ a, .... ....... LL M M -----a!!'eJ I I ~ I II --_J II I I wl . ~ l21·I34·I r ~o 212• 41' -----77 1/2' 19' INTERIOR ELEVATION -MEN'S RESTROOM FOR REFERENCE ONLY Precast Products ---TAOS CXT ST.llftWID IUUlllC -=-----=::~·=, .... :=$,'1 ... -::=:".:=c-~~ .......... -..... ., ext......,.,... ........ _ .... .........._ =:~.::::&,T:a.."'fllf: • --... _ 2'-4'xl0' LEXAN <TYP 12 PLCS> f • J "' 1'-6' \ ~ J tJ 11 II I 11 II I II II I I IL I 11 I I II I I\ I I I l II 111 I -I I I\ I I \I I I I II I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I\• II I I I Ii II ' f':/ . ..-1 lb...~ I ~ ~ I I I I .c '~~ I I -I l I d I I \._ MS-2 VENT, TYP Of' 4 ID'-<I' ~~'-n# RH SIDE ELEVATION LH SIDE ELEVATION II 111 I II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ·1 I 11 1111 ~:s ~ I I i ~I I 10'-0' ., 1'-6' ROOF" FOR REFERENCE ONLY l'-6' Precast Products --TAOS cxrst-llWlll«l -:.... ....... -= ..... "'1:'Z...-:.:. =:t$.'1"".~.:~ ~....,_,,. ...,,._,.... ___ ., ... _., __ .... _ =~===-.:::::=,~:=:-. ---- [tiiAiii BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR REFERENCE ONLY li -il ' ' . !-=~-------~::~------~------~~~----~---------~:~-------~:-, -'Ir-. __,.,,...........___, 4--i I I I I * ' tco--------'"'' y 2 :. ·' "' t ~ ! ~ ,, (,'. i211 IES . , 1 .. ~ J I ~ t i 11 0 II +II I 101 I U* II 0 .. z COAT HOCJ< 48' Arr TYP 2 PLCS OPTl~AL ADA lllIDl<ING FCUIT AIN --tf"----------13'-4' ------------.!'-- NOTES• 1. SEE DRA\o/ING TA-27 fOR SIZE AND LOCATION OF FLOOR BLDCKOUTS Precast Products ---TAOS CXT STAllllll> IUUJMC -:.... ......... ~=-::..·:,--:s =$7 .. --=='='.:== .. ...., ...... .,. _ __... acr ........ .,.....__., ... ......_, ::...-=t:;: .:.::=.,-:: :......: • --... _ To: From: Date: Proceeding Type: Subject: • First Presentation: • Second presentation: • Action: Staff Report Summary CITY OF MOSES LAKE CITY OF MOSES LAKE STAFF REPORT John Williams, City Manager Gil Alvarado, Community Development Director February 5, 2016 MOTION Winco Binding Site Plan -Appeal Legislative History: 02/09/2016 Motion Attached are the Moses Lake Planning Commission Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision on SEPA Appeal and Recommended Decision on Appeal of Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment. The Findings are a recommended decision by the Commission to the City Council in accordance with MLMC Chapter 20.03, Administration. The Findings are before the City Council for their review and deliberation. Background On July 28, 2015 Winco Foods filed an application for amendment to the Big Binding Site Plan to segregate three (3) parcels, one of which is for the proposed Winco Foods store. Staff reviewed and approved the Binding Site Plan application in accordance with MLMC Chapter 17.10, Binding Site Plan. On November 13, 2015 the City of Moses Lake received an appeal of the Big Bend Binding Site approval from Donna Anderson and A Stronger Moses Lake Page 1of2 Fiscal and Policy Implications The consideration of the attached Findings of Fact of the Big Binding Site Plan approval does not have any fiscal and policy implications with regards to the City Council's deliberation. Options _________ O....;.p_t_ion I Results • Review and uphold the Plann~ Winco Foods project continues with this Commission's Recommended Decision I segment of the development process. on the Big Bend Binding Site Plan 1 appeal. I • Review and deny the Planning I The Winco Foods project would not continue Commission's Recommended Decision under the current Binding Site Plan application of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan and would not continue with the development appeal. j process. Staff Recommendation Staff would recommend that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's recommended decision to deny the Appellants appeal of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan. Attachments A. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decision of SEPA Appeal and Recommended Decision of Appeal on Appeal of Big Bend Binding Site Plan Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • Complete Record of Appeal Previously distributed Page2 of2 CITY OF MOSES LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION DONNA ANDERSON and A STRONGER MOSES LAKE, Appellants v. CITY OF MOSES LAKE, Respondent and WINCO FOODS, LLC Respondent/Applicant. ) ) ) ) NOS. 15-01, and 15-02 ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ) FINAL DECISION ON SEPA APPEAL ) AND RECOMMENDED DECISION ) ON APPEAL OF BIG BEND BINDING ) SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Based upon the consolidated record, exhibits therein, and three (3) nights of testimony, the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, decision, and recommendation. I. FINAL DECISION-SEPA APPEAL The City of Moses Lake ("City") Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") hereby enters this final decision to DENY the appeal of the City's Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance ("MONS") under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") issued on October 2°d, 2015 for the Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment by a vote of 8-0 based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth herein. II. RECOMMENDED DECISION-BIG BEND BINDING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT The City of Moses Lake Planning Commission by a vote of 8-0 recommends that the City Council for the City of Moses Lake DENY the appeal of the approval of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment application ("Decision") issued on October 30, 2015 based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein. Ill. SUMMARY 1. Proposal Overview: On July 28, 2015 WinCo Foods LLC ("WinCo" or "Applicant") filed an application for an amendment to the Big Bend Binding Site Plan to further divide the existing Parcel J into three (3) parcels. See Ex 6. The new parcels would be an approximately six point six-three (6.63) acre parcel for a Win Co grocery store, a one point two-one (1 .21) acre Page 1 of 20 parcel for an access drive, and the remaining nine point zero-five (9.05) acre parcel open for future unspecified commercial development. The property is a portion of Grant County parcel 090629011 located in the City of Moses Lake. See Ex 7. On August 5, 2015 WinCo revised that application to amend the Big Bend Binding Site Plan application to include environmental review for a proposed fifty-eight thousand two hundred eighty-five (58,285) square foot grocery store with three hundred forty-seven (347) parking spaces (the "Proposal" or the "Application"). See Ex 16. The site has access to both Stratford Road and Central Drive. Public services were available to the site and the grocery store is an allowed use within the General Commercial (C- 2) zoning district. The site is designated under fhe Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") as General Commercial. The site is zoned C2 -General Commercial. See Ex 6. 2. Appeals. The Appellants challenge the City of Moses Lake Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance ("MONS") under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") issued on October 2nd, 2015 for the Proposal. See MONS Ex. No. 44. (Appeal No. 15-01 ). The Appellants also challenge the City's administrative decision to approve the Proposal issued on October 30, 2015 (See Exhibit No. 43-Decision). (Appeal No. 15-02) Collectively Appeals 15-01 and 15-02 are referred to herein as the "Appeals". 3. Hearing Dates: The Planning Commission conducted open record appeal hearings on January 6111 and 7th from 6:30pm to approximately 10:30pm, and on January 81h from 6pm to approximately 10:45pm at the City of Moses Lake City Council Chambers. The open record appeal hearings were chaired by the Planning Commission Chair, Vicki Heimark. Planning Commission members in attendance at the hearing and participating in this decision were Tim Adams, David Eck, Richard Penhallurick, Gary Mann, Don Schmig, Charles Hepburn, and Nathan Nofziger. A final work session was held on January 14111, 2016 to review and approve the Planning Commission's Finding of Facts, Conclusions of Law, Final Decision and Recommended Decision. 4. Parties and Attorneys: Parties Counsel for Parties APPELLANTS: Michael Whipple Donna Anderson and Whipple Law Group, PLLC A StronQer Moses Lake RESPONDENT CITY OF MOSES James Carmody of LAKE: Meyer, Flueqqe and Tenney, P.S. RESPONDENT/APPLICANT WINCO Jon Sitkin, FOODS LLC Chmelik Sitkin & Davis P.S. 5. Appellants' Witness: a. Spencer Montgomery, planner, JUB Engineers 6. Respondent-City of Moses Lake Witnesses: a. Anne Henning, Senior Planner and SEPA Responsible Official, City of Moses Lake Community Development Department; b. Gary Harer, P.E., Director, Municipal Se rvices Department, City of Moses Lake Page 2 of 20 7. Respondents/Applicant-WinCo Food's Witnesses: a. Nate Coombs, Petersen-Staggs Architects, LLP; and b. Eric Johnston, P.E, traffic engineer, SCJ Alliance 8. Exhibits: The exhibits referenced on the Exhibit List attached hereto as Attachment A are incorporated herein by this reference. The pleadings and documents listed on the City of Moses Lake Exhibit List that was provided to the Planning Commission and the parties' counsel are referenced in the Attachment Band are incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, the Planning Commission takes notice of the City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan, the City Municipal Code, WAC 197-11, the Department of Ecology SEPA Handbook, and related applicable laws and records in the public domain. All exhibits were admitted by stipulation of the parties. At the commencement of the open record appeal hearing on January 6, 2016, the parties stipulated to a consolidated record for the Appeals. 9. Timeline: A summary timeline of the key actions related to the processing of the MONS and the Decision is set forth as information in Exhibit H-4. 