HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2011 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. August 18, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 21, 2011
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Columbia Villas, a
100- lot subdivision located at the northwest corner
of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 (Big Creek Land
Company) (MF# PP 2011-002)
B. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in an I-1
Zone. (300 Block of S. 51h Ave.) (Saint Vincent de
Paul Society) (MF# SP 2011-008)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Code Amendment Auto Body Shops as Accessory Uses in the C-R District
PMC 25.48
B. Workshop Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
C. CDBG 2011 CDBG Reallocation and Amendment to
Annual Action Plan (MF# BGAP2011-007)
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING July 21, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairwoman Kempf.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Michael Levin
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. e Kurt Lukin s
No. 7 Zahra Khan
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Lisa Gemig
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for
hearings on land use matters. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if any
Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections
based on conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding any
of the items to be discussed this evening. There were no declarations.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf explained that State law requires testimony in quasi-
judicial hearings such as those held by the Planning Commission be given
under oath or affirmation. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring
to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Greenaway moved to adopt the June 16, 2011 minutes. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Lukins. The motion passed
unanimously.
-1 -
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Columbia Villas,
a 100-lot subdivision located at the
northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and
Road 76 (Big Creek Land Company) (MF# PP
2011-002)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, stated a legal
opinion was submitted to the Commission from the City Attorney on the role of
the Planning Commissions as fact finder in quasi-judicial hearings. A
representative for the property owner has requested time to prepare a legal
opinion. Extending that opportunity to the property owner necessitates the
opportunity be extended to the Pasco School District as well. Therefore staff
requested the matter be continued to the August 18, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting to allow for legal opinions from the property owner and
the Pasco School District. The City Attorney will then have time to review those
opinions and ensure that no new evidence is received since the public hearing
was closed at the last hearing. If the Commission moves in that direction then
two opinions will be in the packet for the August meeting and a
recommendation can be made at that time.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue
the public hearing to allow for legal opinion to be submitted from the Pasco
School District as well as the applicant. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a Parking Lot in an R-3 (Medium
Density Residential Zone (424 & 428 W.
Shoshone Street) (Northwest Agriculture
Products, Inc.) (MF# SP2011-007)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner stated staff had no further comments.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig, to adopt the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 21, 2011
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan further moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig based
on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission
-2 -
recommends the City Council grant a Special Permit to Northwest Agriculture
Products, Inc. for the location of a parking lot at 424 West Shoshone Street
with conditions as contained in the July 21, 2011 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in
an I-1 Zone (300 block of South 5th Avenue)
(Saint Vincent de Paul Society) (MF# SP
2011-008)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner stated the application was for the location of a
food bank and clothing distribution center on a site north of"A" Street between
5th & 6th Avenue. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has provided services for
the residents in Pasco for 50+ ,years. They have been located on West Lewis
Street for the past 30+ years. The city is purchasing the existing Saint Vincent
de Paul property in preparation for the construction of the new Lewis Street
overpass. The type of activities the St. Vincent de Paul Society engages in fall
within the definition of a community service facility and as such a special
permit is required. The new facility will include a fully landscaped and paved
parking lot. The site will provide ample parking and a queuing area for
recipients versus the current site which lacks parking and a queuing area
where recipients stand in a line on the sidewalk. The facility will be open one
day per week and staff/volunteers will be on site sporadically to prepare for the
weekly distribution.
Sina Pierret, 2 Daisy Court, stated the new facility will provide more safety for
recipients than the current facility by providing a staging area for recipients
versus standing on the city sidewalks. They will have enough parking on their
site for staff, recipients and vendors. The location of the new site is near the
current site and is also on a bus line which will provide easy access for
recipients traveling on the bus.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if Saint Vincent de Paul will provide a
collection/drop-off location on site.
Ms. Pierret stated not at this time.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for further public comment and with no
response, the public hearing was closed.
-3 -
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenawav, to close
the hearing on the proposed Level Two Community Service Facility and initiate
deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a
recommendation to the City Council for the August 18, 2011 meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
B. CDBG 2012 Community Development Block Grant
Allocations (Citywide) (MF# BGAP 2011-003)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director stated this is the
second public hearing and staff has outlined 16 requests for the Community
Development Block Grant which were received for the 2012 ,year. The requests
total approximately $1.47 million and the estimate of available funding is
$981,000. At last month's meeting there was discussion involving a
subrecipient requesting funds for public services. Staff provided an explanation
of the public service cap required by Federal CDBG regulations and City of
Pasco Resolution No. 1969 which limits public services to those operated by
the City for recreational programs. The matrix in the packet shows the funding
breakdown. The agency is listed with a numbering system and the estimated
non-Community Development Block Grant match is provided in the next
column, the requested amount is listed by agency and the staff
recommendation is also listed. The Planning Commission recommendation will
be added to the final column and will move forward to City Council for
workshop discussion in August and a decision on August 15.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Lukins stated referring to the public service cap that even if the
Commission wanted to fund two public service applications they would not be
allowed.
Mr. White stated ,yes; if the Commission followed Resolution #1969 then that
would be the case.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated their hands are basically tied with what they
have.
Mr. White explained the public service cap for six items and noted ten other
items for brick and mortar type of projects for consideration.
-4 -
Commissioner Lukins stated the only point of contention he had beyond staff's
recommendation was the public service issue and it is moot now.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she would like to see funding for PowerZone
pulled from somewhere and asked how they could make that happen.
Mr. White stated you would disregard Resolution 1969 and take money from
the other public service allocated funding.
Commissioner Lukins asked if staff could explain the background of Resolution
# 1969and whether it was binding or not binding.
Mr. White stated the Resolution provides guidelines for the City's use of Block
Grant funds. He stated this happened long before his time with the City. There
was a Community Development Block Grant board which entertained requests
for funding and those recommendations from that board were not in a focused
manner that provided community improvement the way the elected officials
wanted to see the funds used for. Council adopted a Resolution which provided
the guidelines for the recommendations from that group. That group has since
been replaced and the Planning Commission is now the body that provides
recommendations to the City Council for use of Community Development Block
Grant funds. It is simply a matter of using the funds to make the most visible,
longest lasting difference in the community.
Mr. McDonald stated when the Block Grant program was initiated in 1974 it
consolidated a number of Federal grant programs and most of them were
related to brick and mortar type activities such as water lines, sewer lines, and
street improvements. There was no authority back then for community service
facilities to receive funding. That has since changed and the former committee
would frequently try to help community service organizations and the program
became over weighted with community service activities. The Resolution was
created to provide guidance for the committee to make recommendations to
City Council and it also provides guidance for the Council and how to
distribute the funds.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked for discussion on whether the Planning
Commission wanted to ignore the Resolution or to make the recommendations
as provided by staff.
Commissioner Greenaway asked where the money would be taken from if they
were to recommend something different.
Commissioner Lukins stated from item 2, 3, and 4.
Commissioner Khan questioned if the Block Grant Administrator would be
available to advise the applicants how to acquire other grants which are
available for social services.
-5 -
Mr. White stated he thinks so; there are resources available in all communities
that can provide that type of advice. It is still a matter of getting in cycle with
funding opportunities and being successful when applying.
Commissioner Gemig asked if they are allowed to allocate $78,000 then why
are they only allocating the $70,000.
Mr. White stated that cushion was put in for unforeseen circumstances. The
City has to be extremely careful because if the cap is exceeded then they
receive an audit finding on the City's part and that is a big deal.
Carol Shuhe, 1202 W. Lewis, thanked the City for their consideration.
Louisa Alaniz and Kim Lowe, Charity Training Center, stated they have
developed a ,youth organic farming co-op for troubled ,youth for 10 teens in
partnership with the Juvenile Center.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for additional comments from Commissioners.
Commissioner Gemig stated she wanted funds to be available for PowerZone
and did not know how to make that happen.
Commissioner Lukins stated the Commission should ignore the Resolution and
take 10% off the other recommended projects and give the funding to
PowerZone.
Commissioner Gemig asked if they needed to ignore the Resolution.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated yes.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she was in favor of ignoring the Resolution.
Commissioner Gemig moved to close the Public hearing.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to accept
the fund summary dated 7/21/11 with the exception of decreasing items 2, 3,
and 4 by 10% and the savings then be moved to item 7. The motion passed
with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Hay.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:38
p.m.
David McDonald, Secretary
-6 -
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, ' 011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Legal Opinions on School Impact Mitigation. (Columbia Villas) (MF# PP
2011-002)
During the July hearing on the Columbia Villas preliminary plat, staff indicated a
representative of the property owner requested additional time to provide a legal
opinion on the School District's request that the proposed plat provide mitigation
for impacts to the school system. Affording an opportunity for the property owner
to provide a legal opinion necessitated providing the same opportunity to the
School District. Accordingly the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing on the Columbia Villas Plat to the August 18, 2011 meeting.
The hearing continuation was provided to allow legal opinions only. No new
evidence from the developer or the School District can be provided. Both the
School District and the property owner have submitted letters explaining their
positions on the use of "voluntary agreements" as a means of mitigating
development impacts to the Pasco school system. The City Attorney has reviewed
the legal opinions to ensure no new evidence is being provided.
Following deliberations, based solely on the record and review of the legal
opinions, the Planning Commission will need to complete the process by making a
recommendation to the City Council. The findings of fact and other information
in the staff report can be used to assist with making a recommendation.
Attachments: Legal opinions from the Property Owner and School District are
attached under the Correspondence Section following the staff
report.
Correspondence
(PP 2011-002)
Exhibit 1 Letter from Homebuilders Association
Exhibit 2 Memo from Staff on Mitigation for School Impacts
Exhibit 3 Letter from Pasco School District dated June 3, 2011
Exhibit 4 July 15, 2011 Memo from Staff with attached Memo
from the City Attorney dated July 12, 2011 dealing
with Mitigation Fees for School Impacts
Exhibit 5 Property Owner Legal Opinion
Exhibit 6 School District Legal Opinion
Exhibit 1 - Letter from Homebuii+-ers
Association
Rome&,aldcrs MIWA66fi of Tri-C4`Ci
Building the Tri-Cities since 1958
Pasco City Council Franklin County Commissioners
Pasco Planning Commission Franklin County Planning Commission
P.O. Box 293 1016 N. 0 Street
Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco, WA 99301
March 25, 201 1
It has come to our attention that the Pasco School District is opposing all new subdivisions in the
City of Pasco and Franklin County on the basis of insufficient capacity in the schools. In order to
mitigate the impacts associated with new development, the Pasco School District has requested
all applicants be required to sign a voluntary agreement and pay an amount equivalent to the
proposed impact fees. On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (NBA), I would
like to express our opposition, not just to the impact fee proposals, but also to this proposed
circumvention of impact fee ordinances through a so-called "voluntary" agreement.
Whatever it is called or however it is imposed, whether it's an impact fee ordinance or a SEPA
mitigation fee, it is quite simply a tax targeted at new construction. Growth is beneficial to the
entire community. Residential construction not only creates jobs and increases the tax base, but
also leads the way for commercial development as it provides those much needed consumers.
And commercial development is certainly desired—not just for the tax revenue, but also for a
better quality of life for the residents. And yes, there are costs to growth and development—they
require more schools, parks, roads, and public services. But because the entire community gets to
enjoy the benefits of growth, then the entire community should pay for the costs, which are
ultimately returned to taxpayers through that tax revenue. In fact, in 2009, for every 400 single
family homes built in the City of Pasco, the one-year, local impacts were equal to$51.6 million
in local income; $7.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 855 local
jobs. In addition, those 400 homes generate substantial ongoing annual local impacts, including
$10.1 million in local income; $4.0 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments and
189 local jobs.
Although such "voluntary" agreements are allowed under state law, the use of such agreements
to impose fees circumvents the impact fee process and has the potential to cause immediate and
lasting damage to the building industry in our area. This damage may include lost jobs and
increased unemployment rates, less economic development and declining tax revenues. Impact
fees are currently being considered by both the City and County and until that process is
complete, including the necessary and valuable public hearings and comment period, builders
and developers should not be forced into paying the equivalent of such fees, Not only is this far
Home Sunders Association of Tri-Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336
(509) 735-2745 or(877)842-8453 I Fax: (509) 735-8470 1 www.hbatc.com
from "voluntary", but is a fee that builders and developers had no knowledge of when they
bought their land, and is therefore a threat to property rights and another barrier to growth.
The HBA urges the City of Pasco and Franklin County to pass any pending and fixture plat or
development approvals without the condition to enter into a voluntary agreement and pay these
outrageous fees and allow development and building to continue without pause.
Sincerely,
Rene6 Dahlgren
Director of Government Affairs
cc: Pasco School District; Jerrod MacPherson;Rick White
Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336
(509)735-2745 or(877)842-84531 Fax:(509)735-847C I www.hbatc,com
Exhibit 2 - Memo from staff
MEMORANDUM
June 16, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director, Community and Economic
Development
SUBJECT: Mitigation for School Impacts
The Pasco School District (PSD) has prepared a capital facility plan that addresses the
District's need for school facilities through the year 2016. In the Capital Plan, the District
has indicated that nearly all educational facilities are above or at capacity, and that the
enrollment in the year 2016 is expected to be nearly 21,000 students (an increase of
5,640 students over 2010 enrollment).
Based on the District's Capital Facility Plan, the PSD has requested that the City (and
County) establish impact fees for new residential development for the provision of new
school facilities that can accommodate growth in the student population. The District
has also indicated that the expected impact fees for a single family home is $6,012 and
$5,272 for a multi—family dwelling. In the absence of established fees, the PSD has
requested that the impacts of new development upon school facilities be mitigated.
The PSD has requested that the City consider the impact that new development will
have on educational facilities through the State Environmental Policy Act, which requires
the impacts of a project to be analyzed and a determination made as to the effects of
those impacts on the built (and natural) environment. The PSD has also requested that
new residential platting be analyzed in accord with RCW 58.17.110, which requires a city
and county to make assertive findings for plat approval that appropriate public facilities
of all types are in place to accommodate expected impacts of new development. These
findings are as follows:
(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire Into the public use and
interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and
dedication. It shall determine:
(a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the
public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces,
drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit
stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and
recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall
consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other
planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students
who only walk to and from school; and
(b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and
dedication.
(2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the
city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a)
Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other
public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and
recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant
facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking
conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public
use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and
dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such
appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then
the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication.
The PSD has previously stated that "...we have outgrown our ability to continue
providing schools without requiring the development that will be served by the schools
to contribute to the cost." The District has also stated that "...the County and City
cannot approve residential subdivisions unless you find there are "adequate provisions
for schools". The District is notifying the County and City that without impact fees or
mitigation under SEPA, there are not adequate provisions for schools."
The Pasco School District is the sole provider of public education facilities in the area of
the proposed plat. As the sole provider of such facilities, the School District's assertion
that the proposed plat requires mitigation should be accepted.
RCW 82.02.020 authorizes a voluntary agreement to be created between the developer
and the PSD for such mitigation. This mitigation can include the payment of fees or
other in-kind measures. The PSD will execute and administer the voluntary agreement
and assume stewardship of any payment, just as any other provider of public facilities
would (such as with electric or other utility services).
Staff has included a discussion of this provision in State law within the report for the
Columbia Hills plat and urges the Planning Commission include the provision for a
voluntary agreement between the District and the developer as a condition of plat
approval.
Exbibit3 -- Letter from Pasco
Pasco School Distrid`f`lM Dttrict dated June 3, 2011
' - Operations Depa><tmeat
John Morgan, Executive Director (RO)W-6098
Jean Martin, Administrative Assistant (509)546-2880
1215 West Lewis Street
-AsCQ Pasco, WA 99301
SCHOOL ISfR1cr#1 Fax: (509)543-6715
June 3, 2011
David McDonald
City Planner
City of Pasco
PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Columbia Villas (MF# PP2011-002)
Dear Dave:
On behalf of the Pasco School District, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above
referenced development proposal. The district is submitting this letter to inform the City of Pasco
Planning Commission and the proposed developer of the impacts the proposed development will
have on the Pasco Schooi District facilities and to respectfully request the impact be mitigated.
District-wide, every new family unit in the district creates the need to provide school facilities for .59
students per multi-family unit. That means more than 59 students will live in new houses associated
with the proposed development. This district will provide a public education to these 59 students at
Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School.
The following table lists the number of students enrolled at Livingston Elementary School,
McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School.
OCTOBER 2010
SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT
Livingston Elementary 500 800
McLoughlin Middle 1 1,000 1,483
L Chiawana Hi h t 2,200 2,032
The Information in this table was taken from the most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan. The
Capital Facilities Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors in December 2010 and is intended to
be used to identify and plan for the public school facilities that are needed to serve new
development. As shown in the table above and the Capital Facilities Plan, the district does not have
capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin Middle Schools to serve the students from the proposed
development. The issue of inadequate capacity is exacerbated when you consider other pending
developments that will generate additional students.
Celebrating academics, diversity,and innovation.
David McDonald
Page 2
Public schools are one of the many public facilities the city (and county) must plan for. As new
development occurs it is necessary to have a plan and regulations that ensure public facilities,
including schools will be provided. New subdivisions plats cannot be approved unless the city finds
there are adequate provisions for schools RCW 58.17.110.
Given the significant cost to build schools, and the lack of capacity in our schools to serve students
from new developments, the Pasco School Board has asked the City of Pasco and Franklin County
to adopt a school impact fee ordinance. (To construct a 750 student elementary school it will cost the
district approximately $26,000,000, or about $35,000 per student. A 1,250 student middle school will
cost the district approximately $69,000,000 or about $48,000 per student.) Impact fees address the
requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools.
