HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.04.20 Council Special Meeting Packet
AGENDA
City Council Special Meeting
5:30 PM - Monday, April 20, 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 meeting.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call 1-332-249-0718 and use access
code 433 513 441#.
City Council meetings 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.
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. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO
3 - 620 (a) *Q Closed Record Appeal - Madison Park North Phase 1 FP2025-
006 Closed Record Appeal (APPL 2025-003) (8 minute staff
Page 1 of 620
presentation)
(1) CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HEARING;
(2) DENY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE
MADISON PARK NORTH PHASE 1 FINAL PLAT AS APPROVED
BY STAFF AND RECORDED BY APPLICANTS DAVID SWISHER
AND FARM 2005, LLC; AND
(3) EXCLUDE FROM THE FINAL PLAT APPEAL CLOSED
RECORD PAGES NUMBERED CC 172-571.
MOTION: I move that the City Council:
(1) deny and dismiss the appeal by appellants Dave Swisher and
Farm 2005, LLC and affirm the City of Paso’s approval of the
Madison Park North (“MPN”) Phase 1 Final Plat (“MPN Final Plat”);
and
(2) exclude from the final plat appeal closed record the pages
numbered CC 172-571.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 620
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 13, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Special
Meeting: 4/20/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: *Q Closed Record Appeal - Madison Park North Phase 1 FP2025-006
Closed Record Appeal (APPL 2025-003) (8 minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Document #s 1 - 35 (#28 omitted) CC
Appendix 1-LUPA Order
Appendix 2-Letter
Power Point Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
(1) CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HEARING;
(2) DENY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE MADISON PARK
AND STAFF BY APPROVED AS PHASE FINAL 1 NORTH PLAT
RECORDED BY APPLICANTS DAVID SWISHER AND FARM 2005, LLC;
AND
(3) EXCLUDE FROM THE FINAL PLAT APPEAL CLOSED RECORD PAGES
NUMBERED CC 172-571.
MOTION: I move that the City Council:
(1) deny and dismiss the appeal by appellants Dave Swisher and Farm 2005,
LLC and affirm the City of Paso’s approval of the Madison Park North (“MPN”)
Phase 1 Final Plat (“MPN Final Plat”); and
(2) exclude from the final plat appeal closed record the pages numbered CC
172-571.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.This item is a closed record appeal and does not involve the
Page 3 of 620
authorization of expenditures or revenues.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
On March 24, 2025, the Pasco Hearing Examiner issued the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, Decision and Conditions of Approval of the Madison Park
North Preliminary Plat (“MPN Preliminary Plat”). Doc. # 27, CC 77-105 . The
Hearing Examiner’s Decision approved the MPN Preliminary Plat drawings.
Doc. #29, CC 114-22.
On April 18, 2025, Dave Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC filed a Land Use Petition
Act (LUPA) appeal of the MPN Preliminary Plat in Franklin County Superior
Court. The LUPA Petition challenged Conditions of Approval Nos. 3, 17, 19
and 21.
On May 30, 2025, the City issued a written civil engineering plan approval and
a Right-of-Way Permit authorizing Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC to construct
the physical improvements required by the MPN Preliminary Plat. Doc. # 30,
CC 123-45. Swisher and Farm 2005 did not appeal issuance of the civil
engineering plan approval or Right-of-Way Permit.
During the summer of 2025, the applicants constructed the majority of the
physical improvements authorized by the civil engineering plan approval and
Right-of-Way Permit. On October 14, 2025, applicants Swisher and Farm 2005
submitted their Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat application. Doc. #1,
CC 1. The City determined that the application was complete for purposes of
processing on October 23, 2025. Doc. #4, CC 8. On November 14, 2025, the
City issued a memorandum requesting revisions to the final plat submittal. Doc.
#12, CC 22.
plat revised submitted Swisher final 2025, 19, November On applicant
materials in person, including a physical survey, cover sheet, bond estimate,
LID 152 assessment documentation, memorandum response, and payment in
the form of a personal check from applicant Swisher. Doc. #13, CC 23-28.
Additional materials were transmitted electronically on November 21, 2025.
Doc. #14, CC 29. However, applicants did not provide the digital survey
document along with their revised final plat materials, but subsequently
provided it on November 28, 2025. Doc. #20, CC 60-62. Unfortunately, the
bond amount was not correct (it was too much -- $559,566.25), and it was in a
form (personal check) that the City does not accept. Doc. #22, CC 66.
In addition, on November 24, 2025, a person e-mailing with an address of
“Cheryl” (representative for Swisher) informed the City that “our bank returned
two of the checks we wrote to the City of Pasco, one for $58,895.81 for the
Page 4 of 620
water and the $121,676.32 payment for the LID. I am going to write new
checks today and Fed Ex them directly to you.” Doc. #15, CC 30-31. The next
day, November 25, 2025, the City’s Finance Department also notified City
planning staff that two previously submitted checks had been returned by the
applicant’s bank, one related to a Local Improvement District (LID) payment
and one related to water rights. While the LID payment could be addressed
separately, payment for water rights was required prior to final plat approval.
On November 26, 2025, City staff notified appellant Swisher that “[t]o receive
bond approval for the Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat, the City will
require a bond or cashier’s check in the amount of $441,296.88. Once the
bond for eligible be will final plat submitted, is check cashier’s or the
administrative review and signature.” Doc. #16, CC 33. The City’s letter further
explained that the bond amount “was based on 125% of the most recent
estimate submitted on 11/21/2025 via email.” The purpose of the bond was to
assure construction of a list of minor, “punch list” items whose completion was
required by the MPN Preliminary Plat, civil engineering plans and Right-of-Way
Permit. The items included in the completion bond estimate were those items
identified by Swisher’s contractor as not yet complete, with specific dollar
amount estimates to be included in the completion bond calculation. Doc.# 13,
CC 24. The Pasco Municipal Code (“PMC”) Section 21.30.060 requires that
final plat approval “shall only be approved if the administrative review process
finds that the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms to all terms
of the preliminary plat approval, and said subdivision meets the requirements
of and which title this laws applicable other RCW, 58.17 Chapter state
requirements were in effect on the date of submission of a fully completed
preliminary plat application.” And, by code, the completion bond amount was to
be 125% of the estimated amount ($353,037.50 x 125 = $441,296.88). City
planning staff subsequently checked to determine whether the list and cost of
identified, incomplete items was correct, and other outstanding items were
addressed. Doc. #18 (CC 34-36); #20 (CC 60-62; #21 (CC 63-64); #s 31-34
(CC 146-63).
Required fees and financial assurances were subsequently satisfied as follows:
A portion of the traffic impact fee required under Hearing Examiner
Condition of Approval No. 17 was paid on November 7, 2025
The Water rights fee was paid on December 3, 2025
The required subdivision bond in the amount of $441,296.88 was
submitted on December 17, 2025
On December 18, 2025, after confirming that all applicable conditions and
financial staff City satisfied, provided had requirements been written
confirmation via email to Swisher’s representative, Jon Padvorac, that the MPN
Final Plat was approved and ready for recording. Doc. #23 (CC 68). Thereafter,
Mr. Padvorac and/or Mr. Swisher picked up the final plat that had been signed
by the required City representatives (City Manager Harold Stewart, Community
Page 5 of 620
& Economic Development Director Haylie Matson, and City Engineer Mary
Heather Ames), as well as the County Treasurer and Assessor and utility
easement grantor Franklin County Public Utility District. Doc. # 26, CC 76. On
December 19, 2025, the applicant recorded the MPN Phase 1 Final Plat with
the Franklin County Auditor, under Recording No. 2007214. Doc. #26, CC 75.
of Appeal of Notice filed a the 2025, 29, December On Applicants
Administrative Approval of Final Plat, Madison Park North Phase 1 (“Appeal”).
Doc. challenge plat’s final the not CC Appeal The 106-113. #28, does
compliance with any of the statutory or City code requirements. Instead, the
Appeal states that as of the date of appellants’ submittal of the application for
final plat approval on October 14, 2025, “[a]ll required improvements were
constructed or bonded.” Doc. #35, CC 168 (Appeal at 4, ¶4.8).
Instead reflected and/or completion plat whether the final challenging of
bonding of construction, the Appeal raises the same legal issues raised in the
Applicants’ LUPA Petition. The Appeal states: “[e]ach of the issues presented
herein are [sic] subject to pending determinations by Franklin County Superior
Court in Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC v. City of Pasco, Superior Court Cause
No. 25-2-50360-11.” Doc. #35, CC 169. The Notice of Appeal seeks to add to
those issues, by attaching various appendices and re-statements of Applicant’s
issues. It also seeks to supplement the record, by attaching 390 pages of
additional “Exhibits” many of which are brand-new and not included in the
record compiled before the Hearing Examiner being reviewed along with
Applicant’s LUPA Petition.
A short time after Applicants filed their Notice of Appeal to the City Council, the
Franklin County Superior Court ruled. On January 16, 2026, Franklin County
Superior Court Judge Diana Ruff issued an Order on LUPA Appeal, Motion to
Strike Supplemental Record and Motion to Dismiss (“LUPA Order”) (Appendix
1).[1] The LUPA Order concluded that Appellants’ challenges to Conditions 3,
19 and 21 were moot as they pertain to the dedications of rights-of-way for
Burns Road and Road 52, for the MPN Phase 1 Final Plat, construction of road
improvements in those streets for the MPN Final Plat, and the agreement not
to protest formation of Local Improvement Districts, because appellants had
already constructed the improvements in question, dedicated the rights-of-way
and recorded the “no protest” agreement via the recorded MPN Final Plat.
Judge Ruff also concluded that to the extent the challenges to the Burns Road
dedication street and was dedication the not were improvements moot,
improvement by the appellants themselves, and the street proposed
requirements were imposed by the City under Condition 19 to mitigate a direct
impact of MPN Preliminary Plat, bore a substantial nexus and were roughly
proportional to those impacts and therefore complied with applicable tests
imposed by the United States Supreme Court and were not an unconstitutional
taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or RCW
82.02.020. Judge Ruff then affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s Conclusion of
Page 6 of 620
Law No. 4 and Condition No. 19.
Appellants moved for reconsideration of Judge Ruff’s decision. Their motion
was denied on February 23, 2026. Appellants then filed a Notice of Appeal to
Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, where it currently remains
pending.
[1] The City Council may take judicial notice of Judge Ruff’s decision. See Fusato v. Washington
Interscholastic Activities Ass’n., 93 Wn.App. 762, 772, 970 P.2d 774 (Div. III 1999), quoting CLEAN v.
State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 809, 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (judicial notice appropriate for “those facts capable of
immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy
and verifiable certainty.”). The Notice of Appeal requests this, stating that the issues in the MPN final
plat appeal “are subject to pending determinations by Franklin County Superior Court in Swisher and
Farm 2005, LLC v. City of Pasco, Superior Court Cause No. 25-2-50360-11.” Doc. #35, CC 169.
Impact (other than fiscal):
Approval of the staff recommendation to deny and dismiss the appeal would
affirm the administrative approval of the already-recorded Madison Park North
Phase 1 Final Plat, which remains in effect. The conditions of Final Plat
approval challenged in the Appeal before the City Council originate from the
MPN Preliminary Plat decision, which is currently the subject of Swisher’s and
Farm 2005’s appeal pursuant to LUPA in Division III of the Washington Court
of Appeals.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff Analysis and Response to Appellants’ Notice of Appeal:
Staff has reviewed the appellants Notice of Appeal (“Appeal”). The Appeal’s
primary issues relate to conditions and requirements set forth in with the MPN
Preliminary Plat, rather than in any conditions of administrative approval of the
MPN Phase 1 Final Plat. The Appeal should be dismissed for several reasons,
discussed below.
1. The Appeal Should Be Dismissed Because It Fails to Challenge the
MPN City and Statutory Code Compliance Plat’s Final With
Requirements for Final Plat Approvals.
The first reason that the Appeal should be dismissed is because it fails to
challenge the MPN Final Plat’s compliance with any applicable statutory and
City code legal criteria.
Pursuant to PMC 21.30.060 and Chapter 58.17 RCW, final plat approval is an
administrative, ministerial action limited to determining whether the final plat
conforms to the conditions of the approved preliminary plat and applicable
laws. of list short a RCW 58.17 Ch. essentially contains administrative
requirements for final plats. First, a final plat must contain the approval
Page 7 of 620
signatures of:
the agency supply sewage disposal and water;
plats reviewing of responsibility and official planning the with
subdivisions, as to compliance with all terms of the preliminary plat
approval; and
the city engineer.
RCW 58.17.150.
Second, a final plat must also:
contain a statement of approval from the city engineer as to the layout of
streets, alleys and other rights-of-way, sewage and water systems, and
other structures;
be accompanied by a complete survey of the section or sections in
which the final plat is located;
be acknowledged by the county auditor; and
that and taxes all treasurer by the certification a contain county
delinquent assessments for which the property may be liable have been
duly paid.
RCW 58.17.155.
Next, a final plat must contain a certificate giving a correct legal description of
the final plat, include a statement that the final plat has been made with the
free consent of the owner(s) and, if the plat is subject to a dedication, the
certificate as to the dedication of all streets and other areas to the public or to
any private corporation along with a waiver of all claims for damages against
the city arising out of the construction of any street or road.
RCW 58.17.160.
Finally, if the approving authority finds that a proposed final plat “conforms to
all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and that said subdivision meets the
local any and laws, state chapter, other this of requirements applicable
ordinances adopted under [Ch. 58.17 RCW] that were in effect at the time of
preliminary plat approval,” the approving authority “shall suitably inscribe and
execute its written approval on the face of the plat,” and the original final plat
“shall be filed for record with the county auditor. . . .” RCW 58.17.170 (italics
added). The statutory final plat process does not provide for reconsideration or
modification of discretionary decisions made at the preliminary plat stage.
The Pasco Municipal Code provisions are to the same effect. PMC 21.30.020
requires a final plat to be prepared by a professional land surveyor, in a
specified scale and format. PMC 21.30.030 specifies the contents of a final
plat, and requires signatures by the City Manager, City Planner, City Engineer,
the Franklin County PUD or other utility provider, and the County Assessor,
Page 8 of 620
Treasurer and Auditor.
And, “[p]rior to approval of a final plat, all required infrastructure improvements,
including as-built drawings and data of all underground utilities necessary to
serve said plat, must be constructed and accepted by the City Engineer. In lieu
of actually completing all improvements, the developer may provide the City
with a bond, cash or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 125
percent of the City Engineer’s estimate of the cost to complete the required
infrastructure improvements.” PMC 21.30.050.
Because of the administrative nature of these requirements, the City’s code
specifies that “[t]he final approval of a plat is an administrative function not
requiring action by the City Council.” PMC 21.30.060 (italics added). Like
RCW 58.17.170, the City code provides that a final plat “shall only be approved
if the administrative review process finds the subdivision proposed for final plat
approval conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and said
subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW, other applicable
state laws and this title which requirements were in effect on the date of
submission of a fully completed preliminary plat application.” PMC 21.30.060
(italics added).
As with the statutory process, the final plat approval process under the PMC
does not provide for reconsideration or modification of discretionary decisions
made at the preliminary plat stage. Instead, final plat approval is limited to
consideration of whether the final plat complies with the terms of preliminary
plat approval, and a handful of other technical, ministerial details. If the final
plat conforms to the preliminary plat and those requirements, it must be
approved.
This process makes sense because of the binding nature of preliminary plat
approval. As the Washington Supreme Court has explained,
[T]he preliminary plat process “is not merely an insignificant stage of the
proceedings without real consequence.” [Citations omitted] Any
modifications included in a conditional approval of the preliminary plat
are binding on the party seeking approval and the local decision-making
body granting conditional approval. [Citation omitted] A local decision-
making body cannot conditionally approve a preliminary plat and then
disapprove a final plat application for a project that conforms to the
conditions of the preliminary approval.
Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 344, 267 P.3d 973 (2011) (italics
added).
The Appeal here does not challenge the MPN Final Plat’s compliance with any
of the statutory or City code requirements. In fact, the Appeal states that as of
the date of appellants’ submittal of the application for final plat approval on
Page 9 of 620
October 14, 2025, “[a]ll required improvements were constructed or bonded.”
Doc. #35, CC 168 (Appeal at 4, ¶4.8). And, the documents in MPN Final Plat
closed were requirements City and code the that show record statutory
complied with. Doc. #26, CC 75-76 (recorded MPN Phase 1 Final Plat).
Instead, the Appeal essentially challenges several Conditions 3, 19 and 21 of
the MPN Preliminary (not final)Plat, and the civil engineering plans and Right-
of-Way Permit. See Doc. #35, CCP 168-69 (Appeal at 5-6, Issues 1-4, esp.
Issue on (“Based 2 No. DecisionExaminer’s the required staff City ,
construction of a three-lane Burns Road section. . .”) (italics in original) and
Issue No. 3 (“Hearing Examiner required waiver-of-protest language to be
placed on the face of the final plat”). But, the MPN Preliminary Plat was
reviewed by Franklin County Superior Court pursuant to the Land Use Petition
Act, dismissed Ruff Diana Judge Court Superior County Franklin and
appellants’ challenges to Conditions 3, 19 and 21 as moot. To the extent the
challenges to Condition 19 requiring dedication of Burns Road right-of-way and
construction of Burns Road improvements were not moot, Judge Ruff affirmed
Condition 19. 1. App. See civil the appeal to Further,Appellantsfailed
engineering plan and Right-of-Way Permit approval, and any challenge to
those approvals is now too late, and time-barred. Because of this, the scope of
the City Council’s review in this appeal is limited to the administrative final plat
approval, and does not extend to reconsideration of MPN Preliminary Plat
Conditions 3, 19 or 21, or to the prior civil engineer plan or Right-of-Way Permit
approvals. Because of this, and because appellants did not challenge any
aspect of the MPN Final Plat’s compliance with final plat approval criteria in
RCW be Appeal the .060, - must PMC or .170 - 58.17.150 21.30.020
dismissed.
2. Appellants’ Challenges to MPN Preliminary Plat Conditions of
Approval Are Governed by the Outcome of Their LUPA Petition,
Which Has Already Been Denied.
Because the gist of appellants’ challenges is aimed at MPN Preliminary Plat
Conditions of Approval, rather than the MPN Final Plat, their challenges are
governed challenging Petition LUPA the by outcome the the of MPN
Preliminary Plat. The Appeal acknowledges this. It states: “Each of the issues
presented herein are subject to pending determinations by Franklin County
Superior Court in Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC v. City of Pasco, Superior
Court Cause No. 25-2-50360-11.” Doc. #35, CP 169 (Appeal at 6) (italics
added). As noted above, however, Superior Court Judge Diana Ruff has
already ruled against appellants, dismissing their challenges as moot and/or as
in compliance with RCW 82.02.020 and the “nexus” and “rough proportionality”
takings tests applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal
Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. See App. 1 at 3-10 (Findings 3.1 –
3.38 and Concl. of Law 4.1 – 4.9; see also App. 1 at 18-21 (Concl. of Law 6.7 –
6.18). Even if appellants’ challenges could be considered in the context of their
Page 10 of 620
appeal of the MPN Final Plat, the Appeal must be rejected because its
arguments are subject to the Franklin County Superior Court’s rejection of
appellants’ LUPA Petition.
3. Appellants’ Appeal Is Moot.
In addition, the appellants’ challenges to the MPN Final Plat are moot.
Appellants have already recorded dedications of Burns Road and Road 52
rights-of-way, constructed the physical street improvements on both of those
roadways, installed the school speed zone advance warning signs, flashing
beacons and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, and recorded an agreement
not to protest LID formation. Appellants’ builder has also begun advertising the
individual for lots sale. See https://www.hayden-homes.com/new-
homes/washington/tri-cities/pasco/madison-park-north.[2]an When appellant
constructs the physical improvements, completes permitting and occupancy
and begins to sell the property at issue, their challenge to prior land use
decisions related to the project become moot. See Harbor Lands v. City of
Blaine, 146 Wn.App. 589, 191 P.3d 1282 (2008); Jones v. Snohomish County,
unpublished but cited pursuant to GR 14.1, 31 Wn. App. 2d 1005, 2024 WL
1994700 (2024); Rimmer v. City of Edmonds 2026 WL 734475 (Div. I March
16, 2026) (where city issued building permit as ordered, appellant sold parcel
of land in question, city issued new permit without challenged conditions to new
property owner, who constructed a residence for which city issued its certificate
of occupancy, original owner’s legal challenge and city appeal were both
moot). Judge Ruff has already ruled to similar effect. App. 1 at 3-10.
Here, because appellants have constructed the very street already
improvements whose legality they challenge, and already recorded right-of-way
dedications and a “no LID protest” agreement they also challenged, there is no
relief that the City Council can provide. This renders the Appeal moot and
requires it be dismissed. When a claim is moot, a reviewing body lacks
jurisdiction, and must dismiss the appeal. Harbor Lands, 146 Wn.App. at 592
(mootness goes to reviewing body’s jurisdiction), at 595 (moot appeal requires
vacatur of prior decisions); Rimmer, 2026 WL 734475 at *1 (dismissing appeal
as moot).
[2] The City Council may take judicial notice of the ongoing, publicly-advertised sale of MPN Phase 1
lots. Fusato, 93 Wn. App. at 772 (judicial notice appropriate for “those facts capable of immediate and
accurate demonstration by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy and verifiable
certainty.”).
4. LUPA Bars the Appeal’s Attempt to Use the Appeal of the MPN
Final Plat to Challenge Conditions of the MPN Preliminary Plat.
Even if not the Appeal was not otherwise required to be dismissed, as
discussed above, LUPA prevents the Appeals’ attempts to challenge the MPN
Page 11 of 620
Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval using the vehicle of the MPN Final Plat.
Washington law is very clear that a final land use decision (whether timely
appealed or not) may not be collaterally attacked in a later proceeding. Habitat
Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 410-11,120 P.3d 56 (2005)
a on attack collateral an improper permit grading a to (challenge was
previously-issued Special Use Permit); James v. Kitsap County, 154 Wn.2d
574, 586, 115 P.3d 286 (2005)(imposition of impact fees as a condition of
building permit approval was unreviewable absent a timely challenge to the
underlying building permit); Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 940,
53 P.3d 1 (2002) (LUPA’s statutory time limits prevent the county from revoking
an improperly granted boundary line adjustment); Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n
v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 173, 4 P.3d 123 (2000) (challenge to a
development permit was an improper collateral attack on a prior, underlying
rezone land use decision); Grundy v. Brack Family Trust, 116 Wn.App. 625,
633, 67 P.3d 500 (2003) (public nuisance claim cannot be predicated on an
allegedly invalid Shoreline Development Permit where the plaintiff failed to
timely challenge the permit under LUPA), rev’d sub nom., Grundy v. Thurston
County, 155 Wn.2d 1, 117 P.3d 1089 (2005); Blomenkamp v. City of Edmonds,
unpublished cited pursuant to GR 14.1, 9 Wash.App.2d 1068, 2019 WL
3285704 at *1, *3 (2019) (challenge to tree cutting was impermissible collateral
attack permits; LUPA subsequent utility and site previously-issued on
challenge to five certificates of occupancy was likewise impermissible collateral
attack on prior site and utility permits); rev. denied 194 Wn.2d 1021 (2020).