10. Pre-Hearing Orders: Prior to commencing the open record appeal hearing, the Planning Commission considered two Motions. First, the Planning Commission considered the Appellants' Motion For Review of Adopted Rules of Procedure and Objection and Request for Reconsideration and Revision of Order, and denied that motion. Second, the Planning Commission considered the Applicant's Motion in Limine to limit the issues in the appeal to those issues raised in the comments to the MONS filed by Ms. Anderson consistent with the Commission's Order on Pre-Hearing Motions dated December 22, 2015 ("Pre-Hearing Order"), and to limit the Appellants' expert testimony to Spencer Montgomery, traffic planner with JUB Engineering. The City joined in the Applicant's Motion. The Appellants filed no opposition to the Motion in Limine and represented to the Commission that their sole witness would be Mr. Montgomery. The Commission deferred ruling on the Motion in Limine to limit the issues until after the conclusion of the hearing, and granted the Motion in Limine to limit the Appellants' expert testimony to Mr. Montgomery. The Planning Commission proceeded without restriction on the issues as presented in the open record appeal hearing and in the Appellants' Hearing Memorandum. 11. Issues: a. Whether the City SEPA Responsible Official properly considered and evaluated the WinCo Proposal when issuing the MONS? 1. In regard to this issue, the only elements of the environment addressed by the Appellants at the hearing or in their briefing was whether the City SEPA Responsible Official properly considered and evaluated the WinCo Proposal to determine if it caused significant adverse impacts to the City's transportation system and/or bicycle and pedestrian safety? b. Whether the City erred in determining that the WinCo Proposal was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Page 3 of 20 c. Whether the MONS must be overturned due to an erroneous date listed in the MONS for the deadline for filing an appeal of the MONS, and due to a letter issued by the City Attorney to four (4) parties filing a Notice of Appeal of the MONS. 111. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact are based upon the Planning Commission's consideration of the exhibits entered into the record, testimony presented at the open record appeal hearings and the reasonable inferences therefrom. The Planning Commission reviewed the entire record and testimony prior to entering the Findings of Fact. The references to exhibit numbers and testimony below are intended to be of general assistance to the reader, and not a limitation on the evidence considered when entering a specific Finding of Fact. 1. The Summary set forth above is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. Any Conclusion of Law that is deemed a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such. 2. On July 28, 2015, WinCo submitted an application to amend the Big Bend Binding Site Plan ("Initial Application") to the City Community Development Department ("Department"). See Exhibit ("Ex.") 6. On July 30, 2015 the Department issued a Notice of Application for the Initial Application. Ex. 10. On July 30, 2015, the Department reviewed the application and determined that it was complete for processing on July 30, 2015. Ex. 9. On July 30, 2015, the Department also sent a copy of the Initial Application to the Municipal Services Director, and other City Departments. Ex. 11. On July 30, 2015 the City posted a link to Initial Application on the City website. Ex. 12. 3. The Department received comments on the initial application. See Exhibits ("Exs. 'J 13- 15. One of the comments was from William Gould of Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT'). Ex. 14. City staff reviewed and considered all comments with regard to the initial application. 4. The City met with the Applicant to review the revised application and determine a scope of environmental review. See Testimony of A. Henning, G. Harer, and E. Johnston. City staff provided information regarding preparation of a Traffic Memo or Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA"). Ex. 17, and see Testimony of A. Henning, G. Harer, and E. Johnston. City required that a TIA be prepared for this larger project. A TIA is a more detailed traffic analysis prepared in accordance with recognized engineering and planning standards. The TIA was a requirement of the City to supplement the submission of an Environmental Checklist as required by ordinance and regulation. 5. On September 3, 2015 WinCo submitted a Revised Application with a SEPA Checklist to the Department. See Exs. 16 and 21. Accompanying the Revised Application and SEPA Checklist was a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by SCJ Alliance, and signed by Traffic Engineer, Eric Johnston, P.E. (the Traffic Impact Analysis is referred to herein as the "TIA"). Exs. 20 and 21. 6. Since the application was modified, City determined that it was appropriate to reinstitute the notification and review process. The Revised Application was deemed complete for review by the Department on September 4, 2015. See Ex. 23. A Revised Notice of Application was circulated to municipal departments, agencies with jurisdiction, and made available to the public in accordance with applicable ordinance requirements. See Exs. 24-30. Notice was specifically circulated to Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Page 4 of 20 Transportation, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Grant County Health District and Grant County Assessor's Office. See Exs. 28-31. All environmental ahd application file documents were available for public inspection. The Revised Notice of Application allowed for an extended comment period which ended on September 24, 2015. 7. On September 7, 2015 Win Co posted the Notice of the Revised Application at the property at locations as required by City Code. See Ex. 32. On September 10, 2015 notice of the Revised Application was published in the Columbia Basin Herald, as required by the City Code. See Ex. 31. 8. On September 24, 2015, Donna Anderson submitted a letter in response to the Revised Notice of Application ("Anderson Letter"). See Ex. 37. The Anderson Letter contained five (5) comments on the Revised Application, SEPA Checklist and TIA. Ms. Henning testified that after review and consideration of the Anderson Letter, that same day she sent a copy of that letter to the Applicant's representative, SCJ Alliance. See Ex. 38. SCJ Alliance responded to the Anderson Letter by letter dated September 25, 2015. See Ex 39. The Anderson Letter and SCJ Alliance's response are further addressed below. 9. Gary Harer, City Municipal Services Director testified that he followed up with the WSDOT comment and determined that WSDOT would not seek any contribution to the SR 17 interchange, and was not concerned with the WinCo proposal. Mr. Harer responded to Ms. Henning's request for comments by memo. Ex. 40. 10. Approximately a month after issuing the Revised Notice of Application, Ms. Henning completed her review of the SEPA checklist and the comments thereto. Exs. 41-43. Ms. Henning testified that she made notes on the original SEPA checklist where she would typically identify errors, or matters that required follow up. Ms. Henning's testimony indicates that there were no material errors in the SEPA checklist. Ms. Henning received and considered follow-up comments from the Applicant regarding the Anderson letter and from Mr. Harer regarding the TIA. Ms. Henning also discussed transportation and mitigation issues with Mr. Harer. Ms. Henning documented her evaluation of the WinCo proposal and her SEPA Threshold Determination by issuing a SEPA MONS on October 2, 2015. See Ex. 44. On that same day, pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2)(d), Ms. Henning made the SEPA MONS available for public review and delivered the SEPA MONS to the Department of Ecology. See Ex. 45-49. SEPA Responsible Official testified that she personally called Donna Anderson and specifically advised her of the environmental determination. 11. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 and 350, the City SEPA Responsible Official provided a fourteen (14) day comment period on the MONS commencing on the date of issuance of the SEPA MONS. See WAC 197-11-340(2)(d). The SEPA Comment period ended on October 16, 2015. 12. On October 16, 2015, the City received a letter that "serves as our appeal of the City's 'final determination of non-significance,' ... " dated October 15, 2015 from Duke Wood, Ann Shults, Jennifer Valdez, and Donna Anderson ("Notice of Appeal-10/16/15"). See Ex. 50. Notice of Appeal-10/16/15 attached the Anderson Letter "as to the factual basis for the appeal". 13. Other than the Notice of Appeal-10/16/15, no other comments on the MONS were received by the City after the issuance of the MONS from any party, agency, entity, or individual. Page 5 of 20 14. The City was required by the SEPA Rules, WAC 197-11-340(2)(a) not to take action on the Application for fourteen (14) days from the date of issuance of the MONS. The date of issuance of the MONS was October 2, 2015, thus the fourteen (14) day period prohibiting action expired on October 16, 2015. 15. On October 29, 2015 the City Attorney sent individual letters to each of the four individuals signing the October 15, 2015 Notice of Appeal (Duke Wood, Ann Shults, Jennifer Valdez, and Donna Anderson) stating that their appeal was not ripe for review because the City had not issued a decision on the underlying land use application. See the four (4) letters comprising Ex. No. 52. 16. The City issued an administrative determination approving the Proposal by issuance of a Notice of Decision on October 30, 2015 ("Notice of Decision"). See Ex. 53. 17. Prior to the issuance of the Notice of Decision the City received no other comments regarding the MONS, and no party contacted the City SEPA Responsible Official or City Attorney raising any questions or concerns regarding any procedural errors regarding the issuance of the MONS nor did any party assert any prejudice or harm from the notice provided in the MONS. 18. The Notice of Decision was issued and made available to the public in accordance with applicable ordinance standards. In addition, the Notice of Decision was specifically mailed to each of the parties filing the prior administrative appeal, i.e. Donna Anderson, Ann Shults, Jennifer Valdez and D. Wood. Ex. 53. 