08262014 Part 2August 20, 2014
TO: City Manager for Council Consideration
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance -Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rates -2 nd Reading
Attached is a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 13.12, entitled Water, Sewer, and
Stormwater Rates, to increase rates for service charges.
The proposed ordinance is presented for Council consideration. This is the second
reading of the ordinance.
Respectfully submitted
WRT:jt
ORDINANCE NO. 2 f 2. ~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.12 OF THE MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED "WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER RATES"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 13.12 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rates"
is amended as follows:
13.12.053 Water Service Termination Procedures:
13.12.060
A. The provisions of this section shall govern all terminations of water service for non-payment
of city charge and/or installments and surcharges.
B. If by the payment date shown on a water, sewer, garbage, ambulance, and stormwater bill, the
city has not received complete payment of the amount shown on the bill the city shall mail to,
or personally serve upon, the customer a notice of termination. The notice of termination shall
be sent with the current month's bill. The notice shall indicate the amount past due.
C. The notice of termination shall contain the following:
1. The amount past due and the amount of the current month's billing.
2. The date of the notice of termination.
3. The date of termination, which shall be no less than ten (10) days from the date of the
notice of termination.
4. Notice that unless the city receives complete payment of the amount past due prior to the
date of termination, water service shall be terminated.
5. Notice that in lieu of paying the entire amount shown, a customer, prior to the date of
termination, may notify the city that he disputes the correctness of all or part of the amount
shown, if all or part of the amount shown was not the subject of a previous dispute.
6. Notice that !.b.l.ffi'. Seveft dollars ($301-) will be assessed as a delinquent service charge if
not paid and received by the Finance Department, Utilities Division, by 5 p.m. on the day
prior to the date showA oA the deliAqueAt Aotice and that twelve dollars ($12) will be
assessed as an additional service charge if Aot paid by the date aAd time shown on the
delinquent notice provided no formal dispute has been filed with the Finance Department
the paymeAt is Aot extended as set forth in this section.
7. An informational telephone number.
8. Notice that §.l9.!lly fhffly dollars ($803B) will be assessed as a service charge for all water
turn-ans or turn-offs after 4:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m. and at any other time which is
not a normal working day of the city, such as weekends or legal holidays.
D. If the city receives payment of the past due amount shown on the notice of termination, such
payment shall be considered a timely and complete payment for purposes of this ordinance.
Payment of Accounts:
A. Water, sewer, garbage, and stormwater bills shall be the responsibility of and billed directly to
the property owner, unless the property owner wishes the bill sent to another address, the
same shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the billing date. If the property owner
wishes the bill sent to another address, the property owner first must execute a form provided
by the City of Moses Lake indicating the property owner's desires. The form shall include the
property owner's name and address, the address to which the bill shall be sent, and a
statement that if the person at the address to which the bill is sent moves and leaves an unpaid
balance, the property owner assumes responsibility for the bill. The billing dates for utility
accounts shall be as follows:
Routes 1 through 15 on the 20th of each month
Routes 16 through 29 on the 30th of each month
Routes 50 through 60, 70, and 71 on the 10th of each month
B. The property owners of commercial accounts and governmental agencies may sign
agreements requesting that their monthly statements be mailed to service addresses. The
statement will contain the same information referred to in subsection A.
C. The city reserves the right to cut off the water supply from the premises. The water supply
may be cut off if either the water charge, sewer charge, garbage charge, ambulance charge,
or the stormwater charge is delinquent, and should the water supply be turned off for failure
to pay either the sewer charge, water charge, garbage charge, ambulance charge, or
stormwater charge when due, the water supply shall not be turned on until all delinquent
charges have been paid in full. A service charge shall be assessed as set forth in Subsection
B of 13.12.085 and shall be added to the amount past due and will be billed on the next
month's statement.
D. The city shall have a lien against the premises for unpaid water, sewer, garbage, ambulance,
and stormwater charges as provided by the laws of the state.
E. Advance payments may be made on any water, sewer, garbage, ambulance, or stormwater
account.
F. Water service will not be terminated if there is a past due water, sewer, garbage, ambulance,
or stormwater charge of twenty teft dollars ($2046) or less, subject to subsection G.
G. No water, sewer, garbage, ambulance, or stormwater bills shall be allowed to be more than
sixty (60) days past due regardless of the past due amount. If a water, sewer, garbage,
ambulance, or stormwater account is to become sixty (60) days past due, water service shall
be terminated as provided herein before the sixtieth (60th) day ends.
H. No water, sewer, garbage, ambulance, or stormwater account will be transferred to another
person, partnership, corporation, or other entity unless the account is brought current prior to
the requested transfer.
I. Property served by more than one (1) meter must keep all accounts current in accordance with
this chapter in order to avoid water service being terminated to all meters serving the property.
13.12.085 Service Charge:
A. The service charge for all water turn-ons or turn-offs after 4 p. m. and before 8 a.m. and at any
other time which is not a normal working day for the city shall be eighty thffly dollars ($8036).
This fee is in addition to the fee imposed by this section.
B. A delinquent service charge of thirty 8eVeft dollars ($301Z) will be assessed on each water,
sewer, garbage, ambulance, or stormwater account or any combination of water, sewer,
garbage, ambulance, or stormwater service which is billed on one (1) account if not paid and
received by the Finance Department, Utilities Division, by 5 p.m. on the day prior to date shown
t:tpOO on the delinquent notice provided no disputes have been filed with the Finance
Department extensions are granted as set forth in Section 13.12. 053. The assessment of the
seven dollars ($7) delinquent service charge shall be waived once a calendar year on eacfi
and every account. An additional delinquent service charge of twelve dollars ($12) will be
assessed on each water, sewer, garbage, ambulance, or stormwater account or any
combination of water, sewer, garbage, ambulance, or storm•q>vater service which is billed on one
(1) account if not paid by tfie date and time shown upon the delinquent notice provided no
extensions are granted as set forth in Section 13.12.053. The thirty seveft dollar ($307) 8ftd
twelve dollar ($12) service charges-are§ subject to the limitations of Subsections F and G of
Section 13.12.060. If water service is terminated for non-payment of the account, the thirty
twefve dollar ($304-2) charge shall include turning the water back on from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on
normal city working days provided the occupant does not change. This fee is in addition to the
fee imposed by Subsection C.
C. A service fee of fifteen eight dollars ($158) shall be added to each new water, sewer, garbage,
ambulance, or stormwater account or any combination of water, sewer, garbage, ambulance,
or stormwater service which is billed on one ( 1) account. A service fee of fifteen eight dollars
($158) shall be added for each change of service to another occupant. This fee shall include
one (1) water turn-on if applicable from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on normal city working days.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of
its summary as provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council and signed by its Mayor on August 26, 2014.
Dick Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
August 20, 2014
Honorable Mayor and
Moses Lake City Council
Dear Council Members
CITY OF
MOSES LAKE
Attached is a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2.48 of the Moses Lake Municipal
Code entitled "Planning Commission". In reviewing the City's ordinance establishing a
Planning Commission and providing for appointment, it was noted that the regulations did
not reference that the nine voting members of the Commission must be City residents.
The proposed ordinance adds the language to provide such a requirement.
The nine voting members of the Commission were always intended to be City residents.
That intent is reflected by the additional language in Moses Lake Municipal Code Section
2.48.010 that states that up to two ex officio members, not City residents, may be
appointed to the Commission.
The proposed ordinance is presented for Council consideration. This is the first reading
of the ordinance.
Respectfully s~boitted
v-i~~
. avinski
JKG:jt
City Manager 764-3701 •City Attorney 764-3703 •Community Development 764-3750 •Finance 764-3717 •Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 •Municipal Court 764-3701 •Parks & Recreation 764-3805 • Police 764-3887 •Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.• P.O. Box 1579 •Moses Lake, WA 98837-0224 • www.cityofml.com
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.48 OF THE MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED "PLANNING COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 2.48 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Planning Commission" is amended as
follows:
2.48.01 O Commission Established: The Planning Commission of the City shall consist of nine (9) members,
who shall reside within the City limits, who shall be appointed by the Mayor and confi rmed by the
City Council, pursuant to MLMC 2.08.040. Additionally, up to two (2) ex officio members may be
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council who reside in the city's urban growth
area but outside the corporate limits of the city. The ex officio members shall have no vote.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of
its summary as provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council and signed by its Mayor on September 9, 2014.
Dick Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
August 20, 2014
Honorable Mayor and
Moses Lake City Council
Dear Council Members
CITY OF
MOSES LAKE
Attached is a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 3.30 of the Moses Lake Municipal
Code entitled "Utility Occupational Tax". The amendments include a definition of "voluntary
payment" and adds a time limitation for refunds on tax payments.
The proposed amendment limits refunds on voluntary tax payments to one year from the
date the payment is made.
The proposed amendment is intended to provide certainty regarding voluntary tax
payments made to the City. Otherwise the City could receive refund requests for many
years past, long after those monies have been spent.
The proposed ordinance is presented to you for your consideration. This is the first
reading of the ordinance.
Respectfully submitted
i<h~.-/L-
. Gavinski
JKG:jt
City Manager 764-3701 •City Attorney 764-3703 •Community Development 764-3750 •Finance 764-3717 •Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 •Municipal Court 764-3701 •Parks & Recreation 764-3805 •Police 764-3887 •Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.• P.O. Box 1579 •Moses Lake, WA 98837-0224 • www.cityofml.com
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.30 OF THE MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED "UTILITY OCCUPATIONAL TAX"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 3.30 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Utility Occupational Tax" is amended
as follows:
3.30.020 Definitions: In construing the provisions of this chapter, save when otherwise plainly declared or
clearly apparent from the context, the following definitions shall be applied:
A. Competitive Telephone Service means the providing by any person of telephone equipment,
apparatus, or service, other than toll service, which is of a type which can be provided by
persons that are not subject to regulation as telephone companies under Title 80 RCW and
for which a separate charge is made.
B. Gross Operating Income means the value proceeding or accruing from the sale of tangible
property or service, installation fees, and receipts by reason of the investment of capital in the
business engaged in, including rentals, royalties, fees or other emoluments, however,
designated (excluding receipts or proceeds from the use or sale of notes, bonds, mortgages,
or other evidences of indebtedness, or stock and the like) and without any deduction on
account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of materials used, labor costs, interest or
discount paid or any expense whatsoever.
C. Person or Persons means persons of either sex, firms, co-partnerships, corporations and other
associations of natural persons, whether acting by themselves or by servants, agents or
employees.
D. Taxpayer means any person liable for the license fee or tax imposed by this chapter.
E. Tax Year or Taxable Year means the year commencing January first and ending on the last
day of December of the same year, or in lieu thereof, the taxpayer's fiscal year when
permission is obtained from the Finance Director to use the same as the tax period.
F. Telephone means every primary station and shall exclude extensions.
G. Telephone Business means the business of providing access to a local telephone network,
local telephone network switching service, toll service, or coin telephone services, or providing
telephonic, video, data, or similar communication or transmission for hire, via a local telephone
network, toll line, or channel, or similar communication or transmission system. It includes
cooperative or farmer line telephone companies or associations operating an exchange. The
term does not include the providing of competitive telephone service, nor the providing of cable
television service .
.ti Voluntary Payment means a payment made to the City of Moses Lake without written protest
setting forth the reasons the payment is made in protest.
3.30.110 Underpayment and Time Limitation on Corrections, Adjustments, and Refunds OvemaymeAt or
UAderpaymeAt of Tax: If the FiABAce Director upoA iAvestigatiOA or upoA checkiAg returns fiAds
that the fee or tax paid is more thaA the amouAt required of the taxpayer, he shall, upoA request
of the taxpayer, refund the amouAt overpaid by •warraAt upoA the GeAeral FuAd, or credit the
amouAt agaiAst aAy tax due or to become due from such taxpayer hereuAder. If the Finance
Director finds that the fee or tax paid is less than required, he shall send a statement to the
taxpayer showing the balance due, who shall within ten (10) days of the receipt of the statement
pay the amount shown thereon. Except as provided for herein. in all cases of the voluntary
payment of any tax imposed by this chapter. resulting in an overpayment of the true amount due.
whether or not the result of mistake of law, mistake of fact, inadvertence, or error, such payments
may be adjusted or corrected only within one year (365 days) of payment. The correction.
adjustment or refund of all or any portion of such payment is barred one year (365 days) following
payment to the City.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of
its summary as provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council and signed by its Mayor on September 9, 2014.