Appellants’ challenge to the MPN Final Plat is an impermissible, untimely
collateral attack on the civil engineering plan approvals and Right-of-Way
Permit, which authorized appellants to physically construct the utility and street
improvements on which they later based their application for MPN Final Plat
approval. The civil engineering plan approvals and Right-of-Way Permit were
not appealed, and are final. The Appeal is also an impermissible collateral
attack, and a “second bite at the apple,” challenging the MPN Preliminary Plat
conditions of approval, which were the subject of appellants’ LUPA appeal, and
which the Franklin County Superior Court has already upheld.
5. The Appeal is Barred By Res Judicata and/or Collateral Estoppel.
The Appeal is also barred by two doctrines of judicial precedent, known by their
Latin names as “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel.” Together, these
doctrines prohibit an appellant from a “second bite at the apple.” Once a final
decision has been reached on an issue or claim, or even in a matter when a
similar claim could have been raised but was not, the appellant is prohibited
from raising the same argument or claim in a subsequent proceeding.
The doctrine of res judicata applies when a prior judgment has what is known
as a “concurrence of identity,” in four respects, with a subsequent action. Rains
v. State, 100 Wn.2d 660, 663, 674 P.2d 165 (1983). There must be identity of
Page 12 of 620
(1) subject matter; (2) cause of action; (3) persons and parties; and (4) the
quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Id. Res judicata
applies in the quasi-judicial administrative land use context, because the
principles underlying it apply equally to the quasi-judicial administrative land
use context as they do to judicial proceedings. Hilltop Terrace Homeowner’s
Ass’n v. Island County, 126 Wn.2d 22, 31, 35, 891 P.2d 29 (1995); Davidson v.
Kitsap County, 86 Wn.App. 673, 680–81, 937 P.2d 1309 (1997); DeTray v. City
of Olympia, 121 Wn.App. 777, 790, 90 P.3d 1116 (2004). As our Supreme
Court explained, “The law of res judicata ... consists entirely of an elaboration
of the obvious principle that a controversy should be resolved once, not more
than once.” Hilltop Terrace, 126 Wn.2d at 30 (quoting 4 KENNETH C. DAVIS,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 21:9, at 78 (2d ed. 1983)) (italics
added). by served public purely most “The purpose judicatares in lies
preserving the acceptability of judicial dispute resolution against the corrosive
disrespect were to litigated twice matter that the if follow would same
inconsistent results. . . .” Id. (quoting 18 CHARLES A. WRIGHT, ET AL.,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4403, at 12–15 (1981)).
Similar principles underlie the rule barring a subsequent collateral attack on
prior land use decisions made earlier in an iterative land use planning and
permitting process. See, e.g., BD Lawson Partners, LP v. City of Black
Diamond, 165 Wn. App. 677, 690, 269 P.3d 300 (2011); Habitat Watch, 155
Wn.2d at 410-11; Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.2d 169, 180-82.
In this case, appellants raised each of the Appeal issues in their challenge to
the MPN Preliminary Plat. The parties are exactly the same, as are the
Appellants’ “causes of action,” which are the constitutional and RCW 82.02.020
legal claims they raised in the LUPA matter, and seek to again here. They
litigated each of those issues to a final judgment (the LUPA Order). They are
not permitted to litigate them again, in a challenge to the Final Plat, in attempt
to assemble a different record while raising the exact same issues. The Appeal
is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and as such the Council
should dismiss it.
6. Appellants Did Not “Reserve Their Rights” To Repeat or Reargue
Their Preliminary Plat Claims.
The Appeal repeatedly states that they somehow “proceeded under protest” or
“proceeded under reservation of rights” while applying for and obtaining civil
engineering plan, Right-of-Way Permit and Final Plat approvals. Doc. #35, CP
166 (Appeal at 3, ¶¶ 4.3(b), 4.5). That is just not the case. As the Council can
see from the Final Plat record, appellants did not submit any communications
indicating they were proceeding under “reservation of rights” or “under protest.”
This is the case even where the City’s communications expressly directed
appellants in specific ways. For example, in its comments on the final plat
application (Doc. #1), the City directed appellants to remove the statement
“subject to the outcome of current litigation” from Note 1 of the Final Plat, which
Page 13 of 620
contains appellants’ agreement to waive for a period of 10 years any protest or
objection to formation of an LID. Doc #12, CC 22 (note 4). The City also
directed appellants to add the school speed zone advance warning signs on
Burns Road to the plans, and to add Steve West as property owner as a
signatory to the road dedications. Doc. #12, CC 22 (notes 3 and 9). Appellants
complied with these directions, without protest or reservation of any kind,
stating simply “removed,” or “Noted. Developer will coordinate with contractor
for installation, and the cost thereof is included in the above referenced bond
and estimate.” Doc. #13, CC 23 and 27-28. Rather than reserving any rights,
appellants cooperated with the City in order to build the final plat as approved
by the Preliminary Plat and civil engineering drawings. Appellants’ proposed
final plat included the Burns Road and Road 52 dedications in the required
widths, and Appellants constructed the physical improvements to both streets,
without protest of any kind.
Appellants raised the same arguments (that they proceeded “under protest”)
before Judge Ruff, who also rejected them. The LUPA Order states
“Petitioners’ statement that they proceeded with these improvements under a
“reservation of rights” and/or “under protest” is not supported by any evidence
other than Petitioner Swisher’s statement in his declaration, and the plain
language of final plat contains no such reservation of rights.” App. 1 at 10, ¶
4.6. The City Council should reject the argument here.
7. The City Council Should Decline to Consider the Notice of Appeal’s
Appendices and Exhibits.
As a final matter, the City Council should decline to consider the documents
attached as “Appendices” and “Exhibits” to the Notice of Appeal, at Doc. #35,
CC 172-571. The Council is considering this matter as a “closed record appeal”
under PMC 4.02.100. With the exception of the MPN Final Plat itself, and the
Hearing Examiner’s decision (CC 183-215) the Exhibits are entirely comprised
of documents that were not presented to City administrative staff as part of the
MPN Final Plat, and were not considered by them in any way in determining to
approve the MPN Final Plat. As such, they are not properly considered part of
the final plat appeal “closed record,” may not be considered by the Council on
the appeal. Appellants should not be permitted to improperly expand the scope
of a “closed record” by simply attaching hundreds of new documents to their
Notice of Appeal, in the hope of belatedly affecting the already-closed record in
both this case and the LUPA matter pending on appeal. The Appendices suffer
the same flaw; they cite to and quote from the documents improperly attached
as “Exhibits.” The City Council should disregard CC 172-571, and its decision
on the final plat should indicate that such documents are not part of the final
plat appeal closed record and formed no part of its decision. For additional
details, please refer to the letter dated March 31, 2026 from Bob C. Sterbank to
Daniel P. Kenny and James Carmody, attached as Appendix 2 and
incorporated by reference.
Page 14 of 620
Conclusion & Recommendation
For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal seeking to challenge the City’s
MPN Phase 1 Final Plat, does not present a valid basis for appeal within the
limited scope of final plat review. The City was and is required to approve the
MPN Final Plat in a form conforming to the MPN Preliminary Plat. The
Appellants agree that it does conform, and that all improvements have been
constructed or bonded for. Doc. #35, CC 167 (Appeal at ¶ 4.8). The Appeal
agrees that Appellant’s appeal issues are controlled by the outcome of
appellants’ LUPA Petition in Franklin County Superior Court, and Judge Ruff
has already rejected appellants’ appeal and affirmed the Preliminary Plat with
respect in finality of Principles here. to by raised issues the appellants
Washington land use law (LUPA), and the appellate doctrines of res judicata
and collateral estoppel, bar the appellants from a “second bite at the apple
through attempts to raise the same issues in a challenge to Final Plat approval
that they raised in their LUPA Petition challenging the Preliminary Plat.
Because the conditions associated with the MPN Final Plat originate from the
Hearing Examiner’s March 24, 2025 MPN Preliminary Plat decision which is
already currently under appellate review, and from the civil engineering plan
approval which was not appealed, the December 29, 2025 appeal does not
raise any valid appeal issues related to the underlying MPN Final Plat decision.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion: (1)
denying and dismissing the Appeal, and (2) excluding from the final plat appeal
closed record pages numbered CC 172-571.
Next Steps:
The City Council’s decision on the closed record appeal will be the City’s final
land use decision on the final plat and final plat appeal, appealable only by a
person or entity with standing and only to Franklin County Superior Court
pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Petition
Act, Ch. 36.70C RCW.
Page 15 of 620
CC 1Page 16 of 620
CC 2Page 17 of 620
CC 3Page 18 of 620
CC 4Page 19 of 620
CC 5Page 20 of 620
CC 6Page 21 of 620
CC 7Page 22 of 620
Community & Economic Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
CITY OF PASCO
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
MASTER FILE #: FP2025-006
APPLICANT: Farm 2005 LLC
C/O Dave Swisher
250 NW Franklin Ave Suite 401
Bend, OR 97703
PROPOSAL: Final Plat: Madison Park North Phase 1
It has been determined that your application for a Final Plat is complete for processing by the City of Pasco.
Comments will be provided to the applicant listed on the submitted application within 30 business days of the
date of this letter.
Questions can be addressed to the Pasco Community & Economic Development Department at (509) 544-4146 or
to barragani@pasco-wa.gov referencing the file # above.
Date Issued: 10/23/2025 Signature: Ivan Barragan_______________________
Title: Planner III
CC 8Page 23 of 620
From:David Payne
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:RE: MADISON PARK
Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 2:35:04 PM
Attachments:06225-plat.dwg
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
sure here ya go
David Payne
Rogers Surveying
(509) 783-4141
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 2:32 PM
To: David Payne <dpayne@rogerssurveying.com>
Subject: RE: MADISON PARK
Do you have the dwg file?
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: David Payne <dpayne@rogerssurveying.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 7:45 AM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: MADISON PARK
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good morning,
I’m checking to see that you got everything you need for Madison park plat review
I dropped it off 2 days ago, tried to call yesterday and wasn’t able to reach anyone,
If I’m suppose to talk to someone else please let me know
CC 9Page 24 of 620
the lady I dropped it off with mentioned your name,
That’s why I’m contacting you
thanks
David Payne
Rogers Surveying
(509) 783-4141
CC 10Page 25 of 620
External: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
When in doubt, report it as phishing for further analysis.
From:Casey Roberts
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:RE: FP2025-006 Madison Park North Phase 1
Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 1:05:43 PM
Attachments:~WRD2091.jpg
image001.jpg
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hello Ivan,
We require a 15’ easement along Road 52, so that would be Lot 1 and Lots 8 - 23. They
sent me a CAD file with this easement in place so I’m surprised to see it missing here.
Casey Roberts
Field Engineer II
(O)509-546-5952
(C)509-412-4034
Logo
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 9:55 AM
Subject: FP2025-006 Madison Park North Phase 1
Good morning,
Please find attached the Final Plat application for Madison Park North Phase 1, located
on Parcel No. 114250018 in Pasco, WA. The proposal includes 63 lots within the R-1
(Low Density Residential) zoning district.
Engineering: Please provide a water rights estimate.
ROW Inspectors: Please prepare a punch list identifying any outstanding items related
CC 11Page 26 of 620
to required right-of-way improvements, if applicable.
Please submit any comments or feedback by November 6, 2025.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying
by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
If you think you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by
email and delete this email and any attachments from your system. Additionally, any
correspondence exchanged with Franklin PUD, including emails, are public records. Public
records may be produced for third-party requesters under the Public Records Act.
CC 12Page 27 of 620
LOT #1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
LOT SQFT 11090 9497 9190 8676 8138 7599 8926 8556 6930 6930 6930 6930 6930 6930 6930
LOT # 1617181920 21 222324252627282930
LOT SQFT 6930 6930 6930 6930 6930 6930 7786 5866 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
LOT # 3132333435 36 373839404142434445
LOT SQFT 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5866 5866 5000
LOT # 4647484950 51 525354555657585960
LOT SQFT 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
LOT # 616263
LOT SQFT 5000 5866 6366
TOTAL SQFT 379,378 = 8.71 ACRES
BASE WATER RIGHTS $517.50 PER UNIT = $32,602.50 (63 Units)
WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION FEE .5 X ACRES X 3.5 X $1,725 = $26,293.31
TOTAL FEE = $58,895.81
FP2025-006
6-Nov-25
Madison Park North Phase 1
CC 13
Pa
g
e
2
8
o
f
6
2
0
You don't often get email from barragani@pasco-wa.gov. Learn why this is important
From:Kaleb Casey
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:Robin Moug
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] FP2025-006 Madison Park North Phase 1
Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:11:54 AM
Attachments:COP_FP2025-006 Madison Park North Phase 1.docx
Verification of Parcel Numbers - DRAFT.doc
You don't often get email from kcasey@franklincountywa.gov. Learn why this is important
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good morning,
Please see attached for the Assessor’s office comments and Parcel Verification form.
Regards,
Kaleb Casey
Franklin County Assessors Office
GIS Technician
P: (509) 545-2508
E: kcasey@franklincountywa.gov
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 9:55 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FP2025-006 Madison Park North Phase 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Franklin County. Be careful when following links or opening
attachments.
Good morning,
Please find attached the Final Plat application for Madison Park North Phase 1, located
on Parcel No. 114250018 in Pasco, WA. The proposal includes 63 lots within the R-1
(Low Density Residential) zoning district.
Engineering: Please provide a water rights estimate.
ROW Inspectors: Please prepare a punch list identifying any outstanding items related
to required right-of-way improvements, if applicable.
Please submit any comments or feedback by November 6, 2025.
CC 14Page 29 of 620
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying
by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 15Page 30 of 620
Page 1 of 1
Memo
To: Ivan Barragan, Planner, City of Pasco
From: Kaleb Casey, GIS Technician, Assessor’s Office
cc: Robin Moug, GIS Specialist, Assessor’s Office
Date: November 6, 2025
Re: FP2025-006 Madison Park North Phase 1
Good afternoon/morning,
The Assessor’s office has reviewed the Final Plat application that was submitted. Please see
below for our written comments regarding the proposed Final Plat.
1.Assessor’s Parcel Verification Form (attached) signed by the Assessor and Treasurer offices
2.Approval letter from the City of Pasco’s Planning & Economic Development department.
3.Survey needs to be signed by all departments listed under approvals section and notarized
4.Survey needs to be recorded
5.Parcel is in current use. Owners need to contact Agriculture Appraisers at
assessorag@franklincountywa.gov to complete current use paperwork.
Assessor’s Office
GIS/Mapping
CC 16Page 31 of 620
Verification of Parcel Number(s)
*Note: Long plats will be removed from open space when applicable. Taxesas well as the open space removal amounts must be paid prior to theTreasurer’s signature on plat.
Circle one: Plat Short Plat Blinding Site Plan
Parcel Number: Land Value Improvement Value 1. Market Land: Market Imp: Assessed Land: Assessed Imp: 2. Market Land: Market Imp: Assessed Land: Assessed Imp: 3. Market Land: Market Imp: Assessed Land: Assessed Imp:
4. Market Land: Market Imp: Assessed Land: Assessed Imp:
Signatures:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ GIS/Deputy Assessor Date:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Treasurer Date:
CC 17Page 32 of 620
From:Jon Padvorac
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:Re: Madison Park North - Phase 1 final plat fees
Date:Thursday, November 13, 2025 3:52:02 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
My understanding is that the City’s code being in violation with the RCWs does not give the city
more review time, the final plat still needs to approved, disapproved, or comments returned within
30 days of when it was submitted. Sometimes statues explicitly give cities the ability to modify
specific “default” statues, I don’t believe that to be the case here.
Best regards,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 15:40 Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
We have 28 days to determine completeness per PMC Title 4, specifically PMC 4.02.060.
The application was deemed complete on October 23, 2025. After that date, the City has
30 days to issue comments, and you will receive them as soon as they are available.
You, along with several others, have been reaching out, so I kindly ask for your patience.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
CC 18Page 33 of 620
Subject: Re: Madison Park North - Phase 1 final plat fees
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Regarding our Madison Park North final plat, we had dropped the final plat off on 10/14, so my
understanding is that today is the 30th day of the review process. Per RCW 58.17.140(2) the
final plat needs to be approved, disapproved, or comments retuned no later than 30 days from
the date of filing. Can you try to get the comments sent over by end of day today? We have
had a lot of delays on our project and really need to get the final plat moving forward.
Best regards,
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 08:35 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for preparing these, I appreciate you fitting this in to your week. The next critical
thing will be for us to get final plat comments, it sounded like it would likely be 2-3 days after
the internal comment period is over. If you need anything else from me to move this forward
please feel free to reach out.
On another topic, I will be stopping by tomorrow to pay the SEPA MDNS mitigation for
traffic impacts. Is there anything that needs to be done on your end so that the folks at the
counter can process the payment and track it properly? Our MDNS is attached for your
reference.
Best regards,
CC 19Page 34 of 620
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 08:25 Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jon,
Here’s the water rights estimate.
I apologize for not including the block numbers earlier, but I’ve confirmed that they haven’t
changed from what Caleb previously sent you.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject
to inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 5:01 PM
To: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Cheryl Kerry <cheryl@daveswisher.com>; Craig
Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Madison Park North - Phase 1 final plat fees
Good afternoon,
CC 20Page 35 of 620
I apologize for the delayed response.
To obtain City of Pasco signatures on the final plat for recording, the following fees will
need to be addressed (please note there are in lieu of options):
Water rights must either be deeded to the City or an in-lieu fee paid prior to recording
of the final plat. I received a water rights estimate from Engineering, but it reflected
the current fee in code not the old one that’s referenced in the HE report. I’ll send one
reflecting the correct amount as soon as I have it available.
Right-of-way improvements and associated documentation must be completed, or an
in-lieu bond or cashier’s check provided to ensure the City can complete any
remaining right-of-way improvements, if applicable. This is still under review.
I will also include a note regarding LID fees, stating that Madison Park is part of LID 152. I
saw you reached out to Griselda, which is great — she’s the person I coordinate with on
those fees. My understanding is that paying them early can result in some savings compared
to paying after each lot is created.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 21Page 36 of 620
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 14, 2025
TO: Farm 2005, LLC
FROM: Ivan Barragan, Planner III
SUBJECT: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat
The following notes/requirements have been submitted by City staff regarding this project.
Planning Division:
1.An addressing packet has been prepared. Please add the assigned lot addresses to the face of the final
plat. In addition, the approved road names must be included on the face of the plat to ensure consistency
with the City’s Street naming standards.
2.All required right-of-way improvements shall be completed—or a bond provided in lieu of completion—
in accordance with PMC 21.30.050. Additionally, any existing water rights associated with the subject
property shall be transferred to the City. If no water rights are available, payment in lieu of water rights
must be made prior to submitting the Final Plat for signatures, in accordance with PMC 21.05.120.
3.Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 21, it has been identified that the required advanced warning
signs on Burns Road were not included in the civil plans (SDIV2025-005). Please add these signs to the
civil plans and ensure they are installed upon approval or bonded for, as noted in Planning Division
Comment No. 2 above.
4.Under City of Pasco Notes No. 1, please remove the phrase “Subject to the outcome of current litigation.”
5.Under City of Pasco Notes No. 2, please add a slash between “and.or”.
6.Under City of Pasco Notes No. 3, please correct “impat” to “impact.” Additionally, add a period after
“airport” and before “Developments” within the same note.
7.Under City of Pasco Notes No. 4, please correct “regulation” to “regulations” and remove the letter “s”
from “heights” within the same note.
8.Under City of Pasco Notes No. 5, please correct the typo “size fee” to “six feet.”
9.Under the Dedication section, Dave Swisher is listed; however, he is not identified as an authorized
representative of Farm 2005, LLC according to the Department of Revenue. Please update the
dedication to reflect Steve or Judy West.
Franklin PUD:
1.A 15-foot easement is required along Road 52, affecting Lot 1 and Lots 8 through 23.
Franklin County Assessors:
1.Please see the attached memo and the verification of parcel numbers sheet.
CC 22Page 37 of 620
P a g e | 1 of 1
To: Ivan Barragan, Planner III, City of Pasco
Cc: Dave Swisher, Farm 2005 LLC
Haylie Matson, Community & Economic Development Director, City of Pasco
From: Jon Padvorac, Development Consultant, Padvorac Consulting, LLC
Date: November 19, 2025
Subject: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat
Dear Mr. Barragan,
To help move our project along, we are delivering a signed copy of the final plat along with a cash
bond. We had not heard back on the bid bond estimated we had submitted back on 10/14/2025,
so to keep our project moving forward we:
•Updated the bid bond for the work estimated to be done as of 11/24/2025, and sent it to
you on 11/18/2025.
•Included a cash performance bond for the remaining work of $353,037.50, plus the 25%
contingency required per PMC 21.30.050, plus an additional 20% contingency to account
for minor comments the City may have on the bid bond estimate, as we have not received
feedback on the unit prices submitted on 10/14/2025. Thus the total cash bid bond
•Brought a check to pay the LID cost allocated to this specific phase, which has already
been delivered to finance.
If you have any questions as you process this document, please contact me so we can keep this
process moving forward.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Padvorac
CC 23Page 38 of 620
Sharpe & Preszler Construction Co., Inc.
