The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-12-2012 - Supplemental Materials2013 -2018 Six -Year Capital Improvement Program 2013 Crack seal streets (Evergreen Point Rd, NE 8th to 10th) NE 8th, Evergreen to 80th) NE 12th 84th to NE 10th) NE 10th 84th to Lake Wash Blvd) Overlay 80th Ave NE Street (NE 24th to NE 28th) Storm Drain Repair Medina Heights (Ridge Rd to Midland Rd) Public Works Shop Improvements Medina Park Picnic Shelter Total 2013 2014 Street asphalt pavement overlays: Evergreen Point Road (City Hall to NE 8th) NE 32nd Street (Evergreen to 80th) NE 28th Street (Evergreen to 80th) 79th Ave NE (NE 24th to NE 28th) NE 26th Street (79th to 80th) 77th Ave NE (NE 22nd to 500' south) 2015 Street asphalt pavement overlay, 78th Ave NE (NE 24th to NE 26th) Overlake Drive West Storm Drain Repair Sidewalk Repairs around power poles NE 12th from Evergreen to 80th) Evergreen from NE 8th to NE 16th) 2016 Street asphalt pavement overlays: 84th Ave NE (Overlake Drive West to NE 12th) Upland Road (Ridge Road to NE 6th) NE 5th (86th to Upland Rd) 86th Ave NE (NE 5th to NE 6th) Midland Road (84th to Upland Rd) 2017 Street asphalt pavement overlay, 78th PI NE (NE 32nd to Evergreen) New path along south side of NE 32nd Street (Evergreen to 80th) Medina park Ponds Dredging and rockery edge shoring Medina Park irrigation of the east half of the park 2018 Overlake Drive Street asphalt overlay (Lake Wash Blvd to 84th) Fairweather Park playfield upgrade for all weather use and trail improvements 8,000 16,000 20,000 16,000 178,000 100,000 110,000 40,000 488,000 95,000 100,000 85,000 100,000 53,000 55, 000 58,000 120,000 125,000 185,000 246,000 55,000 65,000 46,000 76,000 100,000 148,000 100,000 140,000 300,000 188,000 CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.2316400 (phone) 425.451.8197 (fax) www.medina- wa.gov Possible Motions Staff Recommends the following amendments be incorporated into the final ordinance: Motion to amend Table 20.62.030 to add dredging for maintenance of existing private or public moorage and to list it as a permitted use in all shoreline environment designations 0 Motion to amend Section 20.66.040(A) to revise the language as set forth in the Response to Suzanne Cohen June 7 Letter memorandum dated June 12, 2012 The following amendments are based on the written comments received that if adopted would have a neutral outcome 0 Motion to amend Table 20.62.030 to (prohibit/ permit) the (the use in the table) in the Transportation Environment Designation 0 Note: this motion was not mentioned in the response letter, and had not previously been discussed Motion to amend Section 20.67.090(F) to add a subsection (c) to read as follows: As a general rule critical area buffers are not required along Lake Washington, except buffers may be required consistent with this section if a specific area within the lake is identified as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. The determination of a specific area being a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be made on a site specific, case -by- case basis." Other amendments described in the written comments received were discussed by the Planning Commission and were not recommended CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.451.8197 (fax) www.medina-wa.qov MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: 1 1 NDUM City Council Robert J. Grumbach, AICP June 12, 2012 Response to Suzanne Cohen June 7 Letter The following is a response to the comment letter submitted by Suzanne Cohen to the City Council regarding the proposed shoreline master program being considered at the June 12 public hearing/ meeting COMMENT: The Planning Commission draft should not have been changed in response to DOE preliminary comments. The rational "to clear up inconsistencies with the state guidelines" is too vague... the RCW and /or WAC section should be cited..." RESPONSE: See attachment. The memorandum summarizing the suggested changes to the Planning Commission's recommendation, presented at the May 14 hearing, has been updated to reference the appropriate Washington Administrative Code where appropriate. None of these changes should have been made without notice and public hearing. Changes should only be made in response to formal comments from DOE, and pursuant to the public process required by law." RESPONSE: Public process as required by law has been followed. These proposed changes were released to the public prior to the public hearing with the publishing of the May 14 council packet. They were also sent May 10 specifically to those on an email list, including key members of Medinallow. In addition, the Council has allowed for a second public hearing giving the public further opportunity to comment on the changes. It is worth noting that the earlier drafts of the SMP did show the correct references to ordinary high water mark per the state guidelines. It was during the many editing and scrubbing of the code language that these were accidentally changed. COMMENT: Dredging to Preserve Existing Moorage Must be Permitted. The new language on dredging that is found in the Shoreline Use Table (MMC 20.62.030 under Shoreline Modifications, page 19 of SMP) appears to eliminate the right of waterfront property owners to dredge to maintain existing moorage." RESPONSE: The Use Table works in conjunction with the provisions for dredging and disposal set forth in Section 20.65.300 (page 53). Subsection D supplements the use table by stating: Dredging for the purpose of maintaining existing navigation channels and basins, existing private or public boat moorage, water - dependent uses, or other public access may be allowed pursuant to the use table in..." Having noted this, to avoid confusion and maintain consistency with the state guidelines, adding a line to the use table as follows would be appropriate: Dredging for maintenance of existing private or public moorage P P P P COMMENT: Public Access Should Never Be Required on Private Property. RESPONSE: Washington Administrative Code 173- 26- 221(4)(d) states: iii) Provide standards for the dedication and improvement of public access in developments for water - enjoyment, water - related, and non - water - dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four parcels. In these cases, public access should be required except: A) Where the local government provides more effective public access through a public access planning process described in WAC 173 -26 -221 (4)(c). B) Where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatible uses, safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment or due to constitutional or other legal limitations that may be applicable. In determining the infeasibility, undesirability, or incompatibility of public access in a given situation, local governments shall consider alternate methods of providing public access, such as offsite improvements, viewing platforms, separation of uses through site planning and design, and restricting hours of public access. C) For individual single- family residences not part of a development planned for more than four parcels. The state shoreline master program guidelines make it clear that certain type of private residential development are required to provide public access. The question about constitutional nexus and proportionality is done at the time a project is being reviewed and is determined on a case -by -case basis. It should also be noted that the requirement for public access can be waived for a variety of reasons including constitutional or other legal limitations (Section 20.66.040(F), page 58). Regarding the City of Redmond: Redmond Municipal Code 21.68.180 states that all development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall provide public access as shown on the Shoreline Public Access System Map except: O Fewer than ten (10) new dwelling units will be constructed or renovated; O The proposed subdivision involves fewer than ten (10) lots; O Industrially developed sites; O The development consists of interior improvements only; O The value of a proposed redevelopment of nonresidential structures and improvements is less than 25 percent of the assessed value of existing site improvements. 2 Redmond appears to have developed a master public access plan, which the state guidelines allow as a possible alternative, and can provide a jurisdiction some flexibility. Additionally, Redmond appears to have connected the residential 10 unit/lot threshold to their subdivision regulations (GMA cities can raise the threshold for a subdivision from five lots to 10 lots if they so choose). Neither of these circumstances applies to Medina (our subdivision regulations are triggered at five lots). The Planning Commission discussed this topic and their goal was to make sure the public access requirements are limited to what the state guidelines require If MMC 20.66.040 is thought to need further clarification, we could borrow from Redmond's example and revise this section to read as follows: A. Public access is required for the following: 1. Shoreline development by public entities involving public lands including, but not limited to: the City, state agencies and public utility districts; and 2. Residential development of five or more new dwelling units being constructed; and 3. Subdivision of land into five or more lots. COMMENT: Medina's SMP Should Declare that Buffers are Not Required on Lake Washington Shorelines. Note: A salmon spawning areas was identified underneath the existing SR 520 East Approach and WSDOT was required to take measures to protect and enhance this area as part of their shoreline permits for the new bridge. It is clear from Ecology's preliminary comments... sooner or later Ecology will seek to have the City impose buffers in addition to setbacks on waterfront properties." RESPONSE: The proposed shoreline master program does not contain buffer requirements from Lake Washington and specifically states Type S/ Type 1 Waters are not included as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Lake Washington is a Type S/ Type 1 Water per the referenced Washington Administrative Code). This does not preclude specific areas of the lake containing fish and wildlife habitat areas as noted above with the SR 520 project. However, this determination is made on a site -by -site specific basis. If at a future date Ecology's wish -list for buffers along the lake came true, it would necessitate a new shoreline master program amendment process. COMMENT: Transportation Zone Uses Too Broad. An issue raised repeatedly... is with respect to the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Transportation environment." It is one thing to allow accessory buildings associated with the new SR 520 corridor itself; it is quite another to allow so many unrelated uses and structures...The chart should be changed to limit the uses and structures... to the minimum necessary to accommodate the infrastructure for the SR 520 corridor, and such other public recreational facilities..." 3 RESPONSE: This topic was discussed by the Planning Commission. The listing of single - family dwellings as a conditional use permit reflects the City's comprehensive plan Policy LU -P6, which states: Existing non - residential uses within a residential zone may be converted to residential use, or may be redeveloped with a new non - residential use in a manner compatible with surrounding properties..." Additionally, the shoreline master program goals and policies state that preservation of the residential character is the primary vision of the SMP. Allowing detached single - family dwellings through a shoreline conditional use permit is consistent with these policies. However, if the City Council wishes to change the uses in the Transportation environment designation per the comments in the letter, such a change is a local consideration. The Planning Commission did consider this issue, but declined to change it. COMMENT: Urban Conservancy Uses Incompatible with Purpose of Zone. Table 20.62.030... references wireless communication facilities and boat launches as being permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the urban Conservancy zone. In my opinion, these types of uses and their infrastructure are incompatible with the underlying purpose of the zone." RESPONSE: It is important to remember that the SMP regulations work as an overlay to the zoning code. These regulations are not independent of each other. When the limits of the zoning code are applied, the only Urban Conservancy environment designation location available for a wireless communication facility is the City Hall property (where they are required to be building mounted, except for the police communication tower). COMMENT: Medina's SMP Should Include Provisions Authorized by RCW 90.58.620 SSB 5451... give cities... the opportunity to declare as conforming homes that would otherwise become nonconforming ... " RESPONSE: This topic was discussed by the Planning Commission. The "spirit" of this provision has been incorporated into the SMP. Section 20.66.090(F) grants nonconforming protections that allows for a nonconforming single- family dwelling, patio or deck to be torn down 100 percent and rebuilt within its existing footprint. It accomplishes the same purpose as declaring the structure "conforming" — that you can rebuild what you had without penalty. There were several reasons why this approach was picked: 0 It offers greater predictability for property owners. The Medina Municipal Code currently has similar "conforming" language for Medina Heights (See MMC 17.21.050). Because homes are rarely torn down and rebuilt in the exact previous configuration, determining what configuration can be allowed is very confusing. 