Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.05.23 Council Special Meeting Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 23,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER. ! 2. BUSINESS ITEMS: (a) Adjustment of Council District Boundaries: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 20, 2005. 2. PMC 1.10.090. 3. Council District Boundary Maps (2). [Maps of current and realignment options may be viewed in the City Clerk's office, on the City's website (www.ci.pasco.wa.us) or at the Pasco library.] CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING 3. ADJOURNMENT. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council May 20, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfie Manager Special Mtg.: 5/23/05 SUBJECT: Adjustment of ouncil District Boundaries I. REFERENCE(S): 1. PMC 1.10.090. 2. Council District Boundary Maps (2) [Maps of current and realignment options may be viewed in the City Clerk's office, on the City's website (www.ci.pasco.wa.us) or at the Pasco library.] 1.1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 05/23: Conduct Public Hearing III. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) PMC Chapter 1.10 provides that the city be divided into five Council districts, principally to assure appropriate geographic representation on the City Council. Thus, five of the seven Council seats are each filled by an individual residing in the respective district, while the remaining two Council seats are filled by "at large" Council representatives (no restriction on residence location). PMC 1.10 also provides that Council district boundaries must be nearly equal in that none of the Council districts may be more than 10 percent larger or smaller (in terms of population) than any other Council district. B) The Council district boundaries were last revised in 2003 in advance of the general municipal elections that year. The adjustments were required at that time due to population growth and annexations. Since then, because of population growth, District 3 (the least populous) now has a population only about 68 percent of District 4. C) The population of each Council district has been updated to reflect housing units completed since the last update in April 2003. The adjustment suggested by staff(map Option A) was discussed at the May 9 workshop. At that workshop, there was discussion of amending the staff's recommendation by including Precincts 16 and 17 in District Two, with Precinct 15 remaining in District Five (map Option B). This amendment would not affect population distribution among the districts as the combined population of Precincts 16 and 17 is equal to the population of Precinct 15. D) PMC Chapter 1.10 requires the district boundaries to be adjusted but that such adjustment cannot occur "... less than 60 days prior to the next general municipal election..." The next general municipal election will be in September and "filing" week occurs in late July; thus, the Council district boundaries should,be adjusted not later than the month of June. E) In addition to the population requirements, state law requires the city to conduct at least one public hearing on the proposed plan and that such hearing occur at least one week before formal adoption of the plan. A public hearing will be conducted at the special meeting for formal adoption of the final plan at the June 6 meeting. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff has provided Council a map of current Council district boundaries as well as two options for proposed adjustments of boundaries that would result in no district having more than 10 percent disparity in population, thus fulfilling the requirement imposed by PMC Chapter 1.10. This proposal also respects current Councilmember residencies. B) Following the public hearing, Council may determine how council district boundaries will be configured for action at the June 6 regular meeting. 2(a) 1.10.090 RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. The Council shall re-establish district boundaries whenever the population in any district exceeds by ten percent or more the population in any other district; provided, that no change in the boundaries of any district shall be made within sixty days next before the date of a general municipal election, nor within twelve months after the districts have been established or altered. (Ord. 3476 Sec. 6, 2001; Ord. 1472 Sec. 9, 1971.) o c All ry � � N N :t' '• e�, F ). v K V/ ;�:�>�;• xY3Y O iC 'mow) to J " ROAD 6~ '�l�p✓R• �'1 n "mM y:: C ?!.'�' nr�b2c Y 4 i 36 X,^ �vyxdt 1ml r f� V �" +yih�3>'+ �Y --%` G' { � � 1 F� �-".q t�.' h�M 3�,.•y"•U"'F dae;x.r .3 i�'7r�'pa�� � : k a Old WIN co k�r� AJ r F'��3xr�:r,yg �'`t� air'•' ;y�, ,7,�tS+ri�Y�,.4"Y' a 'ige:r><:•k''31t��-'�3� �.. '�km.7 i'h'� _g '�'i t<�.�} 4 ,�.��tRix'- 'S t. £•9 y,�, �? A ti��, ray-cs„''' . �� .Vr'' ,•k•z �, u } if 4pA a RYA. �4yy2.,r `Yi* il. Z '! y fi(. I'a` '�yv •^ C 3. tl J a:r Jra • � �^.._. �'���J.j�i.;'.�.sa.�rrr`'Y• � s ay�r':Z''� iY rg:,d ', ..,,: Y't,:hr.'.A•1' ,��W+ `'* Gr, .:a' .`?e```.*+.-y:� • �` �'iet�:•,tu;�t.; �.��,,4t,'�',>t .�°,t�?':,^r:rF:G,.'�:4 ,4,,.;3,:.,:�:,y �,,,� ,,.,e�r!"':zs: " f{'¢mow ���. \ }A�•t$C.� k �3- � � W = Y N • .. Sc f I ;•� / ,`. •,�''�` � �Cyr U'.:. s4 i / � � b3 i.:.=� •fit ,. �` 3 15 { Y ? a FL' p "MUM 9 r s Y 3x t ,•.,. �. x 1.k, is �r ,2 ���t °,'',G'� t ..'nom .�?Y```�"P's-$'�' x 2�^ k-:e h 4 'ei C•Fv 2 d� �4 �!a R.a ,� ^�4 .