HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024.10.15 Council WS Handout from Leo PeralesUo
: WS_
Planning Policies for the Pasco Community and Economic Development Department to i-
Implement
Leo Perales
10/15/2024
1. Proportionate Share Contributions (Double Dipping)
• City's Practice: The City is charging developers extra fees, called proportionate share contributions, for
transportation infrastructure on top of the transportation impact fees already required through the SEPA
MDNS and the City's concurrency review process.
• Concern: This approach doesn't align with RCW 43.21C.060, which states that SEPA fees shouldn't be
added when impact fees are already in place to avoid redundant fees for the same impact.
Nexus/Proportionality (Sheetz v. County of Eldorado, CA) isn't established by the current system. City
TIF fees are too low as currently being charged — City should hire a traffic consultant to help implement
City-wide TIF fee based on zones (similar to how all other Cities do this). Downtown Pasco should
have ZERO TIF fees, since redevelopment should be encouraged here. Other areas where growth is
high, fees should be substantially higher (i.e. Road 68/Broadmoor area). I sympathize with the City on
this since projects from time to time should trigger a SEPA mitigation to help pay for these improved
facilities, and to some extent raising the SEPA threshold should help this as well since then not every
project will trigger a SEPA review.)
2. Transportation Impact Fee Credit
• City's Practice: The City isn't giving developers credit for land they dedicate or improvements they
make to transportation infrastructure, even when these are included in the capital facilities plan. This
means developers end up paying full impact fees without any credit for their contributions.
• Concern: This goes against what's required in PMC 3.40.080 and RCW 82.02.060, which both say
developers should get credits for the improvements they make, whether onsite or off -site. This is
standard practice in every other City, that a donation towards a project that is on the Capital Facilities
Plan, should get a TIF fee offset.)
3. City's Concurrency Review Process
• City's Practice: The City's concurrency review process, outlined in PMC 12.36.080, should let
developers consider projects within the City's six -year street plan (TIP) when planning their
developments. However, City staff are overlooking this process and are charging proportionate share
contributions that go beyond what the code allows.
• Concern: Ignoring these established guidelines puts an unfair financial burden on developers, asking
them to pay more than what the law allows.
4. Parks Impact Fee Credits
• City's Practice: The City expects developers to dedicate land and build parks as part of new residential
projects but doesn't have the proper codes and standards in place to enforce this legally. Even when
developers do contribute, the City often doesn't give the necessary impact fee credits.
• Concern: This is problematic because it goes against PMC 3.50.070 and RCW 82.02.060, which
require that developers receive credit for their land and park contributions to offset the impact fees the
City charges.
5. Permit Timeframes
• City's Practice: The City isn't sticking to the timeframes required for the TIA process, which violates RCW
36.70.040. This law is supposed to ensure that processes are handled in a timely and predictable manner.
Concern: Not following these state -mandated timelines leads to delays, which could become an even
bigger issue with the stricter deadlines introduced by State Bill 5290, effective January 1, 2025. This
situation calls for immediate improvements.
6. Staff Lack of Responsiveness
• City's Practice: If a developer asks questions or raises concerns about the legality of a process, they are
ignored and the City moves forward, causing unnecessary delays and expenses.
• Concern: This culture is detrimental to the growth of Pasco, and exposes Pasco to liability as it can cause
significant financial damages to projects.
Planning Policies for the Pasco Community and Economic Development Department to
Implement
Leo Perales
10/15/2024
7. SEPA Thresholds Are Too Low When Compared to State Law
City's Practice: The City of Pasco has abysmally low SEPA thresholds (4-lot subdivision, 4,000 sf building,
20 parking stalls, or 100 CY of earthmoving), when compared to all other adjacent Cities & Counties (20-lot
subdivision, 12,000 sf building, 40 parking stalls, or 500 CY of earthmoving) triggering unnecessary reviews
for minor new construction projects, even when the state allows for higher thresholds. The current SEPA
review fee in Pasco is only $75, while other cities charge significantly more(upwards of $300) to cover
processing costs. Not to mention not considering the actual construction and applying the states residential
and categorical exemptions which can range from 4,000 to 30,000. City should review WAC 197-11-800
SEPA ExeriuXuan Threshosds
Jurisdiction
Single Family Residential(Unds) Multi- Family Residential(Unfls)
Ag Structures(SF) Othersuilchrgs(SF) Parkirgtots(Stalls)
Earthwork Volume[CY)
City of Kennewmit
30
60 40000 200M 90
1000
City of Richland
-- . 20
20 N/A 12" 40
S00
;City of West Richl nd
9
8 20000 12000 50
2000
City of Pasch
;Renton County
2D
20 30000 12000 40
500 _
:Franklin County
20
20 30000 12000 40
500
Walla Walla County
20 30000 12000 40
_ 5W
1 Grant County
3000D 12000 40
500
• Concern: These low thresholds and minimal fees result in project cancellations and inefficient use of city
resources, as the processing costs far exceed the fees collected. Despite previous discussions with city
officials, no action has been taken to raise these thresholds, calling for immediate adjustments to avoid
further disruptions to development.