Dick Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
W . Robert Taylor, Finance Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
August 20, 2014
Honorable Mayor and
Moses Lake City Council
Dear Council Members
CITY OF
MOSES LAKE
A City Council member requested City staff to provide an amendment to the noise
ordinance wh ich exempted temporary construction sites in commercial zones from the
provisions of the noise ordinance.
The proposed ordinance is presented to you for consideration. This is the first reading of
the ordinance.
JKG:jt
City Manager 764-3701 • City Attorney 764-3703 • Community Development 764-3750 • Finance 764-3717 • Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 •Municipal Court 764-3701 •Parks & Recreation 764-3805 •Police 764-3887 •Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.• P.O. Box 1579 •Moses Lake, WA 98837-0224 • www.cityofml.com
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED "NOISE CONTROL"
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 8.28 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Noise Control" is amended as follows:
8.28.050 Noises Exempt -Completely or Partially:
A. The following noises are exempt from the provisions of this chapter at all times, provided, that
nothing in these exemptions is intended to preclude the possible reduction of noise consistent
with economic feasibility.
1. Noise originating from aircraft in flight, and sounds which originate at airports and are
directly related to flight operations;
2. Noise created by safety and protective devices, such as relief valves where noise
suppression would defeat the safety relief intent of the device;
3. Noise created by fire alarms, or noise created by emergency equipment, including but not
limited to emergency standby or back-up equipment, and emergency work necessary in
the interests of law enforcement or of the health, safety, or welfare of the community, and
including, but not limited to, any emergency work necessary to replace or repair essential
utility services;
4. Noise created by auxiliary equipment on motor vehicles used for highway maintenance;
5. Noise originating from officially sanctioned parades, sporting events, and other public
events;
6. Noise created by warning devices not operated continuously for more than 30 minutes per
incident;
7. Noise created by motor vehicles when regulated by Section 8.28.030;
8. Noise created by natural phenomenon and unamplified human voices;
9. Noise created by motor vehicles, licensed or unlicensed when operated off public highways
except when such sounds are received in residential zones of the city;
10. Noise created by existing stationary equipment used in the conveyance of water by utilities
and noise created by existing electrical substations;
11. Noise created by sources in industrial districts which over the previous three years have
consistently operated in excess of 15 hours per day as a demonstrated routine or as a
consequence of process necessity.
B. The following sources of noise are exempt or partially exempt from the provisions of this
chapter:
1. Noise created by the operation of equipment or facilities of surface carriers engaged in
commerce by railroad;
2. Noise created by aircraft and float planes;
3. Noise emanating from the temporary construction sites in residential zones except
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. except as unless otherwise approved by the City
Council;
4. Noise emanating from temporary construction sites in commercial zones.
~4. Noise created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations
except between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.;
§5. Noise originating from motor vehicle racing events at existing authorized facilities.
C. It is the intention of City Council to consider amendments to this chapter controlling the
sources exempted in subsection B of this section whenever the Washington State Department
of Ecology promulgates specific regulations relating to the specific sources in the future.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of
its summary as provided by law.
Adopted by the City Council and signed by its Mayor on September 9, 2014.
Dick Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
W . Robert Taylor, Finance Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
August 20, 2014
TO: City Manager for Council Consideration
FROM: Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution -Perdue -Build on Unplatted Property
The Community Development Department has received a request to build on unplatted
property from William Perdue, to allow the construction of a 28,000 square foot facility to
house a portion of the Sonico, Inc. facility. The property is located at the southwest corner
of Patton Boulevard and Randolph Road . The proponent understands that the platting
process is triggered by the building permit request and acknowledges that they are in the
process of platting the subject property.
Attached for Council consideration is a resolution granting permission for the William
Perdue to build on unplatted property with the stipulation that the property be platted within
one year.
Respectfully submitted
(/'(\(
Gilbert Alvarado
Community Development Director
GA:jt
RESOLUTION NO. 3ti ~ (
A RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE WILLIAM PERDUE TO BUILD ON UNPLATTED
PROPERTY
RECITALS:
1. Moses Lake Municipal Code 16.12.030 allows for the issuance of a building permit to a proponent
who wishes to build on unplatted property after a resolution from the City Council.
2. The City of Moses Lake requested the City Council to allow it to build on unplatted property described
as follows:
Tax# 5863 a parcel of land located in Section 32, Township 20 North, Range 28 E.W.M, Grant
County, Washington, described as: beginning at a point 2410.26 feet north and 5856. 08 feet west of
the southeast corner of Section 33 of said Township and Range (whose Washington State Grid South
Zone coordinates are Y=674,047.08, X=2,298,909.20 and are referred to U.S.C. & G .S. Station
"spad" whose Washington State grid south zone coordinates are Y=676, 911 .66, X=2,288,625. 7 4) and
said point of beginning being the intersection of a county road known as Dover Street and a private
road known as 5th Avenue; thence S89°07'35" W along the centerline of Dover Street, 420.00 feet
to the intersection of 6th Avenue; thence S00°56'55" E along the centerline of 6th Avenue 724.00 feet
to the centerline of Elgin Street; thence N89°07'35" E along the centerline of Elgin Street, 420.00 feet
to the centerline of 5th Avenue; thence N00°56'55" W , 724.00 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting
therefrom the north 30 feet for county roads
RESOLVED:
1. That W illiam Perdue be allowed to construct 28,000 square foot facility on unplatted property
described above with the stipulation that the property be platted within one year.
Adopted by the City Council on August 26, 2014.
ATTEST: Dick Deane, Mayor
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
8111/2014
Parcels
Parcel
Owner
Address
TerraScan MapSifter -Grant County Washington -Print
171039000
http://grantwa.mapsifter.com'Print/L.andscape.aspx?key=8042c06fa11242c 78e50a2b3d346c58f 1/1
August 20, 2014
TO: City Manager for Council Consideration
FROM: Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution -Nuisance Abatement Costs -Pence
Attached is a resolution which affirms the Council's prior authorization to staff to collect
the funds expended for the nuisance abatement at 2118 Spruce. The property is
owned by Lorance Pence.
Respectfully submitted
Gilbert Alvara o
Community Development Director
GA:jt
RESOLUTION NO. ~~ (p L
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE BILLING TO BE IMPOSED AGAINST LORANCE PENCE AS
THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE CITY CAUSED ABATEMENT
OF A NUISANCE TO BE PERFORMED AFTER A FAILURE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO
ABATE THE SAME.
RECITALS:
1. Real Property Location and Ownership. The records of Grant County show that Lorance Pence is the
owner of property within the city limits located at 2118 Spruce. The parcel number of this property is
909670000. Lorance Pence was provided notice of a hearing held before the City Council on June 24,
2014, to consider the allegations of the Code Enforcement Officer that a nuisance requiring abatement
existed on property owned by Lorance Pence.
2. On June 24, 2014 the City Council conducted a hearing to determine if a nuisance existed on the property
at 2118 Spruce. At the conclusion of that hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3448 which
provided a nuisance existed on the property at 2118 Spruce, that the owner had fifteen (15) days to abate
such nuisance and if the nuisance was not abated within fifteen (15) days of adoption of that resolution,
the City would cause the nuisance to be abated and the costs of that abatement to be charged against
the property owner.
3. The nuisance identified in Resolution No. 3448 was not abated by the property owner within fifteen (15)
days of the adoption of that resolution. On August 8, 2014 the City caused the nuisance identified to be
abated through the use of contracted and/or City labor and equipment.
RESOLVED:
1. The costs to the City to abate the nuisance identified in Resolution 3448 on the property at 2118 Spruce
are set forth below. Those costs are derived from the attached documents which detail the costs incurred.
2. The costs to be recovered from Lorance Pence are:
City labor and equipment costs
Contracted labor and equipment (company)
Total
$0 .00
$161 .85
$161 .85
3. This charge is certified by the City Council as due and owing the City. This charge shall be forwarded in
writing to Lorrence Pence for payment. If payment is not received within thirty (30) days of submittal, the
same shall be submitted for collection with other unpaid billings of the City and collected or reduced to
judgment on the rolls of Grant County Clerk.
Adopted by the City Council on August 26, 2014.
ATTEST: Dick Deane, Mayor
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
Tatum Lawn Care
P 0 Box 155
Moses Lake, WA 98837
City of Moses Lake
Attn: Ci..f'liR HflROJ.N
P 0 Box 1579
Moses Lake WA 98837
AUG 11 2014
COM~ltiNt'r\' UltV~LOPMENT
Vt.ANNING & tltllll>ING
CITV OF MOSES LAKE
Invoice#
48426
8/8/2014
As our effort to help with going
green, we would like to email our
invoices. Please, feel free to include
an email address with your payment.
P.O. No. Due Upon Receipt RE:
2118 Spruce
Quantity Rate Total (below)
Service Provided
Mow down lot at 2118 Spruce st
(#, sq ft, lbs, gal) (per)
150.00
Item totals
150.00
Balances 30 days past due are subject to 1.5%
interest charge per month.
Thank you for allowing us to be of service.
Qyestions? Call 509-762-6771
Subtotal
Sales Tax (7.9%)
Total
$150.00
$11.85
$161.85
CI TY OF
MOSES LAKE
August 21 , 2014
Honorable Mayor and
Moses Lake City Council
Dear Council Members
Attached is a proposed resolution repealing Resolution 3396 and adopting a new resolution
setting forth the policy with regard to the provision of water and/or sewer utilities outside
the corporate limits of the City. This resolution added new language in paragraph number
7 as follows:
"except that there shall be no limitation for residential properties up to nine (9) lots"
The added language is suggested so as to extend the connection time only for residential
properties. The idea behind limiting the connection period for industrial and commercial
properties is to not reserve the capacities into the future.
The proposed resolution is presented to you for your consideration.
Respectfu lly~mitted
IA""~
h K. Gavin i
JKG:jt
City Manager 764-3701 •City Attorney 764-3703 •Community Development 764-3750 •Finance 764-3717 •Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 •Municipal Court 764-3701 •Parks & Recreation 764-3805 •Police 764-3887 •Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.• P.O. Box 1579 •Moses Lake, WA 98837-0224 • www.cityofml.com
RESOLUTION NO. 3 ~ {p ..3
A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION 3396 AND ADOPTING A NEW RESOLUTION
SETTING FORTH A POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION OF WATER AND/OR
SEWER UTILITIES OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY AND SETTING
FORTH AN ANNEXATION POLICY FOR THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON
Recitals:
1. Previously the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3396 setting forth a policy with regard to the
provision of water and/or sewer utilities outside the corporate limits of the City and setting forth an
annexation policy for the City of Moses Lake, Washington.
2. That policy is now repealed by this resolution which adopts a new resolution setting forth a policy with
regard to the provision of water and/or sewer utilities outside the corporate limits of the City and
setting forth an annexation policy for the City of Moses Lake, Washington.
Resolved:
1. The following definitions shall be applicable to the terms used in this resolution.
Contiguous Lands means any lands touching or abutting the corporate limits of the City and any lands
within one half mile of the corporate limits of the City as measured at the point the corporate limits
and the involved lands are closest together.
Non-Contiguous Lands means any lands beyond one half mile of the corporate limits of the City as
measured at the point the corporate limits and the involved lands are closest together.
Provision, Delivery, or Furnishing City Water and/or Sewer Utilities means the extension of water
and/or sewer mains, or tapping into an existing water and/or sewer main by a lateral to serve a
customer, or the expansion of an existing water and/or sewer use, or any combination of these.
City Water means potable water delivered from the water utility system operated by the City.
