City Council Meetings

Moses Lake City Council Dean Hankins, Mayor |Don Myers, Deputy Mayor | Deanna Martinez, Council Member | Dustin Swartz, Council Member Mark Fancher, Council Member | David Eck, Council Member| Judy Madewell, Council Member Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam or remote access* Special Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Executive Session - 6:00 p.m. - Litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Call to Order - 6:30 p.m. Mayor’s Report - Robb Elementary School Shooting Public Hearing ** #1 Ordinance to Repeal 2021 Comp Plan Update Ordinance 2992 Presented by Allison Williams, City Manager Summary: Council to hear from public, review and consider adoption Supplement Attachments pg 44 Adjournment Next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2022 *Please click the link below to join remote access: https://cityofml.zoom.us/j/89995579580 Or One tap mobile : US: +12532158782,,89995579580# or +13462487799,,89995579580# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 ** Remote speaker request forms must be completed by 3 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Council Special Meeting Page 1 of 43  ORDINANCE 3005 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 2992 THAT ADOPTED THE 2021 UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE PLAN LAND USE MAP & RECOMMENDATION OF THE AREA OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repeal. Ordinance 2992 is hereby repealed by this Ordinance. Section 2. City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan. The 2021 City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance 2992 is repealed and the 2001 City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan remains in effect. Section 3. Amendment to Comprehensive Land Use/Zoning Map. The Community Development Department is directed to withdraw the City’s application for changes to the City’s Urban Growth Area, timely filed with Grant County for the 2022 docket. Section 4. Work Plan. The Community Development Department is directed to develop a work plan to establish the schedule and process for the development of a new City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan. Section 5. Severability. If any term or provision in this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other term or provision of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of its summary as provided by law. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, Washington and signed by its Mayor on May 31, 2022. ________________________________________ Dean Hankins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ __________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney Martinez Swartz Myers Fancher Madewell Eck Hankins Vote: Date Published: June 6, 2022 Date Effective: June 11, 2022 Council Special Meeting Page 2 of 43  CITY OF MOSES LAKE Council Special Meeting Page 3 of 43  November 9, 2021, City Council took action to approve Ordinance 2992 adopting an overall update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area recommendations for Grant County (UGA amendments are approved by Grant County) ISSUE Action took place at a public hearing after SEPA OVERVIEW review, 60-day review from Commerce and based on the input received through the public participation plan created for the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits: Washington State Department of Commerce Letter/Public Participation Plan Council Special Meeting Page 4 of 43 ISSUE OVERVIEW – URBAN GROWTH AREA CONSIDERATIONS EXHIBIT: SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS Council Special Meeting Page 5 of 43 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN: ENSURE THAT THOSE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES NECESSARY TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY AND USE WITHOUT DECREASING CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS BELOW LOCALLY ESTABLISHED MINIMUM STANDARDS. Council Special Meeting Page 6 of 43 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Council Special Meeting Page 7 of 43  Repeal of Ordinance #2992 Motion: “I move to adopt Ordinance 3005, repealing Ordinance 2992 that adopted the OPTION 1 2021 update to the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map and recommendation of the Urban Growth Area Boundary adjustment” Council Special Meeting Page 8 of 43  Ordinance would direct staff to develop a work plan for a process to create a new City of Moses Lake Comprehensive Plan and revert to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan for the City Concerns:  If adopted, Ordinance 3005 would violate SEPA, the Department of Commerce 60 day review/opportunity for agency comment, the GMA’s public participation requirements, and the mandatory periodic Comprehensive Plan update leaving the City out of compliance with GMA  This would be the City’s one Comprehensive Plan action allowed by state law for 2022, requiring the City to postpone other OPTION 1 docketed applications The City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan would be reinstated. It is critically outdated and fails to address current city infrastructure  identified in our updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). A project listing in an updated CFP and adopted Comp Plan is required to apply for state and federal infrastructure funding, or to implement needs through concurrency  Projects that moved forward through permitting under new zoning provided for in the updated Comprehensive Plan would be left in limbo  Leaves the City open to litigation  Places City staff in a difficult position when reviewing, assessing, conditioning, and otherwise processing land use applications during this period pending an updated comprehensive plan. Council Special Meeting Page 9 of 43 OPTION 1B: COUNCIL ADOPTS A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND APPROVES A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR REVIEW  This option avoids the violations identified in the first bullet of the slide above.  Council would need to adopt a public participation plan and approve the draft ordinance for review.  City would need to issue the DNS and commence the 60-day Commerce and public/agency review and comment period, plus provide for public participation and public hearing(s).  Following the comment period, Council and staff would review all comments for consideration prior to final action.  Council would adopt the ordinance repealing Ordinance 2992.  In order to complete the above procedural steps, the earliest (if initial action taken May 31st) date of final action would be August 9, 2022. Council Special Meeting Page 10 of 43  Consideration of Amending Ordinance #2992 “I move to amend Ordinance #2992, modifying OPTION 2 Appendix A to include Area 5” Council Special Meeting Page 11 of 43 This action would leave the 2021 Comprehensive Plan adoption intact and would only deal with Area #5 Concerns:  The Amendment would violate SEPA, the Department of Commerce 60 day review/opportunity for agency comment, the GMA public participation requirements, OPTION 1 and would leave the City out of compliance with GMA  The City would be required to withdraw its County application for the Urban Growth Area amendment leaving the stand alone applications for the County for UGA amendments in limbo (analysis built upon updated Land Capacity Analysis utilized for the 2021 overall Comprehensive Plan update) Council Special Meeting Page 12 of 43  OPTION 2B: COUNCIL ADOPTS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND APPROVES A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR REVIEW  This option avoids the violations identified in the first bullet of the above slide.  This option requires that the Council adopt a public participation plan and draft ordinance for review, followed by issuance of a DNS and 60-day Commerce/public and agency comment, plus public participation and public hearing(s).  Following public and agency review and comment, City Council and staff would review the comments for consideration.  City Council would adopt the amendment adding back UGA 5.  