The District respectively requests that the city consider and address the impacts new development
has on public schools and the District's ability to provide quality education for all students.
Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information.
Respectfully,
)1 101" 01. ,
John M. Morgan
Executive Director of Operations
im:Clty of Pasco Columbia Was Response 6-2-11
Celebrating academics,divsrsitY.and innovation.
Exhibit 4: July 15, 2011
Memo From Staff
MEMORANDUM '
DATE: July 15, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Mitigation Fees for School Imp_aas
Please find an attached legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the Planning
Commissions role as the fact finder for the approval of plats.
In this memo Mr. Kerr explains the implications behind state law particularly 58.17.110
RCW.
Although this is information that was not available at the June Planning Commission
meeting, it is considered legal advice and the Planning Commission can freely view this
without compromising the record.
Sincerely,
T -
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
RW/sa
Attachment: Memorandum from Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney dated 7/12/11
RECEIVED
KERR LAW GROUP JAIL 15 2011
7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A C ��FNOMIC�
Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724 ----• WIRO 401r.
(509)735-1542
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
City of Pasco
FROM: Leland B. Kerr
Attorney-at-La
DATE: July 12,2011
RE: Mitigation Fees for School Impacts
The planning Commission is the"fact-finder" for the City in evaluating the criteria that State law
has established for approval of plats. As such, the Planning Commission receives evidence from
the applicant to demonstrate that the plat meets each of the required criteria.
Under RCW 58.17.110, one of the criteria for consideration is adequacy of "schools and
schoolgrounds." It is important to remember that this statute is in the negative.
"A proposed subdivision . . . shall not N a roved unless the city . . . legislature
body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for . . .
schools and schoolgrounds . . ."
The School District has presented evidence of significant overcrowding with limited resources .
and facilities asserting that there are not appropriate provisions to meet the additional demand
that this subdivision will cause without payment of a mitigation fee.
This places the burden upon the applicant to prove by substantial evidence that either the School
District has the existing capacity and resources to meet the additional demands caused by the
subdivision, or alternative "provisions" which can make the existing school facilities and
resources "appropriate"to meet this new demand.
The important thing to remember is that the applicant must demonstrate through the evidence
they present at the public hearing, facts, documentation, or expert testimony to support their
position. The evidence cannot consist of opinions, conjecture, fears, or concerns. It must be
based upon facts such as statistics, inventory of the facilities, student census, costs of student
services, etc. In addition, the evidence must be substantial. This means that there must be a
sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that their position is
true.
planning Commission
July 12, 2011
Page 2
If there is no evidence in the record that meets this criteria, any conclusions, or decisions based
upon those conclusions, may not stand.
As fact-finders, the Planning Commission has the duty to gather and evaluate the evidence, to
insure that there is a factual and substantial basis for the action.
In this case, any applicant challenging the School District's determination that it does not have
appropriate provisions to meet this new demand, must provide factual evidence and sufficient
quality and quantity to persuade you.
LBKJsla
r RECEIVED
MCCULLOUGH HILL LFARY, PS JUL 2 0 2011
July 15, 2011
0
_VIA CERTIFIED MAIL c
CL
City of Pasco Planning Commmission 0
PO Box 293 Bey
Pasco, WA 99301 J
Re: Preliminary Plat Approval for Columbia Villas (MF# PP 2011-002) k
WO
Proposed Plat Condition Requiring "Voluntary Agreement" for School Impact Fees
Dear Planning Commission Members: a
O
L
We represent FBA Land Holdings, LLC ("FBA Holdings'. FBA Holdings owns the 13.72- d
acre "Columbia Villas" property currently under preliminary plat review before the Planning
Commission, as well as approximately 48 additional acres of residentially-zoned land in the City of
Pasco ("City").
This letter demonstrates that the City has no legal authority to impose plat conditions
requiring developers to enter into unspecified, open-ended "voluntary agreements" with the Pasco
School District to mitigate potential impacts of development on school facilities.
Adequate funding for schools is ctitically important, but the mechanism the City is
considering—forcing developers to pay whatever fee the District requests, with no individualized
determination of that development's impact on the school district—would violate state law and set a
damaging precedent. The Planning Commission should follow state law and refuse to impose these
conditions.
I. Background
The City does not have a Growth Management Act ("GMA") school impact fee ordinance.
In January 2011, the Pasco School District ("District") notified Franklin County and the City of
Pasco ("City") that its schools ate over capacity, and it requested that the County and City adopt the
District's Capital Facilities Plan and a school impact fee ordinance under the GMA.
The District stated that if the County and City were unwilling to adopt a GMA impact fee
ordinance, it would request that the County and City "refuse to approve new residential
developments unless the developers have mitigated the impact their development have on schools."
Letter from Pasco School District#1 to Franklin County Board of Commissioners and Mayor and Pasco City
Council Members,January 11, 2011,p. 2.
In March 2011, the District indicated that it would seek school impact fees from the
proposed Ranger Heights subdivision, but it subsequently withdrew its request, based in part on the
fact that "there was no formal statement of impact/mitigation fees for schools." Letterfrom John M.
701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 - Seattle,Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 - Fax 206.812.3389 • wwwmhsmtde.com
City of Pasco Planning Commission
July 15, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Morgan to Gene Ba g,March 31, 2011- The letter stated, however, that beginning on April 1, 2011, the
District would begin requesting impact/mitigation fees for all residential developments—despite the
fact that the City still lacks policies or regulations authorizing the imposition of school impact fees.
Columbia Villas is the first plat application subject to Planning Commission review since
April 1,2011. In a June 3, 2011 letter to the City, the District asked the City to impose a school
mitigation requirement on the Columbia Villa preliminary plat. The District did not cite a specific
fee in its letter, but it appears, based on past communications and the District's adopted Capital
Facilities Plan, that the District will request a fee of$6012 per single-family unit.' If this fee were
applied to the proposed 100-unit Columbia Villas plat, it would result in an impact fee of$601,200,
which is ovct hdLthe udue Qf the undetiving pMUqy.Z
At its June 16, 2011 hearing on the Columbia Villas preliminary plat, the Planning
Commission considered two "tentative conditions" based on the District's request. These
conditions provide:
27. To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas
subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Pasco
School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration as
determined by said agreement.
28. A signed and notarized copy of the School District/Developer agreement
must be provided to the City before a final plat is approved by the City
Council.
The Planning Commission discussed these proposed conditions at the June 16 hearing,and
it will reconvene on July 21, 2011 to adopt its final recommendation to the City Council.
The Planning Commission should refuse to impose Conditions #27 and #28. State law
does not allow the imposition of open-ended, "voluntary" mitigation agreements that are not based
on the direct, proportionate impact of a proposed development,especially when the City has not
adopted regulations in its Comprehensive Plan or City Code that authorize such fees. In addition,
there are no facts in the Columbia Villas plat record that support Conditions #27 and #28.
if. Ands
A City cannot collect impact/mitigation fees unless such fees are (1)authorized by state law
and the City's own regulations (mast typically, under GMA or the State Environmental Policy Act);
' The District's Capital Facilities Plan cites a proposed fee of$6012 per single family unit and$3,272 per multi-family
unit. Pasco School District No. 1 Capilal Faalities Parr,2010—2016,p. 13.
2 If the District's requested impact fee were applied to FBA Holdings'R4 zoned property(a higher-density zoning
designation than the Columbia Villas property),the requested school impact fee would greatly exceed the market value
of the property,
City of Pasco Planning Commission
July 15, 2011
Page 3of5
and (2) properly calculated to ensure that the fee is "reasonably necessary" as a "direct result" of the
proposed development or plat. RCW 82.02.020. Here, neither of these requirements is satisfied.
The City has not adopted a GMA school impact fee ordinance. Furthermore, the City has
not adopted SEPA policies that allow it to impose impact fees for school facilities. See Pasco
Municipal Code ("PMC") 23.07.060.' Finally, although the law may allow impact fees to be assessed
under the state subdivision statute,RCW 58.17,' the City has not adopted provisions in its
subdivision regulations that require impact fee payments for schools.' Accordingly, the City lacks
substantive authority to impose plat conditions requiring payment of school impact fees. See View
Ridge Park Associates v. Ciy of Mountlake Terrace, 67 Wn. App. 588, 599, 839 P.2d 343, review denied, 121
Wn.2d 1016 (1992)(mitigation must be based on jurisdiction's adopted SEPA powers or pursuant to
adopted ordinance); tee also Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 274, 877 P.2d 187
(1994)(park fee ordinance adopted to authorize park fees imposed under RCW 58.17).
The District has suggested that the state subdivision statute, RCW 58.17, may provide
independent authority for the City to require developers to enter into a "voluntary agreement" with
the District under RCW 82.02.020. Even if that were true, the requirements of RCW 82.02.020
cannot be met in this case. Voluntary agreements must be narrowly tailored to "mitigate a direct
impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision or plat."
RCW 82.02.020. The burden of demonstrating that a fee is reasonably necessary as a direct result of
the proposed development falls solely on the local government. Isle Verde International Holdings, Inc. v.
City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 759, 49 P.3d 867 (2002).
The Washington Supreme Court analyzed the validity of development fee programs based
on voluntary agreements in two cases, Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d
176 (1994), and Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). Under Henderson
and Trimen, there are three basic requirements for valid voluntary agreement fees under RCW
82.02.020. First, the agreement to pay a fee must be truly "voluntary," i.e., there must be a viable
3 Under WAC 197-11-660,SEPA mitigation conditions must be"based on policies,plans,rules,or regulations formally
designated by the agency;'"related to specific,adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental
document on the proposal," and"imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse
impacts of its proposal." In this case,none of these standards are met. The City has not adopted a specific SEPA policy
that would authorize the imposition of a SEPA impact fee related to school facilities,so SEPA cannot be the basis for
the impact fee. See Pasco Municipal Code 23.07.060.
'RCW 58.1 7 requires cities to make written findings when approving subdivisions that"appropriate provisions"are
made for schools and schoolgrounds.
s The City has adopted regulations in its subdivision code requiring dedications and fees in lieu for parks and
playgrounds. Ste Chapter 26.20 PMC,"Dedications for Pasks and Playgrounds."
6 While"voluntary agreements"under RCW'82.02.020 provide a vehicle for assessing fees,they do not provide
substantive authority=for conditioning development of the payment of impact fees. See Carfle Homer v. City of Brier,76,
Wn.App.95,105,882 P.2d 1172(1994).
City of Pasco Planning Commission
July 15, 2011
Page 4 of 5
alternative to paying the fee. I£a developer is given a choice between paying the fee and being
denied development approval and/or is denied the opportunity to negotiate the amount of the fee,
the fee payment is not voluntary. Trimen, 124. Wn.2d at 271-72. Second, the voluntary agreement
fee must be necessary as a direct result of an identified impact of the proposed development. It
cannot be used to address existing deficiencies or cumulative impacts not caused by a development
proposal. Id. at 274;see also Castle Homes and Dev., Inc. v. Brier, 76 Wn.App. 95, 105, 882 P.2d 1172
(1994);Dolan v. Cite of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 2319-20, 129 L.Ed2d 304 (199 4)(requiting "nexus"
and "proportionality"between development impacts and conditions imposed by governments).
Third, any money collected through voluntary agreements trust be expended for capital
improvements constructed within the service area where the property is located within a specified
time. Henderson, 124 Wn.2d at 249.
Proposed Conditions #27 and #28 would violate each of these requirements. First, these
conditions are not`voluntary." There is no viable alternative. These conditions would essentially
abrogate the City's burden of demonstrating a reasonable, proportionate fee to the District, who
may unilaterally cause final plat approval to be withheld until it receives its requested payment
(whatever it may be). .
Second, Conditions #27 and #28 are not based on a "direct impact" identified as a
consequence of the Columbia Villas plat. In other words, these conditions lack the"nexus" and
"proportionality" required by state and federal courts. The City has not formally reviewed or
adopted the District's Capital Facilities Plan, it has not adopted its own regulations authorizing
school impact fees, and it has made no attempt to discern whether the flat fee the District may seek
to impose is necessary, equitable or proportionate as required by RCW 82.02.020.
Third, because the City has no policies or regulations authorizing the imposition, collection
or disbursement of school impact fees,it has no means of ensuring that fees collected by the District
would be used for capital improvements that reasonably benefit the development in the legally
required timeframe.
In sum, Conditions #27 and #28 cannot be sustained as `voluntary agreements" under
RCW 82.02.020 or any other authority. They are illegal fees, and the Planning Commission should
refuse to impose them.
III. Conclusion
The District's own Capital Facilities Plan identifies bonds and state capital construction
funds as the primary sources of funding for the construction of new schools and other capital
fatalities projects. Pasco School District No. 1 Capital Facilities Plan, 2010—2016,p. 11. However, these
sources of revenue have proven inadequate, and Pasco schools are currently over capacity. This is a
complicated issue that requires a comprehensive solution,which may involve legislative action to
increase bonding capacity.
City of Pasco Planning Cornnission
July 15, 2011
Page 5of5
This problem cannot be solved by requiring individual developers to shoulder a
disproportionate share of the existing deficiencies that have mounted over the past decade. This is
especially true where, as here, the City has not adopted regulations authorizing such fees, and when
there has been no attempt to quantify the direct, proportionate impact of each residential unit as
required by RCW $2.02.020. The open-ended, ad hoc plat conditions the City is considering would
violate state Law, and the Planning Commission should reject them. Finally, as a practical matter, a
school impact fee that amounts to half of the underlying property value is patently unreasonable and
cannot be sanctioned by the City.
We appreciate your attention to this letter. FBA Holdings looks forward to future
cooperative discussions with the City and District on this issue.
Sincerely,
Ni LLOUGH HILL LEARY,P.S.
Co y E. Flora
cc: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director
Dave McDonald, City Planner
John M. Morgan, Executive Director of Operations,Pasco School District
Renee L. Dahlgren,Director, Government Affairs, Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities
Exhibit 6:
MARNIE School District Legal Opinion
ALLE-4N-X1-T ORNEY
Leval Solutions for Schoois
August 9, 2011
City of Pasco Planning Commission
PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
Re: Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat(MF# PP 2011-002)
Dear Commissioners:
I represent the Pasco School District and appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter FBA
Land Holdings, LLC filed on July 15, 2011, objecting to the condition of approval requiring
mitigation of the impacts the proposed development will have on schools through a voluntary
development agreement.
FBA Land Holdings, LLC owns the property that is the subject of the Columbia Villa's preliminary
plat. FBA Holdings is not the applicant and FBA Holdings is not the developer, Despite this,
FSA Land Holdings is questioning the Planning Commission's condition of approval requiring
"the developer" to enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with the Pasco School District.
Why is FBA Land Holdings, and not the developer that is obligated to comply with the condition,
challenging the condition? Setting aside questions about whether FBA Land Holdings has
standing and is the proper party to object to the conditions, requiring mitigation pursuant to a
voluntary development agreement is appropriate and is legally required, assuming the Planning
Commission wants to approve the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat.
As explained below, the Planning Commission must require mitigation of the impacts the
proposed development (Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat)will have on schools. The tool the law
provides to address the required mitigation is a voluntary development agreement.
1. Mitigation is Required
As stated in the letter the Pasco School District filed with the City on June 3,2011, the
elementary and middle schools that will serve the proposed development do not have adequate
capacity to serve the students that will live in the proposed development. At a minimum, the
proposed development will generate 59 additional students. There is no capacity at the
elementary or middle school to accommodate these students,
The impacts associated with Columbia Villas are identified in the SEPA documents, the
comments on the SEPA checklist, the Report to the Planning Commission and Rick White's June
1(3, 2011 Memorandum to the Planning Commission. The evidence of the adverse impacts on
schools is uncontested.
What appears to be at issue is how to address the impacts the proposed development will have
on schools. The City has two options. The City can give the developer the opportunity to
A pm9wri)of Educational Service District 112
21-'00 f,.L 61;1.1`A'.e'r w? L:-110U e, 54Puf,I I Ph 7".0 i5,^ir I �x 7i'1.7ji!ii7l�l1 1 mJ GU,.111Ht1K1�'1 �,.':,
Letter to Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Page 2 of 6
enter into a voluntary agreement with the Pasco School District, under which the developer can
agree to mitigate the direct impacts the proposed development has on the schools. Or, the City
can deny the development because the impacts on schools have.not been mitigated. The better
option is to impose the condition requiring mitigation under a voluntary development agreement,
as is being done.
N. The State Environmental Policy Act Requires Mitigation of Impacts on Schools
As reflected in the documents in the record and state law, the State Environmental Policy Act
(SERA) requires analysis of the impacts a project will have on the built and natural environment.
Where a proposed development will have adverse impacts on the built environment (schools),
the law authorizes local governments to impose conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the
impacts. RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11-060. A condition requiring mitigation must be
based upon city policy or regulations and the condition may only require mitigation of specific
adverse impacts of the proposed development as identified in the SEPA and proposed
development documents.
The City of Pasco has adopted SEPA regulations, which specifically include the authority to
impose conditions requiring mitigation. Section 23.03.050(8) of the Pasco Municipal Code
(PMC) states "[m]igitation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed
conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any
term or condition of the permit, or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the City."
The City's SEPA regulations also adopt by reference the policies in the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, PMC 23,07.060(c)(1). The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains the
following policies "[e]nsure that those public facilities and service necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve development . . . " See Land Use and Capital Facilities
Elements, Policy No 1, paragraph 10. The City's adopted regulations and policies support the
imposition of conditions requiring mitigation under SEPA.