19. The Notice of Decision included instructions on the appeal of the Notice of Decision and the MDNS, including the timing for filing and the content of such appeals. Ex 53. 20. A Notice of Appeal was filed on November 13, 2015 by The Whipple Law Group, PLLC filed an appeal on behalf of Donna Anderson and a group entitled "A Stronger Moses Lake" ("11/13/15 Notice of Appeal"). The appeal was filed on behalf of "A Stronger Moses Lake" and signed by Peggy Vines. The Notice of Appeal challenges the following administrative determinations. See Ex. 57: a. The City's "approval decision of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan, 1st Amendment" ("WinCo/Big Bend BSP Approval") and, projected related; and b. "SEPA review, Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance" ("MDNS"), October 2, 2015. 21. The open record appeal hearing on the appeal was conducted over the dates and times provided in the Summary above. 22. At the hearing, the Appellants addressed only the three (3) issues identified in the Summary above. No testimony was provided identifying members of A Stronger Moses Lake, legal formation of the entity or any other aspect related to the purported association. There is no factual basis establishing this legal entity, its members or interests in this proceeding. No testimony was provided by association members or individual appellants. No evidence was received with respect to purported adverse impacts as to the alleged notice or process deficiencies. Appellants were not denied the opportunity to present member testimony and evidence. Page 6 of 20 Analysis of Traffic Impacts 23. For new commercial projects the City requires a simple traffic memo or a more detailed Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") to provide an analysis of traffic impacts of a proposal. In this case the City required a TIA. Like many cities, the City requires that any TIA must be submitted by a licensed engineer. See Testimony of Gary Harer and Eric Johnston. 24. Prior to the submission of the Revised Application and the TIA, the City and Applicant's representatives discussed and determined the scope of the traffic analysis. City determined that the study would evaluate PM peak hour conditions as well as analysis of four (4) intersections and the proposed driveway sites. SEPA Responsible Official (Anne Henning) and Municipal Services Director (Gary Harer) reviewed the proposal and determined the need and scope of additional information. The City followed adopted policy and required the TIA to be stamped by a licensed professional engineer. 25. Win Co had a TIA for the Proposal prepared and stamped by a licensed professional engineer, Eric Johnston, P.E., with SCJ Alliance as required by the City. Mr. Johnston's engineering practice specializes in traffic engineering. Mr. Johnston is an experienced and well qualified traffic engineer and member of the Institute of Traffic Engineers ("ITE"). Among the projects undertaken by Mr. Johnston and SCJ Alliance was preparation of detailed studies for discount grocery stores and other commercial projects. In addition, Mr. Johnston provides traffic engineering consulting services to a number of municipal governments. Mr. Johnston testified that he participated in the development of the trip generation study for a Discount Retail Grocery Store that was adopted by the ITE and included in their trip generation manual. See Ex. No. 20 for the TIA, and the testimony of E. Johnston. 26. The TIA included the following determinations: (a) TIA included three (3) traffic volume scenarios: (i) Existing 2015 Traffic Volume; (ii) Projected 2016 background traffic volumes without the Moses Lake WinCo Foods project; and (iii) Projected 2016 traffic volumes with the Mo ses Lake WinCo Foods project. Traffic projections were prepared in accordance with accepted engineering standards and certified by a licensed engineer. Each of the identified intersections functioned within accepted level of service ("LOS") standards during PM peak hours. The sole exception is SR 17 EB Ramps/N Stratford Road which drops to LOS E with or without the project. The LOS E is based on the eastbound to northbound left turn movement within the intersection. The WinCo Foods project does not contribute to this turning movement. (b) TIA included collision reports for the identified intersections. The collision rates were within a reasonable range for urban setting and did not suggest roadway geometric deficiencies. (c) TIA utilized a "pass-by" rate in accordance with standards established by the ITE Trip Generation Handbook Third Edition. "Pass-by" rate was estimated to be twenty- one percent (21 %) of existing traffic. Both City and Appellants' expert opined that the Page 7 of 20 pass-by rate was conservative and a higher rate would have been justified for the analysis. 27. Based on that direction from City staff regarding the scope of the TIA, the TIA was based on a one (1) year horizon year with a two point five percent (2.5%) growth rate for four existing intersections and projected trips for the WinCo curb connection at Central Dr. In addition to the collision history analysis, the TIA included existing data counts from August, 2015 that was determined to be one of the five highest traffic months of the year. The TIA modeled the projected traffic considering new to the network trips (400 trips) and pass-by trips (1 06 trips) at peak hour for a total peak hour projected trips of five hundred six (506) trips generated from the WinCo proposal. The TIA then analyzed the addition of these trips to the City's transportation network to ascertain whether the addition of the WinCo foods proposal would cause the existing LOS to cause the studied intersections to operate at conditions below the LOS standard established in the City's Comprehensive Plan. For the intersections studied in the TIA, the TIA concluded that with the addition of WinCo no intersection studied would cause the transportation LOS to fall below the standards established in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 28. On September 3, 2015, the City's SEPA Responsible Official, Anne Henning, routed the TIA to the City's Municipal Services Director. Ex. 22. The Department's practice is to coordinate environmental review regarding project transportation impacts between the SEPA Responsible Official and the Municipal Services Director. Mr. Harer, a professional engineer who has reviewed traffic impact analysis reports and the simpler traffic memos for the City for approximately twenty-four (24) years reviewed the TIA. The memoranda requested review of the TIA; advice regarding additional required traffic information; consideration and recommendation with respect to traffic mitigation; and impact to the proposed project on adopted transportation LOS. Ex. 22. Ms. Henning identified adopted LOS standards at Comprehensive Plan Table TE-6 and TE-8 and noted that LOS for intersections not specifically listed has been set at LOS D. Also noted was the adopted LOS standard for Valley & Stratford LOS F. 29. Gary Harer testified that he reviewed the TIA in detail and analyzed the need for additional information, potential for mitigation, and impact on adopted LOS. He also testified that he and Anne Henning discussed the TIA before making final environmental determinations. Mr. Harer also testified that he discussed the TIA with William Gould (WSDOT) prior to providing his final comments to Ms. Henning. Discussions with Mr. Gould confirmed (i) the adequacy and completeness of the TIA; (ii) absence of deterioration in accepted levels of service caused by the project proposal; (iii) the adequate functioning of Stratford/Broadway intersection; and (iv) the lack of any direct adverse impact on the transportation system which would support a "fair share" economic contribution. See Testimony of G. Harer. This is confirmed by the fact that WSDOT did not provide any comments in response to the SEPA MONS. WAC 197-11-545(2) provides that where an agency does provided comments to a DNS or MONS the SEPA Responsible Official may consider the agency as having no objections to the project. See WAC 197-11-545 (2). 30. Mr. Harer also testified that he considered queue lengths and impacts on public roadways as well as a potential Stratford Road to Central connector. Mr. Harer concluded that there was not a significant adverse impact on public roadways associated the Proposal and that a connector road at Mart Intersection (Valley/Commercial) was not feasible or supportable nor was it reasonable or supported by analysis. Page 8 of 20 31. The Municipal Services Director advised the SEPA Responsible Official that the TIA was complete and that no additional information was required for further analysis; the existing street infrastructure is adequate for additional traffic; and the applicable LOS standards will not be lowered as a result of the development. Each of these conclusions are reasonable and supported by the testimony at the hearing. Ex. 40 and testimony of G. Harer. 32. The Appellants' only evidence presented supporting their claim that the City erred by not requiring an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") based upon transportation impacts was a letter review of the TIA prepared by Spencer Montgomery, a planner with the JUB Engineering Group ("Montgomery Letter") (See Ex. No. 62), and the testimony of Mr. Montgomery ("Montgomery Testimony"). Mr. Montgomery is not a licensed traffic engineer. He is a transportation planner and his report would not be compliant with adopted city traffic report requirements nor would the City accept a TIA from Mr. Montgomery as he is not a licensed engineer. Neither the Montgomery Letter nor the Montgomery Testimony provided an independent analysis of the Win Co project compliant with City requirements. Mr. Montgomery did not perform his own traffic impact analysis or any study of similar scope and depth to the TIA, and he provided no evidence with which to challenge the data contained in the TIA or the methodology or analysis used by Mr. Johnston .. Mr. Montgomery was unable to identify any clear errors or mistakes in the TIA. Mr. Montgomery was unable to identify a single significant adverse environmental traffic impact caused by the Proposal. His testimony offered only that in his professional judgment he may have analyzed some questions addressed in the TIA differently, but that the report was reasonable, consistent with industry standards, and his difference of opinion was a matter of professional judgement. 