Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.02.09 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA City Council Workshop Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, February 9, 2026 Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & Microsoft Teams Webinar Page 1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - Individuals, who would like to provide public comment remotely, may continue to do so by filling out the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment) to obtain access information to comment. Requests to comment in meetings must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of this workshop. The Pasco City Council Workshops are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/cityofPasco. To listen to the meeting via phone, call 1-332-249-0718 and use access code 104 440 988#. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Servicio de intéprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos dias antes para garantizar la disponiblidad. (Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability.) 2. CALL TO ORDER 3. ROLL CALL (a) Pledge of Allegiance 4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – the public may comment on each topic scheduled for discussion, up to 2 minutes per person with a total of 8 minutes per item. If Page 1 of 135 opposing sides wish to speak, then both sides receive an equal amount of time to speak or up to 4 minutes each side. 3 - 11 (a) Presentation - Big Bro Joe Foundation (10 minute staff presentation) Presentation by Joe Thornton, Founder of the Big Bro Joe Foundation 12 - 22 (b) Presentation - Fireworks History (10 minute staff presentation) 23 - 98 (c) Introduction of Ordinance – Code Amendment Allowing Sandwich Board Signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District (CA2025-002) (5 minute staff presentation) 99 - 116 (d) Resolution - Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. for City Meter Reading Services (5 minute staff presentation) 117 - 133 (e) Resolution - Sole Source Purchase of Three (3) Valley Pivots for the Process Water Reuse Facility Irrigation System Farm Upgrades Project 6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT 9. ADDITIONAL NOTES 134 - 135 (a) Adopted Council Goals (Reference Only) Page 2 of 135 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 22, 2026 TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 2/9/26 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager City Manager SUBJECT: Presentation - Big Bro Joe Foundation (10 minute staff presentation) I. ATTACHMENT(S): Big Bro Joe Community Youth Hub II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Joe Thornton, Founder of the Big Bro Joe Foundation III. FISCAL IMPACT: NA IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Background: Founded in 2021, the Big Bro Joe Foundation is a Pasco-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on mentorship, leadership development, academic support, and positive youth engagement for youth across the Tri-Cities region. The organization and low-income underserved prioritizes youth serving from households. The Foundation is proposing a Community Youth Hub in Pasco, a centralized facility designed to provide structured after-school programming, mentorship, wellness activities, and access to partner-led youth services for youth ages 8– 18. The proposed Hub would operate from a 3,400 square-foot facility located in Pasco. Impacts (other than fiscal): Youth participation in structured after-school programming and mentorship supports Long-term positive academic, social, and behavioral outcomes. benefits may include stronger families, improved community safety, and Page 3 of 135 increased readiness of Pasco’s future workforce and civic leaders. V. DISCUSSION: Recommendation: No action is requested. This item is for informational purposes only. Page 4 of 135 Big Bro Joe Foundation Community Youth Hub Pasco, Washington Empowering Youth • Strengthening Families • Building Community Page 5 of 135 Why the City of Pasco Should Stand Behind the Community Youth Hub The Big Bro Joe Foundation Community Youth Hub represents a strategic opportunity for the City of Pasco to make a visible, long-term investment in the well-being of its youth and families. As Pasco continues to grow, so does the responsibility to ensure young people have access to safe spaces, mentorship, and opportunities that support positive development beyond the school day. City support for the Community Youth Hub sends a powerful message that Pasco prioritizes its youth and recognizes prevention, enrichment, and early investment as essential components of community safety, economic vitality, and long-term quality of life. Through collaboration with trusted organizations like the Big Bro Joe Foundation, the City can extend its reach without duplicating services. The Hub serves as a centralized platform where multiple community partners can deliver programs under one roof, maximizing resources while expanding access for youth who need it most. The Community Youth Hub will provide structured after-school programming, mentorship, leadership development, academic support, and wellness opportunities for youth ages 8 to 18. These services directly align with the City of Pasco’s mission to improve the lives of its residents by fostering safe neighborhoods, strong families, and engaged future leaders. While communities face many pressing needs, investing in youth must remain a priority. Supporting youth today reduces future costs related to public safety, social services, and workforce readiness. It builds a stronger foundation for long-term community success. By standing behind the Community Youth Hub, the City of Pasco demonstrates leadership, collaboration, and commitment to a future where every young person has the opportunity to thrive. This partnership represents not just a program, but a shared vision for a healthier, more resilient Pasco. Page 6 of 135 Alignment with the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan & Youth Initiatives Supporting Pasco’s Vision for a Stronger Community The Big Bro Joe Foundation Community Youth Hub directly supports the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan and ongoing youth-focused initiatives by investing in prevention, equity, and community well-being. As Pasco continues to grow, the City has emphasized the importance of safe neighborhoods, access to opportunity, and quality of life for residents. The Community Youth Hub advances these priorities by providing structured programming, mentorship, and positive youth engagement. Alignment with Key City Priorities Youth Development & Education: The Hub offers academic support, leadership development, and enrichment opportunities that complement school-based learning and support youth success beyond the classroom. Community Safety & Prevention: By providing safe after-school supervision and mentorship, the Hub contributes to crime prevention and positive behavioral outcomes for youth. Equity & Access: The Hub prioritizes youth from underserved and low-income households, expanding access to resources and opportunities across Pasco. Collaboration & Efficient Use of Resources: The Hub serves as a centralized space for community partners, reducing duplication of services and maximizing the City’s investments. Economic & Workforce Readiness: Leadership development, life skills, and career exposure help prepare Pasco’s future workforce and civic leaders. Why This Should Be a City Priority While cities face multiple competing needs, investment in youth remains one of the most cost-effective strategies for long-term community impact. Early and consistent youth support reduces future demands on public safety, social services, and workforce development systems. By supporting the Community Youth Hub, the City of Pasco demonstrates leadership in proactive, preventative solutions that align with its mission to better the lives of residents and strengthen the community as a whole. Page 7 of 135 Big Bro Joe Foundation – Community Youth Hub (Pasco, Washington) Overview A centralized, community-led space providing mentorship, academic support, leadership development, wellness programming, and access to youth-focused services for ages 8–18. Facility 3,400 sq. ft. facility located in Pasco, WA. Core Programming Big Bro Academy, Big Sis Academy, mentorship, STEAM, life skills, wellness. Community Collaboration Local organizations host youth programs and events at the Hub. Outcomes Improved academic engagement, increased mentorship access, reduced risk behaviors. Page 8 of 135 Big Bro Joe Foundation Community Youth Hub Executive Overview The Big Bro Joe Foundation Community Youth Hub is a comprehensive, place-based youth development initiative located in Pasco, Washington. Operating from a 3,400 square-foot facility, the Hub provides consistent, structured, and culturally responsive programming for youth ages 8 through 18. The Hub integrates mentorship, academic support, leadership development, wellness, and community collaboration into a single accessible location, reducing barriers to participation and strengthening long-term youth outcomes. Organizational Background and Capacity Founded in 2021, the Big Bro Joe Foundation is a community-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization serving youth across the Tri-Cities region. The Foundation was established to address gaps in mentorship, leadership development, and positive youth engagement, particularly for youth from Black, Brown, and low-income households. The organization has demonstrated capacity to operate youth facilities, manage volunteers, coordinate partnerships, and deliver curriculum-based programming with measurable outcomes. Community Need and Equity Context Pasco is home to a rapidly growing youth population and a high concentration of families experiencing economic and systemic barriers. Many youth lack access to safe after-school supervision, academic assistance, enrichment activities, and positive adult role models. Existing services are often fragmented across multiple locations, creating transportation, awareness, and access challenges for families with limited resources. The Community Youth Hub responds to these inequities by providing a centralized and trusted space where youth can consistently engage in positive development opportunities. Community Youth Hub Description The Community Youth Hub will operate as both a direct-service program site and a collaborative community resource. The 3,400 square-foot facility will include flexible programming rooms, mentorship spaces, an open activity area, administrative offices, and secure check-in systems. The design allows multiple programs or partners to operate simultaneously while maintaining safety, supervision, and program quality. Program Model The Hub utilizes a dual-delivery program model that combines anchor programming delivered by the Big Bro Joe Foundation with partner-hosted programming delivered by aligned community organizations. This structure expands service capacity, encourages collaboration, and reduces duplication of youth services. Anchor Programming Anchor programming includes group mentorship, the Big Bro Academy, the Big Sis Academy, academic support, STEAM enrichment, leadership development, life skills training, and wellness activities. These programs establish structure, trusted relationships, and continuity for youth participants. Community Partnership Programming Local nonprofits, service providers, educators, and community groups are invited to host youth-focused workshops, classes, and events at the Hub. Partner programming may include workforce readiness, arts and culture, mental health support, financial literacy, civic engagement, and enrichment opportunities. All partners adhere to Big Bro Joe Foundation youth safety and conduct standards. Page 9 of 135 Target Population The Community Youth Hub serves youth ages 8 through 18 residing in Pasco and the greater Tri-Cities area. Priority is given to youth from low-income households, communities of color, and families experiencing barriers to access. Programming is designed to be inclusive, trauma-informed, and culturally responsive. Expected Outcomes and Impact Youth participating in the Community Youth Hub are expected to demonstrate improved academic engagement, increased school attendance, enhanced social-emotional skills, stronger leadership capacity, and reduced exposure to risk behaviors. Families benefit from increased stability and access to coordinated services, while the broader community benefits from strengthened youth systems and collaboration. Evaluation and Accountability The Big Bro Joe Foundation is committed to accountability and continuous improvement. The organization will track attendance, participation levels, and program completion, collect youth and family feedback, and conduct regular partner check-ins. Data collected will inform program refinement and be shared with funders and stakeholders. Budget Overview Category Annual Cost Facility Rent at $3,400 per month $40,800 Program Staffing $75,000 Program Supplies and Materials $15,000 Food, Wellness, and Youth Support $10,000 Insurance, Administration, and Operations $14,000 Total Annual Operating Budget $154,800 Sustainability and Long-Term Vision The Community Youth Hub is designed for long-term sustainability through diversified funding sources including foundation grants, public funding partnerships, corporate sponsorships, individual donors, and sliding-scale program fees. Over time, the Hub will serve as a replicable model for collaborative, community-led youth development. Conclusion The Big Bro Joe Foundation Community Youth Hub represents a strategic investment in Pasco’s youth and families. By combining direct service, collaboration, and equity-centered design, the Hub strengthens community systems and creates lasting pathways to opportunity for young people. Page 10 of 135 Community Youth Hub – Annual Operating Budget (Year 1) Category Annual Cost Facility Rent & Utilities ($3,400/month)$40,800 Program Staff & Coordinators $75,000 Program Supplies $15,000 Insurance & Compliance $8,000 Food/Snacks & Wellness $10,000 Admin & Operations $6,000 Total Annual Operating Budget $154,800 Page 11 of 135 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 28, 2026 TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 2/9/26 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager City Manager SUBJECT: Presentation - Fireworks History (10 minute staff presentation) I. ATTACHMENT(S): Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is looking for Council direction on this issue. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Background: 1996 Ban on Personal Fireworks: The City of Pasco, along with Franklin County and Kennewick, enacted a ban on the sale, possession, and discharge of personal fireworks due to numerous structural and wildland fires caused by aerial fireworks landing on flammable vegetation and roofs. At that time, enforcement was intended to reduce fire risk during the June 28–July 5 fireworks period. Enforcement Difficulties: Despite the ban, enforcement proved problematic. The volume of fireworks discharged citywide required significant law enforcement resources, making consistent enforcement impractical. Residents continued purchasing fireworks outside city limits, often unsafe or illegal, and using them within Pasco. Community and Development Changes: Since the ban, Pasco grew significantly. Many open areas were developed into irrigated parks and residential neighborhoods, reducing wildland fire risk. Page 12 of 135 Building standards were improved, making structures more fire-resistant. 2018–2019 Ordinance Changes: In 2018, the City began allowing consumer fireworks (non-aerial, “safe and sane” fireworks as defined by RCW 70.77.136) under strict regulations. The intent was to reduce illegal aerial fireworks use by providing safer alternatives. Consumer fireworks neither “go up nor blow up,” reducing fire and noise complaints. Community Safety: Though the City has provided and allowed for our community to celebrate in a safer manner, the variable remains are individuals who bring and discharge non-approved fireworks into the City. With the understanding that this behavior will always remain, the regional fire departments collaborate and develop an annual bi-county Incident Action Plan (IAP) to efficiently respond to calls for service throughout our communities. The IAP focuses on response models that allow for the best possible opportunity to keep needed resources available for critical calls while prioritizing and mitigating non-emergent calls. Impacts (Other Than Fiscal): Illegal fireworks (aerial/explosive) remain banned and are still the primary cause of complaints and fire incidents. V. DISCUSSION: Recommendation: Council has directed staff to bring this item up to for discussion for early 2026. If Council directs staff for changes to current regulations, staff will work on revisions as per Council direction and applicable laws. Constraints: Enforcement Limitations: Enforcement remains a major challenge, under Washington law, police officers must witness the violation to issue a citation. This requires officers to be present at the exact time and location of the discharge, which is impractical given the volume of activity. The City can regulate what is sold within city limits, but cannot control fireworks purchased outside Pasco. Changing behavior through enforcement alone is unlikely; education and access to legal alternatives are key. Public Concerns: Each year Council hears concerns about fireworks and need for tighter enforcement. The fireworks impact to veterans with PTSD, environment, safety, and animals is a significant concern. Page 13 of 135 If Council desires for changes to current regulations of allowing consumer fireworks (non-aerial, “safe and sane” fireworks as defined by RCW 70.77.136), the changes must be made 365+ days prior to its implementation. For e.g., any changes to current code will be effective for July 4th, 2027. Alternatives: 1. Ban all fireworks; enforcement will continue to be an issue. 2. Allow all fireworks; could result in more banned fireworks being utilized and push current law abiding residents to more unsafe fireworks. Next Steps If Council directs staff for changes to current regulations, staff will work on revisions as per Council direction and applicable laws. Page 14 of 135 February 9, 2026 Pasco City Council Workshop Pa g e 1 5 o f 1 3 5 HISTORY –1996 -BAN ON FIREWORKS 2 •1996 Ban on Personal Fireworks: •Enacted by Pasco, Franklin County, and Kennewick •Reason: Numerous structural and wildland fires •Goal: Reduce fire risk during June 28–July 5 period •Enforcement Challenges: •High volume of fireworks made enforcement impractical •Residents purchased fireworks outside city limits •Illegal and unsafe fireworks continued to be used Pa g e 1 6 o f 1 3 5 HISTORY – 2018 - LIFTED BAN ON FIREWORKS 3 •Significant growth since 1996 •Development of irrigated parks and neighborhoods •Improved building standards - more fire- resistant structures •Allowed consumer fireworks (safe and sane per RCW 70.77.136) •Purpose: Reduce illegal aerial fireworks use •Safer alternatives: Do not go up or blow up Pa g e 1 7 o f 1 3 5 CURRENT ISSUES 4 •Illegal aerial/explosive fireworks remain banned •Enforcement limitations: •Officers must witness violation •Public concerns: •PTSD •Environmental issues •Safety - people & property •Animals Pa g e 1 8 o f 1 3 5 5 Pa g e 1 9 o f 1 3 5 ENFORCEMENT 6 •Higher level of staffing during peak days like Fourth of July. •Bi-County Incident Action Plan to efficiently respond to calls for Fire Department. Pa g e 2 0 o f 1 3 5 POLICY DECISION 7 •Ban all fireworks •Enforcement still challenging •Allow all fireworks •Could increase unsafe usage •Continue policy as is •with discussion on resource allocation of Public Safety staff Pa g e 2 1 o f 1 3 5 FeedbackPa g e 2 2 o f 1 3 5 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 14, 2026 TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 2/9/26 FROM: Haylie Matson, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance – Code Amendment Allowing Sandwich Board Signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District (CA2025-002) (5 minute staff presentation) I. ATTACHMENT(S): Ordinance Exhibit A PH Planning Commission Packet December 18, 2025 PC Meeting Minutes January 15, 2026 PC Meeting Minutes PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Informational Presentation III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Background – How Legislative Action Decisions Are Handled in Pasco: While the City has at times used Council workshops to discuss policy matters, legislative actions—although they may be initiated by the City Council, Planning Commission, staff, or other authorized parties—are typically initiated and formally developed through a public hearing process before the Planning Commission, rather than through Council deliberation at the outset. In this instance, due to the presence of several new Councilmembers, staff is proposing a workshop to provide a high-level overview of what constitutes a legislative action, how the process functions under Pasco procedures and applicable state law, and the respective role of the City Council within that framework. Page 23 of 135 A legislative action is the formal process used to amend the City’s codes or policies. These actions require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, which then forwards a recommendation to the City Council. Following the Commission’s action, staff prepares a written recommendation and draft ordinance for Council consideration. Should the City Council determine that additional review is warranted, or wish to conduct its own public hearing, Council may do so in accordance with applicable procedures. Staff welcomes any clarifying questions regarding the proposed amendment or the legislative action process. Background: On September 18, 2006, the City of Pasco adopted a comprehensive update to Title 17 (Sign Code) through Ordinance No. 3790, which introduced the definition of sandwich or A-frame signs. As of September 1, 2006, private signs placed within the public right-of-way were prohibited, and that restriction has remained in effect for more than 19 years, despite the continued use of sandwich board signs by businesses. At the direction of the City Council and the City Manager’s Office, staff is proposing a focused code amendment to permit sandwich board signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, subject to specific regulatory conditions. The amendment was reviewed during a Planning Commission workshop on December 18, 2025, prior to the public hearing held on January 15, 2026. In accordance with Pasco Municipal Code requirements, public notice of the proposal was posted at City Hall on December 23, 2025, and published in the Tri-City Herald on December 31, 2025 for the public hearing. Impact (other than fiscal): The proposed amendment allows limited use of sandwich board signs in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District under clear, enforceable standards. This change supports business visibility and downtown activation while ensuring pedestrian safety, ADA accessibility, and adequate sight distance. By providing a legal framework for these signs, the City can reduce informal or unsafe placement practices and allow Code Enforcement staff to focus on other priorities. V. DISCUSSION: Conclusion & Recommendation: Staff and the Planning Commission find that the proposed code amendment is consistent with the original request initiated by the City Council and the City Page 24 of 135 Manager’s Office and that the proposal fulfills the intent of that request. Staff requests that the City Council support the proposed amendment to Title 17 (Sign Code), including the creation of a new section entitled “Sandwich Board the at proposed the ordinance adoption consider and Signs,” of February 17, 2026 regular City Council meeting. Constraints (Time or other considerations): Because this is an internally initiated legislative action, there are no set time constraints in the Pasco Municipal Code for adoption. The City Council may pause consideration at its discretion, refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, and bring the matter forward again at a later date. The only timing requirements that apply are the minimum public notice periods associated with any public hearing, should the Council determine that a hearing is appropriate. Staff Summary of the proposed amendment: The proposed amendment makes targeted and clarifying changes to the Sign Code. It updates an existing sign definition to include the word “board,” adds Subnote 18 to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way only in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, and establishes a new section, PMC 17.15.025, entitled “Sandwich Board Signs.” The new section regulates sandwich board signs by limiting placement areas, the number of signs per business, and hours of display; establishes additional standards for signs located near intersections; requires compliance with ADA accessibility standards; and prohibits placement where vehicular access or traffic operations are needed. The amendment also ensures the City is held harmless locations, outlines and prohibited clarifies damages, any for enforcement and removal procedures for violations. Additional are signs board sandwich where clarify revisions code minor permitted within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District to ensure consistency throughout Title 17. Next Steps: If the ordinance is adopted at a later date, the City Clerk’s Office will record it with the Franklin County Auditor and coordinate with General Code to ensure the updated code is published and effective on the adoption date.. Alternatives:  Take No Action Sandwich board signs would continue to be prohibited within the public right-of-way, maintaining the status quo.  Allow Signs in the Right-of-Way Without Regulation Permitting sandwich board signs without standards could create Page 25 of 135 conflicts with ADA requirements, raise liability concerns, contribute to visual clutter, and present safety hazards.  Expand Allowance Citywide Extending the allowance for sandwich board signs throughout the entire City of Pasco could increase benefits for businesses, but would require additional analysis, public outreach, and policy consideration before implementation. Page 26 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 SIGN CODE RELATED TO SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco City Council adopted a new Sign Code and repealed the previous Sign Code through Ordinance No. 3790 in 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the first comprehensive Downtown Pasco Master Plan in January of 2023; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Pasco Master Plan includes a vision for creating a Downtown that provides flexibility for signage; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the allowance of Sandwich Board Signs within public right-of-way to be of benefit to downtown businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The definition of “Sign – sandwich board or A-frame” contained in PMC Section 17.10.010 is hereby amended as follows: “Sign – sandwich board or A-frame” means a temporary portable two-faced board-style sign that is readily movable and has no permanent attachment to a building, structure, or the ground. Section 2. PMC Section 17.15.010, Interpretation of sign allowance table, is hereby amended as follows: 17.15.010 Interpretation of sign allowance table. (1) The sign allowance table, as incorporated herein, determines whether a specific sign is allowed in a zone district or by land use activity. The zone district or land use activity is identified in the left column and the specific sign allowances are located in the rows of the table. (2) If no symbol or number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row, the sign is not allowed in that category or is not subject to an allowance. (3) If a number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row or in the column or row heading, the sign may be allowed subject to the appropriate requirement and specific conditions indicated in the table footnotes. Page 27 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 2 (4) All applicable requirements shall govern a sign whether or not the requirements are cross- referenced in the table. Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | Access, landmark, and informational signs - all zones entry/exit freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 4 4 5 0 per exit/entry landmark wall sign/plaque yes durable 1 10 8 5 0 per building frontage informational - private (6) wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign no durable 1 6 4 5 0 per street frontage informational - public wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign no durable 1 6 4 5 0 per street frontage Permanent signs Residential districts - RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, RFAH-1/1A, R-2, R-3, R-4, RMHP identification - dwelling unit wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per property freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) no durable 1 2 4 5 0 per property Page 28 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 3 Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | identification - bldg complex wall sign yes durable 1 24 20 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) yes durable 1 24 4 5 0 per street frontage daycare facility wall sign yes durable 1 16 20 5 0 per building frontage commercial freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) yes durable 1 16 15 5 0 per street frontage school/religious use (15) wall sign yes durable 1 24 20 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) yes durable 1 40 15 5 0 per street frontage freestanding marquee/readerboard sign (17) yes durable 1 24 15 5 0 per street frontage Office/commercial districts - O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3 Composite allowance - all sign surfaces maximum per sign window sign (11) no transparent na 25% 15 per building/street frontage awning sign per business yes durable 1 24 15 (2) 8 may extend over walkway Page 29 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 4 Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | canopy sign yes maintained na 25% 24 (2) 8 may extend over walkway wall sign yes durable na 25% na 14 0 blade/projecting sign yes durable 1 125 (2) (2) 5 0 freestanding pedestal sign yes durable 1 350 15 0 5 0 freestanding marquee/readerboard sign (17) yes durable 1 48 15 5 0 per street frontage freestanding pole - tenant directory sign (17) yes durable 1 12 35 0 6 5 0 up to 12 tenants per sign freestanding pole sign (17) yes durable 1 350 35 0 6 5 0 freestanding billboard sign (7)(17) yes durable 1 250 35 0 500 6 5 0 Maximum 25 billboard sign structures in City. freestanding digital billboard sign (7)(17) yes durable 1 250 35 0 500 6 5 0 off-premises directional sign (14) yes durable 1 5 15 5 0 Commercial/industrial districts - C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3 Page 30 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 5 Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | maximum per sign freeway sign yes durable 1 350 70 500 6 35 35 per freeway frontage per freeway or freeway interchange (9) sign yes durable 1 480 70 500 6 35 35 per 15-acre site minimum frontage property and freeway readerboard (9) sign yes durable 1 150 35 500 6 35 35 per 15-acre site minimum Limited duration signs Undeveloped property Residential freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 15 after closing - lot - tract freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 60 8 5 0 15 after last closing Commercial freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 15 after closing - lot - tract freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 60 8 5 0 15 after closing Construction wall/banner sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 const freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 32 8 5 0 const Page 31 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 6 Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | Real estate sales/rentals per building or property Residential zones window/poster sign no 1 2 0 15 after closing freestanding pedestal/pole sign (10) no durable 1 6 8 5 0 15 after closing freestanding sign (10) no durable 2 2 8 5 0 15 after closing Commercial zones (12) window/poster sign no 1 2 0 15 after closing wall/banner sign no durable 1 6 20 5 0 15 after closing freestanding pedestal/pole sign (9) no durable 1 6 8 5 0 15 after closing Temporary signs Open house - real estate sales sandwich - directional (10) no durable 4 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event Special event - sales, charities, etc. Schools, churches, parks, farmers mkt, Xmas trees sandwich - directional (10) no durable 4 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event Page 32 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 7 Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | window poster no na 50% after event window banner no durable 1 16 0 after event wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20 5 0 after event banner - mounted freestanding pole no durable 1 10 20 (2) 8 5 0 after event marquee/readerboard - portable no durable 1 18 4 5 0 after event balloons (12) no biodegradable 15 20 5 after event Residential zones sandwich - directional (10) no durable 2 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event Commercial zones sandwich - directional (10) no durable 2 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 (18) 5 (18) 0 (18) after event window poster no na 50% after event window banner no durable 1 16 0 after event wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20 5 0 after event Page 33 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 8 Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Duration (days) | | | | | | | | | | | Notes | | | | | | | | | | | | banner - mounted freestanding pole no durable 1 16 20 (2) 8 5 0 after event marquee/readerboard - portable no durable 1 18 4 5 0 after event balloons (12) no biodegradable 15 20 5 after event inflatables (13) yes nonflammable 1 350 70 250 5 0 after event SR-12/395 and I-182 inflatables (13) yes nonflammable 1 350 70 500 5 0 after event Political (16) freestanding no durable na 6 4 5 0 10 after election 1 The area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the outer limits of the sign face, but not including structural elements, which are not a part of the display. The area of a two-sided sign equals the area of one side. The area of a spherical, cubical, or polyhedral sign equals 1/2 the total surface area. 2 Height: measured from the average finished grade at the sign foundation. Awning signs shall be at least 8 and no more than 16 feet above the walkway. Blade/projecting signs shall not extend more than 10 feet above the building facade or 6 feet from the face of the building. 3 Spacing: the linear distance between signs, or sign structures, in feet. Page 34 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 9 4 The area under the sign that shall be free of obstructions to allow passage of pedestrians and vehicles. 5 Setback: shall be that portion of any sign or sign structure that is closest to the property line. 6 Private informational signs must be for an original purpose and may not simply repeat the same message over and over. 7 Signs visible from Washington State Highways may be subject to the Highway Advertising Control Act of 1971 and require approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation in additional to local approval. 8 On private property adjacent to an arterial road: not within 100 feet of a public street intersection, 300 feet of a residential district, within 250 feet of a freestanding sign of 200 sf of display area. 9 Freeway interchange signs must be located within 1,000 feet of an interchange, and 300 feet of ROW, on site of business on a minimum 15-acre site. 10 Square feet per one face of a two-sided sandwich board. 11 Window signs may include credit card logos and advertise hours of operation and address. 12 Balloons shall be no larger than 18 inches in diameter, not attached to a roofline. 13 Inflatables shall be securely anchored to the ground and not create a traffic or other hazard in the event of deflation. Inflatables shall be measured by square feet of surface volume. 14 Off-premises directional signs shall be of the material, color, lettering font, and structure specified by the Building Official. 15 Excepting Pasco High School Bulldogs stadium sign. 16 Campaign signs on private property are limited to 32 square feet in size. 17 Permanent freestanding pole signs are not allowed within the downtown core, as illustrated in PMC 25.95.050(2) of the downtown Pasco overlay zone. 18 Sandwich board signs may be located within the public right-of-way only within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District and shall comply with PMC 17.15.025. Section 3. A new section 17.15.025, entitled “Sandwich Board Signs,” is hereby Page 35 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 10 adopted to read as follows: 17.15.025 Sandwich Board Signs Sandwich board signs located within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District shall comply with the regulations identified as “sandwich - site(10).” in the PMC 17.15.010 Sign Allowance Table, as referenced under Temporary signs, Special event - sales, charities, etc. - Commercial zones, in addition to the requirements outlined below. (1) Placement Area. (a) Signs shall be located on the business frontage or parcel frontage addressed by the business. (b) Where no building exists, signage shall be restricted to the parcel frontage. (c) Signs shall be located between the sidewalk and the curb. Placement on private property is permitted at the discretion of the business owner. In areas with unimproved right-of-way, signs shall be restricted to the road verge or parcel. (d) Signs shall not block building entrances, stairways, private driveway access, or other points of access. (2) Sign Limit. Only one sandwich board sign is allowed per business tenant. (3) Hours of Display. Signs are permitted only during the business’s operating hours. (4) Intersection Placement. Corner lot businesses shall place their sandwich board sign at the point along the frontage that is furthest from the intersection while still fronting the business. Where this is not feasible, a minimum clearance of ten (10) feet from the actual radius curb line or road verge shall be maintained to ensure adequate sight distance for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (5) Liability. The sign owner shall indemnify and hold the City and its agents, employees, and/or officers harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense any and all claims, demands, suits, at law or equity, actions, penalties, loss, damages, or costs, of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the City arising out of, or in connection with, or incident to, the placement of a sandwich board sign; provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the sign owner; and provided further, that nothing herein shall require the sign owner to hold harmless or defend the City, its agents, employees, and/or officers for damages or loss caused by the City’s sole negligence. (6) Prohibited Mounting. Signs shall not be affixed to, mounted upon, or placed on vehicles parked in the public right-of-way. (7) Removal and Return of Violations. (a) Signs placed in violation of this section may be removed by the City. (b) Signs removed more than twice from public property may be destroyed; otherwise, removed signs may be returned to the owner. Page 36 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 11 (8) ADA Compliance. (a) Signs shall preserve ADA accessible pedestrian routes at all times. (b) Signs shall not encroach into any portion of a handicapped ramp. (9) Prohibited Locations. (a) Signs shall not be placed within travel lanes, medians, or roundabouts. (b) Signs shall not be placed within fire hydrant clear zones, on utility poles, or within transit stops. (10) Sign Stability and Maintenance Requirements. Signs shall be constructed and installed in a manner that prevents tipping, falling, or displacement from their intended location due to wind or other conditions. All signs shall be maintained in good repair and in a safe, orderly condition at all times. Section 5. PMC Section 17.15.040(3) is hereby amended as follows: (3) Private signs placed in or upon a public right-of-way, except as expressly provided herein; (a) Sandwich board signs located within the public right-of-way in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District shall comply with PMC 17.15.025. Section 6. PMC Section 17.25.030, Traffic obstruction and visibility, is hereby amended as follows: 17.25.030 Traffic obstruction and visibility. (1) No sign shall be erected so as to obstruct the vision of vehicular traffic, or at any location where it may interfere with, or be confused with, any traffic signal or device. (2) No sign or sign structure, except sandwich board signs located within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, which shall comply with PMC 17.15.025, shall be erected within the vision triangle of a corner lot property measured (20 feet along the property line from the intersection of two streets or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and alley). Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance should be held to the invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or word of this ordinance. Section 8. Corrections. Upon approval by the city attorney, the city clerk or the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including scrivener’s errors or clerical mistakes; reference to other local, state, or federal laws, rules, or regulations; or Page 37 of 135 Ordinance – Amending PMC Title 17 – Sign Code - 12 numbering or referencing of ordinances or their sections and subsections. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _____, 202_. Charles Grimm Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Krystle Shanks, CMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: _____________________________ Page 38 of 135 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ivan Barragan, Planner III SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Code Amendment (CA 2025-002) – Sandwich Board Signs within public right-of-way in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District File Number: CA 2025-002 Applicant: City of Pasco Description: Allowance of sandwich board signs in the public right-of-way exclusively within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, subject to specified provisions. Environmental Determination This amendment is exempt from an environmental determination under WAC 197-11-800(19), as it constitutes a text amendment that does not result in any substantive environmental impacts. Exhibits: 1 Downtown Overlay District Map 2 Proposed PMC Title 17 changes 3 Cities’ Sandwich Board Sign Codes 4 Public Hearing Notice History On September 18, 2006, the City of Pasco adopted a comprehensive update to Title 17 – Sign Code and repealed the previous code through Ordinance No. 3790. This update introduced the definition of “sign – sandwich or A-frame.” As of September 1, 2006, private signs placed in or upon the public right-of-way became prohibited, and this restriction has remained in effect for over 19 years. Background Although sandwich board signs have long been used by businesses, their placement within the public right-of-way has technically remained prohibited. With recent direction from the City Council and City Manager’s Office, staff is bringing forward a targeted amendment to allow these signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District under regulated conditions. Exhibit "A" Page 39 of 135 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026 6:30 PM On December 18, 2025, the Planning Commission and Staff held a workshop to initially discuss the proposed changes in advance of this public hearing. While the workshop generated many questions, little input was provided in terms of suggested changes. Staff has considered this discussion in preparing the proposed amendment. Notice Public notice for this proposal was posted at City Hall on December 23, 2025, and published in the Tri-City Herald on December 31, 2025, in accordance with Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 4.02.090, Public Notice, subsections (4)(a) and (b). Discussion The proposed amendment would allow sandwich board signs within sidewalk or unimproved areas of the public right-of-way in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, provided that: x Signs are placed directly in front of the associated business, with no more than one sign per business frontage x All required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) clearances are maintained x Signs are displayed only during business hours x Corner lot signs must be placed as far from the intersection as possible; if not feasible, maintain at least 10 feet from the curb or road edge to preserve sight distance. x Sign owner holds the City harmless x Prohibits mounting on vehicles x Clarifies prohibited sign locations This approach supports business visibility and activation of the streetscape while maintaining pedestrian safety, accessibility and preventing sign clutter. Analysis The proposed amendment provides a clear regulatory framework to allow small, pedestrian- oriented signs in sidewalk or unimproved right-of-way areas while ensuring ADA compliance and maintaining proper sight-distance standards. Key benefits include: x Increased flexibility for Downtown businesses to advertise and activate the streetscape x A regulatory mechanism to oversee placement, preventing the current situation where such signs—if used—are technically prohibited Page 40 of 135 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026 6:30 PM x Ability for the City to apply different sight-distance considerations for Sandwich Board Signs Alternatives 1. Take no action. Sandwich board signs would remain prohibited within the public right-of-way. 2. Allow signs in the right-of-way without regulation. This could result in ADA conflicts, liability concerns, visual clutter, and safety hazards. 3. Expand the allowance citywide. Allowing such signs throughout the entire City of Pasco would broaden benefits but would require additional analysis, outreach, and policy consideration. Recommendation & Motion Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and support the amendment of Title 17 – Sign Code, including the creation of a new section entitled “Sandwich Board Signs.” Suggested Motion: “I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Code Amendment CA 2025-002, allowing sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way only in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, as proposed in Exhibit 2.” Page 41 of 135 &9)*#*5 Pa g e 4 2 o f 1 3 5 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes 17.10.010 Generally. For the purpose of this title, certain abbreviations, terms, phrases, words, and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this chapter and are to be used only for the implementation of this title. Words used in the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine, and the feminine the masculine. “Alley” means a public street not designed for general travel and used primarily as a means of access to the rear of residences and business establishments. “Building” means any structure built for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind. “Building code” means the building codes of the City adopted by PMC Title 16. “Building line” means a line established by ordinance beyond which no building may extend. “Building Official” means the Building Official of the City and/or the person designated to enforce the sign code by the City Manager. “Change of copy” means the change of a logo, and/or message upon the face or faces of a legal sign. “City” means the City of Pasco, Washington. “Community event” means a community-wide event open to the general public and sponsored by a public agency, a public or private school, or a not-for-profit civic organization. “Curb line” means the line at the face of the curb nearest to the street or roadway. In the absence of a curb, the City Engineer shall establish the curb line. “Display surface” means the area made available by the sign structure for the purpose of displaying the advertising message. “District” or “zoning district” means any district established pursuant to the provisions of PMC Title 25. Page 43 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Durable” means a nonbiodegradable material that withstands degradation from the elements such as weatherproof card stock, aluminum, metal, UV-protected plastics, treated or painted wood concrete, stone and similar materials. “Erects” means to build, construct, attach, place, suspend, or affix, including the painting of a wall sign. “Face of building” means the general outer surface of any exterior wall of a building or other structure. “Facade” means the entire building front or street wall face, including the grade to the top of the parapet or eaves, and the entire width of the building elevation. “Fence – subdivision” means a common fence constructed along the rear line of residential lots that back on arterial streets and constructed as part of the subdivision improvements. “Filling station, public motor fuels” means any area of land, including any structure or part thereof, that is used or designed to be used for the supply of motor fuels; also deemed to be included within this term shall be: Any area or structure used or designed to be used for polishing, greasing, washing, spraying (other than paint), dry cleaning, or otherwise cleaning or servicing such motor vehicles. “Frontage” means the measurement of the length of the property line or building front. “Hearing Examiner” means the Pasco Hearing Examiner as set forth in Chapter 25.195 PMC. “Incombustible material” means any material which will not ignite at, or below, a temperature of 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit during an exposure of five minutes, and which will not continue to burn or glow at that temperature. “Mansard roof” means a sloped roof or roof-like facade architecturally able to be treated as a building wall. “Multiple-building complex” means a group of commercial or industrial structures. “Multiple-tenant building” means a single structure that houses more than one retail business, office or commercial venture, but that does not include residential apartment buildings sharing the same lot, access and/or parking facilities. Page 44 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Nonconforming signs” are those which were lawfully installed, but which do not comply with the requirements of this title. “Nonstructural trim” means the molding, batons, caps, nailing strips, latticing, cutouts or letters and walkways that are attached to the sign structure. “Parapet” means a false front or wall extension above the roof line. “Parcel” means the real property on which a business is located or the portion of real property designated for use of a business. “Parcel” shall include all adjacent property used by a business including yards, parking lots, and storage yards. Where more than one business is located within a building, the property on which that building is located is considered one parcel. “Perimeter” means a square or rectangle required to enclose the sign area. “Periphery of right-of-way” means that portion of the right-of-way lying behind the street improvement. (See definition for “Street improvements.”) “Person” means and includes persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, and other business entities. “Premises” means the real estate as a unit, upon which is displayed the sign or signs mentioned in this chapter. “Private road or driveway” means every way or place in private ownership and used for travel of vehicles by the owner or those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other persons. “Projection” means the distance by which a sign extends over public property or beyond the property line. “Right-of-way (ROW)” means that area of land dedicated for public use or secured by the public for purposes of ingress and egress to abutting property and other public purposes, including that space between the adjacent property line and the back of the street and/or sidewalk improvements. “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separated roadways, the term “roadway” shall refer to any such roadway separately but shall not refer to all such roadways collectively. Page 45 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Roofline” means the top edge of a roof or parapet or the top line of a building silhouette. “Setback” means the distance measured on a horizontal plane between a public right-of-way line or a property line and the closest portion of a sign thereto. “Sidewalk” means that property between the curb lines or the lateral lines of a roadway and the adjacent property, set aside and intended for the use of pedestrians, or such portion of private property parallel and in proximity to a public highway and dedicated to use by pedestrians. “Sign” means a name, identification, description, display or illustration that is affixed to, or represented directly or indirectly upon, a building, structure, or piece of land and that directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization or business. However, a “sign” shall exclude any display of official court or public office notice, emblem or insignia of a nation, political unit, school, or religious group. A “sign” shall not include a sign located completely within an enclosed building unless the public may view the sign from a roadway or sidewalk, or the context of this chapter shall so indicate. “Sign, abandoned” means a sign that no longer correctly directs or exhorts any person nor advertises a bona fide business, lessor, owner, product or activity conducted or available on the premises whereon such sign is located. “Sign area” means the total area of a sign visible from any one viewpoint or direction, excluding the sign support structure, architectural embellishments, or framework that contains no written copy, and includes only one side of a double-faced sign. Individual letter signs using a wall as the background without added decoration or change in wall color shall be calculated by measuring the perimeter enclosing each letter. The combined total area of each individual letter shall be considered the total area of the sign. Module signs consisting of more than one sign cabinet