Court's routinely uphold policies and regulations, similar to Pasco's, which support the imposition
of conditions requiring mitigation. See West Main v, City of Bellevue, 49 Wn. App. 513, 742 P.2d
1266 (1987); Defray v. City of Lacey, 132 Wn. App. 1008(2006) (unpublished), As long as the
condition requires mitigation of adverse impacts that are specific to the proposed development,
as identified in the SEPA documents, the condition is appropriate and will be upheld. See Prisk
v. City of Poulsbo, 46 Wn. App. 793, 732 P.2d 1013 (1987). Impacts the developer of Columbia
Villas Preliminary Plat will be required to mitigate under a voluntary development agreement are
those identified in the record which are specific to the development.
While the record refers to the Pasco School District's request to have the City of Pasco and
Franklin County adopt a school impact fee ordinance, neither the Pasco School District nor the
City have stated the terms of the voluntary agreement will require payment of a school impact
fee in the amount the District has asked the City and County to consider. There is no evidence
in the record to this effect. Instead, what the District has requested and the City is requiring is an
agreement under which the developer will mitigate the specific and direct impacts associated
A program of Educational Service District 112
1500;�U c5;h Ay-,fio pr 3:0 7507'X0 I i
Letter to Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Page 3 of 6
with Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat. Imposing a condition of approval requiring a voluntary
development agreement between the District and developer, in which the developer must agree
to mitigate the impacts the development will have on schools, is both allowed and required under
SEPA.
ill. The Subdivision Act and Pasco Subdivision Reguladons Require Mitigation
The Washington State Subdivision Act says"every subdivision shall_oomph with the
provisions of this chapter [RCW 58.17]." RCW 58.17.030. The provisions in Chapter 58.17 state
"a proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved" unless the city finds"(a)
[a]ppropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general
welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets ... schools and schoolgrounds.° RCW
58.17.110(2).
The City of Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations (Subdivision Regulations) implement and
are consistent with the Subdivision Act. Section 26.25.060 of the Subdivision Regulations states
"the Planning Commission shall make and enter into findings from the record and conclusions
thereof as to whether or not: (1) [a]dequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys . . . schools and school
grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs." The
Planning Commission cannot find there are adequate provisions for schools without imposing the
condition requiring a voluntary agreement that will address mitigation of the impacts on schools.
Accordingly, the condition is required.
The legal requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for public services is recognized
and addressed in Washington court opinions. See Isla Verda Intem. Holdings, Inc. v. City of
Camas, 446 Wn.2d 740,49 P.3d 867 (2002) ; Miller v. City of Port Angeles, 38 Wn. App. 904,
691 P.2d 229 (1984); Kenart&Associates v. Skagit County, 37 Wn.App. 295, 680 P.2d 439
(1984). According to the case law,where there is evidence in the record that demonstrates there
are not adequate provisions for public services, including schools, a condition of approval
requiring the developer to mitigate its impacts is appropriate. Id. Furthermore, as the court in
Kenhart&Associates v. Skagit County stated, "school capacity is always a legitimate concern."
The court explained that school capacity alone might be sufficient to halt a development, but only
if no other solution exists. Kenhart, at 302. Here, as In other case, a solution other than denying
the development exists; the developer can agree to mitigate the impacts pursuant to a voluntary
agreement. The condition requiring mitigation is appropriate and required.
The condition requiring mitigation of the impacts Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat will have on
schools under a voluntary development agreement is necessary. If a condition requiring a
voluntary agreement is not imposed and implemented, the City must deny the development.
Without the condition, there are not adequate provisions for schools.
The school mitigation condition ensures the development can proceed. The condition does not
require payment of school impact fees or impose an involuntary burden on the developer
A program of Educational Service Dislrict 112
LSW 1•.E!74 11s;�;nr.f:'. '.qrs 9K(')1 1 f'f' orj 75,j Y,t.;oJ lj k)7&.i i 'iid'IiiN.p it oo4c--.I 11 rQ
Letter to Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Page 4 of 6
that is not supported by the evidence in the record and the law. The conditions require mitigation
of the direct impacts the development will have on the schools, as reflected in a voluntary
agreement that will be negotiated by the developer and the Pasco School District.
IV. Requiring Mitigation Under a Development Agreement is Appropriate
FBA Land Holdings appears to be confused about the authority the City is acting under. The
condition is not being imposed under the Growth Management Act or the City's authority to
assess school impact fees. Rather, Pasco School District requested mitigation in its comments
on the SEPA checklist and proposed preliminary plat. The City is imposing the condition
pursuant to its authority under SEPA,the Subdivision Regulations and RCW 82,02.020. The
requirement to mitigate the impacts in accordance with a voluntary development agreement is
authorized by law and is an appropriate alternative to denying the development because there
are not adequate provisions for schools.
As the court in Cobb v. Snohomish County, 64 Wn. App.451, at 458-459, 829 P. 2d 169(1991)
stated '[w]ithin the context of RCW 82.02.020, the word "voluntary" means precisely that the
developer has the choice of either (1) paying for those reasonably necessary costs which are
directly attributable to the developer's project or(2) losing preliminary plat approval. The fact that
the developer's choices may not be between perfect options does not render the agreement
'involuntary" under the statute."Where, as is the case with the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat,
a condition of approval requires mitigation of direct impacts pursuant to a voluntary agreement,
and does not impose a requirement to agree to pay a predetermined fee amount, the condition is
appropriate and authorized. In fact, such a condition arguably is required because it is an
alternative to denying the development.
FBA Land Holdings has cited two cases for the proposition that the City cannot impose a
condition requiring the developer to enter into a voluntary agreement; Trimen Dev. Co. v. King
County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994)and Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124
Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994).
In Trimen, the Washington Supreme Court upheld King County's decision to require a developer
to pay a park development fee in lieu of dedicating property. The developer paid the park
development fee pursuant to a King County Ordinance that set and assessed the fee, as
opposed to paying the fee in response to a condition that required a voluntary agreement. After
the developer paid the fee and built his project, he sued King County seeking a refund. Among
other things, the developer claimed he should receive a refund because payment of the fee was
not "voluntary." The Washington Supreme court held the County requirement to pay the fee was
authorized by the statute and quoted the definition of voluntary set forth in the Cobb decision
("voluntary' means precisely that the developer has the choice of either(1) paying for those
reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developer's project or(2) losing
preliminary plat approval. The fact that the developer's choices may not be between perfect
options does not render the agreement°involuntary' under the statute).
A program of Educational Service District 112
25UJ kE 651h/,value.V%
Letter to Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Page 5 of 6
In Henderson, the City of Bothell imposed a condition of approval requiring a developer to enter
into a voluntary development agreement under which the developer had to agree to pay a
predetermined fixed fee of $400 per lot. The $400 per lot fee was akin to a park impact fee, but it
was not assessed pursuant to an impact fee ordinance. The Washington Supreme Court held
the requirement to pay a predetermined fee was not consistent with the statute because the
amount of the fee was predetermined as opposed to being calculated independently based on
the impacts of the proposed development. There wasn't a "voluntary agreement" because the
agreement and fee amounts "were not negotiated as to the impact fee amount to be paid."
Neither of the two cases FBA Land Holdings has cited support the conclusion that is
inappropriate for the Planning Commission to impose a condition requiring a voluntary
development agreement where the terms of the agreement will be negotiated and will ensure the
direct impacts the development has on the schools are mitigated. The condition being imposed
by the Planning Commission does not require the developer to agree to pay a predetermined
school impact fee, or to agree to mitigation measures that are beyond what is reasonably
necessary to mitigate the direct impacts the development will have on schools. Rather, this is a
case where the City is following the law, which requires a developerto mitigate adverse impacts
directly caused by the development so there are adequate provisions for schools.
The developer in this case, Big Creek Land Company, has not filed an objection to the condition
and did not appeal the SEPA MDNS, which contained the same condition. Presumably the
developer wants to negotiate an agreement so the development can proceed. In any event, it is
appropriate and necessary to impose the condition requiring mitigate under a voluntary
agreement so the developer has the choice to mitigate the impacts on schools or have the
development denied.
V. Conclusion
Washington courts recognize the legal authority to impose a condition of approval requiring
mitigation under a voluntary development agreement. An agreement is"voluntary" if the
developer is given the choice to either pay the reasonably necessary costs which are directly
attributable to the developers project or lose preliminary plat approval. The courts recognize the
use of voluntary development agreements to mitigate the proposed development's direct
impacts, even if a developer doesn't want to mitigate its impacts, because the preference is to
give developers an opportunity to agree on mitigation terms as opposed to denying the
development outright.
The City of Pasco staff correctly described the options to address the impacts the proposed
development will have on schools and the Planning Commission is acting within its authority if it
approves the development subject to conditions that require mitigation under a voluntary
development agreement. The District respectfully requests the Planning Commission include the
mitigation conditions in its decision to approve the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat.
A program of Educational Service 01strict 112
;n, rGU; r�', 1�3�io: 1 l r. 3 ".7 50"�OJ i h•.36 '5G 9 10,6 II'1'ilit%a11 1 c g
Letter to Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Page 6 of 6
The Pasco School District is committed to providing quality education to students in the City of
Pasco. The District is and remains open to discussions with Big Creek Land Development
Company regarding measures that are necessary to mitigate the proposed developments direct
impacts. While the District would prefer not to be in the position of having to require and
negotiate mitigation measures with residential developers, there simply is not adequate capacity
in the schools to serve students from new development. Mitigation is required.
Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued support of Pasco Schools.
Sincerely,
Marnie Allen
Special Legal Counsel for the Pasco School District
c: Pasco School District Board or Directors
Saundra Hill, Superintendent
Sarah Thomton, Executive Director of Human Resources and Legal Affairs
John Morgan, Executive Director of Operations
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Rick White, Director, Community and Economic Development
Courtney F. Flora,Attomey for FBA Land Holdings
A program of Educational Service District 112
VVA 9E6G i i Ph:350.70.7500 1 Fx.?t i.7`_"�J.'_�70G I n'-ar.lic alicnwlesu'
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2011-002 APPLICANT: Big Creek Land Company
HEARING DATE: 6/ 16/2011 11741 W. Romin Road
ACTION DATE: 7/21/2011 Post Falls, ID 83854
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Columbia Villas, 100-Lots (Multi-Family)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The east 525' of the south 1180' of the northwest quarter of
Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 29 East except road rights-of-way
General Location: The N/W corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76
Property Size: 12.72 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 100 lots for zero lot line construction
Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,018 ft2 to 5,793 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 4,300 ft=
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 76 and Three Rivers
D rive.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer currently exists on the site. Water service
will need to be extended through the site from the east and west.
Irrigation lines will need to be installed through the site and extended the
length of the site on both Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Residential).
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-4 - Vacant and Apartments
SOUTH: R-1 - Single Family Residences
EAST: C-1 - Vacant
WEST R-1 - Single Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for mixed residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20
dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land
use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses
when or where: sewer is available, the location is convenient to major
circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense
uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. Policy
H-1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2
I
suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for
residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of
established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that
are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, comments received
from the Pasco School District, and other information, the City has
issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for this
project under WAC 197-11-158. To mitigate the impacts associated with
the proposed Columbia Villas Subdivision the developer will need to
enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District, as authorized
under RCW 82.02.020. The terms of said agreement may include impact
fees or other remuneration to ameliorate the impacts that 59 new
students will have on the School District.
ANALYSIS
The site was initially designated for mixed residential development under the
Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning
was established in 2003 around the time Columbia Place (to the west) received
Preliminary Plat approval. The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive
was deeded to the City in the fall of 2003.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 100 lots to
allow the construction of 50 duplexes. Each duplex would occupy two lots with
the common lot line dividing each unit. This proposal for Columbia Villas is
identical to the process that was used for the development of the Island Estates
Row Homes in the Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8) and in the
Mediterranean Villas subdivision. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for
multi-family development and later platted into individual lots. The lot lines
within these subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the
dwelling units.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed Plat contains 100 lots; with the lots varying hi
size from 3,018 square feet to 5,793 square feet. The proposal is consistent
with the density requirements of the R-3 zoning of the site.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated.
UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
Plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage
of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined
during the engineering design phase. The front ,yard setbacks for construction
2
purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front vard
easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and at a maximum interval of 500
feet. Streetlights are located at street intersections and at 300-foot intervals on
residential streets.
STREET NAMES: The street names follow the river theme of the Columbia
Place subdivision to the west.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines
as a part of the infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval. Where no water rights exist the developer is required to
pay a fee of$1,500 per acre.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-3 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
in question be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
Plat has a density of less than 8 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of
each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-3 zoning
standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: City parks are located in Columbia Place and
Island Estates. The proposed subdivision will be served by Ruth Livingston
Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School.
The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the School District for review. The
School District has indicated (see attached letter) that the District does not
have capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin to serve the addition enrollment
expected from the proposed subdivision. The table below illustrates the School
Districts capacity constraints. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make
a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of
the proposed subdivision on the School District. The proposed Plat cannot be
recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds adequate
provisions have been made for the schools. The School District has requested
3
the impacts be mitigated. Without a specific impact fee ordinance the
mitigation can be achieved through the developer entering into a voluntary
agreement with the School District as authorized under RCW 82.02.020. The
voluntary agreement would specify the type or form of mitigation being
provided by the developer. The mitigation could take the form of an impact fee
cash payment to the District, the construction of portable classrooms or
combination of fees and in-kind services. Requiring the developer to enter into
an agreement with the School District for the payment of impact fees or other
kinds of remuneration would be one method of addressing the finding
requirements of RCW 58.17.110.
SCHOOL CAPACITY OCTOBER 2010
ENROLLMENT
Ruth Livingston 500 300
McLoughlin 1,000 1 ,433
Middle
Chiawana High 2,200 2,032
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for multi-
family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum
density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 20 dwelling units per acre.
The developer is proposing a density of 7.8 units per acre. The proposed
development will provide for the continuation of Road 76 north to Three Rivers
Drive and will provide another outlet/entrance to the Columbia Place
subdivision.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat is connected to Sandifur
Parkway, and Three Rivers Drive. Sidewalks will be installed at the time homes
are built on individual lots. These sidewalks will connect with sidewalks to be
built on Road 76 and with the existing sidewalk on Sandifur Parkway.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 100
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 50
duplex units.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
4
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained
to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 76 and
Three Rivers Drive. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority
for review. (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section
also.)
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the Plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City
strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential
development.
• Mixed residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as
five to twenty dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
• The site was zoned R-3 in 2003.
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
advancement of programs that promote home ownership and
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The east end of Three Rivers Drive in the Columbia Place subdivision is
currently barricaded and does not contain a cul-de-sac.
• Dedicated cul-de-sacs are provided on the ends of streets where they are
not planned to be extended in the future.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive was deeded to the
City in 2003.
• The site was zoned R-3 in 2003 to provide an area of transition between
the more intense C-1 zoning east of Road 76 and the less intense
residential development in the Columbia Place subdivision.
5
• The School District has purchased sites for future schools at the
northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway (elementary school)
and at the end of Road 52 (middle school).
• A recent bond measure to fund construction of the Road 60 and Road 52
schools failed.
• The School District has provided data indicating Pasco schools lack the
capacity to accommodate additional students.
• The School District by letter dated June 3, 2011 requested the impacts to
the School District created by the proposed Plat be mitigated.
• RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary Plat is
approved.
• The School District by letter dated June 3, 2011 indicated impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• The City of Pasco does not have a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation
fees.
• RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the School District to enter into agreements
with developers for the purpose of mitigating the impacts new
development may have upon the School District. The terms of such
agreements may include the payment of school impact fees.
• The fully developed portions of Sandifur Parkway contain a curvilinear
sidewalk and extensive landscaping.
• The site borders on a partially developed section of Sandifur Parkway.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed Plat will be required to develop under the standards of the
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
6
streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of
park lands. The Preliminary Plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD,
the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit Authority for review and
comment. The School District indicated that there are capacity constraints at
Ruth Livingston Elementary and McLoughlin Middle School. To address the
capacity issues and ensure adequate provisions are made for schools the
District is asking the developer to enter into an agreement with the Pasco
School District to mitigate the impacts the development will have upon the
provision of schools and school services.
City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and southwest of the site.
All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of
park fees at the time of permitting.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide another connection
from Sandifur Parkway to and from Columbia Place.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential
development. Mixed residential development is described as 5 to 20 dwelling
units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of
the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and
suggests the community should support the advancement of programs
encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests
major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also
encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for
public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school
impact fees are paid.)
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
developed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This
includes, but is not limited to water, irrigation and sewer lines, streets,
street lights and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed no
later than the time each lot is developed with a house. The handicapped
accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb
improvements prior to final Plat approval. All existing and proposed
utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's
expense.
2. Improvements to Sandifur Parkway must include a curvilinear sidewalk,
landscaping and irrigation to match the existing sidewalk and landscaping
on Sandifur Parkway. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation.
3. Excess right-of-way along Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive must be
landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf and trees. The
species of trees and spacing will be determined by the Parks department.
All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Parks department prior to installation.
4. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance
responsibility for excess right-of-way landscaping on Sandifur Parkway,
Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive is the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association.
5. Lots abutting Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive shall not
have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of
deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final Plat(s).
6. The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence six-feet in height
adjacent the rear line of all lots backing on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76
and Three Rivers Drive as a part of the infrastructure improvements
8
associated with each please abutting said streets. The fence must be
constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the
subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to the
vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Maintenance and upkeep of
said fence must be the responsibility of the subdivision Homeowners
Association. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the
maintenance responsibility for the estate fence is the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association.