City Sewer means the sanitary sewerage collection utility system operated by the City.
City Utility Service or Water and/or Sewer Utilities means City water and/or City sewer.
Adjacent Lands means any lands located immediately adjacent to a city water and/or city sewer main
within the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and which lands are contiguous lands as defined herein.
2. Requests for Extensions: The Moses Lake City Council shall review all requests for the provision of
water and/or sewer utilities whether the request involves property which is contiguous or non-
contiguous. Only the City Council can grant permission for the provision, delivery, or furnishing of
water and/or sewer utilities to anyone beyond the corporate limi ts of the City, such permission being
evidenced by a formal commitment noted in the minutes of a regular City Council meeting. All
extensions of water and/or sewer utilities beyond the corporate limits of the City shall be made by the
City Council within their sole and complete discretion.
3. Washington statutes and case law provide that cities are not legally required to provide water or
sewer or other utility services to properties located outside the city limits, but that cities have the
discretion to provide such utilities within its urban growth area as a legislative decision, on terms and
conditions set forth in a contract.
RESOLUTION 3396
PAGE2 October 8, 2013
4. The City is not the sole or exclusive provider of sewer or water service in any area outside of the
City's corporate limits. The city shall not be considered or construed as being the sole or exclusive
utility purveyor for any properties outside of the city's corporate limits or within the city's urban growth
area.
5. Delivery of City Water and/or Sewer Utilities to Contiguous Lands:
A The City of Moses Lake will only deliver water and/or sewer utilities to contiguous lands if the
owner of those lands annexes those lands into the City, except, if the public's health, safety,
and welfare is an issue, as determined by the Grant County Health District, the City may
deliver City water and/or City sewer utilities subject to the same conditions applicable to the
delivery of City water and/or City sewer utilities to non-contiguous lands. Once within the City
the lands will be delivered City utilities as provided by City ordinance. If those contiguous
lands are not annexed into the City, the City will deliver neither City water nor City sewer
services, except as set forth in subsection b below.
B. The City Council may permit the provision of water and/or sewer service to adjacent lands
where the water and/or sewer main is adjacent to the property, the property is contiguous
lands as defined in this resolution and it is impractical for the property owner to annex the
owner's property into the city because of the previous subdivision of the land or other like
condition. Each such request will be considered by the City Council on an individual basis
and no uniform result as respects such requests is expected where each will be determined
by the unique circumstance of each property seeking permission to connect to city water
and/or sewer. If the City Council permits adjacent lands to connect to the city water and/or
sewer system, the property owner shall first comply with the procedure for the delivery of
water and/or sewer to non-contiguous lands as set forth below in Section 6.
6. Delivery of City Water and/or Sewer Utilities to Non-Contiguous Lands: The City of Moses Lake will
consider the provision of water utilities and/or the provision of sewer utilities to non-contiguous lands
when such water is available or when such sewerage capacity is available in the City sewerage
system as determined by the City Council upon the conditions listed below:
A The execution of a contract document between the land owner and the City containing the
essential elements of the water and/or sewer provision agreement as outlined below.
B. The water and/or sewer system to be built and connected to the City water utility or City
sewer utility will be built to City standards.
C. The execution of necessary document(s) as determined by the City's legal department from
the land owner to the City stating in essence that the land owner agrees to have non-
contiguous lands annexed to the City at the City's discretion when those lands can be
annexed.
Further, the document(s) will provide as a condition of receiving City water and/or City sewer
that the non-contiguous lands will not be used in any manner inconsistent with the land use
controls in place.
D. The land owner will survey the non-contiguous lands to be provided City water and/or City
sewer if requested to do so by City staff.
E. The City water and/or sewer utility services provided to the non-contiguous land will not be
changed as to either the scope, nature, or intensity of the use without further approval from
the Moses Lake City Council as such change is considered an expansion of the commitment
given unless such expansion has already been provided for in the commitment given by the
Moses Lake City Council.
RESOLUTION 3396
PAGE 3 October 8, 2013
F. Such other conditions as City staff may negotiate as being necessary and as approved by
the Moses Lake City Council.
G. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of the water and/or sewer provision agreement
shall terminate the delivery of water and/or sewer utility services to the non-contiguous land.
7. Any formal commitment given by the City Council to provide water and/or sewer utilities outside the
corporate limits of the City shall remain in effect for two (2) years except there shall be no limitation
for residential properties up to nine (9) lots from the date the commitment is given. Within the two (2)
year commitment period, the lands involved must actually be tapped into the City's water and/or sewer
utilities or the commitment given by the City Council shall be considered automatically withdrawn
without further consideration by the City Council. Any documents prepared and delivered by a party
pursuant to Section 6. A and C. shall be returned to the land owner if the commitment is terminated.
Effective Date: This policy shall control all extensions of City water and sewer utilities after August 26, 2014.
Adopted by the City Council on August 26, 2014.
Dick Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
August 20, 2014
TO: City Manager for Council Consideration
FROM: Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution -Abandon Easement -1625 Filmore
Mitko and Elka Keranov have requested the abandonment of a portion of the easements
located along the rear and interior side lot lines of Lot 9, Block 1, Crossroads Phase 4,
1625 E. Filmore Drive.
Public utilities were notified and no comments were received.
Attached is a resolution which abandons a portion of the easements. The resolution is
presented for Council consideration.
Respectfully submitted
Gilbert Alvarado
Community Development Director
GA:jt
RESOLUTION NO. 3Lf f.R Y
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS
RECITALS:
1. Mitko and Elka Keranov have requested the City of Moses Lake to abandon the easements
described as follows:
A portion of Lot 9, Block 1, Crossroads Phase 4 Major Plat, per the plat thereof, found in
Book 28, pages 100 through 104, Auditor's File Number 1284323, records of Grant County,
Washington, more particularly described as follows:
The Southerly 25 feet of the Westerly 5 feet of said Lot 9
and
The Westerly 25 feet of the Southerly 5 feet of said Lot 9.
2. Potential users of the easement have been notified of the proposed abandonment and no
comments were received.
RESOLVED:
1. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake does resolve that the easements described
above will be abandoned and that the City Manager is authorized to execute the necessary
documents in order to accomplish that abandonment.
Adopted by the City Council on August 26, 2014.
ATTEST: Dick Deane, Mayor
W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director
E. FILMORE DRIVE
N 89°13'48" W Pl/OP. I.fl[
' CJ CJ
c:)
CJ .,..__
~ ~-<_:-:.:·: ~·.;.·_~: .. }
~.:/··i·.:·-63.:: ,; .. : 10' PUE
it.~·~{.:: . . ::st~~K9 1l :; :-; >:< .: .. /-_. .:· . : • . WAlWAY . l lij
7.50' 20 . •
7' REQ'D
"· "i x3 ·.t· .• . ...... -, -n . 6:
Q O . a -
LOT 8
BLOCK 1
• I Revisions
~
~
~I ;,,. I I N
I I
Lw I I "' :::::i , ,t------
.Q I ·1.::J '(JS 80t l
LC): ~OOOMJEJOJ ::li.J I J :G
~ II
0111/d.
/\O_J
30.00'
25' RtQ'D
l_0) '~ ~~ ~eP"'
i-..:
(_)
< CJ
V)
~ -.....
ct ..: ~ ct:
~ ~ '
C\J .,..__
'
"' tr)
PllOP. UNC 71. 9 7'
@
@
LOT 10
BLOCK 1 CURVE
Cf 2
C13
C14
CURVE TABLE
LENGTH RADIUS
6.38' 41.00
6.53' 10.00
15.71' 10.00
DELTA
8"f55'19•
37'25'41•
90·00'00"
• '. ' I I>";; ' '~i;;2;'t:,;:-:r5,l
!·· .... {.fl{.. . ~,{,;t I•
R-3 BUILDING SETBACKS
FRONT /CORNER
FRONT GARAGE
151 (FROM PL)
20' (FROM PL)
5' (FROM PL)
5' (FROM PL)
I '
SCALE: 1:20
HAYDEN HOMES
2464 SW GLACIER PLACE, SUITE 110
REDMOND, OR 97756
(541) 9.23-6607
SIDE
REAR
LOT 9 BLOCK 1
ADDRESS: 1625 EAST FILMORE DRIVE
CROSSROADS -PHASE 4
MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON
August 25, 2014
TO: City Manager for Council Consideration
FROM: Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution -Nuisance Abatement -Gibson
Attached is a resolution providing for the abatement of nuisances at 2404 W. Lakeside
Drive, owned by Vona Gibson. 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.
The resolution is attached for Council consideration.
Respectfully submitted
i\P.1>r{"" '110~vtMtJ / v Jj_,1',y" " I/ ,
Gilbert Alvarado
Community Development Director
GA:jt
RESOLUTION NO. 31 &5"
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT VONA GIBSON IS THE OWNER OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WITH IN THE CITY; THAT AN UISANCE 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 Lot
2, less street and Nely 1 O' of Lot 3, Block 3, Pleasant View Deferral, Parcel #110890000, Moses Lake,
Washington, is the site of public nuisance violations of Moses Lake Municipal Code (MLMC) 8.14.030 U.
The records of Grant County show the owners of the subject property to be Vona Gibson, 2404 W .
Lakeside, Moses Lake, WA 98837.
2. Notice. On May 12, 2014, the Code Enforcement Officer caused to be delivered by regular 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 August 4, 2014, the Code
Enforcement Officer caused to be delivered to Vona Gibson a notice of the intent of the City Council to
consider adoption of a resolution such as this at its meeting of August 26, 2014. 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: 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.
4. Hearing. On August 26 , 2014 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:
Clair Harden, Moses Lake Code Enforcement Officer
5.2. The following exhibits were made a part of the record of the proceedings:
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 12, 2014 from
the Code Enforcement Officer addressed to Vona Gibson, 2404 W. Lakeside Drive, Moses Lake,
WA 98837
EXHIBIT #3: Pictures taken by Code Enforcement Officer of the property located at 2404 W.
Lakeside, Moses Lake, Washington.
RESOLUTION NO.
Page 2 August 26, 2014
EXHIBIT #4: Letter dated August 4, 2014, from the Code Enforcement Officer to Vona Gibson
advising the property owner of the hearing regarding abatement of property, scheduled for August
26, 2014.
Resolved:
1. A public nuisance in violation of MLMC 8.13.030 U exists on the subject property at 2404 W. Lakeside,
Moses Lake, Washington. Vona Gibson, 2404 W. Lakeside, Moses Lake, WA 98837 is the record
contract owner of the subject property per the records of Grant County.
2. The public nuisance located upon the subject property consists of:
2.1. grasses and weeds in excess of 12" in height are covering the back yard and the sidewalk
planter strip
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. Vona Gibson, the record contract owner, has 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 grasses and weeds must be cut down and removed from these areas
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, 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 regu lar
mail after its approval by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council on August 26, 2014.
Dick Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
W . Robert Taylor, Finance Director
8.14.030
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
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 deter-
mines 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.
The existence of any trash, dirt, filth, and carcass of any animal, waste shrubs, accumulation
of lawn or yard trimmings or other offensive matter.
Defective or overflowing septic or sewage systems, and the existence of any noxious, foul,
or putrid liquid or substance which poses a health hazard or creates a noxious odor.
Any man-caused pool of standing or stagnant water, except storm drainage systems, which
serves as a breeding area for insects.
Accumulation of garbage, decaying vegetation, manure, dead animals, or other noxious
things in a street or alley, or on public or private property to an extent injurious to the public
health as determined by the Health Officer.
All other acts, failure to act, occupations, or use of property which is determined by the Health
Officer to be a menace to the health of the public.
All limbs of trees which are less than seven (7) feet above the surface of any public sidewalk,
or twelve (12) feet above the surface of any street.
All buildings, other structures, or portions thereof which have been damaged by fire, decay,
neglect, or have otherwise deteriorated or become dilapidated so as to endanger the safety
of the public.
All explosives, flammable liquids, and other dangerous substances stored or used in any
manner in violation of the State Fire Code.