605 E Kennewick Ave. Lic. # SHARPPC280JF Telephone 509-586-1138
Kennewick, WA 99336 Fax 509-586-9141
Madison Park North, Phase I
Completion Bond Breakdown
57 EA - Adjust valve box 330.00 18,810.00
6 EA - Adjust manhole 430.00 2,580.00
LS - Concrete mobe 1,100.00
1,982 SF - 4” sidewalk 6.25 12,387.50
36 EA - Handicap ramp 2,035.00 73,260.00
175 SF - 6” driveway 7.60 1,330.00
LS - Prep work for concrete flatwork 14,400.00
26 EA - Streetlight 5,400.00 140,400.00
1 EA - RRFB 17,935.00
2 EA - School flashing beacon 16,995.00
15 EA - Monuments 400.00 6,000.00
4 EA - Guard post (air/vac) 340.00 1,360.00
9 EA - Stop sign with street names 950.00 8,550.00
1 EA - Stop sign only 795.00
1 EA - 35 MPH “Speed Limit” sign 500.00
1 EA - “End School Zone” sign 500.00
12 EA - Type III barricade 825.00 9,900.00
LS - Asphalt striping 24,635.00
LS - Sign/striping mobe 1,600.00
$ 353,037.50
CC 24Page 39 of 620
LID 152 Assessment for Madison Park North
Parent Parcel No. 114-250-018
Property Description Acres Total Assessment Interest Payoff
Madison Park Nort, lot 1 0.25 3,319.10$ 197.18$ 3,516.28$
Madison Park North, lot 2 0.22 2,920.64$ 173.16$ 3,093.80$
Madison Park North, lot 3 0.21 2,787.81$ 165.15$ 2,952.96$
Madison Park North, lot 4 0.2 2,655.48$ 158.14$ 2,813.62$
Madison Park North, lot 5 0.19 2,522.66$ 150.14$ 2,672.80$
Madison Park North, lot 6 0.17 2,257.01$ 134.12$ 2,391.13$
Madison Park North, lot 7 0.2 2,655.48$ 158.14$ 2,813.62$
Madison Park North, lot 8 0.2 2,655.48$ 158.14$ 2,813.62$
Madison Park North, lot 9 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 10 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 11 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 12 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 13 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 14 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 15 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 16 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 17 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 18 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 19 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 20 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 21 0.16 2,124.18$ 126.11$ 2,250.29$
Madison Park North, lot 22 0.18 2,389.83$ 142.13$ 2,531.96$
Madison Park North, lot 23 0.19 2,522.66$ 150.14$ 2,672.80$
Madison Park North, lot 24 0.15 1,991.37$ 118.11$ 2,109.48$
Madison Park North, lot 25 0.13 1,725.72$ 102.09$ 1,827.81$
Madison Park North, lot 26 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 27 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 28 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 29 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 30 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 31 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 32 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 33 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 34 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 35 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 36 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 37 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 38 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 39 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 40 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 41 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 42 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 43 0.13 1,725.72$ 102.09$ 1,827.81$
CC 25Page 40 of 620
LID 152 Assessment for Madison Park North
Parent Parcel No. 114-250-018
Property Description Acres Total Assessment Interest Payoff
Madison Park North, lot 44 0.13 1,725.72$ 102.09$ 1,827.81$
Madison Park North, lot 45 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 46 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 47 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 48 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 49 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 50 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 51 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 52 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 53 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 54 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 55 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 56 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 57 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 58 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 59 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 60 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 61 0.11 1,460.56$ 87.08$ 1,547.64$
Madison Park North, lot 62 0.13 1,725.72$ 102.09$ 1,827.81$
Madison Park North, lot 63 0.15 1,991.37$ 118.11$ 2,109.48$
Madison Park North,Tract A 118.3 1,570,191.52$ 93,260.01$ 1,663,451.53$
1,685,036.67$ 100,091.18$ 1,785,127.85$ Total
CC 26Page 41 of 620
CC 27Page 42 of 620
CC 28Page 43 of 620
From:Jon Padvorac
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:Brian Cartwright; Haylie Matson; Dave Swisher; Kent McCue
Subject:digital copy of MPN memo
Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 12:58:42 PM
Attachments:MPN PH1 Final Plat Memo.pdf
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Attached is a digital copy of the memo and updated bond estimate that we dropped off with
you when we met on Wednesday. It had been long enough that the bond estimate we
submitted on 10/14 was fairly out of date, so we submitted a new estimate based on work that
will be complete as of 11/24/2025.
As described in the memo - we provided a cash performance bond check to you on
Wednesday for the estimated construction value, plus the City's standard 25% contingency,
plus an additional 20% to cover possible issues that may arise when the City reviews the bond
estimate.
Final plat review is typically a quick turn-around activity, will you be able to get
through review early this upcoming week?
Best regards,
CC 29Page 44 of 620
From:Cheryl Kerry
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:RE: Madison Park North - Phase 1 final plat fees
Date:Monday, November 24, 2025 12:01:00 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hey Ivan. Not sure why this happened but our bank returned two of the checks we wrote to the City
of Pasco, one for $58,895.81 for the water and the $121,676.32 payment for the LID. I am going to
write new checks today and Fed Ex them directly to you. So sorry for the hassle, still trying to figure
out what happened, but will get new checks off to you today.
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 8:25 AM
To: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Cheryl Kerry <cheryl@daveswisher.com>; Craig
Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Madison Park North - Phase 1 final plat fees
Hi Jon,
Here’s the water rights estimate.
I apologize for not including the block numbers earlier, but I’ve confirmed that they
haven’t changed from what Caleb previously sent you.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 5:01 PM
To: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Cheryl Kerry <cheryl@daveswisher.com>; Craig
Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Madison Park North - Phase 1 final plat fees
CC 30Page 45 of 620
Good afternoon,
I apologize for the delayed response.
To obtain City of Pasco signatures on the final plat for recording, the following fees will
need to be addressed (please note there are in lieu of options):
Water rights must either be deeded to the City or an in-lieu fee paid prior to
recording of the final plat. I received a water rights estimate from Engineering, but
it reflected the current fee in code not the old one that’s referenced in the HE
report. I’ll send one reflecting the correct amount as soon as I have it available.
Right-of-way improvements and associated documentation must be completed,
or an in-lieu bond or cashier’s check provided to ensure the City can complete any
remaining right-of-way improvements, if applicable. This is still under review.
I will also include a note regarding LID fees, stating that Madison Park is part of LID 152. I
saw you reached out to Griselda, which is great — she’s the person I coordinate with on
those fees. My understanding is that paying them early can result in some savings
compared to paying after each lot is created.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying
by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 31Page 46 of 620
From:Craig Raymond
To:Jon Padvorac; Dave Swisher
Cc:Brian Cartwright; Ivan Barragan
Subject:MPN
Date:Monday, November 24, 2025 10:10:00 AM
Importance:High
Jon, as we navigate our way through the process of the MPN final plat, please be sure to keep myself on each email communication that you have with the city. You should also be sure to
keep Ivan Barragan and Brian Cartwright copied as well. This will help us ensure we are all on the same page and can most efficiently complete our review.
The current status update of the review is that we continue to work through it as fast as we can but we are experiencing a high volume of work and issues we are working through at the
same time. This is a priority and we are doing the best we can to get this completed as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Craig Raymond
Deputy Director, Community & Economic Development
O: 509-545-3451 M: 509-802-6583
raymondc@@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 32Page 47 of 620
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
1 Amount based on 125% of the most recent estimate submitted on 11/21/2025 via email.
November 26, 2025
Farm 2005, LLC
250 NW Franklin Ave, Suite 401
Bend, OR 97703
Dear Dave,
To receive bond approval for the Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat, the City will require a bond or
cashier’s check in the amount of $441,296.881. Once the bond or cashier’s check is submitted, the final
plat will be eligible for administrative review and signature.
Given the unique circumstances surrounding this submittal, please be advised that additional securities
may be required prior to the City’s final signature on the plat.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at (509) 544-4146 or barragani@pasco-wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Ivan Barragan
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
cc: Brian Cartwright, Development Review Manager
Dan Jacobsen, Senior Inspector
CC 33Page 48 of 620
From:Brian Cartwright
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:Craig Raymond; Dan Jacobsen; Tyler Johnson
Subject:RE: digital copy of MPN memo
Date:Wednesday, November 26, 2025 1:44:59 PM
Attachments:image001.jpg
The cost estimates for the items on the itemized list are acceptable. The inspector would
be the appropriate person to verify any additional outstanding work. You can let the
developer know that any items not included on the list, and not completed before the
date they wish to pick up the signed plat, will require additional securities.
I can only verify the costs for the items that are identified on the bond estimate. I am not
always aware of deficiencies in the field.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco,
WA 99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 12:58 PM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: digital copy of MPN memo
As mentioned in the email sent to you and Tyler on November 19, 2025, I confirmed that
no bond was provided to me in person over 40 days ago, as has been stated by Jon. The
only record of the estimate is the email received on November 18, 2025.
On November 20, 2025, you forwarded an email thread from Dan Jacobsen outlining
several items—specifically the estate fence along Burns—that need to be accounted for
in the bond estimate.
At this point, I need to determine whether the provided bond estimate is acceptable. If it
is not, I will notify the applicant and request a clear breakdown of what is missing. Based
on the conversation with Dan and your note regarding the estate fence, if the estimate is
deemed insufficient, I will forward that information and indicate that the estimate is not
acceptable because these items must be included.
As a reminder I have a check over $500K sitting on my desk waiting for this to be
resolved.
Thank you,
CC 34Page 49 of 620
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 2:24 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: FW: digital copy of MPN memo
This is the second time that Jon has mentioned a bond estimate that was supplied on
10/14. I looked back through my emails and did not receive anything from him in that
time period nor did I receive a previous bond estimate prior to what you sent on 11/19.
Was something sent to you on 10/14? If not, you may want to politely let him know that
you have no record of receiving the estimate…so at least it has been stated for the
record.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco,
WA 99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 12:58 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>; Haylie Matson <matsonh@pasco-wa.gov>; Dave
Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Kent McCue <MCCUEK@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: digital copy of MPN memo
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Attached is a digital copy of the memo and updated bond estimate that we dropped off
with you when we met on Wednesday. It had been long enough that the bond estimate
we submitted on 10/14 was fairly out of date, so we submitted a new estimate based on
work that will be complete as of 11/24/2025.
As described in the memo - we provided a cash performance bond check to you on
Wednesday for the estimated construction value, plus the City's standard 25%
contingency, plus an additional 20% to cover possible issues that may arise when the
CC 35Page 50 of 620
City reviews the bond estimate.
Final plat review is typically a quick turn-around activity, will you be able to get
through review early this upcoming week?
Best regards,
Image removed by sender.
CC 36Page 51 of 620
CC 37Page 52 of 620
CC 38Page 53 of 620
CC 39Page 54 of 620
CC 40Page 55 of 620
CC 41Page 56 of 620
CC 42Page 57 of 620
CC 43Page 58 of 620
CC 44Page 59 of 620
CC 45Page 60 of 620
CC 46Page 61 of 620
CC 47Page 62 of 620
CC 48Page 63 of 620
CC 49Page 64 of 620
CC 50Page 65 of 620
CC 51Page 66 of 620
CC 52Page 67 of 620
CC 53Page 68 of 620
CC 54Page 69 of 620
CC 55Page 70 of 620
CC 56Page 71 of 620
CC 57Page 72 of 620
CC 58Page 73 of 620
CC 59Page 74 of 620
From:Dave Baalman
To:Ivan Barragan; Dave Swisher; Jon Padvorac
Cc:Craig Raymond; Brian Cartwright; Haylie Matson; Dan Jacobsen
Subject:RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Counter Submittal (FP2025-006)
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 8:09:36 AM
Attachments:~WRD3157.jpg
06225-plat-2025-11-28.pdf
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Ivan:
PDF is attached.
Dave
David P. Baalman, PLS CFedS
Principal
Rogers Surveying Inc., P.S.
1455 Columbia Park Trail, Suite 201
Richland, WA 99352
O: 509.783.4141
D: 509.505.1664
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Cc: Dave Baalman <dbaalman@rogerssurveying.com>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>;
Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>; Haylie Matson <matsonh@pasco-wa.gov>; Dan
Jacobsen <jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Counter Submittal (FP2025-006)
Good afternoon,
On Wednesday, November 19, 2025, I was handed multiple documents by Dave and Jon,
along with another individual whose name I unfortunately did not catch. The materials
included the final plat with signatures, a personal check in the amount of $529,556.25
(which Dave photographed), a response memo, and a cover letter from Padvorac
Consulting, LLC with an attached bond estimate for $353,037.50.
First, the check provided is not a cashier’s check. While the code specifies that the City
may accept a bond, cash, or an irrevocable letter of credit, historically we have accepted
CC 60Page 75 of 620
cashier’s checks in lieu of cash—but not personal checks. For reference, the code
states: “In lieu of actually completing all improvements, the developer may provide the
City with a bond, cash, or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 125 percent
of the City Engineer’s estimate of the cost to complete the required infrastructure
improvements.”
The bond estimate submitted on November 21, 2025, at 12:58 PM is acceptable.
However, in addition to being submitted with a personal check instead of a cashier’s
check, the amount tendered included not only the required 125% but also an arbitrary
additional 20%. Therefore, we request that you provide a cashier’s check in the correct
amount (see attached bond letter). Please also be aware that any items not included in
the approved bond estimate—and not completed before you pick up the signed plat—
will require additional securities.
It was stated both at the counter and in your email correspondence, as well as in the
documents provided in person, that the bond estimate had been submitted on October
14, 2025. After verifying our records, no such submittal was received on that date. The
earliest record we have is an email from November 18, 2025, at 7:09 AM, and that
estimate is $10,000.00 less than the estimate ultimately accepted by Brian from
November 21, 2025.
Lastly, I kindly ask Dave Baalman to provide a PDF copy of the final plat that was handed
to me on November 19, 2025, as having a digital file greatly streamlines the review
process.
Once these corrections have been addressed, we will be happy to proceed with the
review.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying
by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 61Page 76 of 620
CC 62Page 77 of 620
From:Ivan Barragan
To:Brian Cartwright; Haylie Matson; Harold Stewart
Cc:Craig Raymond; Mary Heather Ames; Kurtis Schliebe; Bob.Sterbank@Foster.com
Subject:RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 (FP2025-006) Final Signature
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 1:15:35 PM
Of course.
An update to all—first, I really appreciate the quick turnaround, as we are all under
pressure to get this out.
Both Harold and Haylie have signed. Thank you both.
Bob,
After sending this email, I will call and email the applicant to let him know this is ready
for pickup and recording.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 11:31 AM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>; Haylie Matson <matsonh@pasco-wa.gov>; Harold
Stewart <Stewarth@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; Mary Heather Ames <amesm@pasco-wa.gov>;
Kurtis Schliebe <schliebek@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 (FP2025-006) Final Signature
Ivan, can you update Bob regarding the status of this FP? I don’t see him in this email
chain.
I know there is a separate chain with Bob,
I feel this information is pertinent to him.
Thanks
CC 63Page 78 of 620
Brian Cartwright
City of Pasco
Development Services Manager
Cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 8:55:20 AM
To: Haylie Matson <matsonh@pasco-wa.gov>; Harold Stewart <Stewarth@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>;
Mary Heather Ames <amesm@pasco-wa.gov>; Kurtis Schliebe <schliebek@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 (FP2025-006) Final Signature
UPDATE
I received this back from Kurtis after Mary Heather signed. I appreciate both of you.
To be clear, this doesn’t need to go in any particular order, but I wanted to provide this
update since we now only need two signatures.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 |
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 12:58 PM
To: Kurtis Schliebe <schliebek@pasco-wa.gov>; Maria Serra <serram@pasco-wa.gov>; Haylie
Matson <matsonh@pasco-wa.gov>; Harold Stewart <Stewarth@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Madison Park North Phase 1 (FP2025-006) Final Signature
Importance: High
Good afternoon,
I received the physical copy of the subject Final Plat on Wednesday, November 19, 2025.
At the time of submittal, it was made clear to the applicant that several items still
needed to be addressed, which have now been resolved.
CC 64Page 79 of 620
Page 80 of 620
From:Craig Raymond
To:Jon Padvorac; Ivan Barragan
Cc:Dave Swisher; DAVE BAALMAN; Brian Cartwright; Haylie Matson; Dan Jacobsen; Cheryl Kerry
Subject:RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Counter Submittal (FP2025-006)
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 6:25:00 AM
Attachments:~WRD0000.jpg
Hi Jon, we don’t require the bond to review documents.
We’ll check on the wire transfer question and get back to you.
Thanks,
Craig Raymond
Deputy Director, Community & Economic Development
O: 509-545-3451 M: 509-802-6583
raymondc@@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2025 9:47 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; DAVE BAALMAN <dbaalman@rogerssurveying.com>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>; Haylie
Matson <matsonh@pasco-wa.gov>; Dan Jacobsen <jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov>; Cheryl Kerry <cheryl@daveswisher.com>
Subject: Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Counter Submittal (FP2025-006)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Does the City accept wired funds? This would be the fastest way for us to keep things moving forward. If not, we will get you a cashier's check.
To confirm - can you be reviewing the CAD file provided by our surveyor while we sort out the bonding logistics? I may have mis-understood your email, I don't think it is typical
for the City to require payment of the bond in order to review the plat.
Best regards,
Image removed by sender.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:06 PM Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon,
On Wednesday, November 19, 2025, I was handed multiple documents by Dave and Jon, along with another individual whose name I unfortunately did not catch. The
materials included the final plat with signatures, a personal check in the amount of $529,556.25 (which Dave photographed), a response memo, and a cover letter from
Padvorac Consulting, LLC with an attached bond estimate for $353,037.50.
First, the check provided is not a cashier’s check. While the code specifies that the City may accept a bond, cash, or an irrevocable letter of credit, historically we have
accepted cashier’s checks in lieu of cash—but not personal checks. For reference, the code states: “In lieu of actually completing all improvements, the developer may
provide the City with a bond, cash, or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 125 percent of the City Engineer’s estimate of the cost to complete the required
infrastructure improvements.”
The bond estimate submitted on November 21, 2025, at 12:58 PM is acceptable. However, in addition to being submitted with a personal check instead of a cashier’s check,
the amount tendered included not only the required 125% but also an arbitrary additional 20%. Therefore, we request that you provide a cashier’s check in the correct
amount (see attached bond letter). Please also be aware that any items not included in the approved bond estimate—and not completed before you pick up the signed plat
—will require additional securities.
It was stated both at the counter and in your email correspondence, as well as in the documents provided in person, that the bond estimate had been submitted on October
14, 2025. After verifying our records, no such submittal was received on that date. The earliest record we have is an email from November 18, 2025, at 7:09 AM, and that
estimate is $10,000.00 less than the estimate ultimately accepted by Brian from November 21, 2025.
Lastly, I kindly ask Dave Baalman to provide a PDF copy of the final plat that was handed to me on November 19, 2025, as having a digital file greatly streamlines the review
process.
Once these corrections have been addressed, we will be happy to proceed with the review.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
CC 66Page 81 of 620
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 67Page 82 of 620
From:Ivan Barragan
To:Dave Swisher; Jon Padvorac
Bcc:Craig Raymond; bob.sterbank@foster.com; Balvina Guzman; Kylee Magana; Nichole Sarmiento
Subject:Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Phase 1
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 3:47:00 PM
Good afternoon,
Following up on our phone call, Jon.
The Madison Park North Final Plat, Phase 1, is ready to be picked up and recorded by the
applicant’s team at the County. This plat is at the permitting counter in between Mina
and Ashley.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying
by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 68Page 83 of 620
From:Precilla Jimenez
To:Griselda Garcia; Felix Farias
Cc:Craig Raymond; Ivan Barragan; Desiree Thrasher
Subject:Returned Checks - Farm 2005 LLC
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:58:30 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Padvorac Consulting came in to pay 2 returned check fees. Didn’t say what for. One
was in Trak-it, the other in Finance. Customer would not leave without a receipt. Due to
misunderstanding, Craig and I thought the check that I receipted today was the original
payment and not the replacement payment for LID 152. Customer paid the $25 fee in
Trak-it, at our direction. Then Felix found the 2 bounced checks. Craig is asking to
write-off the 2nd $25 returned check fee for LID 152 payment. I agree.
Griselda – Is that ok? If so, where is the $25 NSF fee billed at so that we can remove it?
CC 69Page 84 of 620
Precilla Jiménez
UTILITY BILLING MANAGER
PHONE/FAX: 509-545-3431
jimenezp@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying
by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
CC 70Page 85 of 620
From:Jon Padvorac
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:CED - Planning; Dave Swisher; Haylie Matson
Subject:Re: FW: Madison Park North - park construction timing?
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 12:40:13 PM
Attachments:~WRD0004.jpg
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
As a follow up to our phone call today, we just learned today that either we could withdraw the minor plat adjustment or submit the updated minor plat adjustment, in which case case the minor
adjustment would be processed before the Phase 1 final plat. I don’t agree with this position and it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic.
The final plat is time sensitive, more so than the minor plat adjustment. We withdraw our application for the preliminary plat minor adjustment, please process our Phase 1 final plat as soon as
possible without further delay.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 21:02 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Craig,
In accordance with our condition of approval, attached is our proposed preliminary plat adjustment to accommodate the county subdivisions to the North of Madison park North. Based on
feedback from one of our builders we also distributed lots a little differently - before we had some groups of either 55' or 62' or 50' wide lots segregated from each other, but a builder asked
that we evenly distribute lot sizes (outside the airport overlay zone of course) so they could fit a wider variety of product types throughout the subdivision. Except for aligning with the
County roads to the North, we do not modify road alignments - we just made minor adjustments to lot widths to more evenly distribute the various lot sizes throughout the subdivision.
It can be tricky visually picking up minor changes to a plat, so we took the new layout in green, and overlaid it over the original plat layout in black so it is easy to see what changed and what
stayed the same, which will hopefully make the review process easier on your end.
Our intention was to meet the criteria of a minor adjustment as described in PMC 21.25.080, which can be performed administratively. Can you work with your team to review the updated
plat and let us know if you have any comments?
Best regards,
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 11:09 AM Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jon, we can accept the revised language pertaining to the park construction and reimbursement of the bonds. That works for us. At this hour I’m not sure how we stitch that into a revised
document. Mr. Kottcamp will have to direct that traffic. As to the other conditions in your email:
Condition 19- Now that I have had a few more moments to take a look at the preliminary revision to the prelim plat you sent I would agree that this will most likely qualify as a minor
change again, subject to a detailed review in the future. Generally speaking, I have zero interest in starting this all over again due to those adjustments.
Condition 13- I’m not certain we actually have an issue here. I believe the city will be handling upsizing consistent with our usual policy. You raise some technical questions though that I’m
not prepared to answer and so would not be at liberty to comment or agree to your specific requested language modification. I think this just requires more specific discussion to see if we’re
on the same page or not.
Condition 7- We may not actually have an issue here, this may just require some clarification and further discussion so I’m not at liberty to provide affirmative resolution this morning.
Craig Raymond
Deputy Director, Community & Economic Development
O: 509-545-3451 M: 509-802-6583
raymondc@@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
CC 71Page 86 of 620
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 10:06 PMTo: Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>Cc: Jacob Gonzalez <gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov>; Richa Sigdel <sigdelr@pasco-wa.gov>; Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; bob.sterbank@foster.com; James Carmody
<carmody@mftlaw.com>Subject: Re: FW: Madison Park North - park construction timing?