7. The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic mitigation fee" established by
ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees
collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and
other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the
circulation system within the I-182 corridor.
S. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of
,yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final Plat(s).
9. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
10. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and
requirements.
11. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter
abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and
construction of dwellings thereon.
12. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be
approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the
first phase of the subdivision.
13. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided
by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer
prior to plan approval.
14. The 16" PVC irrigation mainline in Sandifur Parkway shall be extended
from its current termination point in Sandifur Parkway to the east right-of-
way line of Road 76.
15. Irrigation mainlines shall be installed throughout the entire Plat of a size
sufficient to service every lot within the Plat pursuant to PMC 26.04.116.
All easements/rights-of-way necessary to convey an irrigation system to
and through the Plat must be conveyed to the City of Pasco.
16. All water lines must be extended through the length of the final Plat(s). No
phase may be left for more than six months without the subsequent
looping of each system with the existing City of Pasco water system. The
developer will be required to deposit funds for any non-looped system left
longer than six months with the City of Pasco to insure the completion of
9
the water system. No water valves/meter boxes are to be located in any
easements/walkways.
17. The final Plat shall contain the following statement: "Irrigation service
lines are currently available to lots within this Plat; however, water for the
irrigation system may not currently be available. The City of Pasco is
constructing its irrigation infrastructure on an ongoing basis. The use of
the system will become available as time and resources permit the
expansion and connection of new systems to the existing irrigation
supply."
18. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with
construction inspection and plan review service expenses incurred by the
City of Pasco Engineering department.
19. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final Plat drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
20. The final Plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all streets.
An additional easement shall be provided as needed by the Franklin
County PUD. All other easement widths are to be as directed by the City
Engineer.
21. The final Plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a
lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the
PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with
PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance
payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility
easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical
service to or within the Plat."
22. Water rights shall be assigned to the City, if no water rights exist, the
developer is required to pay a fee of $1,500 per acre to the City of Pasco
prior to acceptance of any subdivision construction plans.
23. Street lighting will be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD
standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights
are typically installed every 300 feet and collector/arterial type street
lights are typically installed every 150 feet.
24. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded
with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy
of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake
meeting for construction plans for each phase of development.
25. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular
10
cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch
basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to
ensure that no excess build up of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or
other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water
collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm
water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm
drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement
for a period of up to five ,years from the date of final Plat approval for each
phase or until the system is accepted by the City of Pasco. The City of
Pasco's acceptance of construction plans for subsequent phases of the
subdivision will be contingent upon the developer satisfying all
requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement.
26. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
27. To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia
Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration
as determined by said agreement.
28. Final Plat approval is further contingent upon execution and recording of
a voluntary agreement authorized by RCW 82.02.020 between the
Developer and the Pasco School District providing for payment in
mitigation of the direct impact upon the Pasco School District as a
consequence of the Columbia Villas subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the July 21, 2011 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a
Preliminary Plat for the Columbia Villas Subdivision with the
conditions as listed in the July 21, 2011 staff report.
Ii
Overview Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas Map
Apple cant: Big Creek Land Company N
File # : PP 2011 _002
I�J �
if
JY�r�' Via. - '! ! n `+` - 4.+►i
SITE
ry
wr
f. J. _ .. — -...: I - ��s�±Y9�..Lt2l,IT►�.'7.'t-1'R M7Fo LiT� ,ri'�.
:SANDIFU'R`1PK'WY
Rilt
VIA pvrpl�
VD
®EN d,L
• Item: Prelim. Plat - C0lumbia Villas
V c*n'tY ii
App
lic Big Creep Land C0mpany N
Map File # : PP 2011 -002
J l R �•
cn
Y CT s•�� RUSH CREEK DR
SITE
rr
rr
IWHITE BLUFFS CTS • ~I 1 `
r•,,, �.. Z
,s.
'ENATCH DR � �"'� Q'ESC.HUTES DR
SANDIF.UR PKYVY
REDONDA DF. ' 7EIDOIV) Dot'
•� r:�.ter' � � • ;. -
r �— MAYNE iDr r��_ PEN DER Dt .
ar,.
Land Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas
Use Applicant: Big Creek Land Company O
Map File PP 2011 -002
Farming
N NNN i 1�R*R",
\OTC;;;.:;
on soon
0 loss 0 —Commercial
Towers
�e
O
Item- Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas
Zoning A -mplicant: Big Creek Land Company
Map -r-vp
File PP 2011 -002
IN,AS'S
ins
�,t,4*t,I*js�
SANDIFUR PKWY
monsoon MENNEN
MEN
MEMO SEEM
i
j1
-1 .L
s
i
\ A
i
i
Z
J . .
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP 2011-009 APPLICANT: Pasco Conference of
HEARING DATE: 7/21/2011 the Society of St. Vincent de Paul
ACTION DATE: 8/18/2011 1120 West Sylvester Street
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a 14,952 Square Foot
Community Service Facility (Level
Two) Warehouse in an I-1 (Light
Industrial) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 1 of Binding Site Plan 2011-002
General Location: Between 5th Ave. and 6th Ave. 155 ft. north
of"A" St. (2 15 S. 6th Ave.)
Property Size: 1.7 acres
2. ACCESS: The site will have access from 5th and 6th Avenues.
3. UTILITIES: A municipal water line is located at the northwest
corner of the site and both municipal sewer and water lines are
located along the entire frontage of the site on 5th Avenue.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial)
and is undeveloped. The zoning and land use of the surrounding
properties are as follows:
NORTH: I-1 - Warehouse
SOUTH: R-2 - Single-Family Residences
EAST: I-1 - Building Materials Supplier
WEST: I-1 - Building Materials Supplier
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for commercial uses. Policy LU-1-B encourages
enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the
City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot with a warehouse
and parking lot containing landscaping. Policy LU-2-D requires all
development to be landscaped.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
1
and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a
Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this
project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow the location of Level
Two Community Service Facility (PMC 25.12.156) on a vacant site in an
I-1 (Light Industrial) zone. The Pasco Conference of the Society of Saint
Vincent de Paul plan to construct a 14,952 square foot food
bank/clothing distribution warehouse facility on BNSF property fronting
both S. 5th & S. 6th Avenues. A majority of the building (11,000 sq ft) will
be devoted to food bank functions. The development proposal includes a
landscaped parking lot providing 97 parking stalls with four (4)
driveways and a loading dock. Two driveways are proposed to access the
site from South 5th Avenue and two driveways are proposed to access the
site from South 6th Avenue.
Under PMC 25.12.156 the definition of Community Service Facility -
Level Two includes food banks and other types of non-profit services;
PMC 25.86.050(4) requires special permit approval for the location of
Community Service Facilities anywhere in the City.
The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has maintained a food bank at 129
West Lewis Street for more than 30 ,years. The facility was originally
designed for retail purposes and lacks on-site parking and queuing space
for patrons of the food bank. The City is buying the Saint Vincent de
Paul building along with the other buildings in the 100 block of West
Lewis Street (north side of Lewis only) in preparation for the eventual
construction of an overpass across the rail ,yard. Because of the City's
purchase of the existing Saint Vincent de Paul building the Society is
required to relocate.
The proposed facility on S. 5th Avenue is designed more efficiently than
the current facility to better accommodate food bank patrons by
providing off-street parking and an indoor queuing area. With the
covered entry sidewalk on either side of the building and the indoor
queuing area there will be no need for patrons to queue on adjoining
public sidewalks as they now do at the 129 West Lewis facility.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are
initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the
staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to
this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted
during the open record hearing.
1. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has operated a food bank at 129
West Lewis Street for over 30 years.
2. The City of Pasco is purchasing the exiting Saint Vincent de Paul
building to clear in preparation for the construction of the Lewis
Street overpass.
3. The existing Saint Vincent de Paul facility has no parking facilities
for patrons.
4. The proposed site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
5. The applicant proposes to construct a food bank and clothing
distribution facility.
6. By definition, food banks and other non-profit organizations qualify
as Level Two Community Service Facilities (PMC 25.12.156).
7. The Municipal Code [PMC 25.86.020(4)] requires Special Permit
review for Level Two Community Service Facilities
S. The proposed site is currently owned by BNSF Railway Company.
9. The proposed facility is 14,952 square feet in size and contains 97
onsite parking stalls.
10. The proposed building provides indoor queuing for patrons
11. The proposed facility has onsite sidewalks for additional queuing
areas.
12. The proposed food bank/clothing center uses each Wednesday as
the distribution day.
13. The site is accessible from both 5th and 6th Avenues.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.56.060. The criteria and staff listed findings
are as follows:
3
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial uses. The
Industrial Land Use Designation includes all commercial uses listed in
the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. The nature of the proposed use fits within
the intent of permitted uses in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District.
Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of
development within the City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot
with a well developed facility and parking lot containing landscaping.
Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Development of
the site including landscaping will support policies of the Comprehensive
Plan (LU2-D) and enhance the appearance of the immediate vicinity.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from surrounding
streets. Commercial development standards require right-of-way
improvements on all road frontages to bring the bordering roadways up
to current standards. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will
be negligible compared to permitted uses such as food manufacturing
and bottling facilities and restaurants. Impacts to the adjoining streets
will likewise be minimal due to the fact the facility will only be open to
the public one day a week.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated
to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity?
The proposed use will be equally or less intensive from an activity
standpoint than other permitted uses in the I-1 zone. Permitted uses in
the I-1 zone such as automotive assembly and repair, trucking express
storage ,yards, heavy equipment sales and service and metal fabrication
shops all have the potential to generate higher levels of noise than the
proposed use. The food bank and clothing center has one day a week
(Wednesday) for distribution and will generate little activity on the other
days of the week. To address the issue of food bank patrons lining up on
public sidewalks the Saint Vincent de Paul Society has designed the
proposed facility with indoor queuing space, covered outdoor queuing
and additional onsite sidewalks.
4
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on
property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
Surrounding properties are zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). There are no
height limitations in the I-1 zone. The proposed food bank warehouse
building will be about 18 feet hi height which is similar to or less than
the height of surrounding warehouses. The proposed facility will also
contain significantly more improved onsite parking and landscaping than
the surrounding industrial supply facilities. Development of the site,
which is currently a vacant lot, will consist of a paved parking lot,
landscaping and a new building, which will improve the appearance of
the neighborhood. An online search of the Franklin County Assessor's
records (7/2011) indicate that property values surrounding the most
recently approved food bank (Golden Age Food Share, 504 S Oregon Ave,
2005) have generally increased over the past few ,years.
5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district?
The proposed food bank/clothing center will only be open to the public
one day a week. The facility has been designed with a large onsite
parking lot, with indoor queuing space and covered outdoor queuing
space to eliminate the need for food bank patrons to line up for services
on public sidewalks. The operation of the proposed facility will create
less noise, fumes, vibration and dust than the nearby material supply
facilities.
6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any way will
become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
Development of the site with the proposed food bank/clothing center will
eliminate nuisances associated with blowing dust and weeds that are
common on vacant lots within the City. On most days of the week
minimal activity will occur on the site. The proposed facility has been
planned to accommodate 60 more parking spaces than required by code
for a warehouse. The facility has also been designed to accommodate
indoor and onsite queuing of patrons to address concerns of individuals
lining up on city sidewalks to receive services. The onsite parking and
queuing will address safety concerns associated with the existing food
bank that contains no onsite public parking or queuing. With
distribution occurring one day a week, the food bank will have minimal
impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
5
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 112060378;
2. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
site plan submitted with the Special Permit application;
3. Site development shall conform to the commercial landscape
standards of PMC 25.75;
4. No food commodities or other materials shall be stored outside of
the building;
5. The driveway entrances shall meet current ADA requirements.
6. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not obtained by September 30, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions
therefrom as contained in the August 18, 2011 staff
report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a Special Permit to Saint Vincent de
Paul for the location of a Community Service Facility at
215 South 6th Avenue with conditions as contained in
the August 18, 2 0 11 staff report.
6
Vicinity Item: Saint Vincent de Paul
& a 0
Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul N
File #: SP2011 -009 -111,110IFow- 79p- V
COP
41 A
e C
O.V n dft
.06 ..�� SITE � • � ��. � � -
•
�.
•�,',_, • � X11► .i �" i
"A ST , _ 1 _
I ,•
r
``"''- � . . 1 -�,,r-• __. rl-1410�, � ' i �• !x �l► �r. S' ' — f Vii, _
Land Use Item: Saint Vincent de Paul
Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul �v File #: SP2011 -009
I!k
Commercial '07".
Comm. ndustri
SITE Industrials
Industrial
Residential
..A.. ST
�—I �—I cow.
Comm.
Residential
Zoning Item: Saint Vincent de Paul
Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul �v
File #: SP2011 -009
C-3
G 3
s
S
°;A I. 1
G SITE rn
R-2
"A" ST
-1
C-1 R-3
R3 R-2 I-1
R-2 g_3
Looking eas
iM,'�
f
Looking north
I oil
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 13, ' 011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Code Amendment PMC 25.48 Auto Body Shops as an Accessory Use in
the C-R District
BACKGROUND
Staff recently met with the owner of the Broadmoor RV Center to review details
of future expansion plans for the RV Center located on Saint Thomas Drive.
The plans call of the addition of a new building, the refurbishing of the service
portion of the existing building along with the addition of a spray booth for
painting vehicle. Spray booths are an integral component of auto body shops.
Auto body shops are permitted uses in Industrial Districts and may be
permitted in C-3 (General Business) Districts by Special Permit only. The
Broadmoor RV Center is located in a C-R Regional Commercial District. To
assist with the proposed expansion plans and address the auto body shop issue
the city has the option of rezoning the site to C-3 (allowing approval by the
Special Permit process) or by amending the C-R regulations to include auto
body shops either as a permitted or accessory use.
The city has made a concerted effort over the last 30 ,years to ensure that
commercial areas in I-182 corridor are preserved for retail and regional
commercial activities rather than the heavy commercial activities permitted by
the C-3 District. The rezone option is not recommended. Adding auto body
shops as permitted uses in the C-R District is also not recommended. A stand
alone auto body shop can be similar in many respects to uses permitted in the
C-3 District. On the other hand accessory permitting auto body shops as an
accessory uses addresses the needs for business expansion while moderating
the external concerns related to stand alone auto body shops. Accessory uses
by definition are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses. Accessory
uses
The proposed code amendment would permit auto body shops as accessory uses
within a building that is used for automotive or RV sales and service.
I
Staff recently received an inquiry about locating an excavation contractor ,yard
in a C-3 Zone adjacent to a residential neighborhood. In the past, such an
inquiry would not have been a concern because most developed C-3 districts did
not border upon residential neighborhoods. That is no longer the case. After
considering the matter it became apparent the code needs to be amended to
address contractor facilities in the C-3 District. The proposed code amendment
attached to this memo would permit contractor facilities in the C-3 Districts as
a permitted use provided the site selected for a contractor facility is at least 300
feet from a residential area. Any C-3 site 300 feet or closer to a residential zone
would be required to obtain a Special Permit. Through the Special Permit
process the City could apply mitigation measures for sites adjacent to or near
residential areas. An alternative would be to require the Special Permit process
for contractor ,yards in all C-3 zones regardless of distance from a residential
zone.
The proposed code amendment is not a site specific matter and therefore staff is
recommending the matter be acted upon at the May 191h Planning Commission
meeting.
FINDINGS
1) PMC 25.04.020 explains one of the purposes of the zoning regulations is to
assist in increasing the security of home life and preserve and create a
more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban
Area.
2) The C-3 District (PMC 25.46) permits the location of wholesale businesses,
heavy machinery sales and service, lumber ,yards and landscaping storage
businesses.
3) Contractor facilities are not listed as a permitted use in the C-3 District.
4) Contractor facilities are similar in nature and operation to a number of
permitted uses within the C-3 District.
5) The City has permitted contractor facilities and storage ,yards in C-3
Districts since the 1970's.
6) The Special Permit process enables the city to apply mitigation measures
that may be necessary to preserve and create a more favorable environment
for citizens in residential neighborhoods adjacent to C-3 Districts.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adapt the proposed Cade Amendments modifying PMC Chapter
25.48 to include Auto body Shops as an Accessory Use in the
C-R District.
2
ORDINANCE NO.– —
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 BY
INCLUDING AUTO BODY SHOPS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE IN CHAPTER
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the zoning regulations are designed to increase the security of home life
and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco
Urban Area; and,
WHEREAS, the C-R District (PMC 25.48) permits the location of auto sales and
service and RV sales and service facilities; and,
WHEREAS, services related to auto and RV sales include auto body restoration; and,
WHEREAS, the 2009 International Fire Code adopted by the City provides safety
guidelines for the installation and operation of auto body spray booths; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on August 18, 2011 and
following deliberations made a recommendation that the City Council amend PMC 25.48 by
including auto body shops as a permitted use in the C-R Regional Commercial District with
certain conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 6, 2011 to consider
the Planning Commission recommendation and to receive additional public comment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title ''S; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.48.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is
hereby amended to read as follows:
2.5.46.020 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES.
1
. The following
accessory uses and buildings, as respectively defined in Sections 1?.1''.0''0 and 1112.115, shall
be permitted in the C-R district.
(1 ) Auto Body Sho-ps, -provided the shox+ and s-pray booth are enclosed within a building
primarily used for automotive or RV sales and service, the building is setback at least 30
feet from all property lines and 300 feet from a residential zoning district and provided
all vehicle parts are completely screened from adjoining properties and right-of-way by
a solid continuous fence or wall at least six feet in height.