`�AMR..!1"�,'Y NUN ,tC` As-' w.`6Q\t Y`� r` 'v'A : � '"�Y'- '�'�,. •w4ti•,. �4;.:`�yri� ....,�e,�•, .K^�i`�.',y.,frF°.it,'.�a .�,s\tx ,�,� "���� ��";. ��,p .y;H/r. 4 Y^`" ,1 3•'� •,�y�(.{����.J't i.���'";�kE`Y'T'+nt�:ar'`*.r - ,�y r� '� ��� J.L��. W° r�3�`� ,.�kj Y�t�'.=�•'•x.�'.f;£6 .'�'I: s���Y�,� ,�x� t '� Q'f''.g7Ki.('4 �K�l::{a•5,P't k.,-.it�.,•v,�]„�,,,' ` k�4�i ^:�,.,,. :v �r 4 ! �' ;q�?+.,�C':a�P$•�s aa3y�"'hS _ �, 3.,°t��; 4 dt.+` •av;g ,( ice':;a,!�:.�'r^��'r x• °t'[�'�"t-.•%„- t •i� ^�'� �r� Ya'5:�:' �"• '•R'4s T5t'�Y' d Zr+:a� rf`">t�s` "�`". �'+ :`�."�-�.'r'�'`ri�rmi'Y`�'"� �.f �''F�`,y��,"R.• ,�'�'�Y � r,, - r.;�: �'.. ;°•'�f .& sue, s��_'a'ct � +,°�:4>'.-""(",%'�p-{, p y„ ..0'�,�s �,'^'" AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 23,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Planning Commission Interviews: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated May 18, 2005. 2. Applications (4) (Council packets only). (b) Application of Admission Tax to Golf Activities: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 19, 2005. 2. Vicinity Map of Pasco Golf Land. 3. Letter from Bill McIntyre, Owner of Pasco Golf Land dated 513105. 4. PMC Section 3.02.010- .030, (c) Nonconforming Uses (MF#04-137-I): 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated May 17, 2005. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. Memos to Planning Commission. 4. Planning Commission Minutes. (d) Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2006-2011: 1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts,Public Works Director dated May 18, 2005, 2. Proposed Plan. 3. Resolution. 4. Map. (e) WCIA Insurance Summary Update. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presentation by: Stan Strebel,Administrative&Community Services Director. (f) Stealth Cell Towers: 1. Agenda Report from Thomas Colleran,Planner I dated May 2, 2005. 2. Memo outlining Stealth Tower Ordinances around Washington. (g) Transportable Storage Units: 1. Agenda Report from Thomas Colleran,Planner I dated May 2, 2005. 2. Memo outlining Transportable Unit Ordinances around Washington. (h) Amendment No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional Services Agreement: 1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated May 19, 2005. 2. Amendment No. 1. (i) Resolution,Approval of Drought Management Plan: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 20, 2005. 2. Proposed Resolution with Drought Management Plan. (j) National Incident Management System(NIMS): 1. Agenda Report from Gregory L. Garcia,Fire Chief dated May 17, 2005. 2. Proposed Resolution. 4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. ADJOURNMENT. Workshop Meeting 2 May 23,2005 REMINDERS: 1. 10:00 a.m., Saturday, May 21, 516 W. Clark Street — Kurt's Decorative Service 50'b Anniversary Ribbon Cutting Ceremony. (MAYOR GARRISON TO PRESENT PROCLAMATION) 2. 12:00 p.m., Monday, May 23, Red Lion Hotel — Chamber of Commerce General Membership Meeting. ("Building Industry Update for the Tri-Cities"presented by Jeff Losey, Executive Director, Home Builders Association.) 3. 4:00 p.m., Monday, May 23, Port of Benton — Hanford 'Area Economic Investment Fund Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS) 4. 7:30 a.m., Thursday, May 26 — Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN) 5. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, May 26, Three Rivers Convention Center — TRIDEC Board Meeting. (MAYOR MIKE GARRISON,Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS,Alt.) 6. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, May 26, 710 W. Court Street—Community Action Committee Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER EILEEN CRAWFORD, Rep.; JOE JACKSON, Alt.) 7. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 26, 800 W. Canal Drive — Benton-Franklin District Board of Health Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK and MATT WATKINS) 8. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 1, 1135 E. Hillsboro St., #B — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER JOE JACKSON) 9. 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m., Friday, June 3, WSU Tri-Cities, Richland — Growth Management Workshop. (COUNCILMEMBER EILEEN CRAWFORD) City Hall will be closed Monday, May 30 in honor of Memorial Day. The next meeting of the Pasco City Council will be held Monday, June 6 @ 7:00 p.m. I AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council May 18, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfiel ity anager Workshop Mtg.: 05/23/05 SUBJECT: Planning Com fission Interviews I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Applications (4) (Council packets only) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/23: Council to conduct brief interviews with Rose Gundy, Peter Ives, Cathy Torres and Laurence Walkup. III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Planning Commission is composed of nine members; terms are for six years. The commission meets on the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. B) The Planning Commission conducts workshop meetings and public hearings on land-use policy and development requests and issues recommendations for the City Council. C) At the present time there is one vacancy on the commission: I. Position No. 1 (vacant) term expiration date of 2/2/10 D) After Council committee review of all applications, the following have been selected to interview for Position No. 1: 1. Rose Gundy.....................................................................7608 Galiano 2. Peter Ives........................................................ 5508 Westminster Lane 3. Cathy Torres................................... 