0 It provides consistency with the nonconforming provisions in the zoning code. Using similar approaches makes things easier to understand. 0 Nonconforming rules have good case law to help define a property owner's rights. Court decisions have created a legal structure in which to evaluate nonconformity. Because we propose to allow 100 percent rebuilding within the footprint and allow new additions to be added that comply with the rules in effect, it's easier to explain this and delineate property rights then using an approach that mixes up nonconforming and conforming rights. In summing up, the proposed SMP follows the parameters established at the beginning of the process: 0 Maintain existing regulations while meeting the 2003 Ecology SMP Guidelines (WAC 173 -26); Make the regulations clearer and more detailed to create better consistency in interpretation; 0 Respect private property rights of waterfront property owners. The sections highlighted in yellow represent areas of possible actions. If the Council is interested in making these changes, the following are suggested amending motions: 0 Motion to amend Table 20.62.030 to add dredging for maintenance of existing private or public moorage and to list it as a permitted use in all shoreline environment designations. 0 Motion to amend Section 20.66.040(A) to revise the language as set forth in the Response to Suzanne Cohen June 7 Letter memorandum dated June 12, 2012. 0 Motion to amend Table 20.62.030 to (prohibit) (permit) the (list uses) in the Transportation Environment Designation. ITEM PH -1 / OB -1 CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.5400 (phone) 425.451.8197 (fax) www.medina- wa.gov MEMORANDUMd To: City Council From: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP Date: June 12, 2012 Subject: Revisions to the Planning Commission's SMP Recommendation with WAC references Where Revision Comment Page 7 Changed ordinary high water line to See WAC 173 -26- 020(16) ordinary high water mark Page 7 Added definition for float Provides better clarity Page 13 Added definition for wetland See WAC 173 -22- 030(10) Page 14 Added appurtenant structures Provides better clarity Page 15 Changed ordinary high water line to See WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c) ordinary high water mark Page 18 Changed ordinary high water line to See WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c) (delineates between Aquatic (water) and land) ordinary high water mark Page 19 Revised the language on dredging See WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(f) (Note See response letter) Page 21 Inserted mitigates Provides better clarity Page 23 Revised language on alternative planting to reflect shoreline ecological functions See WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(f)(ii)(A) Page 31 Added reference to Section 20.66.010 Provides better clarity Page 32 Added provision for no net Toss on boating facilities See WAC 173-26-241(3)(c)(vi) Page 32 Added language allowing for a less impactful design Suggested by Ecology and it provides greater flexibility Where Revision Comment Page 40 Revised language to say access to vessels This is consistent with language Ecology uses Page 45 Edited language on covered moorage Provides better clarity Page 45 Added that the canopy material cannot be permanent structural materials Revisions reflects it is a canopy Page 54 and 55 Changed ordinary high water line to high water mark Seeee WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(c) 1 ITEM PH -1 / OB -1 Page 56 Revised language to better reflect the no net loss requirement Page 56 Added a reference to the shoreline master program Provides better clarity; Also see WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(e) Provides better clarity Page 57 Moved and revised evaluating feasibility from mitigation sequencing Provides better clarity Page 57 Added language on when lower measures are applied See WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(e) Page 57 Added language for applicant to follow mitigation sequencing Page 60 Revised language on method for rating trees Provides better clarity; Also see WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(e) Allows flexibility to make revisions in the tree code regarding methods Shoreline Critical Areas General Deleted several references to "best available science" and replaced it with current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available" See WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(b)(i) General Revised performance standards to reflect the "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions" requirement" See WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(a)(ii) General Revised language to better connect with mitigation sequencing See WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(e) General Revised critical areas references to include buffers Provides better clarity Page 67 Moved purpose statement to separate section Provides better clarity for incorporating "no net Toss" 2 Page 67 Added reference to other SMP regulations Provides better clarity Page 69 Revised definition section to include other SMP definitions and to clarify which regulations control when there is a conflict Provides better clarity and consistency with state guidelines Page 70 Revised mitigation sequencing to be consistent with state guidelines See WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(e) Page 71 Revised language for maintenance and monitoring to be consistent with the same provisions elsewhere in the SMP Provides better clarity Page 71 Added reference on financial guarantees to the same provisions found elsewhere in the SMP Provides better clarity Page 73 Revised to reflect the updated wetland manual we are required to use by the Washington Administrative Code See WAC 173 -22 -035 Page 74 Added provisions regarding illegal modifications to wetlands See WAC 173 -22 -035 Page 75 Revised Wetland buffer widths See WAC 173 -22 -035 Page 78 Revised Wetland mitigation ratios See WAC 173 -22 -035 2 CITYi OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425233.6400 (phone) 425.451.8197 (fax) www.medina- wa.gov MIEft /C RAKDUM To: City Council From: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP Date: June 12, 2012 Subject: SNP Written Public Comments The following is a list of the written public comments received since the May 14 council meeting. 1. June 7 Letter from Suzanne Cohen 2. June 7 Letter from Aaron Laing 3. June 7 Email from Pamela Lyford 4. June 7 Email from Ken Bellamy 5. June 7 Email from Chris and Susan Marker 6. June 8 Email from Shasta Smith 7. June 8 Letter from Pamela Lyford 8. Letter from Colin and Manio Radford 9. June 11 Letter from Suzanne Cohen 10.June 12 Email from Steve Burnstead June 7, 2012 Mayor Michael Luis City of Medina PO.Box144 Medina, WA 98039 Dear Mayor Luis, As you know, at the May 14 City Council meeting I urged the Council to undertake an independent and "global" review of Medina's Shoreline Master Program, as I firmly believe that given the impact of this legislation on waterfront property owners, Medina's citizens deserve nothing less from their elected officials. After all, we did not vote for the members of the Shoreline Advisory Committee or the Planning Commission; nor did we have a role in selecting or directing Medina's Director of Development Services Robert Grumbach, who largely authored the SMP. In addition, I came away from the May 14 meeting with what I hope is an erroneous impression that few if any of the Council members (with the exception of David Lee, who was on the Planning Commission) had actually read the SMP section -by- section, line -by -line. With all due respect, if this impression is accurate I find it to be a very sad commentary on the state of democracy in Medina. I recognize that the SMP is a lengthy and complicated piece of legislation, but in my opinion reading and analyzing proposed legislation is part and parcel of being on City Council - that's the job description. I am not sure what the purpose of having a City Council would be if City Staff makes all the real decisions and then asks the Council to rubber -stamp them. To make an analogy to a trial, in that scenario Staff becomes the witness, lawyer, judge and jury. This should not be interpreted as a criticism of Robert Grumbach, who has done nothing but work hard on the SMP for over a year. Although Robert and I "agree to disagree" on many aspects of the SMP, there can be no question as to his work ethic. Rather, it is simply an observation that the democratic process is subverted if elected officials choose not to read and analyze the impact of Staff - generated rules and regulations before they are passed into law and enforced against the very citizens who voted the officials into office. Nevertheless, it was abundantly clear to me from various Council members' comments made at the May 14 meeting that the City Council has no intention of reviewing the SMP "de novo ". At the May 14 meeting, you offered our community group Medinallow the opportunity to address specific sections of the SMP, and you suggested that we provide persuasive arguments as to why they should be changed. This letter is an attempt to take advantage of that opportunity. Before discussing the SMP, however, I would like to clear up something that has been brought to my attention through Medina's "rumor- mill." Specifically, some members of the Council may believe, or at least have speculated, that my and /or Steve Burnstead's involvement in the SMP process is motivated by a desire to bring about changes in the law that will help our personal construction projects. It troubles me greatly that instead of dealing with the merits of our arguments about the SMP, the focus may be on our motives. This turns what should be an open and honest debate conducted in the public forum into an argument "ad hominem" levied against us behind the scenes. So there will be no further speculation about motives, the Council should be advised that having already submitted for a building permit, both the Burnstead and the Cohen construction projects are vested to and governed by Medina's current code, not the proposed legislation. Steve and I have very little to fear when it comes to this SMP. The citizens who may find themselves in a real pickle are those sitting in older homes that will need to be reconstructed or remodeled at some point post - passage of the SMP. To be sure, it is ironic that although the SMP will have little or no impact on our own construction projects, Steve Burnstead and I are spending huge amounts of time in an effort to help other waterfront homeowners in the City. Through Medinallow, we speak for many property owners who are extremely concerned about the impact of this legislation on the use, enjoyment and value of their waterfront properties - even those who are not currently undertaking construction projects. The Planning Commission's Draft Should Not Have Been Changed in Response to DOE Preliminary Comments In the cover memo that accompanied the SMP draft presented to the City Council on May 14, 2012, a great number of changes were listed as having been made in response to the Department of Ecology's preliminary comments, after the March 27 public hearing before the Planning Commission. These changes were characterized as "suggested revisions to the Planning Commission's recommendation...that are intended to only clear up inconsistencies with the state guidelines that are easily identifiable and language that