The earliest this could be processed (if the first step occurred May 31st) is August 9, 2022. Council Special Meeting Page 13 of 43  Consideration of withdrawing the City’s Application to Grant County for the Urban Growth Area Amendments: “ I move to authorize staff to withdraw the City’s OPTION 3 application for the Urban Growth Area amendments from Grant County’s docket and authorize staff to engage the necessary resources to update the analysis of the urban growth area in coordination with the City’s annual Comprehensive Plan update process.” Council Special Meeting Page 14 of 43 This option would leave the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan in place and direct staff utilize this year’s annual update process to reconsider the Urban Growth Area recommendation to the County OPTION 2 Concerns: • Both the County and State of Washington have expressed concerns about the size of the City’s Urban Growth area and the ability to provide urban services. • This would leave the existing urban growth area in place limiting the city’s future flexibility with where to direct growth. • Of the prior two options, this action provides a lower liability risk Council Special Meeting Page 15 of 43 PROCESS FOR OPTION 3  Council first takes action to withdraw its UGA petition from the County (could be done May 31st).  Council engages consultant and staff to review the Comprehensive Plan and UGA through the annual amendment cycle combined with all other docketed applications.  Council adopts and distributes the public participation plan.  Council develops a revised draft of the comprehensive plan.  Staff conducts SEPA review, commences the 60-day Commerce/public/agency review and comment period.  Planning Commission and Council hold public hearings and public comment period(s).  Council adopts a revised updated Comprehensive Plan and UGA.  The above procedures would need to be completed prior to March 31, 2023, which is the County’s application deadline for the 2023 docket cycle. Council Special Meeting Page 16 of 43  If Council takes no action, the City’s application for the Urban Growth Area amendment continues through Grant County’s annual update process. OPTION 4 City staff proceeds with this year’s annual process which includes a docket of new urban growth area requests. Council Special Meeting Page 17 of 43 Public Hearing Council Special Meeting Page 18 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 19 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 20 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 21 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 22 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 23 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 24 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 25 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 26 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 27 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 28 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 29 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 30 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 31 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 32 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 33 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 34 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 35 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 36 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 37 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 38 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 39 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 40 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 41 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 42 of 43 Council Special Meeting Page 43 of 43  STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and City Council From: Allison Williams, City Manager Date: May 29, 2022 MAY 31, 2022 – PUBLIC HEARING STAFF OVERVIEW For the May 31, 2022 public hearing, staff has provided you a copy of the Powerpoint which will be presented. It provides a brief overview of the key issues surrounding the decision options for City Council in regard to the potential repeal of Ordinance 2992. As background, and in response to the public comments received May 27, 2022. Staff provides the additional information for City Council consideration: 1) Final Response to the Petitioner: Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. This will allow Council to review the response in full, versus excerpts incorporated into the public comment letter received. 2) Documentation of input, outreach and analysis provided during the process: a. Phase 1 Engagement Summary and raw comments received on the Story Map created for the process. These comments helped to frame plan priorities. b. Powerpoint presentation created for public outreach and utilized at presentations to the Port of Moses Lake, Adams-Grant County Association of Realtors, Rotary between May and July 2021 to get the word out about the upcoming formal process. c. July 2021 City Manager’s Report to the Community asks the community to attend the July 2021 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in regard to the Capital Facilities Plan (which identifies where growth can be served) d. 9/23/21 Quick review of the outreach history in light of comments by ASPI and others that no contact had been made (This photo was taken yesterday – 5/28-31 at McCosh Park. Note the schedule for the process) Packet Supplement, Page 44 of 203 Page 1 of 2  e. Petition and letter from the Marina Drive neighborhood regarding the Comprehensive Plan adoption f. Revised SEPA checklist for the Comprehensive Plan g. Slides from the September 23, 2021 Planning Commission hearing regarding the Land Capacity Analysis. Berk updated analysis, more conservatively projecting available land by increasing deductions for critical areas, roads and infrastructure and market factor, and still the City had the capacity to accommodate growth based on accelerated growth figures. Circulated as exhibits to the Powerpoint presentation were the letter from the State Department of Commerce, the Public Participation Plan and the Land Capacity Analysis. Staff from the Department of Commerce will be on hand for questions, but specifically from their comment letters, staff would point City Council to the following: “We appreciated your coordination with our agency….In previous years, Commerce expressed concerns primarily centered on the lack of a land capacity analysis to support the proposal, as well as a lack of analysis regarding costs to provide capital facilities and urban services…We are pleased to see the City engage in a more rigorous evaluation…We are also encouraged by the collaboration we have observed with Grant County Development Services….We are confident the work completed on the periodic update with yield positive, long lasting results for the community. The City and County now have much better information regarding the cost of public facilities and services that are required to support new growth and development. We agree with the assertion that ‘the City should identify portions of the unincorporated UGA where it will be difficult to extend urban services within the planning period and consider such areas for removal from the UGA. (City of Moses Lake Land Capacity Analysis – updated September 23, 2021). The County cannot approve a UGA proposal unless there is a realistic, financially-constrained plan to provide urban services and facilities to the proposed UGA.” WAC 365-196-320 and 365-196-415. Finally, staff will again reiterate state law: RCW 36.70A.070 (3)(e): A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Four options are provided for City Council consideration and will be presented to City Council at the meeting. Staff still recommends staying the course – Option 4. With a revised Urban Growth Area, there is flexibility for guiding growth to where urban services exist or can be added concurrent with development. Packet Supplement, Page 45 of 203 Page 2 of 2 Packet Supplement, Page 46 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 47 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 48 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 49 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 50 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 51 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 52 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 