06282016 Part 2To:
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 Dev. Dir/Deputy City Manager
June 28, 2016
Motion
Ordinance -Blanchet Drive -Right of Way {ROW) Vacation
Request
Legislative History:
I June 14, 2016 -Public Hearing
June 28, 2016
Motion
The City Council should consider a request from Gregory and Marla Huff to vacate a portion of
Right-of-Way {ROW), described as Blanchet Ave adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, HLH Plat. On May 10,
2016 at a regular meeting, the City Council set a public hearing for June 14, 2016 to consider the
merits of the vacation and Ordinance vacating described ROW. The Council opened the public
hearing and took testimony on the request.
Attached is an Ordinance vacating those portions of Blanchet as detailed by the legal description
and map.
Background
Gregory and Marla Huff are requesting the vacation of a portion of unimproved ROW that abuts
their property. The Huff's have voiced their concerns in the past over the maintenance of the
unimproved ROW and are requesting to vacate in order to maintain the ownership.
Page 1 of2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The ROW would no longer be a maintenance responsibility of the City of Moses Lake if vacated.
The proponents would also have potential fiscal implications in that the City Council may require
reimbursement of up to half the appraised value of the property to be vacated. The
reimbursement calculation by the Municipal Services Director is in the amount of $6,174 dollars.
Options
•
•
Option
Consider the request to vacate
ROW
Consider the request to vacate
ROW and take no action
Staff Recommendation
I Results
the I The adjacent propert._y_o_w_n_e-rs_e_a-ch-re--t-a-in_h_a_/f_
. of the vacated ROW to maintain.
the I ROW remains as is and unimproved
I
Staff would recommend that the City Council approve the Ordinance vacating portions of
Blanchet as described.
Attachments
A. Ordinance No. 2816 /Legal Description
B. Map
c. Copy of Land Use Action Application
D. Copy of Request from Gregory and Marla Huff
Legal Review
The following documents are attached and subject to legal review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2. ~ l [p
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF BLANCHET AVENUE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following described public right-of-way shall be vacated:
That portion of Blanchet Avenue, formerly known as Sixth Avenue, dedicated on the Plat of Park
Orchard Tracts, Per Grant County Plat records Book 1, Page 36, located in the SW X , Section
15, Township 19 North, Range 28 East. W.M., City of Moses Lake, Grant County, Washington,
described as follows:
A 43.00 foot wide portion of Blanchet Avenue adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, H.L.H . Plat, recorded in
book 11 of Major Plats, pages 56 and 57, records of Grant County, Washington, more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the easterly most corner of said Lot 1; Thence S62°12'45"W along the southerly
line of said lot 1 a distance of, 180.60 feet; Thence S00°10'05"W along an extension of the west
line of said Lot 1, a distance of 48.65 feet; Thence N62°12'45"E along a 43 feet distant from and
parallel to the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 183.17 feet to a 40.00 foot radius non-
tangent curve concave to the east; Thence along the arc of said curve to the right, through a
central angle of 45°50'21 ", an arc distance of 32.00 feet, having a chord bearing N02°26'48"W,
31 .16 feet to the point of reverse curvature of a 20.00 foot radius curve concave to the West;
Thence along the arc of said curve to the left through a central angle of 48°01 '31 ", an arc distance
16.76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said tract of land contains 7775 square feet, more or less.
SUBJECT TO
A Public Utility Easement across the above described parcel, more particularly described as
follows:
The southeasterly 5 feet.
Section 2. The city shall be compensated for one half the appraised value of the vacated property. The
vacation shall not become effective until the required compensation is received by the city.
Section 3. 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 June 28, 2016
ATTEST: Todd Voth, Mayor
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
80 40
PGdt: \\GIS-SERVE}(lgiilMMkfllCOUNCJLMAPS.mx.11
210 N DA.LE RD
'J»
50 25 ~ w.
' .
LEGEND -COUNCIL AGENDA SITE ,-------._ ___ ..! CITY LIMITS
_c_.-_. '-·-iJ UGA BOUNDARY
MOSES LAKE
ROW VACATION
HOSES LAKE
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Date: -112812016 CMS
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
(509)764-3750 Fax(509)764-3758
Bindin~ Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300
Conditional Use Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250
Environmental Checklist .......................... $250
Amend Comp Plan/Development Reg's .............. $200
Planned Unit Development . . . . . . . . Prelim $200 - Final $225
Zoning Variance ............................ $100 +fees
Zone Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250
Short Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prelim $300 -Final $200
Major Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prelim $500 -Final $400
Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400
Right-of-Way Vacation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200
And Appraisal Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $400
Shoreline Application Determination ................. $100
Shoreline Substantial Dev. and/or CUP ............. $200
Exempt No Addition Fee
Variance ..................................... $100
Public Hearing not otherwise specified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $60
Boundary Line Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250
Cargo Containers (each) ........................... $60
1. PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME G\.-eri"·'i ~ ma.r\<& HUEE
MAILING ADD ESS e. 0 • \'3bx lo l ?>
CITY AND STATE \'Y\o~E:$ U\i?.t..1 v.2.A · ZIP 958:,'1
TELEPHONEl 5DC\) '1 SD-1 YJ '=!
-(a-lb
LAND USE ACTION APPLICATION
CtTY OF
HOSES LAKE
CITY USE ONLY
Dale Rec~d ____ j:-_~~.:-:J~-------------~~e-~L!..J_ -~--------tc----;-----------:...1 ___ d.QO...-. __________ R e1pl • ____ Q_Q-L~
rile #_LU:T-fz_o I &?-Q'.)2-/
5. UTILITIES:
1. WATER SUPPLY: (Name of Utility, n applicable)
a. Existing ____________ _
b. Proposed-------------
2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (Name of Utility. n applicable)
a. Existing ____________ _
b. Proposed ____________ _
ACCESS: (Name of r~ad or street from which access is or will be grantea1
do hereby affirm and certify, under penal~ of perjury, that I am one <or 1. Existing Access:-------------more) of the owners or owner under contract of the below described propertY. and that the foregoin!l statements and answers are in all resP,ects 2. Proposed Access: true ano correct on my infbrmation and belief as to those matters, I believe -------------it to be true.
2. APPLICANT
COMPANYNAME ______ -=------------
CONTACT ____ ____,5_p.~J\A.-~~t_, _______ _
MAILING ADDRESS _______________ _
CITY AND STATE ____________ .ZIP ___ _
TELEPHONE ______________ _
SIGNATURE _____________ DATE __ _
3. Authorized Rep
COMPANY NAME
CONTACT
MAILING ADDRESS
s.p<M-1:....
CITY AND ST ATE ZIP
TELEPHONE
4. SUMMARY OF REQUEST (List Type of Uses)
Sr:::£" A•ffi.\c. Hi. D l . Lill I<-
6 . PROPERTY LOCATION
NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST SIDE OF(Circie One)
(Road Name): lb LAN C. b £..);"' 1> Q..\ 0 L
between (road name):---------------
and (road name):-----------------
PROPERTY ADDRESS ______________ _
SECTION ___ TOWNSHIP ___ RANGE ___ _
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ___________ _
FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: (Attach separate sheets if too long)
7 . EXISTING ZONING _________ _
TOTAL AREA (square feet) OF SITE-----
~nne~enniD~ S~nior Pli~er-ahennin~~~·tvofm~.cpm 1111e o Muo :tAAss1stan anner;,bmu fc1tvo m .com anie Leav1 , ss1stant anner-uleav1 yorm .com
Revised 1-28-15
4-26-16
Dear Sirs:
We own property located at 410 White Street.
As long as we have owned this property, Blanchet Dr. (which sits between our
property and the Catholic Church, and at the end of a cul-de-sac) has sat there
vacant. The new elementary school Park Orchard sits adjacent.
This Blanchet Dr. property has become a dumping ground for all the neighbors
unused items, grass clippings and etc.
We would like Blanchet Dr. vacated and would like to purchase this unbuildable Yz
lot. We would move our fence to incorporate this vacated street into our property
on White Street. We would move the fence to 5 feet of the existing sidewalk used for
access to the elementary school.
We have discussed this with a representative with the Catholic Church as they have
the same concerns and agree with our purchasing ands cleaning up this property.
We have also paid the $200 fee to start the process for the right-of-way vacation.
April 22 2016
TO:
FROM:
Assistant Planner, Billie Jo Munoz
Municipal Services Director <S t4
SUBJECT: Huff -Vacation of Blanchet Adjacent to Lots 1, Block 1, HLH
Plat -One-Half Appraised Valuation
I calculated the one-half appraised value by using the assessed values, shown on the Grant
County GIS website, of the lots on each side of the proposed alley vacation.
1 Blk 1, HLH Plat
Lot 5, Knolls
Vista 18 Add.
Average assessed value is $1.57 /sf
Assessed Valuation
$ 30,000
$187,300
Area of alley proposed to be vacated is= 7,865 square feet.
Square Feet
13,799
190,792
Total valuation= 7,865 square feet x $1 .57 per square feet= $12,348
One-half assessed value is $6,17 4
$2.17/sf
$0.98/sf
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 Dev Dir I Deputy City Manager
June 28, 2016
Request for Direction
Shoreline Master Program Update -Conditional Approval
Legislative History: I April 12, 2016
I June 28, 2016 I Motion
Attached is a letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), giving the City of
Moses Lake notice of their intent to conditionally adopt the Moses Lake Shoreline Master
Program (SMP). See attached letter and Attachments. This letter does not mean that the SMP is
adopted. It is part of the statutory process of an SMP adoption. At this point, we have simply two
options to follow with our SMP final adoption and they are: 1) agree to the DOE changes as
drafted or; 2) submit and alternate proposal.
Attached also is a Memo from Anne Henning, Senior Planner, which highlights the major changes
by DOE to the Moses Lake SMP. See attached.
Background:
The City of Moses Lake is obligated under State statute to adopt a SMP that is compliant with
amended Shoreline Management Act. The City Council has reviewed the Draft SMP and made
Page 1 of2
recommendation to DOE. The DOE did not fully accept the recommendations as presented and
offered changes that they felt are compliant with the Shoreline Management Act.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
If the City Council is to consider an alternate SMP proposal as provided by the process of SMP
adoption, the Council will need to consider an outside source for assistance. Staff is not in a
position to address DOE's concerns given the complexity of the issues.
Historically, the City hired a consulting firm to assist with development of the Cumulative Impact
Analysis (CIA) as required. It was the CIA work that help develop the wetlands buffer language
that DOE has taken exception to in terms of compliance with the Shoreline Management Act.
Options
<?..etJ!'n. _________ _ Results
• Accept the DOE proposed changes to
the Moses Lake SMP
Adoption of the SMP moves forward to DOE for
signature and codification.
• Provide DOE with alternate SMP Continued SMP adoption and fiscal impacts to
proposal for their review the General Fund
Staff Recommendation
Staff would recommend that the City Council consider adoption of the DOE proposed changes as
presented. The Council should consider the DOE proposed changes and provide staff direction on
how to proceed.
Attachments
A. Memo -Senior Planner Anne Henning
B. Attachments A, B & C
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
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTM ENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 ° 360-407-6000
711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
June 7, 2016
The Honorable Todd Voth
City of Moses Lake
401 South Balsam Street
PO Box 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
RECE!\/ED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEl\JT
I 1 ( r
I 0 '
PU\Ni~ING AND BUiL DI NG
en'{ OF MUSES LfiJ(E
Re: City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Shoreline Master Program Update -
Conditional Approval, Ordinance Number 2732
Dear Mayor Voth:
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Moses Lake (City) for its efforts
in developing the proposed comprehensive Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The
SMP will provide a :framework to guide development and habitat restoration along the City's
shorelines.
As we have already discussed with your staff and the city council, the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) has identified specific changes necessary to make the
proposal approvable. These changes, along with recommended changes and detailed
rationale for each change are detailed in Attachment B. The findings and conclusions that
support Ecology's decision are contained in Attachment A. Attachment C constitutes
Ecology's response to public comments received during the state comment period, as well
as a discussion of outstanding issues from the City comment period.
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may:
• Agree to the proposed changes (required and/or recommended changes), or
• Subinit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the altemative(s) submitted
for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally developed by
Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act.
Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that
meets statutory and Guideline requirements.
The Honorable Todd Voth
June 7, 2016
Page 2
Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following
address:
WA State Department of Ecology
Attention: Director's Office
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-6700
Ecology appreciates the dedicated work that the City Council, City staff (Rob White), the
Planning Commission and the community have put into the Shoreline Master Program
update.
We look forward to concluding the SMP update process in the near future. If you have any
questions or would like to discuss the changes identified by Ecology, please contact our
Regional Planner, Jeremy Sikes, at Jeremy.Sikes@ecy.wa.gov/(509) 329-3426.
Sincerely,
Maia D. Bellon
Director
Enclosures
By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 4406]
cc: Gil Alvarado, City of Moses Lake
Sara Hunt, Ecology
Jeremy Sikes, Ecology
To: Community Development Director
for Council Consideration
From: Senior Planner-Henning ~
Subject: Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Ecology Approval/Comments
Date: June 21, 2016
The City has received the conditional approval of our SMP from Ecology. The City
Council's draft of the SMP has been approved but with certain recommended and required
changes. The City has 30 days to agree to the changes or propose alternate language that
achieves the same end result as the changes from Ecology.
Many of the changes are simple and non-controversial; however, a few require some
additional explanation. These include wetland buffers, wetland mitigation ratios, joint use
docks, public access, and trail setbacks.
Wetland Buffers
Jurisdictions are required to base their minimum wetland buffers on science; if the city
cannot provide more specific science then the buffers default to the State's extensive
guidance on wetland buffers. The City had only a brief analysis by their consultant, who
tried to make a case for generalizing existing conditions to all wetlands. This analysis is not
as comprehensive as the State's work on the science of wetlands and buffers so does not
constitute better information. Therefore, we must use the State's buffers for wetlands.
Category Ill and IV were the only categories that must be changed .
Wetland Buffers
Wetland Standard Buffer Additional buffer Additional buffer Additional buffer
Category Width width if wetland width if wetland width if wetland
sores 5 habitat sores 5 habitat sores 5 habitat
points points points
Category Ill 2&60' NA Add 15' NAAdd 45' NAAdd 75'
Category IV 25' 40' NA NA NA
Wetland Mitigation Ratios
By state and federal law, when impacts to wetlands are allowed, those impacts must be
mitigated. The City's proposed ratio was 1 :1; however, as Ecology points out, this does not
reflect the most current science, and the Cumulative Impacts Analysis prepared by the
City's consultant could not find that this proposal would not lead to net loss of functions.
Mitigation is not always successful, so the required mitigation must include a larger area
than is being impacted. The City must propose ratios that will lead to no net loss of
ecological function. There are two methods of calculating the appropriate mitigation ratio
that Ecology will accept: 1) The credit/debit method which is the most accurate but requires
more information specific to the project, and 2) Standard ratios developed by the State and
the Corps of Engineers as shown in the following table. Ecology is requiring that we allow
both methods to provide more flexibility to the applicants.
W I d MT r Rf etan 11qa ion a IOS
Category & Type of Creation or Re-Rehabilitation Enhancement
Wetland establishment
Category I: Bog or Not considered Case by case Case by case
Natural Heritage Site possible
Category I: Mature 6:1 12:1 24:1
Forested
Category I: Based on 4:1 8:1 16:1
functions
Category II 3:1 6:1 12: 1
Category Ill 2:1 4:1 8:1
Cateaorv IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
Joint Use Docks
The Shoreline Management Act requires property owners to share the use of docks "when
feasible". Ecology has provided language (developed for Grant County's SMP) that will
meet this requirement but in a way that shouldn't be burdensome to property owners or the
City. New subdivisions will be required to provide joint use docks rather than individual
docks; however, there is not much vacant shoreline property left for development so
implementation of this provision will be very limited.