shall be computed by adding together the total area of each module. Perimeter or sign area shall be established by the smallest rectangle enclosing the extreme limits of the letter module or advertising message being measured. “Sign – awning” means a sign that is hung from and below a building awning or canopy that may extend outwards under the awning or canopy and over the walkway or parking area. “Sign – banner” means flexible material on which a sign is painted or printed that is attached to a building or displayed on the grounds. Page 46 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Sign – billboard” means an off-premises sign or off-premises sign structure supported by one or more uprights and braces in the ground upon which general advertising matter is placed, usually by the poster method, erected entirely upon private property. “Sign – billboard, digital” means an off-premises sign or off-premises sign structure supported by one or more uprights and braces in the ground, erected entirely upon private property, upon which general advertising messages are changed by any electronic process or remote control; provided, that the change from one message to another message is no more frequent than once every eight seconds and the actual change process is accomplished in two seconds or less. The display will operate at an illumination intensity not to exceed three-tenths (0.3) foot-candles over ambient light as measured at 150 feet and must be equipped with a light sensor that automatically adjusts the intensity of the display in real-time according to the amount of ambient light. “Sign – blade or projecting” means a sign that is wall-mounted perpendicular to the building that may extend upwards and above the facade and/or outwards and over the walkway or parking area. “Sign – business” means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity, service, or entertainment sold, or offered upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is affixed. “Sign – canopy” means a sign that is painted onto the face or edge of an awning or canopy that is mounted to the building facade. “Sign – changing message center” means an electronically controlled public service time and temperature sign, message center, or readerboard where different copy changes of a public service or commercial nature are shown on the same lamp bank. “Sign – combination” means any sign incorporating any combination of the features of freestanding, projecting and roof signs. “Combination sign” shall include signs commonly referred to as “fin signs.” “Sign – community event regional” means a sign that identifies events occurring at a regional sports/entertainment/convention/trade facility containing 60 or more acres located within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange and adjacent to a highway of statewide significance. “Sign – construction” means a temporary sign designating the contractor(s), architect(s), and engineer(s) participating in a construction project underway on the same premises. A construction sign may also include the name of the project. Page 47 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Sign – directional” means any sign designated and used solely for the purpose of indicating the location or direction of a place on the premises upon which the sign is located. “Sign – directional off-premises kiosk” means a structure erected by the City or a private party through a license agreement with the City in approved locations bearing multiple off-premises directional signs. “Sign – directional traffic” means a sign that is located to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic to parking entrances, exits and service areas. “Sign – directory of tenants” means a sign that identifies the building or project name and the tenants which share a single structure or development. “Sign – double-faced” means a sign with two faces. “Sign – electrical” means a sign or sign structure in which electrical wiring, connections, and/or fixtures are used as part of the sign proper. “Sign – flashing” means an electrical sign or portion thereof that changes light intensity in a sudden transitory burst or that switches on and off in a constant pattern with more than one-third of the light source that is not constant being off at any one time. “Sign – follow-through” means a sign which identifies the location of a business for the purpose of participating in the Washington State Department of Transportation Motorist Information Sign Program. “Sign – freestanding pedestal” means a self-supported sign permanently attached directly to the ground upon a pedestal base or monument foundation and not attached to any building, wall or fence (also called pedestal or monument sign). “Sign – freestanding pole” means a self-supported sign permanently attached directly to the ground supported by upright poles or posts or braces placed on or in the ground (also called ground or pole sign). “Sign – freeway” means a freestanding sign located on the premises where the business, product or service is located, with said sign being within 250 feet of I-182, SR-395 or SR-12. “Sign – freeway interchange” means a sign that provides only regional identification for a group of businesses within an area defined by a state-recognized business association where the businesses collectively occupy a minimum of 15 acres of land. Page 48 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Sign – garage or yard sale” means a sign advertising a private sale of personal household possessions; not for the use of any commercial venture. “Sign height” means the vertical distance measured from the adjacent grade at the base of the sign support to the highest point of the sign or sign structure, whichever is higher. “Sign – identification” means a sign of an informational nature that directs attention to certain uses other than businesses, individual private residences. “Sign – inflatable” means a large balloon or balloon-like object greater than 18 inches in any dimension that uses blown air or a gas to remain inflated. “Sign – informational private” means a sign placed for the convenience of the property owner used for the sole purpose of designating property control and warning signs such as “no trespassing,” “no dumping,” “patrolled by dogs,” etc. “Sign – informational public” means a sign placed for the convenience of the public used for the sole purpose of designating restrooms, hours of operations, entrances and exits to buildings and parking lots, help wanted, public telephones, public notary, etc. Also included are plaques, tablets or inscriptions that are an integral part of a building. “Sign – interior” means any sign attached to the interior surface of the window of any building or structure, or maintained within the building or structure. “Sign – landmark” means a sign or plaque that is attached to the surface of the building or on a site that identifies or describes the historical, cultural, social, or other significance of a building or site. “Sign – limited duration” means any sign advertising real estate sales or rentals or construction projects utilized for a specified period of time. “Sign, marquee or readerboard” means a sign that displays a changing message using manually mounted lettering or electronic printout that may be mounted on a building or freestanding pedestal or pole. “Sign, marquee or readerboard – portable” means a sign that displays a changing message using manually mounted lettering or electronic printout that may be mounted on an easel, trailer, or other movable equipment. Page 49 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Sign – nameplate” means a sign which indicates no more than the name and address of the resident of the premises. “Sign – nonconforming” means any sign lawfully constructed prior to the enactment of the ordinance codified in this title, which fails to conform to the provisions of this title. “Sign – off-premises” means a sign that carries a message of any kind or directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is affixed. Signs identifying a business complex and containing the names of multiple businesses within the complex shall not be considered an off-premises sign. “Sign – off-premises directional” means a sign providing directions to a public or other community event or facility in a location different than the property on which the sign is posted. “Sign – off-premises informational” means a sign providing information about events conducted at a public or other community facility in a location different than the property on which the sign is posted. “Sign – open house” means a sign welcoming viewers to a piece of residential real estate that is being offered for sale. “Sign – pedestrian-oriented” means a sign the primary purpose of which is to provide information for pedestrians and bicyclists. “Sign – political” means a temporary sign that identifies a candidate(s) for public elective office; urges a particular vote on a ballot measure in a pending public election, whether local, state or national; or expresses an opinion on a public issue. “Sign – portable” means an unlighted business sign, including paper, cardboard, wood or metal, that is capable of being moved easily and that is not permanently affixed to the ground, structure or building. This includes a sidewalk or sandwich board signs, except those worn by a person. “Sign – poster” means a decorative placard or advertisement intended to advertise a movie, theater production, video or CD, or other product or special event that is being conducted or offered for sale. “Sign – readerboard” means a lighted or unlighted business sign or part of a sign on which the letters are readily replaceable such that the copy can be changed from time to time at will. Page 50 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes “Sign – readerboard, portable” means a lighted or unlighted business sign or part of a sign on which the letters are readily replaceable such that the copy can be changed from time to time at will. A portable readerboard is capable of being moved or trailer mounted and is not permanently affixed to the ground, structure or building. “Sign – real estate” means a temporary sign erected by the owner, or his/her agent, that advertises the real estate upon which the sign is located for rent, lease or sale, or directing people to the property. “Sign – real estate directional” means a temporary and/or portable sign that is intended to assist people finding the location of difficult-to-locate property that is for sale, rent, or lease. “Sign – revolving” means any sign that rotates or turns in a circular motion by electrical or mechanical means and does not exceed eight revolutions per minute. “Sign – roof” means a business sign erected upon or above a roof or parapet of a building or structure. Mansard roof signs shall be considered wall signs. “Sign – sandwich board or A-frame” means a temporary portable two-faced board-style sign that is readily movable and has no permanent attachment to a building, structure, or the ground. “Sign – special event” means a temporary sign advertising activities concerning a drive or event of a political, civic, seasonal, cultural, philanthropic, educational or religious event or organization that will occur intermittently. “Sign structure” means any structure supporting or capable of supporting any sign defined in this chapter. A sign structure may be a single pole or may or may not be an integral part of the building or structure. “Sign – temporary” means any real estate, open house, special event, garage sale, or political sign corresponding to a specific event and displayed for a limited period of time. “Sign – tract” means signs used for the sale of real property in a platted subdivision. “Sign – wall” means any sign or graphic design which is attached parallel to, or flat against, or is painted on, the wall or exterior of a building or structure having a commercial message or identification. “Sign – wall-mounted” means a sign attached or erected parallel to and extending from the facade or wall of any building to which it is attached. A wall sign is supported through its entire Page 51 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes length with the exposed face of the sign parallel to the plane of said wall or facade. A sign painted on the wall of a building or a sign painted or attached to a marquee shall be considered a wall-mounted sign. “Sign – window” means any sign which is painted or mounted onto an exterior window pane, or which is hung directly inside the window, including advertisements for services or products in the form of decals, emblems, paint, exposed neon, banners, etc., within three feet of the window pane. “Sign – window, temporary indoor” means any sign (or poster) of a temporary nature displayed within a commercial building on the inside of the glass or in close proximity to the window and may be viewed by persons outside of the building. “Street” means a public or private way open to general public use including all classes of roadways and excepting alleys, driveways, and interstate freeways, but including major internal circulation corridors within parking lots. “Street frontage” means the side of the building facing a street that abuts the property on which the building is located. “Street improvements” means the paved roadway, and adjoining curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. “Structure” means anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground. “U.L.” means Underwriters Laboratory. Zone, Zoning District. See definition under “District.” [Ord. 4729 § 1, 2024; Ord. 4678 § 1, 2023; Ord. 4190 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3909 § 1, 2009; Ord. 3790 § 2, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.03.010.] Chapter 17.15 SIGN ALLOWANCE TABLE Sections: 17.15.010 Interpretation of sign allowance table. 17.15.020 Special provisions by sign classification. 17.15.025 Sandwich Board Signs. 17.15.030 Exempt signs. 17.15.040 Prohibited signs. Page 52 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes 17.15.050 Sign illustrations. 17.15.010 Interpretation of sign allowance table. (1) The sign allowance table, as incorporated herein, determines whether a specific sign is allowed in a zone district or by land use activity. The zone district or land use activity is identified in the left column and the specific sign allowances are located in the rows of the table. (2) If no symbol or number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row, the sign is not allowed in that category or is not subject to an allowance. (3) If a number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row or in the column or row heading, the sign may be allowed subject to the appropriate requirement and specific conditions indicated in the table footnotes. (4) All applicable requirements shall govern a sign whether or not the requirements are cross- referenced in the table. Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | Access, landmark, and informational signs - all zones entry/exit freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 4 4 5 0 per exit/entry Page 53 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | landmark wall sign/plaque yes durable 1 10 8 5 0 per building frontage informational - private (6) wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign no durable 1 6 4 5 0 per street frontage informational - public wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign no durable 1 6 4 5 0 per street frontage Permanent signs Residential districts - RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, RFAH-1/1A, R-2, R-3, R-4, RMHP identification - dwelling unit wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per property freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) no durable 1 2 4 5 0 per property identification - bldg complex wall sign yes durable 1 24 20 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) yes durable 1 24 4 5 0 per street frontage daycare facility wall sign yes durable 1 16 20 5 0 per building frontage Page 54 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | commercial freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) yes durable 1 16 15 5 0 per street frontage school/religious use (15) wall sign yes durable 1 24 20 5 0 per building frontage freestanding pedestal/pole sign (17) yes durable 1 40 15 5 0 per street frontage freestanding marquee/readerboard sign (17) yes durable 1 24 15 5 0 per street frontage Office/commercial districts - O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3 Composite allowance - all sign surfaces maximum per sign window sign (11) no transparent na 25% 15 per building/street frontage awning sign per business yes durable 1 24 15 (2) 8 may extend over walkway canopy sign yes maintained na 25% 24 (2) 8 may extend over walkway wall sign yes durable na 25% na 14 0 blade/projecting sign yes durable 1 125 (2)(2) 5 0 Page 55 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | freestanding pedestal sign yes durable 1 350 15 0 5 0 freestanding marquee/readerboard sign (17) yes durable 1 48 15 5 0 per street frontage freestanding pole - tenant directory sign (17) yes durable 1 12 35 0 6 5 0 up to 12 tenants per sign freestanding pole sign (17) yes durable 1 350 35 0 6 5 0 freestanding billboard sign (7)(17) yes durable 1 250 35 0 5006 5 0 Maximum 25 billboard sign structures in City. freestanding digital billboard sign (7)(17) yes durable 1 250 35 0 5006 5 0 off-premises directional sign (14) yes durable 1 5 15 5 0 Commercial/industrial districts - C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3 maximum per sign freeway sign yes durable 1 350 70 500 6 35 35 per freeway frontage per freeway or freeway interchange (9) sign yes durable 1 480 70 500 6 35 35 per 15-acre site minimum Page 56 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | frontage property and freeway readerboard (9) sign yes durable 1 150 35 500 6 35 35 per 15-acre site minimum Limited duration signs Undeveloped property Residential freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 15 after closing -lot -tract freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 60 8 5 0 15 after last closing Commercial freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 15 after closing -lot - tract freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 60 8 5 0 15 after closing Construction wall/banner sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 const freestanding pedestal/pole sign yes durable 1 32 8 5 0 const Real estate sales/rentals per building or property Residential zones window/poster sign no 1 2 0 15 after closing Page 57 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | freestanding pedestal/pole sign (10) no durable 1 6 8 5 0 15 after closing freestanding sign (10) no durable 2 2 8 5 0 15 after closing Commercial zones (12) window/poster sign no 1 2 0 15 after closing wall/banner sign no durable 1 6 20 5 0 15 after closing freestanding pedestal/pole sign (9) no durable 1 6 8 5 0 15 after closing Temporary signs Open house - real estate sales sandwich - directional (10) no durable 4 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event Special event - sales, charities, etc. Schools, churches, parks, farmers mkt, Xmas trees sandwich - directional (10) no durable 4 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event window poster no na 50% after event Page 58 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | window banner no durable 1 16 0 after event wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20 5 0 after event banner - mounted freestanding pole no durable 1 10 20 (2) 8 5 0 after event marquee/readerboard -portable no durable 1 18 4 5 0 after event balloons (12) no biodegradable 15 20 5 after event Residential zones sandwich - directional (10) no durable 2 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event Commercial zones sandwich - directional (10) no durable 2 6 4 5 0 after event sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 (18)5 (18)0 (18)after event window poster no na 50% after event window banner no durable 1 16 0 after event wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20 5 0 after event banner - mounted freestanding pole no durable 1 16 20 (2) 8 5 0 after event Page 59 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes Sign Allowance Table Permit requirement | Material restrictions | | Number of signs | | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1) | | | | Height in feet (2) | | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line | | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3) | | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4) | | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line | | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5) |||||||||| ||||||||||Duration (days) ||||||||||| Notes ||||||||||| | marquee/readerboard -portable no durable 1 18 4 5 0 after event balloons (12) no biodegradable 15 20 5 after event inflatables (13) yesnonflammable 1 350 70 250 5 0 after event SR-12/395 and I-182 inflatables (13) yesnonflammable 1 350 70 500 5 0 after event Political (16) freestanding no durable na 6 4 5 0 10 after election 1 The area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the outer limits of the sign face, but not including structural elements, which are not a part of the display. The area of a two-sided sign equals the area of one side. The area of a spherical, cubical, or polyhedral sign equals 1/2 the total surface area. 2 Height: measured from the average finished grade at the sign foundation. Awning signs shall be at least 8 and no more than 16 feet above the walkway. Blade/projecting signs shall not extend more than 10 feet above the building facade or 6 feet from the face of the building. 3 Spacing: the linear distance between signs, or sign structures, in feet. Page 60 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes 4 The area under the sign that shall be free of obstructions to allow passage of pedestrians and vehicles. 5 Setback: shall be that portion of any sign or sign structure that is closest to the property line. 6 Private informational signs must be for an original purpose and may not simply repeat the same message over and over. 7 Signs visible from Washington State Highways may be subject to the Highway Advertising Control Act of 1971 and require approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation in additional to local approval. 8 On private property adjacent to an arterial road: not within 100 feet of a public street intersection, 300 feet of a residential district, within 250 feet of a freestanding sign of 200 sf of display area. 9 Freeway interchange signs must be located within 1,000 feet of an interchange, and 300 feet of ROW, on site of business on a minimum 15-acre site. 10 Square feet per one face of a two-sided sandwich board. 11 Window signs may include credit card logos and advertise hours of operation and address. 12 Balloons shall be no larger than 18 inches in diameter, not attached to a roofline. 13 Inflatables shall be securely anchored to the ground and not create a traffic or other hazard in the event of deflation. Inflatables shall be measured by square feet of surface volume. 14 Off-premises directional signs shall be of the material, color, lettering font, and structure specified by the Building Official. 15 Excepting Pasco High School Bulldogs stadium sign. 16 Campaign signs on private property are limited to 32 square feet in size. 17 Permanent freestanding pole signs are not allowed within the downtown core, as illustrated in PMC 25.95.050(2)of the downtown Pasco overlay zone. 18 Sandwich board signs may be located within the public right-of-way only within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District and shall comply with PMC 17.15.025. Page 61 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes [Ord. 4729 § 2, 2024; Ord. 4678A § 2, 2024; Ord. 4678 § 2, 2023; Ord. 3865 § 1, 2008; Ord. 3790 § 2, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.05.010.] 17.15.025 Sandwich Board Signs Sandwich board signs located within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District shall comply with the regulations identified as “sandwich - site (10).” in the PMC 17.15.010 Sign Allowance Table, as referenced under Temporary signs, Special event - sales, charities, etc. - Commercial zones, in addition to the requirements outlined below. (1) Placement Area. (a) Signs shall be located on the business frontage or parcel frontage addressed by the business. (b) Where no building exists, signage shall be restricted to the parcel frontage. (c) Signs shall be located between the sidewalk and the curb. Placement on private property is permitted at the discretion of the business owner. In areas with unimproved right-of-way, signs shall be restricted to the road verge or parcel. (d) Signs shall not block building entrances, stairways, private driveway access, or other points of access. (2) Sign Limit. Only one sandwich board sign is allowed per business tenant. (3) Hours of Display. Signs are permitted only during the business’s operating hours. (4) Intersection Placement. Corner lot businesses shall place their sandwich board sign at the point along the frontage that is furthest from the intersection while still fronting the business. Where this is not feasible, a minimum clearance of ten (10) feet from the actual radius curb line or road verge shall be maintained to ensure adequate sight distance for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (5) Liability. The public shall hold the City harmless against any and all claims arising from the placement or presence of sandwich board signs in the public right-of-way. (6) Prohibited Mounting. Signs shall not be affixed to, mounted upon, or placed on vehicles parked in the public right-of-way. (7) Removal and Return of Violations. (a) Signs placed in violation of this section may be removed by the City. (b) Signs removed more than twice from public property may be destroyed; otherwise, removed signs may be returned to the owner. (8) ADA Compliance. (a) Signs shall preserve accessible pedestrian routes at all times. (b) Signs shall not encroach into any portion of a handicapped ramp. (9) Prohibited Locations. Page 62 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes (a) Signs shall not be placed within travel lanes, medians, or roundabouts. (b) Signs shall not be placed within fire hydrant clear zones, utility poles, or transit stops. 