is unclear in the current draft" (Memorandum to City Council from Robert Grumbach, May 14, 2012 re: Revisions to the Planning Commission's SMP Recommendation, page 1.) The rationale "to clear up inconsistencies with the state guidelines" is too vague to permit anyone to investigate whether the changes are actually required by state law. The specific reference to the RCW and /or WAC sections should be cited, so that the public is informed as to the legal basis of the change. No matter how minor or inconsequential they may appear to be, in my opinion none of these changes should have been made without notice and a public hearing. Changes should only be made in response to formal comments from the DOE, and pursuant to the public process required by law. At this point in the SMP process, the City Council should be reviewing what the Planning Commission recommended, not new changes made by Staff in response to preliminary comments from the DOE. The City Council should instruct Staff to restore the SMP to the version that the Planning Commission approved on March 27. Dredging to Preserve Existing Moorage Must Be Permitted Furthermore, at least one of the changes made by Staff may have enormous consequences for many waterfront property owners. The new language on dredging that is found in the Shoreline Use Table (MMC 20.62.030 under Shoreline Modifications, page 19 of SMP) appears to eliminate the right of waterfront property owners to dredge to maintain existing moorage. This is by no means a minor change from the draft that left the Planning Commission. The version of the SMP that the Planning Commission approved on March 27, 2012 included as permitted activities in all zones "dredging for certain shoreline stabilization and habitat projects" and "dredging for navigability and to maintain existing moorage." In response to the DOE's preliminary comments, this language was changed by Staff to permit only "maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins" and "dredging establishing, expanding or relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins." (Memorandum to City Council from Robert Grumbach, May 14, 2012 re: Revisions to the Planning Commission's SMP Recommendation, page 1, reference to language on page 19 of SMP.) Neither the word "basin" nor the phrase "navigation channel" is defined in the SMP, and unless they are defined to include "existing moorages" then the change in the language on dredging virtually guarantees that many moorages along Medina's shorelines will silt up over time and become worthless. If state guidelines require this change, then why does the City of Kirkland's SMP which has been approved by the DOE, contain the following language? 83.320 Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal 2. Dredging waterward of the OHWM may be allowed for only the following purposes: b. To maintain the use of existing private or public boat moorage, water - dependent use, or other public access use. Maintenance dredging is restricted to maintaining previously dredged and /or existing authorized location, depth, and width. There is no reason why dredging to preserve existing private moorage should be allowed in the neighboring jurisdiction of Kirkland, and disallowed in Medina. Dredging to maintain the use of existing private moorage should be a permitted activity in the Shoreline Residential Zone. Public Access Should Never Be Required on Private Property A point that I brought up in a May 2011 letter and argued several times in front of the Planning Commission is that the SMP should contain a declarative sentence to the effect that public access will never be required over private property. However, MMC 20.66.040 requires that "residential development on a planned development involving five or more parcels and five or more new dwellings" include public access, which could be visual, physical, or a combination of the two. In my opinion this is unconstitutional on its face because it lacks the required nexus and proportionality. It also sets up a very slippery slope for the future. At the very least, our SMP should affirmatively provide that public access will never be required over the land around a single family residence. The citizens of Redmond were concerned with similar issues and their SMP contains the following language: Public access would occur only on publicly -owned lands and shall be designed to discourage potential trespass onto adjacent private properties. City of Redmond SMP Policies, Page 20. SL -29 jPJhysical public access...shall apply to any private development of Ten or more housing units Divisions of land creating ten or more lots or any number of lots to be occupied by ten or more housing units... These public access requirements shall be subject to the nexus and proportionality tests laid out by the US Supreme Court. Public access is not required....in residential developments of nine or fewer housing units or lots. City of Redmond SMP Policies, page 21. Another issue I have brought up time and time again is the concern that in the future utility easements will be usurped by the State for the purpose of putting a public path around the lake. Again, the City of Redmond has addressed and resolved this issue, as follows: SL -33 Require public access only on publicly -owned land. This includes new publicly - owned utility corridors and street rights -of -way. Design these elements within shoreline areas to incorporate public access to the size and function of the corridor or area. This requirement does not apply to utilities in easements on private property nor does it imply creating a lakefront trail along the existing sewer line easements along Lake Sammamish's waterfront. City of Redmond SMP Policies, page 23. The City of Redmond's SMP has been approved by the DOE. Our SMP should be revised to include similar language to protect the private property rights of waterfront homeowners. Medina's SMP Should Declare that Buffers are Not Required on Lake Washington Shorelines It is clear from Ecology's preliminary comments and the changes that Staff made to MMC 20.67, Critical Areas in the Shoreline, that sooner or later the DOE will seek to have the City impose buffers in addition to setbacks on waterfront properties. Although buffers are on the DOE's wishlist, they are not required where there is no documented fish and wildlife habitat, such as a salmon spawning bed. Medina is not the first city to confront this issue with the DOE. The City of Redmond faced a similar situation and they resolved it with the following language: Because Lake Sammamish's shoreline is largely developed, there are no buffer requirements along the lake, There is, however, a lakefront building setback. Redmond's shoreline buffer polices reflect...variations between shoreline areas... , Where shorelines have already been intensely developed, Redmond's buffer policies generally reflect existing setbacks and anticipated levels ofgrowth, while maintaining most natural functions of the shoreline corridor. City of Redmond SMP Policies, page 16. Just like the shoreline of Lake Sammamish, the shoreline of Lake Washington is intensely developed with single family residences. In addition, the ability of Lake Washington to function as a fish and wildlife habitat has been virtually destroyed by the actions of various Federal and State agencies over decades. This is recognized in our Cumulative Impact Analysis ( "CIA "), as follows: The construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks...in 1916, along with the elimination of the Black River and the diversion of the Cedar River into the lake caused monumental changes to Lake Washington. CIA, page 13. The construction of the locks lowered Lake Washington by nearly 9 feet, The location of the locks near the western terminus of Salmon Bay converted the formerly saltwater inlet into a freshwater channel and eliminated over 7 km (4 miles) of estuarine habitat. The lowering of the lake and the diverting of the Cedar River affect both fish populations and habitat conditions. CIA, page 13. The reduction in the lake level eliminated much of the available shallow -water and freshwater marsh habitat, and decreased the length of the shoreline, Chrzastowski 1983) reports a loss of 15.3 km (9.5 miles) of shoreline, and an estimated loss of 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of wetland from lowering the lake. CIA, page 14. The riparian shoreline of Lake Washington is highly altered from its historic state. Current and future land use practices all but eliminate the possibility of the shoreline to function as a natural shoreline to benefit salmonids CIA, page 17. The urbanization of the Lake Washington shoreline has resulted in a shoreline generally lacking native vegetation. There are very few sources of woody debris recruitment that remain and these are primarily associated with the only remaining undeveloped shorelines. The result is a lack of habitat structure used for rearing and outside inputs necessary to support foraging. CIA, page 22. When compared with functions necessary for supplying ecological conditions sufficient to sustain fish and wildlife associated with Lake Washington and the associated upland areas, the overall, "true "function in the City of Medina would be Low.... CIA, page 29. Not only is there no documented salmon spawning along Medina's shorelines, based on our CIA there is no potential for salmon spawning to occur. As a result, Medina's SMP should affirmatively declare that the Lake Washington shorelines in Medina are not a critical area and that buffers are not required. Transportation Zone Uses Too Broad An issue I have raised repeatedly with Staff and the Planning Commission, and to which I have never received a response other than "take it up with the City Council" is with respect to the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Transportation environment. (Shoreline Use Table MMC 20.62.030) The purpose of the Transportation environment is to accommodate the infrastructure necessary for the SR 520 corridor. (MMC 20.61.060) The Shoreline Use Table includes the following as permitted or conditionally permitted uses and structures in the Transportation zone: Accessory buildings /uses located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling other than specifically listed in the table; adult family home; detached single-family dwelling; manufactured home; alternative energy facilities - accessory to a permitted use; wireless communication facilities; aquaculture - accessory; water - enjoyment recreational development; boat launch motorized /non - motorized; piers, docks, boat lifts, moorage pilings and covered moorage; breakwaters /jetties /rockweirs /groins; city governmentfacilities and trams providing access in steep slope areas. As early as May 2011 I raised the following concerns: that many of these activities, uses and associated structures go far beyond necessary infrastructure for the SR 520 corridor. Once the SR 520 project is completed, will the lid over Evergreen Point Road and the waterfront public access area be considered part of the Transportation zone? If so, I suspect the residents of Medina would be shocked if a detached single family dwelling or city government facilities suddenly appeared on what they thought was going to be "green space" over the new freeway, or if a motorized boat ramp were to be installed in an area they were led to believe would be a quiet pedestrian- oriented waterfront access path underneath the bridge. It is one thing to allow accessory buildings associated with the new SR 520 corridor itself; it is quite another to allow so many unrelated uses and structures. While I recognize that WSDOT is not proposing to build anything as diverse as would be permitted under the Shoreline Use Table, why take a chance of these uses or structures ever being permitted in future? In my opinion, the language used in Table 20.62.030 leaves the door wide open for more intensive development to occur at some point in the future. The chart should be changed to limit the uses and structures in the Transportation zone to the minimum necessary to accommodate the infrastructure for the SR 520 corridor, and such other public recreational facilities as are reasonable and appropriate given the nature of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Transportation zone. Urban Conservancy Uses Incompatible With Purpose of Zone Another area of concern that 1 have repeatedly raised, to no avail, is in regard to the permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy zone. The purpose of the Urban Conservancy designation is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space and other sensitive lands while allowing a variety of compatible uses. (MMC 20.61.040) Table 20.62.030 of the proposed SMP references wireless communication facilities and boat launches (motorized /non - motorized) as being permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Urban Conservancy zone. In my opinion, these types of uses and their infrastructure are incompatible with the underlying purpose of the zone. Even the DOE recognizes that permitting wireless communication facilities is inappropriate in the Urban Conservancy zone - see comments of Anthony B., pages 29 -32 of Department of Ecology Preliminary SMP Comments Received w /Cover Sheet, available on City of Medina website.) Furthermore, neither one of these uses is allowed in the Shoreline Residential zone. How surprising it would be for a waterfront property owner in the Shoreline Residential zone to look next door at an Urban Conservancy property and see a wireless communication facility or a motorized boat ramp being installed. These uses should not be permitted on Urban Conservancy properties (with the exception of the City Hall property, due to the public safety issue of providing the police department with reliable wireless service). Medina's SMP Should Include Provisions Authorized by RCW 90.58.620 In 2011 the Washington State Legislature passed SSB 5451 and Governor Christine Gregoire signed the bill into law in July of 2011. The bill was designed to give cities like Medina the opportunity to declare as conforming homes that would otherwise become nonconforming following passage of the SMP. SSB 5451 was codified as RCW 90.58.620. RCW 90.58.620 New or amended master programs — Authorized provisions. 