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Craig,
Sure thing, I appreciate the open dialog. I spoke with Dave, and he is alright with waiting until the park is fully built to receive the corresponding impact fee credit. Below is a draft of
language that we would be alright with - if you have any adjustment that you would like feel free to reach out. Rather than try to say "the phase after the phase containing the 232nd lot" in a
way that wasn't confusing, I opted to say that the park would be fully complete prior to the developer recording the final plat for the phase containing the 240th lot.
For phases built before improvements are performed on the park or before land is dedicated, the Developer may bond for the per-lot park impact fees. When the Developer completes
the entire park (frontage improvements and park amenities), the Developer may then submit a comprehensive impact fee credit request, and settle accounts with the City regarding
the previously submitted park impact fee bonds. The Developer will complete the park prior to recording the final plat for the phase containing the 240th lot.
There are a few other items that have outstanding questions, can you take a look at these and see if you can provide feedback on them as well? It would be great if we could work through
some or all of these items in advance of the 1/8 hearing. They are addressed in more detail in Exhibit H01c (attached for your reference).
Condition 19 (street alignments): I submitted proposed language on 12/11 to clarify in more detail what modifications would be needed, and asking that the proposed changes I sent you on
12/5 would be a "minor adjustment" so we would not have to start the preliminary plat process all over again for a segment of the project. It would be great if you could check the proposed
language and see if you are comfortable with the more detailed description of the adjustments needed, and the designation of "minor adjustment", subject of course to a more detailed review
in the future to ensure compliant lot geometries.
Condition 13: I asked Tyler about upsize agreement eligibility on 12/14, can you follow up internally and see if the City is offering upsize agreement for irrigation and potable water
piping? Most of the larger piping the City wants installed isn't in the City's comp plans, but is based on some stand-alone studies by RH2 that aren't readily available (check with Kurtis
about this if you have questions), which is problematic in a number of ways. The developer had no way to anticipate these costs. Additionally, the cost differential to go from standard pipe
size (8") to the upsized pipe (12" to 16") is for a regional/city benefit above and beyond what is needed to serve the development, so the nexus and proportionality question comes up. We
would be alright with the City proposed language in the 1/8 staff report and installing the pipe sizes the City has requested as long as upsize agreements are provided for the cost of the
larger pipe materials (the developer would pay the additional labor to install the larger pipe).
Condition 7: It looked like the proposed conditions that Bob Sterbank recommended in his 12/27 filing weren't incorporated into the City's 1/8 staff report. We are alright with the
conditions proposed by the City on 12/27, if you are we could check this one off the list as well.
Best regards,
Jon Padvorac
Owner, Padvorac Consulting LLC
Cell: (509) 713-6365
Email: jon@padvorac-consulting.com
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 5:42 PM Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Hi Jon, thanks for clarifying and giving us a starting point to work from and I suspect we’ll be able to bring to a close one outstanding issue. I think we can get behind the concept of park
construction midway through the development. We’ll be meeting internally tomorrow to discuss so I can’t provide any final closure on the park development subject but the one thing I
would note that would likely be problematic or at least something to expand on is the term “any portion of the park” as being eligible to reimburse a portion of the bond. In principle, I
think we get it and don’t disagree in concept but what I want to prevent is a nickel and dime approach to reimbursing for the bond due to the time-consuming nature of that process. Is
there language that you could propose that would maximize efficiency in all of our work so that we don’t end up with several or multiple small bond reimbursement requests?
Also, obviously I’m not going to specifically comment on the language regarding transportation credits or reductions. That will be addressed by Hearing’s Examiner I assume.
Thanks for your consideration,
Craig Raymond
Deputy Director, Community & Economic Development
O: 509-545-3451 M: 509-802-6583
raymondc@@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 5, 2025 2:29 PM
To: Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Jacob Gonzalez <gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov>; Richa Sigdel <sigdelr@pasco-wa.gov>; Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; bob.sterbank@foster.com; James Carmody
<carmody@mftlaw.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Madison Park North - park construction timing?
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Inadmissible under ER 408
CC 72Page 87 of 620
For Settlement Purposes
Hi Craig,
I was forwarded the below email from James Carmody regarding the timing of park construction, and he asked me to reach out to you to coordinate the details. It is a good point to make
sure that everybody is on the same page with respect to the timing of park construction, I appreciate that the City brought this up. Our plan has been to dedicate the park land and build
the frontage improvements for the park by mid-build out (so 232 lots in), then finish construction of the park before recording the final plat for the subsequent phase. The developer has
no interest in overly-delaying park construction, as when this happens, among other things, lot prices aren't reflective of the future park but the developer is still eventually out the cost of
building a park. Likewise, I'm sure the City would not want a developer to save the park for the very end. That being said, the first few phases will be needed so the developer can build
up the cash reserves needed to construct the park, which is estimated to cost around $1 million dollars.
Regarding our general phasing approach, we plan to start at the southwest corner of the Preliminary Plat, build up to Kau Trail along Road 52, then work our way to the East. This is the
most logical sequence with respect to the necessary road and utility improvements so that each phase has the needed infrastructure. We plan to include the park frontage improvements in
the phase that is roughly in the "middle" of our build-out, which is when we would have worked our way over to the park. After the middle phase is recorded, and we move on to
performing the next phase of frontage improvements, we will have the time to install the park features (irrigation system, trees, ball courts, playground, etc.). The developer does not have
a set-in-stone phasing plan as the number of lots built each year will be dependent on market conditions.
Given the short amount of time between now and the project hearing, I drafted proposed language to reflect our current sequencing plan for your consideration. Feel free to reach out if
you want to discuss or have any additional questions. I was not sure the best place to put the park sequencing language and did not want to mess up the existing condition numbering, so
added it to Condition 18, which also had reference to the contested transportation impact fee credit topic. To avoid confusion about the Applicant's position I included the entirety of the
applicant-proposed Condition 18 language, but I do understand that our current discussion is focused on the timing of park construction.
Cumulative Applicant-Requested Modifications to Condition of Approval 18:
Traffic, Park, and School impact fees at the then-applicable impact fee rate will be collected for each lot at the time of issuance of building permits for new residences, with trafficimpact fees of $328,976 payable prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Credits and reductions to the Park impact fees will be provided commensurate with the value of thepark land and improvements as determined by the Director in accordance with RCW 82.02.060(5), PMC 3.40.090 and PMC 3.50.070 and the Conditions of Approval of thisPreliminary Plat.
For phases built before improvements are performed on the park or before land is dedicated, the Developer may bond for the per-lot park impact fees. When the Developer constructsany portion of the park (frontage improvements, or the park itself) and actual costs are known, the bond for the earlier phases of park would be reimbursed to the Developer in part orin full based on the construction costs. The Developer will construct the frontage improvements for the park in the phase that includes the 232nd lot, and the park will be completedprior to recording the final plat of the subsequent phase.
Credits and reductions to the Transportation Impact Fees will be provided commensurate with the value of the land and improvements for the Burns Road and Road 52 corridors inaccordance with RCW 82.02.060(5).
Best regards,
Jon Padvorac
Owner, Padvorac Consulting LLC
Cell: (509) 713-6365
Email: jon@padvorac-consulting.com
From: Bob C. Sterbank <Bob.Sterbank@Foster.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2025 3:25 PM
To: James Carmody <Carmody@mftlaw.com>
Cc: Jacob Gonzalez <gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; Richa Sigdel <sigdelr@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Madison Park North - park construction timing?
Inadmissible under ER 408
For Settlement Purposes
Hi Jamie,
Happy New Year. I’m checking in on the above issue, which was raised by one of Mr. Podvorac’s proposed modifications to recommended plat conditions.
City staff have been discussing internally, and would like to convene a call among the appropriate City staff and Mr. Swisher (and/or Podvorac) to discuss avenues by which to provide
more specificity on this condition. The City is uncomfortable with Applicants’ proposed language, that seems to allow park construction to be deferred until the very end of plat
construction. On the other hand, the City would like more information about the applicants’ proposed phasing in order to craft something workable for both sides.
Can you please consult with your folks and let me know when they might be available? If we could work out an agreed resolution in advance of next Wednesday, we could take at least
one issue off the table.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Bob
CC 73Page 88 of 620
Bob C. Sterbank
Counsel
Tel: (206) 816-1354 ▪ Fax: (206) 447-9700
bob.sterbank@foster.com
Foster Garvey PC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
foster.com
SEATTLE ▪ PORTLAND ▪ NEW YORK ▪ WASHINGTON, D.C. ▪ SPOKANE
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It contains information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of this message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
CC 74Page 89 of 620
CC 75
Pa
g
e
9
0
o
f
6
2
0
CC 76Page 91 of 620
CC 77Page 92 of 620
CC 78Page 93 of 620
CC 79Page 94 of 620
CC 80Page 95 of 620
CC 81Page 96 of 620
CC 82Page 97 of 620
CC 83Page 98 of 620
CC 84Page 99 of 620
CC 85Page 100 of 620
CC 86Page 101 of 620
CC 87Page 102 of 620
CC 88Page 103 of 620
CC 89Page 104 of 620
CC 90Page 105 of 620
CC 91Page 106 of 620
CC 92Page 107 of 620
CC 93Page 108 of 620
CC 94Page 109 of 620
CC 95Page 110 of 620
CC 96Page 111 of 620
CC 97Page 112 of 620
CC 98Page 113 of 620
CC 99Page 114 of 620
CC 100Page 115 of 620
CC 101Page 116 of 620
CC 102Page 117 of 620
CC 103Page 118 of 620
CC 104Page 119 of 620
CC 105Page 120 of 620
NO
R
T
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
Pa
g
e
4
6
o
f
2
4
1
CC 114
Pa
g
e
1
2
1
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
40'
50
'
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
Pa
g
e
4
7
o
f
2
4
1
CC 115
Pa
g
e
1
2
2
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
50
'
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
Pa
g
e
4
8
o
f
2
4
1
CC 116
Pa
g
e
1
2
3
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
Pa
g
e
4
9
o
f
2
4
1
CC 117
Pa
g
e
1
2
4
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
Pa
g
e
5
0
o
f
2
4
1
CC 118
Pa
g
e
1
2
5
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
Pa
g
e
5
1
o
f
2
4
1
CC 119
Pa
g
e
1
2
6
o
f
6
2
0
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
Located in Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.,
Franklin County, Washington
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
Pa
g
e
5
2
o
f
2
4
1
CC 120
Pa
g
e
1
2
7
o
f
6
2
0
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY
SIDEWALKS AND PAVEMENT 18,258 SF
ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER SAFETY SURFACING 1,809 SF
HYDROSEEDED LAWN 69,862 SF
POURED IN PLACE SAFETY SURFACE 1,859 SF
REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE
SEWER
EASEMENT
LIMITS OF
PROPOSED PARK
KAU
T
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
48"72"72"
NO EQU
I
P
M
E
N
T
36"
48"
PLAY AREA - POURED IN PLACE SURFACING
UNDER PLAY EQUIPMENT WITH ENGINEERED
WOOD FIBER MULCH AT PERIMETER.
(1) SMALL 2-5 PLAY STRUCTURE
(1) SMALL 5-12 PLAY STRUCTURE
(1) SINGLE BAY SWING SET
SPORTS COURTS -
(1) BASKETBALL COURT ON ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAD
(1) PICKLBALL COURT WITH SURFACING OVER CONCRETE PAD
CONCRETE OR ASPHALT
SIDEWALKS/PATHS
TREES - 2" CALIPER OR SIMILAR, APPROXIMATELY 40.
VARIETIES T.B.D.
HYDROSEEDED LAWN GRASS, TYPICAL.
FENCE LINE
FENCE LINE
SITE AMENITIES -
(2) PICNIC TABLES
(2) TRASH RECEPTACLES
(2 BENCHES, LOCATION T.B.D.
16'x16' SHADE STRUCTURE
UNDEVELOPED
TRACT
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
,
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
52
5
N
.
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
E
.
PA
S
C
O
,
W
A
9
9
3
0
1
-1 2 3 4
OR
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
E
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
O
F
P
A
S
C
O
-
PA
R
K
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
I
F
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
3-
0
1
-
2
3
2-
2
6
-
2
4
4-
1
-
2
4
6-
7
-
2
4
7-
8
-
2
4
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
GR
G
SCALE:AS SHOWN NORTH R
0
SCALE:1" = 30'-0"
30'60'
NOTES:
1. THIS PARK WILL BE ADA COMPLIANT.
2. IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE OF SIMILAR COMPOSITION AND QUALITY TO
THOSE RECENTLY INSTALLED BY THE CITY AS PART OF THEIR PALOMINO
PARK PROJECT.
3. THE CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FOR PARKS ( PARKS, RECREATION,
& OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN) AND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FORECAST THE NEED FOR PARK INFRASTRUCTURE IN UNDEVELOPED
AREAS BY ESTABLISHING LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA. THE PROPOSED
PARK, IF REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THIS
PRELIMINARY PLAT, WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED AS A
PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, PROVIDING PARK FACILITIES
TO PASCO RESIDENTS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE EXTENTS OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THIS PARK WOULD MEET THE CITY'S NEED
FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES AS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FOR PARKS AND WOULD BENEFIT CITY
RESIDENTS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
IF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PARK IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY AS A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
·THE PARK WILL BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY A HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION.
·THE DEVELOPER WILL CONSTRUCT THE SHOWN PARK AND MAKE
IT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE.
·THE PARK WILL INCLUDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK FEATURES
IDENTIFIED IN PMC 3.50.060 ( LAWN, AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM,
PATHWAYS, TREES, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, BALL COURTS AND
SUN SHELTERS).
4. IF REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PRELIMINARY
PLAT, THE SHOWN PARK WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. IF NOT REQUIRED AS A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE
SHOWN PARK WILL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED, AND INSTEAD LOTS 450, 451,
452 WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE APPROVAL ALONG WITH THE
UNDEVELOPED TRACT IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE.
.
WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE APPROVAL ALONG WITH THE
Pa
g
e
5
3
o
f
2
4
1
CC 121
Pa
g
e
1
2
8
o
f
6
2
0
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
TY
P
E
O
F
W
O
R
K
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
On
Address (if applicable)At
Between
And
Street, Avenue, Alley Street, Avenue
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/ROADS/STR
Street, Avenue
Chandler Newell 509-405-5210
Applicant hereby acknowledges the obligation to and does hereby agree to provide temporary traffic control in accordance with all
laws and applicable ordinances, regulations, and in particular, the provisions found in the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways available at mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov. Traffic control plans require approval
prior to the start of any work. All street closures require notice to SECOMM at 509-628-0333.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED BY
PATCH DEPOSIT: $
FEE: $ISSUED BY
DATE
DATE
48-HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTION
INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK
Please call engineering division (545-3441) for inspection appointments, 525 N. 3rd, Pasco, WA 99301
Expires 120 calendar days
from date of issue.
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:TELEPHONE NO:
CITY OF PASCO PERMIT NO:
(509) 713-6365
Jonathan Padvorac
BURNS RD RD 52
ROW25-0230
50.00
KYM
05/30/2025
06/02/2025
KS1
Pavement/Concrete Cut
Open Trench Excavation
Other-Work:
Compaction Testing
Concrete Form Placed
Concrete Special Instructions
Concrete Finish Final inspection
Other:
X
ALL WORK TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF PASCO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS - AVAILABLE AT
WWW .PASCO -WA .GOV .
INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH ITEM CHECKED BELOW. THE HOMEOWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO
SCHEDULE ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
Casey Devoir 509-539-9850
Your Inspector is:
COMMENTS:
PERMIT
PERMIT
ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK IN THE CITY OF PASCO RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE LICENSED
AND BONDED TO WORK IN THE CITY OF PASCO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
APPROXIMATE START DATE:APPROXIMATE COMPLETION DATE:
Boring/Directional Boring
Grading/Landscaping/Restoration
Sign/Pole Installation
Street/Sidewalk Construction
Utility Installation
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Cynthia Valdez 509-727-2247
Utility Specific Inspections
Restoration
X
CC 123Page 129 of 620
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
VICINITY MAP
MADISON PARK NORTH
PHASE 1
NO
R
T
H
SITE PLAN City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 124
Pa
g
e
1
3
0
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 125
Pa
g
e
1
3
1
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 126
Pa
g
e
1
3
2
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 127
Pa
g
e
1
3
3
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1 2 3
13
3
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
09/03/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 128
Pa
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
1
1
CC 129
Pa
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 130
Pa
g
e
1
3
6
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
1
CC 131
Pa
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
6
2
0
NO
R
T
H
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
1
1
1
CC 132
Pa
g
e
1
3
8
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1 2
2
2
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
08/04/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 133
Pa
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 134
Pa
g
e
1
4
0
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
1
1
1
CC 135
Pa
g
e
1
4
1
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 136
Pa
g
e
1
4
2
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 137
Pa
g
e
1
4
3
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
1
CC 138
Pa
g
e
1
4
4
o
f
6
2
0
NORTH
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
1
CC 139
Pa
g
e
1
4
5
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 140
Pa
g
e
1
4
6
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
1
NO
R
T
H
NO
R
T
H
NO
R
T
H
NO
R
T
H
NO
R
T
H
1
CC 141
Pa
g
e
1
4
7
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
NO
R
T
H
NO
R
T
H
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 142
Pa
g
e
1
4
8
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
NORTH
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 143
Pa
g
e
1
4
9
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
NO
R
T
H
NORTH
NORTH
END
SCHOOL
ZONE
SPEED
LIMIT
35
SPEED
LIMIT
SCHOOL
WHEN
FLASHING
20
AHEAD
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 144
Pa
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
6
2
0
48 HOURS
NOTICE REQUIRED
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
PROJECT #:
DESIGNED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DA
T
E
#
BY
-1
NORTH
Location of crosswalk has been reviewed and acceptable.
Coordinate with assigned inspector for sidewalk ramps for
ADA compliance. If City Inspector determines civil plans
are needed, Contractor to work with Engineer for design
and submittal to City for review and approval before work
can continue on this crossing.
City of Pasco
Plan Review for Codes &
Standards Compliance
05/30/2025
The City of Pasco C&ED Engineering Department review is for general compliance with
City Design Standards, Codes, and Ordinances for improvements within the right of way
or City maintained easements. Omissions of compliance discovered after plan review
does not relieve the developer/property owner of the responsibility to comply with all
requirements and may be enforced in the field even if they were not included in the
approved plans.
On site facilities are reviewed primarily for stormwater compliance.
CC 145
Pa
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
6
2
0
From:Brian Cartwright
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:Tyler Johnson; Dan Jacobsen
Subject:RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
I would need confirmation that what is on the bond estimate is actually what is missing. It
seems logical, understanding the order of construction. They are paving today, so it makes
sense that they didn’t want to include the HMA. Prices are appropriate. Having the list come
from Sharp and Preszler is reassuring. They are a quality contractor that is on the up and up.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA
99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Tyler Johnson <johnsonty@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
They also mentioned that a bond estimate had been provided 40 days ago; however, I can
confirm that it was not provided to me in person, and the only record I have of the estimate is
the email that was sent yesterday.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-
wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:58 AM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Tyler Johnson <johnsonty@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Importance: High
I believe Tyler is currently acting as the interim inspector, but earlier today Jon and Dave
stopped by and provided several items, including the final plat, a bond check in the amount of
$529,556.25, and a couple of letters they said they would also send electronically. It was an
uncomfortable situation, and while I understand they are eager to move the plat forward, I
made it clear that the physical copy of the final plat cannot be approved until the bond
estimate is formally accepted and the memorandum provided to them addresses all of the
comments. For reference, the check appears to reflect 125% plus the additional 20%. I also
told them I could not issue a receipt at that time. In hindsight, I am not certain whether the
Page 152 of 620
check provided was a cashier’s check.
In any case, I want to ensure we proceed correctly. Please review the estimate they submitted
and feel free to respond directly to Jon or copy me. I also want to note that I previously
requested a punch list from Engineering a few weeks ago, and Tyler mentioned in person that
paving had not yet occurred, so the punch list would be extensive. I understand there has been
some turnover, so no worries—I'd just like to provide Jon with an accurate response.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-
wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:10 AM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; DAVE BAALMAN
<dbaalman@rogerssurveying.com>
Subject: Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Attached is the updated bond estimate.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:25 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Ivan,
Page 153 of 620
I had though this estimate included the required PSD signage for Burns Road, it turns out it
does not. I am having it revised and will send it to you as soon as it is ready.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:08 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
When we had originally completed our bond estimates we used an earlier forecast date,
and since then quite a bit of work has been completed. If you have reviewed our prior bond
estimate please provide those comments and we will incorporate them. If you haven’t yet
reviewed our bond estimate, please review the attached updated estimate. This is quite a
bit shorter and should save some time on your end.
Best regards,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 07:35 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for sending these over. Do you have any comments on the cost estimate we
submitted as a basis for our bond?
Page 154 of 620
Best regards,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 15:13 Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Please find the attached Final Plat Memorandum along with pertinent supporting
documents for your use and reference.
At this time, a resubmittal is required. Please review the comments outlined in the
memo, and don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 155 of 620
From:Brian Cartwright
To:Dan Jacobsen
Subject:FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Attachments:Bond breakdown 11-18.pdf
Importance:High
Can you let me know if the list of missing items looks ok.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA
99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:58 AM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Tyler Johnson <johnsonty@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Importance: High
I believe Tyler is currently acting as the interim inspector, but earlier today Jon and Dave
stopped by and provided several items, including the final plat, a bond check in the amount of
$529,556.25, and a couple of letters they said they would also send electronically. It was an
uncomfortable situation, and while I understand they are eager to move the plat forward, I
made it clear that the physical copy of the final plat cannot be approved until the bond
estimate is formally accepted and the memorandum provided to them addresses all of the
comments. For reference, the check appears to reflect 125% plus the additional 20%. I also
told them I could not issue a receipt at that time. In hindsight, I am not certain whether the
check provided was a cashier’s check.
In any case, I want to ensure we proceed correctly. Please review the estimate they submitted
and feel free to respond directly to Jon or copy me. I also want to note that I previously
requested a punch list from Engineering a few weeks ago, and Tyler mentioned in person that
paving had not yet occurred, so the punch list would be extensive. I understand there has been
some turnover, so no worries—I'd just like to provide Jon with an accurate response.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-
wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:10 AM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; DAVE BAALMAN
Page 156 of 620
<dbaalman@rogerssurveying.com>
Subject: Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Attached is the updated bond estimate.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:25 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Ivan,
I had though this estimate included the required PSD signage for Burns Road, it turns out it
does not. I am having it revised and will send it to you as soon as it is ready.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:08 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Page 157 of 620
When we had originally completed our bond estimates we used an earlier forecast date,
and since then quite a bit of work has been completed. If you have reviewed our prior bond
estimate please provide those comments and we will incorporate them. If you haven’t yet
reviewed our bond estimate, please review the attached updated estimate. This is quite a
bit shorter and should save some time on your end.