53 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 54 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 55 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 56 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 57 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 58 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 59 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 60 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 61 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 62 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 63 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 64 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 65 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 66 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 67 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 68 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 69 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 70 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 71 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 72 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 73 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 74 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 75 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 76 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 77 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 78 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 79 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 80 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 81 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 82 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 83 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 84 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 85 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 86 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 87 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 88 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 89 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 90 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 91 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 92 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 93 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 94 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 95 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 96 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 97 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 98 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 99 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 100 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 101 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 102 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 103 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 104 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 105 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 106 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 107 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 108 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 109 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 110 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 111 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 112 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 113 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 114 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 115 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 116 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 117 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 118 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 119 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 120 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 121 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 122 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 123 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 124 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 125 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 126 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 127 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 128 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 129 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 130 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 131 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 132 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 133 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 134 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 135 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 136 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 137 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 138 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 139 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 140 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 141 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 142 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 143 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 144 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 145 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 146 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 147 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 148 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 149 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 150 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 151 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 152 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 153 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 154 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 155 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 156 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 157 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 158 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 159 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 160 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 161 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 162 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 163 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 164 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 165 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 166 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 167 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 168 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 169 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 170 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 171 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 172 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 173 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 174 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 175 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 176 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 177 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 178 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 179 of 203 May 27, 2022 City of Moses Lake City Council 401 S Balsam P.O. Box 1579 Moses Lake, WA 98837 Re: Proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 2992 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments Retention of UGA Area 5 – North Mae Valley Dear Mayor Hankins and Councilmembers: I am submitting this material on behalf of ASPI Group, and our affiliate entity CFML LLC, for your consideration regarding the Motion to Repeal the November 9, 2021, Ordinance 2992 referred to as the Comprehensive Plan Update. As you are aware, ASPI and CFML filed a Petition for Review of Ordinance 2992 with the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board under Case No. 22-1-0001. Attached is our Reply Brief that was filed by our attorneys in Spokane yesterday. Also attached is a previously issued interim decision from the EWGMHB discussing the alleged deficiencies of the city- managed SEPA process. I would encourage you to review those. I think everyone is probably clear on our objections to both the way the notice and procedure was managed and manipulated prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2992 as well as the glaring omissions of critical information that formed the substantive conclusions. Our objections were set forth in the following letters: Letter to Planning Commission dated August 25, 2021 Letter to Planning Commission dated September 7, 2021 Letter to Planning Commission dated September 16, 2021 Letter to City Council dated October 8, 2021 Letter to City Council dated November 3, 2021 I would incorporate those letters herein along with the exhibits attached. Without belaboring the arguments that we have already made, I would briefly describe them as follows: 1. Lack of any direct notice, whatsoever, to the affected landowners in the UGA areas that their properties were about to lose millions of dollars in value. Despite being one of the largest landowners in the city and with constant communication with the city on various 1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220 Renton, Washington 98055 425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268 www.ASPIGroup.com Packet Supplement, Page 180 of 203  issues we were never told that the ‘plan’ was to eliminate the UGA designation from our property. This could have been done by a simple phone call or disclosure at any number of meetings we have with city staff so that we would have an opportunity to rebut the city’s consultant. This lack of simple ‘courtesy’ when causing millions of dollars in lost value has significantly eroded our ‘trust’ in the city administration as we continue our efforts to bring new retailers, residential developers, and industrial employers to Moses Lake. That needs ‘healing’. 2. Obfuscation of information typically intended to give adequate notice to affected landowners. There was nothing in the materials leading up to the adoption of Ordinance 2992 that would indicate which specific UGA properties were to be deleted. No addresses, no parcel numbers, not even boundaries delineated on a GIS map. The only ‘map’ was a ‘cartoonish’ depiction in the consultant’s report that had a ‘dashed circle’ over a portion of what is now referred to as the North Mae Valley UGA. Note that the ASPI/CFML property is NOT even included in the ‘dashed circle’. 3. Legally deficient published notice. The city code requires a 15-day notice. The initial public notice published in the Columbia Basin Herald, in addition to continuing the ‘cryptic description of the agenda to remove a UGA area, was not published with the 15-day requirement. All of this is indicative of process ‘manipulation’ that would have given affected landowners an opportunity to review, rebut, engage consultants, supplant the record with missing data, and make the whole process open and transparent. I would direct you to comments from Planning Commission members Gary Mann and Anne Henning that expressed these notice concerns as well and ultimately recommended that the UGA area be maintained. 4. SEPA deficiencies. The original SEPA determination was predicated on an abbreviated protocol that didn’t address any of the myriad of issues that these sweeping changes would have on Moses Lake, including the ability to meet housing needs of employers, traffic impacts expected to result in Level of Service “F” (gridlock), displacement of low-income residents from the downtown core, and impacts to affordable housing. After our initial objection, the city surreptitiously issued a 2nd SEPA determination – issued while the deliberations on Ordinance 2992 were ongoing – and made no mention of it at the public hearings or council meetings or to us, directly. Its only mention was a single sentence in an almost 1,000-page Agenda package given to council members right before a meeting. It was also time-deficient as discussed in the Interim Decision of the EWGMHB. Our SEPA objections are discussed in the interim decision of the EWGMHB attached. 5. Lack of any information in the staff reports or city’s consultant’s report regarding projected employment growth and the dearth of available housing to meet the needs of inbound employers. ASPI is a well-known, ongoing participant in the industrial/retail employer recruiting process with the Washington State Department of Commerce, Grant County 1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220 Renton, Washington 98055 425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268 www.ASPIGroup.com Packet Supplement, Page 181 of 203  Economic Development Council, and the Port of Moses Lake. None of those critical economic development entities were contacted for the consultant’s report. We have proposals out to dozens of new employers that would result in hundreds of new direct jobs that would then be subject to a typical 2.5:1 multiplier for indirect and induced jobs resulting in thousands of new employees and residents. A glaring example of how information was intentionally withheld from council is the REC/Hanwha expansion estimated at 2500 direct jobs. A letter from Kevin Richards opines up to 5000. That was known to the city and not disclosed to council. Employment projections are statutorily required by the Growth Management Act. The only assumption that can be made is that the intentional withholding of these industrial employment numbers (along with impacts from the LDS Temple and new hospital) was to mask the need for maintaining robust supplies of UGA areas that can be easily and quickly developed to meet the needs of these inbound employers. Downtown ‘infill’ properties cannot meet surges in demand. 6. The city’s consultant’s land analysis assumed far more available lands in the urban core to meet housing needs and applied an erroneous Market Factor deduction that assumes an unrealistic supply of available residential lands in downtown Moses Lake. 7. There was no economic analysis, whatsoever, on the enormously high costs to develop high-rise condominiums and townhome projects in the urban core as compared to single family residential projects in the UGA areas. 8. There was no demand analysis on where people – including the inbound employers – want to live. The city manager said that fancy pictures of high-end projects were shown to people at the county fair but there was no accompanying information on cost. These combined issues show how the entire analysis supporting Ordinance 2992 was deficient and flawed. In response to our assertion to the EWGMHB that development of infill-only properties was too expensive, the city’s response to the EWGMHB was, essentially, that high costs of infill development was the ‘developer’s problem’ – seemingly without any cognizant regard to economic market forces whatsoever. A developer can’t build projects where the cost drives rent higher than the median family income. That is why you don’t see any of these projects being developed in Moses Lake. We discussed this at length in our letter to council dated November 3, 2021. 9. There was never any cost/benefit analysis performed by the city’s consultant on retaining the UGAs. All the consultant and staff ever referred to was ‘cost’ to serve the UGA areas. Of course, they didn’t explain that developers in the UGA area bear those costs exclusively. They describe Moses Point in their submission to the EWGMHB as a ‘failed planned development’. When I read that in the city’s brief, I felt so bad for the owners of Moses Point – having invested their capital in a terrific golf course and highly desired place to live 1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220 Renton, Washington 98055 425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268 www.ASPIGroup.com Packet Supplement, Page 182 of 203  being described by city administrators as ‘failed’. Is that council’s opinion? In fact, master planned developments, in addition to supplying affordable housing, return significant revenues to the community. We supplied, as an example, an Economic Impact Study on a development in Wickenburg, Arizona, that returned more than $100 million in net revenue to the city. We are working with the developer of this Wickenburg Ranch community to come to Moses Lake. Again, the information has been ignored. 