1) New or amended master programs approved by the department on or after September 1, 2011, may include provisions authorizing: a) Residential structures and appurtenant structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use, but that do not meet standards for the following to be considered a conforming structure: Setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density; and b) Redevelopment, expansion, change with the class of occupancy, or replacement of the residential structure if it is consistent with the master program, including requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 2) For purposes of this section, "appurtenant structures" means garages, sheds, and other legally established structures. 'Appurtenant structures" does not include bulkheads and other shoreline modifications or over -water structures. 3) Nothing in this section: (a) Restricts the ability of a master program to limit redevelopment, expansion, or replacement of over -water structures located in hazardous areas, such as floodplains and geologically hazardous areas; or (b) affects the application of other federal, state, or local government requirements to residential structures. Medina's SMP should incorporate the language of RCW 90.58.620. MMC 20.66.090 (F) should be amended to include a declaration that homes that were conforming prior to passage of the SMP, will still be considered conforming following passage of the SMP, regardless whether they meet the new standards, if any, for setbacks, buffers, yards, area, bulk, height or density. Summing Up Medina's SMP is not the community- friendly document that it should be. Without discounting the work that has been put into it over the last year or so by the members of the Shoreline Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, City Staff or the public, we can and should do better. In this letter I have highlighted but a few of the areas that need to be addressed - there are many more. Because of the size of the SMP, it cannot be addressed in a single letter nor digested in a single meeting. And it most certainly cannot be discussed coherently in the three minutes allotted for public comment at the public hearing. In my opinion, the City Council should look to what other neighboring jurisdictions are doing to preserve the property rights of their residents and incorporate the best provisions of other cities' SMPs into Medina's SMP. This is an idea that Medinallow members have brought up repeatedly to City Staff and the Planning Commission, and we have been told that this constitutes "cherry- picking." So what? The City is supposed to ensure that the SMP meets local needs and circumstances of the community. Adopting approved regulations from our neighboring cities seems to be a rational and fair approach to doing just that. Sincerely, Suzanne Cohen P.O. Box 649 Medina, WA 98039 SCHWA tEs WILLTAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT LAW U_S. Bank Centre, 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA 981014010 l Phone 206.622.1711 I Fax 206.292.0460 1 www.schwabe.com AARON M. LAING Admitted in Washington Direct Line: 206 -407 -1553 E -Mail: aiainggschwabe.com June 7, 2012 VIA E -MAIL: MLUISna,MEDINA- WAeGOV CCMAILriNEDINA- WA.GOV Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council City of Medina P 0. Box 144 Medina, WA 98039 Re: Medina's Draft Shoreline \Caster Program - Responses to Rcology's Informal Comments Dear Mayor Luis & Councilmembers: I hope this finds you each well! I write on behalf of Medinallow, a non - profit community organization that has advocated for the past year for sensible, clear and fair shoreline regulations for Medina's over 400 waterfront property owners. On June 12, 2012, the City will take the next step in the ongoing Shoreline Master Program ( "SMP ") update process. For the reasons below, which I will address in person on the 12t , I urge you to adhere to the SMP update process set forth in the Shoreline Management Act ( "SMA" or "Act "), decline the Department of Ecology's invitation to engage in closed -door legislating, and instead forward on to Ecology the Planning Commission's March 27, 2012 Draft SMP, not the May 14, 2012 revised draft proposed by Ecology and Staff in response to Ecology's informal, preliminary comments. Shoreline Master ?rogram Update Process and Principles The process and substance of SMP updates must conform to the provisions of the SMA, RCW Chapter 90.58, and Washington Administrative Code ( "WAC ") Chapter WAC 173 -26 (the Guidelines "). In going through the process, it is crucial that local governments and Ecology be mindful that, as stated in WAC 173 -26- 186(1) and Washington State Supreme Court precedent, The Guidelines are subordinate to the Act. Any inconsistency between the Guidelines and the Act must be resolved in accordance with the Act." (Emphasis and capitalization added.) Suffice to say, the Guidelines are replete with provisions that are facially inconsistent with the Act, and Portland, OR 503.222.9981 1 Salem, OR 503.540,4262 1 Bend, OR 541.749.4044 Seattle, WA 206.622.1711 1 Vancouver, WA 360.694,7551 1 Washington, DC 202.488.4302 PDX/033333/077774/AAL/9587565.3 Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council June 7, 2012 Page 2 the May 14, 2012 proposed revisions to your draft SMP are reflective of some of these inconsistencies. I will return to this point later. Continuing, RCW 90.58.050 provides: This chapter establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state. Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by this chapter and administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions of this chapter. The department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and on insuring compliance with the policy and provisions of this chapter. Emphasis added.) Similarly, WAC 173 -26 -010 provides in relevant part: The provisions of this chapter implement the requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971... . This chapter is drafted to also reflect RCW 90.58.050 which provides that the Shoreline Management Act is intended to be a cooperative program between local government and the state. It is the intent of this chapter to r ovide minimum procedural requirements as necessary to comply with the statutory requirements while .providing latitude for local government to establish procedural systems based on local needs and circumstances. Pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, [Ecology] must approve master programs prepared by local governments or adopt them by rule consistent with the Act... Emphasis added.) Although WAC 173- 26- 201(h) provides that "Local governments are encouraged to work with [Ecology] personnel during preparation of the master program and to submit draft master program provisions to [Ecology] for informal advice and guidance prior to formal submittal," this informal process is nowhere written in the Act and should not be construed as a requirement much less carte blanche authority to disregard the efforts of the public and the Planning Commission to create a draft SMP that is "based on local needs and circumstances." Rather, this informal process should be considered in the context of the SMA and Guidelines as a whole, which clearly mandate that Ecology's role is limited to providing support to ensure compliance with the Act, not legislating its own biases into local SMPs. PDX/033333/077774/AAL/9587565.3 Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council June 7, 2012 Page 3 In sum, it is clear that the Legislature intended for and in fact required a process that would ensure that the local government—the City of Medina —would take the lead role in adopting shoreline regulations consistent with the SMA and that Ecology's role would be that of proving the minimal technical support as needed to ensure procedural and substantive compliance with the Act. Unfortunately, what has occurred in Medina (and elsewhere) is a "tail- wagging- the -dog" problem: Ecology is using informal, often surreptitious, communication with planning Staff to revise the draft SMP outside of the adopted planning process and outside of public purview. The result here is significant and substantive revisions (not merely "minor revisions" or "easily identifiable inconsistencies" as stated in the May 14, 2012 Staff Memorandum) that are neither reflective of the thoughtful, thorough effort by your Planning Commission nor the significant public input that went into shaping the March 27, 2012 draft SMP to address "local needs and circumstances." It bears repeating that this informal process is not a part of the SMA, except to the extent one may construe Ecology's mandatory technical support to be informal guidance. Technical guidance, however, is a far cry from dictating changes in a draft SMP without providing (1) specific written comments as to why a provision is inconsistent with the SMA, (2) allowing for a robust public comment period, and (3) requiring the local government to provide written responses to public comments prior to taking further action. This is the process envisioned mandated) by the Legislature, as set forth in RCW 90.58.090(2): 2) Upon receipt of a proposed master program or amendment, jEcologyj shall: a) Provide notice to and opportunity for written comment by all interested parties of record as a part of the local government review process for the . ro • osal and to all . ersons ou . s and a encies that have re • uested in writing notice of proposed master programs or amendments generally or for a specific area, subject matter, or issue. The comment period shall be at least thirty days, unless the department determines that the level of complexity or controversy involved supports a shorter period; b) In [Ecology's] discretion, conduct a public hearing during the thirty -day comment period in the jurisdiction proposing the master program or amendment; c) Within fifteen days after the close of public comment, request the local government to review the issues identified by the public, interested parties, groups, and agencies and provide a written response as to how the proposal addresses the identified issues; PDX/033333/077774/AAL/9587565.3 Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council June 7, 2012 Page 4 d) Within thirty days after receipt of the local government response pursuant to (c) of this subsection, make written findings and conclusions re • ardin • the consistenc of the .ro osal with the . olic of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. provide a response to the issues identified in (c) of this subsection and either as .rove the )ro.osal as submitted recommend specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable, or deny approval of the ro.osal in those instances where no alteration of the ..ro.osal a•'ears likel . to be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. The written findings and conclusions shall be provided to the local government, and made available to all__interested persons, parties, groups, and agencies of record on the proposal; e) 11 'Ecology] recommends changes to the proposed master program or amendment, within thirty days after [Ecology] mails the written findings and conclusions to the local government, the local government may: i) Agree to the proposed changes by written notice to the department; or ii) Submit an alternative proposal... 