17.15.040 Prohibited signs. From and after September 1, 2006, it is unlawful for any person to maintain, erect or place within the City: (1) A swinging projecting sign; (2) Signs attached to or placed upon a vehicle or trailer parked on private or public property designed to operate as a de facto permanent advertising sign. This provision is not to be construed as prohibiting the identification of a firm or its principal products on a vehicle operating during the normal course of business. This does not include automobile for sale signs or signs attached to licensed buses or taxis; (3) Private signs placed in or upon a public right-of-way, except as expressly provided herein; (a) Sandwich board signs located within the public right-of-way in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District shall comply with PMC 17.15.025. (4) Any sign that constitutes a traffic hazard or detriment to traffic safety because of size, location, movement, content, or method of illumination. Any sign that obstructs the vision of drivers or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic control device or diverts or tends to divert the attention of drivers of moving vehicles away from traffic movement on streets, roads, intersections, or access facilities. No sign shall be erected so that it obstructs the vision of pedestrians, or which by its glare or by its method of illumination constitutes a hazard to traffic. No sign may use words, phrases, symbols or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead, or confuse the steady and safe flow of traffic; (5) Any sign or advertising structure or supporting structure that is torn, damaged, defaced or destroyed; (6) Signs attached to utility poles, trees, rocks or other natural features; (7) Signs attached to subdivision fences; (8) Signs attached to benches on public rights-of-way; Page 63 of 135 EXHIBIT “2” Proposed PMC Title 17 changes (9) Roof signs, including signs painted directly on a sloped or gabled roof surface; strobe lights, lasers; strings of streamers; and all other signs not otherwise specifically authorized or exempted by this chapter; (10) Off-premises signs except those expressly permitted herein; (11) Balloons or inflatables attached, anchored or tethered to a roof of a building. [Ord. 4729 § 3, 2024; Ord. 3790 § 3, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.05.040.] 17.25.030 Traffic obstruction and visibility. (1) No sign shall be erected so as to obstruct the vision of vehicular traffic, or at any location where it may interfere with, or be confused with, any traffic signal or device. (2) No sign or sign structure, except sandwich board signs located within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, which shall comply with PMC 17.15.025,shall be erected within the vision triangle of a corner lot property measured (20 feet along the property line from the intersection of two streets or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and alley). [Ord. 3790 § 5, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.09.030.] Page 64 of 135 EXHIBIT “3” CITIES’ SANDWICH BOARD SIGN CODES City of Puyallup "ôƱIJĖťĖĺIJŜ (31) "Sandwich board sign" ıôÍIJŜϙÍϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŜĖČIJϙŜôťϙŪŕĺIJϙťēôϙČŘĺŪIJîϠϙèĺIJŜĖŜťĖIJČϙĺċϙťſĺϙŜĖČIJϙċÍèôŜϙēĖIJČôîϙÍťϙťēôϙťĺŕϙ ÍIJîϙŜôŕÍŘÍťôîϙÍťϙťēôϙæĺťťĺıϙťĺϙıÍħôϙĖťϙŜôīċ-ŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙŪŕĺIJϙťēôϙČŘĺŪIJîϟ (d) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙĺÍŘîϙ‹ĖČIJŜϟ (i) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙôĖČēťϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙĖIJϙÍŘôÍϙĺIJϙôÍèēϙŜĖîôϠϙċĺŘϙÍϙťĺťÍīϙ ĺċϙ͕͐ϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙĖIJϙÍŘôÍϟ (ii) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙťēŘôôϙÍIJîϙĺIJô-ēÍīċϙċôôťϙϼ͓͑ϙĖIJèēôŜϽϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϟ (iii) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙŕŪæīĖèϙŘĖČēťŜ-ĺċ-ſÍƅϙĺIJīƅϙſēôŘôϙťēôϙ ‡i®ϙÍæŪťŜϙÍϙ‡‹Ϡϙ‡aϠϙϙĺŘϙaϙƏĺIJôϠϙôƄèôŕťϙťēÍťϙIJĺϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙÍīīĺſôîϙĖIJϙ ťēôϙèŪŘæϙôƄťôIJŜĖĺIJϙŕīÍIJťĖIJČϙŜťŘĖŕŜϙĖIJϙťēôϙ‡i®ϙÍæŪťťĖIJČϙŕÍŘèôīŜϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙ"-ĺŘôϙƏĺIJôϟϙ >ĺŘϙťēôϙŕŪŘŕĺŜôŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŘôČŪīÍťĖĺIJϙťēôϙÍæŪťťĖIJČϙ‡i®ϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙıôÍŜŪŘôîϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙ īĖIJôϙťĺϙťēôϙèôIJťôŘīĖIJôϙĺċϙťēôϙ‡i®ϟ (iv) ĺııôŘèĖÍīϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙĺIJīƅϙæôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙîŪŘĖIJČϙťēôϙēĺŪŘŜϙťēôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙĺŘϙ æŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĖŜϙĺŕôIJϙťĺϙťēôϙČôIJôŘÍīϙŕŪæīĖèϠϙæŪťϙĖIJϙÍIJƅϙôŽôIJťϙIJĺϙôÍŘīĖôŘϙťēÍIJϙ͘ϡ͏͏ϙÍϟıϟϙĺŘϙīÍťôŘϙ ťēÍIJϙ͖ϡ͏͏ϙŕϟıϟϙϼ͖ϡ͏͏ϙÍϟıϟϙĺŘϙīÍťôŘϙťēÍIJϙ͖ϡ͏͏ϙŕϟıϟϙĖIJϙϙÍIJîϙaϙƏĺ IJôŜϽϠϙÍIJîϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŘôıĺŽôîϙ ċŘĺıϙťēôϙŘĖČēť-ĺċ-ſÍƅϙæôťſôôIJϙťēôϙēĺŪŘŜϙĺċϙ͖ϡ͏͏ϙŕϟıϟϙťĺϙ͘ϡ͏͏ϙÍϟıϟ (v) "ŪôϙťĺϙťēôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙIJÍťŪŘôϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϼŜϽϙÍIJîϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťϙċĺŘϙîÍĖīƅϙŕīÍèôıôIJťϙÍIJîϙ ŘôıĺŽÍīϙĖIJϙÍèèĺŘîÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙŜôťϙċĺŘťēϙĖIJϙŜŪæŜôèťĖĺIJ (1)(d)(iv) ĺċϙťēĖŜϙ ŜôèťĖĺIJϠϙĖťϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙťēôϙŘôŜŕĺIJŜĖæĖīĖťƅϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙĺſIJôŘϙťĺϙôIJŜŪŘôϙŕŘĺŕôŘϙŕīÍèôıôIJťϟϙĖťƅϙ ŜťÍƯϙĖŜϙÍŪťēĺŘĖƏôîϙťĺϙĖııôîĖÍťôīƅϙŘôıĺŽôϙÍIJîϙîôŜťŘĺƅϙÍIJƅϙŜĖČIJŜϙċĺŪIJîϙťĺϙæôϙĖIJϙŽĖĺīÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙ ťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŜôèťĖĺIJϟ (vi) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙıŪŜťϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙĖIJϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙĺŘϙŕīÍIJťĖIJČϙŜťŘĖŕŜϠϙĖϟôϟϠϙťēôϙÍŘôÍϙ æôťſôôIJϙťēôϙŜĖîôſÍīħϙÍIJîϙťēôϙŜťŘôôťϠϙĺŘϙſēôŘôϙťēôŘôϙÍŘôϙIJĺϙŜĖîôſÍīħŜϠϙťēôϙŪIJĖıŕŘĺŽôîϙŕÍŘťϙ ĺċϙťēôϙ‡i®ϟ (vii) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙēÍŽôϙÍťϙīôÍŜťϙċĺŪŘϙċôôťϙĺċϙèīôÍŘÍIJèôϙťĺϙôIJŜŪŘôϙťēÍťϙťēôƅϙîĺϙ IJĺťϙæīĺèħϙÍϙŜĖîôſÍīħϟ (viii) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙôIJèŘĺÍèēϙĖIJťĺϙÍIJƅϙŕĺŘťĖĺIJϙĺċϙÍϙēÍIJîĖèÍŕŕôîϙŘÍıŕϟ (ix) ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙIJĺťϙÍīīĺſôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙťŘÍŽôīϙīÍIJôŜϠϙıôîĖÍIJŜϠϙĺŘϙŘĺŪIJî-ÍæĺŪťŜϟ Page 65 of 135 (x) bĺϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙèīĺŜôŘϙťēÍIJϙťſĺϙċôôťϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙċÍèôϙĺċϙèŪŘæϙťĺϙťēôϙIJôÍŘôŜťϙŜĖČIJϙ ôîČôϙĺŘϙŜĖƄϙċôôťϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙôîČôϙĺċϙŕÍŽôıôIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙIJôÍŘôŜťϙŜĖČIJϙôîČôϙÍīĺIJČϙŘĺÍîſÍƅŜϙſĖťēϙIJĺϙ èŪŘæϟ City of Everett "ϟϙ„ĺŘťÍæīôϙ‹ĖČIJŜϟϙ„ĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍīīĺſôîϙĖIJϙŜĖČIJϙèÍťôČĺŘĖôŜϙϙÍIJîϙϟϙ“ēôϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙ ŘôČŪīÍťĖĺIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙÍŕŕīƅϙťĺϙÍīīϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϡϙ ͐ϟϙ„ĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙôĖČēťϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙŕôŘϙŜĖîôϙĺŘϙċĺŘťƅ-ťſĺϙĖIJèēôŜϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϟϙ ͑ϟϙbĺϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙĺIJôϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJϙıÍƅϙæôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙŕôŘϙôIJťĖťƅϟϙ ͒ϟϙīīϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙĺIJϙťēôϙŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙſēĖèēϙťēôƅϙÍŘôϙŜôŘŽĖIJČϙŪIJīôŜŜϙīĺèÍťôîϙ ĺIJϙťēôϙŕŪæīĖèϙŜĖîôſÍīħϠϙĖIJϙſēĖèēϙèÍŜôϙÍϙıĖIJĖıŪıϙŜĖƄ-ċĺĺťϙèīôÍŘϙƏĺIJôϙĖŜϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϟϙ“ēôϙĖIJťôIJťϙ ĺċϙťēĖŜϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťϙĖŜϙťĺϙÍīīĺſϙċĺŘϙŜÍċôϙÍIJîϙŪIJĺæŜťŘŪèťôîϙŪŜôϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖîôſÍīħϙæƅϙ ŕôîôŜťŘĖÍIJŜϟϙ ͓ϟϙ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙîĖŘôèťīƅϙĖIJϙċŘĺIJťϙĺċϙťēôϙŜŕĺIJŜĺŘĖIJČϙôIJťĖťƅϙîŪŘĖIJČϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙēĺŪŘŜϙ ĺIJīƅϟϙ ͔ϟϙ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙŜĺϙÍŜϙIJĺťϙťĺϙèŘôÍťôϙÍϙťŘÍƯĖèϙŜÍċôťƅϙēÍƏÍŘîϙæƅϙĺæŜťŘŪèťĖIJČϙťēôϙŽĖŜĖĺIJϙ ĺċϙıĺťĺŘĖŜťŜϙĺIJϙŕŘĖŽÍťôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙĺŘϙŕŪæīĖèϙŘĖČēť-ĺċ-ſÍƅϟϙ ͕ϟϙiſIJôŘŜϙĺċϙŜŪèēϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙÍŜŜŪıôϙīĖÍæĖīĖťƅϙċĺŘϙîÍıÍČôϙĺŘϙĖIJĤŪŘƅϙŘôŜŪīťĖIJČϙċŘĺıϙťēôĖŘϙŪŜôϙ ÍIJîϙŜēÍīīϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙſĖťēϙÍIJϙÍŕŕŘĺŕŘĖÍťôϙīôČÍīϙîĺèŪıôIJťϙŜÍťĖŜċÍèťĺŘƅϙťĺϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙ ÍťťĺŘIJôƅϙēĺīîĖIJČϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙēÍŘıīôŜŜϙÍIJîϙĖIJîôıIJĖċƅĖIJČϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙċĺŘϙŜŪèēϙŘôŜŪīťĖIJČϙīĺŜŜϙÍIJîϯĺŘϙ ĖIJĤŪŘƅϟϙ ͖ϟϙ„ĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙIJĺIJĖīīŪıĖIJÍťôîϟϙ ͗ϟϙ„ĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙĺIJīƅϙîŪŘĖIJČϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙēĺŪŘŜϟ City of Alexandria, Virginia [ĖıĖťÍťĖĺIJŜϙċĺŘϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜϟϙϼ͐Ͻϙ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙĺIJϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙĺſIJôŘϠϙ ĺŪťŜĖîôϙÍϙıĖIJĖıŪıϙīÍťôŘÍīϙſÍīħſÍƅϙèīôÍŘÍIJèôϙĺċϙƱŽôϙċôôťϙċĺŘϙŕôîôŜťŘĖÍIJϙťŘÍŽôīϠϙſĖťēĖIJϙ͔͐ϙ ċôôťϙĺċϙťēôϙċŘĺIJťϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϙſÍīīϠϙÍIJîϙÍϙıĖIJĖıŪıϙĺċϙ͔͐ϙċôôťϙċŘĺıϙÍIJƅϙîŘĖŽôſÍƅϙĺŘϙĖIJťôŘŜôèťĖĺIJϢϙ ÍIJîϙϼ͑Ͻϙ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙĺIJīƅϙæôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙîŪŘĖIJČϙĺŕôŘÍťĖIJČϙēĺŪŘŜϙĺċϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϟ City of Snoqualmie 17.75.025 Sandwich board signs. ϟ >ĺŘϙŕŪŘŕĺŜôŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙťĖťīôϠϙÍϙЊŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîЋϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙıôÍIJϙÍϙĺIJô- ĺŘϙťſĺ-ċÍèôîϙ- ċŘÍıôϙŜťƅīôϙŜĖČIJϙťēÍťϙĖŜϙŘôÍîĖīƅϙıĺŽÍæīôϙÍIJîϙēÍŜϙIJĺϙŕôŘıÍIJôIJťϙÍťťÍèēıôIJťϙťĺϙÍϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϠϙ Page 66 of 135 ŜťŘŪèťŪŘôϙĺŘϙťēôϙČŘĺŪIJîϠϙÍIJîϙıÍƅϙĖIJèīŪîôϙĺťēôŘϙŜťƅīôŜϙĺċϙċŘôôŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙĺIJô- ĺŘϙťſĺ-ŜĖîôîϙ ŜĖČIJŜϙťēÍťϙĺťēôŘſĖŜôϙıôôťϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙċĺŘϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϟ ϟ IIJϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙĺťēôŘϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙŜĖČIJϙťƅŕôŜϠϙĺIJôϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙıÍƅϙæôϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙċĺŘϙ ÍIJƅϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙŕŪŘŕĺŜôϙſēôIJϙèĺıŕīôťôīƅϙŪŕĺIJϙŕŘĖŽÍťôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙÍIJîϙŪŕĺIJϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙ ŕŘôıĖŜôŜϠϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϙŜŪèēϙŜĖČIJϙıôôťŜϙÍīīϙĺťēôŘϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŜôèťĖĺIJϟ ϟ bĺϙċÍèôϙĺċϙÍϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϠϙſēôIJϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙæƅϙťēĖŜϙťĖťīôϠϙŜēÍīīϙôƄèôôîϙ͓͑ϙĖIJèēôŜϙæƅϙ ͕͒ϙĖIJèēôŜϢϙÍIJîϙċŪŘťēôŘϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēôϙċĺŘôČĺĖIJČϙIJĺťſĖťēŜťÍIJîĖIJČϠϙIJĺϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙ ŜēÍīīϙæôϙĺċϙŜŪèēϙÍϙŜĖƏôϙťēÍťϙĖťϙĖIJťŘŪîôŜϙĖIJťĺϙÍIJƅϙÍŘôÍϙŘôŗŪĖŘôîϙťĺϙæôϙċŘôôϙĺċϙĖıŕôîĖıôIJťŜϙ ŕŪŘŜŪÍIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙ®ÍŜēĖIJČťĺIJϙ‹ťÍťôϙÍŘŘĖôŘϙ>ŘôôϙĺŘϙıôŘĖèÍIJŜϙſĖťēϙ"ĖŜÍæĖīĖťĖôŜϙèťϙ ŘôČŪīÍťĖĺIJŜϙÍŜϙťēôƅϙIJĺſϙôƄĖŜťϙĺŘϙıÍƅϙēôŘôÍċťôŘϙæôϙÍıôIJîôîϟϙīīϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙĺċϙŜĺŪIJîϙ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙîôŜĖČIJôîϙťĺϙťēôϙŜÍťĖŜċÍèťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϙĺƯĖèĖÍīϙťĺϙſĖťēŜťÍIJîϙēĖČēϙ ſĖIJîŜϟ "ϟ “ēôϙŕôŘıĖťϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙĖŜŜŪôîϙæƅϙťēôϙîĖŘôèťĺŘϠϙÍIJîϙťēôϙċôôϙċĺŘϙťēôϙĖŜŜŪÍIJèôϙĺċϙŜŪèēϙŕôŘıĖťϙ ŜēÍīīϙæôϙщ͔͏ϟ͏͏ϢϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙèĺŪIJèĖīϙıÍƅϙċŘĺıϙťĖıôϙťĺϙťĖıôϙæƅϙŘôŜĺīŪťĖĺIJϙôŜťÍæīĖŜēϙÍϙ îĖƯôŘôIJťϙċôôϟϙ“ēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJϙċĺŘϙŜŪèēϙŕôŘıĖťϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŪŕĺIJϙÍϙċĺŘıϙŕŘôŜèŘĖæôîϙæƅϙťēôϙ îĖŘôèťĺŘϠϙÍIJîϙŜēÍīīϙĖIJèīŪîôϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙîĖıôIJŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēôϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙ ŜĖČIJϠϙÍϙıÍŕϙîŘÍſIJϙťĺϙÍϙŜťÍIJîÍŘîϙŜèÍīôϙŜēĺſĖIJČϙťēôϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙĖIJϙŘôīÍťĖĺIJϙťĺϙŜťŘôôťŜϠϙ ŜĖîôſÍīħŜϠϙæŪĖīîĖIJČŜϠϙÍIJîϙĺťēôŘϙċôÍťŪŘôŜϙſĖťēĖIJϙ͑͏ϙċôôťϠϙÍIJîϙôĖťēôŘϙÍϙîŘÍſĖIJČϙĺŘϙŕēĺťĺČŘÍŕēϙ ĺċϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϟϙŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJŜϙċĺŘϙŕôŘıĖťŜϙċĺŘϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙôƄôıŕťϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙ ŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙĺċϙĺťēôŘϙŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙťĖťīôϠϙÍIJîϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕŘĺèôŜŜôîϙæƅϙťēôϙîĖŘôèťĺŘϙĺŘϙ îôŜĖČIJôôϙĺIJϙÍIJϙôƄŕôîĖťôîϙæÍŜĖŜϟϙ‹ŪèēϙŕôŘıĖťŜϙŜēÍīīϙŘôıÍĖIJϙŽÍīĖîϙċĺŘϙÍIJϙĖIJîôƱIJĖťôϙŕôŘĖĺîϙŜĺϙ īĺIJČϙÍŜϙťēôϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙıôôťŜϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙĖŜϙĖIJϙ èĺıŕīĖÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙÍIJƅϙèĺIJîĖťĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēôϙŕôŘıĖťϢϙÍIJîϙċŪŘťēôŘϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēÍťϙĖIJϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJϙťĺϙťēôϙ ŕôŘıĖťϠϙÍϙŽÍīĖîϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙīĖèôIJŜôϙēÍŜϙæôôIJϙĺæťÍĖIJôîϙŕŪŘŜŪÍIJťϙťĺϙ‹a ͖͐ϟ͔͒ϟ͔͑͒ϼϽϙ ÍIJîϙťēôϙīĖèôIJŜôϙċôôϙŕÍĖîϟϙϙīôČĖæīôϙıĺĖŜťŪŘôϙŘôŜĖŜťÍIJťϙèĺŕƅϙĺċϙťēôϙÍŕŕŘĺŽôîϙīĖèôIJŜôϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙ ÍƯĖƄôîϙťĺϙťēôϙŪIJîôŘŜĖîôϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙÍťϙÍīīϙťĖıôŜϟ (ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙæôϙÍƯĖƄôîϙťĺϠϙıĺŪIJťôîϙŪŕĺIJϙĺŘϙŕīÍèôîϙŪŕĺIJϙŽôēĖèīôŜϙ ŕÍŘħôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙŕŪæīĖèϙŘĖČēť-ĺċ-ſÍƅϟ >ϟ ͐ϟ “ēôϙîĖŘôèťĺŘϙŜēÍīīϙÍîıĖIJĖŜťôŘϙťēôϙŕôŘıĖťťĖIJČϙŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŜôèťĖĺIJϟ ͑ϟ “ēôϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϙĺƯĖèĖÍīϠϙťēôϙèĺîôϙôIJċĺŘèôıôIJťϙĺƯĖèôŘϙĺŘϙÍIJƅϙŕĺīĖèôϙĺƯĖèôŘϙıÍƅϙôIJċĺŘèôϙťēôϙ ŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙŘôīÍťĖIJČϙťĺϙŪIJŕôŘıĖťťôîϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϟ ͒ϟ IJƅϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŕīÍèôîϙĖIJϙŽĖĺīÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙÍIJƅϙĺċϙťēôϙŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙıÍƅϙ æôϙŜŪııÍŘĖīƅϙŘôıĺŽôîϟ Page 67 of 135 ͓ϟ IJƅϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŘôıĺŽôîϙŕŪŘŜŪÍIJťϙťĺϙťēĖŜϙŜŪæŜôèťĖĺIJϙıÍƅϙæôϙŘôťŪŘIJôîϙťĺϙťēôϙ ĺſIJôŘϙĺIJīƅϙŪŕĺIJϙťēôϙĺſIJôŘЍŜϙŜôèŪŘĖIJČϙĺċϙÍϙŕôŘıĖťϠϙÍIJîϙÍϙīĖèôIJŜôϙĖċϙŘôŗŪĖŘôîϢϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙÍIJƅϙ ŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŘôıĺŽôîϙċŘĺıϙŕŪæīĖèϙĺŘϙŕŘĖŽÍťôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙťſĺϙťĖıôŜ ıÍƅϙæôϙ îôŜťŘĺƅôîϟ @ϟ ®ĖīīċŪīϙŽĖĺīÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťϙťĺϙĺæťÍĖIJϙÍϙŕôŘıĖťϙĺŘϙīĖèôIJŜôϙċĺŘϙÍϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙ ŜĖČIJϠϙÍŜϙôŽĖîôIJèôîϙæƅϙťēŘôôϙĺŘϙıĺŘôϙÍèťĖĺIJŜϙťĺϙôIJċĺŘèôϙŜŪèēϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϙæƅϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙĺċϙ ÍIJƅϙŜĖČIJϙĺſIJôîϙæƅϙťēôϙŜÍıôϙĺſIJôŘϠϙŜēÍīīϙèĺIJŜťĖťŪťôϙÍϙıĖŜîôıôÍIJĺŘϟϙϼiŘîϟϙ͐͐͗͘ϙЯ ͑͑ϙϼ(Ƅēϟϙ "ϽϠϙ͑͏͖͐ϢϙiŘîϟϙ͐͐͘ϙЯ ͒Ϡϙ͑͏͏͑Ͻϟ City of Orting ͐͒-͖-͖ϡ ‹b"®IFϙi‡"ϙ‹I@b‹ϡ ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙÍϙťƅŕôϙĺċϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŜĖČIJϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙĖťƅϙĖIJϙ ÍèèĺŘîÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙťēĖŜϙēÍŕťôŘϟ ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙÍīīĺſôîϙŜŪæĤôèťϙťĺϙťēôϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙŘôŜťŘĖèťĖĺIJŜϡ ͐ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙīĖıĖťôîϙťĺϙťēĖŘťƅ-ŜĖƄϙĖIJèēôŜϙϼ͕͒ГϽϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϙÍIJîϙťēĖŘťƅϙĖIJèēôŜϙ ϼ͒͏ГϽϙĖIJϙſĖîťēϟϙ“ēôƅϙıŪŜťϙæôϙèĺIJŜťŘŪèťôîϙĺċϙîŪŘÍæīôϙıÍťôŘĖÍīŜϟ ͑ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙıÍƅϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙĺIJϙŕŪæīĖèϙŜĖîôſÍīħŜϙĺŘϙÍîĤÍèôIJťϙÍŘôÍŜϙĖIJϙÍϙ ıÍIJIJôŘϙŜĺϙÍŜϙťĺϙÍīīĺſϙÍîôŗŪÍťôϙŕôîôŜťŘĖÍIJϙèĖŘèŪīÍťĖĺIJϙÍīīĺſĖIJČϙÍϙıĖIJĖıŪıϙĺċϙťēŘôôϙϼ͒Ͻϙċôôťϙ ĺċϙÍŽÍĖīÍæīôϙŜĖîôſÍīħϙŕÍťēϠϙĖIJèīŪîĖIJČϙŜÍċôϙÍIJîϙŪIJèĺIJŜťŘÍĖIJôîϙÍèèôŜŜϙťĺϙŕÍŘħôîϙŽôēĖèīôŜϟϙ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙÍîĤÍèôIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙĺſIJôŘДŜϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĺŘϙŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙ ôƄèôŕťϙſēôIJϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙèÍIJϙîôıĺIJŜťŘÍťôϙÍϙIJôôîϙċĺŘϙŕīÍèôıôIJťϙŪŕϙťĺϙĺIJôϙēŪIJîŘôîϙċôôťϙ ϼ͐͏͏ДϽϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĺŘϙŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙÍIJîϙſĖťēϙťēôϙŕôŘıĖŜŜĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙĖııôîĖÍťôīƅϙÍîĤÍèôIJťϙ ŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙĺſIJôŘϼŜϽϟ ͒ϟ bĺϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēĖŘťƅϙċôôťϙϼ͒͏ДϽϙĺċϙÍIJĺťēôŘϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙ æĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϟ ͓ϟ ˜IJîôŘϙIJĺϙèĖŘèŪıŜťÍIJèôŜϙıÍƅϙÍϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙĺIJϙťēôϙŕĺŘťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙ ŕŪæīĖèϙŘĖČēťϙĺċϙſÍƅϙŪŕĺIJϙſēĖèēϙŽôēĖèīôŜϙŘôČŪīÍŘīƅϙťŘÍŽôŘŜôϙĺŘϙŕÍŘħϟϙbĺϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙ ĖIJϙıôîĖÍIJϙŜťŘĖŕŜϠϙŕīÍIJťôŘϯťŘÍƯĖèϙĖŜīÍIJîŜϠϙĺŘϙĖIJϙťēôϙŘĺÍîſÍƅϠϙĖIJèīŪîĖIJČϙĺIJϙŽôēĖèīôŜϟϙ“ēôϙĖťƅϙ ŜēÍīīϙîôťôŘıĖIJôϠϙÍťϙĖťŜϙŜĺīôϙîĖŜèŘôťĖĺIJϠϙťēôϙÍŕŕŘĺŽôîϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙťĺϙ ôIJŜŪŘôϙŕôîôŜťŘĖÍIJϙŜÍċôťƅϙÍIJîϙŽôēĖèīôϙèĖŘèŪīÍťĖĺIJϟϙ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙæôϙ īĺèÍťôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēĖŘťƅϙċôôťϙϼ͒͏ДϽϙĺċϙŜťŘôôťϙĖIJťôŘŜôèťĖĺIJŜϙĺŘϙſēôŘôϙťēôƅϙĖIJēĖæĖťϙıĺťĺŘĖŜťϙŜĖČēťϙ îĖŜťÍIJèôŜϟ ͔ϟ bĺϙŜĖIJČīôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĺŘϙĺťēôŘϙŕÍŘťƅϙŜēÍīīϙŜĖťôϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙĺIJôϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙ ſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙĖťƅϟ Page 68 of 135 ͕ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙıÍƅϙĺIJīƅϙæôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙîŪŘĖIJČϙťēôϙēĺŪŘŜϙťēôϙŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙĺŘϙ æŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĖŜϙĺŕôIJϙťĺϙťēôϙČôIJôŘÍīϙŕŪæīĖèϠϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϙIJĺIJ-èĺııôŘèĖÍīϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙ ıÍƅϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙŕŪæīĖèϙŘĖČēťϙĺċϙſÍƅϙċĺŘϙÍϙıÍƄĖıŪıϙŕôŘĖĺîϙĺ ċϙťſôīŽôϙϼ͐͑ϽϙēĺŪŘŜϙŕôŘϙ ôÍèēϙťſôIJťƅ-ċĺŪŘϙϼ͓͑ϽϙēĺŪŘϙŕôŘĖĺîϟ ͖ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙťēÍťϙÍŘôϙIJĺťϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙĺŘϙÍŘôϙĺťēôŘſĖŜôϙĺŪťϙĺċϙèĺıŕīĖÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙ ťēĖŜϙēÍŕťôŘϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙÍæÍťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙĖťƅϠϙŕŪŘŜŪÍIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙŕŘĺèôŜŜϙŜôťϙĺŪťϙĖIJϙťēĖŜϙēÍŕťôŘϟ ͗ϟ “ēôϙŜĖČIJϙĺſIJôŘϙŜēÍīīϙıÍĖIJťÍĖIJϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙĖIJϙťēôϙèĺIJîĖťĖĺIJϙĺŘĖČĖIJÍīīƅϙÍŕŕŘĺŽôîϟ ͘ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙIJĺťϙŜŪæĤôèťϙťĺϙťēôϙťĖıôϙīĖıĖťŜϙÍŜϙŜťÍťôîϙĖIJϙŜôèťĖĺIJ ͐͒-͖-8 - ͐-ĖĖĖϟ ϼiŘîϟϙ͑͏͐͘-͐͏͓͐Ϡϙ͔-͑͘-͑͏͐͘ϢϙiŘîϟϙ͑͏͑͒-͐͐͏͒Ϡϙ͐-͔͑-͑͏͑͒ϢϙiŘîϟϙ͑͏͑͒-͐͐͏͕Ϡϙ͕-͓͐-͑͏͑͒Ͻ City of Redmond Fϟ Permitted Temporary Portable and Temporary Freestanding Signs. “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜ ſēĖèēϙÍŘôϙôƄôıŕťϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťϙĺċϙÍ ŜĖČIJ ŕôŘıĖťϠϙ ŪIJīôŜŜϙĺťēôŘſĖŜôϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙÍŘôϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙĖIJϙÍIJƅϙƏĺIJôϙŜŪæĤôèťϙťĺϙťēôϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙ ŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϡ ͐ϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜ ſēĖèēϙÍŘôϙôƄôıŕťϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťϙĺċϙÍ ŜĖČIJ ŕôŘıĖťϠϙ ŪIJīôŜŜϙĺťēôŘſĖŜôϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙÍŘôϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙĖIJϙÍIJƅϙƏĺIJôϙŜŪæĤôèťϙťĺϙťēôϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙ ŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϡ Íϟ Number. “ēôϙIJŪıæôŘϙĺċϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϠϙÍIJî èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙ ŜĖČIJŜ Íīīĺſôî ŜēÍīī æôϙÍŜϙċĺīīĺſŜϢϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēÍťϙIJĺťēĖIJČϙēôŘôĖIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙèĺIJŜťŘŪôîϙÍŜϙ ÍŪťēĺŘĖƏĖIJČϙťēôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅϙĺċ ŜĖČIJŜ ĺťēôŘſĖŜôϙŕŘĺēĖæĖťôîϙŪIJîôŘϙÍŕŕīĖèÍæīôϙŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙ èĺîôϠϙĖIJèīŪîĖIJČϙæŪťϙIJĺťϙīĖıĖťôîϙťĺ ēĺıôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜ ŜĖČIJŜϡ Ėϟ >ĺŘϙÍIJƅϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϠϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŪIJĖťϠϙīĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙ˜‡Ϡϙa˜Ϡϙ"“(Ϡϙ"“Ϡϙi«Ϡϙi“Ϡϙ˜a˜Ϡϙ „Ϡϙa„ϠϙĺŘϙIϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèťŜϠϙIJĺϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙĺIJôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙĺŘ ŘôÍīϙ ôŜťÍťôϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍīīĺſôîϙċĺŘϙôÍèēϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŪIJĖťϙĺƯôŘôîϙċĺŘϙŜÍīôϙĺŘϙ īôÍŜôϢϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēÍťϙÍϙıÍƄĖıŪıϙĺċϙĺIJô ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍīīĺſôîϙċĺŘϙÍIJƅϙıŪīťĖ- ŪIJĖť èĺıŕīôƄ IJĺťſĖťēŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙťēôϙIJŪıæôŘϙĺċϙŘôIJťÍīϙĺŘ îſôīīĖIJČϙŪIJĖťŜ ťēôŘôĖIJϙèŪŘŘôIJťīƅϙ ÍŽÍĖīÍæīôϙċĺŘϙŜÍīôϙĺŘϙīôÍŜôϟϙ>ĺŘϙôÍèēϙıŪīťĖ-ŪIJĖť èĺıŕīôƄϠϙĺIJôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙċŘôôŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙЊċĺŘϙ ŜÍīôЋϙĺŘϙЊċĺŘϙīôÍŜôЋ ŜĖČIJ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙŕôŘ ŜťŘôôťϙċŘĺIJťÍČôϟ ĖĖϟ >ĺŘϙÍIJƅϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŪIJĖťϙīĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙ‡-͔Ϡϙba˜ϙĺŘϙb‡ϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèťϠϙIJĺϙ ıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙťēŘôôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙĺŘ ŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŜĖČIJŜ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍīīĺſôîϙċĺŘϙ ôÍèēϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŪIJĖťϙĺƯôŘôîϙċĺŘϙŜÍīôϙĺŘϙīôÍŜôϟϙ>ĺŘϙôÍèēϙŜĖIJČīô- Page 69 of 135 ċÍıĖīƅ ĺŘ ıĖîîīô-ēĺŪŜĖIJČ ŘôŜĖîôIJťĖÍī ŜĖťôϠϙĺIJôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙċŘôôŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙЊċĺŘϙŜÍīôЋϙĺŘϙЊċĺŘϙ īôÍŜôЋ ŜĖČIJ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙŕôŘ ŜťŘôôťϙċŘĺIJťÍČôϟ ĖĖĖϟ >ĺŘϙÍIJƅϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŪIJĖťϙīĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙba>ϙĺŘϙťēôϙi˜a>ϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèťϙIJĺϙ ıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙĺIJôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙĺŘ ŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍīīĺſôîϙċĺŘϙôÍèēϙ æŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŪIJĖťϙĺƯôŘôîϙċĺŘϙŜÍīôϙĺŘϙīôÍŜôϢϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēÍťϙÍϙıÍƄĖıŪıϙĺċϙ ĺIJôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍīīĺſôîϙċĺŘϙÍIJƅϙıŪīťĖ-ŪIJĖťϙŘôŜĖîôIJťĖÍīϙÍŕÍŘťıôIJťϙĺŘϙ èĺIJîĺıĖIJĖŪı èĺıŕīôƄ IJĺťſĖťēŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙťēôϙIJŪıæôŘϙĺċϙŘôIJťÍīϙĺŘ îſôīīĖIJČϙŪIJĖťŜ ťēôŘôĖIJϙ èŪŘŘôIJťīƅϙÍŽÍĖīÍæīôϙċĺŘϙŜÍīôϙĺŘϙīôÍŜôϟϙ>ĺŘϙôÍèēϙıŪīťĖ-ŪIJĖťϙŘôŜĖîôIJťĖÍīϙÍŕÍŘťıôIJťϙĺŘϙ èĺIJîĺıĖIJĖŪı èĺıŕīôƄϠϙĺIJôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙċŘôôŜťÍIJîĖIJČϙЊċĺŘϙŜÍīôЋϙĺŘϙЊċĺŘϙīôÍŜôЋ ŜĖČIJ ıÍƅ æôϙ îĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙŕôŘ ŜťŘôôťϙċŘĺIJťÍČôϟ ĖŽϟ >ĺŘϙÍIJƅ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ŜĖťô īĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙÍIJƅϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèťϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēô Ėťƅ īĖıĖťŜϠϙIJĺϙıĺŘôϙ ťēÍIJϙťſĺϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJŜ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍīīĺſôîϙċĺŘϙôÍèē èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ŕŘĺĤôèť ŜĖťôϟ æϟ Size. Figure 21.44.010I Sandwich Board Sign Page 70 of 135 Ėϟ ĺııôŘèĖÍīϙÍIJîϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙŜĖƄϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙ ŕôŘ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôϠϙÍIJîϙIJĺϙŜŪèē ŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī èĺIJťÍĖIJϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙťſĺ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôŜϟϙĺııôŘèĖÍīϙÍIJîϙ ŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙŜĖƄϙċôôťϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϠϙıôÍŜŪŘôîϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙ ŕŘôôƄĖŜťĖIJČϙČŘĺŪIJîϙīôŽôīϙťĺϙťēôϙťĺŕϙĺċϙťēô ŜĖČIJϟ ĖĖϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJŜ ĖIJϙťēôϙ˜‡Ϡϙ"“(Ϡϙ"“Ϡϙa˜Ϡϙi«Ϡϙi“Ϡϙ˜a˜Ϡϙ„Ϡϙa„ϠϙIϠϙ i˜a>ϠϙĺŘϙba>ϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèť ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙ͒͑ϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙŕôŘ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôϠ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙ èĺIJťÍĖIJϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙťſĺ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôŜϠϙÍIJî ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙ͐͏ϙċôôťϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϙſēôIJϙıôÍŜŪŘôîϙ ċŘĺıϙŕŘôôƄĖŜťĖIJČϙČŘĺŪIJîϙīôŽôīϙťĺϙťēôϙťĺŕϙĺċϙťēô ŜĖČIJϟ ĖĖĖϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJŜ īĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙba˜ϙĺŘϙb‡ϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèťϠϙſēôIJϙ ÍŜŜĺèĖÍťôîϙſĖťēϙÍ ŜŪæîĖŽĖŜĖĺIJϠ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙ͒͑ϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙŕôŘ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôϠ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙ èĺIJťÍĖIJϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙťſĺ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôŜϠϙÍIJî ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙ͐͏ϙċôôťϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϙſēôIJϙıôÍŜŪŘôîϙ ċŘĺıϙŕŘôôƄĖŜťĖIJČϙČŘĺŪIJîϙīôŽôīϙťĺϙťēôϙťĺŕϙĺċϙťēô ŜĖČIJϟ Page 71 of 135 ĖŽϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJŜ īĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙb‡ϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙîĖŜťŘĖèťϠϙſēôIJϙIJĺťϙÍŜŜĺèĖÍťôîϙ ſĖťēϙÍ ŜŪæîĖŽĖŜĖĺIJϠ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙŜĖƄϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙŕôŘ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôϠ ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙèĺIJťÍĖIJϙıĺŘôϙ ťēÍIJϙťſĺ ŜĖČIJ ċÍèôŜϠϙÍIJî ŜēÍīī IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙŜĖƄϙċôôťϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϙſēôIJϙıôÍŜŪŘôîϙċŘĺıϙŕŘôôƄĖŜťĖIJČϙ ČŘĺŪIJîϙīôŽôīϙťĺϙťēôϙťĺŕϙĺċϙťēô ŜĖČIJϟ èϟ Location. bĺϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙĺŘ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙ īĺèÍťôîϙſĖťēĖIJ ŽôēĖèīô īÍIJôŜϠϙæĖħôſÍƅŜϠϙťŘÍĖīŜϠϙŜĖîôſÍīħŜϠϙĺŘϙıôîĖÍIJϙŜťŘĖŕŜϟϙbĺϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϠϙĺŘ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æīĺèħ îŘĖŽôſÍƅŜ ĺŘϙæôϙÍƯĖƄôîϙ ťĺ ŪťĖīĖťƅϙŕĺīôŜϠ ťŘôôŜϠϙĺŘϙťŘÍƯĖè ŜĖČIJŜϟ ĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŜĖČIJŜ ıÍƅ æôϙÍƯĖƄôîϙťĺϙ ċôIJèĖIJČϙĺIJϙÍ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ŜĖťôϠϙæŪťϙIJĺϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙĺŘϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙ ŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙÍƯĖƄôîϙťĺϙÍϙċôIJèôϟϙbĺϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϠϙ ĺŘ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙŜťŘŪIJČϙæôťſôôIJ ťŘôôŜϟ Ėϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙŕĺŘťÍæīôϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϠϙÍIJî èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJŜ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙ ĺIJīƅϙĖċϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϠϙŘôÍīϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϠϙĺŘ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ŜĖťô ťĺϙſēĖèēϙťēôƅϙŘôīÍťôϙĖŜϙīĺèÍťôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙ ‡ôîıĺIJî Ėťƅ īĖıĖťŜϟ îϟ Festoons Prohibited. “ēôϙŪŜôϙĺċϙæÍīīĺĺIJŜϠϙċôŜťĺĺIJ ƲÍČŜϠ ƲÍČŜϠϙŕôIJIJÍIJťŜϠϙīĖČēťŜϠϙĺŘϙÍIJƅϙ ĺťēôŘϙŜťÍIJî-ÍīĺIJôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅϙĺŘϙÍťťÍèēôîϙîĖŜŕīÍƅϙĺIJϙÍϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙ ĺŘ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJ ĖŜϙŕŘĺēĖæĖťôîϟ ôϟ Animation Prohibited. bĺϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϠϙŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙĺŘ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙ ŜĖČIJ ŜēÍīī æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙſēĖīôϙæôĖIJČϙŘĺťÍťôîϠϙſÍŽôîϠϙĺŘϙĺťēôŘſĖŜôϙĖIJϙıĺťĖĺIJϟ ċϟ Duration. Ėϟ ĺııôŘèĖÍīϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙĺIJīƅϙîŪŘĖIJČϙťēôϙēĺŪŘŜϙſēôIJϙťēôϙ èĺııôŘèĖÍīϙôŜťÍæīĖŜēıôIJťϙťĺϙſēĖèēϙťēôƅϙŘôīÍťôϙĖŜϙĺŕôIJϙċĺŘϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϟ ĖĖϟ ‡ôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙťôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ ŕĺŘťÍæīôϙŜĖČIJŜ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙĺIJīƅϙîŪŘĖIJČϙťēôϙēĺŪŘŜϙſēôIJϙťēôϙ ŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙťĺϙſēĖèēϙťēôƅϙŘôīÍťôϙĖŜϙťēôϙŜŪæĤôèťϙĺċϙÍIJϙĺŕôIJϙēĺŪŜôϙĺŘϙſēôIJϙÍ èĺıŕīôƄ ıÍIJÍČôŘϙ ĖŜϙÍŽÍĖīÍæīôϙťĺϙŜēĺſϙťēôϙŪIJĖťϟ ĖĖĖϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙŜĖČIJŜ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙĺIJīƅϙîŪŘĖIJČϙťēôϙŕôŘĖĺîϙæôťſôôIJϙ ĖŜŜŪÍIJèôϙĺċ èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJ ŕôŘıĖťŜϙÍIJîϙĖŜŜŪÍIJèôϙĺċϙÍϙèôŘťĖƱèÍťôϙĺċϙĺèèŪŕÍIJèƅϙĺŘϙƱIJÍīϙ ĖIJŜŕôèťĖĺIJϙÍŕŕŘĺŽÍīϙċĺŘϙťēô èĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϟ ĖŽϟ “ôıŕĺŘÍŘƅϙċŘôôŜťÍIJîĖIJČ ŘôÍīϙôŜťÍťôϙŜĖČIJŜ ıÍƅ æôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙťēôϙôIJťĖŘôϙťĖıôϙťēôϙ ŪIJîôŘīƅĖIJČϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙĖŜϙċĺŘϙŜÍīôϟ City of Poulsbo 18.170.090 Sandwich board signs. Page 72 of 135 ϟ „ôŘıĖťϙ‡ôŗŪĖŘôîϟϙ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙĖIJťôIJîôîϙċĺŘϙŕôŘıÍIJôIJťϙîĖŜŕīÍƅϙϼıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙ ċĺŪŘťôôIJϙîÍƅŜϙĖIJϙÍϙèÍīôIJîÍŘϙƅôÍŘϽϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôîϙťĺϙĺæťÍĖIJϙÍϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŕôŘıĖťϙ ċŘĺıϙťēôϙèĖťƅϟ ͐ϟ ŜϙŕÍŘťϙĺċϙťēôϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŕôŘıĖťϙċĺŘϙŜĖČIJŜϙťĺϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙŕŪæīĖèϙŘĖČēť-ĺċ- ſÍƅϠϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŘôŗŪĖŘôîϙťĺϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϙÍϙŜĖČIJôîϙÍIJîϙIJĺťÍŘĖƏôîϙŜťÍťôıôIJťϙÍŜŜŪıĖIJČϙ ÍīīϙīĖÍæĖīĖťƅϙċĺŘϙÍIJƅϙîÍıÍČôϙŘôŜŪīťĖIJČϙċŘĺıϙťēôĖŘϙŪŜôϙĺċϙťēôϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙÍIJîϙēĺīîĖIJČϙ ťēôϙèĖťƅϙēÍŘıīôŜŜϙċŘĺıϙÍIJƅϙīĺŜŜôŜϟ ͑ϟ “ēôϙŕôŘıĖťϙÍŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJϙŜēÍīīϙĖIJèīŪîôϙťēôϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙĖIJċĺŘıÍťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙæôϙŕŘĺèôŜŜôîϙĖIJϙ ÍèèĺŘîÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙ‹ôèťĖĺIJ ͐͗ϟ͖͐͏ϟ͐͑͏ϡ Íϟ ‹ĖƏôϙÍIJîϙēôĖČēťϟ æϟ IIJťôIJîôîϙŕīÍèôıôIJťϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϼŜϽϙĺIJϙÍIJîϙĺƯϙŕŘôıĖŜôŜϟ èϟ aÍťôŘĖÍīŜϟ ϟ “ƅŕôϟ ͐ϟ iIJ-ŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙŕīÍèôîϙĺIJϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙſēôŘôϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϠϙŪŜôϙĺŘϙ ĺŘČÍIJĖƏÍťĖĺIJϙĖŜϙīĺèÍťôîϙĺŘϙĖııôîĖÍťôīƅϙÍîĤÍèôIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϠϙŪŜôϙĺŘϙĺŘČÍIJĖƏÍťĖĺIJϙ ċŘĺIJťÍČôϟ ͑ϟ iƯ-ŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙIJĺťϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϟ ϟ ‹ĖƏôϟϙ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙŜĖƄϙŜŗŪÍŘôϙċôôťϙĖIJϙŜĖƏôϙŕôŘϙċÍèôϙÍIJîϙŜēÍīīϙ IJĺťϙôƄèôôîϙċĺŪŘϙċôôťϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϟϙ“ēôϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙæôϙÍŘťĖƱèĖÍīīƅϙĖIJèŘôÍŜôîϙÍæĺŽôϙťēôϙÍīīĺſôîϙ ıÍƄĖıŪıϙēôĖČēťϙæƅϙôīôŽÍťĖIJČϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϙĺƯϙĺċϙČŘĺŪIJîϙīôŽôīϙæƅϙÍIJƅϙıôÍIJŜϟ "ϟ bŪıæôŘϟϙbĺϙıĺŘôϙťēÍIJϙĺIJôϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJϙŕôŘϙŜťŘôôťϙċŘĺIJťÍČôϙϼIJĺťϙťĺϙôƄèôôîϙťſĺϙ ťĺťÍīϽϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙċĺŘϙÍIJƅϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϠϙĺŘČÍIJĖƏÍťĖĺIJϠϙĺŘϙŪŜôϟ (ϟ „īÍèôıôIJťϟ ͐ϟ iIJ-ŕŘôıĖŜôŜϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙıŪŜťϙæôϙīĺèÍťôîϙĺIJϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙîĖŘôèťīƅϙĖIJϙċŘĺIJťϙĺċϙťēôϙ æŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙîĖŜŕīÍƅĖIJČϙťēôϙŜĖČIJϠϙĺŘϙĖIJϙŘĖČēť-ĺċ-ſÍƅϙĺIJϙťēôϙŜÍıôϙŜĖîôϙĺċϙŜťŘôôťϙÍIJîϙĖııôîĖÍťôīƅϙ ÍîĤÍèôIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϟ ͑ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙIJĺťϙťĺϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙĺIJϙŜĖîôſÍīħŜϠϙôƄèôŕťϙĖIJϙťēôϙ-͐ϙƏĺIJĖIJČϙ îĖŜťŘĖèťϢϙŕŘĺŽĖîôîϠϙťēÍťϙıĖIJĖıŪıϙ"ϙŜĖîôſÍīħϙſĖîťēϙŘôıÍĖIJŜϙÍŽÍĖīÍæīôϟ ͒ϟ ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙèŘôÍťôϙÍϙťŘÍƯĖèϙŜÍċôťƅϙēÍƏÍŘîϙæƅϙĺæŜťŘŪèťĖIJČϙťēôϙŽĖôſϙĺŘϙŕÍŜŜÍČôϙĺċϙ ŕôîôŜťŘĖÍIJŜϠϙèƅèīĖŜťŜϙĺŘϙıĺťĺŘĖŜťŜϟ ͓ϟ ‹ĖČIJϙŕīÍèôıôIJťϙıÍƅϙIJĺťϙĺæŜťŘŪèťϙÍIJϙôIJťŘÍIJèôϙťĺϙÍϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϠϙŜťôŕŜϙĺŘϙîŘĖŽôſÍƅϙÍèèôŜŜϟ Page 73 of 135 ͔ϟ bĺϙŜĖČIJϙıÍƅϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙÍϙŜĖČēťϙŽĖŜĖĺIJϙèīôÍŘÍIJèôϙťŘĖÍIJČīôϙĺŘϙſĖťēĖIJϙƱŽôϙċôôťϙĺċϙÍϙ ſēôôīèēÍĖŘϙŘÍıŕϟ ͕ϟ bĺϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙŕīÍèôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙŘĺÍîſÍƅϠϙťŘÍƯĖèϙĖŜīÍIJîϠϙıôîĖÍIJϙĺŘϙèĖŘèīôϟ >ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙıÍƅϙæôϙîĖŜŕīÍƅôîϙĺIJīƅϙîŪŘĖIJČϙťēôϙēĺŪŘŜϙĺċϙôĖČēťϙÍϟıϟϙťĺϙťôIJϙŕϟıϟϙ ĺIJϙîÍƅŜϙťēôϙæŪŜĖIJôŜŜϙîĖŜŕīÍƅĖIJČϙŜŪèēϙŜĖČIJϙĖŜϙĺŕôIJϟϙ®ēôIJϙŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙÍŘôϙ èĺIJťĖIJŪĺŪŜīƅϙîĖŜŕīÍèôîϙÍIJîϙIJĺťϙŘôıĺŽôîϙîÍĖīƅϠϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙŜēÍīīϙēÍŽôϙťēôϙÍŪťēĺŘĖťƅϙťĺϙŘôıĺŽôϙ ŜÍĖîϙŜĖČIJϙŕŪŘŜŪÍIJťϙťĺϙ‹ôèťĖĺIJ ͐͗ϟ͖͐͏ϟ͓͐͏ϼϽϠϙÍIJîϙıÍƅϙŘôŽĺħôϙĖťŜϙŕôŘıĖťϟ @ϟ ‹ÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϙîôťôŘıĖIJôîϙťĺϙŕĺŜôϙÍϙťēŘôÍťϙťĺϙťēôϙŕŪæīĖèЍŜϙŜÍċôťƅϙĺŘϙÍŘôϙīĺèÍťôîϙ ĖIJϙŜĖČēťϙèīôÍŘÍIJèôϙÍŘôÍŜϙſĖīīϙæôϙŘôıĺŽôîϙæƅϙťēôϙèĖťƅϠϙŪIJîôŘϙťēôϙŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙ ‹ôèťĖĺIJ ͐͗ϟ͖͐͏ϟ͓͐͏ϼϽϟ Fϟ [ĖČēťĖIJČϠϙŜťŘôÍıôŘŜϠϙæÍīīĺĺIJŜϠϙſĖIJîŜĺèħŜϠϙÍIJîϙĺťēôŘϙıÍťôŘĖÍīŜϙŜēÍīīϙIJĺťϙæôϙÍťťÍèēôîϙťĺϙ ŜÍIJîſĖèēϙæĺÍŘîϙŜĖČIJŜϟ Iϟ ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙèĺIJŜťŘŪèťôîϙĺċϙſôÍťēôŘ-ŘôŜĖŜťÍIJťϙıÍťôŘĖÍīŜϠϙŕŘĺċôŜŜĖĺIJÍīīƅϙīôťťôŘôîϙÍIJîϙ IJôÍťīƅϙŕÍĖIJťôîϟϙ“ēôϙŜĖČIJϙŜēÍīīϙæôϙèĺIJŜťŘŪèťôîϙťĺϙÍŽĺĖîϙæôĖIJČϙæīĺſIJϠϙťĖŕŕĖIJČϙĺŘϙċÍīīĖIJČϙċŘĺıϙĖťŜϙ ĖIJťôIJîôîϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϟϙ‹ĖČIJŜϙŜēÍīīϙŘôıÍĖIJϙĖIJϙČĺĺîϙèĺIJîĖťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙŘôŕÍĖŘôîϙÍIJîϙıÍĖIJťÍĖIJôîϙÍŜϙ IJôôîôîϟϙϼiŘîϟϙ͑͏͓͑-͏͔ϙЯ ͑ϙϼ(ƄēϟϙϙЯ ͓͐ϽϠϙ͑͏͓͑ϢϙiŘîϟϙ͑͏͐͒-͏͓ϙЯ ͑ϙϼ(ƄēϟϙϙϼŕÍŘťϽϽϠϙ͑͏͐͒Ͻ Page 74 of 135 Community Development Department PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499 EXHIBIT “4” Public Hearing Notice City of Pasco NOTICE OF OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE AMENDMENTS AND EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The City of Pasco is considering proposed code amendment(s) and an emergency comprehensive plan amendment. The Pasco Planning Commission will hold an open record public hearing and a continued open record public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed amendments at 6:30 p.m. on January 15, 2026, in the Council Chambers at Pasco City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington (please use the east side parking lot entrance). Final action on the proposed Code Amendments and Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be taken by the City Council at a later date. Please note that City Council action on the Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment must occur within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Planning Commission’s findings and recommendations. This notice also serves as notification to the general public regarding the public hearing. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will hear public testimony regarding the following proposed amendments: CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way:The City of Pasco Planning Commission will conduct an open record public hearing to consider a proposed code amendment regarding the allowance of sandwich board (A- frame) signs within the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission previously held a workshop on December 18, 2025, to discuss the proposal. The targeted amendment would allow sandwich board signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District, where placement within the sidewalk area has been technically prohibited since 2006. Under the proposed regulations, each business would be permitted one sign per frontage, all required ADA clearances must be maintained, signs may only be displayed during business hours, and signs located near intersections must be positioned to minimize impacts on sightlines. This regulated approach is intended to support business visibility and streetscape activation while maintaining pedestrian safety and accessibility, preventing visual clutter, and establishing clear standards for sign placement and oversight. For more information please contact: 509-544-4146 / barragani@pasco-wa.gov CPA2025-002/CA2025-003 Emergency Amendment-Low Density Residential Land Use-R-S-20 Zone Changes:The City of Pasco Planning Commission held an open record hearing on December 18, 2025, at 6:30 p.m., to review an emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Code Amendment. During the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the discussion to January 15, 2026, to allow for further research and review. As part of this research, the Commission has asked staff to revise the original proposal to maintain the proposed “Riverview” land use designation to allow 2-5 units per acre but with a zoning designation for the area that provides for less density at 2-3 or 2-4 units per acre with revised corresponding development regulations in code relating to lot sizes and dimensions. ORIGINAL NOTICE:On April 17, 2023, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4663, which amended PMC 25.215.015 and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density Table (Table LU-1). The ordinance revised allowable gross densities for Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre, and established that all new development must meet the minimum density requirements in PMC 25.215.015. In the R- S-20 zone, classified as Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, a one-acre lot can accommodate only two dwelling units. Under the current standards, such development is prohibited, effectively creating a moratorium on small-lot development in the R-S-20 zone. The City has received several requests from property owners to divide land in this zone, but those applications have been denied for failing to meet the adopted Page 75 of 135 density requirements. To address this issue, the Planning Division has been directed to initiate an amendment. The proposed land use designation of 2–5 units per acre would provide the policy framework for low-density housing, while the zoning code would implement this direction through parcel-level regulations. To align zoning with the revised land use designation, staff proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District, establishing a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change allows zoning to support the full density range permitted by the land use designation while still acco mmodating larger half-acre parcels where septic systems are an option. The proposed R-9 district provides a balanced approach that restores consistency, reflects infrastructure realities, and prepares the City for future statewide housing obligations. The City of Pasco has transmitted the proposed emergency amendment to the Washington State Department of Commerce for the required 60-day agency review. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist will be reviewed for this action and made available for public review and comment in accordance with WAC 197-11-355, with the optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process applied as appropriate. For more information please contact: 509- 544-4146 / barragani@pasco-wa.gov Public Comment Period: Written comments must be submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2026. Any interested party may submit written comments, attend the public hearing to provide oral testimony, or request notification of the Planning Commission’s findings and recommendations to the City Council, as well as the City Council’s final decision when action is taken. To submit comments, request notification, or ask questions regarding these proposals, please contact the Planning Division using the phone number or email address provided after the project description, or by mail or in person at the address below. Please note that written comments submitted prior to the meeting will be accepted and included in the official record. Oral testimony provided during the meeting will also be accepted and entered into the record at that time. City of Pasco – Planning Division P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 In Person: 525 N. 3rd Avenue, 1st Floor (CED) Pasco, WA 99301 If you wish to participate in the hearing virtually, please register at least 2 hours prior to the meeting at the following registration link: Public Comment. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The City of Pasco welcomes full participation in public meetings by all citizens. No qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded or denied the benefit of participating in such meetings. If you wish to use auxiliary aids or require assistance to comment at this public meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at (509) 545-3441 or TDD (509) 585-4425 at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting to make arrangements for special needs. Page 76 of 135 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, DECEBMER 18, 2025 6:30 PM Page 1 of 6 CALL TO ORDER The City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Dana Crutchfield, Jay Hendler and Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared. Commissioners Excused: Rosa Torres, Kim Lehrman, and Rob Waites Staff Present: C& ED Director Haylie Matson, C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick DECLARATIONS Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda.  No declarations were heard. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda.  No declarations were heard. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 20, 2025. Commissioner Hendler seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS • CPA 2025-001 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Pasco School District #1 Capital Facilities Plan Adoption Craig Raymond presented the staff report for the Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The amendment is considered “emergency” because it is occurring outside the normal annual cycle and during an active major Comprehensive Plan update. The City Council initiated the process by Resolution 4679, 60-day Commerce notice has been provided, and the Planning Commission is being asked to conduct the public hearing and make a formal recommendation to Council, which will take final action within 60 days. The amendment incorporates the school district’s updated Capital Facilities Plan, including service standards, facility inventory, capacity, enrollment forecasts, facility needs/costs, financing, and impact fee calculations. The update reflects recently completed and significant upcoming school projects, which influenced impact fee changes. Page 77 of 135 Page 2 of 6 Council adopted Ordinance 4774 revising school impact fees: single-family impact fees were eliminated, and multifamily impact fees decreased from $4,525 per unit to $2,595 per unit. Despite reductions, future facility needs remain. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Crutchfield ask what the reasoning was behind them being lowered so much. Craig Raymond explained that they have multiple funding sources (including impact fees, bonds, and levies). Major projects have recently been completed, and future facility needs are shifting in a different direction. Director Matson noted that school impact fees must have a clear nexus to new student population generated by new development, not the city’s existing population. State law strictly limits how much can be charged. Fees cannot be increased to make new development pay for existing deficiencies (e.g., an entirely new high school serving current students). Fees must be directly tied to impacts created by new growth. Chair Cochran opened the public hearing, nothing was heard, Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jones moved that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-001, incorporating the Pasco School District 2025, Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan by addendum. Motions was seconded by Commissioner Hendler, motion passed unanimously. • CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment Director Matson presented the staff report and asked the Commission to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, companion rezone, and related text amendments to address an inconsistency between Comprehensive Plan density requirements and RS-20 zoning in the Riverview area. The proposal restores a 2–5 units per acre land-use designation and replaces RS-20 with a new R-9 Low Density Residential zone to enable subdivision and development. Changes are limited to the Riverview area and reflect sewer service constraints and larger lot character. Proposed development standards include an 8,700 sq. ft. minimum lot size, lot coverage up to 45% (previously 40%), and modest front and rear setback reductions, with side setbacks retained. The action maintains low-density character, better aligns with infrastructure limitations, and positions the city for future housing law compliance. Two motions were requested: one for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and one for the zoning/text amendments. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the proposed action constitutes a true code change rather than a simple renaming and whether notice to all affected property owners is required. She Expressed concern that this is a significant change and that each resident and property owner in the area should be notified in advance of the public hearing so they can understand potential impacts. Director Matson replied that this action is treated as a citywide or area-wide rezone, and current code does not require direct mailed notice to all affected property owners. She noted that past practice for similar broad rezonings has not included individual mailings. Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concern that the proposal represents a significant change for existing Riverview neighborhoods, particularly with the potential introduction of triplexes in established areas where residents invested with certain expectations. She recalled prior assurances about preserving neighborhood character. Crutchfield also asked whether state law mandates construction of higher- density housing on eligible lots or whether owners may still choose to build single-family homes. Director Matson clarified that while 2–5 units per acre is modest in an urban context, it represents a significant change for the Riverview area, effectively more than doubling current density. She explained Page 78 of 135 Page 3 of 6 that the proposal follows prior City Council direction and responds to property owners seeking greater ability to develop their land, while recognizing that opinions will differ. Director Matson emphasized that the current proposal maintains single-family and does not allow triplexes; those discussions relate to future state-mandated “missing middle” housing requirements under HB 1110 and will be discussed at a later time. Commissioner Crutchfield stated that she feels this deserves a lot more consideration and letting the property owners in the area know because they don't as there was only newspaper notification of the hearing. Crutchfield stated that she is aware the city is not bound to do that by code, but this is a significant change. Commissioner Jones asked if the City of Pasco adopted the Uniform Building Code for their rules for how they build. What rule book did they follow and do those setbacks and those kinds of things you talked about; do they fall into those guidelines? Director Matson answered International Building Codes, International Resident Codes, and State-specific Energy Codes have been adopted and clarified that building separation depends on fire code and construction standards. With appropriate firewalls, buildings may be attached; without firewalls, typical separation is governed by required setbacks (e.g., 10 feet between structures, 5 feet per side). Setbacks and lot coverage limits are determined by city regulations. Commissioner Crutchfield asked if the property owners within Franklin County, the Donut Hole area, since they're part of the urban growth, are they subject to these changes as well? Director Matson stated no. Commissioner Crutchfield stated she understood that the current proposal applies only to the Riverview area, and that future citywide changes may be required later in response to state mandates. Director Matson clarified that citywide densities are currently designated at 3–6 units per acre, and that various zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) already exist across the city. Citywide changes are not automatically required at this time. Commissioner Crutchfield stated, for the record, that she views the proposal as a significant change affecting a relatively small portion of the city, despite being characterized as citywide. She reiterated her concern that, if the City intends to pursue this action, the minimum level of consideration should have included providing written notice to the affected property owners. While she acknowledged that staff explained the City is not required to notify all property owners citywide, she emphasized that the specific property owners impacted by the proposal should have received notice of the public hearing in advance, so they would be aware and have an opportunity to engage before being presented with a decision they cannot influence. She stated that, in her view, this consideration for property owners who have invested in their properties is more important than prioritizing the development community’s desire to receive an answer by the end of the year. Chair Cochran expressed that the issue is complex and politically sensitive. He noted that many `Riverview residents are concerned about increased density, especially replacement of large-lot properties with multiple new homes, which could change neighborhood character. Suggested aligning with Council direction in the least impactful way, potentially targeting densities closer to three units per acre to balance development opportunities with protection of existing neighborhood feel. Chair Cochran emphasized the desire from many homeowners to maintain the current Riverview/West Pasco lifestyle and larger-lot character. Director Matson clarified that in 2023 Council set a citywide density range of 3–6 units per acre and later directed staff to pursue a 2–5 unit per acre range for the Riverview Comprehensive Plan designation. Explained that 2–5 units per acre functions as an umbrella range, under which different zoning options (e.g., 2–3 units per acre) could still comply. Noted that the Planning Commission is Page 79 of 135 Page 4 of 6 making a recommendation to Council, which makes the final decision. Also cautioned that limiting density to around three units per acre would likely remove the option for development on septic, requiring sewer availability instead. Chair Cochran stated we are a recommendation to the council. They can completely ignore and overrule like they have done on occasion. That's their prerogative because they're the elected officials. But I do think if you want a recommendation out of this body, you're going to have to come up with a more moderate approach. Commissioner Crutchfield agreed and emphasized the importance of respecting existing homeowners who have already invested in the area and avoiding situations where they are surprised by nearby development that could negatively affect them. Commissioner Hendler followed with support for maintaining lower density in the Riverview area, noting that many larger cities are increasing density by reducing development standards, but those pressures are not yet present locally. Emphasized the desire to keep the area livable and consistent with its current character. Chair Cochran opened the public hearing, nothing was heard, Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Crutchfield made a motion to send the package back to staff for rework based on some recommendations the Commission have made. Commissioner Crawford asked Director Matson what the item would be sent back for and what additional information would come from that process to help the Commission. Director Matson noted that a wide range of opinions were shared and said staff is seeking clearer direction from the Planning Commission, especially on public noticing. She explained that if no action is taken, development would remain prohibited in RS-20 areas, which creates some urgency, but emphasized the importance of getting the changes right rather than rushing. She also stated that staff is willing to continue the discussion over multiple meetings. Director Matson explained that the proposal has two main parts: adjusting the Comprehensive Plan designation in the Riverview area from 3–6 units per acre to 2–5 units per acre and making related zoning changes. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously. WORSHOP • CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way Ivan Barragan presented a proposal to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in the Downtown Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The intent is to permit signs along business frontages within sidewalk or improved frontage areas, with placement standards to protect visibility at intersections and accessibility. Proposed code changes would also address removal of violations and clarify prohibited locations (e.g., travel lanes, medians, roundabouts). Examples from other cities were provided for comparison. Potential benefits include added flexibility for downtown businesses and clearer enforcement standards. Alternatives discussed included no action, unregulated allowance (not recommended), or expanding the allowance citywide. Staff requested Planning Commission input and recommended scheduling a January 15, 2026, public hearing. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Jones raised concerns about ADA accessibility and sidewalk width impacts from sandwich board signs, noting variability in sidewalk conditions. Emphasized the need for an enforceable ordinance and requested clarification on who would be responsible for enforcement and whether it would be complaint-based or proactive. Staff indicated that enforcement would likely fall to Code Page 80 of 135 Page 5 of 6 Enforcement and, given current staffing constraints, would primarily be complaint-based rather than proactive patrols. Commissioner Crutchfield raised concern about prohibited sandwich board signs being placed in the public right-of-way, potentially impacting pedestrian accessibility and safety. Clarification was requested on enforcement responsibility. Questions were also raised about allowing one sign per business tenant in multi-tenant buildings and whether this could result in excessive sidewalk obstructions due to lack of spacing or placement standards. Ivan Barragan noted that, due to limited code enforcement capacity, not all prohibited signs are currently being addressed. The proposal would allow sandwich board signs with specific restrictions. Flexibility for multi-tenant buildings was discussed to provide signage opportunities while acknowledging potential visual clutter. As the proposal is in the early stages, recommendations are being considered, and the matter will move forward by consensus. Chair Cochran asked if there's no enforcement of prohibited signs, what makes them think there would be any change in enforcement of regulated signs? Director Matson stated that while enforcement of sandwich board sign violations does occur, it is limited and not a primary focus due to staffing constraints and higher-priority life safety issues. Enforcement is generally complaint-driven, with staff responding when a sign poses a problem. • Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development discussion Director Matson provided an overview of the economic development element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, noting that consultants are underway and internal and partner discussions have begun, including coordination with the Port of Pasco and economic development specialists. It was shared that monthly workshop discussions will be brought forward to gather Council vision and feedback, with no immediate decisions required. Key topics discussed included Pasco’s strengths and gaps in retail, commercial, and entertainment offerings; the desire to attract destination retail and unique uses that draw visitors to Pasco; opportunities for expanded shopping, dining, and entertainment; and long-term healthcare needs, particularly in West Pasco. Workforce considerations were also discussed, including Pasco’s younger and diverse workforce, the need for higher-wage employment opportunities, and potential future industries such as aerospace manufacturing. The economic development element is intended to be implementation-focused and actionable rather than aspirational, and Council feedback will be shared with the consultant as the plan is developed. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Jones commented from a newer perspective; the City of Pasco and the broader Tri-Cities area lack a dedicated fine arts venue. It was suggested that the region has sufficient population and higher-wage employment to support such a facility, and that developing a fine arts venue could represent a potential opportunity for Pasco’s economic development. Commissioner Hendler emphasizing the Columbia River as a major, underutilized asset for Pasco. It was suggested that greater focus be placed on river-oriented development, including recreation, hospitality, and business uses, and that opportunities to better connect the city to the riverfront should be explored despite regulatory challenges. Commissioner Crawford stated that expanding retail in Pasco is a necessity given the City’s rapid residential growth and increasing infrastructure demands. While Pasco has strong housing growth and a high per capita student population, reliance as a bedroom community does not generate sufficient tax revenue to support long-term infrastructure needs, underscoring the importance of attracting additional retail and commercial development. Page 81 of 135 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Crutchfield support was expressed for the proposed ideas, with emphasis on leveraging Pasco’s unique assets, such as the river, while continuing to pursue additional retail. The importance of ensuring adequate transportation and infrastructure to support growth was noted, particularly along key corridors. It was also noted that Pasco’s distinct amenities and character, when developed in synergy with neighboring communities, can help strengthen the City’s overall economic position. Commissioner Crawford added that economic development functions as a reinforcing cycle, with employers and retailers evaluating factors such as household income and housing costs when choosing locations. It was noted that Pasco currently faces stronger competition from neighboring cities in these areas, and that falling further behind could make it increasingly difficult to attract higher-wage employers and retail investment. Chair Cochran reiterated for river-focused development, noting that regulatory constraints have limited progress and that coordinated advocacy may be needed. It was also noted that attracting higher-wage jobs may require Pasco to focus on targeted economic specializations. Focusing on specific industries that bring higher-wage jobs. Data centers were mentioned as one possible opportunity given Pasco’s strong power infrastructure, and targeting these types of industries could help strengthen and diversify the local economy. OTHER BUSINESS Director Matson shared that another Comprehensive Plan workshop topic will be brought forward next month. A staffing update was provided, noting the department is nearing full staffing with a senior planner starting soon and a Planner II position still open. Despite recent changes, staff are performing well, and major permit system improvements are underway. Online permit payments are expected to be available next month, with fully online, fillable permit applications anticipated later this year. These updates are intended to improve customer service, reduce phone inquiries, and streamline internal processes. Staff and IT were thanked for their work, with acknowledgment that some initial system adjustments are expected as the new tools are implemented. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Crutchfield made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Crawford, and the motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm. YouTube link to watch full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pasco+wa+planning+commission+meeting+20025 Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department Page 82 of 135 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026 6:30 PM Page 1 of 8 CALL TO ORDER The City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Rosa Torres, Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Dana Crutchfield, Miguel Miranda and Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared. Commissioners Excused: Brian Tungesvik Staff Present: C&ED Director Haylie Matson, C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt, Planner III Ivan Barragan and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick DECLARATIONS Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda.  Miguel Miranda recused himself on items CPA2025-002, Z2025-001 and CA2025-006, as a realtor of the community, he has an active client that is directly impacted by the decisions made tonight.  Commissioner Lehrman wanted to clarify two meetings ago in November, she had made a correction. She is not living in the SR20 Riverview area, and that correction during the meeting was not reflected in the meeting minutes in December. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda.  No declarations were heard. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 18, 2025. Commissioner Crawford seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS • CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way The proposed code amendment was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in a workshop and later advanced to a public hearing. Notice was posted at City Hall and published in the Tri-City Herald. No public comments were received. Staff presented a limited code amendment to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The proposal updates the sign code, clarifies definitions, revises the allowance table, and creates a new section, PMC 17.15.025 (Sandwich Board Signs). Page 83 of 135 Page 2 of 8 The amendment establishes clear standards governing placement, number of signs per business, hours of display, ADA accessibility, intersection safety, prohibited locations, enforcement and removal procedures, and includes a hold harmless provision, along with minor consistency updates to Title 17. A revision from the prior proposal adjusts corner lot standards, allowing signs closer to intersections when frontage placement is not feasible, provided a minimum 10-foot clearance from the curb radius or verge is maintained for pedestrian safety and sight distance. Staff noted this represents a significant update to a long-standing prohibition and provides added flexibility for downtown businesses while maintaining pedestrian safety. Alternatives included taking no action, allowing signs without regulation (not recommended), or expanding the allowance citywide. Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration at the February 9, 2026, workshop, with final action anticipated at the February 17, 2026, meeting. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Jones asked about a slide depicting a vehicle marked with an “X” and its purpose. Ivan Barragan explained that the image was intended to clarify that sandwich board signs are not permitted on vehicles. Commissioner Lehrman stated that she appreciated the language clarifying the construction of the signs but noted that the code does not specify that signs should be weighted. Given wind conditions in the area, she encouraged staff to consider adding language to address this concern. Ivan Barragan commented that he understood. Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concerns regarding enforcement and staffing capacity, noting the limited availability of code enforcement resources. She referenced an example observed along Court Street near Andy’s Diner where multiple sandwich board signs—located in areas that would not be permitted under the proposal—were placed in the middle of the sidewalk, potentially obstructing pedestrian access and ADA compliance. She questioned how the proposed standards would be effectively enforced given these constraints. Director Matson explained that enforcement is complaint-based and prioritized by life-safety concerns due to limited staffing. With two code enforcement officers handling a high volume of inquiries, issues are triaged, with immediate hazards addressed first. Staff noted that sandwich board signs are already a citywide issue and that the proposed amendment would establish clearer standards within downtown, where visibility and oversight are greater. The amendment is not expected to significantly change current enforcement practices. Chair Cochran opened the meeting for public comment, no individuals appeared, he then closed the public hearing for this item. Commissioner Lehrman asked if there was insight as far as potential opportunities for additional code enforcement staff. Director Matson noted that a presentation to City Council on code enforcement priorities and staffing levels is planned for later this year at the request of the City Manager’s Office. Staff explained that reductions in staffing have required corresponding adjustments to enforcement priorities citywide. Staff recommended bringing the issue to City Council for policy direction, noting that expanding enforcement across all issues citywide would require additional staffing and would be a budget consideration. Commissioner Crutchfield stated that, given the challenges facing code enforcement, she questioned the Page 84 of 135 Page 3 of 8 wisdom of taking action on an issue that will likely require enforcement when similar activity is already occurring in areas where it is not proposed and is difficult to enforce. She noted that while these issues may not be as severe as other reported violations, the enforcement challenges remain. Director Matson added that the proposal would reduce enforcement burden by allowing sandwich board signs under clear standards rather than prohibiting them outright. Establishing defined parameters would provide clarity for both business owners and code enforcement, reduce conflicts, and allow the Downtown Overlay District to serve as a pilot area to evaluate compliance and effectiveness. Chair Cochran noted an additional benefit of the proposal is reduced City liability. Establishing regulations and a hold harmless provision would help protect the City in the event of injuries related to sandwich board signs in the public right-of-way, as compared to having no clear standards or enforcement framework in place. Commissioner Lehrman asked about funding for code enforcement officers and whether Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are used. Director Matson explained that approximately $70,000 is allocated to one or both positions, but those funds are restricted by CDBG requirements and must be spent in designated low-income areas, limiting applicability to downtown enforcement. Future funding levels are uncertain. Commissioner Lehrman also asked whether codifying sandwich board sign regulations could lead to increased complaints used to harass business owners. Director Matson responded that clear, objective standards are expected to reduce disputes rather than increase them by providing consistency, clarity, and allowing downtown businesses to better self-manage compliance. Commissioner Jones stated “I move that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council approve Code Amendment CA2025-002, allowing Sandwich Board Signs within the public right of way only in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District as proposed in Exhibit 2.” Motion seconded by Commissioner Crawford, motion passed unanimously. • CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment Director Matson provided background on an inconsistency between the City’s land use map and zoning code. In 2023, the city updated its low-density residential designation citywide to 3–6 units per acre; however, the RS-20 zoning district retains a 20,000-square-foot minimum lot size, effectively allowing approximately two units per acre. This conflict was identified at the staff and legal levels following a development proposal, and development in the affected RS-20 areas has been paused. She noted that property owners have been unable to develop for approximately 18 months due to this inconsistency and requested Commission action to provide relief. She acknowledged broader policy concerns and upcoming state requirements but explained that the proposal would resolve the immediate issue while keeping the area at the lowest density in the city. Director Matson presented a revised proposal establishing a new R-15 zoning designation allowing 2–3 units per acre and reverting the land use designation to 2–5 units per acre. This represents a modest increase from historic standards and maintains consistency with long-standing zoning policy. Staff noted public comments requesting larger lots for septic feasibility but explained that RS-20 has never allowed densities below two units per acre and that further reductions would conflict with city policy and Growth Management Act requirements. She emphasized that Pasco must plan for approximately 18,000 new housing units over the next 20 years and that reducing density in the Riverview area would require increased density elsewhere in the city. The Page 85 of 135 Page 4 of 8 proposal recognizes Riverview’s unique conditions, including larger lots and limited sewer availability, while limiting reliance on septic systems. Director Matson also discussed a potential lot size adjustment allowing up to a 20 percent variation to address septic and site constraints, consistent with flexibility allowed in other zoning districts. Staff recommended forwarding the revised 2–3 units per acre proposal to City Council, noting it represents the lowest density staff supports, and clarified that final recommendations rest with the Planning Commission. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Chair Cochran thanked staff for responding to Commission direction and for balancing developer and property owner interests while preserving West Pasco’s character. The Chair noted the proposal addressed a code inconsistency consistent with City Council direction and emphasized the importance of resolving the current issue independently of broader state housing policy discussions. The item was then opened for Commission discussion. Commissioner Crutchfield stated that staff clearly incorporated prior Commission and City Council feedback, noting the importance of avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach and honoring commitments made to residents at annexation regarding neighborhood character. While acknowledging that change is inevitable, she appreciated the proposal’s attempt to balance flexibility with community character. She asked for clarification on the purpose of a maximum lot size and whether a nearly one-acre lot could still be developed with a single-family home. Director Matson explained that state law allows a single-family home on any existing legal lot regardless of size, and such development would not be denied. The maximum lot size applies only to subdivisions and is intended to maintain the overall zoning density of 2–3 units per acre, while still allowing flexibility through varied lot sizes. Lots larger than one-half acre would need to be balanced by smaller lots within the same subdivision to meet density requirements. Similar density controls existed under the former RS-20 zoning. Commissioner Lehrman asked staff to respond to concerns raised by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding septic systems near the shoreline and potential Shoreline Master Program conflicts, and whether Shoreline Master Program updates would be required if the proposal is forwarded to City Council. Director Matson stated that staff reviewed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comments and found no conflict with the Shoreline Master Program, noting the proposed density is lower than the shoreline’s allowed density range. She explained this position and stated that no Shoreline Master Program update is proposed at this time, as the concern reflects differing agency interpretations rather than a true conflict. Commissioner Jones expressed concern about septic systems near the shoreline and the importance of sewer connections to protect water quality, and thanked staff for the prior response. She asked how sewer would be provided where it is not currently available, who would bear the cost, and whether per-foot cost estimates exist. Director Matson explained that extending sewer infrastructure is expensive and can make development infeasible, which is a key reason for proposing a reduction to two units per acre to allow limited septic use where appropriate. Under the City’s 2023 land use changes, development generally assumed sewer connection at the property owner’s expense or delayed development until service is available. Where septic is not feasible, sewer extension or delayed development would be required. She explained that the City has attempted to partner with developers to extend sewer service in the area, Page 86 of 135 Page 5 of 8 including discussions about a lift station involving City Manager Zable. These efforts have been limited by the need for multiple easements and funding constraints, making projects infeasible. While grant opportunities continue to be explored, no funding is currently available, and future sewer extensions would likely require developer partnerships, which have not been successful to date. Commissioner Crutchfield asked for clarification on the proposed administrative adjustment authority for minimum lot sizes, questioning the City’s role given Health District oversight of septic systems and expressing concern about administrative discretion. She suggested that Hearing Examiner review with public notice could provide greater transparency. Director Matson responded that the proposed 20 percent adjustment is intended to address site-specific constraints, such as irregular lot shapes, while avoiding the added cost and time of a Hearing Examiner process. The adjustment would allow minimum lot sizes to range from approximately 11,000 square feet up to one-half acre, providing flexibility in lot design while maintaining overall density standards. She stressed that the provision is optional and could be revised or removed at the Commission’s direction, noting that an alternative would be a fixed minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet and a maximum of one-half acre with no adjustment. Commissioner Crawford asked whether the code amendments were intended to provide maximum flexibility to avoid hamstringing existing properties. Director Matson confirmed that the proposal is largely developer- and property-owner-focused and provides substantial flexibility, though it cannot resolve constraints imposed by septic requirements. She explained that where Health District standards require larger lots, flexibility is limited, but the proposal helps address site-specific challenges such as irregular lot shapes, topography, or parcels divided by roads, allowing more varied lot configurations. Commissioner Miranda commented that the proposed 20 percent adjustment may not be sufficient in some cases, citing an example where a 2.48-acre parcel cannot be reasonably subdivided into five half-acre lots due to septic requirements. He asked what guidance the city would provide in that situation. Director Matson responded that in such cases, development would need to proceed at a lower intensity or wait until sewer service is available. Allowing exceptions below two units per acre could shift overall land- use patterns and risk broader reliance on septic systems, which would hinder long-term sewer planning. She emphasized the need for coordinated planning for future sewer service rather than parcel-by-parcel exceptions. Commissioner Lehrman asked whether staff would have sufficient capacity to manage case-by-case decisions given the City’s move toward more automated permitting systems. Director Matson stated that the proposal is straightforward to administer and largely aligns with existing automated processes. The built-in flexibility is workable, and in cases of uncertainty staff would likely allow the 20 percent adjustment. She does not anticipate an increased workload for staff and noted that, after the area being effectively paused for over a year, there may be an initial increase in applications that can be managed with existing staffing levels. Public Comment: Roger Wright lives on Willow Way in the city of Pasco: As a local civil engineer, thanked Council and City staff for their service and responsiveness. He expressed support for the City’s goal of creating housing but emphasized the need for practical and logical standards. He explained that on-site septic systems require a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres per Health Department regulations, which limits flexibility when parcels do not divide evenly. He shared a current project example where sewer service was initially pursued, including funding infrastructure, but delays in updating the sewer comprehensive plan ultimately made sewer infeasible. As a result, the project shifted to septic, but parcel Page 87 of 135 Page 6 of 8 configuration prevents exact half-acre lots. He stated that while the proposed 20% lot size flexibility could help, averaging lot sizes below the half-acre minimum is not allowed by the Health Department. He requested a workable, common-sense solution for irregular parcels while acknowledging and supporting the City’s two-units-per-acre policy. Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco: Stated that the proposal may inadvertently prohibit subdivision of parcels between approximately 2.4 and 2.5 acres. With a 20% lot size adjustment, 2.4 acres is the maximum size that can accommodate four half- acre septic lots, while 2.5 acres is the minimum needed to meet Health Department requirements, resulting in parcels that cannot feasibly be subdivided into either four or five lots. He indicated this outcome was likely unintended. He suggested that a larger adjustment, such as 25%, could provide a workable solution for smaller parcels, noting that without such flexibility the result would be very low-density development, which he did not believe was the City’s or State’s intent. He concluded that he would follow up with staff to discuss the technical details further. Brett Lott lives on Castle Holly Court in the city of Pasco: Noted that he is working with staff on the same project and reiterated that sewer service was the preferred option but is not currently feasible due to City constraints. He emphasized that while most developments fit within standard regulations, some sites present unique conditions that do not align cleanly with rigid standards. He expressed concern that strict policies without flexibility can unintentionally prevent otherwise reasonable development, particularly when minor deviations exceed the 20% allowance by a small margin. He cautioned that over time, the intent of the policy may be lost, leaving permit staff constrained by exact language rather than intent. He emphasized the broader housing shortage at the state and national level and stated that delays in development directly increase housing costs. He requested additional flexibility in the policy—such as increasing the allowable adjustment or including a provision for case-by-case consideration—to allow staff discretion in unique situations. He provided an example where City-required road placement results in compliant half-acre lots on one side and slightly larger lots on the other, narrowly exceeding the limit. He concluded by encouraging the City to seek solutions that enable development rather than prohibit it, noting that not all projects are large enough to independently fund sewer infrastructure. Commissioner Jones observed a common theme among the speakers that additional lot size flexibility— potentially up to 25%—could help projects move forward. He asked whether a framework that maintains a 20% standard but allows applicants to request additional flexibility through a review process might address unique site conditions. He noted that land parcels are not always uniform and that some discretion may be appropriate. He expressed that developers bring valuable expertise and that it may be in the City’s best interest to work collaboratively to find solutions rather than rely solely on rigid standards. He suggested the concept warranted further discussion. Chair Cochran asked Director Matson whether there are potential mechanisms that would allow limited exceptions without undermining the intent of the proposed change. He highlighted the need to balance flexibility with maintaining the overall purpose of the policy and invited staff to share any suggestions, based on the testimony received, that could allow discretion while preserving the framework for further discussion. Director Matson stated that staff does not recommend additional exceptions without undermining the intent of the proposal. She explained that increasing flexibility to 25 percent would expand allowable density beyond the intended 2–3 units per acre, effectively allowing densities closer to 1–3 units per acre. The 20 percent adjustment does not resolve cases where larger lots are required for septic systems, and staff emphasized concerns about expanding long-term reliance on septic systems. Page 88 of 135 Page 7 of 8 She stated coordinated sewer infrastructure as the preferred solution but noted progress has been limited by funding constraints, despite coordination efforts with developers beginning in September 2025. Given current infrastructure and timing, staff stated that a coordinated sewer solution is not realistic in the near term and cautioned that allowing larger septic lots would likely undermine the City’s ability to implement a future sewer system. Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the City typically installs sewer trunk lines with connection costs passed on to developers or property owners. Staff confirmed this remains the City’s practice and noted that connection costs can be significant. Director Matson explained that sewer connection fees are paid at the time of connection to cover system capacity, treatment, and maintenance, and are typically passed through as part of development or building permits. While costly, sewer connections provide long-term benefits by eliminating reliance on septic systems and supporting city infrastructure. Commissioner Lehrman asked whether developers would bear the cost of extending sewer trunk lines where infrastructure is not in place. Director Matson confirmed that developers would be responsible in those cases and noted that alternative funding tools, such as TIF, could potentially be explored for smaller developers. Staff also confirmed that the Health Department continues to regulate septic systems within the city. Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco: Noted that Washington State has enforced strict septic system standards for decades, and that newer systems are highly regulated and less prone to failure. He stated that the proposed 20% lot size adjustment works for parcels larger than three acres but does not address smaller parcels, particularly those around 2.5 acres. He expressed concern that such parcels could become unbuildable and remain vacant, which can negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested that a 25% adjustment, particularly for smaller parcels, could help address these situations. Chair Cochran closed the public hearing. Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment Motion: Commissioner Lehrman stated “I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-002, including proposal land use map amendment established the low-density residential Riverview designation 2-5 dwelling units per acre development. As shown in Exhibit 2 and the 2018 conference plan addendum shown as Exhibit 7.” Commissioner Jones seconded, motion passed unanimously. Residential Density Amendment Motion: Commissioner Jones stated “I move to recommend that the City Council consider approval of the rezone replacing the R-S-20 zone with the R-15 Low Density Residential District, as shown in the zoning map revision (Exhibit 4), and approval of the associated zoning map, Comprehensive Plan, and text amendments identified in Exhibit 6. This includes revising PMC 21.20 to replace references to R-S-20 with R-15.” Commissioner Lehrman seconded. Motions passed with a vote of 7 ayes to 1 opposed. Next Steps: This will go to the City Council for a workshop, then to a regular meeting. WORSHOP None OTHER BUSINESS Director Matson introduced the city’s new Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt. Page 89 of 135 Page 8 of 8 Informed the Commission that Framework has been contracted with the city to help with the municipal code changes. Stated that CED is still looking to fill vacancies for a Planner II, a Permit Tech and a Senior Plan Examiner. Let the Commission know of the status of the new online permit system that will be implemented in February. Commissioner Lehrman commented towards the end of the meeting, after motions are passed, show a graphic or flow chart of the upcoming steps in order for the motions to then become a code and that more graphics and pictures be included for a better understanding of residents. Director Matson agreed, stating both can be added to the PowerPoint presentation. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Lehrman, and the motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm. YouTube link to watch full meeting: https://youtu.be/8hu7LneA_rE Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department Page 90 of 135 Pasco City Council February 9, 2026 Regular Workshop Pa g e 9 1 o f 1 3 5 Introduction of Ordinance-Sandwich Board Signs-CA2025- 002 February 9, 2026 Pasco City Council Pa g e 9 2 o f 1 3 5 Objective & Legislative Action Process Timeline PMC Visual and Key Points Downtown Pasco Overlay District 01 02 03 04 Pa g e 9 3 o f 1 3 5 How Legislative Action Decisions Are Handled in Pasco Legislative Process Overview (Why This Workshop) •Legislative actions involve amendments to the City’s codes and policies. •The Planning Commission holds a public hearing and issues a recommendation to City Council. •Staff prepares a written recommendation and draft ordinance for Council consideration. •City Council may request additional review or hold its own public hearing, consistent with applicable procedures. Objective: To allow sandwich board signs in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District under regulated conditions. Pa g e 9 4 o f 1 3 5 Timeline Planning Commission •Workshop December 18, 2025 •Public Hearing January 15, 2026 City Council •Workshop February 9, 2026 •Ordinance February 17, 2026 Pa g e 9 5 o f 1 3 5 PMC Visual & Key Points Pa g e 9 6 o f 1 3 5 Pa g e 9 7 o f 1 3 5 Questions? Thank you! Pa g e 9 8 o f 1 3 5 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 15, 2026 TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 2/9/26 FROM: Kevin Hebdon, Finance Director Finance SUBJECT: Resolution - Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading, staff minute (5 Services Inc. Meter City for Reading presentation) I. ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution Professional Services Agreement (PSA) Memo II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Proposed Professional Services Agreement (PSA) - The approved annual budget for this contract is $564,500 for both 2025 and 2026 for a total of $1,128,000. With the new fee schedule and effective date of the contract, staff anticipates exceeding the biennium budget by $59,000 with this contract. Staff estimates the 2026 annual value of the contract to be $610,000. Funding: Water Utility Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Background: reading meter provided has water Inc. Reading, Meter Columbia (CMR) services for the City of Pasco for 24 years and has developed extensive knowledge of the City’s water system and meter locations. CMR currently reads has approximately 24,000 water meters citywide and consistently delivered accurate and reliable service, supporting accurate utility billing and assisting staff in identifying potential infrastructure issues early. Because the City relies on physical meter readings and alternative service providers are Page 99 of 135 limited, CMR’s familiarity with the City’s system is a key operational benefit. There are no statutory requirements governing personal services for cities; instead, cities must follow their own adopted policies and procedures. Under the City’s Procurement Manual, the City Manager may approve a written exception when it is determined to be in the best interest of the City. After reviewing the information provided, the City Manager determined that renewing the agreement with Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. supports continuity or service, accuracy, and operational efficiency, while ensuring reliable utility billing for residents and businesses. Impact (other than fiscal): None anticipated as this action continues the existing level of service currently provided to our community. V. DISCUSSION: Recommendation: At the February 17, 2026 City Council meeting, staff recommends approval of the Professional the execute Manager to the authorizing resolution City Services Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. for meter reading services. Although an exception to the procurement process was approved by the City Manager in accordance with the City’s Procurement Manual, City Council approval of the agreement is still required. Constraints (time or other consideration): The City does not currently have automated meter reading technology and must most cities nearby Because use meter physical on rely readings. automated systems, contractors that provide physical meter reading services are limited, often located outside the local area, and typically charge higher rates. Establishing a new contractor would require significant onboarding time to develop familiarity with Pasco’s system and could increase the risk of billing errors during the transition. Next Steps: Professional execute will Manager the the approval, Council Upon City Services Agreement on behalf of the City. Staff will continue to coordinate closely with Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. to ensure meter reading operations are conducted efficiently and accurately. Ongoing monitoring will be performed to and terms the with compliance reliability, quality, service verify and conditions of the agreement. Alternatives:  Do not approve the agreement and direct staff to immediately issue a Page 100 of 135 Request for Proposals for meter reading services. Due to the limited availability of providers that perform physical meter reading, this option could result in service gaps or delays that may disrupt utility billing for residents and businesses.  Approve a reduced one-year term for the agreement and direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals for meter reading services during that term. While this option maintains short-term continuity, the same market constraints may apply, and the procurement process could still result in service gaps or delays that impact utility billing. Page 101 of 135 Resolution – Meter Reading Services - 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COLUMBIA METER READING, INC. FOR METER READING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) has effectively utilized Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. services for reading the City’s water meters for over 24 years; and WHEREAS, Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. has extensive knowledge of the City and the location of the City’s nearly 24,000 water meters; and WHEREAS, Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. has demonstrated a history of high performance (with an accuracy rate of 99.9%) and assistance in early detection of infrastructure issues; and WHEREAS, it is functionally necessary to continue services with Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. because they are the sole provider of the services within the area that meet the specialized needs of the City,; and WHEREAS, based on continued growth in the City, the expanding service area, and in consultation with the Finance Director and City Manager, and considering the experience and level of service currently provided by Columbia Meter Reading, Inc., staff recommends approval of a three-year Professional Services Agreement, with two optional one-year extensions, in order to maintain reliable meter-reading services while preserving the City’s ability to evaluate and potentially transition to newer meter-reading technologies, including radio-read systems, as part of its long-term operational and infrastructure planning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: That the City Council of the City of Pasco approves the terms and conditions of the Personal Services Agreement between the City of Pasco and Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. as attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said Professional Services Agreement on behalf of the City of Pasco. Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. Page 102 of 135 Resolution – Meter Reading Services - 2 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ____ day of ________________, 2026. ______________________________ Charles Grimm Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Krystle Shanks, CMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC Deputy City Clerk City Attorney Page 103 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 1 of 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT METER READING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the City of Pasco, a Washington Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City”, and Columbia Meter Reading Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Contractor,” on _____________________________________. [date of execution] RECITALS WHEREAS, the City desires to have certain services and/or tasks performed as set forth below requiring specialized skills, training, equipment, and other supportive capabilities; and WHEREAS, the Contractor represents that it is qualified and possesses sufficient skills, experience, equipment, and necessary capabilities, including: technical and professional expertise, when required, to perform the services and/or tasks as set forth in this Agreement upon which the City is relying. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, and performances contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services. The Contractor shall perform such services and accomplish such tasks, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, facilities and equipment necessary for full performance thereof, as identified and designated as Contractor’s Responsibilities throughout this Agreement, and as more particularly described in Scope of Work detailed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Project”). 2. Term. The Term of this contract will be three (3) years from execution date. Upon mutual written agreement of both parties, this contract can be extended for two (2) additional years, one year at a time. 3. Compensation and Payment. 3.1 Payment for services provided hereunder shall be made following the performance of such services. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered, and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the Project. 3.2 No payment shall be made for any services rendere d by the Contractor except for services identified and set forth in this Agreement except as may be authorized by a written supplemental agreement approved by the City. 3.3 The City shall pay the Contractor for work performed under this Agreement upon timely submitted invoices detailing work performed and expenses for which reimbursement is sought. The City shall approve all invoices before payment is Page 104 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 2 of 9 issued. Payment shall occur within ten (10) days of receipt and approval of an invoice. 3.4 The City shall pay the Contractor for all work performed and expenses incurred under this Agreement in accordance with Exhibits A and B. 4. Reports and Inspections. 4.1 The Contractor at such times and in such forms as the City may require, shall furnish to the City such statements, records, studies, surveys, reports, data, and information as the City may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 4.2 The Contractor shall, at any time during normal business hours and as often as the City or the Washington State Auditor may reasonably deem necessary, make available for examination all of its records and data with respect to all matters covered, directly or indirectly, by this Agreement and shall permit the City, or its designated authorized representative to audit and inspect other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. The City shall receive a copy of all audit reports made by the agency or firm as to the Contractor’s activities. The City may, at its discretion, conduct an audit at its expense, using its own or outside auditors, of the Contractor’s activities which relate, directly or indirectly, to this Agreement. Contractor shall be provided a copy of such reports. 4.3 The Contractor, during the term of this Agreement, shall obtain all permits and registration documents necessary for the performance of its work and for the execution of services at its own expense, and shall maintain its validity. Upon request, the Contractor shall deliver to the City copies of these licenses, registration documents, and permits or proof of their issuance or renewal. 4.4 Contractor shall maintain books, records and documents, which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs related to the performance of this Agreement and shall maintain such accounting procedures and practices as may be necessary to assure proper accounting of all funds paid pursuant to this Agreement. These records shall be subject, at all reasonable times, to inspection, review, or audit as provided above. 4.5 The Contractor shall retain all books, records, documents, or other material relevant to this Agreement for three (3) years after its expiration. Contractor agrees that the City, or its designee, shall have full access and right to examine any of said materials at all reasonable times during this period. 5. Ownership and Use of Documents. 5.1 All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data, information, drawings, and documents made, collected, or prepared by the Contractor for performing the services subject to this Agreement, as well as any final product, collectively referred to as “work product,” shall be deemed as the exclusive property of the City, including copyright as secured thereon. Contractor may not use them except in connection with the performance of the services under this Agreement or with the prior written consent of the City. Any prior copyrighted materials owned by the Page 105 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 3 of 9 Contractor and utilized in the performance of the services under this Agreement, or embedded in with the materials, products and services provided thereunder, shall remain the property of the Contractor subject to a license granted to the City for their continued use of the products and services provided under this Agreement. Any work product used by the Contractor in the performance of these services which it deems as “confidential,” “proprietary,” or a “trade secret” shall be conspicuously designated as such. 5.2 In the event of Contractor’s default, or in the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to its completion, the work product of the Contractor, along with a summary of the services performed to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City, and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this Agreement. The summary of services provided shall be prepared at no additional cost, if the Agreement is terminated through default by the Contractor. If the Agreement is terminated through convenience by the City, the City agrees to pay Contractor for the preparation of the summary of services provided. 6. Public Records. 6.1 Contractor acknowledges that the City is an agency subject to Chapter 42.56 RCW “Public Records Act.” All preliminary drafts or notes prepared or gathered by the Contractor, and recommendations of the Contractor are exempt prior to the acceptance by the City or public citation by the City in connection with City action. 6.2 If the Contractor becomes a custodian of public records of the City and request for such records is received by the City, the Contractor shall respond to the request by the City for such records within five (5) business days by either providing the records, or by identifying in writing the additional time necessary to provide the records with a description of the reasons why additional time is needed. Such additional time shall not exceed twenty (20) business days unless extraordinary good cause is shown. 6.3 In the event the City receives a public records request for protected work product of the Contractor within its possession, the City shall, prior to the release of any protected work product or as a result of a public records request or subpoena, provide Contractor at least ten (10) business days prior written notice of the pending release and to reasonably cooperate with any legal action which may be initiated by the Contractor to enjoin or otherwise prevent such release. 7. Independent Contractor Relationship. 7.1 The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship is created by this Agreement. The City is interested primarily in the results to be achieved; subject to the scope of services and the specific requirements of this Agreement, the implementation of services will lie solely with the discretion of the Contractor. No agent, employee, officer or representative of the Contractor shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, officer, or representative of the City for any purpose, and the employees of the Contractor are not entitled to any of the benefits or privileges the City provides for its employees. The Contractor will be solely and entirely Page 106 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 4 of 9 responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, officers, subcontractors or representatives during the performance of this Agreement. 7.2 In the performance of the services provided in this Agreement, Contractor is an independent contractor with full authority to control and direct the performance of the details of the work, however, the results of the work contemplated herein must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City ’s general rights of inspection and review to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. 7.3 The Contractor shall comply with all State and Federal laws including, but not limited to: 7.3.1 The definition requirements of RCW 50.04.140 (Employment Security). 7.3.2 RCW 51.08.195 (Industrial Insurance). 7.3.3 Obtain a City of Pasco business license. 7.4 The City may, at its sole discretion, require the Contractor to remove any employee, agent or servant from employment on this Project who, in the City’s sole discretion, may be detrimental to the City’s interest. 8. Indemnification. 8.1 The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the Contractor in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. 8.2 However, should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor, and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Contractor’s liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor’s negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor’s waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreeme nt. 8.3 No liability shall attach to the City by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. 8.4 This indemnification shall include damages, penalties and attorney fees sustained as a result of Contractor’s delayed or failed performance of Section 6 above. Page 107 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 5 of 9 9. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. The Contractor’s maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by such insurance or otherwise limit the City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. 9.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and coverage described below: 9.1.1 Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01. 9.1.2 Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, stop-gap independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as an additional insured under the Contractor’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using an additional insured endorsement at least as broad as ISO endorsement form CG 20 26. 9.1.3 Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 9.1.4 Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s profession. 9.2 Minimum Amounts of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 9.2.1 Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 9.2.2 Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than: ☒ $1,000,000 each occurrence; and ☒ $2,000,000 general aggregate; 9.3 Other Insurance Provision. The Contractor’s Automobile Liability, Professional Liability, and Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or self-insured pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 9.3.1 The Contractor’s insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Page 108 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 6 of 9 9.4 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. 9.5 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including, but not necessarily limited to, the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Agreement before commencement of the work. 9.6 Notice of Cancellation. The Contractor shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation within two (2) business days of their receipt of such notice. 9.7 City Full Availability of Contractor Limits. If the Contractor maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, the City shall be insured for the full available limits of Commercial General and Excess or Umbrella liability maintained by the Contractor, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by the Contractor are greater than those required by this Agreement or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the City evidences limits of liability lower than those maintained by the Contractor. 9.8 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Contractor to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five (5) business days notice to the Contractor to correct the breach, immediately terminate the Agreement or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Contractor from the City. 10. Nondiscrimination. In the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap; provided that the prohibition against discrimination in employment because of handicap shall not apply if the particular disability prevents the proper performance of the particular worker involved. The Contractor shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment in the performance of this Agreement without discrimination because of their race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Contractor shall take such action with respect to this Agreement as may be required to ensure full compliance with local, State and Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. 11. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Contractor warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company, firm, or person, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for the Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement; and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company, person or firm, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for the Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. Page 109 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 7 of 9 12. Assignment and Subcontracting. 12.1 The City has awarded this Agreement to the Contractor due to its unique qualifications to perform these services. The Contractor shall not assign (or subcontract other than as specifically identified in Exhibit A) its performance under this Agreement or any portions of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, which consent must be sought at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. 12.2 Any work or services assigned or subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement including Section 6, Public Records; Section 10, Nondiscrimination; proper bidding procedures where applicable; and all local, State and Federal statutes, ordinances and guidelines. 12.3 Any technical or professional service subcontract not listed in this Agreement, must have prior written approval by the City. 13. Termination. 13.1 Termination for Convenience. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party no less than ninety (90) business days written notice in advance of the effective date of such termination. 13.2 Termination for Cause. If the Contractor fails to perform in the manner called for in this Agreement, or if the Contractor fails to comply with any other provisions of this Agreement and fails to correct such noncompliance within thirty (30) business days of written notice thereof, the City may terminate this Agreement for cause. Termination shall be effected by serving a notice of termination on the Contractor setting forth the manner in which the Contractor is in default. The Contractor will only be paid for services and expenses complying with the terms of this Agreement, incurred prior to termination. 14. General Provisions. 14.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence. 14.2 Notice. Notice provided for in this Agreement shall be sent by: 14.2.1 Personal service upon the Project Administrators; or 14.2.2 Certified mail to the physical address of the parties, or by electronic transmission to the e-mail addresses designated for the parties below. Page 110 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 8 of 9 14.3 The Project Administrator for the purpose of this Agreement shall be: For the City: For the Contractor: Harold L Stewart, II City Manager 525 N 3rd Ave Pasco, WA, 99301 stewarth@pasco-wa.gov Peter LeMieux Vice President 3420 W Pearl Street Pasco, WA 99301 zinmercab@icloud.com 15. Dispute Resolution. 15.1 This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and entered into and delivered within the State of Washington and it is agreed by each party hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 15.2 In the event of a dispute regarding the enforcement, breach, default, or interpretation of this Agreement, the Project Administrators, or their designees, shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve such dispute. In the event the dispute cannot be resolved by agreement of the parties, said dispute shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, with both parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon trial de novo, with venue placed in Pasco, Franklin County, Washington. The substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs as additional award and judgment against the other. 16. Nonwaiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other similar event or other provision of this Agreement. 17. Integration. This Agreement between the parties consists in its entirety of this document and any exhibits, schedules or attachments. Any modification of this Agreement or change order affecting this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. Page 111 of 135 Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. PSA Meter Reading Services Version 8.15.2025 Page 9 of 9 18. Authorization. By signature below, each party warrants that they are authorized and empowered to execute this Agreement binding the City and the Contractor respectively. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above. CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager COLUMBIA METER READING, INC Peter LeMieux, Vice President ATTEST: Krystle Shanks, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, City Attorney Page 112 of 135 Exhibit A – Scope of Services, Compensation, and Penalties 1.Scope of Services The Contractor shall provide professional meter reading and related field services for the City, including, but not limited to, the following: A. Meter Reading Services •Per Meter Read Routine meter reading services for city utility accounts, billed on a per meter read basis. •Meter Rereads Meter rereads performed at the city’s request to verify the accuracy of a prior meter reading. Each reread shall be billed on a per reread basis, as applicable. B. Turn-On and Turn-OƯ Services •Per Turn-On or Turn-OƯ Water service turn-ons and turn-oƯs as directed by the city. •Simultaneous Turn-Ons and Turn-OƯs (move out / move in) Multiple turn-ons and/or turn-oƯs performed during a single visit at the same location. C. After-Hours Services •Non-Scheduled A ter-Hours Call Outs Unscheduled after-hours turn-on or turn-oƯ services requested by the City. •Definition o A ter-Hours “After Hours” shall mean any turn-on or turn-oƯ service assigned to or received by the Contractor after 4:30 pm and before 8:00 am, including weekends and City-recognized holidays. D. Meter Box Lid Replacement •Replacement by Work Order Meter box lid replacement performed pursuant to a City-issued work order. •Replacement While on Route Meter box lid replacement performed while the Contractor is already on route conducting meter reads. E. Safety and Confined Space Services •Confined Spaces In recognition of the additional labor costs for access meters in confined spaces, these meter reads will be charged at a high rate per meter in accordance with the Fee Schedule. Page 113 of 135 2. Additional Compensation Provisions A. Hourly Pro essional Services (Non–Task Based Work) When requested by the City, the Contractor may be required to perform services that are not included in the per-task pricing structure, including but not limited to document review, meetings, data review, coordination with City staƯ, or other professional support services. All hourly services must be pre-authorized by the City and shall be billed based on actual time worked. • Hourly Rate: $150.00 per hour B. Standby / Waiting Time When specifically requested by the City, the Contractor may be required to remain onsite for a defined period of time when work cannot proceed due to City-directed delays or operational needs. Standby time shall be billable only when expressly authorized by the City in advance and shall not be billed concurrently with active hourly services. • Standby Rate: $150.00 per hour • After-hours Standby Rate: $300.00 per hour 3. Penalties To ensure performance standards are met, the following penalties shall apply and may be deducted from amounts otherwise due to the Contractor: A. Incomplete Meter Reading Penalty There shall be a $100.00 per day penalty for failure to complete meter reading services in accordance with the City’s established schedule. B. Unread Meter Threshold Penalty There shall be a $100.00 penalty for each one percent (1%) by which the percentage of unread meters exceeds three percent (3%) per book. C. Unreachable Contractor Response Penalty There shall be a $150.00 penalty for each occurrence in which the City is required to dispatch a Public Works employee to respond to a location due to the Contractor’s failure to respond as required. Penalties assessed under this section do not relieve the Contractor of its obligation to complete the required services. Page 114 of 135 CURRENT 4/1/2025 4/1/2026 4/1/2027 4/1/2028 4/1/2029 1) Per meter read 1.32$ 1.52$ 1.57$ 1.62$ 1.68$ 1.74$ 2)Per turn-off or turn-on and simultaneous turn-ons and turn- offs (move out / move in)4.67$ 5.37$ 5.56$ 5.75$ 5.95$ 6.16$ 3) Per non-scheduled after hours call outs 46.77$ 53.79$ 55.65$ 57.58$ 59.57$ 61.63$ "After Hours" means a turn-on or turn-off assigned to/or received by the contractor after 4:30 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m.4) Per re-read when the original read turns out to be correct 7.80$ 8.97$ 9.28$ 9.60$ 9.93$ 10.27$ when the original read is NOT correct -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5) Per meter box lid replacement If done by work order 6.56$ 7.54$ 7.80$ 8.07$ 8.35$ 8.64$ If done while on route being read -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6) Per each meter read in confined spaces 15.60$ 17.94$ 18.56$ 19.20$ 19.86$ 20.55$ EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE The rates set forth below establish the compensation for services described in Exhibit B – Scope of Services, Compensation, and Penalties. Rates are effective on the dates shown and apply only to services authorized by the City. COMPENSATION: The City agrees to pay the contractor at the following rates: 1/16/2026 Pa g e 1 1 5 o f 1 3 5 a'?Pasco Memo City of Pasco 0 (509)545-34“ 525 N.3‘Ave.-Pasm W A 0930i mu .pasco-wagm To:Harold L.Stewart 11-City Manager From:Kevin Hebdon —Finance Director Date:January 14,2026 Tity ofPaSCO ("09)543—3488 525 N.3"Ave.Pasco,WA 9 J “WWWlJaSLOwagoz RE City of Pasco Service Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading Columbia Meter Reading,INC (CMR)has provided 24/7-meter reading services for the City of Pasco for past 24 years.Because of this,CMR has extensive knowledge of the City and of the location of all 24,000 water meters.With an accuracy rate of 99.87%,CMR has provided exceptional service to the City. Based on discussions with Public Works,it has been determined that training City staff to provide this service is not feasible or advisable at this stage.This is due to the state laws regarding water delivery and noti?cations,and current internal processes not being ideal for this type of transition.City also plans to move to AMI/AMR,which will make signi?cant changes in this area in the next 3 to 5 years.In addition,no local companies provide meter-reading services. Due to the needs of the City,we would require a company within close proximity of the City to provide around the clock coverage. According to Administrative Order No.470,Purchasing Policy and Procedures,service contracts over $50,000 require a competitive purchasing process;except,if the City Manager approves in writing an exception based on the best interests of the City,the competitive process can be waived. Based on the information provided,Staff has determined that proceeding with a Service Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading,INC.will be in the best interest of the City.With your written consent,we would like to move forward in executing a Service Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading,INC. I,Harold L.Stewart II,City Manager for the City of Pasco,have determined that it is in the best interest of the City to establish a Service Agreement with Columbia Meter Reading,INC. Harold L.wart 11,City Manager Page 116 of 135 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 12, 2026 TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 2/9/26 FROM: Maria Serra, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution - Sole Source Purchase of Three (3) Valley Pivots for the Process Water Reuse Facility Irrigation System Farm Upgrades Project I. ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution with Sole Source Worksheet Presentation Sales Proposal II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Amount not to exceed $620,000.00. This cost is accounted for in the adopted 2025-2026 capital bugdet for the project IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Background: The Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) Irrigation System Farm Upgrades Project encompasses the fourth phase of the current series of planned improvements and modifications to the PWRF. This project (informally referred to as PWRF Improvements Phase 4) will replace existing irrigation system components nearing their end-of-life, construct new irrigation assets to convey the pretreated process water to the City-owned land application farm circles, and extend the system to newly created land application areas from recently purchased parcels. The City secured the professional services of RH2 to provide holistic planning, design and permitting support services for the proposed improvements to implement the land treatment system expansion consistent with the “Process Page 117 of 135 Water Reuse Facility Engineering Report”approved by the State of Washington Department of Ecology on April 12, 2023. Farm pivots are a type of irrigation system that consists of a long arm that pivots around a central point, pivot irrigation is a type of sprinkler irrigation delivered to crops through a series of rotating sprinklers. The farm pivots are utilized in the final treatment and disposal of pretreated process water from Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF). After biological treatment, effluent is land applied on farmland owned by the City and planted with engineered crop rotations to maximize uptake of nutrients. Farm operations are contracted by the City with local farmers. These proposed pivots are planned to be installed in the expanded land treatment system. Without these pivots the City would not be able to expand the land treatment system and therefore fail to comply with the limits established for the facility under the State Waste discharge permit for PWRF. A Requests for Proposal for farm circle pivots was issued in 2020. At that time, LAD Irrigation of Pasco was selected for the purchase and installation of pivots. In order to accomplish ease of operation and integration, it is advisable to remain with the same installer and ensure that all pivots are set up similarly. Several other brands were evaluated; however, it was determined that each alternative requires specialized tools that the City of Pasco Public Works Operations does not currently possess. The selected brand is consistent with existing the have staff that already system, the in equipment ensuring necessary tools and compatible spare parts to support efficient maintenance and continued functionality. LAD Irrigation of Pasco is the only local vendor for Valley Center Pivots. It is important to note that price is not the primary justification for this sole source a of set unified maintain objective is City’s The designation. to components, spare parts, and tools for efficient maintenance and continued functionality. This item was previously approved with Resolution No. 4677 during the November 17, 2025, Regular Council Meeting. The updated cost reflects a correction in LAD pricing, the updated 2026 cost increase, and a small percentage of contingency (~3%). Impact (other than fiscal): The proposed sole source pivots are consistent with existing equipment in the system, ensuring that staff already have the necessary tools and compatible spare parts to support efficient maintenance and continued functionality. This allows and for ease of operations, effective maintenance, continued functionality so that processors that utilize PWRF have less likelihood of Page 118 of 135 interruptions to service. V. DISCUSSION: Recommendation: Staff and the project's consulting firm RH2 Engineering, Inc. have reviewed the sales proposal and recommends approval of waiving the competitive bidding requirements and approving the purchase of three (3) Valley pivots and ancillary equipment from LAD Irrigation of Pasco, in the amount not to exceed $620,000.00 as shown on the Sales Proposal. Constraints (Time or other considerations): The construction of this project needs to be completed during the non-irrigation season to minimize interruptions or impacts to normal PWRF Farm Operations. Next Steps: Provided the Council approves the Sole Source, staff will work with LAD Irrigation with align to pivots the schedule and purchase to Pasco of construction. Alternatives:  Council may choose to reject the sole source and request additional information. This is not recommended since the City has already done a request for proposal and this project is on a tight timeline.  Council may choose to reject the sole source, potentially allowing use of another type or brand of pivot. The contractor would then purchase the pivots through a change order, and if another type or brand of pivot is purchased, operations will need to purchase spare parts and equipment for any non-matching farm pivot. Page 119 of 135 Resolution Sole Source Process Water Reuse Facility irrigation Equipment - 1 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) VALLEY PIVOTS AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT FROM LAD IRRIGATION OF PASCO. WHEREAS, it is critical for the City of Pasco (City) to have proper equipment to perform Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) irrigation functions; and WHEREAS, the City currently uses Valley pivots equipment and accessories provided by LAD Irrigation of Pasco equipment and accessories; and WHEREAS, the City has established work standards that are supported by the use of these exact pivots, so that Operations has a standard set of tools, replacement parts, and equipment; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Pasco hereby determines that the paramount considerations in the acquisition of matching pivots to ensure the seamless integration and upkeep of PWRF functions with the ongoing expansion of the land treatment system; WHEREAS, the use of Valley Pivots and ancillary equipment is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply, as detailed in the Sole Source Worksheet (Exhibit A), to support current operation standards, this purchase becomes subject to waiving competitive bidding requirements per RCW 35.23.352(9) competitive bidding requirements and RCW 39.04.280(1)(a) sole source and RCW 39.04.280 (1)(b) special market conditions; and WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.280(2)(a) requires that prior to utilizing the sole source exemption the City Council must first adopt a resolution reciting the factual basis supporting the exemption; and WHEREAS, the City Council pursuant to 39.04.280(2)(a) finds that such factual basis as described herein and detailed in the Sole Source Worksheet does support application of the sole source exemption as pertaining to the purchase of Valley pivots and ancillary equipment from LAD Irrigation of Pasco. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: The City Council of Pasco hereby find the above-described circumstance is justification for the waiver of bidding requirements under the authority of RCW 35.23.352(9) and pursuant to sole source provider (RCW 39.04.280(1)(a)) and special facilities or market conditions (RCW 39.04.280(1)(b)) and, therefore, the bidding requirement is hereby waived for the purchase of Valley pivots and ancillary equipment from LAD Irrigation of Pasco. Page 120 of 135 Resolution Sole Source Process Water Reuse Facility irrigation Equipment - 2 Be It Further Resolved, that the City of Pasco Public Works Department purchase Valley pivots and ancillary equipment from LAD Irrigation of Pasco for an amount not to exceed the sum of $620,000.00. Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ____ day of February, 2026. Charles Grimm Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Krystle Shanks, CMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC Deputy City Clerk City Attorney Page 121 of 135 Resolution Sole Source Process Water Reuse Facility irrigation Equipment - 3 SOLE SOURCE WORKSHEET Requisition Item: Three valley pivots and ancillary equipment Requisition No. TBD Prior Purchase Order Number (if item had been approved previously): Resolution No. 4677. 1. Please describe the items and its function: Farm pivots are utilized in the final treatment and disposal of pretreated process water from Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF). After biological treatment, effluent is land applied on farm land owned by the City, and planted with engineered crop rotations to maximize uptake of nutrients. Farm operations are contracted by the City with local farmers. These proposed pivots are planned to be installed in the expanded land treatment system Without these pivots the City would not be able to expand the land treatment system, and therefore fail to comply with the limits established for the facility under the State Waste discharge permit for PWRF. 2. This is a sole source because: ☐ sole provider of a licensed or patented good or service ☒ sole provider of items that are compatible with existing equipment, inventory, systems, programs or services ☐ sole provider of goods and services for which the City has established a standard ☐ sole provider of goods or services that will meet the specialized needs of the City or perform the intended function (please detail below or in an attachment) ☐ the vendor/distributor is a holder of a used item that would represent good value and is advantageous to the City (please attach information on market price survey, availability, etc.) 3. What necessary features does this vendor provide which are not available from other vendors? Please be specific. A Requests for Proposal for farm circle pivots was issued in 2020. At that time LAD Irrigation of Pasco was selected for the purchase and installation of pivots. In order to accomplish ease of operation and integration, it is advisable to remain with the same installer and ensure that all pivots are set up similarly. 4. What steps were taken to verify that these features are not available elsewhere? ☒ Other brands/manufacturers were examined (please list phone numbers and names and explain why these were not suitable). • NW Irrigation Systems - (509) 547-1761 o Zimmatic - (775) 625-1945 This was not suitable as the City’s objective is to maintain a unified set of components, spare parts, and tools for efficient maintenance and continued functionality. ☐ Other vendors were contacted (please list phone numbers and names and explain Sole source purchases are defined as clearly and legitimately limited to a single supplier. Sole source purchases are normally not allowed except when based upon strong technological grounds such as operational compatibility with existing equipment and related parts or upon a clearly unique and cost- effective feature requirement. Page 122 of 135 Resolution Sole Source Process Water Reuse Facility irrigation Equipment - 4 why these were not suitable). 5. Sole source vendor certifies that the City is getting the lowest price offered for the item. It is important to note that price is not the primary justification for this sole source designation. The City’s objective is to maintain a unified set of components, spare parts, and tools for efficient maintenance and continued functionality. Certification of Need This recommendation for sole source is based upon on objective review of the product/service required and appears to be in the best interest of the City. I know of no conflict of interest on my part of personal involvement in any way with this request. No gratuities, favors or comprising actions have been taken. Neither has my personal familiarity with particular brands, types or equipment, materials or firm been a deciding influence on my request to sole source this purchase. By: Maria L. Serra, Public Works Director Date: January 12, 2026 Page 123 of 135 Pasco City Council February 9, 2026 Workshop Pa g e 1 2 4 o f 1 3 5 PWRF Phase 4 Irrigation Systems Sole Source Purchase of Farm Pivots February 9, 2026 Pasco City Council Pa g e 1 2 5 o f 1 3 5 PWRF Phase 4 Location 3 Additional Irrigation Pa g e 1 2 6 o f 1 3 5 PWRF Phase 4 Sole Source 4 The proposed Sole Source sales proposal was determined to be needed by Public Works. The amount is not to exceed $620,000.00. The reasons for the Sole Source are summarized below: ❑A Requests for Proposal for farm circle pivots was issued in 2020. LAD Irrigation of Pasco was selected for the purchase and installation of pivots. ❑Several other brands were evaluated. ❑Any alternative requires specialized tools that the City of Pasco Public Works Operations does not currently possess. ❑LAD Irrigation of Pasco is the only local vendor for Valley Center Pivots. It is important to note that price is not the primary justification for this sole source designation. The City’s objective is to maintain a unified set of components, spare parts, and tools for efficient maintenance and continued functionality. The updated cost reflects a correction in LAD pricing, the updated 2026 cost increase, and a small percentage of contingency (~3%) Staff and the project's consulting firm RH2 Engineering, Inc. have reviewed the sales proposal and recommend approval of the Sole Source of Farm Pivots. Pa g e 1 2 7 o f 1 3 5 PWRF Phase 4 Sales Proposal Costs 5 Pa g e 1 2 8 o f 1 3 5 Questions? Pa g e 1 2 9 o f 1 3 5 Aprl 2026 Order May 2026 Delivery Deliver to field Customer City of Pasco Account#00515 29-Dec-2025 Location Pivot C-14 North Full PR00730 196,974.29$ Pivot C-16B East Half PR00731 167,391.08$ Pivot C-16A West Half PR00732 236,387.80$ Freight Total 600,753.17$ PAYMENT SCHEDULE CASH PAYMENT SCHEDULE Down Payment 4/1/2026 481,000.00$ Progress Payment, due on -$ Progress Payment, due on -$ Final Payment Upon Completion June 1 119,753.17$ TOTAL 600,753.17$ Thank you for doing business with us! Project Summary Sales Agreement Required on orders over $50,000.00 See Quote for Material List and Individual Pricing Page 130 of 135 Page 131 of 135 Page 132 of 135 Page 133 of 135 Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re- investment in community infrastructure. City Council Goals QUALITY OF LIFE 2024-2025 Enhance the long-term viability, value, and service levels of services and programs. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Promote a highly functional multi-modal transportation system. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Implement targeted strategies to reduce crime through strategic investments in infrastructure, staffing, and equipment. COMMUNITY SAFETY Promote and encourage economic vitality. ECONOMIC VITALITY Identify opportunities to enhance City of Pasco identity, cohesion, and image. CITY IDENTITY Page 134 of 135 METAS DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL 2024-2025 Promover una alta calidad de vida a través de programas, servicios y inversion apropiada y reinversión en la comunidad infraestructura comunitaria. CALIDAD DE VIDA Promover viabilidad financiera a largo plazo, valor, y niveles de calidad de los servicios y programas. SOSTENIBIILIDAD FINANCIERA Promover un sistema de transporte multimodal altamente funcional. RED DE TRANSPORTE DE LA COMUNIDAD Implementar estrategias específicas para reducir la delincuencia por medios de inversiones estratégicas en infraestructura, personal y equipo. SEGURIDAD DE NUESTRA COMUNIDAD Promover y fomentar vitalidad económica. VITALIDAD ECONOMICA Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la cohesión, y la imagen. IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA Page 135 of 135