The keeping or harboring of any dog, fowl, or other animal which by frequent or habitual
howling, yelping, barking, crowing, or in the making of other noises, annoys or disturbs the
public, or the habitual allowing of dogs kept at any one address to run at large in violation of
Chapter 6.05 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Animal Control".
Making or causing to be made by any means whatsoever any noise of any kind which is a
violation of Chapters 8.28 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Noise Control".
The frequent, repetitive, or continuous sound made by any secured, unsecured, or
deteriorated membrane or sheet metal, being moved by the wind or other source, which
unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of adjacent property owners or
possessors.
Dumping, throwing, placing, leaving or causing or permitting to be dumped, thrown, placed
or left, any filth, paper, cans, glass, rubbish, trash garbage, grass trimmings, shrub trimming,
and shrubbery of any kind, in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, ditch, or public or private
property of another in the city.
The erecting, maintaining, using, placing, depositing, leaving or permitting to be or remain
in or upon any private lot, building, structure or premises, or in or upon any street, alley,
sidewalk, park, parkway or other public or private place in the city, any one or more of the
following disorderly, disturbing, unsanitary, fly-producing, rat-harboring, disease-causing
places, conditions or things:
1. Any putrid, unhealthy or unwholesome bones, meat, hides, skins, or whole or any
part of any dead animal, fish or fowl, or waste parts of fish, vegetable or animal
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 4
matter in any quantity; but nothing herein shall prevent the temporary retention of
waste in approved covered receptacles.
2. Any privies, vaults, cesspools, sumps, pits or like places which are not securely
protected from flies and rats, or which are foul or malodorous.
3. Any filthy, littered or trash-covered dwellings, cellars, house yards, barnyards, stable
yards, factory yards, vacant areas in the rear of stores, vacant lots, houses, buildings
or premises.
4. Any animal manure in any quantity which is not securely protected from flies or
weather conditions, or which is kept or handled in violation of any ordinance of the
city.
5. Any poison oak or poison ivy, Russian thistle or other noxious weeds, as defined by
Chapter 8.22 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Noxious Weed Control"
whether growing or otherwise; but nothing herein shall prevent the temporary
retention of such weeds in approved covered receptacles.
6. Any bottles, cans, glass, ashes, small pieces of scrap iron, wire, metal articles, bric-
a-brac, broken crockery, broken glass, broken plaster and all such trash, or
abandoned material, unless it is kept in approved covered bins or galvanized iron
receptacles.
7. Any trash, litter, rags, accumulations or empty barrels, boxes, crates, packing cases,
mattresses, bedding, excelsior, packing hay, straw or other packing material, lumber
not neatly piled, scrap iron, tin or other metal not neatly piled, or anything whatsoever
in which flies or rats may breed or multiply or which may be a fire hazard.
N. The permitting to remain outside any dwelling, building, or other structure, or within any
unoccupied or abandoned building, dwelling, or other structure, in a place accessible to
children, any abandoned, unattended, or discarded ice chest, refrigerator or other airtight
contained, which does not have the door, lid or other locking device removed.
0 . Any pit, hole, basin or excavation which is unguarded or dangerous to life or has been
abandoned, or is no longer used for the purpose constructed, or is maintained contrary to
statutes, ordinances, or regulations.
P. Any well or storage tank permitted to remain on any public or private property without being
securely closed or barring any entrance or trap door thereto, or without filling or capping any
well.
Q. The repair or abandonment of any automobile, truck, or other motor vehicle of any kind upon
the public streets or alleys of the city.
R. The keeping or permitting the existence of any bees or other insects, reptiles, rodents, fowl,
or any other animals, domestic or wild, in any manner contrary to law, or which affect the
safety of the public.
S. The existence of any fence, other structure, or thing on private or public property abutting or
fronting upon any public street, sidewalk, or place, which is sagging, leaning, fallen, decayed
or is otherwise dilapidated and creating an unsafe condition.
T. The existence of any vine, shrub, or plant growing on, around, or in front of any fire hydrant,
utility pole, utility box, or any other appliance or facility provided for fire protection, public or
private utility purposes in such a way as to obscure from view or impair access thereto.
Exhibit 1
Page 2 of 4
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.
V. The existence of any dead , diseased, infected, or dying tree, shrub, or other vegetation which
may pose a danger to vegetation, crops, property, or persons.
W. The existence of any accumulation of materials or objects in a location when the same
endangers property, safety or constitutes a fire hazard.
X. The depositing or burning or causing to be deposited or burned in any street, alley, sidewalk,
parkway or other public place which is open to travel, of any hay, straw, paper, wood, boards,
boxes, leaves, manure or other rubbish or material.
Y. The storage or keeping on any premises for more than thirty days of any used or unused
building materials as defined in Section 8.14.010 (F), whose retail cost new would exceed
one hundred dollars, without a special permit from the building official; provided, that nothing
herein shall:
1. Prohibit such storage without a permit when done in conjunction with a construction
project for which a building permit has been issued and which is being prosecuted
diligently to completion.
2. Prohibit such storage without a permit upon the prem ises of a bona fide lumber yard,
dealer in building materials or other commercial enterprise when the same is
permitted under the zoning ordinance and other applicable laws.
3. Make lawful any such storage or keeping when it is prohibited by other ordinances
or laws.
Z. The existence on any premises of any unused and abandoned trailer, house trailer, automo-
bile, boat or other vehicle or major parts thereof.
AA. The keeping or maintenance in any area on private property which is clearly visible from a
public street, sidewalk, park or other public area any accumulation, collection or untidy storage
of any of the following: old appliances or parts thereof; old iron, steel, aluminum or other
metal; inoperable vehicles, vehicle parts, machinery or equipment; mattresses, bedding,
clothing, rags or cloth ; straw, packing materials, cardboard or paper, tin cans, wire, bottles,
glass, cans, barrels, bins, boxes, containers, ashes, plaster or cement; or wood . This
determination shall not apply to conditions completely enclosed within a building or fencing so
as not to be visible from public property.
BB . The keeping, permitting or harboring of any fowl, pigeons, rabbits, hoofed or cloven footed
animals, except for caged birds kept within a residence or business.
Exhibit 1
Page 3 of 4
CC. The depositing of any debris, vegetation, lawn clippings, lumber piles, wood piles, auto parts
or bodies, garbage and the like, or storing of any material of any kind, provided that in
residential zones that shall include garbage cans or refuse containers in the alleys of the city,
except on garbage pickup day.
DD. The existence of graffiti, which is defined as a defacing, damaging, or destructive inscription,
figure or design painted, drawn or the like, on the exterior of any building, fence, gate, or other
structures or on rocks, bridges, trees, or other real or personal property.
EE. The locating of automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles, trailers, boats, or any other vehicles,
vessels, or the like for the purpose of advertising its sale on property located in any commercial
or industrial zone not owned by the seller.
FF. The permitting of any condition or situation where the soil has been disrupted, disturbed, or
destablized so as to allow blowing dust to exist.
GG. The existence on any premise any unsecured, unused, or abandoned building or structures.
HH. For any building the existence of any broken glass in windows or doors for more than thirty (30)
days.
II. Buildings or portions thereof that have faulty weather protection, such as openings in walls and
roofs. Faulty weather protection shall include temporary weather barriers, such as tarps,
plastic or similar material, left in place for more than thirty (30) days.
JJ. Any building which has a window, door, or other exterior opening closed by extrinsic devices
or some other manner, with material that has not been painted to match or compliment the
buildings exterior or remains boarded up for more than sixty (60) days.
KK. Any boarded up building that remains boarded up for more than ninety (90) days.
LL Permitting any violation of RCW 59.18.510 in any rental dwelling unit.
MM. Criminal street gangs and any pattern of criminal street gang activity are each declared to be
a public nuisance in violation of this chapter and other applicable code provisions, including
but not limited to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and State
Housing Code, subject to abatement through all available means. In addition thereto and
without limitation, any pattern of criminal street gang activity upon, and the presence and use
of property by, a criminal street gang, with the owner's knowledge or consent, constitutes a
public nuisance and grounds for revocation of any permit or license regulating or authorizing
the use of such property.
Exhibit 1
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
MOSES LAKE
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT OR CEASE ACTIVITY
TO: Vona Gibson
2404 W Lakeside Dr
Moses Lake, WA 98837
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Provisions of the City of Moses Lake Code Violated:
Moses Lake Municipal Code 8.14.0300
Street Address of Violation:
2404 W Lakeside Dr, Moses Lake, WA 98837
Brief Legal Description of Property Where Violation Exists:
Lot 2 LS ST & NELY 10' Of Lot 3 Block 3 Pleasant View Defferal #13-0014 110890000
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CORRECT OR CEASE THE ACTIVITY AS FOLLOWS:
Action Necessary to Correct Violation:
Grasses and weeds must be cut down and or removed from these areas.
Time by Which Violation is to be Corrected or Activty Ceased
The City is requiring these corrections listed on this Notice and Order be accomplished by
Thursday,May,22,2014
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT THE MOSES LAKE CITY CODE PROVIDES FOR THE
FOLLOWING PENALTIES:
Exhibit 2
Page 1 of 2
City Manager 764-3701 ·City Attorney 764-3703 ·Community Development 764-3750 ·Finance 764·3717 ·Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 ·Municipal Court 764-3701 ·Parks & Recreation 764-3805 ·Police 764-3887 ·Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.· P.O. Drawer 1579 ·Moses Lake, WA 98837-0244 · www.cityofml.com
'
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 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)(l )].
2. If a penalty has been assessed pursuant to 1.20.0SO(E)(l ), a Court shall assess that
penalty and any additional penalty the Court considers appropriate plus court costs and
attorney's fees.
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 AFOREMENTIONED VIOLATION IS NOT
CORRECTED AS SPECIFIED HERIN THIS MA TIER WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY FOR CIVIL ENFORCEMENT BY INJUNCTION OR OTHER APROPRIATE ACTION.
Dated this Monday, May 12, 2014
Brett Hollen
Code Enforcement
City of Moses Lake
509-764-3748
~).{.hi.bi t 1...
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 3
Pge 1 of 1
August, 04, 2014
Vona Gibson C/O Stewart Gibson
2404 W Lakeside Dr
Moses Lake, WA 98837
CITY OF
MOSES LAKE
Re: Hearing to Permit City Abatement of Nuisance
Property located at: 2404 W Lakeside Dr, Parcel 110890000, Moses Lake, WA 98837
Via Regular Mail and Return Receipt Mail
Vona Gibson C/O Stewart Gibson
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 2 LS ST & NELY 10' Of Lot 3 Block 3 Pleasant View Defferal #13-0014.
This property is located at: 2404 W Lakeside Dr, Parcel 110890000, Moses Lake, WA 9883 7
On Monday, May 12, 2014 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 August 04, 2014, the
nuisance located on the subject property has not been corrected or removed.
Pursuant to Moses Lake Municipal Code (MLMC) 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 Tuesday, August 26, 2014
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 that 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 IMPORTANT. YOUR FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE MAY IMPACT
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.
~
Clair Harden
Code Enforcement Officer 1
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
Exhibit 4
City Manager 764-3701 ·City Attorney 764-3703 ·Community Development 764-3750 ·Finance 764-3717 ·Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 ·Municipal Court 764-3701 ·Parks & Recreation 764-3805 ·Police 764-3887 ·Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.· P.O. Drawer 1579 ·Moses Lake, WA 98837-0244 · www.cityofml.com
CITY Of
MOSES LAKE
August 21, 2014
TO: City Manager for Council Consideration
FROM: Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Desert Golf, LLC -Annexation Request
Attached is a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings and a Petition for
Annexation. The documents have been signed by Pamp Maiers and Lawrence Jacobsen
on behalf of Desert Golf, LLC.
This proposed annexation is for approximately 7 .2 acres of property located north of 1-90
and off of Road F.2.