3) [Ecology] shall approve the segment of a master program relating to shorelines unless it determines that the submitted segments are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. Emphasis added.) See also WAC 173.26.120. By allowing Ecology and City Staff to make significant, substantive changes to the March 27 draft SMP without (1) requiring that Ecology make and distribute written comments that provide specific references to the Act vis -a -vis allegedly inconsistent provisions, (2) allowing Ecology to avoid further public process, and (3) allowing Ecology and Staff to make substantive revisions without requiring Staff to respond in writing to public comments on those revisions, the City is undermining both the purposes of the Act and the trust placed in the City by the public. I respectfully submit that the City should follow the process set forth above and formally submit to Ecology the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission draft SMP. May 14, 20112 Staff Revisions Sidestep the Process to the Public's I.f etriment From a substantive perspective, of the nearly 40 changes made by Staff to the Planning Commission's March 27, 2012 draft SMP, only the change of the word "line" to "mark" (as in Ordinary High Water Mark ") is non - substantive and an appropriate change to make prior to forwarding the draft. The remainder of the changes is reflective of a general approach taken by Seb PDX/033 333/077774/AAL/9587565.3 Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council June 7, 2012 Page 5 Ecology throughout the region to make substantive revisions to draft SMPs after they leave local planning commissions but before they reach the legislative body, which revisions are typically inconsistent with the SMA and contrary to public comments and "local needs and circumstances." For example, in the Cities of Bellevue, Redmond and Mercer Island, Ecology attempted to negotiate changes to their respective draft SMPs through informal communication with planning staff. Earlier this year, Bellevue's Planning Commission directed planning staff to communicate with Ecology in writing on any proposed changes and to make such written communication available to the public and the commission. Bellevue's Planning Commission also directed Staff to require that Ecology provide specific references to the SMA provisions that Ecology believed mandated different language in Bellevue's SMP as opposed to vague, conclusory statements regarding alleged inconsistencies. Mercer Island had a similar experience and similarly pushed back on Ecology to put Ecology to its proof to provide concrete, written direction on clear inconsistencies with the SMA. Unsurprisingly, Ecology has been unable to do so on many items related to docks, bulkheads, setbacks, buffers and other items of paramount importance to shoreline homeowners. Some of Ecology's comments are frankly disturbing. For example, the Legislature— mindful of the fact that many shorelines such as Lake Washington are highly - developed and that the Act requires that SMPs shall give `priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures "— adopted RCW 90.58.620 to ensure that existing homes are not diminished by the adoption or amendment of SMPs, which provides: 1) New or amended master programs approved by the department on or after September 1, 2011, may include provisions authorizing: a) Residential structures and appurtenant structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use, but that do not meet standards for the following to be considered a conforming structure: Setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density; and b) Redevelopment, expansion, change with the class of occupancy, or replacement of the residential structure if it is consistent with the master program, including requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 2) For purposes of this section, "appurtenant structures" means garages, sheds, and other legally established structures. "Appurtenant structures" does not include bulkheads and other shoreline modifications or over -water structures. 3) Nothing in this section: (a) Restricts the ability of a master program to limit redevelopment, expansion, or replacement of over -water structures located in hazardous areas, such as floodplains and geologically hazardous areas; or (b) PDX/033333/077774/AAL/9587565.3 Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council June 7, 2012 Page 6 affects the application of other federal, state, or local government requirements to residential structures. Emphasis added.) Despite the Legislature's effort to protect homes from being rendered nonconforming uses, Ecology — through the same informal comment process here and in other jurisdictions— advised local planning staff to remove this provision or similar language from draft SMPs prior to their consideration by local legislative bodies. 'There is no legal much less principled reason to engage in informal legislating to remove such provisions from draft SMPs. Similarly, RCW 36.70A.480 makes it clear that shorelines are not critical areas and are not to be regulated as such unless they also contain a critical area (e.g., wetlands, steep slopes, etc.): 4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060. 5) Shorelines of the state shall not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within shorelines of the state qualify for critical area designation based on the definition of critical areas provided by RCW 36 ..70A.030(5) and have been designated as such by a local government pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2). Emphasis added.) Despite this clear mandate, Ecology persists in informally advising local governments to adopt buffers (i.e., no touch areas) as opposed to structural setbacks typical in all zoning codes and to impose affirmative restoration obligations on shoreline homeowners when such requirements have been found to be unlawful. Cities like Redmond, Bellevue and Mercer Island have rejected such efforts to legislate such changes back into their draft SMPs outside of the public eye and outside of the statutorily - mandated written comment / response process. If you vote to allow for the May 14 revisions to be forwarded to Ecology, you will have taken an unnecessary step toward eroding your waterfront homeowners' rights without the benefit of even asking Ecology to explain in writing —the legal basis of such requirements. An Opportunity to Do Right by Your Constituents: Forward the March 27, 2012 ]draft It is telling that the Comment column in the May 14, 2012 Staff Memorandum repeatedly states "Consistency with state regulations" but fails to provide any citation to those regulations, much less an explanation of why or how the March 27 daft is inconsistent. A careful review of the April 24, 2012 Staff Memorandum title "Preliminary Comments from Department of Ecology" is no more revealing. S'MT PDX/033333/077774/AALJ9587565.3 Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council June 7, 2012 Page 7 When we were children, many of us had teachers that insisted that we "show our work" when we solved problems. The SMA requires that Ecology "show its work" when it suggests or requires changes to draft SMPs. Accordingly, the City should decline Ecology's invitation to engage in an anonymous process that allows it to make significant substantive changes to your draft SMP that are neither required by the Act nor reflective of the "needs and circumstances" of your community. 1 ask that you please submit to Ecology the March 27, 2012 draft SMP with only clerical corrections if any, not the Ecology-driven, Staff-revised draft of May 14. Respectfully yours, AAL:aal PDX/0333 33/077774/AAL/9587565.3 Robert Grumbach From: Sent: To: Subject: Rachel Baker Friday, June 08, 2012 2:33 PM Robert Grumbach FW: March 27 draft SMP Original Message From: Pamela Lyford [mailto:armpitslPaol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:41 PM To: City Council Mail Subject: March 27 draft SMP I whole heartedly agree with Aaron Lang's request that Medina forward the Planning Commission March 27 draft to Ecology AS WRITTEN. Pam Lyford 8845 Overlake Dr W Median waterfront property owner since 1974 and member of Medinallow Robert Grumbach From: Sent: To: Subject: Rachel Baker Friday, June 08, 2012 2:32 PM Robert Grumbach FW: Medina's Draft Shoreline Master Plan Frwm: Ken Bellamy [mailto :ken@Itrimetdev.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:38 PM To: Michael Luis; City Council Mail Subject: Medina's Draft Shoreline Master Plan Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council City of Medina Dear Mayor Luis and Councilmembers: I am a founding member of Medinallow and have been a resident of Medina for 6 years. I have attended the Shoreline Master Plan Open House, several Planning Commission Meetings and the May 14th City Council Meeting in an effort to comprehend the impact of the draft Shoreline Master Plan ( "SMP ") and the numerous late changes to the draft SMP made by Medina planning staff subsequent to the March 27th draft SMP approved by the Planning Commission. 1 find the draft SMP very difficult to comprehend and it is impossible to anticipate the impacts it will have on waterfront homeowners as they remodel or rebuild their property in the future. My difficulty in comprehending the draft SMP is shared by many based on comments made by other homeowners and by City Council members. My home was originally built in 1935 and is on a smaller lot with a very steep slope and retaining wall running across the property about 120' to 130' from the shoreline. My home is located waterward of the slope and retaining wall.The draft SMP has numerous requirements and limitations; setbacks, buffers, landscape and planting requirements, patio and pathway restrictions to name a few; which would have a significant negative impact when it comes time to remodel or rebuild. In addition, the draft SMP needs to clearly state that homes and other improvements that are conforming now will remain so after the SMP is passed into law. Also, waterfront property owners need to maintain the right to dredge to maintain existing moorage. At the May 14th City Council meeting, City Staff and some City Council members stated that the draft SMP is intended to be "defensible" to Department Of Ecology but in fact it goes far beyond that and imposes many burdens on waterfront homeowners that are not required by State law. Other jurisdictions on Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish have successfully negotiated language on issues of concern that favor the rights of their citizens. Medina must do the same so that it's citizens enjoy the same property rights as do the citizens of other jurisdictions. The place to start this process is to forward the Planning Commission's March 27th, 2012 draft SMP to the Department of Ecology. Respectfully, Ken Bellamy 3654 Fairweather Lane Medina, WA 98039 Robert Grumbach From: Rachel Baker Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:33 PM To: Robert Grumbach Subject: FW: Medina SMP From: Chris Marker [maiito :cmarker737 ©aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:26 AM To: City Council Mail Subject Medina SMP To Medina City Council members: From Chris Marker, 3635 Evergreen Point Road, Medina Please excuse the informality of this memorandum as I have just recently returned home to Medina and learned of the hearing scheduled for June 12 and wanted to be sure my wife and I voiced our concern, in general, about the SMP and the review and approval process. We are 32 year residents of Medina and 12 year residents on the West side waterfront on Evergreen Point. Over the past several months, we have become founding members and helped to fund Medina NOW. We have depended on that organization and its legal counsel to review the complicated SMP, provide input to the City regarding the Plan's intent, content, etc. The SMP is certainly an intimidating document for non - lawyers. I am sure its complexity will require average homeowners to hire expensive consultants and counsel to wade through the document to determine how the SMP will impact their home ownership and general property rights. I hope the City Council has read and fully understands the document and all its ramifications for Medina citizens. We are of the impression that Medina city staff has been primarily focused on satisfying the desires of the Washington State DOE and not necessarily working diligently to serve and protect the rights of Medina home owners. We believe that Medina citizens should bear no greater burden due to the SMP than citizens of other similar Jurisdictions who also have developed, approved SMPs. Ale recognize the process to develop the SMP is a complex one and we hope the Council will not approve the plan until it is certain that the provisions of SSB 5451 are properly ncorporated, so that existing residences remain "conforming ". Also we feel that the MP should state emphatically that no public access will ever be required by the City ver private property associated with a single family residence. Ve believe the vast majority of waterfront home owners are and will be good stewards f Lake Washington waterfront. We trust the Council will only finalize and approve a 1 SMP that will facilitate that objective in the most equitable manner, considering the rights and obligations of all involved. We appreciate your hearing and taking our thoughts into account in your deliberations. Respectfully, Chris Marker Susan Marker 2 Robert Gru m.bach From: Smith, Shasta T. (Perkins Coie) [STSmith @perkinscoie.com] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 11:56 AM To: Robert Grumbach Subject: SMP Robert, I hope all is well. I just wanted to check in to see if any further comments had been received on the SMP since the Council's last hearing. If so, has there had been any changes to the SMP since? If not, I assume the Council will hold its second public hearing and presumably adopt the SMP this time around. Shasta T. Smith ; Perkins Coie !