(') Storage buildings; excluding container storage, as defined in Section ''5.1''.430;
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
---------------
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August S, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (MF# PLAN 2011-00'x)
Attached is a draft of the proposed Pasco Bicycle/Pedestrian Master
Plan. The intent of the Plan is to: 1) consolidate previous efforts related
to bicycle/pedestrian facilities planning in Pasco; 2) provide goals,
policies and objectives for improving bicycle/pedestrian circulation; and
3) provide information useful in assigning priority to certain roadway
improvements.
The Plan divides the City into six (6) separate areas based on geography
in a way that attempts to group areas containing similar roadway
development conditions. An Overview Map illustrates the proposed City-
wide network of inter-connected bicycle/pedestrian routes. The Plan is
structured such that each Area is given its own section with the following
sub-headings: 1) area description, 2) existing facilities, 3) needed
facilities, 4) challenges, 5) opportunities, 6) key routes and 7) costs.
Specific priority ranking criteria are proposed in the Plan. Project costs
as they relate to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) together with
priority ranking scores will drive project implementation priorities.
Project cost estimates specific to each area developed by the City
Engineering Department are included.
Staff requests the Planning Commission review the Plan and provide
comments/direction allowing staff to prepare a final draft of the Plan for
public hearing during the August 18, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting.
no
Pasco Bicycle/ Pedestrian Master
Plan
City of Pasco
Date?8/18/11
Community&Economic
Development Department
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Master Plan Purpose Statement ...........................................................................................2
TimeFrame..........................................................................................................................2
Background..........................................................................................................................2
LegalRequirement,-,......................................................................................... 2
Adopted Local Plans...............................................................................
.............................
Goal. Policies & Objectives.............................................................................................................5
Goal......................................................................................................................................5
Policiesand Objectives........................................................................................................5
ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................................7
City-Wide Challenges......................................................................................................................8
ProposedFacilities...............................................................................................................9
AreaDescriptions (1-6)..................................................................................................................1 l
OverviewMap ...................................................................................................................1 l
Area1 .................................................................................................................................12
Area ? ..............................................................................................................18
Area3.................................................................................................................................20
Area4.................................................................................................................................24
Area5.................................................................................................................................27
Area6.................................................................................................................................33
AlternativeSolutions .....................................................................................................................38
Sharrows ............................................................................................................................38
Signage...............................................................................................................................39
Bike Boxes/Green Boxes...................................................................................................39
Potential Funding Sources.............................................................................................................40
Federal................................................................................................................................40
State....................................................................................................................................41
Local ..................................................................................................................................42
Prioritization and Ranking.............................................................................................................42
Scoring...............................................................................................................................46
Maps...............................................................................................................................................47
Additional Bicycle Facility Components.......................................................................................47
Transportation SYSTEM Plan...........................................................................................47
Install municipal bike racks (identify effective locations).................................................47
1
Introduction
Bicycling and walking as means of recreation and transportation have been
growing in popularity as many communities work to create more balanced
transportation systems by giving bicyclists and pedestrians a greater share in
use of the roadway networks. In addition, recent national surveys find that
more people are willing to cycle more frequently if better bicycle facilities are
provided.
Mauer Plan Purpose Statement
The purpose of this document is to consolidate existing efforts addressing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities; to provide a prioritized action plan for
improving listed travel routes; and to analyze the costs and potential funding
sources.
Time Frame
Pasco's Comprehensive Plan has a horizon to year 2027; this Plan will adhere
to the same time frame.
Back round
In 2006 the Pasco City Council authorized appointment of an ad hoc advisory
Committee to assist staff in developing policies relating to the design, location
and maintenance of bikeways throughout the City. The Committee was charged
with the following tasks: 1) propose design standards and options for bikeways
throughout the City; 2) propose policies regarding bicycle accommodation in
the City; and, 3) propose maintenance standards for the bikeway system. This
Committee convened a total of six times in late 2006 and early 2007.
In 2007 City Council approved Resolution No. 3021 adopting a three page
"Bikeway Plan". The Bikeway Plan is the culmination of ideas generated by the
ad hoc committee and contains a total of one (1) overall goal, six (6) policies
and thirty (30) related objectives aimed at creating a contiguous network of safe
and convenient bicycle pathways. The Plan provides insight into the values of
the local bicycling community, but lacks specific data needed for cost estimates
and construction planning. The Committee also produced a map (see attached
Bike Route Map) delineating both existing and proposed routes and pathways
where bicycles should be able to travel safely and comfortably.
Leal Requirements
With the intent of promoting healthier and more physically active communities
two pertinent bills (ESSB 5186 and 2 SHB 1565) were passed by the State of
Washington.
2
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5186, passed in 2005, requires
communities to consider urban planning approaches that promote physical
activity, and also requires a bicycle and pedestrian component be included in
the Transportation Element of a comprehensive plan. ESSB 5186 also added a
requirement to the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan for
jurisdictions fully planning under the GMA: "Wherever possible, the Land Use
Element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote
physical activity" [RC`IJ 36.70A.070(1)] citing that several studies have
demonstrated that a person's immediate environment is the most important
determination of physical activity.
Bill 2SHB 1565 also passed in 2005, specifies that multiple modes of
transportation may be included in concurrency programs when reviewing the
transportation impacts of new development.
This Plan together with the Pasco Comprehensive Plan and the Benton
Franklin Council of Governments 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, are all collaborative efforts aimed at meeting the
requirements set by ESSB 5186 and 2SHB 1565.
Adol)ted Local flans
Pasco Comprehensive Plan
Pasco's Comprehensive Plan contains a number of Goals and Policies which
support the objectives of this Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan Goals
and Policies apply:
- Goal TR-1 aims to continue to provide and maintain an effective and
convenient street system.
- Policy TR-1-G supports development of an interconnected network of
streets, trails and other public ways while preserving neighborhood
identity; and building streets and sidewalks without interrupted or
patchwork rights-of-way or construction.
- Goal TR-2 aims to encourage efficient, alternate and multi-modal
transportation systems.
- Policy TR-2-D encourages greater use of bicycles and walking by
providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes.
- Policy TR-2-E encourages park-and-ride lots for bicycles and
automobiles.
- Policy CF-3-A aims to assure land development proposals provide land
and/or for facilities for pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Pasco Parks and Recreation Plan
The city's 2010 Park and Recreation Plan indicates trail corridors should be
developed to include trees, landscaped areas, open lawn areas, seating areas,
and some picnic facilities. The plan proposes ten future parks and
improvements or expansions at many existing parks.
3
Locations containing the amenities listed above may at least serve as rest areas
or destinations for bicyclists. Adding landscaping features to pathways will
require irrigation and continuous maintenance creating additional costs.
Landscaping feasibility should consider a sites' proximity to FCID irrigation
water and relative benefits of the additional amenities.
Benton Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) 2010 Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) 2010 Regional Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan discusses many aspects of pedestrian and
bicycle related issues throughout Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties.
The 2010 BFCG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan fulfills federal
requirements (23 CFR 450) that a metropolitan transportation plan contain a
bicycle and pedestrian component as well as state mandates (RCW 36.70A)
that regional transportation plans encourage efficient multi-modal
transportation systems which are based on regional priorities and coordinated
with city and county comprehensive plans. The BFCG Bike/Ped. Plan includes
a useful bike route map at the Tri-Cities scale. The map is included in the
appendices for reference.
It is the policy (Policy 13) of the BFCG to promote pedestrian and bicycle travel
as essential modes of transportation both within existing communities and new
development and to provide opportunities for the safe and efficient use of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities as a legitimate alternative to motorized travel
and for improved health.
Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Titles 12 (Streets & Sidewalks), 25 (Zoning) & 26
(Residential Subdivision Regulations)
Pasco Municipal Code does not require installation of sidewalks in the
Suburban (RS-12 and RS-20) zones and bicycle facilities are not presently
required as part of residential, commercial or industrial development in any
zone. The absence of concurrency requirements for bicycle/pedestrian
infrastructure improvements acts as a barrier to achieving the overall goal of
this Plan by transferring the responsibility of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks)
from private developers to the City. Modifications to PMC Title 26 (Pasco Urban
Area Subdivision Regulations) and Title 12 (Streets & Sidewalks) may be an
effective approach to establishing development requirements relative to
bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure.
Amending Title 12 to require curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bicycle lanes be
installed concurrent with both commercial and residential development in
Suburban zones would help meet the Goal of this Plan.
4
Goal, Policies &Objectives
Goal
Create and maintain a high-quality bikeway and pedestrian network that is
safe, direct, comfortable, aesthetically pleasing, and which allows cyclist to
access destinations accessible to automobiles where practical.
Policies and Objectives;
The overall Goal can be broken down into Policies and Objectives that help
quantify the goal statement.
1) Policy: Connectivity/Access—Bicyclists should have safe access to City
destinations accessible by motorized vehicles, where practical.
Objectives
a) Encourage bicycle lanes, paths, or trails and bicycle access points in new
development design.
b) Design bike paths for the most direct routes possible.
c) Mitigate major barriers such as freeways and railroad crossings by
including over/underpass facilities. Crossing points should be at right
angles and to be as short as possible.
d) Provide for bike path continuity.
e) Loop and interconnect paths, or trails to provide a variety of trail lengths
and destinations including small and large loops for a broad range of
experiences and ability levels.
f) Provide safe bicycle access and parking facilities for major commercial
destinations, where practical.
g) Provide safe bicycle access and parking facilities for major civic
destinations, (e.g., library, post office, schools) where practical.
h) Design bicycle routes and paths to minimize conflicts between motorists
and bicyclists and increase the separation of cyclists from motorized
vehicles.
i) Design intersections with bicycle-friendly facilities such as bicycle-first
signaling so as not to interfere with traffic flow.
j) Include secure bicycle lock-up facilities at appropriate destinations.
k) Design landscaping to be open and "visually secure".
1) Install clear right-of way indicators such as 8" wide edge line stripes,
sharrow stencils and freestanding bicycle signs for automobiles and
bicyclists.
m) Utilize "Traffic Calming' measures where appropriate.
n) Mark bike paths and lanes for safety.
o) Install lighting along bike paths and trails as appropriate.
5
2) Policy: Comfort/Convenience - Bikeways shall be designed to
encourage non-motorized travel citywide.
Objectives:
a) Plant shade trees along bicycle paths that do not possess a destructive
root pattern.
b) Include rest areas with water, air, and toilet facilities at convenient
intervals along bicycle routes.
c) Design bicycle lanes, paths, or trails for "flow," with as few stops as
possible.
d) _Mark trails for distance monitoring.
3) Policy: Aesthetics - Bikeways shall be aesthetically pleasing so as to
encourage non-motorized travel citywide.
Objectives:
a) Plan bike paths and trails to provide visual and physical access to
natural areas and to the Columbia/Snake Rivers.
b) Landscape bicycle lanes, paths, or trails to be interesting and attractive
to the user.
4) Policy: Incentives/Promotion - Encourage non-motorized travel
Objectives:
a) Develop bikeway maps that are easily available (brochures and internet)
and provide safety guides/education.
S) Policy: Maintenance - Establish bike path maintenance policies and
schedules.
Objectives:
a) Maintain roadways and bikeways to a relatively hazard-free standard.
b) Encourage bicyclists to report maintenance problems and other hazards.
c) Include maintenance costs and maintenance procedures in bicycle
facility projects as appropriate.
d) Include reasonable estimates for the maintenance costs in the project
budget.
e) Establish clear maintenance responsibilities in advance of construction.
6
Existing Conditions
Much of the residential development west of SR395 and south of Hwy I-182 is
developed to a rural standard, without curbs, gutters and sidewalks and edge
lines. The absence of the fore mentioned improvements facilitates road
widening and bike lane striping by eliminating physical barriers which may
complicate project implementation and add to the costs.
A large majority of roadways east of SR395 and south of Hwy I-182 are fully
developed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Right-of-way widths on proposed
routes vary from 50ft. to 150ft. The most common right-of-way width is 60
feet.
Roadways within residential development north of Hwy I-182 and west of Road
36 contain curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Most streets in this area have a 60ft.
wide right-of-way with curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to the roadway.
Road 60 between Burden Boulevard and Sandifur Parkway is a fully developed
roadway containing bike lanes and sidewalks and could be used as a model for
many routes identified on the Overview Map.
This Plan contains an Overview Map of roadways with needed bicycle and
pedestrian facilities; though many facilities are needed some currently exist.
There are existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City which
provide excellent opportunities for establishing connectivity to the proposed
bicycle lanes and bicycle/ pedestrian pathways listed in this Plan. These
existing amenities include the following:
- A paved east-west bicycle/pedestrian pathway north of I-182
extending from Road 100 to the Argent underpass at I-182.
- The Sacajawea Heritage Trail (a paved east-west
bicycle/pedestrian pathway traversing the river shore from the
I-182 overpass at Court Street to Sacajawea State Park) covers
approximately 14 miles of the Columbia River shoreline.
- Road 60 from Sandifur Parkway to Burden Blvd. contains
stripped bicycle lanes and sidewalks along both travel lanes.
- Court Street contains paved shoulders with striping between
the I-182 Bridge and approximately Road 48.
- Road 84 adjacent Chiawana High contains approximately 1200
feet of bike lane and sidewalk.
7
Road 36 north of I-182 and south of Burden Blvd. contains
striped bicycle lanes in both directions. Intermittent segments
of sidewalks exist on the west side of the Road 36 (adjacent
residential development). The east side of Rd 36 abuts the
Pasco Airport. This undeveloped area contains the runway and
will remain in the current condition unless right-of-way
improvements are initiated via a City Public Works project.
CiL -Wide ChalleWes
Although each Area contained in this Plan contains the sub-heading
"Challenges", it is important to address challenges at a larger (City-wide) scale.
The following list is generally describes challenges to project
implementation/construction. For more detailed descriptions of issues and
conditions see the Area Descriptions section for Areas 1-6.
- Sandifur Parkway between Convention Drive and Road 68 lacks
bike lanes and sidewalks. Edge lines are present, but paved
shoulders are of insufficient width to accommodate bike lanes.
The paved shoulder is 22 inches wide eastbound 3 feet wide
westbound. Each travel lane is 14 feet wide with no left-hand
turn lane.
- Burden Blvd. between Road 60 and Road 68 is a fully developed
roadway and lacks bicycle lanes. This section of roadway may
play an important role in the Plan by providing enhanced
transportation at a location experiencing ever increasing traffic
congestion. This location is arguably the most congested
roadway in Pasco.
- Bike lanes are needed on Sandifur Parkway from Road 100 to
Road 44. Sidewalks are needed along most of the undeveloped
properties fronting Sandifur Parkway. A significant challenge
related to bicycle lanes on this roadway segment is that most of
Sandifur Parkway is fully developed curb-to-curb without edge
lines or shoulders.
- Areas 5 & 6 are proposed in long established areas of Pasco.
The proposed facilities primarily front residential development
which do not contain curbs, gutters, sidewalks or edge line
striping. Many of the road shoulders are too narrow to support
the addition of a bicycle lane. In such instances, fill material
and additional paving may be needed to provide the minimum
8
four (4) foot wide bike lane with 8" stripes. This is the
predominant condition in areas south of I-182.
Areas 3 & 5 contain primarily residential roadways developed to
rural standards. This means sidewalks and wire road shoulders
are largely lacking throughout both areas. Substantial
infrastructure improvements are required to meet the goals of
this Plan.
The Road 100/I-182 Overpass Bridge contains edge line striping
and five (5) foot wide shoulders in both directions. The existing
shoulder may be wide enough to accommodate either a bike
lane or a sidewalk, but not both adjacent one another. The
ideal solution to this spatial constraint is widening the bridge.
Proposed Facilities
The Master Plan Overview Map (Map "M-1") illustrates a connected network of
proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes to serve as a structural "backbone".
Proposed bicycle/pedestrian routes generally follow arterial streets. All routes
identified as solid lines in the Overview Map are in need of bicycle facilities.
City-wide, bicycle lanes are needed on the following street segments:
- Sandifur Parkway (Rd 100 to Rd 44)
- Road 100 (Powerline Road to Court Street)
- Road 103 (Court Street to Argent Rd)
- Argent Road (Rd 103 to 4th Ave) *with the exception of segments in
front of McLoughlin and Chiawana Schools
- Road 60 (Argent Road to the river shore)
- Road 76 (Sandifur to I-182)
- Burden Blvd. (Convention to Road 36)
- Madison Ave (Burden to Road 44)
- Road 44 (Sandifur Parkway to Argent Rd)
- Road 52 (Sandifur Parkway to Burden Blvd)
- Road 88 (Argent Rd to pathway south of Whipple Ave.)
- Road 52 (Argent to Sylvester)
- Road 60 (Court St to Sylvester St.)