1720 W. Yakima 4. Laurence Walkup................................................. 8703 Tottenham Ct. IV. DISCUSSION: A) After conduct of interviews at the Workshop meeting, it is recommended that an appointment be made by the Mayor (with concurrence of Council) at the Regular meeting of June 6. 3(A) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council May 19, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 5/23/05 SUBJECT: Application of Admission Tax to Golf Activities I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map of Pasco Golf Land 2. Letter from Bill McIntyre, Owner of Pasco Golf Land dated 5/3/05 3. PMC Section 3.02.010 - .030 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/23: Discussion and direction III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The city annexed several blocks of unincorporated lands lying between roads 36 and 40 south of Argent Place last year (see attached vicinity map). The annexation included several blocks of homes as well as "Pasco Golf Land," a business situated on the north side of the highway. Although Pasco Golf.Land is a privately-owned and operated business, it leases land from the Port of Pasco; thus, it was not a signatory on the annexation petition. B) The Pasco Municipal Code requires admission tax to be paid on all spectator activities where admission is charged as well as "golf courses or driving ranges." The admission tax has long been applied to, the Sun Willows Golf Course and its driving range. Pasco Golf Land was advised earlier this year that it was subject to the city's admission tax, as the property had been annexed last year. The owner of Pasco Golf Land (Bill McIntyre) has expressed concern with the application of such tax to his business and was encouraged to express those concerns in writing (May 3 letter attached). C) A review of the Pasco admission tax in relation to Kennewick and Richland reveals that Pasco's tax rate (2.5%) is only half that required in both Kennewick and Richland (5%). However, the admission tax is not applied to golf courses in both Kennewick and Richland. The exemption from the admission tax for golf courses is based on the interpretation that if the person paying the admission fee is a "participant" in the sport (not merely a spectator), then the admission tax is not applicable. Consequently, golf course operators in both Kennewick and Richland avoid payment of the admission tax. Another example of this interpretation is that bowling alleys in all three cities do not pay admission tax. V. DISCUSSION: A) The City of Pasco has long applied the admission tax to "golf courses or driving ranges" as explicitly reflected in the city's admission tax ordinance (see, definition of "place" in PMC 3.02.010). Although the 2.5% admission tax rate represents a relatively small impact on the admission fee (for example, an $8.00 admission fee would have to be increased by only 20 cents to offset the effect of the tax), it does in fact represent an additional expense for the owner (to the extent it is not recovered through price increases). Given the fact that businesses within the Tri-Cities often compete with others across the river, the city should strive (to the extent it can afford) to assure a level playing field for its businesses. 3(b) B) The means to "level the playing field" in this particular instance would be deletion of the term "golf courses or driving ranges" from the city's definition of those places subject to admission tax. The effect of doing so, however, would also relieve the operators of the Sun Willows Golf Course from paying the admission tax that it has long paid to the city. The average annual admission tax receipts from the Sun Willows Golf Course has approximated$17,000 over the last couple of years. Given that the Sun Willows Golf Course is owned by the city and leased to a private operator, it is conceivable that the lease arrangement can be modified so as to minimize or avoid any net loss to the city, even though the admission tax would be dropped (in other words, the lease agreement can be modified to increase the rent or other such payments associated with the operation so as to offset the expected loss of the admission tax from Sun Willows Golf Course). The result would be the same admission tax application to businesses in Pasco as is reflected across the river (albeit at a lower rate) without the loss of revenue associated with such a change. C) Although the city cannot legally do what the Pasco Golf Land owner requested ("waive" the admission tax requirement), the city can, in fact, amend its ordinance so as to exempt golf courses and golf driving ranges from application of the admissions tax. Such an action would accomplish the objective of the Pasco Golf Land owner and is recommended by staff, with the caveat that the Sun Willows Golf Course lease be amended to minimize (if not avoid) the associated loss of revenue. i ANNEXATION AREA# 10 (PASCO) N OLD CITY LIMITS NEW CITY LIMITS Argent Place Old City Limits j I i I Pasco Golfland I 4% Ro Port of Pasco sP]9-13 O 3) « i (2) sF 92-1 c6) I W. UVINGSTON RD ul W \� Port of Pasco (3) (4) I ,v (2) 10 N) IS) (2J fU I I r o aw wr W. WE W. WERNETT RD RNETT RD L—�-- r 76-t V71-4 4 w. Y L_ s � 1 r—T— . -- (1) (2) (3) o « — �� I i - OS W. ELLA ST r c f,) sa 87-o7 r 3 1 r I '. City admits 67-� W. LEOLA ST F�`� 1.