10. No analysis of a second lake crossing from Mae Valley and the positive impacts that it would have on traffic in downtown Moses Lake. We submitted the former Transpo Study for the second lake crossing commissioned by the county in 2009. The Transpo Study is another example of the city’s ‘candor’ in addressing these issues. Our attorneys pointed out to the EWGMHB the prior Transpo Study on the second lake crossing as being absent from the Comprehensive Plan review. The city represented to the EWGMHB that the Transpo Study concluded a ‘second lake crossing wasn’t necessary’. In fact, this is the actual conclusion of the Transpo Study as taken from the report: The point of this example isn’t to argue whether the Transpo Study is still valid. There are current efforts under way at the county and POML to assess and update that. The point of the example is 1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220 Renton, Washington 98055 425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268 www.ASPIGroup.com Packet Supplement, Page 183 of 203 that if you are going to so blatantly misrepresent and withhold critical information used to base decisions on, you cannot be confident in the result. If the information used to make critical decisions on the city’s future is corrupt, developers and the community itself, lose confidence – and trust – in the decision-making processes. Investment in the city will suffer. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this information. ASPI and its affiliate entities have been invested in the community for 35 years. We have enjoyed a terrific mutually beneficial relationship that has created hundreds of jobs and brought great industrial employers and retailers to the community. In that time, we have never sued anyone, or appealed anything until this decision. We hope that your decision will allow us to continue our – and others – efforts to move the community ahead. All we are really asking for is reinstatement/confirmation of the UGA area as the Planning Commission originally recommended. Sincerely yours, Kim Foster Kim Foster Corporate Counsel 1600 Lind Ave. S.W., Suite 220 Renton, Washington 98055 425.264.1000 FAX 425.264.1268 www.ASPIGroup.com Packet Supplement, Page 184 of 203 1 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 6 EASTERN WASHINGTON REGION STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 8 AERO-SPACE PORT INTERNATIONAL Case No. 22-1-0001 GROUP, INC., a Washington corporation; CFML, 9 LLC, a Washington limited liability company; PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF 10 STREDWICK LAND, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and Robert L. SCHIFFNER, an 11 individual, 12 Petitioners, 13 v. 14 CITY OF MOSES LAKE, 15 16 Respondent. 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 19 While the City’s policy decisions are entitled to deference on review, no amount of 20 deference can remedy a decision made without the necessary information. The Amended 21 Comprehensive Plan is based on incomplete information and inaccurate assumptions. The 22 incomplete picture presented to the public and the City Council is a result of the City’s failure to 23 adequately notify and involve the public throughout the process and its ambivalence about fate 24 25 of the unincorporated UGAs. These failures have yielded an Amended Comprehensive Plan that 26 is procedurally and substantively noncompliant with the GMA. 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 1 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 185 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  The City's failure to provide relevant information to the Planning Commission, the City 1 2 Council, and the public has plagued the comprehensive plan amendment process throughout. The 3 City failed to adopt or distribute a public engagement plan and failed to give adequate notice of 4 the hearing before the Building and Planning Commission. The City also failed to notify the 5 public that it planned to eliminate large portions of the unincorporated UGA in the Amended 6 7 Comprehensive Plan. When the plan was presented to the public at the September 26, 2021 8 Building and Planning Commission meeting and public hearing, the elimination of certain areas 9 from the unincorporated UGA was described as a mere recommendation from the City's 10 consultant, not a feature of the Amended Comprehensive Plan. The City likewise failed to 11 adequately evaluate and disclose the probable environmental impacts of the Amended 12 13 Comprehensive Plan and did not give notice of its revised Environmental Checklist until just 14 four days before the public hearing before City Council. And most recently, the City amended 15 its comprehensive plan again, without a properly noticed public hearing, to include the expansion 16 of its UGA to include additional land to accommodate a large new industrial development, which 17 promises to bring a substantial influx of residents to the City. 18 19 The GMA is intended to encourage thoughtful, community-oriented planning to ensure 20 responsible development and growth. Petitioners merely seek to hold the City to the requirements 21 under which it is legally bound and to ensure the City in which they live and work upholds the 22 integrity of its Comprehensive Plan, its most basic land use planning component. 23 24 II. ARGUMENT 25 A. The City's public participation and notice efforts did not comply with the requirements of the GMA. 26 The City cannot point to any evidence that it distributed a public participation plan. 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 2 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 186 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  Instead, it recites the steps it took to engage the public in the early phases of the comprehensive 1 2 plan amendment process. See Resp. Br. at 6–13. However, the City's efforts to engage the public 3 do not cure its failure to adopt and disseminate a public participation plan under RCW 4 36.70A.140. 5 In Wold v. City of Poulsbo, Case No. 10-3-0005c, the City of Poulsbo updated its 6 7 Comprehensive Plan following a three-year review of elements within the previous 8 Comprehensive Plan. The city divided its comprehensive planning process into three phases. See 9 id. at 14. Phase 1 was an opportunity for the public to participate in a community visioning 10 exercise. Id. Then, after formally issuing the Draft Comprehensive Plan, the City began Phase 2 11 and Phase 3, during which time the plan was considered in a number of public hearings. Id. 12 13 The Board observed that the City undertook "an impressive attempt" to engage the citizens 14 of Poulsbo to participate and develop the future vision of the City. Id. However, this alone was 15 not enough: 16 Petitioners appear to be correct in their assessment that while Phase I was 17 underway, there was not a fully designed Public Participation Plan in place. The Petitioners are correct that RCW 36.70A.140 requires the City to not only 18 "establish" a public participation program but to "broadly disseminate it and, that 19 this program is to identify procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive plan." 20 Id. 21 The Board continued: 22 The dilemma for the Board is that while Phase 1 of the public outreach program 23 was an extensive effort, it did not apparently include a fully laid our Public Participation Plan—a plan that would notify the public that over an eighteen month 24 period the staff needed time to develop a draft plan and the supporting analysis and what to expect from a Phase 2 and Phase 3. 25 26 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 3 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 187 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728 1 Id. at 15. Accordingly, the Board concluded "[t]he intent of 'early and continuous' was not met." 2 Id. Here, as in Poulsbo, the City recounts its efforts to engage the public in its early planning 3 4 process. However, no public participation plan was adopted, nor was one disseminated to the 5 public. As the Board's decision in Poulsbo illustrates, the fact that the City engaged in public 6 participation efforts does not, alone, satisfy the public participation requirements under RCW 7 36.70A.140. Without a broadly disseminated public participation plan, citizens cannot know what 8 9 to expect at each stage in the planning process. 