- Livingston Rd (Rd 48 to Rd 36)
- Wernett Rd (Rd 48 to Rd 36)
- Pearl St (Rd 48 to Rd 32)
- Road 36 (I-182 to Haystad St)
- Road 40 (Sylvester St to Riverhaven St)
- Riverhaven St (Rd 40 to Rd 39)
- Rd 39 (Riverhaven St to Haystad St)
- Haystad St (Rd 39 to Rd 36)
9
Road 40 (Livingston Rd to Wernett Rd)
Court Street (Rd 48 to 2 6th Ave)
- 26th Ave (Court St to Henry Street) to 24th Ave to West Henry PI
to 22nd Ave to Henry St to 20th Ave)
- Henry Street (2 6th Ave to 24th Ave)
- 24th (Henry St to Henry P1) (Approx. 180 feet)
- Henry P1 (24th Ave to 22nd Ave)
22nd Ave (Henry PI to Henry St.) (Approx. 180 feet)
- Henry St (22nd Ave to 18th Ave)
- 20th Ave (Argent Rd to "A" St)
- West Lewis Street (Rd 28 to Heritage Blvd)
- Road 28 (Sylvester to "A" St)
- "A" St (Road 28 to Heritage Blvd)
- Hopkins St (Sacajawea Trail @ 395 Bridge to Road 28)
- 4th Ave (Boeing St to 3rd Ave)
3rd (4th to Columbia St)
- Columbia St (3rd Ave to 4th Ave)
- Elm Ave (Sheppard St to Lewis St)
- 401 (Columbia to Ainsworth Ave)
- Beech Ave (Sheppard St to Park View Blvd)
- Wehe Ave (Park View Blvd to "A" St)
- Oregon Ave ("A" St to Ainsworth Ave)
- 14th Ave (Pearl St to "A" St)
- Pearl St (20th to 14th)
- Octave St (18th Ave to 16th Ave)
- Henry St (16th Ave to 3rd Ave)
- 5th Ave (Henry St to Margaret St)
- Margaret St (5th Ave to 4th Ave)
- Nixon St (4th Ave to 3rd Ave)
- 4th Ave (Washington St to Ainsworth Ave)
- Sheppard St (Beech Ave to Elm Ave)
The bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure proposed by this Plan is summarized
in the table below. Infrastructure types are abbreviated for use in the Area
Description roadway lists to indicate the needs of each particular roadway.
Sidewalks SW
Striping ST
Road
Widening RW
10
' � I l I •
r
1
=•�'°ice' �r ,,i��l � C'�^'�!' ��
rTG
PW
magma r NWI!,Zllll=- IN-,Y
VIL _jllllllt,I Sr,
all
CrE Pill
r-IM111118811 mom
• -
�h•
Area 1
Area description
Area 1 is bound by the Columbia River to the west, Powerline Road to the north,
Chapel Hill Boulevard to the south and Road 60 to the east. Bicycle facilities are
proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Road 100 SW, ST, RW
Harris Road SW, ST, RW
Sandifur Parkway ST
Road 76 SW, ST
Convention Drive ST
Homerun Road ST
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan -- Area #1
J
m
rr �a Routes
Ell-I IT a
N
City t=ts
Bike Pathway
Rn,-ff Sbme r
FCID Canal
Pj
0
Q
V
01
cnapei Hill siva. UfW 43
1 Cga�.
� �eff11
C
m —
0
� o
Existing Facilities
Most of the proposed routes indicated in the Bike Master Plan Area 1 Map
contain standard sidewalks. The west side of Road 76 contains sidewalks from
Sandifur Parkway to Burden Boulevard.
12
Needed Facilities
No sidewalks or bicycle lanes exist on the Sandifur Parkway between Road 68
and Convention Drive. This portion of Sandifur Parinuay is undeveloped on
both the north and south sides (see photo below). As development occurs on
Sandifur Parkway the adjoining properties will be required to construct the
right-of-way improvements.
(Sandifur Park ay between Rd. 68 & Convention Dr.)
Sandifur Parkway serves as a primary/arterial connection between large
residential subdivisions and the Road 68 commercial corridor. A high priority
should be placed on the installation of bike lanes to provide a safe connection
between residences and the Rd 68 commercial center. Edge lines are present,
but existing paved shoulders are of insufficient width to accommodate bike
lanes. The paved shoulder is 22 inches wide eastbound and 3 feet wide
westbound. Each travel lane is 14 feet wide with no left-hand turn lane.
Development proposals adjacent to Sandifur Parkway must install bike lanes
on their portion of Sandifur Parkway.
Area 1 includes the proposal for a bicycle/pedestrian pathway to be
constructed from Court Street at the I-182 river overpass bridge to Harris
Road. The pathway would parallel I-182 at the base of the elevated roadway
embankment gradient; extending to Harris Road from the existing pathway
which currently leads riders and walkers up to the sidewalk on the bridge.
Approximately 2,600 linear feet of pathway is needed in order to achieve this
connection. To avoid the need to cross Harris Road, while maintaining
pedestrian/bicycle travel in both directions, the pathway should connect
directly to Road 100.
13
Harris Road
' •i
roposed pathway
extension location
Wt
(Future pathway extension from Court St r@ I-182 to Harris Road)
P
i
(Existing pathway @ I-182/Court St. Bridge) (Area proposed to extend pathway to Harris Rd,)
The Road 100/1-182 overpass bridge should be widened to provide sidewalks
and stripped bicycle lanes without reducing the existing number or width of
travel lanes. The bridge currently contains edge lines with 5 foot wide
shoulders on both sides without sidewalks.
14
s
'1
(Rd.100/I-182 Overpass Bridge) (Rd.100/1-182 overpass bridge 5' shoulder)
The entire length of Road 100 should be treated with bicycle lanes and
sidewalks to foster neighborhood scale transportation between residential
subdivisions and commercially zoned lands. A significant percentage of the
commercially zoned land surrounding the Road 100 corridor remains vacant.
Facilitating intra-neighborhood non-vehicular transportation may promote the
marketability of these vacant tracts and invite commercial investors. The Area
Description table indicates road widening is needed on Road 100 when in fact
the I-182 Bridge is the only portion of Rd 100 needing to be widened.
Road 100 currently terminates at the north city limits, soon to be Powerline
Road. The west side of Road 100 at its northern terminus remains vacant.
Age
W 4U
o r
a
(Road 100 south of Vincenzo Dr, - looking south) (Road 100 north of Vincenzo Dr. - looking south)
Challenges
Connecting bicycle/pedestrian facilities on Road 76 to the existing pathway by
I-182 (behind Lowe's) presents some challenges created by the vacant parcels
(117530015 & 117500118) owned by the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR).
Convention Drive from Fairchild Cinema to Powerline Road is currently
constructed to 1/2 the standard width as the west side of Convention Drive is
largely undeveloped.
15
Road 100 north of Chapel Hill Blvd. is a relatively high-traffic area which
contains varied striping configurations. This roadway segment contains two (2)
freeway on-ramps and two (2) freeway off-ramps. This relatively complex
roadway layout may require creative solutions to accommodate safe bicycle
lanes while maintaining acceptable vehicle traffic flow.
Sandifur Parkway between Road 100 and Road 68 is a fully developed roadway
without edge lines or shoulders to allow for widening.
A/All]
ryV
(Sandifur Parkway at Rd 76) (Sandifur Parkway at Rd. 90)
Undeveloped commercial parcels exist on Sandifur Parkway, however- the
roadway, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and landscaping improvements are
currently contiguous from Road 68 to Road 100 with the exception of a few
vacant parcels on the north side of Sandifur Parinvay. This existing
infrastructure is not configured to allow for safe bicycle travel. A majority of
this roadway is laid out with a single 25.5' wide travel lane in either direction
and a 10.5 wide center- turn lane, providing a total road surface width of 61.5
feet.
Opportunities
Physical constraints created by fully developed roadways require creative
solutions for accommodating bicycle infrastructure. Some possible solutions
for the challenges presented along Sandifur Parkway include freestanding signs
located roadside at a minimum rate of 1/block; and/or, "sharrows". Sharrows
are a combination of freestanding signs and painted symbols on the road
surface. While sharrows are a feasible method they are not without
drawbacks. Designating a travel lane for bicyclists to share already busy
streets can create a false sense of security in the riders' mind.
Sandifur Parkways' 25.5' wide travel lanes could each be reduced by 4'8" to
resulting in approximately 21' wide travel lanes; allowing the minimum 4' bike
lanes.
16
This Plan supports the need for widening the I-182 overpass bridge. During
the planning stage of the I-182 Bridge construction project a larger width that
currently exists was requested of the WSDOT. The request for extra width was
denied at that time. The high rate of residential development in Pasco in recent
,years has greatly contributed to the need for this bridge to be widened. The
bridge has edge lines and a five (5) foot wide shoulder bound by a wall. The
five foot shoulder is sufficient to accommodate a bike lane or a sidewalk on
both sides, but not both bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. These factors
support the need to widen the bridge.
Key Route
Key routes are identified within each Area as having particular importance
based on a variety of factors.
The key route in Area 1 is Sandifur Parkway which extends from Road 100 to
Road 60. Sandifur Parkway is a main thoroughfare connecting dense pockets
of homes to the Road 68 commercial corridor.
Materials Cost Estimate
Materials cost estimates developed by the City Engineering Department are
shown below. Area-wide material cost estimate tables provide detailed
estimates of cost and quantity as they relate to the individual components of
construction. Subsequently, estimates have been pared down to linear foot cost
figures which can be applied when attempting to estimate costs for various
project configurations within an area. Material Cost Estimate tables apply to
an entire Area and not roadway segments within an Area.
Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals
Clear and Grub LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Soil Sterilant SY 7,920 $ 0 $ 3,168
Roadway Fxc Inc Haul CY 342 S 15 $ 5,130
Crushed top course SY 12,026 S i $78,169
H MA SY 12,026 S 10 $ 120,260
Striping LF 9,020 S ? $ 13,530
Striping x-walk SI 80 $ 5 $ 400
Signage LS 1 $ �,0()0 $ 2,000
Flashing Beacons I A 0 $ 8,000 $ -
Removable Bollards I A 0 $ 500 $ -
Total $227,657
$/ft. $25
17
Area 2
Area Description
Area 2 is unique in that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility and key route
is a stand-alone pathway located on the Franklin County Irrigation District
canal extending from Road 111 at Court Street to the I-182/Argent Road
underpass. The paved bicycle/pedestrian pathway is proposed within the
Franklin County Irrigation District FCID canal right-of-way.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #2
y8
a
r
cha el Hill RIV °f
� /FGt4�J Ctiape/
merun Rd.
V
8
Lagead 11RG ENT an
Project k2i
FCID Canal
Pathway <
Q Rrrri shore O
City Limits
Existing; Facilities
The irrigation canal and gravel service road are currently contained within the
FCID right-of-way (see photos below taken at Road 84) which narrows to
approximately 55 feet east of Road 84 to the western terminus of Valley View
Place. This right-of-way varies in width from 50 feet to approximately 130 feet;
providing enough space for a future pedestrian trail and bicycle pathway. The
irrigation canal from Court Street to Road 100 was placed in underground
piping several years ago.
18
! i
ZAI
r4
(FCID canal @. Road 84)
Opportunities
The right-of-way trail would be ideal for walking/biking. Opportunities for
using existing public rights-of-way for augmentation of the trail network will
likely occur in the future following completion of the FCID plan to bury the
canal.
Materials Cost. Estimate
Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals
Clear and Grub LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Soil Sterilant SY 34,182 $ 0 $ 13,673
Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 3,794 $ 5 $ 18,970
Crushed top course SY 34,182 $ 5 $ 170,910
HMA SY 34,182 $ 10 $ 341,820
Striping LF 25,637 $ 2 $ 38,456
Striping x-walks SF 330 $ 5 $ 1,650
Striping Symbols EA 51 $ 20 $ 1,020
Signage LS 1 $ 2,500 $2,500
Flashing Beacons EA 12 $ 4,500 $ 54,000
Removable Bollards EA 12 $ 500 $6,000
Total $ 653,998
$/ft. $26
19
Area 3
Area Description
Area 3 is bound by Road 103 to the west, Chapel Hill Boulevard to the north,
the Columbia River shoreline to the south and Road 60 to the east. Bicycle
facilities are proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Chapel Hill Boulevard ST
future Chapel Hill Blvd. ST, SW
Argent Rd SW, ST
Road 103 350' ST
Road 100 ST, SW
Road 88 SW, RW, ST
Road 84 SW, RW, ST
Road 76 SW, RW, ST
Road 68 SW, RW, ST
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan
Area #
C6
Chapel Hill L31 ftmL
rY Wnerun d.
a
m
�o 0
0
oc
V
Ulm 9
cc
Pforowd Rmfts
/y •
i f i i Emstmg Bike T mft CCU .'fit.
FCID Canal
Rim Sbm A
City i ats
City l.1IDItS
20
Existing Facilities
Bike lanes exist on certain portions of Court Street. Sidewalks exist on very
limited sections of Court Street west of Road 100.
Needed Facilities
The edge lines on Court Street need to be widened to the 8 inch standard. All
of the proposed routes indicated on the Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area 3
Map require construction of bicycle facilities. As well, many of the proposed
routes lack sidewalks with the consistent exception of those segments
bordering public schools. The schools may serve as good beginning points
from which to extend facilities outward. Development in Suburban zones, even
when fronting arterial streets, does not require installation of sidewalks.
A more detailed site survey should be performed to identify spots where the
Court Street road surface needs to be widened. Due to the extent of existing
roadway bike lanes and wide shoulders, the need for shoulder widening on
Court Street will be very limited. Part of Court Street (between Rd 48 and Rd
42) has steep shoulders intended to facilitate stormwater drainage which may
require modification to accommodate widening. Additional striping may be
needed in some areas to define the outer boundary of the bike lanes and to
meet the minimum 8 inch wide striping standard for bicycle lanes.
(Existing bike lanes on Court Street at I-182 looking east)
Chapel Hill Boulevard from Road 100 to Road 84 is a fully developed 4-lane
roadway without a left-hand turn lane or edge lines. Sidewalks exist along all
developed parcels fronting this roadway. Bike lanes do not exist on any portion
of Chapel Hill Blvd., but travel lanes could be reduced to allow bike lane
striping.
21
r;
M� P1
(Chapel Hill Blvd, westbound) (Chapel Hill Blvd, eastbound)
Road 84 between the FCID canal and Argent Road contains bike lanes as
shown on the Area 3 Map. The bike lanes are not contiguous from the canal to
Argent Road. Between the FCID canal and Sterling Road the bike lane is on the
west side of Road 84 only. A bike lane exists on the east side of Road 84 south
of Sterling Road (fronting Chiawana High School). Even though the Area 3 Map
indicates existing bicycle facilities, improvements are needed to make them
functional.
Challenges
Road 100 north of the irrigation canal is a relatively high traffic area and is
largely developed with two travel lanes in either direction and a center turn
lane. This short segment of roadway contains right and left-hand turn lanes
and center-turn lanes.
(Road 100 north of the FCID canal) (Road 100 at Massey Drive)
Chapel Hill Blvd. east of Road 100 does not contain an unimproved shoulder
where bike lanes could be installed. One possibility for the inclusion of bicycle
lanes on Chapel Hill Blvd. is the use of freestanding bicycle logo pole signs
and/or sharrow stencils painted on the road surface. Another option is
reducing the width of travel lanes to provide bike lanes.
22
The extension of Chapel Hill Blvd. from Road 84 to Road 68 is complicated by
the current ownership (WA Dept. of Natural Resources). Opportunities to
develop this extension are contingent upon transfer of ownership and rezoning.
Opportunities
The west side of Road 100 between I-182 and the FCID canal is mostly vacant.
As in most cases, undeveloped properties present opportunities to install
needed bicycle infrastructure. Much of the west side of Road 100 south of the
irrigation canal has wide paved or graveled shoulders. Sufficient shoulder
width exists on both east and west sides to allow re-striping and to
accommodate a bicycle lane with the exception of the east side of Road 100
south of Maple Drive.
Plans exist to extend Chapel Hill Blvd, from Road 84 to Road 68 concurrent
with development proposals. At the time development is proposed in this
location, conditions should be placed on all land divisions/development
projects to require 4' wide bicycle lanes be stripped in both eastbound and
westbound directions.
Chapel Hill Blvd from Road 100 to Road 84 contains a total of four (4) travel
lanes, two in each direction, and each lane is 14 feet wide. If each travel lane
were reduced to twelve (12) feet, six (6) feet would become available on each
side of the road where bike lanes could be installed without affecting the level
of service. Once the roadway striping configuration has been decided, the same
should be applied to the future extension of Chapel Hill Blvd.
Key Route
The key route in Area 3 is Argent Road. Within Area 3 Argent Road extends
from Road 100 to Road 60. This key route will extend into Areas 5 & 6 finally
connecting with 4th Avenue.
2;
Materials Cost Estimate
Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals
Mobilization LS 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Clear and Grub LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000
Soil Sterilant SY 15,142 $ 0.40 $ 6,056.80
Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 100 $ 50 $5,000
Crushed top course SY 15,142 $ 5 $ 75,710
HMA SY 15,142 $ 10 $ 151,420
Striping LF 28,570 $ 1.50 $ 42,855
Striping x-walks SF 0 $ 5 $ -
Striping Symbols EA 60 $ 35 $2,100
Signage LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000
Flashing Beacons EA 0 $ 8,000 $ -
Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ -
Saw Cut LF 13245 $ 0.50 $ 6,622.50
Curb and gutter{R&R} LF 1200 $ 13 $ 15,600
Total $ 29,364.30
$/ft. $30
Area 4
Area Description
Area 4 is bound by Road 60 to the west, Sandifur Parkway to the north, Argent
Road to the south and Road 36 to the east. Bicycle facilities are proposed on
the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Sandifur Parkway ST, SW, RW
Burden Boulevard ST
Madison Avenue ST
Road 52 ST
Road 44 ST, SW, RW
24
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #4
KOIFUR-PFM and ur Pa!Lw
—
ET=/ P ;a_
N
o d
W
V
13URS n,� ,�jj
B LV
Homerun Rd.