Best regards,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 07:35 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for sending these over. Do you have any comments on the cost estimate we
submitted as a basis for our bond?
Best regards,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 15:13 Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Please find the attached Final Plat Memorandum along with pertinent supporting
documents for your use and reference.
At this time, a resubmittal is required. Please review the comments outlined in the
Page 158 of 620
memo, and don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 159 of 620
From:Dan Jacobsen
To:Brian Cartwright
Subject:RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:56:23 AM
Not sure if these are valid items for a bond, but here are my comments:
1. Asbuilts/record drawings
2. Property pins
3. Catch basin protection
4. Hydroseeding
5. Landscaping
Dan Jacobsen, Senior Inspector
City of Pasco
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington 99301
Cell: 509-430-5951
jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under RCW 42.56 and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of
privacy.
From: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 1:38 PM
To: Dan Jacobsen <jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Importance: High
Can you let me know if the list of missing items looks ok.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA
99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:58 AM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Tyler Johnson <johnsonty@pasco-wa.gov>
Page 160 of 620
Subject: FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Importance: High
I believe Tyler is currently acting as the interim inspector, but earlier today Jon and Dave
stopped by and provided several items, including the final plat, a bond check in the amount of
$529,556.25, and a couple of letters they said they would also send electronically. It was an
uncomfortable situation, and while I understand they are eager to move the plat forward, I
made it clear that the physical copy of the final plat cannot be approved until the bond
estimate is formally accepted and the memorandum provided to them addresses all of the
comments. For reference, the check appears to reflect 125% plus the additional 20%. I also
told them I could not issue a receipt at that time. In hindsight, I am not certain whether the
check provided was a cashier’s check.
In any case, I want to ensure we proceed correctly. Please review the estimate they submitted
and feel free to respond directly to Jon or copy me. I also want to note that I previously
requested a punch list from Engineering a few weeks ago, and Tyler mentioned in person that
paving had not yet occurred, so the punch list would be extensive. I understand there has been
some turnover, so no worries—I'd just like to provide Jon with an accurate response.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-
wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:10 AM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; DAVE BAALMAN
<dbaalman@rogerssurveying.com>
Subject: Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Attached is the updated bond estimate.
Best regards,
Page 161 of 620
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:25 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Ivan,
I had though this estimate included the required PSD signage for Burns Road, it turns out it
does not. I am having it revised and will send it to you as soon as it is ready.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:08 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
When we had originally completed our bond estimates we used an earlier forecast date,
and since then quite a bit of work has been completed. If you have reviewed our prior bond
estimate please provide those comments and we will incorporate them. If you haven’t yet
reviewed our bond estimate, please review the attached updated estimate. This is quite a
bit shorter and should save some time on your end.
Best regards,
Page 162 of 620
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 07:35 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for sending these over. Do you have any comments on the cost estimate we
submitted as a basis for our bond?
Best regards,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 15:13 Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Please find the attached Final Plat Memorandum along with pertinent supporting
documents for your use and reference.
At this time, a resubmittal is required. Please review the comments outlined in the
memo, and don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
Page 163 of 620
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection andcopying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 164 of 620
From:Brian Cartwright
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
See Dan’s list below. I am not sure that #3 or #4 or required elements of the plat, but are
standard construction requirements. In addition, the buffering fence on Burns is a HE required
condition. That needs to be accounted for.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA
99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Dan Jacobsen <jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 7:56 AM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Not sure if these are valid items for a bond, but here are my comments:
1. Asbuilts/record drawings
2. Property pins
3. Catch basin protection
4. Hydroseeding
5. Landscaping
Dan Jacobsen, Senior Inspector
City of Pasco
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington 99301
Cell: 509-430-5951
jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under RCW 42.56 and subject to
inspection and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of
privacy.
From: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 1:38 PM
To: Dan Jacobsen <jacobsend@pasco-wa.gov>
Page 165 of 620
Subject: FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Importance: High
Can you let me know if the list of missing items looks ok.
Brian Cartwright | Development Services Manager | (509) 545-3445 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA
99301 | cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:58 AM
To: Brian Cartwright <cartwrightb@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Tyler Johnson <johnsonty@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: FW: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Importance: High
I believe Tyler is currently acting as the interim inspector, but earlier today Jon and Dave
stopped by and provided several items, including the final plat, a bond check in the amount of
$529,556.25, and a couple of letters they said they would also send electronically. It was an
uncomfortable situation, and while I understand they are eager to move the plat forward, I
made it clear that the physical copy of the final plat cannot be approved until the bond
estimate is formally accepted and the memorandum provided to them addresses all of the
comments. For reference, the check appears to reflect 125% plus the additional 20%. I also
told them I could not issue a receipt at that time. In hindsight, I am not certain whether the
check provided was a cashier’s check.
In any case, I want to ensure we proceed correctly. Please review the estimate they submitted
and feel free to respond directly to Jon or copy me. I also want to note that I previously
requested a punch list from Engineering a few weeks ago, and Tyler mentioned in person that
paving had not yet occurred, so the punch list would be extensive. I understand there has been
some turnover, so no worries—I'd just like to provide Jon with an accurate response.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-
wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection
and copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:10 AM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>; Craig Raymond <raymondc@pasco-wa.gov>; DAVE BAALMAN
<dbaalman@rogerssurveying.com>
Subject: Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Memo (FP2025-006)
Page 166 of 620
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Ivan,
Attached is the updated bond estimate.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:25 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Ivan,
I had though this estimate included the required PSD signage for Burns Road, it turns out it
does not. I am having it revised and will send it to you as soon as it is ready.
Best regards,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:08 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
When we had originally completed our bond estimates we used an earlier forecast date,
Page 167 of 620
and since then quite a bit of work has been completed. If you have reviewed our prior bond
estimate please provide those comments and we will incorporate them. If you haven’t yet
reviewed our bond estimate, please review the attached updated estimate. This is quite a
bit shorter and should save some time on your end.
Best regards,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 07:35 Jon Padvorac <jon@padvorac-consulting.com> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for sending these over. Do you have any comments on the cost estimate we
submitted as a basis for our bond?
Best regards,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 15:13 Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Please find the attached Final Plat Memorandum along with pertinent supporting
documents for your use and reference.
At this time, a resubmittal is required. Please review the comments outlined in the
memo, and don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
Page 168 of 620
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and
copying by the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 169 of 620
CC 164Page 170 of 620
CC 165Page 171 of 620
CC 166Page 172 of 620
CC 167Page 173 of 620
CC 168Page 174 of 620
CC 169Page 175 of 620
CC 170Page 176 of 620
CC 171Page 177 of 620
CC 172Page 178 of 620
CC 173Page 179 of 620
CC 174Page 180 of 620
CC 175Page 181 of 620
CC 176Page 182 of 620
CC 177Page 183 of 620
CC 178Page 184 of 620
CC 179Page 185 of 620
CC 180Page 186 of 620
CC 181Page 187 of 620
CC 182Page 188 of 620
CC 183Page 189 of 620
CC 184Page 190 of 620
CC 185Page 191 of 620
CC 186Page 192 of 620
CC 187Page 193 of 620
CC 188Page 194 of 620
CC 189Page 195 of 620
CC 190Page 196 of 620
CC 191Page 197 of 620
CC 192Page 198 of 620
CC 193Page 199 of 620
CC 194Page 200 of 620
CC 195Page 201 of 620
CC 196Page 202 of 620
CC 197Page 203 of 620
CC 198Page 204 of 620
CC 199Page 205 of 620
CC 200Page 206 of 620
CC 201Page 207 of 620
CC 202Page 208 of 620
CC 203Page 209 of 620
CC 204Page 210 of 620
CC 205Page 211 of 620
CC 206Page 212 of 620
CC 207Page 213 of 620
CC 208Page 214 of 620
CC 209Page 215 of 620
CC 210Page 216 of 620
CC 211Page 217 of 620
CC 212Page 218 of 620
CC 213Page 219 of 620
CC 214Page 220 of 620
CC 215Page 221 of 620
CC 216Page 222 of 620
CC 217Page 223 of 620
CC 218Page 224 of 620
CC 219Page 225 of 620
CC 220Page 226 of 620
CC 221Page 227 of 620
CC 222Page 228 of 620
CC 223Page 229 of 620
CC 224Page 230 of 620
CC 225Page 231 of 620
CC 226Page 232 of 620
CC 227Page 233 of 620
CC 228Page 234 of 620
CC 229Page 235 of 620
CC 230Page 236 of 620
CC 231Page 237 of 620
CC 232Page 238 of 620
CC 233Page 239 of 620
CC 234Page 240 of 620
CC 235Page 241 of 620
CC 236Page 242 of 620
CC 237Page 243 of 620
CC 238Page 244 of 620
CC 239Page 245 of 620
CC 240Page 246 of 620
CC 241Page 247 of 620
CC 242Page 248 of 620
CC 243Page 249 of 620
CC 244Page 250 of 620
CC 245Page 251 of 620
CC 246Page 252 of 620
CC 247Page 253 of 620
CC 248Page 254 of 620
CC 249Page 255 of 620
CC 250Page 256 of 620
CC 251Page 257 of 620
CC 252Page 258 of 620
CC 253Page 259 of 620
CC 254Page 260 of 620
CC 255Page 261 of 620
CC 256Page 262 of 620
CC 257Page 263 of 620
CC 258Page 264 of 620
CC 259Page 265 of 620
CC 260Page 266 of 620
CC 261Page 267 of 620
CC 262Page 268 of 620
CC 263Page 269 of 620
CC 264Page 270 of 620
CC 265Page 271 of 620
CC 266Page 272 of 620
CC 267Page 273 of 620
CC 268Page 274 of 620
CC 269Page 275 of 620
CC 270Page 276 of 620
CC 271Page 277 of 620
CC 272Page 278 of 620
CC 273Page 279 of 620
CC 274Page 280 of 620
CC 275Page 281 of 620
CC 276Page 282 of 620
CC 277Page 283 of 620
CC 278Page 284 of 620
CC 279Page 285 of 620
CC 280Page 286 of 620
CC 281Page 287 of 620
CC 282Page 288 of 620
CC 283Page 289 of 620
CC 284Page 290 of 620
CC 285Page 291 of 620
CC 286Page 292 of 620
CC 287Page 293 of 620
CC 288Page 294 of 620
CC 289Page 295 of 620
CC 290Page 296 of 620
CC 291Page 297 of 620
CC 292Page 298 of 620
CC 293Page 299 of 620
CC 294Page 300 of 620
CC 295Page 301 of 620
CC 296Page 302 of 620
CC 297Page 303 of 620
CC 298Page 304 of 620
CC 299Page 305 of 620
CC 300Page 306 of 620
CC 301Page 307 of 620
CC 302Page 308 of 620
CC 303Page 309 of 620
CC 304Page 310 of 620
CC 305Page 311 of 620
CC 306Page 312 of 620
CC 307Page 313 of 620
CC 308Page 314 of 620
CC 309Page 315 of 620
CC 310Page 316 of 620
CC 311Page 317 of 620
CC 312Page 318 of 620
CC 313Page 319 of 620
CC 314Page 320 of 620
CC 315Page 321 of 620
CC 316Page 322 of 620
CC 317Page 323 of 620
CC 318Page 324 of 620
CC 319Page 325 of 620
CC 320Page 326 of 620
CC 321Page 327 of 620
CC 322Page 328 of 620
CC 323Page 329 of 620
CC 324Page 330 of 620
CC 325Page 331 of 620
CC 326Page 332 of 620
CC 327Page 333 of 620
CC 328Page 334 of 620
CC 329Page 335 of 620
CC 330Page 336 of 620
CC 331Page 337 of 620
CC 332Page 338 of 620
CC 333Page 339 of 620
CC 334Page 340 of 620
CC 335Page 341 of 620
CC 336Page 342 of 620
CC 337Page 343 of 620
CC 338Page 344 of 620
CC 339Page 345 of 620
CC 340Page 346 of 620
CC 341Page 347 of 620
CC 342Page 348 of 620
CC 343Page 349 of 620
CC 344Page 350 of 620
CC 345Page 351 of 620
CC 346Page 352 of 620
CC 347Page 353 of 620
CC 348Page 354 of 620
CC 349Page 355 of 620
CC 350Page 356 of 620
CC 351Page 357 of 620
CC 352Page 358 of 620
CC 353Page 359 of 620
CC 354Page 360 of 620
CC 355Page 361 of 620
CC 356Page 362 of 620
CC 357Page 363 of 620
CC 358Page 364 of 620
CC 359Page 365 of 620
CC 360Page 366 of 620
CC 361Page 367 of 620
CC 362Page 368 of 620
CC 363Page 369 of 620
CC 364Page 370 of 620
CC 365Page 371 of 620
CC 366Page 372 of 620
CC 367Page 373 of 620
CC 368Page 374 of 620
CC 369Page 375 of 620
CC 370Page 376 of 620
CC 371Page 377 of 620
CC 372Page 378 of 620
CC 373Page 379 of 620
CC 374Page 380 of 620
CC 375Page 381 of 620
CC 376Page 382 of 620
CC 377Page 383 of 620
CC 378Page 384 of 620
CC 379Page 385 of 620
CC 380Page 386 of 620
CC 381Page 387 of 620
CC 382Page 388 of 620
CC 383Page 389 of 620
CC 384Page 390 of 620
CC 385Page 391 of 620
CC 386Page 392 of 620
CC 387Page 393 of 620
CC 388Page 394 of 620
CC 389Page 395 of 620
CC 390Page 396 of 620
CC 391Page 397 of 620
CC 392Page 398 of 620
CC 393Page 399 of 620
CC 394Page 400 of 620
CC 395Page 401 of 620
CC 396Page 402 of 620
CC 397Page 403 of 620
CC 398Page 404 of 620
CC 399Page 405 of 620
CC 400Page 406 of 620
CC 401Page 407 of 620
CC 402Page 408 of 620
CC 403Page 409 of 620
CC 404Page 410 of 620
CC 405Page 411 of 620
CC 406Page 412 of 620
CC 407Page 413 of 620
CC 408Page 414 of 620
CC 409Page 415 of 620
CC 410Page 416 of 620
CC 411Page 417 of 620
CC 412Page 418 of 620
CC 413Page 419 of 620
CC 414Page 420 of 620
CC 415Page 421 of 620
CC 416Page 422 of 620
CC 417Page 423 of 620
CC 418Page 424 of 620
CC 419Page 425 of 620
CC 420Page 426 of 620
CC 421Page 427 of 620
CC 422Page 428 of 620
CC 423Page 429 of 620
CC 424Page 430 of 620
CC 425Page 431 of 620
CC 426Page 432 of 620
CC 427Page 433 of 620
CC 428Page 434 of 620
CC 429Page 435 of 620
CC 430Page 436 of 620
CC 431Page 437 of 620
CC 432Page 438 of 620
CC 433Page 439 of 620
CC 434Page 440 of 620
CC 435Page 441 of 620
CC 436Page 442 of 620
CC 437Page 443 of 620
CC 438Page 444 of 620
CC 439Page 445 of 620
CC 440Page 446 of 620
CC 441Page 447 of 620
CC 442Page 448 of 620
CC 443Page 449 of 620
CC 444Page 450 of 620
CC 445Page 451 of 620
CC 446Page 452 of 620
CC 447Page 453 of 620
CC 448Page 454 of 620
CC 449Page 455 of 620
CC 450Page 456 of 620
CC 451Page 457 of 620
CC 452Page 458 of 620
CC 453Page 459 of 620
CC 454Page 460 of 620
CC 455Page 461 of 620
CC 456Page 462 of 620
CC 457Page 463 of 620
CC 458Page 464 of 620
CC 459Page 465 of 620
CC 460Page 466 of 620
CC 461Page 467 of 620
CC 462Page 468 of 620
CC 463Page 469 of 620
CC 464Page 470 of 620
CC 465Page 471 of 620
CC 466Page 472 of 620
CC 467Page 473 of 620
CC 468Page 474 of 620
CC 469Page 475 of 620
CC 470Page 476 of 620
CC 471Page 477 of 620
CC 472Page 478 of 620
CC 473Page 479 of 620
CC 474Page 480 of 620
CC 475Page 481 of 620
CC 476Page 482 of 620
CC 477Page 483 of 620
CC 478Page 484 of 620
CC 479Page 485 of 620
CC 480Page 486 of 620
CC 481Page 487 of 620
CC 482Page 488 of 620
CC 483Page 489 of 620
CC 484Page 490 of 620
CC 485Page 491 of 620
CC 486Page 492 of 620
CC 487Page 493 of 620
CC 488Page 494 of 620
CC 489Page 495 of 620
CC 490Page 496 of 620
CC 491Page 497 of 620
CC 492Page 498 of 620
CC 493Page 499 of 620
CC 494Page 500 of 620
CC 495Page 501 of 620
CC 496Page 502 of 620
CC 497Page 503 of 620
CC 498Page 504 of 620
CC 499Page 505 of 620
CC 500Page 506 of 620
CC 501Page 507 of 620
CC 502Page 508 of 620
CC 503Page 509 of 620
CC 504Page 510 of 620
CC 505Page 511 of 620
CC 506Page 512 of 620
CC 507Page 513 of 620
CC 508Page 514 of 620
CC 509Page 515 of 620
CC 510Page 516 of 620
CC 511Page 517 of 620
CC 512Page 518 of 620
CC 513Page 519 of 620
CC 514Page 520 of 620
CC 515Page 521 of 620
CC 516Page 522 of 620
CC 517Page 523 of 620
CC 518Page 524 of 620
CC 519Page 525 of 620
CC 520Page 526 of 620
CC 521Page 527 of 620
CC 522Page 528 of 620
CC 523Page 529 of 620
CC 524Page 530 of 620
CC 525Page 531 of 620
CC 526Page 532 of 620
CC 527Page 533 of 620
CC 528Page 534 of 620
CC 529Page 535 of 620
CC 530Page 536 of 620
CC 531Page 537 of 620
CC 532Page 538 of 620
CC 533Page 539 of 620
CC 534Page 540 of 620
CC 535Page 541 of 620
CC 536Page 542 of 620
CC 537Page 543 of 620
CC 538Page 544 of 620
CC 539Page 545 of 620
CC 540Page 546 of 620
CC 541Page 547 of 620
CC 542Page 548 of 620
CC 543Page 549 of 620
CC 544Page 550 of 620
CC 545Page 551 of 620
CC 546Page 552 of 620
CC 547Page 553 of 620
CC 548Page 554 of 620
CC 549Page 555 of 620
CC 550Page 556 of 620
CC 551Page 557 of 620
CC 552Page 558 of 620
CC 553Page 559 of 620
CC 554Page 560 of 620
CC 555Page 561 of 620
CC 556Page 562 of 620
CC 557Page 563 of 620
CC 558Page 564 of 620
CC 559Page 565 of 620
CC 560Page 566 of 620
CC 561Page 567 of 620
CC 562Page 568 of 620
CC 563Page 569 of 620
CC 564Page 570 of 620
CC 565Page 571 of 620
CC 566Page 572 of 620
CC 567Page 573 of 620
CC 568Page 574 of 620
CC 569Page 575 of 620
CC 570Page 576 of 620
CC 571Page 577 of 620
1
Index of Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat Record
DATE TITLE
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
BATES
NUMBER
10-14-2025 Final Plat Application 1 CC 1
10-14-25
(Created)
10-23-25
(Modified)
Proposed Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat, FP2025-006 2 CC 2 - CC 3
10-13-2025 Title Report 3 CC 4 – CC 7
10-23-2025 FP2025-006 Notice of Complete Application 4 CC 8
10-27-2025 E-mail from D. Payne, Rogers Surveying, to I. Barragan transmitting plat CAD (.dwg) file 5 CC 9 – CC 10
10-28-2025 E-mail from C. Roberts, Franklin County Public Utility District to I. Barragan re: easement requirement
6 CC 11 – CC 12
11 -6-2025 MPN Phase 1 Water Rights Estimate 7 CC 13
11 -6-2025 E-mail from K. Casey, Franklin County Assessor’s Office, to I. Barragan re parcel verification
8 CC 14 – CC 15
11 -6-2025 Memo from Franklin County Assessor’s Office re final plat application comments 9 CC 16
11 -6-2025 Franklin County Verification of Parcel Numbers form 10 CC 17
11 -13-2025 E-mail from J. Padvorac re final plat fees 11 CC 18 – CC 21
11 -14-2025 Memo from I. Barragan to Farm 2005, LLC re City comments on proposed final plat 12 CC 22
11 -19-2025 Memo from Padvorac Consulting to I. Barragan, re response to MPN Phase 1 Final Plat Memo
13 CC 23 – CC 28
11 -21-2025 E-mail from J. Padvorac to I. Barrigan with MPN PH1 Final Plat Memo (duplicate digital copy)
14 CC 29
11 -24-2025 Email from C. Kerry to I. Barrigan re: returned checks 15 CC 30 – CC 31
11 -24-2025 E-mail from C. Raymond to J. Padvorac and D. Swisher 16 CC 32
11 -26-2025 Letter from I. Barragan to D. Swisher regarding bond approval 17 CC 33
11 -26-2025 E-mail from B. Cartwright to I. Barragan re bond cost estimates 18 CC 34 – CC 36
Undated FP2025-006 Lot Report 19 CC 37 – CC 59
Page 578 of 620
2
DATE TITLE
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
BATES
NUMBER
11 -28-2025 E-mail D. Baalman from Rogers Surveying – I. Barragan re FP2025-006 plat counter submittal transmitting .pdf of final plat
20 CC 60 – CC 62
11 -28-2025
(Created)
12-1-2025
(Modified)
Proposed Final Plat 21 CC 63 – CC 65
12-1-2025 E-mail from C. Raymond re-wired bond funds 22 CC 66 – CC 67
12-18-2025 E-mail from I. Barrigan – J. Padvorac / D. Swisher re MPN Phase 1 final plat ready to be picked up
23 CC 68
12-17-2025 E-mail from P. Jimenez – G. Garcia re returned checks 24 CC 69 – CC 70
12-17-2025 E-mail from J. Padvorac – I. Barragan withdrawing minor modification request 25 CC 71 – CC 74
12-19-2025 MPN Phase 1 Final Plat Recorded FP2025-006 26 CC 75 – CC 76
3–24-2025 Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Conditions of Approval, Madison Park North Preliminary Plat, PP22-0007
27 CC 77 – CC 105
12-29-2025 Notice of Appeal of Administrative Approval of Final Plat, Madison Park North Phase 1
28* CC 106 – CC 113
03-24-2025 Approved MPN Preliminary Plat (Sheets 1-8) 29 CC 114 – CC 122
05-30-2025 Approved Civil Engineering Plans, Madison Park North Phase 1. 30 CC 123 – CC 145
11 -19-2025 B. Cartwright email 11-19-2025 re proposed bond estimate 31 CC 146 – CC 149
11 -19-2025 B. Cartwright email to Jacobsen re proposed bond estimate 32 CC 150 – CC 153
11 -20-2025 D. Jacobsen email re proposed bond estimate 33 CC 154 – CC 158
11 -20-2025 B. Cartwright email to Barrigan 11.20.2025 re proposed bond estimate 34 CC 159 – CC 163
Page 579 of 620
3
DATE TITLE
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
BATES
NUMBER
12-29-2025 Notice of Appeal of Administrative Approval of Final Plat, Madison Park North Phase 1 with Appendices and Exhibits
35* – Replaces
stricken Doc 28
CC 164 – CC 571
Page 580 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY
DAVE SWISHER,an unmarried No.25—2-50360-11
person,and FARM 2005,LLC,a
Washington Limited Liability
Company,ORDER ON LUPA APPEAL,MOTION
TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL
Petitioners,RECORD,AND MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR MOOTNESS
v.