Public Access
While not identified by Ecology as a major issue, staff believes the requirement for public
access in new subdivisions may be an issue of concern to the City Council. WAC 173-26-
241 (3 )(j) requires "community and/or public access", however the language from Ecology
only addresses public access. If the City would like to allow community access (limited to
the residents of the development) instead of full public access, we would need to propose
alternate language in 7-100-030 Regulation 2. Inserting "community or" in front of "public
access" would be staff's suggestion . Again, there are few vacant shoreline parcels that this
would apply to, so implementation would be limited.
Trail Setbacks
The draft SMP proposed a 1 O' trail setback for all designations except Natural, where it was
proposed at 25'. Ecology's required change is to increase the trail buffer to 25' in the
Shoreline Residential Resource and Special Resource designations.
~
o~ w ..J ">~ ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ~ tlJ
FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE ~ ~
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM W r-
z
SMP Submittal accepted December 15, 2014, Ordinance Number 2732
Prepared by Jeremy Sikes on XX.XX
Brief Description of Proposed Amendment:
Ct:: :::>
2!
~
0
0
The City of Moses Lake (City) has submitted to Ecology for approval, a comprehensive update to their
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to comply with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP
Guidelines requirements. The updated master program submittal contains locally tailored shoreline
management policies, regulations, environment designation maps, administrative provisions as well as
local municipal code 18.53 Flood Hazard. No parts of the local ordinances are adopted by reference as
part of the SMP, as the City has elected to incorporate Critical Areas language into the updated Master
Program. The critical areas provisions provide a level of protection that assures no net loss of
shoreline ecological function pursuant to RCW 36. 70A.480(4). Additional reports and supporting
information and analyses noted below, are included in the submittal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Need for amendment. The proposed amendment is needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a
comprehensive update of the City's local Shoreline Master Program pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and
100. This amendment is also needed for compliance with the planning and procedural requirements of
the SMP Guidelines contained in WAC 173-26 and 27. This SMP update is needed to address land use
changes that have occurred along the City's shorelines since 1988 when the City reviewed the SMP,
adopted in 1975. This update also provides consistency between the updated SMP Guidelines, current
science regarding protection of shoreline resources, the City's Comprehensive and Flood Management
Plans, and the shoreline protection provisions of neighboring jurisdictions.
SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed:
This comprehensive SMP update is intended to entirely replace the City's existing SMP which was last
reviewed on 1988. This updated SMP does not increase the linear extent of shorelines to be covered
and regulated by the City. The City did not elect to extend shoreline jurisdiction to include critical
area buffers as allowed under RCW 90.58.020(2)(d)(ii).
Amendment History, Review Process:
The City's efforts to update the SMP originally began in 1998. The City formed a Citizen Advisory
Committee of volunteers to review draft language for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The
draft language was based on a model SMP developed by the Department of Ecology. The Committee
met monthly starting through 2001, when it was determined that a shoreline inventory was needed before
further work on the SMP update. Minutes of the Committee meetings and the draft language discussed
by the Committee formed a basis for the goals, policies, and regulations that eventually lead to the locally
adopted SMP.
The city revived the local planning process again in 2004 with help from a"Department of Ecology grant.
1
Part of the grant money was used for a shoreline inventory by Geo-Ecology Research Group of Central
Washington University. The inventory consisted of compiling, mapping; and analyzing information
including zoning, land use, docks, bulkheads, wetlands, soil permeability, etc. The remainder of the
grant money was used for Highlands Associates of Okanogan to take the shoreline inventory and
analysis, state Shoreline Master Program guidelines, work by Moses Lake's Shoreline Citizen Advisory
Committee, and Planning Commission input to create drafts of the regulatory chapters of the SMP
update. At the end of that process, the draft SMP was not yet acceptable to either the state or the local
citizens and Planning Commission, so staff continued to refine the draft SMP as workload allowed.
The City has engaged extensively with the public throughout the lengthy update process. Through more
than 50 public sessions (hearings, open houses, work sessions, open regular meetings, and comment
periods) the citizens of Moses Lake have had many opportunities to provide input on the draft SMP. In
its latest iteration, the SMP was intensively reviewed by the Planning Commission through twenty-three
study sessions, and two open houses, before the GMA 60-day comment period. The 60-day review
garnered several substantive comments from state agencies, including Ecology.
With passage of Resolution #2732, on October 24, 2014, the City authorized staff to forward the
proposed amendments, including responses to comments received, to Ecology for approval.
The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete
on December 15, 2014. Notice of the state comment period was distributed to interested parties
identified by the City on January 15, 2015, in compliance with the requirements of WAC 173-26-120,
and as follows:
The state comment period began on February 2, 2015 and continued through March 4, 2015.
Ecology also issued a news release and internet notices to encourage public participation and
comment. Ecology received five written comments, focused primarily on buffers established in the
locally adopted SMP draft, and cultural resources issues. Ecology prepared a summary of public
comments and sent this to the City of Moses Lake on March 23, 2015. Due to extenuating
circumstances with City staff, the City requested, and was granted, two subsequent 45-day extensions
to their required response timeline. Extensions were requested in writing on April 22 and June 19,
2015.
On July 29 2015, the City submitted to Ecology its responses to issues raised during the state comment
period.
Ecology found that the locally adopted draft, while complete, contained some outdated references, and
contained provisions that Ecology had previously indicated were not compliant with applicable laws
and rules. With these required and recommended changes, Ecology proposes replacement language to
ensure compliance with applicable statutes, and provides detailed rationale for each required and
recommended change.
Among other smaller edits, required changes include deletion of one environment designation that
would be inappropriate based on the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and underlying Grant County
designation, and clarification of a provision addressing buffers established during preliminary platting
to ensure consistency with state subdivision laws. Ecology also incorporated text edits the City
2
proposed to address comments received during the state public comment period, as presented in the
responses received July 2015 (Attachment C).
Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW: The proposed amendment has been reviewed for
consistency with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and
(5). The City has also provided evidence of its compliance with SMA procedural requirements for
amending their SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2).
Consistency with "applicable guidelines" (Chapter 173-26 WAC, Part Ill): The proposed
amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline
Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and 173-26-020 definitions). This
included review of a SMP Submittal Checklist, which was completed by the City.
Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City submitted evidence of SEP A compliance in the
form of a SEP A checklist and issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposed
SMP amendments on April 28, 2014. Notice of the SEPA determination was published in the
Columbia Basin Herald on May 1, 2014. Ecology did not comment on the DNS.
Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP update: Ecology also reviewed the following
reports, studies, map portfolios and data prepared for the City in support of the SMP amendment:
These supporting documents include:
• Shoreline Inventory and Characterization dated June, 2005
• Moses Lake Cumulative Impacts Analysis (MLCIA) dated July 8, 2013
• *Technical Memo; Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss of Ecological Function in the City's
Shoreline Master Program dated July 8, 2013
• *Technical Memo (edited by City of Moses Lake); Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss of
Ecological Function in the City's Shoreline Master Program dated October 15, 2013
• Shoreline Restoration Plan (Moses Lake SMP Chapter 11)
• MLMC 18.53 Flood Hazard Code
• MLMC Chapter 18. 67 Planned Development District Zone Code
• City of Moses Lake SMP City Council Public Hearing and Comments Responsiveness Summary
(undated)
• Shoreline Jurisdiction Map Portfolio dated January, 2014
• Shoreline Master Plan Comment Submittal dated December, 2014
• City of Moses Lake Response Matrix for State Public Comment Period, and City proposed text
edits; July 20, 2015 ·
*Both the original and edited versions of this document were submitted by the City of Moses Lake as
a part of the formal submittal package.
Summary of Issues Raised During The Public Review Process:
Issues raised during the public comment period were· substantive and wide ranging. Some of the issues
raised were similar to those raised during the many City-sponsored public comment periods, while
3
others were raised for the first time during the state comment period. Ecology commented extensively
on the GMA 60-day review draft prior to final adoption. The City elected not to address several of
those comments in the locally adopted draft. Ecology included these unaddressed comments in the
response matrix (Attachment C-Combined State_Local Comment Responses) developed for the state
comment period for clarity.
The City of Moses Lake SMP update process was unique and lengthy. The update process began in
1998, and proceeded in bursts of activity and periods of dormancy until roughly 2013. Both the City
and Ecology had staff tum-over during the nearly twelve years update process. As a result, the locally
adopted draft was authored and revised by different planning staff, planning commission members, and
City councils. Ecology had a more limited role in reviewing draft products than with other
comprehensive updates, and provided feedback primarily during the many formal public comment
periods held by the City. As noted, some of Ecology's earlier comments, including many direct
requirements of either the SMA or Ecology rules, were not incorporated into the locally adopted draft.
Issues raised previously by Ecology dealt primarily with wetland buffers and mitigation ratios, joint
use docks, and trail setbacks.
Wetlands buffers
Ecology found the city did not provide adequate rationale for proposed wetland buffers for Category 3
and 4 wetlands. Ecology's science-based recommended Category 3 and 4 wetlands buffers are 60 feet
and 40 feet respectively, with additional buffers of 30' and 60' for wetlands with high quality habitat. 1
The City's proposed buffers are 25 feet for both categories with no additional area for higher
functioning scores.
The city based its buffers in part on a Cumulative Impacts Recommendations report prepared by
Watershed Co., which recommended that Category 3 wetlands should be provided a 25-foot buffer.
The report held that " ... proposed buffers should either be: 1) consistent with existing conditions, or 2)
consistent with recommendations of the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical
information available that is applicable to the issues of concern" (WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a)). ". This is
an incorrect interpretation of the WAC, which does not indicate that wetland buffers should be
consistent with existing conditions where they would conflict with science-based recommended
buffers.
While Ecology agrees an analysis of existing conditions is informative and should be considered, those
conditions must be analyzed consistent with the requirement under WAC l 73-26-201(2)(a). The
analysis performed regarding category 3 wetland buffers presented does not meet the definition of
"most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information. " The analysis included
only one unverified category 3 wetland, along with subjective conclusions about function based on
aerial photo interpretation. In addition, the proposed buffer regulations the proposed buffers do not
reflect the totality of the recommendation in the MLCIA because they do not require additional buffer
width for higher habitat scores or for non SR-R designations.2 Ecology's required changes include
amendments to buffer provisions that align with current scientifically supported guidance.
1 Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Eastern Washington Version, Pub #10-06-001 ; Wetlands in
Washington State -Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Pub 05-06-008.
2 ibid
4
Wetland mitigation ratios
The proposed SMP sets wetland mitigation ratios at 1 : 1 for unavoidable wetland losses. A 1: 1
replacement ratio for lost wetlands does not reflect thy most current science on wetland mitigation and,
per the Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Watershed Co., 2013 ), will result in net loss of ecological
function. Ratios should be similar to those found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State
(Publication #06-06-01 lb) or Ecology's Small Cities Guidance (Publication #10-06-001) which was
the source for many of the wetland provisions in this SMP. Wetland impacts from fill also require
authorization from Ecology and possibly from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation ratios
presented in the documents cited above were co-developed by Ecology and the Corps, and would be
required for an applicant to obtain the needed permits. Ecology's required changes include
amendments to mitigation ratios that align with current scientifically supported guidance, and the
requirements in WAC 173-26-22I(c)(i)(F).
Other wetland provisions
Other sections of the wetland regulations have been updated to correct references to Ecology guidance
documents, wetland rating metrics, and to include optional newly developed wetland mitigation
approaches.
Joint use docks
Ecology previously noted that proposed SMP drafts did not include a provision that requires joint use
docks, if feasible, for new developments of 2 or more dwelling units. The City elected not to include
that provision. Per RCW 173-26-231 (3)(b ), Ecology is providing text that requires joint use docks
when feasible, using language developed during the recent Grant County SMP update that is being
used for the entirety of Moses Lake outside of City limits (Attachment B). Using this previously
approved language ensures consistency for all residents on the lake, and complies with the provisions
under RCW 90.58.lOO(l)(c) and WAC 173-26-100(3) to coordinate and consult with adjacent
jurisdictions.
Specific environment designation standards
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife commented on the inadequacy of buffers and
allowed uses for several different environment designations. In some cases WDFW recommended
specific alternative buffers for the SR-Rand SR-S, but did not provide a rationale for increasing the
proposed buffers from 50 feet to 65 feet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis properly considered the
effects of the originally proposed buffer widths for these environments. Ecology concurs with those
findings, and agrees with the City's decision not to change those buffers. On the other hand, Ecology
does not concur with a decision by the City to reduce trail setbacks from 25 feet in earlier drafts (and
as assessed in the CIA), to 10 feet in the SR-S and SR-R environments. Ecology shares WDFW's
concerns about the potential adverse impact of trails within 10 feet of the ordinary high water mark in
the SR-Sand SR-R environments, and includes the original 25-foot setback as recommended by
WDFW and the "Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss" technical memo.
Archaeology
Both the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP) submitted comments seeking changes to the Archaeological and
Cultural Resources regulations of the SMP found in Section 6-20. Many of the proposed text changes
were subsequently adopted by the City in their response to comments, which were included as
proposed edits. Those are included in Attachment B Required and Recommended Changes as
recommended changes for the City to formally accept. Other changes were not accepted, primarily
5
relating to timing of consultation with the DAHP and Tribes on the presence of potential cultural
resources, data sharing, and other smaller details of the Archaeological and Cultural Resources
regulations (see Attachment C for further details and the City's responses). DAHP provided detailed
model ordinance language for consideration. While Ecology appreciates the thoughtful comments, and
agrees that many of the proposed revisions would be sensible, the locally adopted draft SMP, along
with the proposed additions, is compliant with WAC 173-26-221 (1 ).
Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant To Its Decision:
The City and Ecology found that many of the substantive comments presented improvements to the
SMP, and the City drafted text edits specific to Chapters 6 and 7. Those edits are incorporated here as
either required or recommended changes (Attachment B).
In addition to those topics brought to light during the state comment period (discussed in detail above
and summarized in Attachment C), Ecology identified several other issues that necessitate required
changes as detailed in Attachment B. Of those, two elements in the SMP require further discussion
here.
Vesting
The locally-adopted SMP includes a clause that allows buffers established at preliminary plat phase of
developments to apply indefinitely. Section 7-100-030(11) states: ·
For lots in plats with preliminary plat approval before the adoption of this Master Program, and which
had wetland or shoreline buffers set during the platting process, the buffer shall be as set during the
platting process.
This provision appears to conflict with Washington State's subdivision law (RCW 58.17). Local
governments are charged with processing subdivision proposals and must adopt associated ordinances
and procedures in conformity with state requirements. Local governments are allowed to extend the
period of time for filing a final plat once a subdivision has received preliminary approval from the
local government. RCW 58.17 .140 allows local government to extend the time period for filing a final
plat if they adopt ordinances with procedures to do so. The proposed language does neither.
RCW 58.17.170 establishes the time period after final plat approval under which the plat approval is
"vested." Approved final plats can be developed according to "the terms of approval of the final plat,
and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval." (RCW 58 . l 7.170(3)(a)).
The vesting period is ten years, if the date of final plat approval was prior to January 1, 2008 and the
plat is not subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Plats that are subject to the SMA are
vested for seven years.
Once a plat has been finalized, that plat is vested for a period of time as determined by RCW
58.17.170. There is no enabling legislation that specifically allows the local government to extend the
time a final plat is vested. Ecology's understanding is that local governments are effectively
preempted by state statute from extending final plat vesting timelines; that authority is reserved
e.xclusively for the state.
After the final plat vesting period has expired, lots become "divested" -development of the plat would
be subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, and regulations that had been enacted or amended
6
since final plat approval. It appears the proposed SMP amendment would create an exception to this
statutory scheme that exceeds the City's authority.
Ecology is including a required change that simply subjects the provision to the controlling RCW
regarding vesting timelines for platting.
SR-D Environment Designation
Another important issue was the inclusion of a specific environment designation for a sensitive area of
dunes (SR-D; Reach 25), but that deferred nearly all standards for development to a Planned Unit
Developed code (Moses Lake Development Code 18.67.050(B)) that contains no specific limitations
on how the area could be developed (SMP Chapter 9).