!c Q
w
Proposed Routes
�+�+ "esisttn a Bike Lases
FCM Canal Ar ent Place
Bite Pathway
City Limits
LIVING ON ROA
Existing, Facilities
Bike lanes exist along both travel lanes on Road 36 from Argent Road
continuing to Burden Blvd. to Road 60. Madison Avenue west of the
roundabout at Road 44 contains bike lanes and sidewalks.
Sidewalks exist on Burden Boulevard.
Needed Facilities
Additional shoulder widening on the east side of Road 44 is needed to
accommodate bike lanes. Sandifur Parkway is currently developed at one half
of the standard width bordering the County island between Road 60 and Road
52.
To date, Madison Avenue is incomplete. Madison Avenue lies within the Linda
Loviisa and First Place residential subdivisions. No connection exists between
Madison Avenue at Salem Drive and Madison Avenue at E1 Paso Drive.
Sidewalks are lacking on the east side of Road 36 bordering the Paso Airport.
25
No sidewalks exist along Burden Blvd. when bordering undeveloped parcels.
Several undeveloped parcels exist on Burden Blvd. between Road 60 and Road
68 creating the need for approximately 1235 feet of sidewalk in order to
complete pedestrian facilities on Burden Blvd. Promoting safe bicycle travel on
Burden Blvd. has the potential to alleviate traffic congestion by providing a
reasonable option to access the Road 68 commercial corridor.
Challenges
The Franklin County "island" bordering Sandifur Parkway and Road 60
presents a challenge for concurrency development of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities as the timeline for annexation is undetermined.
The roadway on Burden Blvd. from Road 60 to Road 68 is fully developed with
two travel lanes in both directions and a landscaped median with street lights.
No edge lines or shoulders exist on which to locate bike lanes and the edge of
road ends in curbs. Reduction of vehicle travel lanes is not advisable due to the
existing traffic volume at this location.
Opportunities
The landscaped area with sidewalk on the south side of Burden Blvd. west of
Road 60 is twenty five (25) feet wide. This may be the only area allowing for the
installation of bicycle facilities. The sidewalk in this area is constructed as an
asphalt pathway. The pathway could be widened and striped to provide a
designated a bicycle lane.
Subsequent phases of Linda Loviisa will extend Madison Avenue south/east to
connect with First Place.
Key Route
The key route in Area 4 is Sandifur Parkway combined with Road 44. In Area 4
Sandifur Parkway extends from Road 60 eastbound to connect with Road 44
continuing southbound to Argent Place.
'6
Materials Cost Estimate
Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals
Mobilization LS 1 $2,000 $2,000
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 3,000 $3,000
Clear and Grub I LS I 0 I $ 5,000 I $ -
Soil Sterilant SY 0 $ 0.40 $ -
Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 0 $ 50 $ -
Crushed top course SY 0 $ 5 $ -
HMA I SY I 0 I $ 10 I $ -
Striping LF 23,410 $ 1.50 $35,115
Striping x-walks Sr 0 $5 $ -
Striping Symbols EA 50 $ 35 $ 1,750
Signage LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Flashing Beacons EA 0 $ 8,000 $ -
Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ -
Saw Cut LF 0 $ 0.50 $ -
Curb and gutter(R&R) LF 0 $ 13 $ -
Total $43,865.00
$/ft. $2.50
Area 5
Area Description
Area 5 is bound by Road 60 to the west, Argent Road to the north, the
Columbia River shore to the south and 20th Avenue to the east. Most of the
rights-of-way within this area is rural residential, 2 lane roads lacking edge
lines (designated shoulders), curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Bicycle facilities are
proposed on the following roadways:
27
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Road 60 ST, SW, RW
Road 52 ST, SW, RW
Road 48 ST, SW, RW
Livingston Road ST, SW, RW
Wernett Road ST, SW, RW
Pearl Street ST, SW, RW
Court Street ST, SW
Sylvester Street ST, RW
Road 32 ST, SW, RW
Road 36 ST, SW, RW
Road 40 ST, SW, RW
Haystad Street ST, SW, RW
26th Avenue ST
Henry Street (fragmented) ST
24th Ave 200 ft. ST
22nd Ave (200 ft.) ST
Henry Place ST
20th Avenue ST, RW
"A" Street ST, SW, RW
W. Lewis Street ST
Road 28 ST
Hopkins Street ST, SW, RW
Road 39 (300 ft.) ST, SW, RW
"S
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #5
Argentflace
Argo
�e� LIVI
Proposed Routes
ndstmg Baw Lanes ERNE
City Lmts
Bike Pathway
Rivu Share a
— FCID Giaad
WT 00
WF
0
0
E E
St
� w
Existing Facilities
Generally, sidewalks exist adjacent to commercial development and adjacent to
a majority of the proposed routes east of Hwy 395. Court Street between Roads
48 & 36 contains 5'-6' wide shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Meaning,
this segment of Court Street only requires edge line striping (4") to establish
bike lanes.
Needed Facilities
All of the proposed routes indicated on the Area 5 Map require bicycle lane
striping. Most of the proposed routes are in need of sidewalks with the
exception of those segments bordering commercially developed properties.
Shoulder widening should be completed where needed to achieve the minimum
bike lane width of four feet. Shoulder widening is needed on most of the
identified routes in the Area Map.
29
Critical features of Area 5 are the east/west crossings over SR-395 at Court
Street and Sylvester Street. These State Highway crossings will serve as the
primary connecting routes between residential west Pasco and the commercial
core east of Hwy 395.
(Sylvester St.{Hwy 395 Overpass - looking east)
A third critical feature is the Argent Road/I-182 underpass which, once
striped, will provide much needed north-south connectivity. Since west Pasco
is bifurcated by the I-182 freeway this connection point should receive
particular- attention and priority.
Challenges
Road 40 between W. Pearl and Ella Street has not been dedicated to the City at
this time. Right-of-way dedications need to be obtained prior to construction of
improvements proposed in this Plan.
The need for right-of-way dedications, although fragmented, should be closely
examined on the following roadways:
- Wernett Road
- Road 40
- Road 52
- Sylvester Street
- Court Street
20th Avenue, particularly north of Court Street, presents significant challenges
for installing bike lanes due to high traffic volumes and fully developed right-of-
way improvements. Sharrows may be an unsafe recommendation at this
location.
All bike routes proposed on Sylvester Street require road widening and striping.
Oxaportunities
The lack of right-of-way infrastructure west of Hwy 395 poses fewer site
specific limitations caused by existing infrastructure. Improvements have the
potential to contain comparatively uniform and easy to follow
bicycle/pedestrian routes.
30
Completion of bicycle facilities on Sylvester Street and "A" Street will provide
eight (8) separate connection points to the Sacajawea Heritage Trail; six (6) of
which will clearly indicate connection between residential neighborhoods and
the Trail. Particularly useful are the Road 44 and Haystad Street connections
to the Sacajawea Trail.
r --
(Sylvester Street between Road 45 & Road 40 -looking east) (Sylvester Street/Road 60 pathway connection)
•
� r
� f
(Road 26/Hopkins St. pathway connection point) (Pathway @ Wade Park boat launch)
Once constructed, bicycle/pedestrian facilities at the Argent Rd./I-182
underpass will provide much needed north/south connectivity crossing
Highway I-182.
The southbound lane on Road 52 between Court Street and Whitetail Court
contains a 6.5° wide shoulder- without an edge line. This wide shoulder
eliminates the need to add paving to the road surface in order to accommodate
a bike lane for approximately 616 linear feet on Road 52.
31
Key Route
Two key routes are identified in Area 5; they are: 1) Argent Road from Road 60
to 20th Avenue, and 2) Sylvester Street from Road 60 to Road 28. Both of these
key routes enable cyclists to cross State highways.
Materials Cost Estimate
Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals
Mobilization LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Clear and Grub LS 1 $5,000 $5,000
Soil Sterilant SY 43,803 $ 0.40 $ 17,521.20
Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 30 $ 50 $ 1,500
Crushed top course SY 43,803 $5 $ 219,015
HMA SY 43,803 $ 10 $ 438,030
Striping LF 111,000 $ 1.50 $ 166,500
Striping x-walks SF 0 $ 5 $ -
Striping Symbols EA 50 $ 35 $ 1,750
Signage LS 1 $8,000 $8,000
Flashing Beacons EA 0 $8,000 $ -
Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ -
Saw Cut LF 25900 $ 0.50 $ 12,950
Curb and gutter(R&R) LF 0 $ 13 $ -
Total $ 885,266.20
$/ft. $25
32
Area 6
Area Description
Area 6 is bound by 20th Avenue to the west, Argent Road/Boeing Street to the
north, the Columbia River shore to the south and Heritage Blvd. to the east.
Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways:
Roadway Needed
Improvements
Argent Road ST, SW, RW
Boeing Street ST, SW, RW
Pearl Street ST
Henry Street ST
Henry Place ST
E. Lewis Street ST
5th Avenue ST
"A" Street ST, SW
4th Avenue ST
3rd Avenue ST
Ainsworth Avenue ST, SW
Whehe Avenue ST
Elm Avenue ST
Sheppard Street 1,000 ST
Highland Street (3001 ST
Beech Avenue ST
18th Ave 270' ST
Octave Street 620' ST
16th Ave 200' ST
5th Ave (3501 ST
Margaret St (4501 ST
Nixon Street 450 ST
Columbia Street 450' ST
Washington Street 350 ST, SW
9th Ave (6001 ST, SW, RW
33
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #6
Lend
Proposed routes
•••••• Existing Bike Laney
Argent d. Bike Pathway
CitF Limits
River Shore
z
S e d St.
D
i TT
i
M
77777 r
Approximate distances are provided in the preceding list for those
bicycle/pedestrian facilities proposed on relatively short sections of a road.
This circumstance occurs when routes make a "jog" in order to make the
desired connection between points. The proposed route containing Henry
Street; extending from 20th Ave to 3rd Ave. is a good example.
Existing Facilities
Bike lanes exist on "A" Street from unimproved Spokane Street to Road 40
East. Said section of "A" Street also contains sidewalk on the north side of the
road and a 9' wide asphalt pathway with a 6' landscaping strip on the south
side of the road. A large majority of routes indicated in the Area 6 map
currently contain sidewalks with some exceptions.
34
Needed Facilities
All routes indicated in the Area 6 map are in need of bicycle facilities.
Sidewalks are needed on those roadways indicated in the Area Description
table.
Challenges
A large majority of the proposed routes in Area 6 are located on fully developed
roadways in older established areas of town. Most roadways are fully
developed without striping.
Traffic from the Highland Park neighborhood (north of Lewis St. and east of
Wehe Ave.) is funneled through the Lewis Street underpass in order to access
the central downtown area. There are plans to convert this underpass into an
overpass. Bike lanes are incorporated into the design of this project. Much of
the roadway design work has been completed at this time. The City has
established a high priority to conversion of the existing underpass to an
overpass. The current design of the Lewis Street/railroad overpass includes a
six (6) foot wide sidewalk and five (5) foot wide bike lanes.
The C-2 (Central Business) District zoning regulations do not require
businesses to provide off-street parking. On-street parking is the predominant
condition while some small off-street parking lots are scattered throughout the
downtown area. Lewis Street provides only parallel parking stalls which
cannot be eliminated to install bicycle facilities.
Opportunities
The downtown area east of Hwy 395 is an active commercial area serving
residents of the surrounding area. The C-2 zoning regulations in the central
downtown area emphasize pedestrian access and circulation. Enhancing the
safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and the ease of transportation between
residential neighborhoods to the east and the downtown area will promote the
economy of the Pasco downtown area.
Residential neighborhoods east of Oregon Avenue and north of "A" Street
contain three public schools: Whittier and Robinson Elementary Schools and
Helen Ochoa Middle School. Establishing safe, well marked bicycle facilities on
Wehe Ave., Elm Ave., Lewis St. and short segments of other roadways will
enhance bicycle/pedestrian travel in the neighborhood.
Railroad tracks intersect "A" Street at two points east of Oregon Avenue.
Curbing extends approximately eight (S) feet into the travel lanes; reducing the
lanes' width and interfering with the availability of area to locate a uniform bike
lane. It is recommended the curbing be removed and the area within it be
paved to match the roadway allowing bike lanes to be striped.
35
LM
(".fin Street Railroad tracks - note extended curbing)
(Pedestrian pathway along`A" Street)
36
(Bicycle c pedestrian facilities on "A" Street- looking east)
A recently completed Local Improvement District (LID) installed bike lanes
and sidewalk and pathway along the eastern portion of "A" Street. The
layout/design of these improvements should serve as a model with which to
match the proposed facilities in Area 6.
Key Route
Two key routes are identified in Area 6; they are: 1) Lewis Street from Road 28
to Heritage Blvd., and 2) "A" Street from Road 28 to Heritage Blvd. The Levis
Street route provides access to residential neighborhoods, commercial
business areas and a school.
Material Cost Estimate
Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals
Mobilization LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Clear and Grub LS 0 $ 5,000 $-
Soil Sterilant SY 0 $ 0.40 $
Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 0 $ 50 $ -
Crushed top course SY 0 $ 5 $
H MA SY 0 $ 10 $ -
Striping LF 15,000 $ 1.50 $ 22,500
Striping x-walks SF 0 $ 5 $ -
Striping Symbols EA 50 $ 35 $ 1,750
Signage LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Flashing Beacons EA 0 $8,000 $ -
Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ -
Saw Cut LF 25900 $ 0.50 $ 12,950
Curb and gutter(R&R) LF 0 $ 13 $ -
Total $ 63,200
$/ft. $4.00
37
Alternative Solutions
It should be noted that all of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities proposed in
this Plan should be designed and constructed in accordance with the most
current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at
the time of design. The following methods are presented as ways to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements where
physical constraints exists due to the layout of previously constructed right-of-
way infrastructure. Incorporating bicycle facilities into existing roadways
without eliminating vehicle travel lanes is paramount. Facilities serving
pedestrians and bicyclists should not come at the expense of vehicle traffic flow
rates.
Sharrows
Sharrows are a relatively new method of bicycle route identification whereby a
roadway is marked on the road surface (see roadway surface stencil below) and
a freestanding pole sign with the image of a bicycle is placed near the edge line
or curb at a minimum rate of 1/block. Due to their recent introduction,
sharrows require an educational component in order to be safe and effective.
The intent of the sharrow is to indicate to the motorist they are traveling on an
identified bike route and to use caution when passing a bicycle. If a
center/left-hand turn lane exists, the vehicle can pass the bicyclists safely
without stopping. If a center/left-hand turn lane is not present, the vehicle is
supposed to wait until on-coming traffic clears before passing the bicyclist.
The City of Spokane has implemented sharrows with limited success. Due to
the necessity of an educational component in order to facilitate safety,
sharrows can create a false sense of safety in the cyclists' mind. The use of
sharrows should be more closely examined prior to their implementation.
54.0 in
122.0 in
X2.0 in
I
40.0 in i
(Sharrow stencil)
38
Signage
Either as stand-alone features or together with sharrow roadway markings,
freestanding pole signs may be installed adjacent to the roadside. Examples of sign
designs extracted from the 2009 edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) are provided below.
r - �
RIDE
0?4z MAY USE WITH
FULL LANE I FAFF[
.
X rk M;
==J
l
DEEP sKANt
ROAD
The signs above are intended to serve a variety of purposes including conveying
a message to vehicles, directional signs for bicyclists and pathway use divisions
and should be used accordingly.
Bike Boxes/Green Boxes
The bike box is an intersection safety design to prevent bicycle/car collisions,
especially those between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight. It is
a green box on the road with a white bicycle symbol inside. It includes green
bicycle lanes approaching and leading from the box.
Aw
: _
The main goal is to prevent collisions between motorists turning right and
cyclists going straight. It's all about visibility and awareness. At a red light,
cyclists are more visible to motorists by being in front of them. At a green light,
the green bike lane through the intersection reminds motorists and cyclists to
watch for each other.
Potential Funding Sources
There are a wide range of potential funding sources for improving pedestrian
and bicycle transportation options. Federal funding is administered through
the state and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding
programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an
emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections.
Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education
programs and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. Many
of the funding sources included below require local cities to take the lead to
provide bicycle facility improvements.
Federal
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 included several
funding categories wherein improvements for pedestrian and bicycle
transportation could be funded, either as part of a road improvement project or
an independent improvement. The 1998 TEA 21 legislation perpetuated those
funding categories. Of particular significance is the ten percent set aside of
surface transportation funds for enhancements, which contains a specific
category for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
2005 marked the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Act - A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU), which reauthorizes the
federal highway and transit programs through FY 2009. The bill increased
funding of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) by roughly 30 percent.
Tansportation Enhancements continue to be funded through a 10 percent set-
aside of STP funds or the amount set aside in 2005, whichever is greater.
As of 2009, over $5.3 million in enhancement funds have been allocated to
projects in the RTPO area since the inception of the program, with $3.0 million,
or 57 percent, awarded to bicycle/pedestrian.
40
State
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Funding;
In 2005, the Governor and Washington State Legislature increased the state's
role in safety by providing funding that supports pedestrian and bicycle safety
and safe routes to school projects (ESSB 6091). In addition, with the passage of
SAFETEA-LU in 2005, a new federal Safe Routes to School program was
established that provided federal funding to the state.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant
This program focuses on pedestrian and bicycle safety and providing children a
safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Its purpose
is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education and enforcement.
Safe Routes to School Grant
The purpose of this program is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective
projects within two-miles of primary and middle schools (K-8) that provide
children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school.