CITY OF PASCO,a Washington
municipal corporation;PASCO
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1,a public
school district,
Respondents.I
This case comes before the Court for determination on Petitioners’LUPA appeal of a
decision by the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner dated March 24,2025 on the Petitioners’
preliminary plat application for Madison Park North (hereinafter MPN).The Court heard the
argument of counsel on December 3,2025 and has reviewed the record and pleadings submitted
in this matter.The Hearing Examiner’s decision approved a preliminary plat application with
conditions for MPN,which is a proposed residential housing subdivision within the City of
Pasco,The Petitioner challenged several of the Hearing Examiner’s Findings,Conclusions of
Law,and Conditions of Approval on the preliminary plat application.
PAGE 1 OF 21
Page 581 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
After timely ?ling a LUPA appeal,on September 9,2025 the Petitioner ?led a 164 page
“Supplemental Administrative Record.”Respondent objected to the Court reviewmg that ?ling
and moved to strike the Supplemental AdministrativeRecord.Petitioners’?led a response to the
City’s Motion to Strike.The City ?led a strict reply.
On December 2,2025,Respondent City of Pasco ?led a “Supplemental Brief Regarding
Moomess,”arguing that Petitioners’actions developing MPN subsequent to the LUPA appeal
rendered several of the Petitioners”complained-of conditions of the preliminary plat moot.
Petitioner ?led a response to the Brief Regarding Mootness;Respondent ?led a strict reply.
While Petitioner appealed numerous Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and
Conditions of Approval in their Amended LUPA petition,their brie?ng and argument at oral
argument focused on objections to Conditions of Approval (COA)3,17,19 and 21.This Court
likewise focuses this ruling on those issues,for “unsubstantiated assignments of error are deemed
abandoned[,]”Kittitas County v.Kim'tas County Conserv.Coal,176 Wn.App.38,54 (2013),
and “unchallenged conclusions become the law of the case.”Rush 12.Blackburn,190 Wn.App.
945,956 (2015).This includes Petitioners’unsubstantiated objection to Hearing Examiner’s
Conclusions of Law 1 and 5 and any Findings of Fact not discussed in more detail below.
The Court hereby makes the following ?ndings and conclusions on the issues before it.
1.FINDINGS OF FACT RE:MOTION TO STRIKE
SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
1.1 This action is a Land Use Petition ?led under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA),RCW
36.700 This Court has jurisdiction on the issues before it pursuant to RCW
367000400).
12 On June 2,2025 a Case Schedule Order (LUPA)was ?led setting the date for the Record
to be submitted as July 28,2025,and Petitioners’opening brief was due September 2,
2025.
PAGE 2 OF 21
Page 582 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
1.3 On September 9,2025 ,Petitioners ?led a documenttitled “Supplemental Administrative
Recor ”with the Clerk of the Court consisting of 164 pages,citing RCW 36.70C.120(2)
and (4).
1.4 The Court did not request from,or grant permission to,either party to provide
supplemental evidence,nor did the Court have a hearing with all parties present on any
request from any party to ?le any supplemental evidence.
1.5 RCW 36.70C.120(5)states:“...Ifthecourt allows the record to be Supplemented,the
court shall require the parties to disclose before the hearing or trial on the merits the
speci?c evidence they intend to offer.”(emphasis added).
1.6 RCW 36.70C.130(1)states:“The superior court acting without a jury,shall review the
record and such supplemental evidence as is permitted under RCW 36.700120.”
(emphasis added).
H.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE:MOTION TO STRIKE
SUPPLEMENTAL ADNHNISTRATIVE RECORD
2.1 A plain reading of RCW 36.700120 and .130 show that Court permission is required
before supplemental evidence should be ?led and considered in a LUPA appeal.Such
permission could be granted after a hearing with all parties and careful consideration of
the arguments by the Court to determine if the proffered evidence meets the criteria for
supplementation pursuant to RCW 36.7 0C.120.
2.2 In this case,no such hearing was held nor was permission of the Court sought prior to the
Petitioner ?ling the “Supplemental Administrative Record”on September 9,2025,
approximately ?ve (5)weeks after the due date for submitting the Record to Superior
Court and after the due date for Petitioners’Opening Brief.
2.3 Because the Petitioners did not obtain Court permission to supplement the record in this
case,and due process was denied to the Respondents on the issue,the Court will
GRANT the Respondent’s motion to strike the September 9,2025 ?ling of the Petitioner
titled “Supplemental Administrative Record”and will not consider it in reaching its
further decisions.
III.FINDINGS OF FACT RE:MOOTNESS FOR
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3,19 AND 21
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW 2
3.1 On April 7,2023 Petitioners submitted a Preliminary Plat Application and SEPA
Environmental Checklist with the City of Pasco,asking for approval to subdivide a
PAGE 3 OF 21
Page 583 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
129.9-acre parcel of former farmland into 461 single—familyresidential lots for a project
known as “Madison Park North.”AR 2732-33.
3.2 The subject parcel is Assessor Parcel No.114-250—018located in the City of Pasco,
Franklin County,Washington.
3.3 Petitioners are the property owners for Parcel No.114-250-018 and have standing for
this LUPA appeal pursuant to RCW 36.70C.060(1).
3.4 Because the parcel is undeveloped and former farmland,the parcel will require
signi?cant development by way of roads,utilities,sewer,and water to be ?t for
residential purposes.
3.5 A Local Improvement District (hereinafter LID)was formed for the purposes of
bringing sewer connection to the parcel in 2022 and sewage is not at issue in this LUPA
appeal.AR 2813—17.
3.6 Municipal water is expected to be extended to the parcel ?om the southwest and is also
not at issue in this LUPA appeal.
3.7 Provisions for utilities to the property were provided for in the Hearing Examiner’s
approval of the Preliminary Plat application and were not appealed and are thus not at
issue in this LUPA appeal.
3.8 Road development and dedication is an issue in this appeal to be discussed further in?a.
3.9 The parcel is bounded by,and would propose to have access from,Burns Road on the
south,Road 52 on the west,Deseret Drive on the north,and Road 44 on the east.AR
2733.
3.10 Petitioners’preliminary plat application included a proposed dedication of a 100—
foot—wideright-of—way(hereinafter ROW)for Burns Road along the southern boundary
ofthe parcel.See AR 3170,3171;AR 815.
3.11 The SEPA application related to this parcel is not at issue in this LUPA appeal.A
revised Mitigated Determination of Non—Signi?cance (MDNS)for Madison Park North
Preliminary Plat was issued by the City of Pasco on November 4,2024 and was not
appealed and is fmal as of November 25,2024.AR 2778.
3.12 The City of Pasco required Petitioners to conduct a Traf?c Impact Analysis
(hereinafter TIA)to determine the proposal’s impacts on the City’s transportation
system network as part of MPN’s preliminary plat application.Petitioners hired Transpo
Group to prepare the TIA.Transpo Group submitted a ?nal TIA to the City in April
2024.AR 143 0.
PAGE 4 OF 21
Page 584 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE 5 OF 21
3.13 The TIA was then peer reviewed by the City’s consulting engineers,PBS
Engineering &Environmental.PBS indicated that the TIA was reviewed for
completeness,and that no errors or concerns were found.AR 1464.
3.14 The TIA made recommendations for mitigation of any traf?c impact from MPN’s
development,including payment of the standard per—lottraf?c impact fee (TIF)of $709
pursuant to Pasco Municipal Code (PMC)3.35.230;and frontage improvements with a
ROW dedication to allow for future extension of Burns Road between Road 52 and
Glade Road with a recommendation for credit to be given to the developer for the ROW
dedication and frontage improvements.AR 1460.
3.15 The TIA recognizes that Burns Road is slated to be classi?ed as a “principal arterial”
road in the future with eventual widening to a 5—laneroadway consistent with a principal
arterial classi?cation.AR 1436;AR 1182;AR 1059.
3.16 Funding for improvements to Burns Road to eventually develop it into a principal
arterial are defined in the City’s Transportation Element of their 2021 Comprehensive
Plan —Volume II as coming from “Arterial Street Fund,I-182 Corridor Impact Fund,
Developer,Fed STBG grant.”AR 1074.
3.17 The City of Pasco adopted a Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP)as a
supplement to the 2018-2038 Pasco Comprehensive Plan by Resolution 4220 of City
Council on August 1,2022.AR 1132—33.The City’s TSMP shows near-term projects for
relevant areas of Burns Road to include widening it to three (3)lanes from Broadmoor
Boulevard to Road 44 and installing an all—waystop control at Road 52 and Burns Road.
AR 1174.While it lists a projected cost for improvements to Burns Road,the TSMP
does not specify who would pay for those listed improvements.Id.
3.18 Resolution 4220 recites that City Council adopted their 2018-2038 Comprehensive
Plan on June 7,2021 as required by the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA).The
GMA requires cities to have a “transportation element”of their Comprehensive Plan,
and that that transportation element must contain “goals,policies,and evaluation of
criteria that de?ne a vision for a city’s transportation future[.]”The Resolution further
recites that the TSMP contains the “operational and safety performance of the City’s
existing and future transportation system to support growth through the year 2040,”and
the TSMP conforms to the City’s goals related to the Community Transportation
Network.The Resolution does not contain languagewhich would incorporate by
reference the TSMP into the Comprehensive Plan or any other plan.AR 1132.
3.19 A public hearing on the MPN preliminary plat application was held before a City of
Pasco Hearing Examiner on January 22,2025.
3.20 The Hearing Examiner approved the MPN Preliminary Plat application in a decision
that encompassed 35 Findings of Fact (with many subparts),six (6)Conclusions of Law
and 21 Conditions of Approval.
Page 585 of 620
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.21 Petitioner timely appealed the decision,appealing numerous Findings,Conclusions,
and Conditions.At issue for the purposes of Respondent City of Pasco’s motion to ?nd
certain appealed conditions moot are Conditions of Approval 3,19 and 21.Resp.City ’5
Reply in Support ofSupplemental BriefRe:Mootness,p.27,?led 12/24/25.
3.22 Condition of Approval 3 to the Hearing Examiner’s decision states as follows:“The
face of the ?nal plat shall include this statement:‘As a condition of approval of this plat,
pursuant to RCW 35 .43.182 the owner hereby waives for a period often (10)years from
the date of approval of this plat the right to protest the formation of a Local
Improvement District (LID)or Utility Local Improvement District (ULID)for the
?nancing and construction of transportation and/or utility improvements that specially
bene?t property owner(s)within this plat and are identified in the Capital Facilities
Element of the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan,or documents adopted and
incorporated by reference therein.This waiver shall be liberally construed in accordance
with and to accomplish the purposes ofRCW 35.43182?”AR 866.
3.23 Related to Condition of Approval 3,Conclusion of Law 2 stated that there was a legal
and factual basis for a requirement that the face of the plat include a no-protest provision
on formation of a LID or ULID.AR 865.
3.24 Condition of Approval 19 to the Hearing Examiner’s decision states as follows:
“Applicant shall ensure all proposed road alignments are designed and constructed in
compliance with PMC 21.15.03 0(1)and (2)1,Street Standards,and the City’s codes and
standards in relationship to adjoining plats and their streets.Speci?cally,the streets of
the proposed plat shall be adjusted to align with the two already-approved County
subdivisions to the North:Zaragoza Addition (Road 47)and Towers landing (Road 51).
The concept of re—alignrnent of Road 47 and 51 presented by the applicant on 12/6/24,
may be implemented as a minor adjustment as opposed to a major adjustment to the
preliminary plat in accordance with PMC 21.25.080.”AR 868.
3.25 Condition of Approval 21 to the Hearing Examiner’s decision states as follows:“The
Pasco School District has demonstrated,by the testimony of Paul Knutson at the open
record public hearing,and the January 8,2025 comment letter that there are direct
impacts to the school district regarding school children at or near Pasco School District
Property.Because of these impacts,the developer shall work with the School District to
address these direct impacts,by adding advanced warning signs on both Burns Road and
1 PMC 2 1.15.030(1):“Adequate and proper right-of—wayimprovements shall be required at the
time adjoining property is developed and shall be required on all property.As a minimum a three-quarter street
standard will be required if the property being developed only ?onts on one side of the street.”
PMC 21.15 030(2):“Adequate and proper right—of—wayimprovementsshall include curb,gutter,
sidewalk,illumination,traf?c control devices,drainage control,engineered road bases,asphalt driving and parking
lanes,nonmotorized facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians,and monumentation.All such improvements shall be
approved by the City prior to construction and acceptance.The three~quarterstreet standard shall include curb,
gutter and sidewalk on the developed side and a minimum of two complete traf?c lanes.”
PAGE 6 OF 21
Page 586 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Road 52,adding ?ashing beacons on North bound and South bound Road 52,and
upgrade the existing crosswalk at the non—controlledintersectionof Santa Cruz Lane andRoad52,to include a RRFB [rectangular rapid ?ashing beacon].”AR 869.
3.26 As part of the approval of the preliminary plat application for MPN,MPN was
required to dedicate and improve half the required ROW on Road 52,and an abutting
residential development,Raven Place,was required to dedicate the other half of the
ROW for Road 52.Tr.87-88;182.
3.27 As part of the preliminary plat approval,MPN was required to dedicate between 70’
to 100’of land on the southern parcel boundary for future development of Burns Road.
AR 866,COL 4.The abutting residential development to the south,Madison Park
South,was only required to dedicate 30’feet of ROW for Burns Road as far east as
Rarnus Lane when Madison Park South was developed,so MPN was required to
dedicate an additional 70’between Road 52 and Ramus Lane,and then a full 100’
dedication ?om Ramus Lane to Road 44 to create a contiguous and relatively straight
100’wide roadway for Burns Road to be built into a principal arterial in the future.Id.
3.28 Subsequent to the LUPA appeal,there is no dispute that Petitioner continued forward
with development of MPN.See Dec.ofSwisher,Dec.17,2025.
3.29 Petitioner sought approval of its civil engineering plans for Phase 1 and Right—of-Way
work Permit to allow Petitioner to begin frontage improvements.The engineering plans
show Burns Road extended to Road 44 at a maximum width of 100 feet.Ex.A to
Cartwright Dec.,Dec.2,2025.
3.30 There is no dispute that in order to have an approved ?nal plat,the Petitioner would
have to construct certain infrastructure improvements to the parcel,pursuant to PMC
21.30.05 0.There is no dispute that the City required construction and dedication of
frontage improvements (i.e.road building)on a small portion of Road 52 and Burns
Road for both the preliminary plat approval and ?nal plat approval for Phase 1 of MPN,
which is located in the southwest corner of the parcel.Ex.F to Barragan Dec.,Dec.24,
2025.
3.31 There is no dispute that subsequent to their LUPA appeal and before the end of 2025,
Petitioners had built the ?'ontage improvements on Road 52 and Burns Road necessary
for Phase 1,as well as the school improvements required through Condition of Approval
21 to their Preliminary Plat application,and NIPN received an approved final plat from
the City.Petitioners contend that they did all of that “under protest”and with “full
reservation of rights.”Swisher Dec.,pg.5—6.
3.32 No evidence,other than Swisher’s statement that the final plat was recorded “under
protest”and “with full reservation of rights”was submitted in support of Swisher’s
statement that any development of MPN subsequent to the LUPA appeal was done
“under protest.”
PAGE 7 OF 21
Page 587 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
3.33 Petitioners’do not dispute that they have installed school zone improvements at Road
52 and Santa Cruz Lane to include a rectangular rapid ?ashing beacon and sidewalk and
signage improvements meant to improve safety for students accessing Pasco School
District property.Part of the required infrastructure development for approval of a ?nal
plat for MPN Phase 1 was the off-site school access improvements to Pasco School
District properties (i.e.the nearby high school and elementary school).The ?nal plat for
Phase 1 of MPN incorporates these infrastructure improvements,as they were a
requirement of the preliminary plat approval.AR 860-61,869;Padvorac Dec,1]17,
Dec.17,2025 .
3.34 Petitioners moved forward with development and recording a ?nal plat for MPN
Phase 1 because if they did not do so by the end of calendar year 2025,they would lose
out on an opportunity to sell the land to a developer and would have to refund a $4
million dollar deposit to the buyer.If the ?nal plat was recorded and the sale done
before the end of 2025 ,the Petitioner stood to make $3.4 million in pro?t.Swisher Dec.
pg.6-7,Dec.17,2025.
3.35 Petitioners aclmowledge that they chose to move forward with development despite a
pending LUPA appeal because if they did not do so,they would suffer ?nancial
consequences from losing the sale to a buyer.Swisher Dec.Para.12.They also
acknowledged that a decision about moving forward with a final plat application and
further development took time and consideration because of the pending LUPA
litigation.Swisher Dec.1]11—12,Dec.17,2025.
3.36 A ?nal plat has been accepted and recorded by the City for MPN,Phase 1.The face
of the ?nal plat for Phase 1 contains the following language:
3.36.1 “Dedication.1,Steve West,Authorized Representative of F arm 2005,
LLC,hereby certify that we are the owners of the tract of land described
hereon and that we have caused said land to be surveyed and platted into
lots as shown hereon and the street rights of way and utility easements are
hereby dedicated to the use of the public and that said subdivision shall
hereafter be designated by the name of “Madison Park North,Phase 1.”
Ex.F to Barragan Dec,Dec.24,2025.
3.36.2 “City of Pasco Notes:1.A condition of approval of this plat,pursuant to
RCW 35.43.182 the owner hereby waives for a period of ten (10)years
form the date of approval of this plat the right to protest the formation of a
local improvement district (LID)or Utility Local Improvement District
(ULID)for the ?nancing and construction of transportation and/or utility
improvements that specially bene?t property owner(s)within this plat and
are identi?ed in the Capital Facilities Element of the City of Pasco’s
Comprehensive Plan,or documents adopted and incorporated by reference
therein.This waiver shall be liberally construed in accordance with and to
accomplish the purposes of RCW 35.43.182.”Ex.F to Barragan Dec,
Dec.24,2025.
PAGE 8 OF 21
Page 588 of 620
10
ll
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
3.37 The dedication of ROW for Burns Road on the ?nal plat for Phase 1 is for a portion
of Burns Road from Road 52 to Ramus Lane,not the entirety of Burns Road as it
abuts MPN.The remainder of Burns Road from Ramus Lane to Road 44 on the
eastern edge of the MPN parcel has not been dedicated to the City or part of a ?nal
plat application to the Court’s knowledge.
3.38 Petitioners argue that COA 3,19 and 21 are not moot because this Court can
determine the validity of the underlying land use decision,regardless of whether
improvements have been made to the land subject to that decision At oral argument,
counsel for Petitioners stated that a decision of this court on the issues would be used
in a parallel pending federal case for damages.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE:MOOTNESS
ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3,19 AND 21
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW 2
4.1 RCW 36.70C empowers Superior Courts to provide “judicial review of land use
decisions made by local jurisdictions”and does not apply to claims for monetary
damages or compensation.RCW 36.700010,.030(l)(c).
4.2 In a LUPA case,the Court’s ability to provide “relief”to a party is limited to
“af?rm[ing]or revers [ing]the land use decision under review or remand[ing]it for
modi?cation or further proceedings.”RCW 36.700140.The Court cannot award
damages or compensation to either party,nor can “a grant of relief by itself ...be
deemed to establish liability for monetary damages or compensation.”RCW
3 6.700 130.
4.3 Mootness of a claim is an issue that may be raised at any time and directly impacts
the Court’s jurisdiction to grant relief.Harbor Lands LP v.City ofBZaine,146 Wash.
App.589,592 (2008).“A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective
relief.”Heritage Grove v.Dep ’t ofHealth,11 Wn.App.2d 406,412 (2019).Because
the issue of mootness necessarily only arose after the LUPA appeal,the Court cannot
base its decision on the issue of mootness only on the LUPA record,as Petitioners’
counsel suggests.Both parties had the opportunity to fully brief the issue of mootness
for the Court followingthe oral argument hearing on December 3,2025 and the Court
takes into consideration their briefs and declarations in support thereof in addition to
the LUPA record.
4.4 Final plat applications are separate from preliminary plat applications.RCW
5 8.17.130.A decision on a final plat application would be a ?nal land use decision
subject to a LUPA appeal.A fnial plat is not approved until all improvements are in
place or bonded.
PAGE 9 OF 21
Page 589 of 620
10
ll
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
4.5 Petitioners appealed requirements imposed by the Hearing Examiner to their
preliminary plat application through their LUPA action,but then agreed to and bound
themselves to three of those same objected-to conditions in their recorded Final Plat
application for Phase 1 of MPN,rendering parts of their LUPA appeal moot,
speci?cally Conditions 3 and 21 and part of Condition 19 of the Hearing Examiner’s
Decision.Because the Petitioner has recorded a ?nal plat for Phase 1 which
supersedes the preliminary plat and which requires it to dedicate land on part of Burns
Road and Road 52;requires it to construct school zone improvements off—site;and
because the ?nal plat has language on the face in line with Condition of Approval 3
regarding the LID/ULID no-protest provision,this Court can no longer provide any
relief to Petitioners in their appeal of those same conditions of approval from the
Preliminary Plat application.