_LP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.6134 FAX: 206.359.7134 E -MAIL: STSmith @perkinscoie.com IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly indicated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used, and cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or any attachments). NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 1 From Pam Lyford June 8, 2012 8845 Overlake Dr W Dear Medina Council Members, have owned a large tract of prime waterfront in Medina since 1974. I read and attempted to understand the SMP, the appendix , changes and comments by the DOE. It was a challenge. Questions for the Council- - Do any Council members live on the waterfront? Have you read and understood the SMP documents? Has Council taken a tour of Medina waterfront by boat? Do you feel that private property rights are adequately guarded in the DOE agenda? Personal concerns for me- Storm water runoff A very large pipe along our property line brings grease and oil from the road into the lake with each rain. Surely this is more harmful to the lake than many of the concerns DOE addresses. Dredging. Language to permit dredging to maintain private moorage needs to be included in the final Medina SMP. One document allows it and then that wording is removed in the next document. Even now our boat is high and dry as soon as the lake is lowered in the fall. Residents need to be able to get their boats out into the lake. Branding as non - conforming. The structures on our property were legally built seventy years ago. Each prohibition DOE imposes devalues our land and makes future waterside development a nightmare dance with big government. Fantasy visions. Lake Washington is in the center of a huge metropolitan area, not an alpine lake in the North Cascades. We cannot allow the DOE to mandate overemphasis on restoration at the expense of private property rights. No Buffer zones! Please, if you have not done so recently, take a tour of our lovely waterfront and see for yourselves how well we are doing without more "help" from the government. We are depending on our elected Council members to inform themselves and defend the waterfront citizens of Medina. Respectfully, Pam Lyford COLIN AND MANIO RADFORD 3663 Fairweather Lane Medina, WA 98039 c.radford @ comcast.net 425.454.5285 Via E -Mail: MLuis@medina-wa.gov CCmail@medina-wa.gov Mayor Michael Luis Medina City Council City of Medina Medina WA 98039 Subject: Shoreline Master Program Dear Mayor Luis and Council Members: I cannot attend the June 12 Shoreline Master Program you scheduled May 14 and invited us to speak at. Here is what I wish to say: My family has grown up on the end of Evergreen Point since my mother's parents, Wallace and Elsie Foster acquired several acres there in 1921. Most of the trees and many of the plants on our property and adjacent properties were planted by my grandfathers, the rest by others. The land where our homes are built was under water before the lowering of Lake Washingon when the Hiram Chittenden Locks were constructed. Mayor Luis has written several books about the subject. My relatives used to row to Tacome via Renton and out through the Duwamish watershed to attend Oddfellow Hall dances. For many reasons, people who have lived along the waterfront in what is now Medina have generally been good stewards of the environment, to the best of our abilities. Originally all the waterfront homes were on septic tank and water was drawn from wells and springs. It was great when the sewer was built in the lake about 10 feet off shore. Our waterfronts were polished clay before that, and the sewer district covered much of the shoreline near our property with 1 1/2 inch and smaller river washed stones. Small islands of iris gifted by the Japanese government floated over from where they were planted around the arboretum and present UW site for the Alaska - Yukon - Pacific Exposition. Indians who used to net fish off Evergreen Point said the reeds out front migrated to where they are now from the foot of the hill now far inland. By the the 1950's Lake Washington was polluted. Thanks to Metro, it was cleaned up. Many things were well taken care of locally before government got so big. But to clean an entire lake took more effort than any one small group of homeowners could handle. So DOE is not a bad thing. Like most bureaucracies, it lacks local expertise. That's where citizens of Medina are supposed to add value. The problem is that most citizens these days do not know their own natural environments well. Then we get attorneys to write it up; and few of them are experts on the subject. Between the DOE, the citizens and the attorneys we stand a good chance of making things worse rather than better. At the May 14 Council Meeting, it was clear that the Council had neither reviewed the plans carefully for the design of the 84th Ave NE median, nor, for the most part, read the SMP drafts (which is heavy reading). I have read it in 2 draft forms and respectfully ask your help on two items: I read the June 7, 2012, letter from Aaron Laing to the Mayor and Council, and concur that we can minimize the harm we do to property owners and properties by not making more changes to the SMP than necessary. The guidelines are subordinate to the Act. Please submit to Ecology the Planning Commission's March 27 letter with your endorsement. I have read RCW 90.58.620 and recommend its language be incorporated into Medina's SMP. Thank you for caring about and for our community. Colin Radford June 11, 2012 Mayor Michael Luis City of Medina P.O. Box 144 Medina, Wa 98039 Re: Response of Robert Grumbach to my letter of June 7, 2012 Dear Mayor Luis, I have studied Robert's response to my letter, and I truly appreciate his effort to address some of the concerns that I raised on behalf of Medinallow members. Although I still believe that we should be working with the Planning Commission's March 27 draft - not the draft that was changed in response to DOE's preliminary comments - in this letter I will focus primarily on Robert's proposed amendments, and suggest a few clarifications. Dredging. Medinallow supports the proposed amendment to the Use Table that permits "dredging for maintenance of existing private or public moorage" as this is essentially a return to the language of the March 27 draft However, as the DOE representative "Anthony B." in his preliminary comments (available on the City's website) put a red line through both the "dredging to maintain existing moorage" language in the chart and the supplemental language allowing dredging for private moorage that appears in Section 20.65.300 (page 53), going forward it is important that we remain vigilant that both sections reflect the policy to allow dredging to maintain existing moorages. Public Access. Medinallow supports the general idea of adding words like involving public lands" as Robert has proposed, but suggests that the phrase "on public lands" would provide better clarity, because the word "involving" is much broader than the word "on" and this leads to ambiguity. Furthermore, Redmond's SMP uses the phrase "on public lands" not "involving public lands? We suggest adding a new section to MMC 20.66.04Q, proposed as subsection "G ", as follows; G. The requirement ofpublic access does not apply to utility easements on private property nor does it imply creating a lakefront trail over the existing sewer line easements along Medina's Lake Washington shorelines. This language is almost identical to the language that appears in Redmond's SMP, with regard to Lake Sammamish, as quoted in my letter of June 7. It provides utter clarity as to the intent of the City to protect private rights, and including it in Medina's SMP would resolve the concerns of many members of Medinallow. Buffers. Robert has provided an explanation as to when buffers might be applied on Lake Washington properties in certain situations, by giving the example of the spawning area that was found underneath the existing SR 520 East Approach. Robert's response indicates that buffers would only be considered on a site - specific basis, not a lake -wide basis, absent a change to our SMP. Meanwhile, DOE representative "Anthony B." in his comments to Medina's Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) makes the statement: "Lake Washington as a FWHCA should be recognized and buffers applied." (DOE's preliminary comments on CIA, page 39, available on the City's website.) In addition, on page 98 of his comments on Medina's SMP, "Anthony B." says with reference to MMC 20.67.070, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation (appears on page 85 of the SMP), "This section should be kept the way it is indicated here. The change made on March 27 PC Hearing implies that Lake Washington is not a FWHCA, which is not the case." The change he is referencing is the inclusion of the clause "not including Type S or Type 1 waters." This is the same clause that Robert relies on in his response to my letter of June 7, as precluding the imposition of blanket buffers on Lake Washington. Clearly, there is a conflict between the DOE rep's understanding of the issue and Robert's understanding, and this raises a concern for Medinallow members as to which will ultimately prevail. That is why we are suggesting that we deal with the problem in the same way that Redmond did, by adding a new section "c" to MMC 20.67.090 (F) (1), as follows: F. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - buffers. 