� a n I (1) a +I W. PEARL ST _ _ P PASCO CITY HALL. RECEIVED PASCO GOLFLAND, INC, MAY 0 4 2005 2901 N ROAD 40 PASCO, WA. 99301 CITY MANAGER'S (509) 544-9291 (BUSINESS LOCATION) OFFICE (509) 783-1986 (BUSINESS OFFICE) MAY 3,2005 City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Request for Waiver of Admissions Tax of 2.5% Attn: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager As I recently discussed with you and with Rebecca Francik, I am writing to request a waiver of the 2.5% Admissions Tax on revenues from Pasco Golfland greens fees and range balls. Pasco Golfland was recently annexed by the city of Pasco. At the time of the annexation, we were assured that there would be no change in our taxes attributable to this annexation. However, we have been notified that an Admissions Tax of 2.5% is now to be applied to our gross receipts for greens fees and driving range bails. Admissions Tax for our driving range and 9-hole par three golf course is just another problem we face in a small business, one more tax and we are getting taxed out of business. While this tax of 2.5%may seem small, absorbing it pressures our narrow operating margin further, and passing it on to our customer reads like a price increase to them. Right now we draw customers from all of the Tri-Cities, however increasing prices will make it easier for our customers to to stay home, or go to Kennewick's Columbia Park, Richland's Buckskin, or West Richland's Golf Course (not to mention other driving ranges). We have tried hard to maintain a family-owned business that caters to all golfers, specifically families and students (something that is hard to find). All of the local schools, including CBC, practice at our facility and we offer discounts to these students when they play on their own. We are also actively pursuing the `First Tee' program which will introduce golf to those that may not normally have the chance. With the increasing prices (electricity, fuel, property taxes, and payroll) we have been experiencing, we are on an extremely narrow operating margin. We are privately held and do not have deep corporate pockets to draw on. We want to continue to be an asset to the City of Pasco. Applying the admissions tax to Pasco Golfland business does not seem to be within the spirit of the intent of the admissions tax. We respectfully request a waiver from this tax'as it applies to greens fees and range balls. We would apply the admissions tax to any events in which we charge admission should we put on such an event (i.e., Long Drive contest). We would be happy to discuss the matter further and explain our situation to the City Council. Please contact us as soon as possible so we can resolve this issue. Sincerely, Bill McIntyre Owner Pasco Golfland, Inc. Copy: Rebecca Francik 3.02.010 DEFINITIONS. A) "Admission Charge," in addition to its usual and ordinary meaning includes: 1) A charge made for season tickets and subscriptions; and 2) A cover charge, or a charge made for use of seats and tables reserved or otherwise, and other similar accommodations; and 3) A charge made for food and refreshment in any place where free entertainment, recreation or amusement is provided; and 4) A charge made for rental or use of facilities for purposes of recreation or amusement for which general admission is normally charged on an individual basis shall be considered as the admission charge; and 5) Automobile parking charges if the amount of the charge is determined according to the number of passengers in an automobile; and 6) Any sum of money referred to as "a donation" which must be paid before entrance is allowed. B) "Bona Fide Charitable or Non-Profit Organization" means any organization duly existing under the provisions of RCW Chapters 24.12, 24.20 or 24.28, or any agricultural fair organized under the provisions of RCW 36.37 or 15.76, or any non-profit corporation duly existing under the provisions of RCW Chapter 24.03 for charitable, benevolent, educational, civic, patriotic, political, social, fraternal, athletic or agricultural purposes, or any non-profit organization or association, whether incorporated or otherwise, when found by the Finance Manager to be organized and operating or conducting an event or activity for one or more of the above-listed purposes. C) "Person" means an individual, receiver, assignee, firm, partnership, joint venture, corporation, company, joint stock company, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, association, society, or a group of individuals acting as a unit whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, non-profit or otherwise. D) "Place" includes, but is not restricted to theaters, dance halls, amphitheaters, nightclubs, auditoriums, stadiums, athletic pavilions or fields, swimming pools, aquatic parks, baseball or other athletic parks, ice arenas, golf courses, or driving ranges, adult entertainment facilities as defined in PMC 5.27, circuses, si e shows, amusement parks, merry-go-rounds, ferris wheels, roller coasters, observation towers, arcades and similar attractions. E) "Finance Manager" means the Finance Manager of the City of Pasco or his designee. (Ord. 3557 Sec.1 & 2, 2002; Ord. 3437 Sec. 2, 2000.) 