Without providing specific development standards for the SR-D designation, as called for in the
Cumulative hnpacts Analysis and Recommendations (MLCIA) to ensure no net loss of shoreline
ecological function, this area inside the City UGA is more appropriately designated SR-S based on its
physical ecological characteristics, underlying zoning, and the areas' current designation as Natural in
the Grant County SMP.3
The MLCIA states the following:
And
"Given the limited standards guiding the Planned Development (PD ), which is allowed in the Shoreline
Residential -Dunes Area designation, it is not possible to determine whether, how, and to what extent
the sensitive shoreline dunes will be protected ." (MLCIA Section 5.1.2)
"A buffer is not specified in the Shoreline Residential -Dunes Area environment, where only planned
developments are allowed . The City's Zoning Code (MLMC 18.67.050(8)) states that the planned
development district shall be compatible with adjacent land uses and shall not adversely affect the
character of the area in which it is located. This could be interpreted to mean that sensitive ecological
functions at the site would need to be maintained, but it does not provide sufficient specificity to ensure
that the development would not result in a net loss of functions." (MLCIA Section 6.1.1)
The MLCIA concludes with the following recommendation to achieve No Net Loss:
"In order to minimize adverse effects of future residential development on the unique habitat in the
Shoreline Residential -Dunes Area environment designation, we recommend establishing a suite of
performance standards that would accomplish the following:
1. limit the density of any new residential development (establish large minimum lot sizes and large
minimum waterfront lot frontages),
2. limit site impervious surface coverage,
3. require placement of the residence in that portion of the site that has the greatest level of current
alteration or has the least ecological impact,
4. prohibit clearing of all on-site native vegetation other than what may be required for construction of
the residence and necessary appurtenances,·
5. require native landscaping, and
6. prohibit creation of formal lawn areas." (MLCIA, Recommendations Page 10)
3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis of City of Moses Lake's SMP and Recommendations to Meet No Net Loss. Watershed
Company, October 31 2013
7
The locally adopted draft did not address the recommendations provided above. Rather than attempting
to craft new regulations specific to this unique environment, Ecology's Required Changes re-designate
Reach 25 as Shoreline Residential -Special Resource (SR-S). As described in the Inventory and
Characterization report, the area meets the SR-S designation criteria, including relatively intact
condition, presence of extensive native vegetation, and overall ecological function.4 (Of particular
note, the Inventory and Characterization Report recommends a "Natural" Environment Designation
(page 129), in part because the reach provides habitat for the highest diversity of fish species ( 13) of
any reach inventoried. The required change to SR-S reflects the conditions of the reach, while
acknowledging the likelihood of planned development.
Other required changes
Other required changes are detailed in Attachment B, along with specific rationale for each. Many of
the required changes are simple formatting changes that support other substantive changes, such as the
addition of a wetland mitigation ratio table in Chapter 6. Other changes provide new text that was
omitted from the earlier draft of the SMP, but that was required to be compliant with the SMA.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology
concludes that the City's proposed comprehensive SMP update, subject to and including Ecology's
required changes (itemized in Attachment B), is consistent with the policy and standards ofRCW
90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC I 73-26-171 through 251 and
.020 definitions). This includes a conclusion that approval of the proposed SMP, subject to required
changes, contains sufficient policies and regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions will result from implementation of the new updated master program (WAC l 73-26-
201(2)(c)).
Ecology also concl~des that a separate set of recommended changes to the submittal (identified during
the review process and also itemized in Attachment B) would be consistent with SMA policy and the
guidelines and would be beneficial to SMP implementation. These changes consist primarily of
language the City crafted in response to comments received after local adoption, and some clarifying
language with respect to the permitting process.
Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to shorelines of statewide significance provide
for the optimum implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy [RCW 90.58.090(5)].
Ecology c·oncludes that the City has complied with the requirements ofRCW 90.58.100 regarding the
SMP amendment process and contents.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 and WAC
173-26-090 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP update and amendment process.
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment'
process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting open houses and public
hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes,
government agencies and Ecology.
4 City of Moses Lake Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, CWU 2005; page 129.
8
Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State
Environmental Policy Act.
Ecology concludes that the City's comprehensive SMP update submittal to Ecology was complete
pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and WAC l 73-26-201(3)(a) and (h) requiring a
SMP Submittal Checklist.
Ecology concludes that it has complied with the procedural requirements for state review and approval
of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in RCW 90.58.090 and WAC 173-26-120.
Ecology concludes that the City has chosen to exercise its option pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)(ii)
not to increase shoreline jurisdiction to include buffer areas of critical areas within shorelines of the
state. As required by RCW 36.70A.480(6), effective upon approval of the SMP, Critical Areas within
shorelines are regulated solely by the updated SMP.
DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments comprehensively updating
the SMP, are consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, the applicable guidelines and
implementing rules, once required changes set forth in Attachment B are approved by the City.
Ecology approval of the proposed amendments with required changes is effective 14 days from
Ecology's final action approving the amendment.
As provided in RCW 90.58.090(2)(e)(ii) the City may choose to submit an alternative to the changes
required by Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose
and intent of Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90.58, then the department shall approve the
alternative proposal and that action shall be the final. Approval of the updated SMP and proposed
altemative/s is effective 14 days from Ecology's final action approving the altemative/s.
9
City of Moses Lake SMP Comprehensive Update
Attachment B
Required and Recommended Changes
(by chapter)
Chapter 6
General Policies and Regulations
6·20. Archaeological and Historic Resources
RECEIVED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~
Jll.Jl3'!Jt,
PLANNING AND BUILD IN G
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
6-20-010. The following policies and regulations apply to ?11 "HisteFisallAFGlleele!Jy Afeas• ieeAlifieEl IA tile
ShereHRe IR~·eRlel}' aRd Cllaraolerfzation aAe eA all sites. bulldinos structures distncts and objects within
shoreline jurisdiction that are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization: ~
arshaeele!jlsal er llisteris rese.irses that are recorded al the Washington Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP)~ and/or within local jurisdictions, including the City of Moses Lake, Grant
County, and affected Indian tribes; or that have been inadvertently t1Ase·1eree discovered. l __________ -Commented (SJ(l]: Recorrunended changes from Moses
6-20-020. Policies Lake staffhased on pubhc corrunent
4. M'l'ler-e iirastieal, assess le ieeAtifiee l'lisleris er afsl'laeele!jlsal sites sl'le11ie Ile maee B\'a1lallle te !Re
ptilllis at JlllBlis e1<JleAse, S11sl'l fllllllis assess slle1119 Ile 9eSi!JAe9 BAii maAa!jell te iiretest tRe
f85911F60S. [ __________________________________________________ -Commented [SJ(2]: Recorrunended changes from Moses
6-20-030. Regulations Lake staff based on public comment
2.
6-30-070. Critical Areas: Wetlands
6-30-070-C. Regulations
4. Wetland ratings
a. Classification. Wetlands in the City of Moses Lake and its UGA shall be classified into the
following categories according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern
Commented [SJ(3]: Recommended changes from Moses
Lake staff based on public comment
Washington (Washington Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-030~!. ~r-~s __ ~ Commented [SJ(4]: Required change. Corrected reference
amended): to current wetland rating system manual
c. Criteria for wetland analysis reports
ii. The written report and the accompanying scaled plan sheets shall contain the following
information, at a minimum:
1. Written report:
I. Evaluation of functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer using a functions
assessment method recognized by local or state agency staff and including the
reference for the method used and all data sheets. Wetlands shall be rated
according to the Washington State Department of Ecolooy wetland rating system.
as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern
Washington (Ecology Publication #14-06-030 or as amended and approved by
Ecology\. The flFefeFFeel metloioels are as follows: for Category I wetlanels, use
{eetaileel) Metf:lods forAssessln€f-Weliaml-Hmstiens (WashingtoA DeflaFlment of
l!.solegy Ptielisation QQ Q6 47); for Category 11, 111, aAel IV wetlamJs use (geAeris)
1¥ashington State Wellan9s Ratmg S;<stom fer East!HR Washington (Washington
De130Flrnent of Eeology Puelieatien Q4 Q6 j~~L _____________________ -
d. Criteria for compensatory mitigation reports
3. The compensatory mitigation report must include a written report and scaled plan
sheets containing, at a minimum, the following elements. Full guidance can be found
in the Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 -Developing Mitigation Plans,
March 2006 (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; Ecology
Publication #06-06-011 b) or as revised...l::ll:-Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using
a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication #10-06-07. November
2010). J_ -------------------------------------------.
e. Compensatory mitigation standards
v ~trhe size of a compensatory mitigation project shall be greater than the size of the affected
wetland per Table 6.1 .
JL_When impacts to wetlaAels anel wetland critical area buffers are proposed they must be
mitigated using a 1.1 ratio based on area of wetland buffer impacted.
b. To more fully protect functions and values. and as an alternative to the m1t1gation
ratios 1n Table 6.1 the SMP Administrator may allow mitigation based on the
'cred1t/deb1t" method developed by the Department of Ecology in "Calculating Credits
and Debits for Compensatory M1tigat1on in Wetlands of Eastern Washington Final
Report' (Ecology Publication #11-06-015. August 2012. or as amended)
considere Case b case Case by
d ossible case
6:1 12:1 24:1
4:1 8:1 16:1
ll 6:1 12:1
Commented [SJ(S): Reqmred change to correct reference
to current wetland rabng system and remove reforence to the
outdated detalied functional asse>sment method no longer m
use
Commented (SJ(6): Reqmred change to mclude recent
altemanve methods for develop mg wetland rrut1~auon plan>
that were not available at the tnne this section was rnitially
drafted
Commented (SJ(7]: Required change per WA( ! 73-
26-221 (c)(1), or 173-26-201(2XaX1)(E) and (F), and previous
Ecology commenu,
While the provmons generally are well wnrten and
thorough. this eompensatnry mitigation standard does not
reflect the most current science on weUand mitigauon and,
per the Cunmlanve Impacts Analysis (Watershed Co , 2013),
will result in net loss of ecological function Ratios should
be similar to those found in Wetlandl. m Washington State
Volume 2 (Pubhcatton #06-06-011 b) or Ecole>gy's Smdll
Cities Guidance (Publication 1110-06-00 l) which was the
source for many of the wetland provisions 1n thi• SMP
Wetland unpacts from fill also requ1re authonzatlOn from
Ecology and possibly from the US Army Coips ot
Engmeers Millgatton ratios presented rn the documents
cited above were co-developed by Ecology and the C.oips,
and would be reqmred fo1 an applicant to obtam the needed
permits Revi'1ng the SMP to al1gn v.11h federal alld state
requirements v.111 ensure that applicants have a predictable
process to follow when they wish to do a project that will
lillpact v.etlands
From 'Wetlands and CAO Updates-Guidance for Small Cities Eastern Washington Version• October 2012
Revision: Eco/oqyoub/icsOOn # 10-06-001.
h. Wetland buffers
i. Buffer widths: wetland buffers must be maintained in accordance with the following tables:
Table 6.g4j: _~e_!l~'!d_ ~u_ff~~ ~Ld!h_s ________________ . ________________________ ,'
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
Width
Category I or II: 75'
Based on total
score
Category l or II: 75'
Forested
Category I: 190'
Natural Heritage
Wetlands
Category I or II: 150'
Alkali or Vernal
Pool
~ategory Ill (all) ~o·
Category IV {all) ~__[
!Additional buffer Additional buffer
width if wetland width if wetland
scores ~.:i scores ~
habitat points habitat points
Add 15' Add 45'
Add 15' Add 45'
NA NA
NA NA
Add 15'NA Add 45'NA
NA NA
Additional buffer
width if wetland
scores 30-3ef;[
habitat point ___
Add 75'
Add 75'
NA
NA
I
I
I
Add 75~NPi_ __ ~'
NA
I
\
I
' I
I
Commented [SJ(8]: Required change 10 table number to
accommodate new \\oetland mitigation table above
Commented [SJ(9]: Required changes to score ranges
based on updates to Easlern Washington Wetland Rating
system
Commented (SJ(lO]: Required change per WAC 173-
1 26-201 (2)(a), and 173-26-221(2)(c), based on flawed
1 CIA wetland analysis and unsupported reduction of
standard buffers
Buffers for Category 3 and 4 wetlands have been
reduced arbitrarily from 60' (w~h addit10nal buffers of
30' and 60') and 40'; to 25' for both categories with no
additional area for higher functioning scores While we
recognize that the Cumulative Impacts
Recommendations report prepared by Watershed Co
made recommendation that Category 3 wetlands
should be provided a 25' buffer, we do not agree with
the underlying analysis, and the proposed buffers do
not reflect the totality of the recommendation.
Watershed Co, makes the statement that • ... proposed
buffers should either be: 1) consistent wrth existing
cond~ns. or 2) consistent with recommendatoons of
the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific
and technical information available that is applicable to
the 1Ssues of concern" (WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)) • ThlS
is an incorrect interpretat10n of the WAC The analysis
of existing conditions IS informative and should be
considered, but it cannot substitute for the requirement
under WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a). The analysis performed
regarding category 3 wetland buffers presented does
not meet the definition under 201(2)(a). having only
one, unverified category 3 wetland, along with
subjective conclusions about function based on aerial
photo interpretation as its' basis In addition, the
proposed wetland buffers do nol reflect even that
flawed recommendation by allowing the smaller buffer
without the required additional buffer width for higher
habitat scores or for non SR-R designations Category
4 wetland buffers should align with the science-based
buffer of 40 feet (Small Cities Guidance Publication # l 0-
06-001 ).
Commented [SJ(ll]: Requtred change to table number to
accommodate new wetland rrubgation table above
Chapter 7
Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations
7-30. Boating Facilities
7-30-020. Policies
1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide ~axiA'1l1aj~a_si,!>Le ;P!OJe_clio_n _ • -
and enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial life including animals, fish, birds, plants, and their habitats
and migratory routes. When plastics and other non-biodegradable materials are used, precautions
should be taken to ensure their containment.
7-30-030. Regulations
2. !Boating facilities shall be designed 1n accordance to technical standards tound in WAC 220-660-150
oat ram s and launches in freshwater areas. and -160 Mannas and terminal in freshwater areas or
as amended) as apohcable • ________________________________________ J ·
6. A marina shall be allowed only as a conditional use. The City shall request technical assistance from
agencies with jurisdiction and/or knowledge, including but not limited to the Washington departments
of Ecology, of Fish and Wildlife, bf Natural Resources. ~Qd_ o.f tt~aJ!~._a!]<!_ ~h§ll f!!f!k~ _§ly_al lf!ble_tq \tlqs_e __ -
agencies the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and maps developed as part of this SMP. The
Planning Commission shall consider the comments received from commenting agencies before making
a decision on whether or not to approve the permit, and any conditions or modifications required.
7-50-030. Regulations
7-50-030-C. Joint-use community recreational docks
.:L_All multi-family residences proposing to provide moorage facilities shall be limited to a single, joint-use
moorage facility, provided that the City may authorize more than one joint-use dock if, based on
conditions specific to the site, a single facility would be inappropriate for reasons of safety, security, or ,
impact to the shoreline environment.
1
2. ~" moorage is to b§ provided or planned as Qart of a new residential development of two or more~'
waterfront dwelling units or lots. or as part of a subdivision or other divisions of land occurring after
the effective date of this SMP. loint use or community dock facilities shall be required when feasible.
rather than allow individual docks for each residence. A joint use dock shall not be required for:
a. Develooment of a single residence.
b. Existing single residential units that currently do not have a dock.
c. Replacement of existing single residential docks.
3. In order to evaluate the feasibility of a joint community dock in a new residential development of
two or more waterfront dwelling units. the applicant/proponent shall demonstrate the following:
a. Existing facilities in the vicinity. including marinas and shared mooraqe. are not adequate
or feasible for use-and
b. The applicant/proponent has contacted abutting property owners and none have indicated
a willingness to share an existing dock or develop a shared moorage in conjunction with
the applicant/proponent.