33. Generally, the Appellants challenged the TIA approved by the City based on the City's selected horizon year, the area of study or intersections studied, the Peak Hour Factor, the consideration of queue lengths in the report, and the City's consideration of the Win Co project on bicycle and pedestrian movements. See Ex. 62 and Montgomery Testimony. 34. As to the horizon year, the TIA used a one (1) year horizon year with a two point five percent (2.5%) growth rate. The evidence in the record establishes that a one-year horizon year is consistent with applicable professional and industry standards. See Exs. 63, 64, and testimony of E. Johnston. Moreover, a five (5) year growth rate would be based on speculation given the growth rates. Mr. Harer, the City's Municipal Services Director concurred in this .analysis. Mr. Montgomery testified that he believed that a longer horizon year might be appropriate, but also acknowledged that other jurisdictions only require a one (1) year horizon year for this size of project, and that a one-year horizon year as used for the TIA is consistent with the guidelines of the Institute of Traffic Engineers. See Montgomery Testimony. 35. The project is not an interdependent part of a larger proposal and no evidence was presented that other projects are dependent on this proposal or will be developed in conjunction with or as a result of this proposal. 36. The City of Moses Lake's Comprehensive Plan establishes the LOS for the designated City controlled intersections. The City pursuant to the Growth Management Act adopted this Comprehensive Plan. No party challenged the City's adoption of the LOS standards in its comprehensive plan. Much of the Appellants argument, including the Montgomery Letter and Montgomery Testimony dealt with the policy decisions of the City in its comprehensive plan. At project level review, the City staff does not review those policy and regulatory decisions. While the Appellants or Mr. Montgomery may make different policy choices, those questions are not before the Commission on this appeal. Page 9 of 20 37. The City has adopted an extensive transportation element as part of its Comprehensive Plan. See Chapter 6 of the City' Comprehensive Plan. That plan provides for the evaluation of projects by adopting level of service standards. Those levels of service standards are designed, in part, with the object of emphasizing "transportation system performance as a whole rather than focusing on individual locations. See Policy 5.1.A, Chapter 6, City Comprehensive Plan. 38. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan land use designation as general commercial, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The project site and design also avoids strip commercial development consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policy 7.3. Further, the WinCo project site is located within existing commercial areas consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Policy 7.4. See Comprehensive Plan, pages 3-10. The proposal is infill development consistent with scale and design of surrounding commercial areas. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Goal 7 and Policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.5. 39. As to the geographic scope of the TIA, the four studied intersections and the site access to Central Dr. were evaluated for the level of service with and without the Proposal as compared to the existing designated LOS. City staff determined that study of the Stratford/Broadway intersection was unnecessary because the project proposal would have insignificant impacts on that intersection. Further, WSDOT has jurisdiction over SR 17 and access ramps as well as Broadway Avenue. See Testimony of G. Harer. Mr. Montgomery speculated in his testimony that there could be a possible impact to the Broadway/Stratford intersection. Broadway is a state highway. Testimony confirmed that the project generated between sixty (60) PM peak hour trips to the Broadway/Stratford intersection - 1 car per minute. However, the uncontroverted testimony was also provided that the Broadway/Stratford intersection presently operated at LOS C and no empirical or anecdotal evidence was presented that indicated a deficiency or adverse condition at the intersection. Appellants argued that the Broadway/Stratford intersection had a classification of an LOS D standard since a standard was not assigned in the Comprehensive Plan. Uncontroverted testimony was provided that the Broadway/Stratford intersection would operate at an LOS D or better with the Proposal. As a state highway, this intersection is not required to meet concurrency requirements. Thus, the uncontroverted evidence is that the Stratford/Broadway intersection will not be adversely impacted by the Proposal. 40. At the signalized intersections, there is an insignificant increase in delays at PM Peak hour. The highest increase in delay during the PM Peak period with the WinCo project is 4.4 seconds at the W. Valley Dr.IN. Stratford Road intersection. A 4.4 second increase in delay is insignificant. See Ex. 20, Table 6. The City did not err in issuing an MDNS effectively determining that a 4.4 second delay is not a significant adverse impact on traffic operations when the WinCo project also does not cause any intersection to fall below the applicable concurrency level of service standards. 41. As to the Peak Hour Factor, Mr. Montgomery questioned the Peak Hour Factor (PHF) and related methodology utilized by SCJ Alliance in the TIA. SCJ Alliance utilized a PHF of 0.95 based upon actual traffic counts and such factor and methodology was reasonable and supported by empirical evidence referenced in the TIA. The Appellants provided no empirical evidence to support a deviation from the adopted factor. 42. Mr. Montgomery suggested that the TIA did not include some appendixes that were available to be reproduced in the software program used by SCJ Alliance to model future traffic conditions limiting his review of the TIA to determine if the queue lengths were appropriately Page 10 of 20 studied by SCJ Alliance. The Appellants argued that this indicated that the queuing lengths were not appropriately studied in the environmental and traffic review. This contention is not supported by the record. Mr. Johnston testified that the inclusion of the queue lengths appendix in the final TIA was not consistent with professional practices. This was confirmed by Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery also testified that the omission of this appendix did not mean that the analysis was in error, and its conclusion was a matter of professional judgment. There is no evidence that Mr. Montgomery contacted the City or SCJ Alliance requesting copies of the desired appendix. The uncontroverted testimony is that the TIA and its appendixes were prepared and submitted consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual and the appendixes that are required to be submitted for a TIA Moreover, the uncontroverted testimony was that queue lengths were in fact considered in preparing of the TIA but not included in the final report because there was no adverse determination. Mr. Harer, the City's Municipal Services Director also reviewed queue lengths and found that there was no adverse impact associated with such conditions. It was also recognized that queue lengths on private property are not matters of public consideration in the project review process. The omission of that appendix from the TIA was not a mistake, nor clearly erroneous in terms of the City's review and evaluation of the Proposal under SEPA. 43. The Proposal will contribute some traffic to the City's traffic system. However, just because traffic is contributed to the system, does not mean that such traffic causes a significant adverse environmental impact. The analysis of whether a project causes a significant impact is focused on whether the contribution of traffic from the project causes the traffic system to fall below the designated level of service at an intersection, or even in relation to a turning movement within an intersection. This is consistent with the State Department of Ecology guidance contained in the SEPA Handbook. See Ex. H-10. The traffic generated by the Proposal will not cause any intersection or turning movement to fail nor will the traffic cause queuing in a manner that would cause any intersection or turning movement to fall below applicable operating standards established in the City's Comprehensive Plan or become unsafe. Accordingly, although the store will contribute traffic to the transportation network, the traffic contribution from the store will not cause a significant impact. 44. The TIA included analysis of existing and projected bicycle trips to and from the site. Those trips were insignificant. Ex. 20, and Testimony of E. Johnston. The proposal is providing on-site pedestrian circulation ways as required by City standards from the vehicle travel areas. These will connect to existing public pedestrian ways, and potential future pedestrian ways off- site. The design and alignment of the Win Co parking lot will provide safe bicycle travel on site and will allow for connection to future bicycle paths or lanes should those be developed by the City. Accordingly, the WinCo store will not cause or create any safety hazard to pedestrian or bicycles based on their design consistent with City standards. Non-motorized transportation methods of access are adequately provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element, policy 4.1 . See Comprehensive Plan Map TE-5. 