3.02.020 TAX IMPOSED - RATES. A tax in the amount of two and one half (2.5%) percent of the admission char e shall be levied and imposed upon every person including children, without regard to age) who pays an admission charge to any place, including a tax on persons who are admitted free of charge or at reduced rates. to any place for which other persons pay a charge or a regular higher charge for the same or similar privileges or accommodations. Whenever the charge to children or senior citizens for admission to any place is less than the charge made to other persons, or when such persons are admitted free, the lesser admission charge is not considered to be a reduced rate under this chapter. The amount of tax payable by such persons shall be determined by the amount of actual admission tax paid. (Ord. 3557 Sec. 3, 2002; Ord. 3437 Sec. 2, 2000.) 3.02.030 ADMISSION TAX EXEMPTION. A) The admission tax listed in section 3.02.020 is not imposed: 1)When the admission charge, either for a single event or by prorating a season ticket or subscription price, is ten cents or less; or 2) Upon a person paying an admission charge to an activity of an elementary or secondary school where the school or school district is the sponsor; or 3) Upon a person paying an admission charge to an activity of an accredited public or private college, junior college, university, or the recognized student body association thereof; or 4) Upon admission charges paid by any government agency; or 5) Where no admission charge or compensating payment is collected from the persons attending the activity or event; or 6) Upon a person paying an admission charge to an activity or performance of a bona fide charitable or non-profit organization furnishing evidence of their organization's status under one of the applicable RCW chapters as listed in section 3.02.010(B); provided: a) The Finance Manager's office receives a properly completed license application, including proof of the organization's status, for this exemption at least fifteen days prior to the event; and b) The bona fide charitable or non-profit organization must be organized and operated exclusively for those purposes detailed in the RCW chapters listed in section 3.02.010(B); and C) The bona fide charitable or non-profit organization must be fiscally responsible for the event and receive the full benefit and use of the proceeds from the event. If the bona fide charitable or non-profit organization contracts with a non-exempt person to conduct the event on its behalf, the exemption applies only if the exempt organization receives payment of its expenses and charges a net sum equal to at least twenty percent (20%) of the anticipated gross of admission charges. B) This section is to be construed strictly against an exemption. C) The exemption to admission tax as provided in this section shall not apply to an event in which a college, university or non-profit organization lends its name to an endorsement for an ineligible person for the purpose of invoking the tax exemption. (Ord. 3557 Sec. 4, 2002; Ord. 3437 Sec. 2, 2000.) AGENDA REPORT NO. 35 FOR: City Council Date: 5/17/05 TO: Gary Crutchfie Oirector Manager Workshop: 5-23-05 Richard J. Smi ( Regular: Community & E onomic Development FROM: David McDonald, City Planner72�}�_. SUBJECT: Nonconforming Uses (MF # 04-137-1) I. REFERENCE(S): A. Proposed Ordinance B. Memos to Planning Commission C. Planning Commission Minutes II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/23/05Review and Discussion 6/6/05 Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending the nonconforming provisions of PMC Title 25, and, further to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Last year Terry Milham, the owner of a four-plea on Sylvester Street submitted a written request to the City asking that changes be made in the nonconforming chapter of the zoning regulations. The City Council considered the matter in November 2004 and referred the issue to the City Planning Commission for study and a recommendation. I B. Mr. Milham asked for an amendment to the zoning regulations that would permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt if they are damaged by more than 50 percent of their assessed value. Some cities in Washington, including Yakima, Kennewick, Walla Walla, and Richland permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt following substantial damage provided they are rebuilt to the exact foot print of the original building. Other cities such as Spokane have a complex process that permits reconstruction of nonconforming uses depending on the type of adjoining land use. C. The Planning Commission discussed this issue in a series of workshops which culminated with a public hearing on April 21, 2005. V. DISCUSSION: A. Staff believes that some owners of multi-family dwellings which are located in less intense zoning districts have experienced difficulty in securing mortgages due to FHA concerns about non-conforming )3(c uses. Such mortgages cannot be readily sold in the secondary market. B. Staff, however, remains concerned about permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial zone or a business that lacks sufficient off street parking does not protect and enhance the value of nearby industrial properties. Allowing a damaged house to be rebuilt adjacent a chemical plant or welding shop