7-100-030. Regulations
2. !New multi-uni! res1dent1al development (including multiplexes). and the subdivision of land into four
or more lots hall make ade uate rov1s1ons for ubhc access consistent with ttie re ulations set '
forth in Section 7-90 Recreational Uses. and all provisions of this SMP. ______________ __,'
' I
Commented (SJ(12]: Delete .. maximum feasible" from
text Recommended change' from Moses Lake slaff based
on public comment
Commented (SJ(13]: Required change to address DNR
Comment regarding dimensional standards for manna
constructton Wlule 220-660-160 does not provide
dimensional standards per se, referencmg it here does ensure
that manna and boat ramp designs are compliant with other
pennil reqmrements,
Commented (SJ(14}: Reconunended changes from Moses
Lake staff based on pubhc comment
Commented [SJ(15]: Required change. Per RCW 173-
,' 26-23 l{J)(b) SMPs should• conlam a prov1s1on that,
"requues new res1denllal development of two or more
dwelhng um ts to provide JO mt use or community dock
faculues, when feaSible, rather than allow mdividual docks
for each residence''
Note that when used m the context of an SMP update
"Should" means that the particular acllon is reqmred unless
there 1s a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy
of the Shorehne Management Act and thIS chapte1, against
lak.mg the acton (WAC 173-26-020(35))
Per WAC 17l-29-321(3Xb). the city has not provided" a
demonstrated, wmpelltng reason, based on poluy of the
Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against talang
the actrnn"'
The recently adopted Grant County SMP provides clear
language and feasibility review slandards to this effecl,
wluch were developed specifically for Moses lake, and are
provided here as a required change
1 Commented [SJ(l6}: Requrred change, addmg 2 new
sect10ns and changmg outhae numbering. accordmgly WAC
I 73-26-22 I ( 4)(d)(m) requ1res that SMPs provide slandard;
for the ded1canon and tmprovement of pub he acces; m
development• for water-enjoyment. wa1er-rela1ed aod non
water-dependent u.se; and for the suhdivISion of land mto
more than four parcels Specific to res1denhal development,
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(J) states that .. new muluumt reSJdenhal
development, mcluding the subdms1on of land for more than
four parcels, should provide community and!or pubhc access
m confonnance to the local government's public ace<:so
plannmg and this chapter "
3. Public access shall be located and designed to respect private property rights. be compatible with
the shoreline environment. protect ecological functions and processes. protect aesthetic values of
shoreline. and provide for public safety {including consistency with Crime Prevention through
Environmental DesiQn ICPTEDl prjnciples. where applicable).
a. Residential uses shall comply with the environment-specific requirements in Chapter 9,
except as provided in Regulation ~~IQ~. __________________________ _
Q11],_ _ lCOf!l!)1QIJ. l:)'le S_e!_b~~§lT_tu~ !'._e§iQe_n~'!! !?!!ff!!~ Jn_ T_a.QI~ §!} §1}.a.!I !1C2_t .?EP.!YJ'l ~§~s -~h!!r~ !h_e
majority of existing development in the area does not meet the established buffer standards. In•,,
such cases residential structures shall be set back common to the average of setbacks for existing \ '
dwelling units within three hundred (300) feet of siEle w013erty linasa proposed residential structure.
If there is only one or no dwelling units within three hundred (300) feet of a proposed residential
structureside 13Fe13effy lines, the shoreline buffers of Table 9.3 shall apply. Common line setback
allowed in this section Is subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator. Common line setback
shall only be allowed where no loss of shoreline ecological functions or interference with shoreline
processes will result from said common line setback per the mitigation requirements in this SMP.
The Administrator may place conditions on the approval. Any further deviation from setback
requirements beyond that allowed in this section shall require approval of a shoreline variance
permit.
.Wg _ .fgr_IQI§ plE\!e_9 _ b~f9!'..e _tbe_ '!d_oQILO!l s>f. \.!Ii§ _M_a§t!!(. r:.r29!'!17.2·Jf_tbe_ !'._eg~r!!Q §1}.oreJil]_e_ ~u.!f~r
causes there to be less than 60' from the buffer to the front zoning setback line, the front yard
zoning setback may be reduced to 10' for a porch, 15' for living space or the side of a garage, and
\
20' for a garage door. Side yard setbacks may be reduced to 5'. If there is still not 60' from the
reduced zoning setback to the shoreline buffer,-_the shoreline buffer may also be reduced by the
minimum amount that will allow 60' of build able area, provided there will be no net loss of shoreline
ecological function k0er Section 6-30 Critical Areas. and Appendix A Mitigation of this SMPll __
and provided that at least a 25' shoreline buffer will be maintained. These reductions in buffer and
setbacks do not authorize encroachments into any easements which may be on the property. All
proposals to reduce setbacks and buffers shall be submitted to the Administrator for review. The
Administrator may place conditions on the approval.
44..U Subject to RCW 5817.140 and RCW 58.17. 170. Fe+-lots in plats with preliminary plat approval
before the adoption of this Master Program, and which had wetland or shoreline buffers set during
the platting process, the buffer shall be as set during the platting process L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~_M. -_R~~iqe.[l![aJ Ee_nsi!19.= .f ~iicLn.9 rn~~tLng ~Y'li~e.a! gq_d!! §~!Jd_a!d§ rn_a}'. ~>5!e_n£l !O_ tbe_ li!Q.dJJ.?!'..d _
edge of the shoreline buffer. Fencing may be installed within the buffer if all of the following are '
met: \
I
\
I
I
I
Commented [SJ(l7]: Changes to internal numbenng
strucrure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2. and 3.
above.
Commented [SJ(l8]: Changes 10 internal numbering
structure accommodate new subsection~ 7-100-030 2. and 3
above
Commented (SJ(l9]: Changes tn internal numbcnng
structure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2. and 3
above.
Commented [SJ(20]: C.ornmon line setbacks are a useful
tool for the purpose of alloWl!lg shoreline views to b~
adequate and comparable to adjacent residences Ecology has
previously only approved common line setback language for
150' on each side of a structure for the purpose of providing
for comparable views. The distance measured should be the
nunirnum needed to encompass a similar view corridor on
either side of a residence, and with the application of
mitigation requirements No change to the 300-foot
allowance is required
Commented (SJ(2l]: Changes 10 internal nmnbenng
structure accommodate new subsections 7-100-030 2. and 3
above
Commented [SJ(22]: Required change. Limited
administraave buffer reductions that allow reasonable
development on previously platted lots, are a sensible
approach tn avoiding the need for complex variances As
written, the provision docs not specify bow no net loss is to
be achieved or evaluated This required change refers the
applicant tn standards in the Critical Areas and Mitigation
provisions of the regulations
Commented (SJ(23]:
Required change. Add reference to statutory time frames fo1
vesting of subdivisions to section 7-100-030 (11 ) for
compliance with RCW 58.17 140 and .170 See Attachment
A Findings and Conclusions for further discussion.
Commented [SJ(24]: Changes to internal numbenng
structutt accommodate ne" subsect10ns 7-100-030 2 and 3.
above.
Chapter 8
Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations
B-30-040. Bulkheads and Riprap
8-30-070. Regulations
~A e1:1lkhead 1y13e slr1:1et1o1re 1:1sed to staeilice a desk FRay ee 13e1FR1!10E!, eHt the sico st=iall ee hFR1ted te
lhe ffllniFRlolFR Aesessary fer tile desk TR0 stabtli2at10A strnshire shall Aet e11seed 2' wider thaA tAe desk
eA eash s1E!e Aer shall 1! exseed 14 • 1A tetal \VlEllh aleR§ the sherelmo~ __________________ _
Chapter9
Shoreline Environment Designations
City of Moses Lake Shoreline Environment Designations
This master program establishes nine shoreline environments for the City of Moses Lake and its UGA:
H = High Intensity
H-R =High Intensity-Resource Area
SR = Shoreline Residential
SR-R = Shoreline Residential-Resource Area
SR-S = Shoreline Residential-Special Resource Area
jSR Q -ShoroliAe ResiEl0nt1al Qynes Area _____________________________________ -
W =Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities
N =Natural·
A =Aquatic
The table below describes the designation criteria for each of the nine shoreline environments. Policies
for each shoreline environment follow.
TABLE 9.1
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
Environment Classification criteria Comments
designation
·--+he area to 00 aesi§AateEI ShorehAo Res1EleAt1al bll:lAes· has eeeA '~""~
Res1EleAt1al foyREJ to ee relatively mtasl as re§ards esolo§1sa! fi,iA6110A It 15 f'larl of
~ a Ell:lAeS eoosysteFR that 13erfefff!S IFRJl0AaAt esolO§IGal fl:lAStlOAS. It 16
also f'llaAAeEI far shereliAo res1EleAlial YSo. TRe area has ht§h
13et0Atial far 13laAnea ae,,.elof'!ffieAt that 00FRl31Aes liFR1teel res1EleAtial
yse 1•1Ath esolo§tsal f'!Fotesl10A aAEI restorat10A. [ _ ---.
I •
Commented [SJ(25]: Recommended change Deleted pet
city response to commen~ proV1ded earlier m tlie adopnon
proces~. but that did not occur pnor to the local a<lopbon
action.
Commented [5J(26): Requrred change to re-designate SR-
D to SR-S environment designatton Without proVJdmg
specific development standards for the SR-D des1gnat1on, ru.
c.alled form the Cumulative lmpac~ Analysis (page 10) to
ensure no net Joss , thts area m the cny UGA IS more
appropriately designated SR-S based on ttJi physical
ecolog1cal charactenstics, underlymg zornng, and the areas'
current des1gnauon as Natural in the Grant County SMP
See complete d1scusston and rationale in Attachment A
Fllldings and Conclusions
Commented [SJ(27): Requ1Ted change to re-de;1gnate SR-1
D to SR-S em·1ronment de~1gnation. See complete I
discu.;ston and rattonak in Attachment A Fmdmgs and I
Conclusions I
Reaches Designated "SR-5"
Reach Rationale
~ Uodev!llQQ!ld Q!.!nel!; 11merg!lnt V!ilQ!!!!l!iQ!!' w1111ands,
n11arian trei: !<Qver
Sl=lerellAe ResiEleRtial Qu11es Area fSR Dl 6 11vlre11me11t
PeU&ies
Zoning Comp Plan
Designation
~ LO - -- --
1. All ef tl=le 13elieies listeel elleYe fer ShereliRe ResieleAtiel shereliRe eAvi1eRffleRIS alse 0flfJIY iR
ShereliRe ResieleRlial Dimes eRviroAFReAts.
2. A PlanAeel DevelofJfflSRI i;lermil she1:1lel Ile reei1:1ireel fer aAy 1:1se er aetivity iA !Re ShereliRe
ResieleRtial D1:1Res eA¥iFeAFRBAI, with the exee13tieA ef traAsfJertatieR faeilities, whieh she1:1lel Ile
alleweel witt:I a CeRelitieRal Use Perfflit.
a. The follevAng 1:1ses she1:1lel net Ile alleweel iA Shoreline Reeielenlial D1o1nes envireAfflOAts;
eeFRFRereial asti>lities, inel1:1st1iei esllvities, ffliniAg, agFis1:1lt1o1re, ffll:lnlelfJSI 1:1ses, gelf se1:1rses, nan
water erienteel reereatien, anel reaels ana 13arking areas that ean Ile leeatea else¥Alere.
4. As neteel in the geReral reg1o1latieAs in ChafJter e, FRainteAaAee el eeelegisal fl:lnetiens st:le1:1lel Ile
reei1:1ireel fer 1:1ses aAel aeti¥ities in the St:lereline Resielential Diines enYirenfflent.
Reael=les Designated "SR Q"
TM reaet:ies !lesignateel "SR o· are iineleYele13eel traets in a el1:1nes eeesysteffl. Tf:iey are relatiYely intaet
as rogarels eeelegieal fiinetieR, aRel are fllaAAeel fer lew eleAsity resieleAlial 1:1se. Both reaehes are loeateel
in tt:le City's UGA; they are i!ORe!l for UrllaA Resielential a (UR a) 1:1se; aAel elesigAateel for Low DeAsity
ResieleAtial (LOR) iise in the Cel'RfJre/:Jen&il/fJ ,aJan
-Commented (SJ(28]: Required change to re-designate
Reach 25 from SR-D to SR-S envnonment designation. See
complete discussion and ranonale in Attachment A Findings
and Conclusions.
TABLE 9.2
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT USE & ACTIVITY CHART
All uses and activities. including those classified as •Allowed" {"P") in the table below and including those considered exempt, must comply with all
provisions of this Shoreline Master Program (SMP), including the General Regulations in Chapter 7. Uses and activities not listed in the Shoreline
Environment Use and Activity Chart may be allowed, subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator, if they comply with the standards in this
section and with any special regulations that apply to similar uses.
Legend
H= High Intensity P =Allowed use; Substantial Development Permit required unless use is exempt
H-R = High Intensity-Resource Area CUP = Shoreline Conditional Use Permit required
SR = Shoreline Residential X = Prohibited use
[SR D -SfierehAe Res1eleAt1al DuAes ,l\rea I ____________ f P :-_FlJ~A_A~E! @~v_el~m~~t.f'~~-~it_r~qu_1r~~ ________________________ _
SR-R = Shoreline Residential-Resource Area S = Same as in adjacent environment shoreward of the OHWM '
SR-S = Shoreline Residential-Special Resource Area NIA= Not Applicable
W = Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities
N =Natural
A = Aquatic
H H-R SR SR·R SR-S iSR-0~ w N A __ . --Agriculture (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) x x x x x x x x NA
Aquaculture (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A CUP
Boating facilities (subject to regulations in Chapter 7)
rail-type boat launch systems CUP CUP CUP CUP x x x x s
Boat houses [prohibited by WAC 173-26-211(5)(c)(ii)A] x x x x x x x x x
Boat launch ramps, community and public CUP CUP CUP CUP x x CUP x s
Boat launch ramps, private x x x x x x x x s
Boat lifts, private CUP CUP p p p pg CUP x s
Marinas CUP CUP CUP CUP x x CUP x s
Floating homes, houseboats, and liveaboards x x x x x x x x x
Commercial uses (subject to regulations in Chapter 7)
Water dependent p CUP p CUP x x x x s
Water related & water-enjoyment CUP CUP CUP CUP x x x x x
Other (not waler-oriented) CUP CUP CUP x x x x x x
Docks'
1 Docks will only be allowed in accordance with all applicable provisions of this SMP, including critical areas provisions and the specific use regulations that apply to docks.
Commented [SJ(29): Required change to re-designate SR-
D to SR-S environment designatton. See complete
discussion and rationale m Attachment A Findings and
Conclusions
Commented [SJ(30J: Required change to re-designate SR-
D to SR-S envuonment des1gnat10n See complete
discussion and rationale 1n Attachment .\ Findings and
Conclusions
Commented [SJ(31]: Required change to re-designate SR-
D to SR-S environment designation. See complete
discuss10n and rationale m Attachment A Findmgs and
Cone lus10ns
H H-R SR SR·R SR-S !SR-GI . w N A
Joint-use community recreational docks p p p p p pg p x s
Private residential docks x x p p p pg x x s
Commercial docks p CUP CUP CUP x ~ x x s
Industrial uses x x x x x x x x x
Mining (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) CUP x x x x x x x x
Parking-primary (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) x x x x x x x x x
Parking-serving a permitted use other than a single-family p p p p CUP pg p x x
residential use (subject to regulations in Chapter 6)
Parking-serving a single-family residential use (subject to p p p p p pg p x x
regulations in Chapter 6)
Public access (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) p p p p CUP pg p CUP s
Recreation (subject to regulations in Chapter 7)
Water dependent p p p p CUP pg p CUP CUP
Water related p CUP p CUP CUP pg p CUP CUP
Water enjoyment p CUP p CUP CUP pg p CUP CUP
Golf courses x x x x x x x x x
Other (not water-oriented) p CUP CUP CUP x x x x x
Residential uses (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) p p p p p pg x x x
Residential subdivision (subject to regulations in Chapter 6) p CUP p p p pg x x x
Retaining walls for purposes other than shoreline stabilization x x p p p ~ x x x
(subject to regulations in Chapter 6)
Shoreline modifications (subject to regulations in Chapter 8)
Dredging CUP x CUP x x x CUP x CUP
Dredge material disposal CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP x CUP CUP CUP
Filling p CUP p CUP CUP ~ CUP CUP CUP
Shoreline stabilization
Structural stabilization, other than bulkheads2 p CUP p CUP CUP pg p x x
Bulkheads3 CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Wl2 CUP CUP CUP
2 Structural shoreline stabilization will only be allowed in accordance with all applicable provisions of this SMP, including, in the case on non-water-dependent uses, the requirement to demonstrate
through a geotcchnical report the need to protect the use.