These two programs are very lightly funded and highly desired. Grant cycles
are based on the budget biennium, so there have been three full funding
periods to date: 2005-2007, 2007-2009 and 2009-2011.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program, over the combined 2005-2007 and
2007-2009 periods, had $15 million available which funded 47 projects from
the over $63 million in requests. In the RTPO, a single project in Kennewick
was funded during these two cycles.
Safe Routes to Schools had a total of $10 million available to fund 39 projects
from the over $49 million requested. In the RTPO, two projects were funded in
Walla Walla during these two cycles.
For the 2009-2011 biennium, approximately $11 million was available to fund
the over $82 million in requests received. WSDOT received 92 Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety project applications totaling approximately $35 million.
Statewide, 16 projects were funded. Four were submitted from within the RTPO
and one, from Richland was funded. The State received 112 Safe Routes to
Schools project applications and funded 21. Three were submitted from the
RTPO and none were funded.
Additional Funding; Sources
Under RCW 47.30, Paths and Trails, 0.3 percent of state construction
expenditures must be spent on paths and trails: WSDOT estimates that it
spends about 0.5 percent. This amounted to about $2.4 million in 1994. Some
of these monies are distributed to cities and counties.
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has assorted legislatively funded
categories wherein cities and counties annually compete for project funds.
41
Some of these categories are specifically earmarked for pedestrian or bicycle
improvements. Other categories for roadway and street improvement projects
require pedestrian elements on either one or both sides.
Community Development Block Grants target communities and neighborhoods
that are principally low and moderate income. Such communities tend to have
high demand for pedestrian and bicycle travel and public transit services.
Funding is for street improvement projects, presumably including non-
motorized and transit elements.
Local
Local revenue sources include: the road portion of "impact fees," county-wide
vehicle license fees, commercial parking tax, local street utility tax, county-wide
fuel tax, property tax, Local Improvement Districts, real estate excise tax,
Transportation Benefit Districts, toll roads, and bonds.
Funding and Im0ementation Practices
Bike lanes, shoulder bikeways, and sidewalks, which make up the majority of
the bicycle and pedestrian system, are usually implemented as part of a
standard roadway project and represent a small fraction of a project's cost. As
new arterials and collectors are constructed or old ones are reconstructed to
current standards, appropriate bikeways and walkways should be included in
the project.
Walkways and bikeways may also be provided as a part of routine roadway
repairs. Resurfacing of an arterial or collector is an excellent time to restripe for
bike lanes at little additional cost. In this way a bikeway system can develop
incrementally in step with the road system.
In private developments, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are made a condition
of approval, just as are the roads and parking lots. In some cases, System
Development Charges (SDCs) or transportation impact fees can be imposed. If
the impact of a development on adjacent streets is not immediate, the
developer may participate in future improvements through a Local
Improvement District (LID).
Prioritization and Ranking
Roughly forty (40) miles of bikeways, in all of their various forms, are needed in
order to meet the stated goal. The total miles of needed striping is twice the
length of the total roadways needing striping due to the fact striping is located
on both sides of the road. Challenges of this magnitude require a defined
prioritization structure to provide clear guidance for dedicating funds when
they become available. The prioritization structure will also provide
42
justification for expenditures by describing the intended effect of infrastructure
improvements.
The following criteria were developed to provide criteria as a guide for
implementing roadway improvement projects. Ranking scores should apply to
individual projects and be used to prioritize the project list. The criteria have
different scales - ranging from 0 to 3 or 0 to 5 - depending on potential impacts
on the network and quality or extent of data available. The prioritization
criteria are as follows:
1) Traffic Volume
2) Collision History
3) Current Demand
4) Closure of a Gap/Increase Connectivity
5) Technical Ease of Implementation
6) Land Use
7) Funding
Traffic Volume
The traffic volume criterion is based on gross volume. Data used to inform this
criterion is based on actual traffic volumes or public works estimates. A higher
ranking value indicates higher traffic volumes and therefore a greater likelihood
of dangerous incidents, and a greater number of people that would benefit from
this improvement. The higher speeds that tend to accompany higher traffic
corridors typically require improvements to allow separation of users. This
criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines:
0. Very Low volume.
1. Low to moderate traffic volumes and low speeds, less than or equal to 30
mph.
2. Moderate traffic volumes and/or vehicle speeds. Average daily traffic
equals 4,000 vehicles or greater and speeds equal 30 mph or greater.
3. Traffic volumes exceed 10,000 vehicles per day and/or traffic speeds are
35 mph or greater.
Collision History
This criterion highlights the importance of addressing projects at sites with
high auto-bicycle, auto-pedestrian, or cyclist-pedestrian collision histories.
Data is based on numbers reported by the Pasco Police Department. The
criterion directly addresses issues of safety by focusing on intersections with a
history of collisions involving bicyclists. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to
5 based on the following guidelines:
43
0. No collision History / no data available for location.
1. Collision data indicates low crash incidence.
2-3. Collision data indicates moderate crash incidence - Possibly in multiple
anodes.
4-5. Collision data indicates High crash incidence and/or multiple modes.
Current Pedestrian/Bicyclist Demand
This criterion assigns Higher points to projects that currently Have significant
usage. Usage was determined through counts and public input or by proximity
to important origins and destinations. Actual counts were used where possible.
This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines:
0. Little or no current use and little expected with improvement.
1. Cyclist and/or pedestrian use currently, serves very small population -
limited potential for increased use.
2-3. Route used frequently, desired for increased usage expressed. More use
likely e.g. proposal for a new Class I that has significant public support.
4-5. Route heavily used; likely to see increased use with improvement.
Closure of a Gap / Increases Connectivity
This criterion focuses on facilities that would close a gap or remove a barrier
along an existing route, or would address a major safety concern for
pedestrians and bicyclists at transition points such as bridges, interchanges,
and other difficult environments for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. This
criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines:
0. Does not provide significant connection, safety improvement or improved
access.
1. Provides limited connection or safety improvement to a minor route.
2-3. Provides connection on significant route and/or makes pedestrian and
bicyclist environments better.
4-5. Provides multiple connections, closes significant gap, significantly
improves safety or mitigates major barriers such as 1-182, SR 395, BNSF
Rail Line, or others.
44
Technical Ease of Implementation
The technical ease of implementation criterion focuses on the actual
engineering challenges of a project, emphasizing that the physical requirements
of some pedestrian and bicyclist projects such as parking removal, traffic lane
removal, or lane re-striping, refuge islands, and signals are not technically
challenging from an engineering perspective. Projects requiring elaborate
infrastructure and/or acquisition of right-of-way would receive a lower ranking
in this category. While physical solutions to some barriers can be identified,
they may require additional political support or further evaluation of an impact
on the transportation system. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based
on the following guidelines:
0. Engineering very difficult, expensive.
1. Difficult, environmental issues, jurisdiction questions.
2-3. Moderate to easy terrain, known road or right of width adequate, project
engineering not prohibitive.
4-5. No significant impediments (based on type of route).
Land Use Criterion
The land use criterion ranks projects based on connections or access to
multiple land uses. Facilities that provide access to schools, shopping, access
to transit, and access to public open space or parks rank favorably according
to this criterion. Projects that connect compatible land uses or provide a critical
link between two or more major land uses ranked higher than projects that did
not connect origins with destinations. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3
based on the following guidelines:
0. Does not go to specified destination; is not part of school, employment, or
transit route.
1. Makes some connection to, or part of, a significant route.
2. Multiple connections or school route.
3. Multiple connections and school route or significant employment/
shopping route.
45
Funding
The funding criterion ranks projects based on the availability of grants. It is
important to credit a project's ease of funding. Various roadway improvements
can be included in grant proposals for larger roadway projects. When funds
become available for roadway projects on roadways identified as bike routes it
is critical that bicycle facilities be included during the design phase. This
criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines:
0. Grant funding is not available.
1. Partial (<50%) grant funding available to subsidize costs.
2. Significant (>50%) grant funding available to subsidize costs.
3. The full project cost can be funded with grant monies.
Scoring
The simple chart (below and attached) can be used to evaluate and compare
priority ranking scores amongst the various roadway improvement projects
identifiable in this Plan.
Roadway Criterion Score
Traffic Volume
Collision History
Current Demand
Closure of a Gap/Increase Connectivity
Technical Ease of Implementation
Technical Ease of Implementation
Land Use
Funding
TOTAL
46
Maps
(see attached)
Additional Bicycle Facility Components
Transportation SYSTEM Plan„
The Pasco Public Works Department plans to initiate a City-wide
comprehensive traffic study to evaluate various needs related to vehicle
circulation. The Transportation SYSTEM Plan is proposed to include elements
addressing needed bicycle and possibly pedestrian facilities. The Plan may
duplicate and contribute to efforts made in compiling this Bicycle/Pedestrian
Master Plan.
Install municipal bike racks (identity effective locations)
A concurrency requirement for the installation of bicycle lock-up racks should
be considered for new businesses locating on roadways identified as proposed
bike/pedestrian routes in the Master Plan Overview Map. Such a development
requirement may be imposed by amending PMC Title 12 (Streets and
Sidewalks). The availability of convenient ways to secure bicycles in front of
businesses may foster bicycle transportation; thereby advancing the stated
goal, policies and objectives of this Plan.
47
� r
■ '
r ELI � � � _� �1�� ..r._ Saar..._.rr s►��-'`''+f. . - . - '�`-
-
INES
'� 1 - 111111 11 111
mi
. -. OEM � il�!�111►
r . -- :.
rr� , qq_=w■ in 11 111
_ -- y
� � • �s 1� ���,; � ���■� :■tea
1 �■ ■ •• r� _ _ 111 1111
F ■ _ .. .l�.a•
�� � � _■� ru■���_ +� ��� ,-ti�► !!IMF ■ . ■�.�■
i _ �■ _err r
ME F - - •
WIN 1Nmfg;vm
Wild
ON
qP
r �
is c e e es rlan Master Plan - Area # 1
LT J
egend
Proposed Routes O
City Limits
Bike Pathway 0
,Q
River Shore 0,
FCID Canal
D
O Q
� � O
s1
Chapel Hill Blvd.
(F4� _�U'RD,EN-B�L'�1� -
HOmerun d.
C] cr
co
o
N
Bi* cycle/Pedestri* an Master Plan - Area #2
O
Q. N
CD
a
Chapel Hill Bled d'
��` �U-RD E -BL-V D
vt4re
J ch
omerun Rd.
ova
p� o
ow
Legend� ARGENT RD
Project#2/ I
FCID Canal
ao
Pathway V � Q
O
River Shore '
City Limits
0
G
Legend
Proposed Routes
Existing Bike Lanes
River Shore
BikePathway
City Limits
i
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #4
11
wo
fur Park f
Homerun R4
Legend
Proposed Routes
Existing Bike Lanes
FCID Canal
City Limits
Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #5
Argent Place
0
Legend
Proposed Routes
City Lim-t
Bike Pathwsay
River Shore
FCID Canal NO sonEW
MEN ON wo
mm
M m-
OEM
Sol
SUNNI r��
Bicycle/Pedestrian M . Area
A a -
PIN MOM 04
1 r .
.��K�� �
milli
1► �►
0NEW
,1"91-va
POKIII P-1-2 HE MI I
mom
�MINIE loom
"IMIN, ARM
1001111 me IBM
MIS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 12. 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman. Block Grant Administrator
SUBJECT: 3011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM REALLOCATION (MF#BGAP2011-007)
Proposed Reallocation
Attached for your review and consideration is the revised 2011 CDBG Fund Summary for
proposed significant amendment to the ''011 CDBG Annual Action Plan. In accordance with the
Citizen Participation Plan changes in funding greater than 10% of the annual entitlement.
changes scope, purpose or beneficiaries requires a significant amendment to the plan.
Reallocation of Funds
Council passed Resolution 3262 on October 4, 2010 approving the 2011 CDBG grant allocations
and annual work plan. The approved budget of$777,840 estimated receipt $150,000 in program
income and annual entitlement of$600,000 in addition to prior year reallocations of$92.840.
Program income received for program year 2011 to date is $500. Cuts to the CDBG program by
Congress in the 2011 Budget Resolution resulted in an actual entitlement for 2011 of$56'',98''.
The resulting $122,000 deficit triggers significant amendment to the 2011 CDBG Annual Action
Plan in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan.
Public Service Cap
HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to
support public service activities may not exceed 150 of the combined total of the entitlement
plus the prior year's program income. For 2011, the entitlement of$562,982, and 2010 program
income of$49,000 makes the maximum available for public service activities $92.000. Current
funding for public services total $80.000. Public Service caps are not exceeded.
Planning & Administration Cap
HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to
support planning and administration activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the
annual entitlement plus the current year"s program income. For ''011, the annual entitlement of
$562,982 and program income of$500 makes the maximum available for planning and
administration $112.000. Current budget for planning and administration is $120,000. Staff
recommends planning and administration funding be reduced to $112,000, the maximum 20%
allowable.
Changes to Scope, Purpose & Beneficiaries
Other significant changes to the purpose. scope and beneficiaries of the 2011 Annual Action Plan
include cancellation of the Northwest Soccer Project due to lack of anticipated funding from
other grant programs.
Special Assessments for low-moderate income households in LID #1 46 budgeted for in program
year 2010 and included with construction costs are a different type of activity and requires a new
project be created and funds of$10.000 allocated for payment of these special assessments.
The remaining funds totaling $6.460 may be added to the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood
Improvement Plan (Phase III) to further pay down special assessments for construction of LID
#148 in the target Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan area.
Activity Reallocation Approved
CDBG Program Administration ($8,000 00j $112,00000
Northwest Soccer Complex ($131,300 00j
Neighborhood Improvements-Phase III $6,46000 $340,00000
LID#146 Special Assessments I $10,000 00 $10,000 00
Recommendation
After discussions and staff evaluation. it is recommended that the activities set forth in
Attachments 1 would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying
out the objectives for the City in 2011. Your review and consideration for recommendation to the
City Council would be appreciated.
Therefore. we propose the following Motions:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of
funds for the 2011 Community Development Block Grant Pro2yam as set forth in the `2011
Fund Summary" as amended by Staff.
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and
assistance.
/arp
Attachments: 1. 2011 CDBG Fund Summary — Aug,ust 18. `'011
Attachment 1 2011 CD8G Fund Summary- August 18, 2011 Attachment 1
Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
Proposals-Recommendations
ID Recipients ACTIVITY/AGENCY NonCDBGMatch Agency Staff Staff Planning CITY COUNCIL
NAME Requested Recommended Recommend Commission APPROVAL
City of Pasco-Community CDBG Program $0.00 $120,000.00 $120,00000 $112,000.00
1 &Economic Development Administration
City of Pasco-
Administrative& Civic Center-Youth $45,50000 $20,00000 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
2 lCommunity Services Recreation Specialist
City of Pasco- Martin Luther King
Administrative& Community Center $100,500.00 $20,000.00 $20,00000 $20,00000
3 Community Services Recreation Specialist
City of Pasco-
Administrative& Senior Citizen's Center $200,00000 $40,00000 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
4 C o mmu ni ty S ervi ces lRecreation Specialist
Anti-Gang
Prevention/Intervention $000 $1,365,586 00 $0.00 $0.00
5 lCharity Training Center Program
Pasco Downtown Pasco Downtown
Development Association- Development Commercial $40,420.00 $65,000.00 $50,00000 $50,000 00
5 SK Kitchen
City of Pasco-Community Downtown Fagade $27,00000 $50,00000 $0.00 $0.00
6 &Economic Development Improvement(1 facades)
Hispanic Chamber of Downtown Fagade $0.00 $80,000.00 $000 $000
7 Commerce Improvement(4 facades)
Volunteer Chore Services $118,197 00 $6,0000 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
8 Catholic Family Charities 1(12 households)
$184,935 00 $100,000 00 $0.00 $0.00
9 [arico Roads Ministries Havensafe(8 Households)
Boys&Girls Club of
Bent on&F ran klin $000 $99,30000 $11,000.00 $11,000.00
10 Counties E nergy Eff i ci ant L ightin g
City of Pasco-
Administrative& $000 $150,0000o $131,300.00 $0.00
11 Community Services Northeast Soccer Complex
City of Pasco-
Administrative& Senior Center Kitchen $0.00 $85,000.00 $000 $000
12 ICOMMLrity Services Remodel
City of Pasco-
Administrative& Martin Luther King Center- $000 $65,00000 $0.00 $0.00
13 Community Services HVAC Replacement
City of Pasco-Community $130,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,00000 $48,00000
14 &Economic Development Code Enforcement Officer
Neighborhood
City of PaSCo-PUb11C Improvements-Phase Ill $300,00000 $350,00000 $333,540.00 $941.322,00
15 Works (CT201BG2)
Revitalization Specialist-
City of Pasco-Community Economic Project Delivery $000 $40,00000 $0.00 $0.00
16 &Economic Development for NRSA
17 lCity of Pasco-
Administrative& 'Wighland Park Street $23.655.00 $150.000.00 $0.00 $0.00
CommunAySerkdoes tmprovements
City of asco-
Administrative& LID#146 Special $000 $000 $0.00 $10,OOD.00
16 Community Services Assessments
"Project proposed con fingenfonmee ring fima iinessratio $1,170,207.00 $2,883,886.00 $777,84000 $656,322.00 $000
Entitlement(2011 Actual) $ 562,982
Program Income(2011 Actual) $ 500
Prior Year Reallocations(2008-2009) $ 92,840
Total Funds Available $ 656,322 $
Prior approved activities $ 777,840
`"SURPLUSi(DEFICIT FOR BACKUPPROJECTS) $ (Tv.518)
811212011