4.6 The Petitioners’statement that they proceeded with these improvements under a
“reservation of rights”and/or “under protest”is not supported by any evidence other
than Petitioner Swisher’s statement in his declaration,and the plain language of the
?nal plat contains no such reservation of rights.Since the Petitioner is bound by the
final plat to do that which they objected to in the LUPA appeal regarding their
preliminary plat,their LUPA as to Conditions of Approval 3 and 21 and part of
Condition of Approval 19 of their preliminary plat approval are now moot.Just as
Petitioner recognized as a risk of their development in the middle of litigation,
“development which occurs after the commencement of litigation is at the
developer’s risk...fD]evelopers,and especially their lenders,generally are unwilling
to assume this risk and hence refrain from development until litigation is
concluded....”Kelly 11.County ofChelan,167 Wash.2d 867,871 (2010),citing
Richard L.Settle,Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice,§
8.7(a),at 252 (1983).
4.7 Just as in Harbor Lands,the Petitioner contends that its LUPA appeal as to
Conditions 3,19 and 21 is not moot because the court’s decision in this matter could
form the basis for compensation in a collateral federal litigation matter.Harbor
Lands,146 Wash.App.at 593.Petitioner has no legal right for this Court to issue
what amounts to an advisory opinion for use in a different court action;the only right
they had was for this court to affirm,reverse or remand the land use decision.
4.8 Because Condition of Approval 3 and 21 are moot as noted above,this Court has no
jurisdiction to further address them.Because Conditionof Approval 3 is moot,the
Petitioners’LUPA appeal as to Conclusion of Law 2 is also moot as they are
essentially the same.
4.9 Condition of Approval 19 was rendered partially moot as it pertains to the recorded
dedication of Burns Road between Road 52 and Ramus Lane.The remainder of the
preliminary plat application which required dedication of land for Burns Road
between Ramus Lane and Road 44 is not moot because it is not subject to the Phase 1
?nal plat,and is discussed further in?a.
PAGE 10 0F 21
Page 590 of 620
10
ll
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
V.FINDlNGS OF FACT RE:CONCLUSIONSOF LAW 4 AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 17 AND 19
5.1 Findings of Fact 3.1 —3.37 Supra are incorporated herein by reference.
5.2 Petitioner ?led a LUPA Petition on April 11,2025,followed by an Amended LUPA
petition ?led April 18,2025 and a Second Amended LUPA petition on May 23,2025.
5.3 Petitioner formally appealed numerous of the Hearing Examiner’s Findings,
Conclusionsand Conditions of Approval,as follows:
5.3.1 Petitioners took exception to the following Findings of Fact:4.1,4.2,
6.3,7,8.3,8.4,8.5,8.6,8.7,8.8,8.9,10.5,13,18,19,19.1,20,20.1.2,
20.1.4,20.1.5,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,32.1,32.2,32.3,32.4,
33,and 34.
5.3.2 Petitioners took exception to the following Conclusions of Law:1,2,3,
4,and 5.
5.3.3 Petitioners took exception to the following Conditions of Approval:3,
17,19,21.
5.4 Petitioners’Opening brief focuses on Petitioners’exceptions to Conclusion of Law 4,
and Conditions of Approval 3,17,19,and 21 .As noted supra,exceptions to
Conditions of Approval 3 and 21 are moot,and part of Conditions of Approval 19 is
moot.
5.5 Conclusion of Law 4 found that the City had established a factual and legal basis for
requiring MPN to dedicate the “full 100-foot right—of-wayfor Burns Road or build a
three-land road segment over the Burns Road Extension from Ramus Road to the
eastern boundary of the subdivision”based on traf?c impact data from MPN’s TIA.
5.6 Condition of Approval 17 of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision is as follows:“Park,
Traf?c and School impact fees at the then—applicableimpact fee rate will be collected
for each lot at the time of issuance of building permits for new residences,with traf?c
impact fees of $328,976 payable prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Credits and reductions to the Park impact fees will be provided commensurate with
the value of the park land and improvements as determined by the Director in
accordance with RCW 82.02.060(5),PMC 3.40.090 and PMC 3.50.070 and the
Conditions of Approval of this Preliminary Plat.Credits and reductions to the
Transportation Impact Fees are not required.”
5.7 Finding of Fact 18 relates to COA 17 and states as follows:“The lVIDNS[mitigated
determination of non-signi?cance]calls for Applicants to pay a transportation impact
fee (TIP)of $709 per lot ($328,976 total for all 464 lots)in full prior to ?rst building
permit.As discussed in the Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval below,
payment of the impact fees is required at the time of building permit issuance,in
amounts calculated at the then-applicable impact fee rate.”
PAGE 11 OF 21
Page 591 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
5.8 Finding of Fact 20.1.4 relates to COA 17 and states as follows:“In accordance with
Revised MDNS and applicable Traf?c Impact,Ordinance (PMC Ch.3.40),Madison
Park North shall pay as [sic]traf?c impact fee of $328,976 in a lump sum prior to
issuance of the ?rst building permit,along with any traf?c impact fees at the then—
applicable rate at the time of building permit issuance.”
5.9 Petitioners”Amended MDNS issued November 4,2024 stated as follows in regards
to payment to mitigate traf?c impacts:“1.The applicant shall pay mitigation to the
City of Pasco for impacts to the City roadway system.The mitigation required is
$709.00 per residential unit.The project will result in 464 residential units.Thus,
$709 X 464 =$328,976.00 total traf?c mitigation required.Payment of traf?c
mitigation fees to the City is required prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.”AR 1763—64.
5.10 Petitioners’LUPA petition and subsequent amended LUPA petitions argue that the
“denial of credits and reductions of UPS is not supported by substantial evidence,is
contrary to law,clearly erroneous and violates Petitioners’constitutional rights.”
Petitioners’Opening Brief suggests that it also takes issue with some ambiguous
language in COA 17,suggesting that TlFs are due both at the time of issuance of each
new building permit and in full prior to the issuance of the ?rst building permit.Pet’s.
Opening Brief,pg.93.
5.11 MPN agreed to dedicate just over 2 acres of land in MPN for purposes of a public
park and build recreation facilities on the dedicated park land.Any issues related to
the park dedication,building or park impact fees and/or credits are not at issue in the
LUPA.
5.12 Credits are due to a developer for “system improvements”as de?ned by RCW
82.02.060(5).Credits are not required to be given to a developer for improvements
which are “project improvements”as de?ned by RCW 82.02.0906).
5.13 “Project improvements”is de?ned in RCW 82.020.090(5)as follows:“‘Project
improvements’mean site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed
to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the
use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project,and are not system
improvements.An improvementor facility included in a capital facilities plan
approved by the governing body of the county,city,or town is not considered a
project improvement.”
5.14 “System improvement”is defined in RCW 82.02.090(10)as follows:“‘System
improvements”mean public facilities that are included in the capital facilities plan
and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large,in
contrast to project improvements.”
PAGE 12 OF 21
Page 592 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
5.15 PMC 3.40.080 states:“A credit,not to exceed the amount of the transportation
impact fee otherwise required by this chapter,shall be provided for the actual value of
any dedication of land for,improvement to,or new construction of a transportation
system improvement provided by the developer and identi?ed in the Comprehensive
Plan capital facilities element (or other plan expressly adopted by reference therein),
and required by the City as a condition of a development approval.A credit shall also
be provided in the amount of a transportation impact fee calculated under Ordinance
No.3905 and imposed as a condition of development approval prior to June 25,
2025.”
5.16 Future improvements to Burns Road and Road 52 are discussed in the City’s
Transportation System Master Plan (TSW)(AR 1163;1168;1171;1174).“Burns
Road Extension to Glade Road”is also identi?ed on the Proposed 2025—2030
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)as TIP Project 5.02 (AR 1636),which was
adopted by Pasco City Council through Resolution 4464 in June 2024.AR 1607—
1609.
5.17 The TSMP is not incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan or Capital
Facilities Element by reference,although it was adopted by the City Council in
Resolution 4220 as a “Supplement To The 2018—2038Pasco Comprehensive Plan.”
AR 1 132-33 .
5.18 The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan mentions
pedestrian/bicycle improvements along Burns Road;AR 1069;“Capacity
Improvements”to Burns Road and Road 52,and “Future Connection:Deseret Drive”
(AR 1074).
5.19 It is evident ?om numerous City transportation planning documents and plans,
improvements to Burns Road,Road 52 and to a lesser extent Deseret Drive are noted
to be crucial to orderly future transportation development and flow as the City
continues to grow.
5.20 The Capital Facilities Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan incorporates the
Transportation Element and the City’s six—yearTIP explicitly by reference.AR 1017.
5.21 MPN will have two (2)ingress and egress access roads on the southern parcel line
from Burns Road once it is at full build out.For Phase 1,MPN will have southern
parcel ingress and egress from Burns Road at one (1)location,Ramus Lane.Ingress
and egress to MPN will be available off Road 52 to the west at three (3)points and
eventually ?om the north off Deseret Drive at six (6)points.
5.22 Burns Road will eventually be extended eastward from MPN to connect with
Glade Road to provide faster connection for drivers with Interstate 182 Via West
Argent Road.AR 1457.
PAGE 13 OF 21
Page 593 of 620
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
5.23 As a condition of the lVIPNpreliminary plat review,the City required MPN to
obtain a Traf?c Impact Analysis (TIA).AR 1428.MPN contracted with Transpo
Group for the TIA,and a Revised Traf?c Impact Analysis report was issued in April
2024.AR 1429.The TIA assumed a dedicationby MPN of ROW for Burns Road “to
allow for the City’s future extension of Burns Road between Road 52 and Glade
Road,which is identi?ed below as a planned improvement on the TIP (TIP project
5.02).”AR 1432.
5.24 The TIA conducted traf?c studies at certain intersectionsto gauge existing traf?c
usages and patterns and make estimates as to ?iture traf?c usages once the MPN
development was built out,both partially and fully.AR 1429.The TIA also looked at
current Level of Service (LOS)for certain intersectionsand forecast future LOS for
those intersections with the lVIPNproject.AR 1445,1454—55.
5.25 The TIA recognizes that Burns Road is slated to be classi?ed as a “principal
arterial”road in the future with eventual widening to a 5-1ane roadway consistent
with a principal arterial classi?cation for the City.AR 1436;AR 1182;AR 1059.
5.26 The TIA estimated that once MPN is fully built out,MPN residents will contribute
“4,108 weekday daily trips with 299 occurring in the weekday AM peak hour and 417
occurring in the PM peak hour.”AR 1461.
5.27 The TIA proposed mitigation measures for the increased traf?c volume that MPN
will contribute to the City’s road network in the form of TIFs of $709 per residential
unit.Additionally,frontage improvements with a dedication of land for future
development of Burns Road was recommended as a mitigation measure.AR 1460.
5.28 The TIA concluded that payment of TIFs and the dedication of frontage along
Burns Road “mitigates its [MPN’s]impact on the transportation system and no
additional proportionate share contributions are necessary.”AR 1460.The TIA also
recommended that the developer receive a credit for the ROW dedication and
frontage improvements to Burns Road and Road 52.AR 1461.
5.29 Respondent City of Pasco had the MPN TIA reviewed by its own independent
engineers,PBS.The entirety of PBS’s report on the TIA by Transpo Group was two
paragraphs and agreed with the MPN TIA with no additional comments.AR 1464.
5.30 To the east of MPN and also abutting Burns Road are two other new residential
developments,Raven Place and Glacier Park.AR 902.Both Raven Place and Glacier
Park were given credit for their traf?c impact fees “when and where appropriate in
accordance with PMC 3.40.090 and PMC 3.50.070.”AR 1844;AR 1803.
5.31 Principal arterial roads are designed to be ?ve lanes wide and accommodate higher
speed traf?c with minimal interruptions in ?ow.AR 1059.Burns Road will
eventually be a ?ve lane principal arterial,which requires a dedication of land of 100
feet in width.
PAGE 14 OF 21
Page 594 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
5.32 Because Madison Park South was only required to dedicate 30 feet of ROW for
?iture improvement to Burns Road along its parcel,MPN was required to dedicate 70
feet for ROW for Burns Road development between Road 52 and Ramus Lane,and
then a full 100 feet dedication as Burns Road moves east from Ramus Lane to Road
44.This dedication was accounted for and engineered in the MPN preliminary plat
application.AR 3 167.
5.33 In addition to a dedication of a 100’ROW for Burns Road,Petitioner was required
to make frontage improvements along Burns Road by building a three—lanesection of
Burns Road (out of the ?ve eventual lanes),which accounts for 60%of the buildout
of the total road surface.PMC 21.15.030 requires build—outof a three—quarterstreet
standard,which is more than 60%.
5.34 The Court incorporates Hearing Examiner’s Finding of Fact 8,subparts 8.1 —8.8
by reference.
VI.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE:CONDITION OF APPROVAL 17 AND 19
6.1 The Court may grant relief in a LUPA only if the objecting party has carried the
burden of establishing that one of six standards listed in RCW 36.7OC.130(1)has
been met.Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass ’n v.Chelan County,141 Wn.2d 169,175
(2000).Those standards are:
6.1.a The body or of?cer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful
procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process,unless the error was
harmless;
6.1.b The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law,after
allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local
jurisdiction with expertise;
6.1.0 The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when
viewed in light of the whole record before the court;
6.1.d The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the
facts;
6.1.e The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or
of?cer making the decision;or
6.1.f The land use decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking
relief.
6.2 Objections to a hearing examiners decision are reviewed on different standards
depending on the nature of the ?nding.
6.2.1 Standards (a),(b),(e),and (i)present questions of law reviewed de novo.
HJS Dev,Inc.v.Pierce County,148 Wash.2d 451,468 (2003).Standard
(c)concerns a factual determination that is reviewed for substantial
PAGE 15 OF 21
Page 595 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
evidence.Freeburg v.City ofSeattle,71 Wash.App.367,371 (1993).
Stande (d)is self-evident,and is reviewed using the clearly erroneous
standard applying the law to the facts.
Objections to Findings of Fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Lauer v.Pierce County,173 Wn.2d 242,252—53(2011).“Substantial
evidence”means “there must be a suf?cient quantum of evidence in the
record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true.”
Phoenix Deu,Inc.v.City of Woodinville,171 Wn.2d 820,829 (2011).
The “substantial evidence standard is “highly deferential’to the agency
fact ?nder.”Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity 11.Wash.State Univ.,152
Wn.App.401,418 (2009).
A decision is “clearly erroneous”when the Court is left with a de?nite and
?rm conviction that a mistake has been committed,despite the fact that
evidence may exist to support the examiner’s fmding.Norway Hill
Preservation and Protection Ass ’n.12.King County Council,87 Wn.2d
267,274 (1976).
Under a de novo standard of review,deference is still to be given to the
hearing examiner unless the “reviewing court on the record is left with the
de?nite and ?rm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”Fuller
Style,Inc.v.City ofSeattle,11 Wn.App.2d 501,507 (2019).Harmless
error will not result in a land use decision being reversed,however.
Thornton Creek Legal DefenseFund v.City ofSeattle,113 Wn.App.34,
54 (2002).
6.3 First,Petitioners’argue that F OF 18,20.1.4 and COA 17 are ambiguous as to when
the TIF of $709/residential unit will be due,or if it is due twice.Objections to
Findings of Fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.Petitioner objects to COA 17
under standards (b),(c),and (d),which are reviewed de novo,for substantial
evidence,and using the clearly erroneous standard,respectively.The Court agrees
with Petitioner that FOF 18 and 20.1.4 and COA 17 are ambiguous,could be clearly
erroneous,and likely not supported by substantial evidence if the intention of the
Hearing Examiner was to require payment of the TIF on each residential lot twice.
These FOF and COA require clari?cation as to whether the HP is being imposed
twice,or if the intent was to imposeit one time as per the Amended MDNS.
PAGE 16 OF 21
6.3.1
6.3.2
If the Hearing Examiner intended to impose payment of the per-lot TTF
twice,additional Findings and Conclusions must be provided to support
such decision.
If the Hearing Examiner intended to impose payment of the per-lot TIF
one time,the timing of the payment should be clari?ed.
Page 596 of 620
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
6.4 Second,Petitioner argues that COA 17 is not supported by substantial evidence,is
contrary to law,clearly erroneous and violates Petitioners”constitutional rights in
failing to grant a credit and reduction for the Traf?c Impact Fees paid.Regardless of
whether the court uses a de novo,substantial evidence,or clearly erroneous standard,the Court agrees with Petitioner.The failure to provide a credit and reductions to the
TIF for Burns Road,Road 52 and Deseret Drive is contrary to law and clearly
erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence,even when giving due deference
to the Hearing Examiner.It is clear from the record as a whole that a mistake has
been made,and it is not harmless to the Petitioner.The Hearing Examiner
erroneously concluded that improvements to Burns Road,Road 52 and Deseret Drive
“are not included as ‘system improvements’in the Capital Facilities Element of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan,or in any document that is expressly adopted or
incorporated by reference into the Plan.”AR 865-66,COL 3.This is not supported by
substantial evidence and is clearly erroneous because the TIP and Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan,both of which mention improvements to these
roads,was expressly incorporated by reference into the Capital Facilities Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.AR 1017.
6.5 The Hearing Examiner also erroneously relied on a presumption that because some
documents indicate that the City planned on having the “developer”pay for the future
road improvements to Burns Road,that that drove the characterization of the
improvement as a “project improvement”as opposed to a “system improvement.”
The de?nitions of “project improvemen ”and “system improvemen ”are silent on
who pays for the improvement,so the payor is irrelevant to the improvement’s
characterization.In this case,substantial evidence shows that development of Burns
Road to the east of Road 52,and a northward extension of Road 52 and “future
connector”at Deseret Drive are critical to the overall cohesive development of the
City of Pasco’s transportation system,as recognized in the TIP and the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.Development of these roads is clearly part of an
overall “system improvement”and not a “project improvement”for which credit
should be given to the Petitioner.Further evidence of this is the fact that Glacier Park
and Raven Place were given credit for their frontage improvements to Burns Road
and/or Road 52,but Petitioner was not.If development of Burns Road and/or Road 52
was not a system improvement,then neither Glacier Park nor Raven Place would
have been given the credit that Petitioner is denied.Because the required frontage
improvement and dedication on Burns Road,Road 52 and Deseret Drive are system
improvementsas opposed to project improvements,the Petitioner is entitled to credit
per RCW 82.02.060(5)and PMC 3.40080.
6.6 Because this Court ?nds that the Burns Road,Road 52 and Deseret Drive
improvements are “system improvements”since they are identi?ed in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the TIP,the Court
REVERSES the Hearing Examiner as to COA 17 in the denial of a credit and
reduction to the TIF.This Condition is REMANDED to the Hearing Examiner for
clarification of FF 18 and 20.1.4 and COA 17 as to whether COA 17 requires
payment of the TIF in one lump sum of $328,976 and again at the time of issuance of
PAGE 17 OF 21
Page 597 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
each residential building permit,or only one time in a lump sum;and to reverse the
decision on denial of a credit and reduction for TIF for the system improvements
along Burns Road,Road 52,and Deseret Drive.
6.7 Next,Petitioner argues that Conclusion of Law 4 and related Condition of Approval
19 is not supported by substantial evidence,is an erroneous interpretation of the law,
and violates Petitioners”constitutional rights,and that the Hearing Examiner lacked
the jurisdictional authority to make a constitutional determinationin imposing a
dedication,which is a “taking”under the constitution.Speci?cally,Petitioner argues
that being required to dedicate 100 feet of land for future development of Burns Road
into a principal arterial and the requirement to make ?ontage improvements to Burns
Road for a three-lane road (out of a ?iture ?ve—laneroad)lacks a nexus to the MPN
project and is not roughly proportional to the impact that MPN will have on Burns
Road,and therefore the dedication requirement and frontage improvement
requirement is an unconstitutional taking.
6.8 Cities are allowed to,and at times required to,engage in land use planning.If a land
use decision results in a “taking”of land or money from a landowner,the land use
decision must comport with the Nollan/Dolan analysis,which is to say that the taking
must have an essential nexus to “advancing a legitimate state interest,”and must be
roughly proportional to the governmental need or interest.Nollan v.Cali ornia
Coastal Com ’n,483 US.825,834 (1987);Dolan v.City ofTigard,512 U.S.374
(1994).“The government may ‘take’private land for public use with or Without
formal condemnation proceedings.The nature of its conduct may be a physical act
such as invading and occupying the land;a legislative act such as enacting a statute,
ordinance or regulation;or a quasi—judicialact such as denying or conditioning a
development permit.”Burton 12.Clark County,91 Wash.App.505,151 (1998).If the
land use decision fails the Nollan/Dolan test,the government must pay for the taking
pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.
6.9 “The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution
provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.[citations omitted]The purpose of the Takings Clause is ‘to bar
Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which,in all
fairness and justice,should be borne by the public as a whole.’Dolan,512 U.S.at
384,114 S.Ct.2309 (quotingArmstrongv.UnitedStates,364 U.S.40,49,80 S.Ct.
1563,4L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960)).The Takings Clause appliesto the states through the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Dolan,512 U.S.at 384,114 S.Ct.
2309;Sintra [Inc.,v.City ofSeattle],119 Wash.2d l,13,829 P.2d 765 [(1992)].”Isla
Verde Intern.Holdings,Inc.v.City ofCamus,99 Wash.App.127,138 (1999).
6.10 In determining if a taking has a “nexus”to a proposed development project,the
Supreme Court articulated that “unless a permit condition serves the same
governmental purpose as the development ban,the building restriction is not a valid
regulation of land use but ‘an out-and—outplan of extortion.”Nollan,483 U.S.at
837,quoting JED.Associates,Inc.v.Atkinson,121 NH.581,584 (1981).In other
PAGE 18 OF 21
Page 598 of 620
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
words,“when looking for an ‘essentialnexus,’we examine the record for evidence of
a reasonable relationship between the project and the identi?ed public problem.”Isla
Verde,99 WashApp.at 139,quoting Burton v,91 WashApp.at 526 (1998).
6.11 In determining whether a taking is “roughly proportional”to the land use decision
at issue,the Supreme Court provides this guidance:“No precise mathematical
calculation is required,but the city must make some sort of individualized
determinationthat the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the
impact of the proposed development.”Dolan,512 U.S.at 391.
6.12 As to the ?rst question of a Nollan/Dolan analysis:is there an essential nexus
between the development of MPN and the need to dedicate land for,and build partial
road frontage improvements to,Burns Road,Road 52 and Deseret Drive?The
answer is yes,there is clearly a public problem that development of MPN will
exacerbate,which is an increase in traf?c on the City’s transportation network as a
result of 461 residential lots being developed and served by Burns Road/Road
52/DeseretDrive,and there is a connection between an increase in traf?c and the
need to build new roads to serve the traf?c.This is especially true with MPN since
this project is being constructed on former farmland with no pre-existing roadway
access.There is always a nexus between house building and road building to ensure
safe and reliable transportation for residents of the new development,so the nexus
requirement is met for the imposition of the dedication and frontage improvement.