1. The Director shall require the establishment of buffer areas for activities in, or adjacent to, habitat conservation areas when needed to protect habitat conservation areas. (This is unchanged from existing language and is being provided here for background information.) a. (unchanged) b. (unchanged) c. Because Medina's Lake Washington shoreline has already been intensely developed, as a general rule there are no buffer requirements along the lake. This does not preclude specific shoreline areas that contain documented fish and wildlife habitat areas (such as a salmon spawning area), being subject to a buffer. However, this determination would be made on a site specific, case -by -case basis. RCW 90.58.620. In his response to my letter of June 7, Robert indicates that the spirit" of SSB 5451, which amended RCW 90.58.620, has been incorporated into Medina's SMP. However, Medina's waterfront homeowners would prefer to have the letter" of SSB 5451 in our SMP. Why? Because the DOE's agenda includes the eventual elimination of non - conforming structures. The DOE has even put a PowerPoint presentation on their website that contains the following slide: Nonconforming basics Can continue to exist Long term goal: eliminate (emphasis mine) Nonconformity cannot increase Reality: many existfor a long time Nonconforming Uses and Structures PowerPoint Presentation by Betty Renkor, slide 8.) Similarly, in April of 2010 the DOE issued a paper on non - conforming use and development (available at www.ecy.wa.gov /programs/ sea / shorelines /smp /handbook /Nonconforming devel opment guidance.pdf). The following section appears on page 7 of the paper: Court cases and Shorelines Hearings Board cases Some key points from ... Court and Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) cases: Washington state laws do not address the regulation of nonconforming development, and leave this issue primarily to local governments to resolve. Nonconforming development (uses and structures) is generally disfavored. (emphasis mine) Nonconforming development is routinely allowed to continue, at least for some time. (emphasis mine) A nonconforming status grants the development the right to continue to exist, but does not assure the right to significantly change, enlarge or alter the development. Limited expansion of a nonconforming structure might be permissible because it is tied to other actions to bring the overall use into conformity (e.g., upgrade of nonconforming septic system). Local ordinances can terminate nonconforming development that is abandoned or presents a hazard, or provide for it to cease over time. The language in the SMP is critical to the resolution of SHB and Court cases. It seems clear that both case law and the DOE "disfavor" non - conformity and envision that non - conforming development will either be brought into conformity, or will be eliminated over time. The Legislature passed SSB 5451 to address concerns of property owners whose homes are in danger of being labeled non- conforming due to the updated SMPs. This is an unprecedented action by our State government and we should not pass up this opportunity to provide Medina's waterfront homeowners with the benefit of this legislation. Apparently, Kitsap County homeowners have voiced the same concerns and the Kitsap County planner has resolved those concerns by inserting the following language into that county's draft SMP: 5.1.2 Existing Structures A. Lawfully constructed structures 1. Lawfully constructed structures, including those approved through a variance, built before the effective date of this Program shall be considered conforming, with the exception of existing over -water residences, which shall be considered nonconforming. 2. All lawfully constructed structures may continue and may be repaired or maintained in accordance with the Act and this Program. 3. Lawfully constructed conforming structures may be expanded or redeveloped in accordance with the mitigation standards ofAppendix B (Mitigation Options to Achieve No Net Loss for New or Re- Development Activities) and all other applicable regulations. Such structures shall also be considered conforming. 4 In the event that a legally existing structure is damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion or other casualty, it may be reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the structure was damaged or destroyed, provided the application is made for the necessary permits within six months of the date the damage or destruction occurred, and the restoration is completed within two years of permit issuance or the conclusion of any appeal on the permit. 5 Any legally existing structure that is moved any distance must be brought in to conformance with the Act and this Program. B. Existing Appurtenances to Single Family Residences. Those legally existing appurtenances that are common to existing single family residences shall be considered conforming. Such appurtenances may include garages and sheds, but shall not include bulkheads, overwater structures or other shoreline modifications. C. Vegetation Conservation Standards of this Program shall not apply retroactively in a way which requires lawfully existing uses and developments, including residential landscaping and gardens to be removed, except as required as mitigation for new and expanded development. (Kitsap County Draft SMP, available on Kitsap County website.) Although it appears that Kitsap County's SMP has not yet been submitted to the DOE for approval, there is no reason to think that this language would not be approved, as it is permitted by SSB 5451. Medina's SMP should be redrafted to include a similar provision. Conclusion Whether or not the Council elects to revert to the March 27 Planning Commission draft, I respectfully urge the Council to instruct staff to incorporate the points raised above into our SMP. Sincerely, Suzanne Cohen P.O. Box 649 Medina, WA 98039 Robert Grumbach From: Steve Burnstead [Steve @burnstead.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:16 AM To: Michael Luis; City Council Mail; Katie Phelps; ddicharrry @medina - wa.gov; David Lee; Jay Decker; Robert Grumbach Cc: Suzanne Cohen; Laing, Aaron M. Subject: SMP Letter to Medina City Council From: Steve Burnstead Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:28 PM Cc: Suzanne Cohen Subject: SMP Letter to Medina City Council Dear Mayor Luis and Council members: I am writing on behalf of Medinallow, a non - profit community organization of Medina shoreline property owners. This letter is in regards to the upcoming June 12th City Council meeting and public hearing regarding the March 27th 2012 Medina SMP draft approved and submitted by the current Planning Commission. The following specific issues of concern regarding the current March 27th Medina SMP draft relate to requirements imposed by the city of Medina. These are SMP issues which are not Dept. of Ecology requirements related to updating the Medina SMP. 1) 20.66.050 Tree Management and Vegetation conservation (Page 58) Medinallow strongly urges a complete comprehensive review of Medina's existing Tree Management and Mitigation Ordinance before this portion is included in the SMP update. The 3/27/12 SMP draft simply adopts a more restrictive version of the existing Medina Tree Ordinance. The following is a sample of some of Tree Ordinance issues that should be considered: A) The Medina Tree Ordinance should only apply specifically to "Native trees" listed in City of Medina's List of Suitable Tree Species. Non native ornamental trees in the "Medina List" which are or were planted by the property owners should not require any mitigation should a property owner elect to remove them. These non native trees are not required to be retained by the DOE and should not be part of the SMP Tree Management and Vegetation section. I am unaware of any other jurisdiction that includes non native trees in a Tree Ordinance. Both landscaping maintenance and landscape redevelopment of private property is an ongoing and fluid part of owning a single family property, be it pruning, removal of overgrown ornamental trees, transplanting or a complete re- landscape. It should not be a government monitored activity and certainly should not require mitigation. B) The mitigation replacement ratios for trees in the Tree Ordinance is excessive. For example to remove an existing 30 inch DBH tree requires planting 10 new trees of 3" caliper or larger. For a 36" DBH tree it would require planting 18 TREES 4 inch caliper or larger. The average Medina property owner simply does not have enough property available for this quantity of tree planting. This ratio of 10/1 to 18/1 replacements fails to recognize the rapid growth rate of smaller trees and would result in a literal forest. These new trees would be required to be mitigated once again by the property owner if they become too large for the area planted. Eventually using the Medina tree ratio, the mitigated tree planting will remove all sunlight to the property. Most jurisdiction use a ratio closer to 2/1 or 3/1 for a "Native" tree 30" DBH — 36" DBH C) The cost to pay for mitigation of a tree removal as an option to replanting is excessive and prohibits this option for the average property owner who simply wishes to remove a tree on theft own property. It is extremely expensive by itself to pay to have a single tree removed let alone pay the city's mitigation cost. For example: a single 30" DBH tree has a city mitigation cost of 30 x 1.25 X $250 = $9375 plus removal $3000 - $5000. TOTAL COST 12,375 - $14,375/per tree. For a 36" tree 36 X 2 X $400 = $28,800 plus $5000 - $7000 removal TOTAL COST 33,800 - $35,800 per tree. The fees grossly overstate the value of a single tree. 1 D) Single stand alone large trees pose a health risk (loss of human life) and property risk. These risks in the event of these huge trees falling cannot be mitigated or the risk eliminated to the property owner simply by the city requiring the property owner to have them reviewed by an arborist. It requires a danger rating of 12 to authorize non mitigated removal and would suggest the property owner perform this costly review on an annual basis to assure the health of the tree. Despite the arborist review, the city can not guarantee the tree will not fall during any number of potential weather events and destroy property around it. The question to ask is, what size of tree is simply too large and too dangerous for a Residential community. Prior to `Tree Ordinances" being written by local governments, trees were managed and removed by the property owners as needed. Urban Residential environments were never meant to be surrounded by 200 ft plus tall mature Douglas fir trees just waiting to topple over and destroy everything in their path. The cost to remove these huge trees is high enough alone. The Council should consider modifying the Tree Ordinance to allow trees in excess of 40 DBH standing primarily alone, in an exposed area and endangering homes to be removed without additional mitigation. E) Complete redevelopment of a property should only require a goal to retain a certain percentage of the existing native" trees on the site. The city of Redmond as an example uses 35% of the existing trees to be retained for redevelopment and is considered very restrictive compared to other cities. The Council should consider establishing an agreed upon retention percentage vs. the existing tree by tree evaluation and mitigation requirement per the Medina Tree Ordinance. 2) Financial security requirements for Mitigation planting and monitoring: The "Performance Bond" requirement in the 3/27/12 SMP draft is both an unnecessary cost and an onerous requirement to obtain for the property owner. This is not a DOE requirement, but rather a suggestion from the staff. 3) Pervious surface definitions: The 3/27/12 definitions require the property owner to hire expert consultants to determine "predevelopment" conditions rather than just simply using an accepted standard to define a pervious surface. This is an unnecessary costly and onerous additional requirement vs. a simple straight forward definition used by other jurisdictions. I urge the City Council members to consider and address the issues brought forward to your attention in this e -mail letter. Additionally, all public comments both written and spoken at the upcoming June 12th City Council meeting should be considered prior to forwarding the Medina SMP draft to DOE for their comments. Thank you for your time and consideration, Steve A Burnstead Medinallow 2 Medina City Council Special Meeting Tuesday June 12, 2012 Subject: Crosswalk Pavement Marking Options for 5 Corners Intersection NE 12th & 84th Ave NE) 1. Replace Brick Pattern Crosswalks installed in 2004 a. Remove pavement and repave for new installation b. Install new Brick Pattern Crosswalks 2. Replace Brick Pattern Crosswalk with Piano Key Pattern a. Remove pavement and repave for new installation b. Install thermoplastic piano key pattern 3. /Replace Brick Pattern Crosswalk with Piano Key Pattern a. Grind off existing brick pattern b. Install thermoplastic piano key pattern 4. Replace Brick Pattern Crosswalk or Supplement with Straight Lines a. Grind off existing brick pattern b. Install thermoplastic straight lines 18,300 15,000 33,300 18,300 3,500 21,800 1,500 3,500 5,000 1,500 1,500 3,000 d, I • . j e ... t 1?1. 4 I . 4 A 4 • , 3 5 a • . A, A" , • 4 • • • • I) :k • , , •e • . 11 e - 1J 4 le . 1 t• . lo •• •. 9- 9 44 • A •• -• ' • it. 1 f" r ..• ' . 4, 1- V -.. 1A11' se- • t'," 14 - - • • . 4 ''' 1.I A 9 4t • 4/ t" . 1., e" ' • • . b • * 4, idd CI Is 't . n. -t. s ... . - 4 A A 1. st . : • . • • t • A. 4 I A.' 1 . .1: r• • 4 , . b .!. s .1 E • ." •.:4 44 • 41 4 4:3 p*:...• .,:f., 44 .44: 4.... ' . „ L. • 3 • ",4r .. • . 1 ,,t s .. • I ' 1'. A. . • • .. S. ; '•• b .t. I t 11.1• 0 4 ' • l• 4 .I 11 • 4,4, • s i J.. • i I • , e , , • I" ..