At this time it is suggested to the Council that it receipt the Notice of Intention to
Commence Annexation Proceedings, accept the Notice of Intention to Commence
Annexation Proceedings , and accept the Petition for Annexation. If the Council agrees with
the suggestion . then the Petition for Annexation will be forwarded to the Grant County
Auditor with a request for a Sufficiency Certificate. Once the Sufficiency Certificate is
received, the City will schedule the first reading of an annexation ordinance at the next
available meeting.
Respectf~
Gilbert Alvarado
Community Development Director
GA:jt
City Manager 764-3701 •City Attorney 764-3703 •Community Denlopment 764-3750 •Finance 764-3717 •Fire 765-2204
Municipal Services 764-3783 •Municipal Court 764-3701 • Parks & Recreation 764-3805 •Police 764-3887 •Fax 764-3739
401 S Balsam St.• P.O. Box 1579 •Moses Lake, WA 98837-0224 • www.cityofml.com
DESERT GOLF, LLC
July 9, 2014
Gilbert Alvarado
PO BOX850
MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON 98837
(509) 765-5885
(509) 765-8052 -Fax
Community Development Director
City of Moses Lake
PO Drawer 1579
Moses Lake, Washington, 98837
Subject: Request for City Services
Dear Gil:
JUL 1 0 2014
COMMUNffV l;EVELOPMENT
PLANNINl, & BUILDING
CITY or MOSES LAI\E
Desert Golf LLC recently completed a Boundary Line Adjustment and Legal Segregation for the property
containing the Pillar Rock Grill restaurant. The segregated parcel is adjacent easterly of the residential
development known as Sun Terrace that is annexed to the City of Moses Lake. Please see attached
drawing.
Desert Golf would like to connect the Pillar Rock Grill to City water and sewer services which are
presently stubbed to the subject property. Desert Golf is prepared to annex the subject segregated
parcel. At this time we are engineering the proposed water and sewer service lines and connections
which will be presented to Municipal Services engineers when completed for their approval.
Please accept this communication as formal application for those services.
Desert Golf, LLC
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
TO: The City Council of the City of Moses Lake
Comesnow .£,,,,, £4/J;._,, ;::;,,,/J,.J-;:/~ :z;_,_./,/; ,r 7-
a n d hereby notifies the City Council of the City of Moses Lak~ that i.t. int~njs to commence
proceedings to have the real property owned by ~ .. --~ / ~ , / ,... ;;C::. -
and described below annexed to the City of Moses Lake, that it is the owner of in excess
of ten percent (10%) in value according to the assessed valuation thereof, of the property
for which annexation will be petitioned; and that it respectfully requests the City Council
within sixty (60) days to determine whether the city accepts the proposed annexation.
Legal Description:
SEE ATTACHED
Dated: __ 9_·_-_-~"-/_-_/_'_~-----
AU6 7 20 14
CO\i1\tU'I r\" IJt\'El,OPrilENT
111.,1:,11\'J.\1; ~ lllJ ILIJING
fl I"\' 01· .\!OSl:'.S LAKE
EXHIBIT A AUG 7 2014
COMMIJNITY DE\'El.OP~a:rH
That portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 19 North~~m~~~~~t!~~M .,
County of Grant, State of Washington, as delineated and described on thll:foun~'!lfy C:m'e ,
Adjustment Record of Survey drawing prepared by Western Pacific Engineering and Survey,
Inc., dated June, 2014, and as described as follows:
BEGINNING at the southwest corner of Parcel 2 as described in the Hansen/Moses Lake Golf
Club Record of Survey recorded under Grant County Auditor's file number 840420, said corner
bears South 00°22'51" West, coincident with the west boundary line of the east half of the
southwest quarter of said Section 30, a distance of 828.66 feet; thence North 89°37'14" West a
distance of 121.77 feet to the easterly right of way of Fairway Drive as described on the Country
Club Estates No. 2 plat, as recorded in Grant County's Plat Book 9, page 10, and to the
beginning of a non-tangent curve whose radius point of said curve bears North 89°32'48" West
a distance of 250.00 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly on a 250.00-foot radius curve
concave to the west, coincident with the easterly right of way of said Fairway Drive, a distance
of 156.96 feet, coincident with the arc of said curve through a central angle of 35°58'19" to the
right, the long chord of said curve bears South 18°26'21" West a distance of 154.39 feet; thence
South 36°25'29" West, coincident with the easterly right of way of said Fairway Drive, a distance
of 224.89 feet, to the beginning of a curve, said curve's radius point bears South 53°34'31" East
a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, southerly and southeasterly on a 120.00-foot
radius curve concave to the east, coincident with the easterly and northeasterly right of way of
said Fairway Drive, a distance of 200.54 feet, coincident with the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 95°45'04" to the left, the long chord of said curve bears South 11°27'03" East a
distance of 178.01 feet; thence South 59°19'31" East, coincident with the northeasterly right of
way of said Fairway Drive, a distance of 41 .83 feet, to the northwesterly right of way for Road
F.2 as described in Grant County Auditor file number 397048 and to the beginning of a non-
tangent curve whose radius point of said curve bears South 52°52'56" East a distance of 430.00
feet; thence northeasterly and easterly, coincident with the said northwesterly right of way for
Road F.2, on a 430.00-foot radius curve concave to the southeast a distance of 234.94 feet,
coincident with the arc of said curve through a central angle of 31°18'17" to the right, the long
chord of said curve bears North 52°46'12" East a distance of 232.03 feet; thence North
68°25'21" East, coincident with the said northwesterly right of way for Road F.2, a distance of
49.1 O feet, to a point on the west boundary line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said
Section 30; thence South 00°22'51" West, coincident with the west boundary line of the east half
of the southwest quarter of said Section 30, a distance of 0.18 feet to the northwest corner of
the parcel described under Grant County Auditor file number 411282; thence North 69°14'21 "
East, coincident with the said parcel described under Grant County Auditor file number 411282,
a distance of 206.80 feet; thence South 20°45'39" East, coincident with the said parcel
described under Grant County Auditor file number 411282, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence
North 70°32'06" East a distance of 209.82 feet; thence North 72°31 '1 O" East a distance of
257.53 feet; thence North 17°28'50" West a distance of 90.00 feet; thence North 78°03'00"
West a distance of 63.93 feet; thence North 16°50'00" East a distance of 11 .43 feet; thence
North 38°31 '00" West a distance of 19.37 feet; thence North 05°00'00" East a distance of 43.93
feet; thence North 42°20'32" East a distance of 57.98 feet; thence North 49°17'31 " East a
distance of 4 7 .60 feet; thence North 01 °39'00" East a distance of 41.11 feet; thence North
84°44'48" West a distance of 133.80 feet; thence North 12°34'00" West a distance of 28.00
feet; thence South 85°25'44" West a distance of 173.57 feet; thence South 03°36'57" East a
1334925 07 /10/2014 03 :35 PM QCD
Page 4 of 5 R 76.00 Grant Co, WA
GRANT COUNTY TITLE
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
distance of 43.84 feet; thence South 31°30'58" West a distance of 63.73 feet; thence South
87°41 '06" West a distance of 85.00 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 2 as described on the
Hansen/Moses Lake Golf Club Record of Survey recorded under Grant County Auditor's file
number 840420; thence South 87°41 '06" West, coincident with the south boundary line of the
said Parcel 2, a distance of 209.85 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
GRANT COUNTY TITLE COMPANY
HAS PLACED THIS OOCU MENT OF RECORD AS A CUSTOMER COURTESY
AND ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ACCURACY OR VALIDITY OF THE
[X)CUMENT.
1334925 07/10/2014 03 :35 PM QCD
Page 5 of 5 R 76 .00 Grant Co, WA GRANT COUNTY TITLE
111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 11111111
5
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
TO: City Council, City of Moses Lake Date: £?/4t /Jr
7/
We, the undersigned, the legal owners of property, according to the records of the Grant County
Assessor, do hereby petition the below described property be annexed by the City of Moses Lake,
and be included within the boundaries of said city. Said annexation is sought pursuant to RCW
35A.14.120 -.150.
Legal Description:
See Attached
WARNING
Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly
signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is
not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes
herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Signature
1..-
2~
Name and Address and Date
f?:'..-S-,bg .-OtM e ,/~..{, &/ . )£
$5e~ ,0£ dcd 98/37 . ,)
AUG 7 2014
CO,\L\ll_INIT\' Ll[V[LOPJ\1£NT
PLANNJ:\G & BU ILDING
CIT\' OF iV!OSES LAKE
May 12, 2005
AU6 7 2014
EXHIBIT A C01\IM!1Nrt \' OE\'t:UWi\l ENT
tiLAN,\'l~1 · & HIJHJllt'JG That portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 19 North, Rct'l!I~ g~ .¥ie§l:i:.,v~/~¥lH
County of Grant, State of Washington, as delineated and described on the Boundary Line
Adjustment Record of Survey drawing prepared by Western Pacific Engineering and Survey,
Inc., dated June, 2014, and as described as follows:
BEGINNING at the southwest corner of Parcel 2 as described in the Hansen/Moses Lake Golf
Club Record of Survey recorded under Grant County Auditor's file number 840420, said corner
bears South 00°22'51" West, coincident with the west boundary line of the east half of the
southwest quarter of said Section 30, a distance of 828.66 feet; thence North 89°37'14" West a
distance of 121 .77 feet to the easterly right of way of Fairway Drive as described on the Country
Club Estates No. 2 plat, as recorded in Grant County's Plat Book 9, page 1 o, and to the
beginning of a non-tangent curve whose radius point of said curve bears North 89°32'48" West
a distance of 250.00 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly on a 250.00-foot radius curve
concave to the west, coincident with the easterly right of way of said Fairway Drive, a distance
of 156.96 feet, coincident with the arc of said curve through a central angle of 35°58'19" to the
right, the long chord of said curve bears South 18°26'21" West a distance of 154.39 feet; thence
South 36°25'29" West, coincident with the easterly right of way of said Fairway Drive, a distance
of 224.89 feet, to the beginning of a curve, said curve's radius point bears South 53°34'31" East
a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, southerly and southeasterly on a 120.00-foot
radius curve concave to the east, coincident with the easterly and northeasterly right of way of
said Fairway Drive, a distance of 200.54 feet, coincident with the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 95°45'04" to the left, the long chord of said curve bears South 11 °27'03" East a
distance of 178.01 feet; thence South 59°19'31" East, coincident with the northeasterly right of
way of said FairNay Drive, a distance of 41.83 feet, to the northwesterly right of way for Road
F.2 as described in Grant County Auditor file number 397048 and to the beginning of a non-
tangent curve whose radius point of said curve bears South 52°52'56" East a distance of 430.00
feet; thence northeasterly and easterly, coincident with the said northwesterly right of way for
Road F.2, on a 430.00-foot radius curve concave to the southeast a distance of 234.94 feet,
coincident with the arc of said curve through a central angle of 31 °18'17" to the right, the long
chord of said curve bears North 52°46'12" East a distance of 232.03 feet; thence North
68°25'21" East, coincident with the said northwesterly right of way for Road F.2, a distance of
49.10 feet, to a point on the west boundary line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said
Section 30; thence South 00°22'51" West, coincident with the west boundary line of the east half
of the southwest quarter of said Section 30, a distance of 0.18 feet to the northwest corner of
the parcel described under Grant County Auditor file number 411282; thence North 69°14'21"
East, coincident with the said parcel described under Grant County Auditor file number 411282,
a distance of 206.80 feet; thence South 20°45'39" East, coincident with the said parcel
described under Grant County Auditor file number 411282, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence
North 70°32'06" East a distance of 209.82 feet; thence North 72°31 '10" East a distance of
257.53 feet; thence North 17°28'50" West a distance of 90.00 feet; thence North 78°03'00"
West a distance of 63.93 feet; thence North 16°50'00" East a distance of 11.43 feet; thence
North 38°31 '00" West a distance of 19.37 feet; thence North 05°00'00" East a distance of 43.93
feet; thence North 42°20'32" East a distance of 57.98 feet; thence North 49°17'31" East a
distance of 4 7 .60 feet; thence North 01 °39'00" East a distance of 41.11 feet; thence North
84°44'48" West a distance of 133.80 feet; thence North 12°34'00" West a distance of 28.00
feet; thence South 85°25'44" West a distance of 173.57 feet; thence South 03°36'57" East a
1334925 0111012014 03:35 PM aco
Page 4 of 5 R 76 .00 Grant Co, WA GRANT COUNTY TITLE
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
distance of 43.84 feet; thence South 31°30'58" West a distance of 63.73 feet; thence South
87°41 '06" West a distance of 85.00 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 2 as described on the
Hansen/Moses Lake Golf Club Record of Survey recorded under Grant County Auditor's file
number 840420; thence South 87°41 '06" West, coincident with the south boundary line of the
said Parcel 2, a distance of 209.85 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
GRANT COUNTY TITLE COMPANY
HAS PLACED THIS DOCUMENT OF RECORD AS A CUSTOMER COURTESY
AND ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ACCURACY OR VALIDITY OF THE
DOCUMENT.