3 Bulkheads may be allowed with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit where the need has been documented by a gcotechnical analysis. Sec Bulkhead regulations in Chapter 8. While existing single-
family residences are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit in order to construct a normal protective bulkhead, they must comply with all provisions of this
SMP.
Commented [SJ(31): Required change to re-designate SR-
D to SR-S environment designation. See complete
discussion and rationale in Attachment A Findings and
Conclusions
H H-R SR SR-R SR-S ~
Vegetative stabilization p CUP p p CUP p.g
Flood protection facilities x x x x x x
Signs (subject to regulations in Chapter 6)
Highway and public information p p p p p µ
Off-premises outdoor advertising, and temporary x x x x x x
On premises p p p p CUP p.g
Solid waste disposal x x x x x x
Stormwater management facilities (primary)5 CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP x
Transportation facilities (subject to regulations in Chapter 7) p CUP p CUP CUP GYP
Utilities (primary; not associated with a use allowed under the provisions of this SMP) (subject to regulations in Chapter 7)
Water-oriented p CUP CUP CUP x x
Non-water-oriented CUP x CUP x x x
4 On sites previously disturbed, when accompanied by a habitat restoration and mitigation management plan.
5 See "Environmental Impacts and Water Quality" in Chapter 6 for policies and regulations related to stormwater management.
w N -p CUP4
x x
p p
x x
p x
x x
CUP x
CUP CUP
CUP x
CUP x
A
CUP
x
p
x
x
x
x
CUP
CUP
CUP
Commented [SJ(31): Requrred change to re-designate SR-
D to SR-S environment designation See complete
discussion and rattonale m Attachment A Ftncbngs and
Conclusions
TABLE 9.3
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT REQUIREMENTS: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
SPECIFIC SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
All uses and activities, including those considered exempt, must comply with all provisions of this Shoreline
Master Program (SMP), including the General Regulations in Chapter 7. Uses and activities not listed in the
Shoreline Environment Requirements Chart may be allowed, subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator, if
they comply with the standards in this section and with any special regulations that apply to similar uses.
Shoreline buffers are in feet, from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). All uses with O' buffer must comply
with all provisions of this Shoreline Master Program, including any development standards specific to the use.
Other regulations, such as wetland buffers, may require a larger buffer than is noted in this table
Where height limits are different from those specified in the Moses Lake Municipal Code, the more stringent
requirement (i.e., the lower height limit) shall apply. Height is measured from the average finished grade around
the structure to the highest point of the structure.
~
H= High Intensity
H-R = High Intensity-Resource Area
SR = Shoreline Residential
SR Q Sll9feliAe ResieleAtial Q~Aee Aroa
SR-R = Shoreline Residential-Resource Area
SR-S = Shoreline Residential-Special Resource Area
H H-R
Agriculture 6 NA NA
Aquaculture
Water-dependent structure and O' o·
facility buffer
Water-related structure and facility 25' 50'
buffer
Height limit 35' 25'
SR
NA
o·
25'
35'
W =Water-Oriented Parks and Public Facilities
N =Natural
A= Aquatic
PD = Planned Development Permit required
N/A = Not Applicable
SR·R SR·S jSR-9[ _VJ_ ~ --~-
NA NA NA NA NA NA
o· o· NA NA NA O'
50' 150' NA NA NA NA
25' 15' NA NA NA 10'
Boating facilities (boat lifts, boat launch ramps, and marinas [whether commercial, private, or municipal])
Water-dependent buffer O' O' o· O' O' G! O' NA o·
Height limits
Over-water structures NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15'
0-100 feet from OHWM 35' 25' 25' 25' NA 40! 15' NA NA
> 100 feet from OHWM 35' 35' 35' 35' NA de: 35' NA NA
Commercial development-water dependent
Water-dependent buffer o· O' O' o· NA NA NA NA NA
Water-related and water-enjoyment 50' 50' 50' 50' NA NA NA NA NA
buffer
Non-water-oriented buffer 50' 150' 75' 150' NA NA NA NA NA
Building height limit 35' 35' 35' 35' NA NA NA NA NA
Docks: Dimensional standards are found in the Docks section of Ch. 7
Industrial development (prohibited in NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
shoreline jurisdiction)
Mining and related facilities buffer 100' NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Parking-primary (prohibited in NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
shoreline jurisdiction)
6 New agricultural uses are prohibited in areas of shoreline jurisdiction
Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 11
Commented (SJ(32): Required change to re-<lesignate SR-
D to SR-S euv>TOnment dcs1gnat1on Sec complete
discuss10n and rat10nalc in Attachment A Findings and
Conclusions
H H-R SR SR-R SR-S SR-0. V! N A -Parking-serving a permitted use7 50' 75' 75' 100' 125' 46(;)! 150' 150' NA
Recreation
Buffers
Non-water-oriented uses 100' 150' 100' 150' NA NA 150' NA NA
Water-oriented uses 35' 35' 35' 35' NA NA 35' NA NA
Water-dependent uses O' O' O' O' O' G! O' O' O'
play fields, and other intensive use 100' 150' 100' 150' NA NA 100' NA NA
areas
10' 10' 10' 10' 25' NA Recreational paths and trails (non-~;15' 4&-~---~-------~ motorized)
Height limit 35' 15' 25' 15' 15' 4-&! 15' NA
Maximum site coverage (percent)8 40 20 40 20 10 4-0 20 10
Residential uses9
Buffer-all dwelling units, and non-25' 25' 25' 25' 150' pg NA NA
water-dependent accessory 50'
structures or
100·10
Height limit 35' 35' 35' 35' 25' 2&! NA NA
Maximum site coverage (percent)" 60 50 50 50 25 ~ NA NA
Maximum density (dwelling units per 15 10 10 6 4 4 NA NA
acre)
Retaining walls for purposes other NA NA 20' 30' 100' NA NA NA
than shoreline stabilization-setback
(subject to regulations in Chapter 6)
Signs (on premises)
Maximum height (in feet) 12 6 12 6 6 6 6 6
Maximum surface area (in square 36 36 36 36 36 66 36 36
feet)
Setback 20' 50 25 50 150 ~ 20' NA
Solid waste disposa112 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Transportation facility setbacks
Arterials, highways, and railroads 100' 125' 100' 125' 150' ~ 150' 150'
(excluding water crossings)
Non-arterial, secondary, and access 50' 75' 75' 100' 100' 4-0G! 100' 100'
roads
Utilities (primary; not associated with a
use allowed under the provisions of
this SMP)
Setbacks for buildings, storage 50' 100' 50' 100' NA NA 100' NA
tanks, accessory uses, and
distribution lines (excluding water
7 Parking facilities shall be set bade landward of the principal building being served a minimum of twenty-five feet or the required buildingsetbac~
whichever is greater (sec Chapter 6, General Policies and Regulations)
1 Includes all impervious surf~
15'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9 Common line setback may be allowed where the majority of tAisting development in an acea does not meet the established setback standards,~ provided
in the Residential Use n:gularions in Chapter 7. Other provisions may also apply; sec Chapter 7.
10 Sec Environment Designation map for buffer width at the specific location.
11 Includes all impervious surfaces
12 Solid waste disposal is prohibited in areas of shorc:Jinc jurisdiction
Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 12
Commented [SJ{32): Rcqu1Ted change to re-des1glldtr J R-
D to SR-S cn•ironment des1gna11on Sec complete
discussion and rationale m Attachment A Fmdmgs and
Conolus1ons
Commented (SJ{33): Required change per 'WAC I 73-
221-221(2)(•) and (c), and -22 I (5), comment' from WDrw
and previously from Ecology
1 he ctty provided no rationale for the proposed trail buffer in
either the SR-R or the SR-S environment;, ha> mg reduced
the buffer from SO' m pre>tOu> Jte1at10n> of the SMP
arbJtranly to 10' 10 the SR-Rand SR-S en\llrorunents Both
of the.e environment• arc charactcnzcd by area' of special
or intact ecolog1cal funchon, and arc hkely to have wetland
buffer overlaY' Wnh the exception of trails specific to
access a docl., there is no compelling reasoo trarls should be
located w1tluo the shorchoc buffer Trails that parallel the
shoreline, depending on the type and construction method>
can be highly destructive to habttat, cao create >ector> for
m"as1ve plant~. and cao fmgmem m1gratron corridor5i
WDF"' recommend> 25' m its cornrnem> and -.e concur
be!'e
crossings)
Height limits
Buildings, storage tanks, and
accessory uses
Distribution poles
12-20-060 Variances
H H-R SR SR·R SR-S
35' 25' 35' 15' NA
35' 35' 35' 35' NA
Chapter 12
Administration and Compliance
12-20
PERMITS
F. b/arjances from the use regulations of the master program are proh1b1tedl
12-60
NON-CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
iSR-0' l l/j
NA 15'
NA 35'
12-60-050 buration of Permits. The duration of permits shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-090.
12-60-060 lnit1atron of Development
L ti . ~-
NA NA
NA NA
A Each permjt for a Substantial Development Shoreline Conditional Use or Shoreline Yanance. Issued
by local government shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the oermit shall not begin
and is not authonzed until iwenty-ooe (21 l davs from the date of receipt with Ecofooy as defined in
RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27 -130, or until all revtew proceedings initiated within twenty-one
(21) from the date of receipt of the decision, except as provided in RCW 90.58.14015lla\ and Cb). The
date of receipt for a Substantial Development Permit means that date the applicant receives written
notice from Ecolooy that rt has received the decision With regard to a perroil for a Shoreline Variance
or a Shoreline Conditional Use. date of receipt means the date a responsible local government or
applicant receives the wntten decision of Ecolooy.
B. Permits for Substantial Development. Shoreline Conditional use or Shoreline Vanance may be In any
form prescribed and used by the City including a combined permit apphcatron form Such forms will
be supo!ie<I by the Citv.
C. A permit data sheet shall be submitted to Ecology wrth each shorehne permit The permit data sheet
form shall be consistent wjth WAC 173-27-990.
12-60-070 Review Process
A. After the CitV's approval of a Shoreline Condrtlonal Use or Vanance Permit. the City shall submit the
permit to the Department of Ecology for approval, aporoval with conditions. or denial. Ecology shall
render and transmit to the City and the aoolrcant its final decision approving. approving with
conditions. or disapproving the oermit withrn thrrtv days of the date of submittal by the City pursuant to
WAC 173-27-110.
B The Department of Ecology shall review the complete file submitted by the City on Shoreline
Conditional Use or Variance Permits and any other 1nformat1on submitted or available that is relevant
Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 13
-Commented [SJ(32]: Requrred change to re-designate SR-
D to SR -S envmmroent desigoallon See complete
discussion and rationale in Attachm•nt A Findings and
Conclusions.
Commented [SJ(34]: Requrred change to comply with
WAC 173-27-170(5)
to the apphcat1on. Ecology shall base its determination to approve. aoprove with conditions or deny a
cond1t1onal use oerm1t or vanance on consistency with the pohcy and provisions of the SMA and.
except as provided m WAC 173-27-210. the cnteria 1n WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170.
C The City shall provide timely notification of the Department of Ecology s final dec1s1on to those
interested persons having requested not1fica!lon from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130 1
Chapter 13
Definitions
Commented (SJ(35): Recommended Change All
shoreline pemuts are subject to the requirements m WAG
J 73-27 To ass••! <taff and applicants, we add new
admmlitrativc section> regarding pernut dQraMn, tmuni1 and
Ecology rev1e"' requirements for CLPs and Vanance>
/Developmen~_f-_l~n.9JJ~~ "-o_!!~sjiQg_ QI s~n~fiUE~on or exterior alteration of struc~ures; 9It!.dLng,_d.!:e_9giQg, .~frl'ILng,_ ---c;;;;;-m-;;,ted [SJ(36): Requued change to make consi>tent
or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pilings; placing of obstructions· or with the defimttons 1mder RCW 90.58.030 (3)(a), and WAC
any project of a temporary or permanent nature which modifies structures interferes with the normal public use of 173-26-020 and 173-27-030(6) The defirutton of
the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this SMP at any state of water level. , la A~. er st:lereliAes aml ·'Development" was unproperly altered ro exdude ""ral
wt:lish tfaes RSI fall wilt:liA allawal31e Sl!SFAfllieAS. important act1v111es mcludmg the extenor alteral!On of
~tructures, placing_ of obstructions, and uses that inteJfere
f loodwaW: the area. as identified in a master program that either: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ with the normal pubhc use of the water WAC 173-26-020 ' clearly stale> that the defuuuons found ID RCW 90 58 030 (a} Has been established in federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps: , , must be applied ID SMP. "Development"•• defined w the
~\Consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which \ RCW is also repeated in WAC 173-27-030<6)
flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily Commented !SJ(37]: Required change to make consistent
annually. said floodway being identified. under normal condition. by changes in surface soil conditions or changes .,..,th the definmons under RCW 90 58.010 (2)(b). and WAC
in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition. topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with 173-26--020 (1 8) The propo>ed definition is not con'1stent
reasonable regularity. although not necessarily annually. Regardless of the method used to identify the floodway. with the specific defuullOo required under the WAC and R( Ws The term '"Flood.,..ay" has a particular techmcal the floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by mearung in the context of the Shoreline Master Program;
flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government. the state. or a ooli\ical either 1t" estabhshed by FEMA on flRM or flood.,.ay maps
subdivision of the state. using spec1fa procedwes, or 11 1s an area 1dent1fied rn the
Tt:le st:laAAel ef a Fi"er er ett:ler watersearse aAa tt:le aGjaseAI laAd areas tt:lat FASS! Ile resep,•ea iA eraer te aisst:large field using the parameters established under RCW
tt:le base ~sea witt:leat Gt1FAt1latively iAsreasiAg tt:le water sarfase ele..,atieA FAere tt:laA eAe feet (1') (MlMC 90.58 030.
18.ea.QaQ.J). Uflrier Parlier Marn, atJeye the Fill, is aA el!?FAflle. '-------------------'
Attachment B -Required and Recommended Changes -Moses Lake SMP 14
Comment Name of
Topic Commenter
Docks Rick
Trenbeath,
Local resident,
Lakeshore Dr.
Noise Rick Trenbeath
Non Rick Trenbeath
Conforming
Uses
Allowed Uses -Eric Pentico -
Natural Washington
Department of
Fish & Wildlife
Attachment C -City of Moses Lake Comprehensive SMP Update -
Comments received during State public comment period
Specific Comment Local Government Response and Rationale
"In section 6-70-01 it states that public access includes docks Public access does not include access to private
that touch the water. If this is true for resident docks then docks.
who is liable if they get hurt?"
"Section 6.2 Talks about noise caused by industrial Music played by boats is not "development"
manufacturing but what about the boats on the lake that that is regulated by the SMP. See Moses Lake
play very very loud music?" Municipal Code 8.28, Noise Control, for existing
noise regulations.