8. Transportation Impact Analysis and Project Added Costs are Discussed Too Late In The Application
Process
• City's Practice: The City of Pasco doesn't discuss TIA requirements of the developer until later in the
application stage. This should be done earlier and some work has been done to do that but this needs to be
consistently applied.
• Concern: The City's failure to be timely with their TIA requests, as evidenced in many projects, has resulted
in unnecessary project redesigns and delays. This situation underscores the need for immediate reform to
prevent future project disruptions and to align the City's practices with those of other jurisdictions.
9. SEPA Reviews are Holding Up the Project Plan Review
• City's Practice: The City imposes restrictions on building permit submissions when a project is delayed by a
pending SEPA review, resulting in additional complications for developers.
• Concern: This inflexible approach creates significant delays for projects awaiting SEPA approval. Developers
are often forced to pause their permit applications, and in some cases, if they exceed certain expiration time
frames (14 days), they must repay the application fee. This further delays project progress and adds
unnecessary financial burdens. Immediate policy adjustments are needed to allow more flexibility and
prevent further project disruptions. Allow SEPA review as a first step in some project applications rather than
after submitting plans.
Planning Policies for the Pasco Community and Economic Development Department to
Implement
Leo Perales
10/15/2024
10. Trip Generation Letter and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Thresholds
• City's Practice: The City of Pasco requires a Trip Generation Letter for projects generating 25 or more trips
and a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for projects generating 50 or more trips. These thresholds are
significantly lower compared to nearby cities such as Kennewick & Richland both, where a Trip Generation
Letter is required for 30-100 trips, and a full TIA is only required for 100 or more trips.
Concern: Pasco's lower thresholds make it an outlier compared to neighboring cities, leading to higher
costs for developers and less predictability. A typical Trip Generation Letter costs approximately $6,000, and
a full TIA can cost up to $20,000 which are then required at the SEPA stage. In addition, the review fees for
City -hired 3rd-party review add even more to the overall costs borne by a developer for completing a TIA,
making it financially burdensome on developers. There are have been numerous instances where the City
review fee has actually exceeded the Trip Generation or TIA fee. This disparity may discourage investment
and development in Pasco. Immediate reconsideration of these thresholds is needed to align with regional
standards and promote competitiveness.
11. Legacy Problem Resolution
• City's Practice: The City's staff does not consistently keep the council informed about changes in project
scope and budget adjustments, especially when complex legacy problems arise. Additionally, when issues
are caused by City actions, they are not being given the necessary attention to resolve them properly. In
some instances, administrative mechanisms are used to avoid taking responsibility, and affected property
owners are left without proper recourse.
• Concern: The lack of transparency and accountability in handling legacy problems caused by the City
negatively impacts property owners and stakeholders. When the City is at fault, it should be proactive in
resolving the issue rather than hiding behind bureaucratic processes. Additionally, staff needs to improve
communication with stakeholders to ensure they are informed when matters directly affecting them are
brought to the council, preventing one-sided discussions. A more proactive and transparent approach is
essential to foster trust and accountability_
12. Timing of Staff Reports Relative to Council Meetings
• City's Practice: Currently, council packets, often several hundred pages long, are distributed on Fridays,
giving council members and stakeholders only the weekend and one working day (Monday) to review and
respond to complex issues before council meetings.
• Concern: This compressed timeframe disproportionately benefits staff, who have had months or even years
to study the issues, while council members and stakeholders have limited time to fully understand and
address the topics. This can lead to default acceptance of staff recommendations without thorough
consideration or input from other parties. To promote transparency and more informed discussions, staff
reports should be provided at least 2-3 weeks in advance of council meetings, allowing for better preparation
and more balanced deliberation.
Planning Policies for the Pasco Community and Economic Development Department to
Implement
Leo Perales
10/15/2024
Possible Ways to Take Action
1. Propose Ordinances updating Pasco Municipal Code to be consistent with state law
• How Can We Help: We could draft language that you could use to coordinate with other
councilmembers, then the City Attorney if you get support.
• What Issues This Could Address:
• Impact Fee Credits (transportation and parks)
• Permit review timeframes (compliance with both current WA state law and the upcoming SB 5290)
• Frequent reporting of timeframe compliance to council
2. Propose Resolutions to enact policies consistent with state law
• Direct staff to propose a plan (staffing levels, tools, internal timeframes, etc.) to process permits in
conformance with municipal code, particularly with respect to concurrency review and complex projects
with a series of inter -connected permits.
• Ask staff for a plan to accommodate SIB 5290. Current staffing levels and technology will not provide
compliance.
3. Request more accountability from staff, asking that staff be more responsive and not ignore feedback on their
processes.
• Part of the problem is that a small handful of developers take a disproportionate amount of staff time,
and "low risk" developers don't have their needs addressed.
Either the City needs more staff, or needs to do a better job of servicing lower -maintenance customers.