6.13 The next question for the Nollan/Dolan analysis is:does the record show that there
has been an individualized determinationthat the proposed exactions --a lOO—foot
dedication of land for future extension and build-out of Burns Road,and dedication
and improvement to Road 52 and Deseret Drive ——are roughly proportional to the
impact of MPN?Reviewing the record as a whole and giving deference to the
Hearing Examiner,substantial evidence does support the Hearing Examiner’s ?nding
of rough proportionality for the 100—footdedication and frontage improvements.
6.14 Both parties to trial are entitled to the bene?t of all the evidence in the case,
regardless of who introduced it.Petersen v.Department ofLabor &Industries,40
Wash.2d 635,641 (1952).Petitioner is wrong in their argument that because the City
did not submit the TIA —-of which the Hearing Examiner heavily relied in support of
the finding of rough proportionality for the exactions —-that the City failed in its
burden to show substantial evidence to support the individualizeddetermination
requirements of Dolan.The TIA was admitted into evidence and therefore is
available for either side to use or argue in support of its position.
6.15 On reviewing the record as a whole,there is substantial evidence,mostly ?om
Petitioners’own TIA and testimony of its witness,to show that an individualized
determinationof the traf?c impacts of MPN on the City’s transportation network took
place and shows that MPN will impact and benefit from the City’s transportation
network and continued expansion of that network;that extension of Burns Road into
a principal arterial will happen within the next six years per the TIP (which is
PAGE 19 OF 21
Page 599 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
dissimilarto Burton v.Clark County,91 WashApp.505 (1998)where a road—
dedication exaction was found unconstitutional in part because there was no futuretimelinefortherequiredroadtoactuallybebuilt);that MPN residents are expected tomakeup30-39%of Burns Road traf?c east of the Road 52/Burns Road intersectionand69—73%of the morning peak hour trips on Road 52 north of Burns Road,and willcontributeover4,000 daily trips on its access roads once MPN is at full build—out.
Unlike in Burton and contrary to Petitioners”opening brief,Burns Road will not be a
“road to nowhere”for long and will bene?t MPN by providing its residents fast and
ef?cient access to the freeway and broader City of Pasco and regional transportation
network 4 a network that the evidence shows they will burden,Burton,91 WashApp.
at 527.
6.16 Further,Petitioners’argument that Burns Road is a “preexisting de?ciency”in the
City’s transportation network that MPN should not be responsible for rectifying
ignores the fact that Burns Road east of Ramus Lane does not even exist,since this is
all former farmland.The Petitioners”comparison to the facts in Benchmark Land Co.
v.City ofBattle Ground,146 Wash.2d 685 (2002)is thus comparing apples to
oranges.1n Benchmark,the developer had no direct access to the road they were
required to improve and the road had preexisting de?ciencies as it was built.Id.at
689-690.Here,MPN has direct access to all the roads it is required to improve and
dedicate land for,and those roads do not yet exist so cannot have any “preexisting
de?ciencies”regarding capacity or design.WN’s own TIA and witnesses testify that
MPN will burden all the roads it is required to dedicate and improve to varying
degrees,unlike in Benchmark.The individualized evidence showing detailed trip
information about how MPN will burden and bene?t from the City’s transportation
network at its access points as outlined in Finding of Fact 8 of the Hearing
Examiner’s decision is exactly the type of evidence that is demanded by Dolan.The
evidence supports the exaction of the 100-foot ROW and frontage improvements for
Burns Road,Road 52 and Deseret Drive as they are roughly proportional to the
impact of lVfPNon the City’s transportation network,pursuant to Nollan/Dolan and in
compliance with RCW 82.02.020 and PMC 21.15.010(3).
6.17 As a separate basis to af?rm the Hearing Examiner’s decision to require the
dedication of ROW and provide ?ontage improvements on Burns Road speci?cally is
the invited error doctrine,since Petitioner proposed to make the lOO-foot ROW
dedication in their own preliminary plat application.Despite their repeated assertions
that they made no such offer,the width of Burns Road at 100 feet is in black and
white on their own preliminary plat application and which every person who has laid
eyes on the preliminary plat has acknowledged except Petitioner.“The invited error
doctrine prohibits a party from setting up an error in the trial court then complaining
of it on appeal.”Humbert/BirchCreek Const.v.Walla Walla County,145 WashApp.
185,192 (2008),quoting In re Pers.Restraint ofTortorelli,149 Wash.2d 82,94
(2003).The invited error doctrine applies to administrativeactions just as in trial
court proceedings.Humbert,145 Wash.App.at 192.See also Colella 11.King County,
14 WashApp.247,252 (1975).Petitioner cannot claim they were unlawfully
deprived of property or otherwise denied due process by the government when the
PAGE 20 OF 21
Page 600 of 620
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
government has agreed to take that which the Petitioner has offered to give.The stateisnotrequiredtoprotectthePetitionerfromthemselves,and Petitioner will not beheardtocomplainonappealthattheygotexactlywhattheyaskedfor(or rather,gaveexactlywhattheyofferedtogive).The same invited error analysis applies toPetitioners”complaint that the Hearing Examiner addressed the constitutional issueregardinga“taking”under a Nollan/Dolan analysis in exactly the way that PetitionerurgedtheExaminertodointheirbriefingandargumenttotheExaminer.AR 607.
6.18 Accordingly,the Hearing Examiner’sdecisionsregarding Conclusionof Law 4andthenon-moot parts of Conditionsof Approval 19 are AFFIRMED.
‘\_
Dated this 16thday of January,2026.
3/‘
f1 i
H611.Dianém.Ruff \
Superior Court Judge
PAGE 21 OF 21
Page 601 of 620
FG: 110257019.1
Direct Phone: 206.816.1354
bob.sterbank@foster.com
March 31, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Daniel P. Kenny
Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue
Suite 5600
Seattle, WA 98104-7045
Re: Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat; Appeal of Dave Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC
Dear Mr. Kenny:
This letter is in follow up to our e-mail exchanges, and in response to the letter dated March 23,
2026 from James Carmody, the attorney for appellants Dave Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC (“Swisher”
or “Appellants”) in the Madison Park North Phase 1 Final Plat (“MPN Final Plat”) appeal, which
involves a closed record appeal proceeding before the Pasco City Council.
The March 23 letter seeks to impermissibly broaden the scope of the Council’s review, by adding
to the record a plethora of documents and communications that significantly pre-date the Appellants’
application for final plat approval and which were never considered by City administrative staff in
making the determination that is the subject of the MPN Final Plat appeal. For those reasons and others
explained below, the City Council should reject the March 23 letter’s request, and limit its consideration
to those documents previously certified by the City, along with minor additions offered below in
response to Appellants’ request.
A. Background
This matter concerns the MPN Final Plat. Appellants applied for final plat approval via the
Application submitted on October 14, 2025. Appellants and their engineering and other consultants
exchanged limited communication with City staff over the next few months, and the MPN Final Plat
was approved and signed by the City on December 18, 2025. Staff notified Appellants the final plat was
approved and ready to be picked up for recording; Appellants did so, and recorded the MPN Final Plat
the next day, on December 19, 2025. Appellants are now actively advertising individual MPN Phase 1
lots for sale. See https://www.hayden-homes.com/new-homes/washington/tri-cities/pasco/madison-
park-north.
Page 602 of 620
Mr. Daniel P. Kenny
March 31, 2026
Page 2
FG: 110257019.1
Although Swisher sought the MPN Final Plat approval, he then appe aled it, apparently, because
the City called Judge Ruff’s attention to the final plat approval during Swisher’s LUPA appeal, and
Judge Ruff ruled that final plat approval was part of a series of events that rendered a number of LUPA
appeal issues moot. Swisher has appealed his loss on the LUPA claims, and appears to seek to use the
MPN Final Plat appeal as part of that effort.
Given that apparent intent, Swisher’s Notice of Appeal of the MPN Final Plat (“Appeal”)
requests an open record appeal, and extends to a mammoth 408 pages. In addition to the 8-page Appeal
itself, it attaches hundreds of pages of additional documents as “appendices.” Every one predates the
application for the MPN Final Plat; many predate approval of the MPN Preliminary Plat, and some even
predate the application for the MPN Preliminary Plat. One of the Appeal’s “appendices” is an extended
legal argument that includes quotations from the extra-record “exhibits” that Swisher attaches as
“Appendix III” to the Appeal.
B. Pasco Municipal Code Closed Record Appeal Limitations.
The MPN Final Plat appeal is governed by the Pasco Municipal Code. PMC 21.30.060 provides
that “[t]he final approval of a plat is an administrative function not requiring action by the City
Council.” Because final plat approval is essentially ministerial, a final plat must be approved “if the
administrative review process finds the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms to all
terms of the preliminary plat approval, and said subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17
RCW [and] other applicable state laws. . . .” PMC 21.30.060. “The final plat applicant may appeal a
determination of the administrative review process by a closed record appeal to the City Council
pursuant to PMC 4.02.100.”
A “closed record appeal” is an administrative appeal proceeding “when the appeal is on the
record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal
argument allowed.” PMC 4.02.030; see also RCW 36.70B.020(1) (same). By state law, the City is not
required to provide for administrative appeals, either open or closed record. RCW 36.70B.110(9). If it
does, an administrative appeal of the project decision and of any environmental determination issued at
the same time as the project decision, shall be filed within fourteen days after the notice of the decision
or after other notice that the decision has been made and is appealable. RCW 36.70C.110(9)). And, the
City may provide “no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal. . . .” RCW
36.70B.050. Here, the City Council has determined that a final plat is to be determined administratively,
without an open record hearing, and that the final plat determination is appealable only in a “closed
record appeal to the City Council. PMC 21.30.060.
Page 603 of 620
Mr. Daniel P. Kenny
March 31, 2026
Page 3
FG: 110257019.1
C. PMC 21.30.060 Requires Denial of Appellants’ Request for an Open Record Hearing,
and Exclusion of the “Appendices” and Exhibits.
The express terms of PMC 21.30.060 require denial of Appellants’ request for an open record
hearing, and exclusion of the “Appendices” and “Exhibits” attached to the Notice of Appeal. PMC
21.30.060 allows a “closed record hearing” only – no open record hearing is provided for, or allowed.
The Appeal at pages 1 and 8 cites PMC 4.02.100(1)(f) in support of its request for an open record appeal
hearing. But, PMC 4.02.100(1) indicates that it does not apply to “plats,” which includes the MPN
Phase 1 final plat.
Likewise, the March 23 letter cites at page 2 to PMC 4.01.100(d), in support of Appellants’ open
record hearing request, but this section, too, does not apply to “plats,” per PMC 4.02.100(1). PMC
21.30.060’s “closed record hearing” limitation for appeals of final plat determinations requires that the
City Council deny the request for an “open record hearing.”
PMC 21.30.060’s “closed record hearing” limitation also requires exclusion of the Appeal’s
“Appendices” (pages 9-17) and the thirty-two additional “Exhibits” (pages 18-408). Because the appeal
is required to be “on the record,” this means that it must be based on the record compiled and considered
by the City’s administrative staff in making the determination to approve the MPN Final Plat, “with no
or limited new evidence allowed to be submitted. . . .” PMC 4.02.030 and RCW 36.70B.020(1). Each of
the 32 exhibits attached as pages 18-408 are “new” and were not considered by City staff in approving
the MPN Final Plat. They therefore must be excluded from the record considered by the City Council
during the closed record appeal. In addition, the “Appendices” attached as pages 9-17 must also be
excluded. While styled primarily as legal argument, these Appendices are littered with references to and
quotations from the “exhibits.” Allowing the Appendices would pollute closed record by allowing the
Appellants to sneak new records and evidence before the Council simply by attaching it to the Appeal.
D. City Staff Properly Determined the Content of the Record.
The March 23 letter argues, without citation to authority, that an appellant “is allowed to support
its arguments and issues with evidence developed through the review process related to the final plat,”
and that it is “City Council’s jurisdiction and City Staff does not have the authority” to remove
documents from the Notice of Appeal. However, because the administrative determination to approve
the MPN Final Plat was made by City Staff, it is Staff (and not the City Council) who know what
documents were considered and relied upon during the final plat review and approval process. The
Appendices and Exhibits attached to the Notice of Appeal were not reviewed or considered during the
final plat approval process, and therefore were properly excluded from the MPN Final Plat record
previously distributed to you and Appellants on March 17, 2026. As noted above, allowing an appellant
to inject new documents simply by attaching them to a Notice of Appeal would allow an appellant to
unilaterally create a one-way, “open” record hearing, by cherry-picking and attaching whatever
documents the appellant wished. That danger is exacerbated here, where Appellants seek to expand the
Page 604 of 620
Mr. Daniel P. Kenny
March 31, 2026
Page 4
FG: 110257019.1
already-extensive record they created during the MPN preliminary plat process by adding additional
records predating even that plat. The City Council should reject this effort.
E. Additional Limited Documents Are Appropriate For Inclusion In the Record.
The foregoing notwithstanding, City Staff have double-checked records in the process of
assisting in the response to the March 23 letter. A very limited number of additional documents may be
appropriate for inclusion in the closed record. These include the following:
1. MPN Preliminary Plat drawings (Sheets 1-8), approved by the Pasco Hearing Examiner, and
that were included in Ex. C-35 (the staff report) admitted by the Hearing Examiner. Because
staff reviewed the proposed final plat to determine its consistency with the preliminary plat,
the MPN Preliminary Plat drawings should be included. As shown in the Index previously
provided, Doc. #27 is the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
Decision and Conditions of Approval of the Madison Park North Preliminary Plat. The City
proposes to add Sheets 1-8 of the Preliminary Plat as Doc. #29.
2. Approved Civil Engineering Plans for Madison Park North Phase 1. These drawings itemize
the road, sidewalk, multi-use path and utility improvements that Appellants were authorized
to construct, and whose completion was required to obtain final plat approval. City Staff did
refer to these drawings in the process of reviewing and approving the MPN Final Plat, and
the bond estimate submitted with it. The City proposes to add the approved Civil
Engineering Plans as Doc. #30.
3. E-mail dated November 19, 2025 from Brian Cartwright to Ivan Barragan. This
communication related to the proposed bond estimate provided by Appellants’ consultant Jon
Padvorac. The City proposes to add this e-mail as Doc. #31.
4. E-mail dated November 19, 2025 from Brian Cartwright to Dan Jacobsen. This
communication related to the proposed bond estimate provided by Appellants’ consultant Jon
Padvorac. The City proposes to add this e-mail as Doc. #32.
5. E-mail dated November 20, 2025 from Dan Jacobsen to Ivan Barragan. This communication
related to the proposed bond estimate provided by Appellants’ consultant Jon Padvorac. The
City proposes to add this e-mail as Doc. #33.
6. E-mail dated November 20, 2025 from Brian Cartwright to Ivan Barragan. This
communication related to the proposed bond estimate provided by Appellants’ consultant Jon
Padvorac. The City proposes to add this e-mail as Doc. #34.
Page 605 of 620
Mr. Daniel P. Kenny
March 31, 2026
Page 5
FG: 110257019.1
F. Inclusion of the e-TRAKIT File Is Not Appropriate.
The March 23 letter proposes that the City’s entire e-TRAKIT file numbered SDIV2025-005 be
included in the record. That is the file containing records related to review pre-dating approval of the
civil engineering plans. The Civil Engineering Plans were approved on May 30, 2025, and were not
appealed. Other than the approved Civil Engineering Plans themselves, City Staff indicate that no
eTRAKIT file documents were considered during review and approval of the MPN Final Plat. They
should not be included in the MPN Final Plat appeal closed record, and are not included here.
Appellants assert that without those files “the City Council will not have a complete record from
which to determine compliance that appropriate provision has been made for infrastructure
improvements.” March 23 letter at 3. However, Appellants’ own Appeal admits that all required final
plat improvements were constructed or bonded for. Notice of Appeal at 4, ¶ 4.8. Appellants do not now
argue otherwise. And, unlike the Hearing Examiner considering a preliminary plat, the City Council is
not required, as part of the final plat appeal, to make a generalized determination that “appropriate
provision has been made for infrastructure.” Compare PMC 21.25.060 with PMC 21.30.060 (final plat
approval is administrative function not requiring City Council approval). The only issue for final plat
approval is whether “the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms to all terms of the
preliminary plat approval, and said subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW [and]
other applicable state laws. . . .” Where the Appellants themselves do not challenge that final plat
conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and where the eTRAKIT file documents relate to
a prior approval (civil engineering plans) that was not appealed, inclusion of the eTRAKIT files in a
close record hearing would be inappropriate.
G. Attorney-client Privileged Information Should Not Be Included.
The City’s production of closed record documents included minor redactions to a single
document (#21), are privileged communications between Staff and the undersigned. Rather than
exclude the document, the City included it in the record, albeit in redacted form. The undersigned did
not participate in any way in the final plat decision, and there is no indication otherwise. The reference
to staff communication with the City’s attorney by separate e-mail chain is appropriate, but also does not
indicate attorney involvement in administrative decision-making, which simply did not occur. If legal
counsel for the City Council prefers, letter can be provided in unredacted form for Mr. Kenny’s review,
but it should not be included in the final plat appeal closed record in unredacted form.
H. Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council should reject Appellants’ additional information
labeled as “Appendices” and “Exhibits” and attached as pages 9-408 to the Notice of Appeal. Thank
you and the City Council in advance for their consideration of the above.
Page 606 of 620
Mr. Daniel P. Kenny
March 31, 2026
Page 6
FG: 110257019.1
Very truly yours,
FOSTER GARVEY PC
Bob C. Sterbank
Principal
BCS:bcs
cc: Harold Stewart, City Manager
Haylie Matson, Community & Economic Development Director
Craig Raymond, Deputy Director, Community & Economic Development
Ivan Barragan
Page 607 of 620
Pasco City Council
April 20, 2026
5:30 p.m.
Special Meeting
Pa
g
e
6
0
8
o
f
6
2
0
Madison Park North
Phase 1 Final Plat
(FP2025-006)
Closed Record Appeal
(APPL2025-003)
April 20, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
6
0
9
o
f
6
2
0
Madison Park North (“MPN”) Phase 1 Final
Plat: City Code Requirements
•PMC 21.30.050 Approval Requirements --Prior to approval of a final plat, all required
infrastructure improvements, including as-built drawings and data of all underground utilities
necessary to serve said plat, must be constructed and accepted by the City Engineer. In lieu of
actually completing all improvements, the developer may provide the City with a bond, cash or
irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 125 percent of the City Engineer’s estimate of
the cost to complete the required infrastructure improvements.
•PMC 21.30.060 Administrative approval –The final approval of a plat is an administrative
function not requiring action by the City Council.
•PMC 21.30.060 Administrative approval --A final plat shall only be approved if the
administrative review process finds the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms
to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and said subdivision meets the requirements of
Chapter 58.17 RCW, other applicable state laws and this title which requirements were in effect
on the date of submission of a fully completed preliminary plat application.
Pa
g
e
6
1
0
o
f
6
2
0
Madison Park North (“MPN”)
Phase 1 Final Plat: Background
•MPN Preliminary Plat approved by City Hearing Examiner on March 24, 2025.
•Applicants stated they anticipated physical construction in 13 phases.Pa
g
e
6
1
1
o
f
6
2
0
5
Pa
g
e
6
1
2
o
f
6
2
0
6
Pa
g
e
6
1
3
o
f
6
2
0
MPN Civil Engineering Plans
•In March, 2025, Applicants Dave Swisher and Farm 2005, LLC requested the
City approve Civil Engineering Plans and a Right-of-Way Permit for MPN
Phase 1 on May 30, 2025. The Plans and ROW Permit documented the specific
water, sewer, stormwater, streets, multi-use path and other infrastructure
Applicants desired to construct prior to final plat approval.
•The City approved the Plans and ROW Permit on May 30, 2025. The Plans and
Permit authorized Applicants to construct the MPN Phase 1 improvements
needed for final plat approval. Applicants did not appeal the Plans / ROW
Permit.
•Applicants constructed the Phase 1 final plat infrastructure between June and
November, 2025.
Pa
g
e
6
1
4
o
f
6
2
0
8
Pa
g
e
6
1
5
o
f
6
2
0
MPN Phase 1 Final Plat:
•Application submitted for MPN Phase 1 final plat
approval on October 14, 2025.
•Staff reviewed the submittal and responded with
directions for necessary corrections.
•On November 19, 2025, Applicants delivered the
requested corrections in person, along with a bond
estimate itemizing the construction tasks not
completed and their anticipated dollar cost; copies
later provided via e-mail on November 21, 2025.
•Staff reviewed internally and confirmed the list of
improvements to be bonded, and the correct
calculation (125%) of the necessary bond amount.
•The MPN Phase 1 Final Plat was approved and signed
by the required City staff on December 18, 2025, and
the Applicants informed that the Final Plat was ready
for pickup and recording.
•Applicants recorded the MPN Phase 1 Final Plat the
following day, on December 19, 2025.
9
Pa
g
e
6
1
6
o
f
6
2
0
10
Pa
g
e
6
1
7
o
f
6
2
0
11
Pa
g
e
6
1
8
o
f
6
2
0
Closed
Record
Appeal
• PMC 21.30.060 Administrative approval – The final plat applicant may appeal a determination of the administrative review process by a closed record appeal to the City Council pursuant to PMC 4.02.100.
• PMC 4.02.030 Definitions – “’Closed record appeal’ means an administrative appeal. . . when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed.”
•Because final plat approval determination was administrative, no open record hearing was required by PMC 21.30.060.
•The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on December 29, 2025, in reliance on PMC 21.30.060 and PMC 4.02.100.
•The Notice of Appeal acknowledges that “all required construction improvements were constructed or bonded.”
• Pursuant to PMC 4.02.100(2):
•All City Councilmembers must review the entire final plat record.
•The final plat record includes documents reviewed by the City staff decisionmakers, or used in the process of approving the final plat. These include the MPN preliminary plat and approved civil engineering drawings, the MPN final plat application and related documents, and memoranda and e-mails exchanged among City staff and the Applicants. There is no video or transcript.
•Pursuant to PMC 4.02.070(1)(c), the time for City Council consideration and decision shall not exceed 60 days from this hearing on a closed record appeal, unless extended by agreement of the parties. As provided in subsection .070(1)(d), any such extension must be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Director.
Pa
g
e
6
1
9
o
f
6
2
0
Questions?Pa
g
e
6
2
0
o
f
6
2
0