45. Appellants asserted that a "fair share" mitigation for transportation impact should have been exacted from the Applicant. Appellants provided no substantive factua l evidence to support a basis for imposition of mitigation. The record fails to establish any identified adverse environmental impact associated with the project that would support a fair share mitigation. City has not adopted an impact fee ordinance or established a Local Improvement District (LID) or Transportation Benefit District for the subject area. No factual basis was established for the imposition of monetary mitigation or other form of exaction. 46. The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that any development which would cause the level of service to fall below adopted service standards for any identified corridor or intersection Page 11 of 20 shall not be approved. See Policy 5.4 Chapter 6, City Comprehensive Plan. The City of Moses Lake Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan has identified a group of intersections to be used to measure concurrency within the City found at Table TE-6 in the City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. See pages 6-29, City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Table TE-6 establishes the Level of Service Standard for Signalized Corridors. See pages 6-29, City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. The evidence in the record supports a finding that the Proposal would not cause the level of service to fall below adopted service standards for any identified corridor or intersection. Accordingly, the City did not err or make a mistake that the Proposal would not cause a significant adverse impact. 47. The SEPA responsible official conducted a thorough and complete review of the application and environmental determinations. No adverse comments were received from either municipal departments or agencies with jurisdiction. The sole negative comment was filed by Donna Anderson on September 24, 2015. The adverse comments are not credible or supported by evidence. (a) No evidence was presented to support a request for a full biological assessment. There were no identified priority species, critical/priority habitats, or critical areas within the project area. WDFW registered no objections or comments with regard to the environmental documentation. (b) Pass by rates were conservative and within the range of reasonable eng ineering judgment. Industry standard methodologies were followed in estimating primary and non-primary traffic generation. The TIA gave consideration to the existing traffic flows on N Stratford Road to ensure that an adequate supply of traffic was available to allow for the twenty-one percent (21 %) pass-by rate (106 pass-by trip ends during the PM peak hour). The predicted PM peak hour pass-by trips (106) represent approximately six point five percent (6.5%) of the total PM peak hour traffic flow on Stratford Road (1,640) which is well within reasonable levels. Appellants' expert confirmed that such rates were reasonable and conservative. Mr. Harer, the City's Municipal Services Di rector also testified that such rates were reasonable and conservative. (c) The study area for the TIA was reasonable and consistent with empirical evidence. Areas outside of the study intersections will experience minimal change in traffic volumes. Moreover, the analysis was conducted for PM peak hour commute volumes (between 4 and 6 PM) which represents the highest traffic volume period throughout the day. School traffic has little impact on traffic during this time period. Testimony also confirmed that traffic counts were taken during August 2015 - a month of higher traffic levels. There was no basis for expansion of the study area around schools and mobile home areas north of the project site. Uncontroverted testimony also confirmed that there were not significant impacts on the intersection of Stratford/Broadway. ( d) No evidence was presented with respect to adverse impacts on public services. The proposed site is zoned C-2 General Commercial. In Chapter 18.30 of the City of Moses Lake's municipal code, C-2 zoning is specifically noted as an "area for large scale shopping centers and other uses oriented to vehicle traffic". The project site and design avoids strip commercial development consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policy 7.3. Further, the WinCo project site is located within existing commercial areas consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policy 7.4. See Comprehensive Plan, page 3-10. As such, the proposed use is a prime example of what the zoning is intended for. Furthermore, the impacts to Capital Page 12 of 20 Facilities, such as Police services, have been evaluated city-wide as part of Chapter 7 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Further, the City of Moses Lake Fire Department did provide comments in response to the Notice of Application. Those comments indicated that the proposed structure does not generate significant impact call volume, but an increase in medicals calls may occur. The Fire Department did not indicate, and there is no testimony in the record, that such an increase would be significant or have a significant effect on the response times of the Fire Department or Emergency Medical Personnel. The Fire Department did indicate that there would be requirements for fire sprinklers and construction access requirements which are addressed during the building permit review process. See Ex.34. These requirements were included in the MONS further indicating that the City's SEPA Responsible Official considered the potential environmental effects of the WinCo Proposal and imposed conditions on potential significant adverse impacts. See Ex. 44-Condition Number 8. (e) Appellants provided no evidence with respect to adverse impacts on competing businesses and grocers. Moreover, such consideration is not permitted in the SEPA review. 48. The MONS was issued following a full and complete review of the application, Environmental Checklist, TIA, and comments. Appellants failed to identify any significant adverse environmental impact that was not reviewed and evaluated during the environmental review process. 49. The City evaluated and considered all reasonable and available information, and made further inquiry seeking additional information to evaluate probable significant impacts caused by the Proposal. The MONS was based upon information reasonably sufficient to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. 50. The City SEPA Responsible Official did not make a mistake or otherwise error in issuing the MONS and determining that the WinCo proposal did not cause a probable significant adverse impact in relation to the off-site or on-site transportation and traffic system, nor does the project cause a probable significant adverse impact to public safety on or off the site. 51. Much of the Appellants' argument were challenges to the policy decisions made when adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan; challenges to the policies themselves, not whether the project was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. At project level review a City must not second guess policy and regulatory decisions contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and it cannot use that second guessing to be the basis of requiring an EIS. Binding Site Plan Approval 52. The only Binding Site Plan approval criteria challenged by the Appellants was the criterion concerning consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to traffic and bicycle and pedestrian transportation. 53. As addressed in the above findings the Proposal is consistent with the applicable City's Comprehensive Plan policies. The Proposal does not cause the transportation network's operation to fall below the applicable LOS standard set forth in the City's Com prehensive Plan. The WinCo store will not cause or create any safety hazard to pedestrian or bicycles based on Page 13 of 20 their design consistent with City standards. Non-motorized transportation methods of access are adequately provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan -Transportation Element, policy 4.1. 54. The City's decision to approve the Proposal is supported by substantial evidence, was not clearly erroneous, and was consistent with law. The Proposal meets the criteria for approval for a binding site plan amendment. Procedural Error Claims 55. The SEPA review fulfilled all procedural requirements. 56. Appellants were not denied the opportunity to comment, nor was there a limitation imposed on the nature of the Appellants' SEPA comments. Indeed, Donna Anderson was the only party that submitted SEPA comments and filed an appeal of the Notice of Decision and provided argument through legal counsel in briefing and at the open record hearing, but elected not to testify. The other three (3) parties that filed the Notice of Appeal-10/16/2015 made no effort to pursue that appeal, did not make any further contact with any City representative, nor did they appear at the open record appeal hearing. These parties and Ms. Peggy Vines were · not harmed or prejudiced by any claimed procedural error. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following Conclusions of Law are based upon consideration of the exhibits admitted herein and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearings. 1. Any Finding of Fact that is deemed a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. All Conclusions of Law set forth in the Summary are incorporated by reference herein. 2. The Planning Commission has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to MLMC 14.06.070, 17.18.080, and Title 20. The Code directs the Commission to give substantial weight to Ms. Henning's SEPA decision. MLMC 14.06.070(C)(9). This is a deferential standard of review, and Appellants bear the burden of proving that the decision is "clearly erroneous." MLMC 14.06.070(C)(9); Brown v. Tacoma, 30 Wn.App 762, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981). Ms. Henning's decision may be reversed only if the Commission, on review of the entire record, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 13, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). When a MONS is challenged, it must be shown that environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA. Chuckanut Conservancy v. Department of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286 87, 232 P.3d 1154 (2010), quoting Juanita Bay Valley Cmnty. Assoc. v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 711, 718, 47 P.3d 137 (2002) (citation omitted). Once a prima facie showing is made that the SEPA Official considered the environmental impacts of a proposal, it is the Appellants' burden to show that the DNS is flawed. See Juanita Bay Valley Cmnty. Ass'n v. Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 74 510 P. 2d 1140 (2002). Here, the evidence is overwhelming that the City's SEPA Official considered the environmental impacts of the proposal. This is evident by the notes made by Ms. Henning on the SEPA Checklist, her requirement that an additional traffic study be provided as a condition of development review, and that after review of the TIA and the SEPA Checklist she required a supplemental response to the TIA to address Ms. Anderson's comments on the TIA and SEPA Checklist. These facts, as found above, are prima facie evidence that the City's SEPA Official considered the Page 14 of 20 environmental effects of the Proposal. It is therefore the Appellants' burden of proof to establish that the City erred. The Appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof. 3. While a project proposal may have environmental impacts, SEPA requires consideration of only "significant adverse environmental impacts." A significant impact occurs "whenever more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." "Impacts" are defined as " ... the effects or consequences of actions." WAC 197-11- 752. SEPA does not require consideration of "every remote and speculative consequence of an action." Appellants did not meet their burden of proof in establishing a violation of SEPA. The City made its threshold determination based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of the Proposal. Testimony supported the review process and the adequacy of environmental review. No adverse comments were received from agencies, municipal departments or the public (with the exception of Donna Anderson). 4. WinCo's Proposal does not generate traffic sufficient to cause a significant adverse impact on the City's transportation network based upon the adopted LOS standards contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan policies, which are also the City's SEPA policies. See MLMC 14.06.070.4.a(1). There is no basis for requiring mitigation for non-significant traffic effects arising from the WinCo Proposal. Moreover, there are no identified plans for future development to properties adjacent to the proposed WinCo Foods site. Thus, there are no probable traffic impacts from other projects to consider in terms of evaluating cumulative impacts. It is not unusual for experts to disagree on the appropriate analytical approach to a given assignment. Appellants have expressed frustration with existing congested conditions at some of the intersections and Stratford Road and have raised some questions, but a SEPA challenge requires more than an expression of concern or questions raised. It requires an affirmative showing through objective, substantive evidence that additional mitigation is required. The Appellants have not made that showing and thus have not demonstrated that Ms. Henning's decision on traffic impacts is clearly erroneous. The Appellants have not shown that the TIA should have been done any differently; they have not shown that the analysis used in the TIA failed to meet industry standards or that it failed to present the City with a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the Proposal's probable transportation impacts. The transportation impacts of the Proposal were disclosed, discussed and substantiated by well-researched data and opinion. 5. The City complied with the procedural requirements in the City Code when issuing the SEPA MONS and the Decision. The Revised Notice of Application met the notice requirements contained in MLMC 20.07.01 O.A by listing the existing environmental documents and identifying where persons could obtain additional information. Moreover, when the City issued the MONS, a separate notice and comment period was provided specific to the MONS. Indeed, Ms. Anderson resubmitted as comments to the MONS her prior comments filed in response to the Notice of Application. Thus, the application comment period was not the only opportunity for citizens to comment as would be the case under the optional SEPA -DNS process. See WAC 197-11-355. To the extent that any errors occurred with regard to the SEPA MONS or on the processing and issuance of the Decision, such errors were harmless. There is no credible evidence in the record that either the public or the Appellants were confused by any of the notices. As a harmless error, under State Court decisions, the SEPA MONS would not be overturned. The MONS was issued pursuant to WAC 197-1 1-340(2) and MLMC 14.06.030(E) Pursuant to the City Code and the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-1 1 ), the SEPA MONS comment period commences on the date of issuance of th e MONS, not the date of publication as argued by the Appellants See WAC 197-11-340, incorporated into the City Code by MLMC 14. 06. 030.A, MLMC 20. 07. 01 O.A. The City complied with the City's requirements for the Page 15 of 20 issuance of the SEPA MONS, as well as the notice requirements related to the Big Bend Binding Site Plan Application. 6. Ms. Anderson timely filed comments to the SEPA MONS. See Ex. 51. Accordingly, to the extent that the SEPA MONS contained an erroneous SEPA Appeal deadline, the erroneous SEPA appeal date in the MONS is harmless error. Washington Courts have determined that where a procedural error in the issuance of a DNS occurs, and that error is harmless, the DNS would not be overturned. See Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, (2001), and Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund v. City of Seattle, 113 W. App 34, 54 (2002). All of the issues identified in the Anderson Letter were considered by the City when issuing the MONS and the Notice of Decision. Therefore, to the extent that the error of the date for appeal stated in the SEPA MONS or the City Attorney's letter were in error, there is no harm or prejudice to Ms. Anderson or A Stronger Moses Lake or any other party. Indeed, no other individuals or entity expressed any harm or prejudice prior to or during the open record hearing arising from the notice of appeal language in the MONS or as a result of the letter from the City Attorney. See Exs. 44 and 51. Moreover, the failure of any party to make a comment to the City regard ing the MONS process and the notice of appeal deadline expressed in the MONS prior to the Notice of Decision denied the City the opportunity to remedy any errors through a withdrawal and re-issuance of the MONS prior to the issuance of the Decision. 7. For purposes of a DNS, SEPA does not provide for consideration of economic impacts. See SEAPC v. Cammack II Orchards, 49 Wn. App. 609, 615, 744 P.2d 1101 (1997); Concerned Olympia Residents for Environment v. City of Olympia, 33 Wn. App. 677, 682, 657 P.2d 790 (1983). Therefore, Appellants' challenge to the MONS based upon the alleged the economic impact to other commercial establishments has not only been waived by Appellants' failure to address the issue during the hearing process but is also improper. 8. Appellants presented no evidence on several of their appeal issues: a) impacts on wildlife and habitat; b) impacts on police and fire services; and c) economic impacts on existing commercial establishments. Accordingly, those claims are waived. 9. Land use decisions contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are not proper in the project level review. See Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597, 614, 174 P.3d 25, 34 (2007). "Project review ... shall be used to make individual project decisions, not land use planning decisions ... the permitting process shall not be used as a comprehensive planning process [and the] project review shall continue." RCW 36. lOA.470 (1); see also RCW 36. 708.030 (3). 10. The Appellants' sole challenge to the approval of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan is to whether the City erred in determining that the Binding Site Plan Amendment application met the applicable criteria and whether the Application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. See MLMC 17.18.020.A.10. It is improper to use this project review process to challenge the propriety of the various provisions of the Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan. As addressed above, the Application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The approval of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment was and is supported by substantial evidence, and is consistent with applicable laws as detailed above. The City did not err in approving the Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment. 11 . The Planning Commission concludes as a matter of law that the City was not clearly erroneous under the law when it issued the MONS or when it approved the Application. The Page 16 of 20 City did not make a mistake under the law or facts when it issued the MDNS or when it issued the Notice of Decision. The City had before it substantial evidence supporting its decisions to issue the Notice of Decision at the time it made its decisions to issue the Approvals and City staff conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the evidence. Moreover, the evidence of record before the Planning Commission fully supports the decision of the City to issue the MONS and approve the BSP Application. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the following is entered: V. DECISION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION For the reasons set forth herein, the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission denies the SEPA Appeal, and recommends that the appeal of the Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment be denied. For the reasons set forth herein, the City of Moses Lake Planning Commission voted.Z- 12. in open session on January 14, 2016, to approve these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Recommended Decision. DATED this day /-/ of January, 2016 . • ~~ .'S6--'l'ncbi£ Vic i Heimark, Chair, City of Moses Lake Planning Commission Page 17 of 20 NOTICE RE: APPEAL Pursuant to MLMC 20.11 .050.A Appeals of the final decision of the Planning Commission or the City Council shall be made to the Grant County Superior Court within twenty-one (21) days of the issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.07C RCW. Appeals may be made only by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in Grant County Superior Court. Pursuant to MLMC 20. 