1334925 0111012014 03:35 PM aco Page 5 of 5 R 76.00 Grant Co , WA GRANT COUNTY TITLE
11111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111
5
TerraScan MapSifter -Grant County Washington
P1rct':
AddrtHl 109 \Y 0Msion
Owntt Wuhit19ton llulu>'
s.ctior1 Tl 1R29530
Wilck•rds:
'-t · aHth.aracttrs
l2t111 court
_ (undtt"lccrt) -one c:k1ru ttr
2_11 •t11
ltgend
http://grantwa.mapsifter.com/default.aspx
Page 1of1
8/8/2014
MAIERS
DEVELOPMENT
Co RPO RATION
P.O. Box 1245 • 843 E. Kittleson Road • Moses Lake, WA 98837
July 10, 2014
Joe Gavinski, City Manager
Moses Lake City Council
PO Drawer 1579
Moses Lake, WA 98837
Subject: Block Street
Dear Mr Gavinski and Council Members;
Office: (509) 765-7927 • Fax: (509) 765-8052
On behalf of Maiers Development Corporation and Maiers Enterprises, LLC, I am writing this letter as a
request for the City of Moses Lake to improve Block Street to City Standards from Fifth Avenue to
Wheeler Road. Maiers Development improved Block Street from East Broadway to Fifth Avenue to City
Standards in 1996 when it developed Broadway Business Park. Since that time, we have attracted many
new businesses and professional offices including the movie theater, two 18000 sq ft office buildings,
and several retail outlets on East Broadway.
We have recently signed long term leases with two large medical firms, namely Fresenius Medical care
(dialysis center) and Providence Physicians Services, that sometimes require quick access to Samaritan
Hospital. In addition we are discussing a new facility with a potential customer that also requires
immediate response to the hospital. Presently, Block Street is not a good option because it is not
improved with hard surface and because there are stop signs at the intersection of Penn Street.
Because Penn has very little traffic since the City has moved their facilities, we request that the stop
signs be reversed so that the stop is on Penn.
If this item could be placed on the City Council agenda sometime in the near future, I will be happy to
attend and make a presentation. I will bring representatives from the various entities that also want the
improvements done.
City of Moses Lake
Shoreline Master Program Update
City Council Public Hearing and Comments
Responsiveness Summary
Please Note: This report summarizes all of the comments received in response to the draft Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on March 27, 2014. This includes both oral
testimony provided at the continued public hearing through June 24, 2014 and written testimony received prior to the
comment deadline on June 30, 2014. The responses provided are City Council and staff responses to these public
comments and for certain key policy issues the Planning Commission's response and recommendation is also provided.
Notes:
1. Bracketed information [x] identifies who made each comment. Some comments have been summarized or edited
for clarity, some are reproduced verbatim and are shown in italics. Numbers correspond to the list of Com mentors
at the end of this document.
2. Where there is a simple change where language is proposed to be modified, it is shown in the response column as
"Proposed:" and then the actual provisions with underlines for additions and strikeouts for deletions.
3. Abbreviations used in this document:
CUP = Conditional Use Permit
GMA =Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A
MURO = Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District
PC= Planning Commission
SMA =Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58
SMP = Shoreline Master Program
WDFW =Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
I comment
Chapter 6, General Policies and Regulations
p.16. 6-30-070-C-5-e-iii. Objection to wording of
provision "Applicants shall demonstrate sufficient
scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and
financial resources to complete and monitor any
proposed or required wetland mitigation project."
This would be difficult for applicants to demonstrate,
and the wording is a bit confusing where when there
are clear requirements for a qualified professional
above in section 5.d.1 on p.14. It should not be
expected that an applicant have such technical
expertise, rather refer to section 5.d.1. [1]
p.16. 6-30-070-C-5-e-iv (list of possible wetland
mitigation options). Comment: Add an option to
use the Credit/Debit method, which is more
specific. [1]
I Response
The point here is not that the applicant would have the technical
expertise personally, but that slhe can prove thats/he has retained the
appropriate professionals and that the work will be completed as
proposed.
Proposed: Mitigation actions that require compensation by restoration
of a former wetland, enhancement of a degraded wetland, or creation
of new wetlands shall use the Credit/Debit method or shall occur in the
following order of preference:
a.Restoring a former wetland or creating a new wetland on the site of
the project;
b. Restoring a former wetland or creating a new wetland in the same
sub-basin as the project site;
c. Creating wetlands from disturbed upland sites outside of the
subbasin;
d. Enhancing degraded wetlands;
e. Preserving high quality wetlands that are under imminent threat.
I
I comment
p.16. 6-30-070-C-5-e-v (mitigation ratios). While the
provisions are generally well written and thorough,
this compensatory mitigation standard does not
reflect the 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 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. [1]
p.17. 6-30-070-C-5-e-vii (list of agencies to send
compensatory mitigation reports to). It would be
beneficial to applicants to be informed that permits
from the Corps and Ecology may be required as
well. [1]
p.18. Table 6.1. Buffers for Category 3 and 4
wetlands have been reduced arbitrarily from 60'
(with additional buffers of 30' and 60') and 40'; to 25'
for both categories with no additional area for higher
scores. (1]
p.22. 6-50-030-7. Add Dept. of Ecology to the list of
agencies that would have permit requirements for
dredging. [1]
I Response
The Planning Commission recommendation of not requiring mitigation
for any larger area than has been impacted is supported by the City
Council.
We agree that applicants should be informed of other agencies that
may require permits, but within our regulations is not the right place
to put it.
The Planning Commission recommendation of a 25' buffer for
Category 3 and 4 wetlands is supported by the City Council and has
been determined to be adequate based on the Cumulative Impact
Analysis developed by The Watershed Company.
Proposed: Any dredging or filling activities shall be conducted in such
a way as to minimize the effects on water quality from the addition of
suspended solids, leaching of contaminants, or disturbances to
habitat, and shall be consistent with this master program, including the
dredging and filling provisions in Chapter 8, as well as the
requirements of applicable regulatory agencies, including but not
limited to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifei
Washington Department of Ecology, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Chapter 7: Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations
p.4. 7-30-030-1. (Boating facilities)
1. The requirement that "boating facilities need to be
in character and scale with the surrounding
shoreline" is entirely subjective unless there are
standards against which to judge.
2. Need to add a reference to the mitigation chapter,
or provide specific standards and methods. [1]
Proposed: Boating facilities, including minor accessory buildings and
haul-out facilities, shall be il'l eharaeter al'ld scale with the surrounding
shoreline and shall be designed so their structures and operations will
be aesthetically compatible with or will enhance existing shoreline
features and uses. Boating facilities shall mitigate for adverse
development impacts on-site in compliance with Appendix A:
Mitigation. Adverse development impacts to adjacent properties shall
not be allowed.
I
I comment
p.4. 7-30-030-4. This regulation is difficult to
understand. Is this referring to managing
construction stormwater runoff with "stabilization"
meaning BMPs (Best Management Practices), or is
this requiring that a project permanently stabilize
shorelines where the new facility will create
erosion? If the latter, this seems to contradict other
regulations prohibiting new structures that will
require bank stabilization. Consider clarifying that
this is specific to construction runoff. [1]
p.4. 7-30-030-8. (Dredging for boating facilities).
This appears to conflict with #2 above prohibiting
new dredging for boating facilities; and with WAC
173-26-231 (3)(f) allowing dredging only to
accommodate existing navigational uses. [1]
p.6. 7-40-030-8. The statement "Plants that may
compromise shoreline values shall be prohibited" is
not possible to implement without some description
of what this means or standards by which to
compare. Delete statement or add reference to
approved vegetation list or consultation with
agencies. [1]
p.6. 7-50-020 (Dock Policies). Per RCW 173-26-
231(3)(b), SMPs should* contain a provision that
"requires new residential development of two or
more dwelling units to provide joint use or
community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than
allow individual docks for each residence." The
recently adopted Grant County SMP provides clear
language and feasibility review standards to this
effect, and was developed specifically for Moses
Lake (See May 2012 Grant County Draft SMP
Section 24.12.390 Private Moorage Facilities, p.64-
66)
*Note that when used in the context of an SMP
update, "Should" means that the particular action is
required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling
reason, based on policy of the Shoreline
Management Act and this chapter, against taking
the action (WAC 173-26-020(35)). [1]
p.7. 7-50-020-9. Add "only" before "one dock" [1]
p.7. 7-50-030 (Dock Regulations). See comments
above about joint-use docks. [1]
p.9. 7-50-030-C (Joint-use community docks).
Expand this section to include developments of two
or more dwellings. [1]
I Response
Proposed: Where installation will cause erosion during construction,
shoreline embankments of all boating facilities shall be stabilized both
landward and waterward of the ordinary high water mark bot"' during
and after eonstruetion, using methods consistent with the policies and
regulations of this SMP and best management practices.
Proposed: Marinas and launch ramps shall locate on stable shorelines
where no or a minimal amount of shoreline stabilization will be
necessary and where water depths are adequate to eliminate or
minimize the need for offs"'ore or reres"'ore e"'annel eonstruetion
dredging, maintenance dredging, spoil disposal, filling, beach
enhancement, and other maintenance activities, and eliminate the
need for offshore or foreshore channel construction dredging.
Proposed: Commercial developments shall be landscaped to visually
enhance the shoreline area and contribute to shoreline functions and
values, using primarily native, self-sustaining vegetation. Plants t"'at
fl'la~ eofl'lprofl'lise s"'oreline values s"'all be pro"'ibited. The permit
application submittal shall include a landscape plan that identifies the
size, location, and species of plants that will be used.
The Planning Commission recommendation not requiring new
residential development of two or more dwelling units to share a dock
is supported by the City Council.
Proposed: Each single family residence should be allowed Q!J.!y_one
dock.
The Planning Commission recommendation not requiring new
residential development of two or more dwelling units to share a dock
is supported by the City Council.
The Planning Commission recommendation not requiring new
residential development of two or more dwelling units to share a dock
is supported by the City Council.