10 Moreover, the Board should reject the City’s attempt to cast the generalized requirements 11 of MLMC 19.55.070 as a public participation plan under the GMA. That section states only that 12 "The public shall be made aware of the opportunity to suggest amendments and to comment on 13 suggested amendments through methods including but not limited to direct mailings, newsletter 14 15 and newspaper articles, legal advertisements, and notices posted in public places." This 16 generalized directive is not a public participation plan as conceptualized under the GMA. 17 Critically, the City adopted substantial changes to the UGAs without giving the public 18 adequate notice and opportunity to participate in this analysis and decision. The City contends 19 that it did not need to comply with MLMC 20.07.020 because the action was purely legislative. 20 21 Even assuming the City's interpretation of MLMC 20.07020 is correct, the City nonetheless failed 22 to give adequate notice as required by the GMA. 23 At a minimum, the GMA requires Cities to use notice procedures that are reasonably 24 calculated to provide notice to property owners. Here, the only notice provided of the September 25 26 16, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting and public hearing was published in the Columbia Basin 27 Herald on September 3, 2021. This provided only 12 days' notice of the hearing. Notably, the 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 4 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 188 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  notice itself is not separated by any hearing, which makes it appear to be part of a preceding legal 1 2 notice. 3 The City's overall process also failed to give adequate notice of the specific changes to the 4 Comprehensive Plan the City intended to ultimately adopt. The materials provided in advance of 5 the September 16, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing on the Updated Comprehensive 6 7 Plan did not identify the specific reductions to the UGA that were ultimately adopted and 8 recommended by the City. As to the Mae Valley UGA, the City's Land Capacity Analysis stated 9 only that the Mae Valley UGA "contains nearly a third of the UG's residential capacity, so 10 additional analysis should be completed before making UGA reductions in this area." MLCP 411. 11 This tepid suggestion did not place owners on notice of the City's planned UGA reductions 12 13 through the Amended Comprehensive Plan. 14 The "suggested UGA revisions" map provided by the City was also insufficient to give 15 the public notice of the proposed UGA amendments. That map shows suggested UGA revisions 16 through a dashed circle. MCLP 608. However, the circle over the Mae Valley area does not 17 include the entire Mae Valley UGA area. A citizen looking at this map could easily conclude that 18 19 only a portion of the UGA was being proposed for removal. Again, this failed to put property 20 owners on notice of the precise changes the City was considering and ultimately adopted in the 21 Amended Comprehensive Plan. 22 While perhaps not required under the GMA, the fact that the City failed to provide notice 23 24 to individually affected property owners in the Mae Valley UGA highlights the City's general 25 disregard for public participation on this topic. Removing the Mae Valley UGA will substantially 26 limit the potential uses to which the property can be put and will, in turn, reduce the property 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 5 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 189 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  value. The City's failure to give notice to Petitioners, thus, was not in the spirit of the meaningful 1 2 opportunity for public participation embodied in the GMA, which specifically contemplates 3 notice should be given to "public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in 4 the type of proposal being considered." 5 B. The City's post-hoc justifications for removing the Mae Valley UGA do not cure the 6 deficiencies in the Amended Comprehensive Plan. 7 Petitioners do not contend that the City should retain an “oversized UGA,” nor do they 8 assert that all of the unincorporated UGA lands should have been retained in the Amended 9 Comprehensive Plan. Instead, Petitioners assert that the City went too far in recommending the 10 11 UGA be reduced by over a thousand acres—the majority of which come from the Mae Valley 12 UGA—and did so without considering important factors relevant to the analysis. 13 Without citation, the City contends that “[a] review of the record clearly establishes robust 14 and lengthy conversations about land capacity, appropriate market factor, need for affordable 15 16 housing, and projected growth.” Resp. Br. at 17. However, the record does not reflect that the 17 City or its consultant considered the issues Petitioners raise here—namely, that large industrial 18 projects will bring a rapid influx of residents to Moses Lake that the current housing supply cannot 19 accommodate. There is also no evidence that the City consulted with the Washington State 20 Department of Commerce, the Grant County Economic Development Committee, or the Port of 21 22 Moses Lake regarding future economic conditions. 23 The Land Capacity Analysis makes no mention of the large industrial projects that are 24 coming to Moses Lake, despite the fact that the City has been aware of some of these projects for 25 26 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 6 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 190 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  over a year. 1 Indeed, there is no evidence that this project, or others like it, were considered by 1 2 the City’s consultant or the City Council in evaluating the Land Capacity Analysis. 3 The City’s conclusion that “affordable housing [is] not a priority for Petitioners” is both 4 inaccurate and irrelevant. Resp. Br. at 17. In letters provided to the City, developers in the 5 community pointed out that the “in fill” examples provided by the City’s consultant do not match 6 7 the realities of what can be supported in the Moses Lake market. Developers will not invest in in- 8 fill development without a strong basis to believe the market can support the development. Yet, 9 the record is completely absent of any discussion of these realities and contains no evidence that 10 these factors were considered in developing the market factor. 11 The Board should also reject the City’s attempt to side-step the deficiencies in its analysis 12 13 by stating that any deficiencies can be addressed through future amendments to the 14 Comprehensive Plan. The GMA requires local governments to plan based on information known 15 to them at the time, including information about future development. 16 The City’s Land Capacity Analysis failed to account for large-scale development that 17 would require additional land to be added to the UGA and would bring hundreds of jobs to the 18 19 City of Moses Lake. It also failed to adequately evaluate the economic feasibility of the in-fill 20 development it asserts will provide the additional housing not currently available in Moses Lake. 21 Most importantly, however, the record shows no evidence that the City investigated or analyzed 22 whether removing Mae Valley from the UGA was consistent with City and County planning 23 24 25 26 1 One of the letters attached to the staff report in support of the amendment to the Amended Comprehensive Plan discusses REC’s plans to establish a new manufacturing site in Moses 27 Lake. That letter is dated March 15, 2021. 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 7 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 191 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  goals. 1 2 C. The City has failed to adequately address the GMA's capital facilities requirements. 3 The Amended Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of projects that identify the state 4 as a source of funding. See MLCP 1713. These include improvements to Broadway Ave & 5 Stratford Rd. Intersection ($75,000), Stratford Road and SR 17 Intersection and Marts Road 6 Signalization and Interchange Improvements (3,000,000), Additional Lake Crossing – Motor 7 8 Vehicle Bridge ($42,000,000,000). However, the only project in the Transportation Improvement 9 Program for which state funds are identified as a funding source is the Additional Lake Crossing. 