"can you tell me were in the proposal you read the Non-conforming use provisions are in Chapter
Grandfather info." {Upon further conversation with Mr. 12, Section 12-60.
Trenbeath, he is referring to the status of non-conforming
uses and structures).
WDFW recommends water-dependent {recreation) and Transportation facilit ies are only allowed in the
transportation facility uses not be allowed in areas natural environment as a conditional use permit
designated as Natural within the City of Moses Lake. (See Table 9.2, Ch. 9, p.13). Approval of
"Natural environments in the City of Moses Lake contain the conditional use permits is limited to those that
most intact riparian environments within the city and can meet the criteria listed in 12-20-050,
provide the best protection to riparian area functions. including no significant adverse effects to the
However, according to table 9.3, buffers in Recreation Areas shoreline environment, including cumulative
for water-dependent uses are allowed to be reduced to O'. impacts of similar projects (Ch.12, p.4). The
Transportation facility setbacks are allowed to be reduced to Transportation Facilities provisions in 7-110
100' or 150'. Higher intensity water-dependent uses which (Ch.7, p.16-18) minimizes roads and bridges in
require buffer widths to be reduced to O' and transportation all shoreline environments. The Cumulative
facility uses are not physical alterations which 'serve to Impacts Analysis (Oct. 2013) found no net loss
protect or enhance any significant, unique, or highly valued of shoreline functions is anticipated to result
feature ... ', which is the stated policy for natural environment from the maintenance or development of
areas in the City of Moses Lake." transportation uses (p.33).
By its definition, a water-dependent use cannot
exist in a location that is not adjacent to the
water. Water-dependent uses can't have a
setback from the water, or they won't work. So
the setback can't be increased. Water
dependent recreation uses are only allowed in
the natural environment as a conditional use
permit {See Table 9.2, Ch. 9, p.12). Approval of
conditional use permits is limited to those that
can meet the criteria listed in 12-20-050,
1
Ecology Response
Ecology staff spoke
with this commenter
and provided similar
feedback.
Ecology staff spoke
with this commenter
and provided similar
feedback.
Concur
Concur
RECEIVED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN
'-'
' I I;
PLANNING AND BUILDING
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
including no significant adverse effects to the
shoreline environment, including cumulative
impacts of similar projects (Ch.12, p.4). The
Recreational Uses provisions in 7-90 (Ch. 7, p.12-
13) require no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions, compatibility, and minimizing any
adverse environmental effects. Recreation is
limited to uses that complement their
surroundings and protect natural areas (Policy
#5). Protection of the natural character,
resources, and ecology of the shoreline is
addressed in Policy #10. The Cumulative
Impacts Analysis {Oct. 2013) found no net loss
of shoreline functions is anticipated to result
from recreational uses (p.30).
Setbacks -SR-Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends Aquaculture, Boating Facilities, and Aquaculture: We could prohibit this in the SR-S Aquaculture is
s WDFW Recreation water-dependent uses not be allowed unless designation. It was our understanding that we exceptionally unlikely
absolutely necessary in SR-5 designated areas within the City were supposed to allow/encourage aquaculture in Moses Lake, but as a
of Moses Lake and that required buffers for recreational as a priority use in shorelines. water dependent use,
trails be expanded to a minimum width of 25'. "Shoreline it should be
areas designated SR-5 within the City of Moses Lake Boating Facilities: The only boating facilities accommodated where
demonstrate some ecological impairments, but' ... they also allowed in SR-5 are boat lifts. It is our appropriate. We
retain important ecological functions and have high understanding that boat lifts have very minimal generally concur with
potential for ecological protection and restoration because impact. this response.
they include relatively large tracts that have not been
subdivided or include large wetland areas.' (Table 9.1) Recreation: Same as for Natural, above.
Proposed buffers listed in Table 9.3 for SR-5 designated
areas that could hinder properly functioning ecological Buffers for trails: All recreational uses in the SR-
conditions or interfere with future restoration efforts S designation, including trails, are conditional
include the allowed buffer reduction for Aquaculture water-uses, so all the safeguards listed above for
dependent structures and facilities to O', Boating water-Recreational Uses in the Natural Designation
dependent facilities to O', and Recreation water-dependent are in place.
uses and paths and trails reduced to O' and 15'."
Setbacks -SR-Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends buffers for water-related, water-65' buffers in SR·R: Most of the proposed Ecology generally
R WDFW dependent and water enjoyment structures and facilities in buffers in SR-R are 50' or more. The proposed concurs with this
areas that are currently functioning properly or may possibly residential buffer in SR-R is 25', 50', or 100', response. Without
be restored to proper functioning conditions be set at a depending on the existing conditions. In places further information, it
minimum of 65' wide and buffer widths for paths and trails where there are existing houses built 25' back is not clear why the
should only be allowed to be reduced to 25'. "Residential from the water and only a few scattered vacant commenter is
uses should have the buffers expanded to a minimum of 65' lots, the buffer was set at 25', since there isn't proposing that 65' is a
to retain most functioning conditions and allow for adequate ecological function left to preserve in those more appropriate
restoration of degraded areas. SR-R designated lands, similar areas. The places that did have ecological buffer width than those
2
to SR-S lands, demonstrate impairments to ecological
functions, but 'They retain important ecological functions
and have the potential for development that is compatible
with ecological protection and restoration.'(Table 9.1)
Proposed buffers in table 9.3 that could hinder properly
functioning ecological conditions and impair potential
restoration efforts include O' and SO' buffers for Aquaculture
water-dependent and water-related structures, SO'
Commercial water-related and water-enjoyment buffers,
and 3S' & 10' Recreation water-oriented uses and
Recreational path/trail buffers. In addition, 2S' and SO'
buffer widths are allowed for dwelling units and non-water-
dependent accessory structures in Residential uses areas."
Setbacks -Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends buffers in areas retaining some
H-R WDFW properly functioning ecological conditions or may be
restored should be set for water-related, water-dependent
and water-enjoyment structures and Recreation water-
oriented uses to a minimum GS' buffer width. Buffer widths
for Recreation paths and trails should only be allowed to be
reduced to 25'. WDFW recommends buffers in Residential
areas be expanded to a minimum of 65' to retain most
functioning ecological conditions and allow for adequate
restoration of degraded areas. "H-R designated lands
demonstrate impairments to ecological functions, but 'They
retain important ecological functions and have the potential
for development that is compatible with ecological
protection and restoration.' (Table 9.1) The proposed buffers
listed in Table 9.3 that could hinder properly functioning
ecological conditions and impair restoration efforts include
50' buffers for Aquaculture water-related structure and
facilities, SO' buffers for Commercial water-dependent and
water-enjoyment structures, and 3S' & 10' buffers for
Recreation water-oriented uses and Recreational
paths/trails. For Residential use areas, buffer reductions to
25' are proposed for dwelling units and non-water
dependent accessory structures."
3
function remaining were set at SO' or 100',
depending on how much of a buffer currently
exists. This varying-width buffer was a
recommendation based on the Cumulative
Impacts Analysis. See Recommendations to
Meet No Net Loss of Ecological Functions in the
City's Shoreline Master Program, Oct. 31, 2013,
by The Watershed Company ..
25' trail buffer: The Cumulative Impacts Analysis
(Oct. 2013) found no net loss of shoreline
functions is anticipated to result from
recreational uses (p.30).
SO'buffer Aquaculture, SO' Commercial: There
are only a few areas designated H-R. All of these
areas are zoned Commercial or Industrial.
However, in the H-R designation, all commercial
uses, even water dependent, are only allowed
by conditional use permit. Approval of
conditional use permits is limited to those that
can meet the criteria listed in 12-20-050,
including no significant adverse effects to the
shoreline environment, including cumulative
impacts of similar projects {Ch.12, p.4).
Commercial developments are required to be
designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to ensure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions (7-40-020 Policy 8, p.S; 7-
40-030 Regulation 2.d, p.6).
35' Recreation: Only water-dependent
recreation is allowed outright, water related or
water enjoyment recreation uses are CUPs, with
all the protections listed above for CUPs.
10' Trail: All water related and water enjoyment
recreation uses, including trails, in the H-R
environment are conditional uses, so all the
safeguards listed above for Recreational Uses in
the Natural Designation are in place. The
Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Oct. 2013) found
proposed, and
SU pported by the IAC
and CIA documents.
Ecology general
concurs with the
exception of trail
setbacks.
The city provided no
rationale for the
proposed trail buffer in
either the SR-R or the
SR-S environments,
having reduced the
buffer from 50' in
previous iterations of
the SMP ~~ !_0~ i!! !_h! ___
SR·R and SR-S
environments. Both of
these environments are
characterized by areas
of special or intact
ecological function, and
a re likely to have
wetland buffer
overlays. With the
exception of trails
specific to access a
dock, there is no
compelling reason trails
should be located
within the shoreline
Commented [GT(l]: The first clause states the real Issue
-there Is no rationale. It may have been arbltracy but we
can't tell unless they document their rationale
no net loss of shoreline functions is anticipated buffer. Trails that
to result from recreational uses (p.30). parallel the shoreline,
depending on the type
25' Residential: Residential uses, while allowed and construction
by the draft SMP in H·R, would be highly methods, can be highly
restricted by the Commercial and Industrial destructive to habitat,
zoning so would be unlikely to be proposed. can create vectors for
invasive plants, and can
fragment migration
corridors. WO FW
recommends 25' in its
comments.
Setbacks Eric Pentico -WDFW recommends that a 65' buffer be required to retain Trail buffer: The proposed buffer for SR-D area will be
WDFW most functioning ecological conditions and allow for recreational paths and trails is the same in SR-D removed and Reach 25
adequate restoration potential of degraded areas. "The SD-as in the Natural Environment. will be afforded AR-R
D designated areas have' ... been found to be relatively environment
intact as regards ecological functions.' and ' ... has high Residential buffer: If reviewing the proposed designation based on
potential for planned development that combines limited residential buffer as part of the Planned the city designation
residential use with ecological protection and Development is not sufficient, a specific criteria in Chapter 9,
restoration.'(Table 9.1) Table 9.3 indicates ecological minimum distance could be set. and the lack of
functions and restoration potentials are being adequately applicable standards
protected in most cases. A planned development permit is present in the
required for Residential uses." Municipal Code
(Chapter 18.67 -
Planned Development
District Zone) the city
defers to for governing
SR-D.
Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-020.(1) Policies. Page 3. Provide "Maximum feasible" wilt be removed. Ecology concurs with
Facilities Department of criteria that defines how "maximum feasible protection and this approach, and will
Natural enhancement" will be achieved or remove the "maximum include this text edit as
Resources feasible" qualifier. a Recommended
Change in our Findings
and Conclusions
Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-020 (6). Policies Page 3. Per State direction, policies are "should" Ecology concurs with
Facilities DNR Consider using "shall be prohibited" rather than "should" statements. The "shall" statement comes in the this approach, and will
with reference to floating homes, houseboats, and regulation. Floating homes are prohibited in all work with the city on
liveaboards. environment designations in Table 9.2 (under revised language,
Boating Facilities). A regulation could be added should they chose to
to 7-30-030, the regulations that implement the develop regulations
policies in 7-30-020. relating to floating
homes.
4
Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-030 (3). Regulations. Page 4. The minimum for a private dock could be very This response does not
Facilities DNR Provide a numerical value for the minimum required for a different from the minimum needed for a address the comment
dock-to-shore-attachment site abutment. commercial or public access dock. provided, it merely
states that two
different standards
may need to be
developed. Ecology
will coordinate with the
city on possible
alterations to the text.
Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-030 (S). Regulations. Page 4. At ONR will be added to the list of agencies. Ecology concurs with
Facilities DNR • ... The City shall request technical assistance from agencies this approach, and will
with jurisdiction ... ", consider adding DNR to the list of include this text edit as
agencies. a Recommended
Change in our Findings
and Conclusions.
Boating Hugo Flores-7-30 Boating Facilities. 7-30-030 (13). Regulations. Page 4. At We disagree that a boathouse is a residential Ecology concurs with
Facilities DNR " ... Boat houses, as non-water dependent structures, are use. Our definition of a boathouse is a structure this response.
prohibited.". Consider clarifying how a boathouse can be over or immediately adjacent to water, used to
used as a non-water dependent use. Suggests "Boathouses, store watercraft (Ch. 13). Boats can be stored
as a residential use, are prohibited." as replacement text. upland, therefore boathouses are not needed
and are prohibited.
Commercial Hugo Flores-7-40 Commercial Uses. 7-40·030 (l)(b). Regulations. Page 5. We would be open to suggestions for criteria The comment could
Uses DNR Regards prohibition of non-water-oriented uses where for assessing severe limitations on navigability. provide a sensible
"Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site ... ". improvement to the
Provide criteria for assessing severe limitation on Draft SMP. Ecology will
navigability. coordinate with the
city on possible
alterations to the text.
Archeologlcal Eric "Please be advised t hat your proposed undertaking (SMP Noted. Noted
and Historical Oosahwee-update) lies within the traditional territory of the Moses-
Resources Voss -Colville Columbia tribe, one of the twelve tribes that make up the
Confederated Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (also known
Tribes as the Colville Confederated Tribes or CCT), which is
governed by the Colville Business Council (CBC). The CBC
has delegated to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
(THPO) the responsibility of representing the CCT with
regard to cultural resources management issues throughout
the traditional territories of all of the constituent tribes
under Resolution 1996-29."
5
Archeological Eric Commenter includes attached general recommended SMP
and Historical Oosahwee-language, without specific text edits for section as follows:
Resources Voss -Colville "State and local cultural resources laws apply to shoreline
Confederated development. State laws include
Tribes RCW 27.53 (Archaeological Sites and Records}, which
prohibits the unpermitted removal of archaeological
materials and establishes a permitting process, and RCW
27.44 (Indian Graves and Records), which describes how
human remains must be treated. This shoreline
management master plan requires each project proponent
to:
•Consult with the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) and Native American tribes to
determine ifthe projects lie within areas of cultural
significance.
•Conduct background research at DAHP
•Conduct a site assessment if cultural resources are
recorded in the proposed project area or if requested by
DAHP or Native America tribes
• Recover archaeological materials in compliance with RCW
27 .53 prior to construction
•Consult with the County, DAHP, and Native American
tribes if resources are discovered during construction
•Consider cultural resources in planning for public spaces
and access
Given the importance of shoreline locations throughout the
human history of Washington, the potential for cultural
resources should be considered high for any shoreline
development permit unless demonstrated otherwise. To
comply with state and local law, applicants should perform
records searches at DAHP and require cultural resources site
assessments in high potential areas where resources are
recorded on or near the project lands. If the probability of
unrecorded resources is high, applicants should be prepared
to follow the provisions of RCW 27.53 and 27.44 if cultural
resources are identified or encountered during the planning
or construction process."
Archeological Gretchen In regard to 6-20-010, recommended change to this
and Historical Kaehler -State statement would read something like the following: "The
Resources Dept. of following policies and regulations apply to sites, buildings,
Archaeology structures, districts, and objects within the shoreline
6
Earlier versions of the SMP included a
requirement that subdivisions and commercial
development submit a site inspection and
evaluation, unless deemed unnecessary by
DAHP. This requirement was removed by the
Planning Commission as it was felt the other
regulations were protective enough.
Our current permit process includes notifying
DAHP & CCT for all shoreline permits that
include ground or lakebed disturbance. If no
comments are received, we assume there are
no cultural resources concerns about the
site/project.
In addition, 6-20-030 Regulation 3 (p.3) requires
immediate stoppage of work and notification of
the City, DAHP, & CCT if anything of possible
archaeological interest is uncovered.
The recommended change can be made. Here is
the text as modified:
The following policies and regulations apply
to all "1,,jislsFisallAFslieele§y AFsas" iasA!illea
Ecology appreciates the
thoughtful comments
provided by the Tribe.