I
I comment I Reseonse I
p.9. 7-50-030-C-1. Questions about the provision Proposed: All multi-family residences proposing to provide moorage
" ... if the additional facility will have no net impact facilities shall be limited to a single, joint-use moorage facility,
on shoreline ecological resources." While we provided that the City may authorize more than one joint-use dock if,
support this provision, it is not clear how this based on conditions specific to the site, a single facility would be
would be determined. Would this analysis be inappropriate for reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline
conducted by the (shoreline) administrator? environment; af!el if tRe aelelitieflal faeility er faeilities ·~viii Rave M f!et
Would the applicant be required to hire a qualified imf}aet of! sRerelifle eeolegieal reseurees.
professional? [1]
p.9. 7-50-030-C-3 (limiting the size of docks in Proposed: 11'1 SRorelifle Eflv ireflffieflts elesigflateel as "I ligR
certain environment designations). Per WAC 173-lflteRsity Resouree Area", "SRorelifle Resielefltial 8uf!es Area'',
26-231 (3)(b) new piers and docks must be restricted "SRorelifle Resielefltial Sf}eeial Reseuree Area", a fl el SRorelifle
to the minimum size necessary to serve a proposed ResieleRtial Resouree Area", the maximum size of a dock shall be
water-dependent use. This restriction cannot be the minimum necessary to accomplish moorage for one boat for each
limited only to the environment designations residence served, and the dock shall be configured to cause minimal
specified in 7-50-030-C-3. [1] disturbance to shoreline resources.
p.12. 7-80 (Municipal Offices). Questions about The consultant for the Cumulative Impacts Analysis also questioned
what this category is and why it is regulated the usefulness of this section, and suggested that it be combined with
differently than commercial or residential. [1] the Commercial section. The Municipal Offices section will be
deleted, and any future municipal offices in shoreline jurisdiction will
be regulated the same as commercial uses.
p.14. 7-90-030 (Recreation Regulations). Need to Proposed, modify Regulation #3 in 7-90-030: Shoreline recreational
add requirement for mitigation of unavoidable developments shall maintain, and, when feasible, enhance or restore
impacts related to recreational development. [1] desirable shoreline features including those that contribute to
shoreline ecological functions and processes, scenic vistas, and
aesthetic values. Removal of native vegetation to enhance views
shall be discouraged. AnY.. unavoidable imQacts shall be mitigated as
SQecified in AQQendix A: Mitigation.
p.14. 7-90-030-6. Add Mitigation Appendix to this of Proposed: Each development proposal shall include a landscape plan
referenced sections. [1] that uses primarily native, self-sustaining vegetation. Campsites,
selected view points, or other permitted structures or facilities shall be
located so as to not require damage or destruction of native
vegetation. Removal of existing native vegetation shall be the
minimum amount necessary to accommodate the permitted use.
Refer also to Clearing and Grading and Vegetation Conservation in
Chapter 8, and AQQendix A: Mitigation.
p.15. 7-100-020-6 (Residential). New multi-unit There are only 3 large parcels remaining in the City that this provision
residential development (including subdivision of would apply to, plus possibly a few smaller ones on the lower
land for more than 4 parcels) is required to provide Peninsula (see vacant land map).
community and/or public access in conformance to
local public access plans per WAC 173-26-241 (3)(j).
[1]
p.15. 7 -1 00-020-7 (Residential). Statement There are currently only 3 developments in city limits where individual
"Individual docks should be allowed for lots in docks were limited and joint use (1 development) or community (2
subdivisions with joint-use or community docks" is developments) docks were planned. See above comments for limited
not consistent with the WAC requirements. See extent of provisions that affect new shoreline subdivisions.
above comments regarding the requirement to
provide for joint-use docks on developments of 2 or
more dwelling units. [1]
I comment
p.16. 7-100-030 (Residential Regulations). New
multi-unit residential development (including
subdivision of land for more than 4 parcels) is
required to provide community and/or public access
in conformance to local public access plans per
WAC 173-26-241(3)(j). [1]
p.16. 7-100-030-9. Common Line Setbacks.
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 minimum needed to encompass a similar
view corridor on either side of a residence, and with
the application of mitigation requirements. Please
see example language from Spokane County. [1]
p.16. 7-100-030-10 (reduced shoreline buffer for lots
with less than 60' of buildable area from reduced
zoning setback line to shoreline buffer). Any buffer
reduction must be conducted through a variance
(WAC 173-27-170) and mitigation must be required
to achieve no net loss of shoreline function. (1]
p.17. 7-100-030-11 {plats with wetland or shoreline
buffers set during the platting process prior to
adoption of updated SMP). This section requires
some additional discussion between the City and
Ecology, and may need to be refined. [1]
p.17. 7-100-030-12-c. This provision establishes a
de facto 25' buffer anywhere fences are proposed.
Areas landward of a fence built parallel to the
shoreline within the buffer would be subject to
intensified use and changes in vegetation. This
contravenes wetland buffer and other shoreline
buffer provisions and should be revised or deleted.
[1]
I Response
There are only 3 large parcels remaining in the City that this provision
would apply to, plus possibly a few smaller ones on the lower
Peninsula (see vacant land map).
The 300' distance for common line setbacks has been in our draft
since at least Dec. 2005. Previous Ecology reviewers (Doug Pineo
and Glynda Case) did not raise any question about it.
The provision states that there must be no net loss of shoreline
ecological function. This implies that mitigation would be required.
Additional discussion between Ecology and City of Moses Lake shall
take place prior to local approval of SMP.
This provision was written at a time when the proposed shoreline
buffer for all residential was 25', and then this section was not updated
after the shoreline buffers were updated. The intent was that the fence
not be within the required buffer.
Proposed: New fences established parallel to the shoreline shall be
set back a miRimum of 25' from tl-ie 01 IWM outside of the shoreline
and wetland buffers and shall require native vegetative plantings
within that 25! buffer if lawn or weeds currently exist within the area.
The 25! fence setback may be reduced if the applicant is participating
in a shoreline public access plan or it there is intervening ownership
(e .g. railroad, conservancy trail, etc.) The applicant shall submit a
planting plan along with the fence permit.
I
!Chapter 8: Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations
I comment I Response I
p.3. 8-10-030-4-a. Clarify that this refers to the Proposed: If weather conditions at the time of year does not
season, not the weather on given day. [1] permit immediate restoration, replanting shall be completed
during the next planting season.
p.3. 8-10-030-4-b. "A planting plan shall be We prefer to have the planting plan requirements in #4, with
submitted to the City for review and approval". the other vegetation restoration requirements.
Should this plan simply be part of the Clearing
and Grading Plan described above in section 2?
[1]
I comment I Reseonse I
p.3. 8-10-030-4-b. This should probably be Proposed: A planting plan shall be submitted to the City for
"certified wee-free". Temporary cover crops are review and approval. Plants that may compromise shoreline
a notorious vector for nasty invasive plants. [1] valttes shall be prohibited. If necessary, a temporary sterile
certified weed-free cover crop (e.g., a sterile non-persistent
member of the grass family such sterile Triticale, barley, or oats)
shall be planted to prevent erosion during the establishment
period; said cover crop shall be maintained until the permanent
vegetation is sufficiently established to prevent erosion.
p.4. 8-10-030-6. Objection to the statement "If the Upon review, it seems unlikely that a site that has invaded by
site will fully re-vegetate with plants that will noxious weeds could revegetate on its own with beneficial
support healthy shoreline function on its own plants, when there are likely so many noxious weed seeds
within three growing seasons". How will this be present in the soil.
determined? Consider deleting this part, or give Proposed: Clearing by hand-held equipment of invasive non-clear guidelines for how an applicant would native vegetation on the State Noxious Weed List is permitted in demonstrate this. [1] shoreline areas provided the disturbed area is promptly
replanted with vegetation from the recommended list or ifthe site
will folly re ·..-egetate with plants that "ill sttpport healthy
shoreline fttnction on its own within three gro'ff•ing seasons.
p.4. 8-10-030-7. I am not clear where this Proposed: All shoreline development and activity shall use
information is contained. Is a report required of effective measures to minimize increases in surface water runoff
all clearing and grading projects? If so, it would and sedimentation that may result from clearing and grading
be helpful to cross reference here (along with activity, in comQliance with the Eastern Washington Stormwater
the revegetation plan) so an applicant for a Manual. With the reguired clearing and grading Qian submittal,
project clearly understands what is expected '.fthe applicant must include in the proposal the methods that will
and what the contents of their application must be used to control, treat, and release runoff so that receiving
include. This appears to be describing an water quality and shore properties and features shall not be
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Is this adversely affected. Such measures may include but are not
intended to be only related to construction limited to dikes, berms, catch basins or settling ponds,
storm water impacts? Is so, it should installation and maintenance of oil/water separators, grassy
acknowledge that Construction Storm water swales, interceptor drains, and landscaped buffers.
Permits from Ecology may be needed. If this is
supposed to deal with stormwater from the site
conversion, then there should be reference to
the E. WA stormwater manual. (1]
p.4. 8-10-030-10. Is Clearing and Grading the How the site is graded significantly impacts the runoff pattern, so
best place to address runoff from new we feel this is the appropriate place for this provision. The
development? [1] Building Official reviews both temporary and perm;,inent
stormwater controls in his review of the grading permit (if there
is one) and the building permit.
I comment I Reseonse I
p.5. 8-15-030-3 {mitigation for dredging). This We will add the list of submittal requirements from the Grant
requirement is appropriate but without more County draft and remove our list {8-15-030-1 ).
guidance, difficult to ascertain. How are "all Proposed: feasible measures" decided? By whom? Is there
a requirement for a report that includes analysis Dredging shall only be permitted as part of the implementation
of these items? Please see the Draft Grant of the Sediment Management element of the Restoration Plan
County SMP for a good example of application {Chapter 11 of this Shoreline Master Program). The City shall
requirements that could answer some of these require and use the following information in its review of
questions. [1] shoreline dredging and dredge material disposal proposals:
a. Dredging ·.,olumes, methods, schedules, frequency, hours of
operation, and procedures.
b. Method of disposal, including the location, size, capacity, and
ph~sical characteristics of the disposal site, transportation
methods and routes, hours of operation, and schedule.
c. Stability of bed lands adjacent to the proposed dredging site.
d. Stability of geologically hazardous areas in the vicinity of the
proposed dredging site.
e. Assessment of water quality impacts.
f. I labitat assessment meeting the standards prescribed for Fish
and Wildlife I labitat Gonsel"fation Areas in Ghapter 6, including
migratory, seasonal, and spawning use areas.
g. A descrigtion of the guq~ose of the grogosed dredging and
anal)lsis of comgliance with the golicies and regulations of this
SMP.
h. A detailed descrigtion of the existing gh)lsical character,
shoreline geomorgholog)l, and biological resources grovided by:
the area grogosed to be dredged, including:
1. A site glan mag outlining the gerimeter of the groQosed
dredge area. The mag must also include the existing bathy:met!Y
{water degths that indicate the togogragh)l below the OHWM} and
have data goints at a minimum of 2' degth increments.
2. A critical areas regort.
3. A mitigation glan if necessa!Y to address an)l identified
adverse imgacts on ecological functions or grocesses.
4. Information on stability: of areas adjacent to gro12osed
dredging and sgoils disgosal areas.
i. A detailed descrigtion of the gh)lsical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the dredge material to be removed, including:
1. Ph)lsical analy:sis of material to be dredged {material
comgosition and amount, grain size, organic material gresent,
source of material, etc.
2. Chemical anal)lsis of material to be dredged {volatile solids,
chemical ox)lgen demand {COD}, grease and oil contentj
mercu!:)l, lead, and zinc content, etc.
3. Biological anal)lsis of material to be dredged.
j. A descrigtion of the method of materials removal, including
facilities for settlement and movement.
jcomment I Reseonse I
k. Dredging procedure, including the length of time it will take
to complete dredging, method of dredging, and amount of
materials removed.