11 .050.B, Notice of the appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served on the City Clerk, City Zoning Administrator, and City Attorney within applicable time period. This requirement is jurisdictional. Page 18 of 20 ATTACHMENT A Page 19 of 20 WINCO FOODS, LLC PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT LIST Date of Name and Address of Person Whom No. Title of Document Document Document Originated From Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan Plat 1 Revised 2/21/1991 -2 pages 2/21/1991 City of Moses Lake -Anne Henning Moses Lake City Council Study Session Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 2 Agenda 12/10/2002 Exhibit C Moses Lake City Ordinance No. 2105 Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 3 12/23/2002 Exhibit A Moses Lake City Council Meeting Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 4 Notes 12/23/2002 Exhibit B Site Development Plan Drawing Bruce C. Petersen, Architect Petersen & 5 4/27/2015 Staggs Land Use Application for Big Bend Applicant -WinCo Foods LLC Binding Site Plan Amendment - 8 attn: Ron Schrieber pages Authorized Rep -KM Engineering 6 7/28/2015 attn: Aaron Ballard Grant County Assessor information on Tract J (submitted with application) Submitted by Brandon Johnson with 7 7/28/2015 application Aerial Photo of Site Submitted by Brandon Johnson with 8 7/28/2015 application Notice of Completeness -Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment 9 Application 7/30/2015 Anne Henning Notice of Application -Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment of Tract 10 J 7/30/2015 Anne Henning Notice of Application -Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment of Tract J sent via memo to City Departments, emailed to Community Development Director, and mailed to County, Regional, State, and U.S. Departments 4 pages 11 7/30/2015 Anne Henning Screen shot of Moses Lake Official Website -Land Use Notices -including Big Bend Binding Site Plan 12 Amendment 7/30/2015 Anne Henning City of Moses Lake Development Engineering Division Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Application (commented on the first application before it was revised) 13 8/3/2015 David L. Thompson, Engineering Tech. Ill Washington State Department of Transportation Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Application (commented on the first application before it was revised) 14 8/3/2015 Bill Gould East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (commented on the first application 15 before it was revised) 8/3/2015 Linda Randall Revised Land Use Application for Big Applicant -WinCo Foods LLC Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment attn: Ron Schrieber (added environmental checklist) Authorized Rep -KM Engineering 16 8/5/2015 attn: Aaron Ballard Example Traffic Memo for City of 17 Moses Lake 8/10/2015 Anne Henning Comments from the United States Department of the Interior -Bureau of Reclamation (commented on the first application before it was revised) 18 8/14/2015 Clinton Wertz WinCo Title insurance on Tract J (submitted as part of application) -2 Submitted by Brandon Johnson with 19 pages 8/18/2015 application Traffic Impact Analysis SCJ Alliance George Smith -Senior Transportation Planner, and Eric Johnston 20 8/28/2015 -PE, Principal 21 Environmental Checklist 9/2/2015 SCJ Alliance Memorandum from Anne Henning to Gary Harer re requested review of Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by SCJ on WinCo Project 22 9/3/2015 Anne Henning Letter Notice of Completeness - WinCo Foods/Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment for revised application and Standard Notice Board Specifications for Development Applications -Posting Requirements for Tract J -3 pages 23 9/4/2015 Anne Henning Email from Anne Henning to Sue Mahaney re instructions on posting revised notice of application 24 9/4/2015 Anne Henning Revised Notice of Application -Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment of 25 Tract J 9/4/2015 Anne Henning Screen shot of Moses Lake Official Website -Land Use Notices -including revised Big Bend Binding Stie Plan Amendment Revised Application 26 9/4/2015 Anne Henning Notice to Moses Lake Departments re Revised Application 27 9/4/2015 Anne Henning Notice to Dept. of Ecology re Revised 28 Application 9/4/2015 Anne Henning & Sue Mahaney Notice to Dept. of Fish & Wildlife re 29 Revised Application 9/4/2015 Anne Henning & Sue Mahaney Notice to Depts. Of Ecology, Transporation, Fish & Wildlife, Health District, and Grant County Assessor re 30 Revised Application 9/4/2015 Anne Henning & Sue Mahaney Comments on revised application from Bill Aukett -Stormwater Bill Aukett, Stormwater Program Manager 31 Program Manager 9/8/2015 City of Moses Lake Affidavit of Publication WinCo/Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Revised Application -5 pages 32 9/14/2015 Rebecca Jones, Columbia Basin Herald Affidavit of Posting of Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Revised Application on site on 09/07 /2015 33 9/15/2015 Molly Linville Moses Lake Fire Department Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Revised Application 34 9/18/2015 Fire Prevention Specialist Beach Grant County Heath District Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Application 35 9/22/2015 Jon Ness, RS City of Moses Lake Development Engineering Division Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment David L. Thompson, Development 36 Revised Application 9/23/2015 Engineering Manager Donna Anderson Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment 37 Revised Application 9/24/2015 Donna Anderson Email from Anne Henning to Brandon Johnson re Donna Anderson Comments on Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Revised Application 38 9/24/2015 Anne Henning SCJ Response to comments received from Anne Henning -6 pages 39 9/25/2015 Brandon Johnson Traffic Impact Analysis Review Letter from Moses Lake Municipal Services 40 Director 9/25/2015 Gary Harer, Municipal Services Director Comments on revised application from Moses Lake Fire Department 41 9/28/2015 Moses Lake Acting Fire Chief Email summary of comments received sent to Brandon Johnson 42 9/28/2015 Anne Henning Comments on revised application 43 from Municipal Services Director 9/30/2015 Gary Harer, Municipal Services Director 44 MONS 10/2/2015 Anne Henning Email from Anne Henning to Sue Mahaney re posting and publication of 45 MONS 10/2/2015 Anne Henning Email from Anne Henning to the Department of Ecology SEPA Register, William Gould, and Jon Ness 46 10/2/2015 Anne Henning Environmental Review Letter to WinCo from Moses Lake City 47 Development Director 10/2/2015 Anne Henning 48 Notice of MONS 10/2/2015 Anne Henning Affidavit of Publishing of Notice of MONS on October 7, 2015 -4 pages 49 10/9/2015 Rebecca Jones, Columbia Basin Herald Comment and Appeal Letter from Donna Anderson, Ann Shults, Jennifer Valdez, and Duke Wood re Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment MONS Donna Anderson, Ann Shults, Jennifer so 10/15/2015 Valdez, and Duke Wood Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing 51 10/26/2015 Anne Henning Letters to Donna Anderson, Ann Shults, Jennifer Valdez, and Duke Katherine Kenison -City Attorney Moses 52 Wood re MONS Appeal -4 pages 10/29/2015 Lake Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Notice of Decision -4 53 pages 10/30/2015 Anne Henning Community comments on pending appeal in support of approving WinCo's application - 4 pages Larry and Stephanie Dagnon; Lisa 54 11/2/2015 Zeilenga; Sheryl Cassella; Deanna Danise Email from Brandon Johnson to Anne Henning re driveway off of Central 55 Drive 11/3/2015 Brandon Johnson Email from Anne Henning to WinCo re variance for the driveway on Central 56 Drive 11/6/2015 Anne Henning Appeal letter for SEPA and Big Bend Binding Site Plan Amendment Revised Application -4 pages Whipple Law Group -Donna Anderson, 57 11/13/2015 Peggy Vines, and A Stronger Moses Lake Email from Jon Sitkin serving WinCo's Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 58 Pre-Hearing Motions 12/1/2015 Exhibit D Revised Notice of Special Meeting of Moses Lake Planning Commission Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 59 12/1/2015 Exhibit E Email from Katherine Kenison to Applicant's and Appellants' Counsels re attached Rules of Procedure - 3 Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 60 pages 12/4/2015 Exhibit G Forwarded email from Jon Sitkin to Michael Whipple re Rules of Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/14/15 labeled 61 Procedure 12/4/2015 Exhibit H Appellants' Traffic Review Study by J- U-B Engineering, Inc. Spencer Montgomery, Transportation 62 12/18/2015 Planner J-U-B Engineering, Inc. ITE Transportaion and Land Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/28/15 labeled 63 Development 2nd Ed. 12/28/2015 Exhibit B WDOT Design Manual, Chapter 320 -Jon Sitkin Declaration 12/28/15 labeled 64 Traffic Analysis 12/28/2015 Exhibit C APPELLANT PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT LIST No. Title of Document Date of Document Name and Address of Person Whom Document Originated From 65 Big Bend Center Binding April 2015 KM Engineering Site Plan Amendment of 9233 W. State Street Tract J Boise, ID 83714 Ladd F. Cluff 4500 Village Drive SE Olympia, WA 98501 66 Letter to SCJ Alliance from July 30, 2015 Anne Henning Henning re: Additional Information 67 Email from Henning to Sue July 30, 2015 Anne Henning Mahaney re: notice of application 68 Title Insurance Unknown Chicago Title Insurance Company 6416 W. Okanogan Ave. Kennewick, WA 99336 69 Email from/to Henning and August 20, 2015 Anne Henning, Ronald