does not encourage orderly growth nor protect such industrial uses from inherent nuisances when homes are located adjacent industrial uses. C. The Planning Commission recommended that the prohibition against the reconstruction of non-conforming uses remain in place with the exception of non-conforming multi family dwellings located in less intense residential zones which may be destroyed by fire or natural disaster. It is the .owners of such properties who have been most vocal about the need to amend the ordinance. The recommended amendment will address their concerns. D. The City Council reviewed the proposed code amendment at a workshop on May 9, 2005. Staff indicated in the workshop that additional refinements were needed for the proposed code amendment prior to Council action. The proposed code amendment has been modified to include a time frame for obtaining permits and by the elimination of language requiring reconstruction to follow the original foot print of the building. E. If Council concurs, an ordinance amending the Pasco Municipal Code will be placed on the June 6, 2005 agenda for action. I EXHIBIT# 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to Zoning amending PMC Title 25 dealing with Nonconforming Uses. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and insure the 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, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.72.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION. j (2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt, except multi family units previously authorized by building_permit in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a. Permits must be obtained within one year of building damage or all nonconforming privileges are lost; b. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. e. Reconstruction should adhere to the required district set backs. (3) Any structure or portion thereof declared unsafe by a properly authorized per-so the Building Official may be restored to a safe condition and continue as a nonconforming use, unless such repairs exceed fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor except multi family units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district may be _rebuilt under the following conditions: a. Permits must be obtained within the time frame provided in the notification by the Building Official or all nonconformina privileges are lost b. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure or uses d. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by an official charged with -protecting public safe e. Reconstruction should adhere to the required district set backs. Section 3. 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 2005. Michael B. Garrision Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney 2 CITY OF PASCO SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE NO. , amends PMC Title 25 dealing with nonconforming uses The full text of Ordinance No. , is available free of charge to any person who requests it from the City Clerk of the City of Pasco (509) 545-3402, P.O. Box 293, Pasco, Washington 99301. Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk 3 Memo To: Planning Commission From: Dave McDonald, City Planner Subject: Nonconforming Uses Date: January 20, 2005 At their November 29th workshop the City Council held a discussion on nonconforming issues related to the location of single family and multi family dwellings in zoning districts other than ones approved for such uses. In the context of zoning the term nonconforming means land uses, buildings or premises that were lawfully established and in existence at the time the zoning regulations were enacted and are maintained after the effective date of the regulations even though they do not comply with the regulations. The zoning regulations group similar land uses together for the purposes of avoiding conflicts between uses, to maintain security of home life, to stabilize property values and to encourage orderly growth. When zoning districts were originally established in the 1960's or . earlier, not all neighborhoods were completely homogeneous. Occasionally a duplex or four-plex would be in a single family zone or a house would be located in a commercial zone. Rather than requiring the immediate elimination of the few uses that did not match the majority uses in a given zone the non matching uses (such as a house in a commercial zone) were identified as nonconforming uses, Nonconforming uses were and are permitted to continue provided they are not enlarged or reconstructed after significant damage. The intent is for nonconforming uses to eventually be phased out. An owner of a nonconforming four-plex has requested the City consider changing the current nonconforming regulations to permit the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings under certain conditions. Following discussion on this matter the City Council forwarded the matter to the Planning Commission for study and the development of a recommendation for a possible code amendment. The attached Council Report and correspondence will provide the Planning Commission with background information on the issue. Over the next several months staff will be providing the Planning Commission with information on nonconforming uses to assist with the development of a recommendation to the City Council. EXHIBIT# 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to Zoning amending PMC Title 25 dealing with Nonconforming Uses. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and insure the 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, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.72.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION. (2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of such assessment of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt, except multi family units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a. Permits must be obtained within one year of building damage or all nonconforming privileges are lost; b. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. e. Reconstruction should adhere to the required district set backs. v. a.aa. a.aaasauaaa aaa..a asaava aaay .a wi..a.a a,aaa. . .....av a.v . av v�---�. - -b status of his four-plex it is not possible for potential purchasers to obtain financing to purchase the property. He has stated that, as the result of changes in lending practices, prospective purchasers are unable to obtain conventional financing on nonconforming properties. V. DISCUSSION: A. In the context of zoning the term "nonconforming" means land uses, buildings or premises that were lawfully established and in existence at the time the zoning regulations were enacted and are maintained after the effective date of the regulations even though they do not comply with the regulations. B. The zoning regulations group similar land uses together for the purposes of avoiding conflicts between uses, to maintain security of home life, to stabilize property values and to encourage orderly growth. When Pasco's zoning districts were originally established, in the 1960's or earlier, not all neighborhoods were completely homogeneous. Occasionally, a duplex or four-plex would be in a single family zone or a house would be located in a commercial zone. Rather than requiring the immediate elimination of the few uses that did not match the majority of uses in a given zone, the non matching uses (such as a house in a commercial zone) were identified as nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses were and are permitted to continue provided they are not enlarged or reconstructed after significant damage. The intent is for nonconforming uses to eventually be phased out. C. As Staff understands this request, Mr. Milham is asking for an amendment to the zoning regulations that would permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt if they are damaged by more than 50 percent of their assessed value. Some cities in Washington, including Yakima, Kennewick, Walla Walla, and Richland permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt following substantial damage provided they are rebuilt to the exact foot print of the original building. Other cities such as Spokane have a complex process that permits reconstruction of nonconforming uses depending on the type of adjoining land use. D. Historically the nonconforming status of buildings was not an impediment to financing. The standard loan requirements for property insurance provided mortgage companies with the security needed to protect the loans in the event a building was damaged or destroyed. Those.requirements are present today regardless of the zoning status of a building. It is unclear why mortgage companies are concerned given that the proceeds from an insurance settlement can be used to pay off any outstanding mortgage. E. Permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings to their original foot print addresses the concerns of a few property owners about financing; However, it does not address the original purpose for the creation of nonconforming uses. Permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial zone or a business that lacks sufficient off street parking does not protect and enhance the value of nearby industrial properties. Allowing a damaged house to be rebuilt adjacent a chemical plant or welding shop does not encourage orderly growth nor protect such industrial uses from inherent nuisances when homes are located adjacent industrial uses. F. Considerable thought is needed in responding to Mr. Milham's request. The Council basically has three options available on this issue. The Council could, after one or more workshops, hold a public hearing to consider amending the regulations. The Planning Commission could be instructed to study the matter and hold a hearing or the Council could determine that no changes are needed and take no action on the matter. Given the significant number of cities that have modified their nonconforming provisions to accommodate secondary mortgage lenders, it would appear prudent to forward this matter to the Planning Commission for study and the development of a recommendation. I Terry Milllarn 1016 West 37'x' Place Kennewick, WA. 09337 REC',F_IVED Email tmilhamOkliarter.net . Cell 509-539-3910 SEP + `i 1.11114 CaM+�i�,r�rrr t►r:vFri�inaenl-r ncr,r.' TO: Rick Sniitli (Manager—Planning and Zoning—City of Pasco Hello Mr. Smith Subject: Request to change a zoning stalernent in my property's (4 10 Sylvester Pasco, Washington) zoning profile. Propose to change the statement; "if more than 50%destroyed then only a duplex can be built on the site"to "owner can rebuild present structure to original footprint within 6 nionths if destroyed." The lenders will accept this statement and will