10 This inconsistency between the Transportation Improvement Program and the Comprehensive 11 Plan was pointed out to the City by the Department of Transportation, but the City failed to 12 13 reevaluate its capital facilities element in light of this inconsistency. 14 D. The City failed to comply with applicable notice requirements for its SEPA threshold determination. 15 Faced with its failure to give adequate notice of the SEPA determination under WAC 197- 16 17 11-210(2), the City contends that the integrated SEPA/GMA review procedures do not apply to 18 it. The City erroneously submits that "neither Chapter 14.06 MLMC, State Environmental Policy 19 Act, nor Chapter 19.55 MLMC, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regulation Amendments, 20 incorporates [the integrated SEPA/GMA procedural rules." However, MLMC 14.06.010 states 21 22 that the City of Moses Lake has adopted the State Environmental Policy Act and "the SEPA 23 rules." MLMC 14.06.020(B)(2) defines "SEPA rules" as "Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the 24 Department of Ecology." Of course, WAC 197-11-210 is a part of Chapter 197-11 WAC. Thus, 25 contrary to what the City contends, it has been adopted under Chapter 14.06 MLMC. 26 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 8 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 192 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728  Moreover, the City cannot in good faith contend that it was not utilizing the integrated 1 2 SEPA/GMA procedures when it issued the DND and "Revised" DNS for the Amended 3 Comprehensive Plan. On the first page of both documents in the upper right-hand corner, the 4 Environmental Checklist and "Revised" Environmental Checklist plainly state "Integrated 5 SEPA/GMA Process." See MLCP 1223. It is also plain that the City undertook the threshold 6 7 determination as part of an integrated SEPA/GMA process given the timing of the threshold 8 determination and the fact that the Amended Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the SEPA 9 register in tandem with the Environmental Checklist. 10 E. The City's SEPA determination is clearly erroneous. 11 The "Revised" Environmental Checklist acknowledges that the Amended Comprehensive 12 13 Plan "will require some Agricultural land within the City to be converted to housing or other 14 urban style land use." MLCP 1238. However, it fails to critically assess how much agricultural 15 land will be converted and how intensely that land will need to be developed in order to keep up 16 with the population demands, especially in light of the removal of UGA 5 from the unincorporated 17 UGA. 18 19 The Environmental Checklist also fails to account for how deletion of the Mae Valley 20 UGA will affect "discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or 21 hazardous substances; or production of noise." The Amended Comprehensive Plan and 22 supporting Land Capacity Analysis emphasize industrial UGA development. Prioritizing 23 industrial uses, rather than other types of uses such as residential or recreational, will undeniably 24 25 impact these factors. However, the City makes no attempt to assess the environmental 26 ramifications of its policy choices in the Environmental Checklist. 27 28 PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF - 9 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite Packet1100 Phone: Page Supplement, 509.624.5265 193 of 203 Spokane, Washington 99201-0300 Fax: 509.458.2728 Packet Supplement, Page 194 of 203 Packet Supplement, Page 195 of 203 1 BEFORE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 2 EASTERN REGION 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON 4 5 AERO-SPACE PORT INTERNATIONAL 6 GROUP, INC., STREDWICK LAND, LLC, CASE No. 22-1-0001 7 AND ROBERT SCHIFFNER, 8 Petitioners, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 9 SEPA ISSUE 10 v. 11 CITY OF MOSES LAKE, 12 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) on the 17 18 City of Moses Lake’s (City) Dispositive Motion for Partial Dismissal1 and Petitioners’ 19 Response to Respondent City of Moses Lake’s Motion.2 20 The dates of the actions taken by the City leading up to this case are not in dispute, 21 but are pertinent to the Board’s consideration of the Motion. 22 The City first issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist and a 23 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) in support of the comprehensive plan changes that 24 became the challenged ordinance on September 1, 2021. Petitioners provided oral and 25 26 written comment within the City’s identified comment period. 27 The City issued a Revised SEPA Checklist and DNS on October 14, 2021, providing 28 for public comment through November 8, 2021. The revised DNS referenced the City’s 29 30 31 1 Filed February 28, 2022. 32 2 Filed March 9, 2022. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS SEPA ISSUE Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 22-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 MARCH 17, 2022 P.O. Box 40903 Page 1 of 5 Olympia, WA 98504-0953 Phone: 360-664-9170 Packet Supplement, Page 196 Fax:of360-586-2253 203 1 administrative process for appeals, but no further comments were received from the 2 Petitioners and no appeals were made under the City’s process. 3 The City passed the Comprehensive Plan Amendments under consideration in 4 Ordinance 2992 on November 9, 2021 with publication on November 15, 2021. 5 At that point in time, the deadline to file a petition for review with this Board was 6 January 14, 2022.3 The Moses Lake Municipal Code (MLMC) provides for review for 7 8 procedural determinations on non-project action.4 9 ANALYSIS 10 The City of Moses Lake alleges that because the MLMC provides an administrative 11 remedy for challenges to the SEPA Checklist and DNS, the issue alleging violation of SEPA 12 must be dismissed. The City’s motion correctly describes the general rule that challenges 13 brought under SEPA must exhaust administrative remedies before further appeal.5 14 Both parties cite Citizens for Clean Air v. City of Spokane6 as providing the test for 15 16 whether the exhaustion requirement bars review of a SEPA challenge, requiring inquiry as 17 to “(1) whether administrative remedies were exhausted; (2) whether an adequate remedy 18 was available; (3) whether adequate notice of the appeals procedure was given; and (4) 19 whether exhaustion would have been futile.”7 20 Petitioners respond that the facts in this case illustrate that the appeals procedure 21 provided in MLMC and state law do not provide a judicial path for appeal of the revised 22 23 DNS, thus the appeal is properly before this Board. The fourth prong of the test is not met, 24 Petitioners argue, because on these facts pursuing exhaustion of the administrative remedy 25 would have been futile.8 In its motion, the City addressed the question of futility by providing 26 a quote from Citizens for Clean Air that “the policies underlying exhaustion impose a 27 28 3 WAC 242-03-220. 29 4 MLMC 14.06.070(C). 5 City of Moses Lake’s Disposition Motion for Partial Dismissal, p. 3 et seq., citing State v. Grays Harbor 30 County, 122 Wn.2d 244, 857 P.2d 1039 (1993) and Board cases. 31 6 114 Wn.2d 20, 785 P.2d 447 (1990). 7 Citizens for Clean Air, p. 26. 32 8 Petitioners’ Response to Repondent City of Moses Lake’s Motion for Partial Dismissal, at 7. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS SEPA ISSUE Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 22-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 MARCH 17, 2022 P.O. Box 40903 Page 2 of 5 Olympia, WA 98504-0953 Phone: 360-664-9170 Packet Supplement, Page 197 Fax:of360-586-2253 203 1 substantial burden on a litigant attempting to show futility”9 and then offers a conclusory 2 statement that the appeal process provided the Petitioners with a meaningful opportunity for 3 appeal and “is the opposite of futile.” The City in its motion does not address the factual 4 situation here, created by the City’s own decision for calendaring the SEPA process 5 immediately prior to adoption of the challenged ordinance. 