Schrieber Ronald Schrieber re: environmental review 70 Email from/to Henning and August 20, 2015 Anne Henning, Aaron Ballard Aaron Ballard 71 Email from Mahaney to September 04, 2015 Sue Mahaney Columbia Basin Herald re: Legal Publication 72 Columbia Basin Herald September 10, 2015 Columbia Basin Herald Legal Publication of Notice PO Box 910 Moses Lake, WA 9883 7 73 Moses Lake Website October 26, 2015 Unknown Screenshot of Public Hearing 74 Email from Sitkin to October 27, 2015 Jon Sitkin Henning re: appeal 75 Email from SJC Alliance to November 03, 2015 Anne Henning, Brandon Johnson Henning re: Central Drive Driveway HEARING EXIDBIT LIST-INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING No. Title of Document Date of Name and Address of Person Document Whom Document Originated From H-1 Big Bend Center undated Appellant; Spencer Montgomery Binding Site Plan Testimony Amendment of Tract J H-3 Spencer Montgomery 2015 Appellant; Spencer Montgomery Bio-Webpage Testimony H-3 City of Spokane December 2009 WinCo; Cross Examination of Valley Street Spencer Montgomery Standards-Chapter 3 H-4-Event Chronology Undated Stipulated as information only Informational Only H-5 WinCo Site Plan Stipulated H-6 Aerial Photo Undated Stipulated H-7 Figure 5 from SCJ Undated Stipulated Alliance Traffic Impact Analysis H-8 Figure 6 from SCJ Undated Stipulated Alliance Traffic Impact Analysis H-9 Moses Lake September 2014 Anne Henning Testimony Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter pages 6-2 to 6-8, and 6-29 to 6-34 H-10 Excerpts from Undated Jon Sitkin Department of Ecology SEP A Handbook, page 101 H-11 Notice of Mitigated Dated October 2, Anne Henning Testimony Determination of Non-2015 Significance H-12 City of Moses Lake Undated Eric Johnson Testimony Municipal Services Stratford Road Bridge Crossing Cars Per day chart-annual comparison ATTACHMENT B Page 20 of 20 c·t f M 11y o oses L k E h "b "t L. t a e X I I IS No Title of Document Date of Name & Address of Document Person From Whom Document Originated 1 Big Bend Center Binding Site Plan Amendment (2 Submitted Aaron Ballard, KM pages) 7-28-15 Engineering 2 Email to staff, forwarding Donna Anderson comment 9-24-15 Anne Henning letter and requesting responses 3 Winco Foods, Inc's Pre-Hearing Motions (13 pages) 12-1-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin, Tim (Attachments A-G were all documents previously Schermetzler, Attorneys provided) for Win Co Foods, Chmelik Sitkin & Davis, 1500 Railroad Ave, Bellingham 4 Planning Commission Rules of Procedure for Approved Moses Lake Planning Contested Appeals 12-3-15 Commission Distributed 12-4-15 5 Pre-Hearing Order (6 pages) 12-4-15 Vicki Heimark, Chair, Moses Lake Planning Commission 6 Appellants Clarification of Legal and Factual Issues (5 12-8-15 Michael D. Whipple pages) 7 City Response to Appellant Clarification of Legal and 12-9-15 Anne Henning Factual Issues (2 pages) 8 Winco Foods, LLC's Response to Appellant's Legal 12-9-15 Jonathan K. Sitkin and Factual Issues and Motion to Limit Appeals (5 pages) 9 Pre-Hearing Order Re Appellants' Statement of 12-10-15 Vicki Heimark, Planning Clarification of Legal and Factual Issues (5 pages) Commission Chair 10 Appellants' Disclosure of Expert Witnesses (2 pages) 12-10-15 Michael D. Whipple 11 Declaration of Michael D. Whipple in Support of 12-10-15 Michael D. Whipple Appellants' Motion for Review of Adopted Rules of Procedure and Objection and Request for Reconsideration and Revision of Order, (6 pages) along with Certificate of Service, (page 7), Exhibit List, (page 8), Exhibit A, (page 9), Rules of Procedure, Exhibit B, (page 10), Rules of Procedure 12 Appellants' Motion For Review of Adopted Rules of 12-10-15 Michael D. Whipple Procedure and Objection and Request for Reconsideration and Revision of Order, (7 pages) along with Certificate of Service (page 8),December 10, 2015 signed by Michael D. Whipple, Exhibit List (page 9), Exhibit A (page 10), and Proposed Order Granting Motion for Review of Adopted Rules of Procedure and Reconsideration and Revision of Order (2 pages) 13 Notice of Appearance (3 pages) 12-10-15 James C. Carmody, Attorney for Plantiff, Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney, 230 S. Second St, Yakima 14 City of Moses Lake's Traffic Expert Disclosure 12-10-15 James C. Carmody 15 Winco Foods, LLC's Traffic Expert Disclosure (2 12-10-15 Jonathan K. Sitkin pages) 16 Winco Foods, LLC's Pre-Hearing Motion in Response 12-10-15 Jonathan K. Sitkin to Appellants' Expert Disclosure (2 pages) 17 Appellant's Motion Seeking Stay of Pre-Hearing Order 12-11-15 Michael D. Whipple Re: Appellants' Statement of Clarification of Legal and Factual Issues or for an Extension to Supplement, and Certificate of Service, Exhibit List, Exhibit A, (6 pages) along with Advance Care Planning seminar 18 Appellant's Response to WinCo Food's Prehearing 12-14-15 Michael D. Whipple Motions, 10 pages, including Certificate of Service 19 WinCo Foods LLC's Response to Appellant's Motion 12-14-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin for Review of Adopted Rules of Procedure and Objections and Request for Reconsideration and Revision of Order, 12 pages 20 Declaration of Jon Sitkin in Support of Applicant's 12-14-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin Response to Appellant's Motion for Review of Adopted Rules of Procedure and Objection and Objection and Request for Reconsideration and Revision of Order (3 pages) with Attachments A thru H, as listed in the Declaration 21 City of Moses Lake's Response to W in Co Food's Pre-12-14-15 James M. Carmody Hearing Motions, 11 pages, including Certificate of Service 22 Appellant's Reply to Applicant's Response to 12-15-15 Michael D. Whipple Appellant's Legal and Factual Motion to Limit Appeals and City Response to Appellant Clarification of Legal and Factual Issues, 3 pages, including Certificate of Service 23 WinCo's Disclosure of Non-Traffic Expert Witnesses, 12-17-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin 2 pages, plus 3 page Certificate of Service 24 Appearance of Fairness Disclosure 12-18-15 Katherine Kenison 25 WinCo's Disclosure and Identification of Witnesses. 2 12-18-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin pages 26 W inCo's Expert Reports Disclosure. 88 pages. (P .1: 12-18-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin cover. P.2: Blank. P.3-50: Original Traffic Impact Analysis. P.51-56: 9-25-15 Letter from SCJ Alliance to Anne Henning. P.57-58: Email from Anne Henning to SCJ Alliance. P.59-68: Sample traffic memo. P.69-70: Email from SCJ Alliance to Anne Henning. P.71-72: Email from Anne Henning to SCJ Alliance. P.73-88: Environmental Checklist and maps.) 27 Email RE: Disclosure & Identification of Witnesses 12-18-15 James Carmody 28 WinCo Food's Motion For Leave To File Reply To (1) 12-21-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin Appellants' Response To WinCo Food's Prehearing Motions and (2) Appellants' Reply To Applicant's Response To Appellants' Legal and Factual Issues, 3 pages 29 WinCo Food's Reply To (1) Appellants' Response To 12-21-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin WinCo Food's Prehearing Motions and (2) Appellants' Reply To Applicant's Response To Appellants' Legal and Factual Issues, 7 pages 30 Declaration of Jon Sitkin In Support of WinCo Food's 12-21-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin Reply to (1) Appellants' Response To W inco Food's Prehearing Motions and (2) Appellants' Reply to Applicant's Response to Appellants' Legal and Factual Issues, 2 pages plus Exhibit A : 10-16-15 Appeal document and 10-24-15 Letter from Donna Anderson 31 City of Moses Lake's Motion For Leave To File Reply 12-21 -15 James C. Carmody To (1) Appellants' Response To Win co Food's Prehearing Motions and (2) Appellants' Reply to Applicant's Response to Appellants' Legal and Factual Issues, 3 pages including Certificate of Service 32 City of Moses Lake's Reply To Appellants' Response 12-21-15 James C. Carmody To Winco Food's Pre-hearing Motions; and (2) Appellants' Reply to Applicant Response to Appellants Legal and Factual Issues, 7 pages including Certificate of Service 33 Objection to Applicant's Motion for Leave, 3 pages 12-21-1 5 Michael D. Whipple 34 Hearing Memorandum In Support of Appeals, 39 12-21-15 Michael D. Whipple pages including Certificate of Service and Exhibit A: Appellants' Legal Authority 35 Declaration of Michael D. Whipple In Support of 12-21-15 Michael D. Whipple Hearing Memorandum In Support of Appeals, 6 pages including Certificate of Service 36 Objection to Respondent's Motion for Leave, 4 pages 12-22-15 Michael D. Whipple including Certificate of Service 37 O rder on Pre-Hearing Motions, 10 pages 12-22-15 Vicki Heimark, Planning Commission Chair 38 Appellant's Motion for Review of Adopted Rules of 12-28-15 Michael D. Whipple Procedure and Objection and Request for Reconsideration and Revision of Order, 14 pages including Certificate of Service 39 Hearing Memorandum of City of Moses Lake, 41 12-28-15 James C. Carmody pages including Certificate of Service 40 Winco Foods, LLC's Hearing Memorandum, 24 pages 12-28-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin 41 Declaration of Jon K. Sitkin in Support of Winco 12-28-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin Foods LLC's Hearing Memorandum, 22 pages including exhibits Exhibits: A. 9-24-15 email from Anne Henning to Brandon Johnson, SCJ Alliance B. Excerpts from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Transportation and Land Development Manual c. Chapter 320-Traffic Analysis from WSDOT Design Manual 42 Winco Foods LLC's Expert Reports Disclosure (non-12-28-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin traffic), 1 page 43 WinCo Food's Response to Appellant's Second 12-30-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin. Motion for Review of Adopted Rules of Procedure and Objection and Request for Reconsideration and Review of Order, 3 pages 44 WinCo Food's Motions in Limine, 3 pages 12-30-15 Jonathon K. Sitkin 45 Appellants' Reply to Win Co Foods, LLC and City's 12-31-15 Michael D. Whipple Hearing Memorandums, 8 pages including Certificate of Service