-} . 41 ' p . . , • • I ..1 t.11{1 ....4 le" i• "4 •IF4 4' . It r • . 7 . • Ar • ..4 41. . 4 4 ... 1 de • • • 3, • • s I ••• o OA V • J4 I • 4 •A el* ' ' A 1 ; • Lt . . • •• .,....4. d 1 • ' . . ' '1 ' t 1 ' . • l• 4 4i ! ',:'. ... • \ • • i If • A4 „ 4 • .42.44 141 „ '' ,•' e. ' . • 4 \ 4 i • " • . 1. . • 47 1 . • 1 • • • • At t • . f • IP . ' • • • * o • •. N • • .4 •• . • 4t4 • it '4 ' • e4 0 1 4 • 1 42 4 • 4 r .4 i • ......?• i ..., , p ( , • , - .... 1 /td; lera . • 4. ... i iiiP ; . • Al ••. . , . . 5.-- 4 , .. • . i ..„ ' „.‘ t ..-- .4. . Pe , , st 0. A 1 b4 1 wt' 1 $ • mrf._• i I 1 1. 1 1; a1PhAAg s A• . 17 5 4. e 4 f . 7. t 'frt. .. Ili -..... • I, 1 ' z • /- . • A, r is. • ' b. ..1.16: ... , -,... s ... •, ',.. A • 1 4' • , tjpe")... , . A 44 A X. • l 1 1 41 414 • Y - t-4 gr s A • , 41. • 44 4.. 4 ' 4 Cr •. „ 23, • 1 . A 1 P a -• •..„. 5 v. 1 .‘.., 1 . ,•.1 ... ,.. ; , ‘ : . f 1 • . ‘.4 nib. - . 1'. , •- •ts - 1 , ; r ' ;1, • i 2A , 14 4. 412MragatiEW*1419W-4-4., S--.•;, I 4 1. 4. 4" L'S VS • 4, 1.• 1. r 4 1‘.`4* 1 T ‘7. 11 : ;:: 1 3,-. ?• 3. , 3 --.. 1s, ,, cl , , 11 ... , . I ‘ C ., 4 A A S 4.tt ' 1 14 44 , 4 , 1 • 1, 4)• 44 i 1 1 J 4 1 1 1 t:.. 1/4-).' It 1. r 1 A. IA 4. • $ 4 .4114Al' A • - • 1 i.• \ A ) ' 4 ' • l 4 41 . ' 1 ''' -•-• s ' .• • • . • 4,`V ‘ ' . I . ' •1 -, 1- , ", . ) .. • : 1.; 4 4.1.:, • 44 ••• .4 . il 4 4 ••• \ , 4 - .4 ' • • , 1' 1.. g ' r • t;‘• • Ar" -"V1/4„ 1 ' 43 1, • . ..% ,, e { 1. I s•A. i: . 1 ' -4 ..1- t‘ 4 "Is; idi .. ,_ 14 ,,' 11 . .7'.. s ' 4".4. • l ' A • t t .4 1 14I f : 1 3 A • 1 1 4 4 " 4 ' ' t . ..‘ 4 . • • ‘ 1 • I • 4 * • 4 4 A. bt) ..., " 1 A • .4• 04 .. ;••• r t•1 1t' 1'T- f j 4, f' l.t j II1) r i ,I t• :1. i ts .:f ? ii li111i .tI p t • 1 v/1 . .1 1 tit .'• n L, w a,a,>ia c e. i WINIMI ®9RR i lni WW l v>,Vt,. - J0.R'A: J A • 1 ,‘ : 4-d I. p ii Lt1` I ,l111 ', •, 1 i ji 1 1 l 11 F B <ji 1 " 1' 1 .• I 1 r 1 H µ •a4 ' 1 v1` 11 .:` 1 x • 11111 j11 , 1 1 1 1 u 1 . Ii i Ji 1 6 1 k t 11' 5 St .. 4 -4 I ; lir q & 1 % Ahab PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET A Public Hearing is a specific time allowed for members of the public to provide input/testimony to the City Council on a particular subject which has been legally posted as a Public Hearing. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meetine.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: ACE C E')C Address:396E) FA71Rwc4T-*zk t1V11%o1EDm Phone: S= *5:S 6 Z 1. Public hearing sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and Council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. No further testimony will be taken once the public hearing closes. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules. WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on thefollowing agenda item and/or issue: IN LIEU OF SPEAKING I request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: r c a- Date: By signing, I acknowledge public comment rules presented on this form. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this document is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request. s :7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PURLIC COM SIGN IN S Public comment is encouraged and appreciated.With the exception of public hearings,this is the only opportunity for the public to address the City Council on agenda items or any other city related business. In order to accomplish all business on the agenda and be respectful of everyone's time,council members will not be able to engage in dialogue with individual members of the audience and no immediate action will be taken on any public comment issue. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: Address: Phone: 1. Public comments sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public comment limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. Questions and concerns about operations should be addressed with city staff during regular business hours. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules and may change the order of speakers so that testimony is heard in the most logical groupings. 12r I WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on thefollowing agenda item and/or issue: F-1 IN LIEU OF SPEAKING/request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: Date: 1, By signing, I acknowledge public comment period rules. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this document is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request. f CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC C SIGN IN SHEET Public comment is encouraged and appreciated.With the exception of public hearings,this is the only opportunity for the public to address the City Council on agenda items or any other city related business. In order to accomplish all business on the agenda and be respectful of everyone's time,council members will not be able to engage in dialogue with individual members of the audience and no immediate action will be taken on any public comment issue. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meetine.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name:NA Address: l c/VA tA/ I F-6 Phone.. C - 3 1. Public comments sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public comment limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. Questions and concerns about operations should be addressed with city staff during regular business hours. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules and may change the order of Zakers so that testimony is heard in the most logical groupings. WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on thefollowing agenda item and/or issue: Sit F-1 IN LIEU OF SPEAKING 1 request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. 4h Signature Required: Date: (k ( 2 2_._., By Igning,I ac owledge public comment period rules. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this document is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC COM SIGN IN SHEET Public comment is encouraged and appreciated.With the exception of public hearings,this is the only opportunity for the public to address the City Council on agenda items or any other city related business. In order to accomplish all business on the agenda and be respectful of everyone's time,council members will not be able to engage in dialogue with individual members of the audience and no immediate action will be taken on any public comment issue. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address.Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: 0 Q S j(Z.- t.- Address: Phone: Z' j o-T-3 1. Public comments sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public comment limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. Questions and concerns about operations should be addressed with city staff during regular business hours. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules and may change the order of speakers so that testimony is heard in the most logical groupings. K, I WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on the following agenda item and/or issue: IN LIEU OF SPEAKING 1 request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: Date: By si ning, acknowledge public comment period rules. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this docu is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request. HEARING SIGN IN SHEET A Public Hearing is a specific time allowed for members of the public to provide input/testimony to the City Council on a particular subject which has been legally posted as a Public Hearing. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to thetothe meeting.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: CArC4A LCXAnn Address: v 5" e 06 S 1 lb Phone: Z06- -ISO, 0Qr.5O 1. Public hearing sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and Council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. No further testimony will be taken once the public hearing closes. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules. WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on thefollowing agenda item and/or issue: IN LIEU OF SPEAKING 1 request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: Date: CZ 1 Z By signing, I acknowledge public comment rules presented on this form. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this document is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request. w CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC COMMENT S IN SHEET Public comment is encouraged and appreciated.With the exception of public hearings,this is the only opportunity for the public to address the City Council on agenda items or any other city related business. In order to accomplish all business on the agenda and be respectful of everyone's time,council members will not be able to engage in dialogue with individual members of the audience and no immediate action will be taken on any public comment issue. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: Z -• Address: Phone: i761 — 1. Public comments sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public comment limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. Questions and concerns about operations should be addressed with city staff during regular business hours. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules and may change the order of speakers so that testimony is heard in the most logical groupings. I WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on the following agenda item and/or issue: IN LIEU OF SPEAKING 1 request the to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: Date: 6/17-// B signing, I a nowledge public comment period rlajy.Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this d ment is nsidered a public record. Disclosure be required upon request. q CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC C SIGN IN S Public comment is encouraged and appreciated.With the exception of public hearings,this is the only opportunity for the public to address the City Council on agenda items or any other city related business. In order to accomplish all business on the agenda and be respectful of everyone's time,council members will not be able to engage in dialogue with individual members of the audience and no immediate action will be taken on any public comment issue. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: G-V\-2,CtVX, `%--e,— C, Address: r Phone: t 1. Public comments sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public comment limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. Questions and concerns about operations should be addressed with city staff during regular business hours. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules and may change the order of speakers so that testimony is heard in the most logical groupings. WISH TO SPEAK to the City Council on thefollowing agenda item and/or issue: Nk F1 IN LIEU OF SPEAKING I request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: Date: Z--- By signing, acknowledge public comment period rules. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this document is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request. y < h PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET A Public Hearing is a specific time allowed for members of the public to provide input/testimony to the City Council on a particular subject which has been legally posted as a Public Hearing. Complete the following information and submit to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.When your name is called,proceed to the podium and state your name and address. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: Address: Zak Phone: 1. Public hearing sign in sheet must be completed before speaking. 2. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. 3. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time to another speaker. 4. Comments shall be courteous and respectful at all times. 5. No person may use public comment for the purpose of campaign or advertisement. 6. This is not a question and answer time and Council can not engage in conversation with the public. 7. No further testimony will be taken once the public hearing closes. 8. The presiding officer has the responsibility for enforcing these rules. WISH TO SPEAK to the Cit Counci on the following agenda ite and/or issue: IN LIEU OF SPEAKING 1 request the City Clerk to include my written comments into the public record. Signature Required: ate: 12, By signing, I acknowledge public comment rules presented on this form. Pursuant to RCW 42.56, this document is considered a public record. Disclosure may be required upon request.