6 This Board’s singular jurisdiction to review SEPA challenges to comprehensive plans 7 8 and development regulations was explained and affirmed in Davidson Serles where 9 property owners attempted to bring suit directly to the superior court on SEPA claims.10 The 10 case illustrates that review of the underlying governmental action must be joined with the 11 SEPA appeal. Furthermore and more applicable to this case, an unconsolidated appeal 12 where the underlying governmental action is properly subject to review by another tribunal 13 cannot be sustained. 14 The guiding principle here was set out in In re Jurisdiction of King County Hearing 15 16 Examiner, where a SEPA appeal was brought under the county’s administrative review 17 process, but before the hearing examiner completed review, a permit application was filed 18 under a development agreement.11 The county code did not provide for review of the 19 underlying development agreement, but the court of appeals granted the motion to enjoin 20 the hearing examiner’s continuation of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The action of 21 acceptance of the permit application pursuant to an adopted development agreement halted 22 23 administrative appeals and the hearing examiner lacked jurisdiction to continue the 24 appeal.12 Appeal could not, in this particular instance, have been entertained by this Board, 25 because development agreements are not reviewable by us, but the principle concerning 26 consolidation of appeals under SEPA and the conjoined governmental action is applicable. 27 28 29 30 9 Citizens for Clean Air, at 30. 31 10 Davidson Serles & Assoc. v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616, 626, 246 P.3rd 822 (2011). 11 135 Wn. App. 312, 144 P.3rd 345 (2006). 32 12 Id. at 328. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS SEPA ISSUE Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 22-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 MARCH 17, 2022 P.O. Box 40903 Page 3 of 5 Olympia, WA 98504-0953 Phone: 360-664-9170 Packet Supplement, Page 198 Fax:of360-586-2253 203 1 The City’s actions leading up to adoption of the challenged ordinance covered a 2 relatively short period of time, only a few weeks between publication of the revised DNS on 3 and adoption of Ordinance 2992 on November 9, 2021. 4 While the City argues that the Petitioners could have pursued an unconsolidated 5 appeal under MLMC 14.06.070(2)(c), the facts suggest that the timelines under that process 6 clearly indicated the futility of pursuing that path. The appeal must be filed within 14 days 7 8 and then the Director must set a hearing within ninety (90) days of that filing.13 These 9 actions would have overlapped with the requirement for the Petitioners to file a petition for 10 review with this Board by January 14. 11 The City wants to take the opportunity for the SEPA appeal back to September when 12 the first Checklist and DNS were issued and to time the question of futility from that point. 13 The City declines to address the fact that the September Checklist was relatively 14 perfunctory and that the entire process from the initial Checklist and DNS to the revised 15 16 Checklist and DNS was a little more than six weeks; the comment period ended on 17 November 8 and the challenged ordinance was adopted the next day, November 9. 18 As Petitioners point out, if the City had issued the DNS and Checklist sixty (60) days 19 prior to adoption of the proposed amendments, as required by WAC 197-11-230(1)(a), the 20 Petitioners could have filed the appeal called for in MLMC 14.06.070(C). That was not the 21 case. The speed of the City’s issuance of the revised Checklist and DNS, followed by and in 22 23 conjunction with filing deadlines pertinent to the GMHB, led to the futility of filing an 24 administrative appeal. 25 Even if Petitioners had pursued an unconsolidated SEPA appeal under MLMC 26 14.05.070(C)(3), the hearing examiner would have lost jurisdiction as soon as the 27 Petitioners filed an appeal on the challenged ordinance with this Board. 28 The Board is persuaded that the facts in this case support a consolidation of the 29 SEPA appeal with the challenge to the underlying ordinance. The Board finds that 30 31 32 13 MLMC 14.06.070(C)(3)-(4). ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS SEPA ISSUE Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 22-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 MARCH 17, 2022 P.O. Box 40903 Page 4 of 5 Olympia, WA 98504-0953 Phone: 360-664-9170 Packet Supplement, Page 199 Fax:of360-586-2253 203 1 exhaustion of the administrative remedy is not required in this case, as pursuit of the 2 administrative remedy would have been futile. 3 ORDER 4 The City of Moses Lake’s Dispositive Motion for Partial Dismissal is DENIED. 5 6 DATED this 17th day of March, 2022. 7 ________________________________ 8 Bill Hinkle, Presiding Officer 9 10 ________________________________ 11 Deb Eddy, Board Member 12 13 _________________________________ 14 Rick Eichstaedt, Board Member 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS SEPA ISSUE Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 22-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW, Suite 301 MARCH 17, 2022 P.O. Box 40903 Page 5 of 5 Olympia, WA 98504-0953 Phone: 360-664-9170 Packet Supplement, Page 200 Fax:of360-586-2253 203 Debbie Burke From: Debbie Burke Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 2:44 PM To: Kim Foster Cc: Vivian Ramsey; Michelene Torrey; Allison Williams; Kirsten Sackett; Jennifer Schober Subject: RE: City of Moses Lake - City Council Submission - May 31, 2022 Meeting Hello, This is to acknowledge that your written testimony for the Council hearing is received. Thank you, Debbie. Debbie Burke Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk City of Moses Lake PO Box 1579 401 S Balsam St. Moses Lake, WA 98837 (509)764‐3703 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e‐mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e‐mail account may be a public record. Accordingly, this e‐mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From: Kim Foster <kfoster@aspigroup.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 1:51 PM To: City Clerk <cityclerk@cityofml.com> Cc: Vivian Ramsey <vramsey@cityofml.com>; Michelene Torrey <mtorrey@cityofml.com> Subject: City of Moses Lake ‐ City Council Submission ‐ May 31, 2022 Meeting Warning! This message was sent from outside your organization and we were unable to verify the sender. Allow sender | Block sender sophospsmartbannerend Subject: City of Moses Lake ‐ City Council Submission ‐ May 31, 2022 Meeting 1 Packet Supplement, Page 201 of 203 Hello – Please include the attached letter in the council agenda package for the May 31, 2022 meeting addressing repeal of the Comprehensive Plan updates and Ordinance 2992. Please confirm receipt. Thank you! Have a great holiday weekend. Kim Foster Corporate Counsel ASPI Group, Inc. 1600 Lind Ave. SW, Suite 220 Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 356‐4936 Sent from Mail for Windows 2 Packet Supplement, Page 202 of 203 Debbie Burke From: Vic Jansen <vicj@gcpower.net> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 2:37 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Public Comment for 05/31/2021 Special Meeting Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender | Block sender Following please find my public comment for the Moses Lake City Council Special Meeting on 05/31/2021 at 6:30 PM. Re: Ordinance to Repeal 2021 Comp Plan Update Ordinance 2992 Dear Moses Lake City Council Members, My name is Vic Jansen. I own 213 acres of Heavy Industrial property within the UGA and Opportunity Zone in the West Side Employment Center. I recently spent over $900,000 paying for an LID conceived and executed by the Port of Moses Lake for improvements in access and utilities all to bring new jobs to our area. Two multi-billion dollar companies have recently inquired about acquiring all or part of my property. A huge concern seems to be housing for employees of these and other potential new companies considering moving to the Moses Lake area. I urge you to repeal the 2021 Comp Plan Update Ordinance 2992 and ensure the public has more opportunity to have input on the Comprehensive Plan in the future. Best, Vic Jansen 509-766-1542 1 Packet Supplement, Page 203 of 203