I. Freguenc~ and guantit~ of project maintenance dredging.
m. Detailed plans for dredge spoil disposal, including specific
land disposal sites and relevant information on the disposal
site, including but not limited to:
1. Dredge material disposal area
2. Ph~sical characteristics including location, topograph~,
existing drainage patterns, surface and ground water
3. Size and capacit~ of disposal site
4. Means of transportation to the disposal site
5. Proposed dewatering and stabilization of dredged
material
6. Methods of controlling erosion and sedimentation
7. Future use of the site and conformance with land use
policies and regulations
8. total estimated initial dredge volume
9. Plan for disposal of maintenance spoils for at least a 20-
~ear period, if applicable
10. H~draul ic modeling studies sufficient to identif~ existing
geoh~draulic patterns and probable effects of dredging.
p.8. 8-20-030-6 ("Placing fill in water bodies or Proposed: Fills shall be allowed only as part of a specific
wetlands to create usable land is prohibited.") proposal for a use or activity that is permitted by this master
We support this provision, but it might require a program. Placing fill in 'Water bodies or wetlands to create usable
bit more specificity. A person could argue that land is proliibited.
all of the above allowed fills "create usable
land." Perhaps the intent is to disallow fills for
private recreational use or to facilitate single
family residential construction closer to the
shoreline? [1]
p.9. 8-30-030 (Shoreline Sta bi lizatio n We prefer not to copy the WAC when possible, to make the SMP
Regulations). This section appears to be more user-friendly.
missing the allowance for stabilization for water Proposed 8-30-030-1 : New structural stabilization measures shall dependent development articulated in WAC 173-not be allowed except to protect or support an existing or 26-231(3)(a)(iii)(B)(lll). Is section 1 below approved use~ or for the restoration of ecological functions, or intended to cover that provision? Also (B)(IV) for hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to RCW Ecological Restoration appears not to be 70.1050, when non-structural or vegetative methods are not addressed as well. It might be cleaner to simply feasible or are not sufficient. New or enlarged "hard" stabilization copy the WAC language directly rather than methods shall not be allowed unless there is conclusive paraphrase as you've done throughout Section evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the 8-30. [1] primary structure or water dependent use is in danger from
shoreline erosion caused by current or waves, and that the
proposed "hard" stabilization measure is t he least impacting
method that will protect the structure. Use of shoreline
stabilization measures to create usable land is prohibited.
Note that 8-30-030-2 addresses the other part of WAC 173-26-
231 (3)(a)(iii)(B)(lll).
!comment I Reseonse I
p.10. 8-30-030-3 (shoreline stabilization). This is Proposed: Delete Regulation #3. Shoreline stabilization shall not
laudable but very difficult for an applicant or the be allo .. ed for new uses if it would cause a net loss of shoreline
City to determine. Consider making this policy ecological fttnctions on the site, within the city, or within the
language instead or provide clear standards for watershed: or if it wottld cattse significant ecological impacts to
how this is demonstrated. [1] adjacent properties or shoreline areas. fhose impacts include
accelerated erosion of adjacent properties caused by the
stabilization measures.
Add Policy #6 to 8-30-020: Shoreline stabilization should not be
allowed for new uses if it would cause a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions on the site, within the cit~. or within the
watershedj or if it would cause significant ecological impacts to
adjacent properties or shoreline areas. Those impacts include
accelerated erosion of adjacent properties caused b~ the
stabilization measures.
p.12. 8-30-070 (bulkhead regulations: "A This provision was added at the suggestion of Doug Pineo, when
bulkhead-type structure used to stabilize a dock he was the Department of Ecology reviewer of shoreline master
may be permitted, butthesizeshall be limited to programs. It can be deleted.
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. (1]
p.13. 8-35-030-1. This is a sensible regulation Proposed: Whenever possible, development shall be located
that should also appear in section 6-90. WAC away from shorelines where the Erosion Hazard has been
173-26-231 (3 )( a)(iii)(A)requires that new identified as "Very High" or the Shoreline Exposure Range is
development is not permitted where it would shown as greater than ten (10) meters in the Shoreline Inventory
require the need for shoreline stabilization. The and Characterization.
addition of the phrase "Whenever possible"
renders this regulation pointless without clear
standards by which it would be judged.
Consider removing "Whenever possible". (1]
p.13. 8-35-030-7 (no disturbance in shoreline For ease of using the document, we would prefer to keep the
buffer, exceptions). This would be a good place buffer requirements together with all the other numerical
to cross reference the wetland and shoreline requirements in Chapter 9. We do not want to have the actual
buffer standards; consider moving the buffer standards in more than one place in the document, because that
tables or duplicating them here. [1] creates difficulty in updating the document, if one section is
changed and another is not. But a reference to where to find the
standards would be appropriate.
Proposed: Within the required shoreline buffer specified in
Chapter 9 Table 2, no disturbance is allowed, with the following
exceptions:
I comment
p.13. 8-35-030-7-C (exception to no disturbance
of shoreline buffer for a path wider than 4' for a
property owner with a disability). This provision
should clarify trail construction standards, and
set limits on disturbance. Disability allowances
for greater levels of disturbance pose serious
problems in that the jurisdiction becomes
responsible and liable to determine what a
disability "is", and of what type and severity
warrants the additional impact to the shoreline
environment, and how much additional
disturbance is permissible. The SMP should
have trail construction and siting standards.
Consider trail language from the Grant County
Draft SMP -Trails and Levees on p. 46 or in
Allowed Buffer Uses on p.107. [1]
p.13. 8-35-030-9 (Removal of emergent plants
like bulrush). Emergent plant communities are
wetlands by definition, and are subject to
Critical Areas provisions, and State and Federal
wetland protection laws and permit
requirements. Consider adding cross reference
here for wetlands provisions and a mention of
Ecoloav/ Corps/DNRIWDFW jurisdiction. [1 J
Chapter 9: Shoreline Environment Designations
I comment
p.15, Table 9.3, Boating Facilities. You might
consider including side yard setbacks from
section 7-50-030,just so all the information is in
one location for applicants. [1 ]
p. 15, Table 9.3, Municipal use. See comments
on Chapter 7 p.12 regarding Municipal uses
(Offices?) It is not clear what would constitute a
water-dependent municipal use that is not
recreation or utilities related. This section of the
buffer table should reflect those prohibited
activities from Table 9.2 (for example there is a
buffer for Municipal Uses in the SR-r
designation, buy they are prohibited in that
environment. [1]
I
I Response
Proposed: Creation of a path no wider than 41 ~which provides
access to an approved dock, except that a wider path may be
permitted if needed for a property owner with a disability.
Proposed: Emergent plants such as bulrushes absorb wave
energy and protect the shoreline from erosion. These plants
shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible and shall not
be removed, uprooted, trimmed, or burned. Limited removal may
be allowed for access, such as immediately adjacent to a dock~
subject to local, state, and federal regulations.
Response I
Section 7-30 is specific to Docks, which we distinguish from
Boating Facilities. The Dock section of Table 9.3 (10 lines down
from the highlighted portion of this comment) already refers
applicants to the Docks section of Chapter 7. The dimensional
standards for docks are too complicated to be captured in this
table. The section number could be added to direct applicants
to the specific regulations.
These lines of the table will be deleted. Municipal uses other
than recreation, transportation, or utility systems will be
regulated the same as a non-municipal use.
I
I comment
Shoreline Residential Special Resource (SR-S)
Environment, p.11 to 16 Table 9.2 & 9.3.
Shoreline areas designed SR-Swithin 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. The buffer width for water-
dependent uses associated with Aquaculture,
Boating Facilities, Municipal, and Recreation
uses are allowed to be reduced to 0 ft., and
buffer reductions to 15 ft. wide are allowed for
trails in the Recreation use areas. Due to the
rate occurrence of SR-S designated areas in the
City of Moses Lake, WDFW recommends
Aquaculture, Boating Facilities, Municipal and
Recreation water-dependent uses not be allowed
unless absolutely necessary and required
buffers for recreational trails be expanded to a
minimum of 25 ft. [2]
I Response
Aquaculture: Based on Table 9.2, Aquaculture is allowed only in
the Aquatic Environment, so only in the lake and not on land.
However, it seems likely that there would need to be some land-
based support facilities. The standards for Aquaculture in Table
9.2 and 9.3 need further review.
Boating Facilities: Based on Table 9.2, the only type of Boating
Facility allowed in the SR-S Environment is a boat lift, so the
buffer for Boat Facilities in the SR-Sis irrelevant. Additionally,
the height limit for Boating Facilities in the SR-Scan be deleted,
since none of these uses are allowed.
Municipal: Based on other comments received, Municipal Uses
will be deleted from Table 9.2. Municipal uses other than
recreation, transportation, or utility systems will be regulated
the same as a non-municipal use.
Recreation: Based on Table 9.2, Recreational uses are allowed
in SR-S only by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, so would
need to meet all the criteria, including no cumulative impact for
approving similar projects. Water-dependent uses are those
that by their nature could not exist without the water. While it
would be preferable not to have these uses located within the
SR-S environment, that might be the only suitable location. The
Cumulative Impacts Analysis (p.30) found that no net loss of
functions is anticipated from recreational uses.
Trail: The Planning Commission specifically reduced the
recreational trail distance from the initially proposed 50' to 15'.
I
I comment
Shoreline Residential Resource (SR-R)
Environment, p.11 to 16 Table 9.2 & 9.3. SR-R
designated lands demonstrate impairment 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 ) .... WDFW
recommends buffers for water-related structures
and facilities in areas .that are properly
functioning ecologically or may be restored
should be set at a minimum of 65' and buffer
widths for paths and trails should only be
allowed to be reduced to 25'. SR-R areas having
Residential uses should have the buffers
expanded to a minimum of 65' to retain most
functioning ecological conditions and allow for
adequate restoration of degraded areas.
I Response
Aquaculture: Based on Table 9.2, Aquaculture is allowed only in
the Aquatic Environment, so only in the lake and not on land.
However, it seems likely that there would need to be some land-
based support facilities. The standards for Aquaculture in Table
9.2 and 9.3 need further review.
Commercial: These uses are only allowed in the SR-R
environment by CUP, which should provide adequate
protection. In addition SR-R areas would be zoned almost
exclusively residential, so a commercial use would be rare. The
Cumulative Impacts Analysis (p.27) found that commercial
development was not expected to result in a loss of shoreline
functions.
Municipal: Based on other comments received, Municipal Uses
will be deleted from Table 9.2. Municipal uses other than
recreation, transportation, or utility systems will be regulated
the same as a non-municipal use.
Recreation: These uses are only allowed in the Natural
environment by CUP, which should provide adequate
protection. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (p.30) found that
no net loss of functions is anticipated from recreational uses.
Residential: The residential buffers are based on the Cumulative
Impacts Analysis and Recommendations, which found no
cumulative impacts for the 25' and 50' buffers as proposed.
Most shoreline residential lots have already been
developed-see Vacant Incorporated Residential Lots map.
Buffer for paths and trails: The Planning Commission
specifically reduced the recreational trail distance from the
initially proposed 50' to 10'.
I
I comment
High-Intensity Resource (H-R) Environment, p.14
to 16, Table 9.3. 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 1).
Recommended buffers of 65' for water-related
and water enjoyment uses for Aquaculture,
Commercial, Municipal, Recreation, and
Residential. Buffer for paths and trails should
be 65'. (2)
Shoreline Residential Dunes (SR-0), p.14 to 16,
Table 9.3. Table 9.3 indicates ecological
functions and restoration potentials are being
adequately protected in most cases .... WDFW
recommends that a 65' buffer be required to
retain most functioning ecological conditions
and allow for adequate restoration of degraded
areas. [2]
Com mentors:
I Response
Aquaculture: Based on Table 9.2, Aquaculture is allowed only in
the Aquatic Environment, so only in the lake and not on land.
However, it seems likely that there would need to be some land-
based support facilities. The standards for Aquaculture in Table
9.2 and 9.3 need further review.
Commercial: The proposed buffer of 50' is not far from WDFW's
recommendation of 65'. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (p.27)
found that commercial development was not expected to result
in a loss of shoreline functions.
Municipal: Based on other comments received, Municipal Uses
will be deleted from Table 9.2. Municipal uses other than
recreation, transportation, or utility systems will be regulated
the same as a non-municipal use.
Recreation: The Cumulative Impacts Analysis (p.30) found that
no net loss of functions is anticipated from recreational uses.
Residential: The Planning Commission recommendation of a 25'
buffer in the H-R matched the 25' buffer allowed in SR and
portions of SR-R is supported by the City Council and has been
found to be adequate.
Buffer for paths and trails: The Planning Commission
specifically reduced the recreational trail distance from the
initially proposed 50' to 10'.
The Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Recommendations
documents recommended specific standards
(Recommendations p.10) for the SR-D Environment; however,
the Planning Commission chose to regulate this area through
the Planned Unit Development process. Specific guidance will
be requested from commenting agencies at the time the
property is proposed for development.
Jeremy Sikes, Washington State Department of Ecology
Eric Pentico, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife
I