While we believe
incorporation of the
proposed language
would ~mprove the SMP!EE~lqgy ge_!l!:_r!!l!Y _.
con cu rs with th is
response. The SMP ~.£l'.!1J!ll~s-~i~h Y'f__A<; ___ .
173-26-221(1). Any
changes to the cultural
resources section will
be at the city's
discretion. The city is
aware of the need to
comply with the
provisions of RCW
27.53 and 27.44 as
indicated.
Ecology concurs with
this approach, and will
include this text edit as
a Recommended
Commented [GT(2): Here we acknowledge the
suggestion would improve the SMP. It seems redundant to
repeat It below, where 1t dilutes the point that these
Improvements are at the city's discretion
Commented [GT(3]: This assessment 1s not tentative The
city has adopted the minimum requirements that are the
basis for our approval
and Historic jurisdiction that are identified in the Shoreline Inventory and iA !Re Slle1<eHRe JR~<eRlef7' aM Change in our Findings
Preservation Characterization; that are recorded at the Washington CllaraG!edzatieR aAd OR all sites. buildings. and Conclusions.
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; structures, districts, and objects within
and/or within local jurisdictions including the City of Moses shoreline jurisdiction that are identified in
Lake, Grant County, and affected Indian tribes; or that have the Shoreline lnventoCL, and
Characterization: AaviA!iJ aFsAaeele!iJisal er been inadvertently discovered. Aisteris rese1:1Fees that are recorded at the
Washington Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (DAHP)~ and/or within
local jurisdictions, including the City of
Moses Lake, Grant County, and affected
Indian tribes; or that have been
inadvertentlv 1:1AeeYered discovered.
Archeological Gretchen We recommend clarifying Policy 6-20-020 (4) as to the We will delete this policy in Chapter 6, p. 2. Ecology concurs with
and Historical Kaehler -State purpose of this policy. It is unclear as to why access to these this approach, and will
Resources Dept. of resources should be at public expense. Access to include this text edit as
Archaeology archaeological sites should be restricted to appropriate a Recommended
and Historic parties. Also please be a.ware the location of archaeological Change in our Findings
Preservation site is exempt from public disclosure to prevent looting and and Conclusions.
(DAHP) (note depredation (RCW 42.56.300).
that
comments by
th is reviewer
were provided
56 minutes
after the
comment
period closed
on March 4th)
Archeological Gretchen We recommend that "The completed archaeological We will incorporate the recommendation as Ecology concurs with
and Historical Kaehler-evaluation should be submitted to DAHP and the interested follows: this approach, and will
Resources DAHP Tribe for review prior to the issuance of any shoreline An evaluation and a report meeting the include this text edit as
permits" to Policy 6-20-30(2). minimal reporting standards of DAHP, a Recommended
prepared by. a cultural resource Change in our Findings
management professional who meets the and Conclusions.
qualification standards promulgated by the
National Park Service and published in 36
CFR Part 61, shall be required before the
start of any ground disturbance work in any
area known to contain archaeological or
historic resources. The City may require
such an evaluation prior to the issuance of
any shoreline permit or shoreline exemption.
The comoleted archaeoloaical evaluation
7
shall be submitt~d to DAHP ang the
interested Trib~ fQr review i;irior to issuance
of anv shoreline oermits.
Archeological Gretchen In the definitions in Chapter 13, we note the inclusion of a We would be willing to consider including a Ecology did not receive
and H istorica I Kaehler-definition of "archaeological resources." However, we definition of cultural resources. an alternate definition
Resources DAHP recommend that definitions for cultural resources be of Cultural Resources
broadened to be clear that the Shoreline Master Program from the City as a part
addresses a broader range of cultural resource types. of its response. As
written, the SM P
complies with WAC
173-26-221(1).
Archeological Gretchen In regard to Appendix A Mitigation, it should be made clear The Mitigation Appendix is specific to ecological Ecology generally
and Historical Kaehler -elsewhere in the document {such as in section 6-20} that mitigation, with plant survival rates, irrigation, concurs with this
Resources DAHP mitigation will also pertain to cultural resources that are monitoring, etc. Cultural resources impacts response. The SMP
negatively impacted and should be identified and would need to be mitigated very differently. complies with WAC
implemented in consultation with DAHP, affected Tribes, Since cultural resources are already regulated 173-26-221{1). Any
and other appropriate affected parties. by the state, we would defer to state changes to the cultural
requirements for mitigation should any resources section will
resources be found. be at the city's
discretion.
Archeological Gretchen There is little specificity or process with regard to cultural Our current permit process includes notifying Ecology generally
and Historical Kaehler -resources. There are also no details on how previously DAHP & CCT for all shoreline permits that concurs with this
Resources DAHP recorded archaeological sites will be recognized during pre-include ground or lakebed disturbance. If no response. While
project review. We recommend that the City of Moses Lake comments are received, we assume there are entering into a data
enter into a data sharing agreement with DAHP so that no cultural resources concerns about the sharing agreement is a
archaeological and historic sites can be identified prior to site/project. sensible
project construction. recommendation, the
SMP as submitted
complies with WAC
173-26-221(1). Any
changes to the cultural
resources section will
be at the city's
discretion.
Archeological Gretchen We also recommend adding process and specificity to the We prefer to keep our regulations as short as While the suggested
and Historical Kaehler -shoreline management plan regarding cultural resources. possible. We believe we have provided model SMP language
Resources DAHP We have attached DAHP's model shoreline management adequate protection with the regulations as may provide for more
language for that purpose. {commenter provides copy of the proposed. specificity, and may
DAHP model language for SMPs). improve
implementation of the
cultural resources
provisions, the SMP as
submitted complies
8
Comments received during Local Government public comment period -Unresolved at local adoption
Selected text local submittal document: "City Council Public Hearing and Comments Responsiveness Summary"
Comment Name of Specific Comment Local Government Response and Rationale
Topic Commenter
Wetlands· Jeremy Sikes p.16. 6-30-070-C-5-e-v (mitigation ratios). While the The Planning Commission recommendation
mitigation (Ecology) provisions are generally well written and thorough, this of not requiring mitigation for any larger area
compensatory mitigation standard does not reflect the than has been impacted is supported by the
most current science on wetland mitigation, and per the City Council.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Watershed Co. 2013) will
result in net loss of ecological function. Ratios should
be similar to those found in Wetlands in Washington
State Vol. 2 or Ecology's Small Cities Guidance which
was the source for many of the wetland provisions in
this SMP. Wetland impacts from fill also require
authorization from Ecology and possibly from the US
Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation ratios ... were co-
developed by Ecology and the Corps, and would be
required for an applicant to obtain the needed permits.
Revising the SMP to align with federal and state
requirements will ensure that applicants have a
predictable process to follow when they wish to do a
project that will impact wetlands.
Wetlands· Jeremy Sikes p.18. Table 6.1. Buffers for Category 3 and 4 wetlands The Planning Commission recommendation
buffers (Ecology) have been reduced arbitrarily from 60' (with additional of a 25' buffer for Category 3 and 4
buffers of 30' and 60') and 40'; to 25' for both categories wetlands is supported by the City Council
with no additional area for higher scores. and has been determined to be adequate
based on the Cumulative Impact Analysis
developed by The Watershed Company.
9
with WAC 173·26·
221(1).
Ecology Response
This previous comment
from Ecology observed
that the draft language
would not meet the
standards required in
WAC 173-26·22l(c)(i),
or 173-26·
201(2)(a)(i)(E) and (F)
Mitigation. The
mitigation language will
be revised as a
required change.
This previous
comment from
Ecology observed that
the draft language
would not meet the
standards required in
WAC 173-26-221(c)(i),
or 173-26·201(2)(a).
Generally Ecology
finds the CIA/ CIR to
be thorough and well
done, however this
particular conclusion
of the CIA is in error.
Buffers for Category 3
and 4 wetlands have
been reduced ~t_tiqu~ _
adequate documented
, I Commented {GT(4]: Maybe keep the focus on the
' problem of not having rationale. There are circumstances
where reductions might not be arbitrary but they haven't
adequately demonstrated that In this case
10
rationale from 60'
(with additional
buffers of 30' and 60')
and 40'; to 25' for both
categories with no
additional area for
higher scores. While
we recognize that the
CIR report prepared by
Watershed Co. made
recommendation that
Category 3 wetlands
should be provided a
25' buffer, the
underlying analysis,
and the proposed
buffers do not reflect
the totality of th.e
recommendation.
Watershed Co, makes
the statement that
" ... proposed buffers
should either be: 1)
consistent with
existing conditions, or
2) consistent with
recommendations of
the "most current,
accurate, and
complete scientific
and technical
information available
that is applicable to
the issues of concern"
(WAC 173-26-
201(2)(a))." This is an
incorrect
interpretation of the
WAC. The analysis of
existing conditions is
informative and
should be considered, ~hose !conditions must
Commented· [GT(S]: Some changes here to reflect the
latest Findings and Conclusions narrative on page 4.
be analyzed consistent
with the requirement
under WAC 173-26-
201(2){a). The analysis
performed regarding
category 3 wetland
buffers presented
does not meet the
definition under
201{2){a), having only
one, unverified
category 3 wetland,
along with subjective
conclusions about
function based on
aerial photo
interpretation as its
basis. In addition, the
proposed buffer
regulationss do not
reflect the totality of
the CIA
recommendations
because they do not
require additional
buffer width for higher
habitat scores or for
non SR-R designations.
Category 4 wetland
buffers should align
with the science-based
buffer of 40 feet (Small
Cities Guidance-
Ecology Publication
No. 10-06-001).
Docks Jeremy Sikes p.6. 7-50-020 (Dock Policies). Per RCW 173-26-The Planning Commission recommendation Per WAC 173-29-
{Ecology) 231(3)(b), SMPs should• contain a provision that not requiring new residential development of 321(3)(b), the city has "requires new residential development of two or more two or more dwelling units to share a dock is not provided " ... a dwelling units to provide joint use or community dock supported by the City Council. demonstrated, facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual compelling reason, docks for each residence." The recently adopted Grant based on policy of the County SMP provides clear language and feasibility Shoreline Management
11
review standards to this effect, and was developed Act and this chapter,
specifically for Moses Lake (See May 2012 Grant against taking the
County Draft SMP Section 24.12.390 Private Moorage action." With out th is,
Facilities, p.64-66) the SMP must require
*Note that when used in the context of an SMP update, the use of joint use
"Should" means that the particular action is required unless docks when feasible,
there is o demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy and revised language of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against will be provided as a taking the action (WAC 173-26-020(35)). required change.
Docks Jeremy Sikes p.7. 7-50-030 (Dock Regulations). See comments The Planning Commission recommendation Per WAC 173-26-
(Ecology) above about joint-use docks. not requiring new residential development of 231(3){b), the city has
two or more dwelling units to share a dock is not provided " ... a
supported by the City Council. demonstrated,
compelling reason,
based on policy of the
Shoreline Management
Act and this chapter,
against taking the
action." Without this,
the SMP must require
the use of joint use
docks when feasible,
and revised language
will be provided as a
required change.
Docks Jere my Sikes p.9. 7-50-030-C (Joint-use community docks). Expand The Planning Commission recommendation Per WAC 173-29-
{Ecology) this section to include developments of two or more not requiring new residential development of 321(3)(b), the city has
dwellings. two or more dwelling units to share a dock is not provided " ... a
supported by the City Council. demonstrated,
compelling reason,
based on policy of the
Shoreline Management
Act and this chapter,
against taking the
action." Without this,
the SMP must require
the use of joint use
docks when feasible,
and revised language
will be provided as a
required change.
12
Docks
Docks
Buffers -
platted
Public Access
Jeremy Sikes
(Ecology)
Jeremy Sikes
(Ecology)
Jeremy Sikes
(Ecology)
Jeremy Sikes
(Ecology)
p.15. 7-100-020-7 (Residential). Statement "Individual
docks should be allowed for lots in subdivisions with
joint-use or community docks" is not consistent with the
WAC requirements. See above comments regarding the
requirement to provide for joint-use docks on
developments of 2 or more dwelling units.
There are currently only 3 developments in
city limits where individual docks were limited
and joint use (1 development) or community
(2 developments) docks were planned. See
above comments for limited extent of
provisions that affect new shoreline
subdivisions.
p.16. 7-100-030 (Residential Regulations). New multi-There are only 3 large parcels remaining in
unit residential development (including subdivision of the City that this provision would apply to,
land for more than 4 parcels) is required to provide plus possibly a few smaller ones on the lower
community and/or public access in conformance to local Peninsula (see vacant land map).
public access plans per WAC 173-26-241(3)(j).
p.17. 7-100-030-11 (plats with wetland or shoreline I Additional discussion between Ecology and
buffers set during the platting process prior to adoption City of Moses Lake shall take place prior to
of updated SMP). This section requires some additional final approval of SMP.
discussion between the City and Ecology, and may need
to be refined.
p.15. 7-100-020-6 (Residential). New multi-unit There are only 3 large parcels remaining in
residential development (including subdivision of land for the City that this provision would apply to,
more than 4 parcels) is required to provide community plus possibly a few smaller ones on the lower
and/or public access in conformance to local public Peninsula (see vacant land map).
access plans per WAC 173-26-241(3)(j).
13
While it may be
accurate that there are
very limited
circumstances where
the provision would
apply, this is not
determinative in the
requirement under the
cited WAC that SMPs
must require joint use
docks where feasible.
Revised language will
be provided as a
required chan11:e.
While 1t may be
accurate that there are
very limited
circumstances where
the provision would
apply, this is not
determinative in the
requirement under the
cited WAC that SMPs
must require public
access for new multi-
unit developments.
Revised language will
be provided as a
required change
Please see Attachments
A and B for more
detailed discussion.
While it may be
accurate that there are
very limited
circumstances where
the provision would
apply, this is not
determinative in the
requirement under the
Bulkheads
Buffers
Jeremy Sikes
(Ecology)
Eric Pentico
(WDFW)
p.12. 8-30-070 (bulkhead regulations: "A bulkhead-type
structure used to stabilize a dock may be permitted, but
the size shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the
dock. The stabilization structure shall not exceed 2' wider
than the dock on each side nor shall it exceed 14' in total
width along the shoreline.") There are a number of
problems with this provision {list) ... Consider removing
this provision, or providing detailed standards by which a
project that incorporates a mini-bulkhead demonstrates
need, avoids impacts, and mitigates for unavoidable
impacts, and tie it more to the dock construction process.
Shoreline Residential Special Resource (SR-S)
Environment, p.11 to 16 Table 9.2 & 9.3. Shoreline
areas designed SR-S within the City of Moses Lake
demonstrate some ecological impairments, but • ... they
also retain important ecological functions and have high
potential for ecological protection and restoration
because they include relatively large tracts that have
not been subdivided or include large wetland areas."
(Table 9.1) Some of the proposed buffers listed in Table
9.3 for the SR-S designated areas could significantly
hinder properly functioning ecological conditions or
interfere with future restoration efforts. .. .
buffer reductions to 15 ft. wide are allowed for trails in
the Recreation use areas.
WDFW recommends ... required buffers for recreational
trails be expanded to a minimum of 25 ft.
14
This provision was added at the suggestion
of Doug Pineo, when he was the Department
of Ecology reviewer of shoreline master
programs. It can be deleted.
Trail: The Planning Commission specifically
reduced the recreational trail distance from
the initially proposed 50' to 15'.
cited WAC that SMPs
must require public or
community access for
new multi-unit
developments. Revised
language will be
provided as a required
change
Ecology supports the
deletion of this
language, but it
appears to still be
present in the locally
adopted draft. The text
is deleted as a
Recommended Change
in our Findings and
Conclusions
The city provided no
rationale for the
proposed trail buffer in
either the SR-R or the
SR-S environments.
These environments
are characterized by
areas of specia I or
intact ecological
function, and are likely
to have wetland buffer
overlays. With the
exception of trails
spei::ific to access a
dock, there is no
compelling reason trails
should be located
within the shoreline
buffer. Trails that
parallel the shoreline,
depending on the type
and construction
methods, can be highly
destructive to habitat,
can create vectors for
invasive plants, and can
fragment migration
corridors.
Buffers Eric Pentico Shoreline Residential Resource (SR-R) Environment, ... The city provided no
(WDFW) p.11 to 16 Table 9.2 & 9.3. SR-R designated lands rationale for the
demonstrate impairment to ecological functions, but Residential: The residential buffers are proposed trail buffer in
"They retain important ecological functions and have based on the Cumulative Impacts Analysis either the SR-R or the
the potential for development that is compatible with and Recommendations, which found no SR-S environments. ecological protection and restoration· (Table 9.1) .... cumulative impacts for the 25' and 50' These environments WDFW recommends buffers for water-related buffers as proposed. Most shoreline are characterized by structures and facilities in areas that are properly residential lots have already been areas of special or functioning ecologically or may be restored should be developed-see Vacant Incorporated intact ecologica I set at a minimum of 65' and buffer widths for paths and Residential Lots map. function, and are likely trails should only be allowed to be reduced to 25'. SR-R Buffer for paths and trails: The Planning to have wetland buffer areas having Residential uses should have the buffers Commission specifically reduced the
expanded to a minimum of 65' to retain most recreational trail distance from the initially overlays. With the
functioning ecological conditions and allow for adequate proposed 50' to 1 O'. exception of trails
restoration of degraded areas. specific to access a
dock, there is no
compelling reason trails
should be located
within the shoreline
buffer. Trails that
parallel the shoreline,
depending on the type
and construction
methods, can be highly
destructive to habitat,
can create vectors for
invasive plants, and can
fragment migration
corridors. Ecology can
work with the city to
develop required
language to provide
greater specificity in
trail location
regulations, while
protecting the most
sensitive riparian areas.
15
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 Dev. Dir/Deputy City Manager
June 28, 2016
Motion
Resolution -Nuisance Abatement -9972 Sunny Dr NE
Legislative History:
June 28, 2016
Motion
Attached is a resolution providing for the abatement of nuisance at 9972 Sunny Dr NE owned
by Roland & Anastacia Huff. The Council should hold a hearing to consider the allegations of
the Code Enforcement Officer that the property contains a public nuisance which has not been
corrected. If the Council concurs that a public nuisance exists, the resolution should be
adopted allowing the City to remove the public nuisance.
Background
The code enforcement matter at 9972 Sunny Dr NE was founded by the Code Enforcement
Officer while on routine patrol of the city. In accordance with MLMC 8.14, Nuisances, the site
was inspected and determined to be a nuisance pursuant to MLMC 8.14. See attached May 4,
2016 Notice of Violation and Order to Correct or Cease Activity.
Page 1of2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
N/A
Options
Option Results
• Consider the Resolution abating the
existing nuisances at 9972 Sunny Dr
NE
Compliance with MLMC 8. 14, Nuisances
----------·--------------·-!--· • Consider the Resolution and take no Non-Compliance with MLMC 8. 14,
action Nuisances
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council consider abating the existing nuisance at 9972 Sunny Dr
NE and pass the Resolution as presented.
Attachments
I Resolution No. :!> t..l q
Exhibit 1 -4
Legal Review
The following documents are attached and subject to legal review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal
Counsel
• Resolution Nuisance Abatement City Attorney, Katherine
Kenison
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 3 /.p ) q
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT ROLAND C. AND ANASTACIA HUFF ARE THE
OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY; THAT A NUISANCE
REQUIRING ABATEMENT BY CITY FORCES OR FORCES CONTRACTED BY THE CITY
EXISTS ON SUCH PROPERTY; AND DIRECTING THE USE OF SUCH FORCES TO
ABATE THE NUISANCE FOUND
Recitals:
1. Real Property Location and Ownership. It is alleged by a Code Enforcement Officer of the City,
a person authorized to enforce the ordinances and municipal code of the City, that the real
property located at 9972 NE Sunny Drive (Lot 1, Block 3, Longview Tracts), Parcel
#120405000, Moses Lake, Washington, is the site of public nuisance violations of Moses Lake
Municipal Code (MLMC) 8.14.030. The records of Grant County show the owners of the subject
property to be Roland C. & Anastacia Huff, 4917 E. Commerce Avenue, Spokane, WA 99212.
2. Notice. On May 4, 2016, the Code Enforcement Officer caused to be delivered by regu lar mail
and certified mail to the owner of record of the subject property a Notice of Violation and Order
to Correct or Cease Activity. No appeal was filed to challenge that order. The time to comply
under that order has passed. The nuisance described in that order has not been abated by
correction of the condition of the property and a nuisance continues to exist on the subject
property. On June 16, 2016 the Code Enforcement Officer caused to be delivered to Roland
and Anastacia Huff a notice of the intent of the City Council to consider adoption of a resolution
such as this at its meeting of June 28, 2016. Such notice was in writing, in the English
language and was delivered by return receipt mail and regular mail to the record owner of the
subject property.
3. Violations. It has been established by the Notice of Violation and Order to Correct or Cease
Activity that the following violations exist on the subject property and have not been corrected:
3.1 A violation of MLMC 8.14.030 U -8.14.030 -Nuisance Defined. Each of the following
conditions, unless otherwise permitted by law, is declared to constitute a public nuisance,
and whenever the Code Enforcement Officer determines that any of these conditions
exist upon any premises or in any stream, drainage way or wetlands, the officer may
require or provide for the abatement thereof pursuant to this chapter.
U. Except for any designated public park land, natural area, or environmentally
sensitive area, or any undeveloped parcels of land not adjacent to developed areas
or which are used for agricultural purposes, all grasses, weeds, or other vegetation
growing or which has grown and died, which is determined to be a fire or safety
hazard or a nuisance to persons, shall not exceed twelve inches (12") in height
measured above the ground.
1. The above exception may be waived and additional maintenance required by
the Code Enforcement Officer if he determines such action is necessary to
protect the safety of persons or adjoining property.
2. All maintenance shall be done in a manner so that soil stability will not be
disrupted or disturbed. Grass, weed, or vegetation control shall not include
plowing, discing, or scraping the soil to eliminate the grasses, weeds, or other
vegetation unless a soil stabilization plan, which will minimize blowing dust and
maintain soil stability and which shall be approved by the city prior to any
plowing , discing, or scraping, is implemented immediately.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2 June 28, 2016
4 . Hearing. On June 28, 2016 the Moses Lake City Council conducted a hearing to consider the
allegations of the Code Enforcement Officer that the subject property contains a public
nuisance ordered corrected which remains uncorrected and that the record owner is
responsible for the costs of correcting and abating such violations if such corrections and
abatement is accomplished by City forces or forces contracted by the City for such purpose.
All interested persons were permitted to provide written or oral evidence relevant to the issue.
5. Evidence:
5.1 . The following persons testified under oath:
Rick Rodriguez, Moses Lake Code Enforcement Officer
5.2. The following exhibits were made a part of the record of the proceedings:
Resolved:
EXHIBIT #1: Moses Lake Municipal Code Chapter 8.14.030 U
EXHIBIT #2: Notice of Violation and Order to Correct or Cease Activity dated May 4,
2016 from the Code Enforcement Officer addressed to Ro land C. And Anastacia Huff,
4917 E. Commerce Avenue, Spokane, WA 99212
EXHIBIT #3: Pictures taken by Code Enforcement Officer of the property located at
9972 NE Sunny Drive, Moses Lake, Washington.
EXHIBIT #4: Letter dated June 16, 2016 from the Code Enforcement Officer to Roland
C. And Anastacia Huff advising the property owner of the hearing regarding abatement
of property, scheduled for June 28, 2016.
1. A public nuisance in violation of MLMC 8.14.030 exists on the subject property at 9972 NE
Sunny Drive, Moses Lake, Washington. Roland C & Anastacia Huff, 4917 E. Commerce
Avenue, Spokane, WA 99212 are the record contract owners of the subject property per the
records of Grant County.
2. The public nuisance located upon the subject property consists of:
2.1. Weeds in excess of 12" in height
3. The maintenance of these public nuisance violations on the subject property by the record
owner is detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, peace and tranquility of the residents of
the City impacting the quality of life and diminishing property values.
4 . Roland C. & Anastacia Huff, the record contract owners, have fifteen (15) days from the
date of the adoption of this resolution to cause the nuisance violations listed herein to be
removed to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Officer. Those improvements include
the following :
4.1 W eeds must be cut down and/or removed from the site
5. City staff shall provide a status report to City Council on the progress of the record contract
owners and occupant to make the clean up required on the subject property. If the
improvements, as listed above, are not to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Officer,
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 3 June 28, 2016
the City is authorized to use City forces or contract forces to cause the identified public
nuisances to be removed from the subject property to the satisfaction of the City Manager.
All costs of any removal of the identified public nuisances done at City expense shall be
recovered by the City Manager by all reasonable means including immediate assignment
of the costs so incurred for collection.
6. A copy of this resolution shall be provided to the record contract owner by return receipt and
regular mail after its approval by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council on June 28, 2016.
Todd Voth, Mayor
ATTEST:
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
8.14.030 Nuisance Defined. Each of the following conditions, unless otherwise permitted by law, is declared
to constitute a public nuisance, and whenever the Code Enforcement Officer determines that any
of these conditions exist upon any premises or in any stream, drainage way or wetlands, the officer
may require or provide for the abatement thereof pursuant to this chapter.
U. Except for any designated public park land, natural area, or environmentally sensitive area,
or any undeveloped parcels of land not adjacent to developed areas or which are used for
agricultural purposes, all grasses, weeds, or other vegetation growing or which has grown
and died, which is determined to be a fire or safety hazard or a nuisance to persons, shall not
exceed twelve inches (12") in height measured above the ground.
1. The above exception may be waived and additional maintenance required by the
Code Enforcement Officer if he determines such action is necessary to protect the
safety of persons or adjoining property.
2. All maintenance shall be done in a manner so that soil stability will not be disrupted
or disturbed. Grass, weed, or vegetation control shall not include plowing, discing,
or scraping the soil to eliminate the grasses, weeds, or other vegetation unless a soil
stabilization plan, which will minimize blowing dust and maintain soil stability and
which shall be approved by the city prior to any plowing, discing, or scraping, is
implemented immediately.
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 1
C f 'tl Of
City of Moses Lake
PO Drawer 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Phone: (509) 764-3750
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT OR CEASE ACTIVITY
DATED: Wednesday, May 4, 2016
ISSUED TO:
ROLAND C &ANASTACIA HUFF
4917 E COMMERCE AVE
SPOKANE, WA 99212-1367
CASE#: COD2016-0368
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CORRECT OR CEASE THE ACIVITY AS FOLLOWS:
Weeds and grasses in excess of 12" in height are present in the front and side areas of this home.
The City is requiring these corrections listed on this Notice and Order be accomplished by Saturday, May 14,
2016.
ACTION NECESSARY TO CORRECT VIOLATION
Weeds and grasses must be cut to lower than 12" in height.
LOCATION OF UNLAWFUL CONDITION
LOCATION: 9972 NE SUNNY DR, MOSES LAKE
LEGAL DESC: Lot 1Block3 Longview Tracts
PARCEL: 120405000 .
PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE CODE VIOLATED
8. 14. 030. U -Maintenance of grasses, weeds, etc
Except for any designated public park land, natural area, or environmentally sensitive area, or any undeveloped parcels of
land not adjacent to developed areas or which are used for agricultural purposes, all grasses, weeds, or other vegetation
growing or which has grown and died, which is determined to be a fire or safety hazard or a nuisance to persons, shall not
exceed twelve inches (12'') in height measured above the ground. 1. The above exception may be waived and additional
maintenance required by the Code Enforcement Officer if he determines such action is necessary to protect the safety of
persons or adjoining property. 2. All maintenance shall be done in a manner so that soil stability will not be disrupted or
disturbed. Grass, weed, or vegetation control shall not include plowing, discing, or scraping the soil to eliminate the
grasses, weeds, or other vegetation unless a soi/ stabilization plan, which will minimize blowing dust and maintain soil
stability and which shall be approved by the city prior to any plowing, discing, or scraping, is implemented immediately.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT THE MOSES LAKE CITY CODE PROVIDES FOR THE FOLLOWING
PENALTIES:
1. Any violation for which a Notice of Violation and Order to Correct or Cease Activity has been issued but which has not
been corrected within the time specified shall incur a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per day up to a
sum of five thousand dollars ($5000), beginning on the day the correction was to be completed. The cumulative
penalty provided for in this paragraph shall not accrue while an appeal is pending, nor shall the penalty preclude the
initiation of appropriate legal action to correct the violation. [1 .20.050(E)(1)].
2. If a penalty has been assessed pursuant to 1.20.050(E)(1 ), a Court shall assess that penalty and any additional
penalty the Court considers appropriate plus court costs and attorney's fees.
Exhibit 2
Page 1 of 2
YOU MAY APPEAL THIS NOTICE AND ORDER TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 20.03.050 OF THE MOSES LAKE CITY CODE AND BY PAYMENT OF AN $800 FEE.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE AFORMENTIONED VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED AS SPECIFIED
HERIN THIS MATIER WILL BE REFEREEED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CIVIL ENFORCEMENT BY
INJUNCTION OR OTHER APROPRIATE ACTION.
Sincerely,
b
BRETT HOLLEN
Code Enforcement Officer
Exhibit 2
Page 2 of 2
~--~
c''' 0' MOSES LAKE
City of Moses Lake
PO Drawer 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Phone: (509) 764-3750
DATED: Thursday, June 16, 2016
ROLAND C & ANASTACIA HUFF
4917 E COMMERCE A VE
SPOKANE, WA 99212-1367
RE: Hearing to Permit City Abatement of Nuisance for case file#: COD2016-0368
Property Located at: 9972 NE SUNNY DR, MOSES LAKE on Parcel 120405000
Via Regular Mail and Return Receipt Mail
ROLAND C & ANASTACIA HUFF
You are identified in the records of the Grant County Assessor as the record owner of real property located within the City of Moses
Lake described as: Lot 1 Block 3 Longview Tracts
This property is located at: 9972 NE SUNNY DR, MOSES LAKE on Parcel 120405000
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 the City of Moses Lake mailed to you by regular mail and return receipt mail a Notice of Violation and
Order to Correct or Cease Activity within the time allowed by the City Code. The time specified in that Notice of Violation and Order
to Correct or Cease Activity has expired without compliance. As of Saturday, May 14, 2016 the nuisance located on the subject
property has not been corrected or removed.
Pursuant to Moses Lake Municipal Code (MLCM) 8.14.070 the City of Moses Lake is giving you notice that it will conduct a hearing
before the Moses Lake City Council at the Council's regular meeting on June 28th 2016, which is more than ten days from the date of
this letter. That meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Moses Lake Civic Center. The purpose of this
hearing is for the City Council to determine if a nuisance exists on your property and if a nuisance is found to exist to direct the
abatement of that nuisance by use of City contracted forces. The cost of that abatement will be assessed against you as the owner of
the subject property. At the hearing all persons interested in the abatement of the nuisance existing on the subject property will have
the opportunity to be heard under oath. At that time, you may present all relevant evidence you wish for the City Council to consider,
whether that be documents, photos, or live testimony from yourself or others. At the conclusion of that hearing, it is expected the City
Council will determine if an abatement of a nuisance located on the subject property should take place and when.
THIS HEARING IS WPORTANT. YOUR FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE MAY WP ACT IMPORTANT RIGHTS IN
YOUR PROPERTY.
If you have any questions, you may contact the City Manager's Office at the Moses Lake Civic Center, 401 S. Balsam, Moses Lake,
WA, phone (509) 764-3701.
Sincerely,
,/;J~,J / /.{(,r/i
lfil 'K RODRIGUEZ
Code Enforcement Officer
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Exhibit 4
Page 1 of 1