loan money. This is basically a "grand father.clause." Due to zoning changes well after the subject property was built, I am unable to sell the property as lenders will not loan funds on properties that are listed/zoned as "non-conforming with conditions that effect the value of the property." My property falls into this category. have entailed you and Dave McDonald this past week in regards to this issue with research on what other cities accomplish in these zoning"non-conforming with conditions statement conditions"circumstances. Rick, I appreciate your efforts. The bottom line is that if the property burned down, (statistically low) and if the property burned down more than 50% (even lower statistically probable), the city would let the owner rebuild the same building. Rebuilding the same structure again to the same blueprint/footprint will not adversely effect (lie individuals, the area of city, or city. The issue resides with the zoning department to resolve this issue. I have a buyer for the property. This is of the up most importance to resolve this non-conforming issue ASAP! Sincerely Terry M i 1 tram Att: appraisal cc. butterworth tucker. t To: Rick Smilh (Director- Planning and Zoning - Pasco) Gary CrutCllfield (City Manager—Pasco From: Terry Milham (Property owner in the City of Pasco). Subject property is located at 410 Sylvester. Subject: Research completed on why lenders are not able to secure mortgages on legal non-conforming residential property when adverse stipulations placed upon the properties. References: Chris Hinkley (loan officer), American Home Mortgage, 1128 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, WA. 99352 Phone# 509-735-5363 Gary 1­1_ Lackey (loan officer), Major Mortgage, 741 l Clearwater Ave. Kennewick, WA. 99336 Phone # 509-735-1895 Eric Sniezak, (loan officer), A+ Mortgage, Inc. 3820 S. Pine Street, Tacoma, WA. 98409 Phone # 253-405-2200 Western Regional Office Fannie Mae, 135 North Los Robles Ave, Suite 300, Pasadena, CA. 91 101, Representative—Nick Perez (nonconforming property representative) Phone # 626-396-5100 Freddie Mac, 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1900, Woodland Hills, CA. 91367-3642 Phone 4500-373-3343 Attachment Guide Lines (Fannie Mae) on criteria for Property Appraisals (see attachment A, titled, "Site Analysis" Rick and Gary I Hope the work l have completed on why lenders cannot secure mortgages on legal non- conforming properties in the City of Pasco is a help to you in resolving the quagmire surrounding these properties. 1 sincerely believe that a workable solution is possible giving the owners of such properties the ability to refinance or to sell the property. Hopefully the information helps to bring a informed position to the City Council. (1) A big question that both of you have had is "why are legal nonconforming properties presently not being funded (mortgages obtain) when in the years past there hasn't been a problem in obtaining mortgages for these properties. I have an answer for you and its "off the record" so to speak. As explained to me, the bottom line is that the Appraisers are held more accountable to document all zoning criteria for a property and any adverse effects the zoning criteria has on the property. See attachment A (Fannie Mae's guidelines) under Site Analysis, section 907.01 "Zoning" including bullet one. This section tells what is required by.the appraiser for(lie secondary market, i.e.; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae. These agencies are who buys most of the mortgages in America from the mortgages companies. It's been a practice for appraisers ill years past to not go into it detailed report in documenting adverse effects that zoning may have on a particular property. Adverse zoning criteria effects the sale of many properties. As you react the section on zoning, you will see the criteria required by the appraisers. The appraisers currently are held to a higher standard. (2) Zoning See attachment A under Site Analysis, section 907.01, the second and third bulleted items. Please note or call one of the references above for validation. These guidelines have been in place for decades. Bullet one is very interesting and it read as follows_ "We will purchase or sectiritize a mortgage that is sect tred by a one to four fanri!),property or a turit in a PUD project if the property represents n legal, but non-conforming, use or the land-as long as the appraiser's analysis reflects any adverse effect that the nor--conforming use has on the value and marketability of the property" Mullet two: "We will purchase or secur•itize a condominimn unit ntorigage or a cooperative share h-om a project that represents a le-gal but non-contbrining. use of the land only if the iniprovenients can be rebuilt to current density in the event of their partial or full desirtiction (ht such cases the niortgaze fle nutst include a copy of the applicable zoninQ re rilalions or a letter i-out the local zoning authorit y that cu.tthorizes reconstruction to current density). The secondary market has seen that the legal non-conforming zoning issues.can be a problem for property owners when it comes to the sell or refinance of such property. As you.noticed above, the guidelines permit a"letter" format to be included in the mortgage file from the zoning authority stating that a.full rebuild can be approved in case of partial or fall destruction. In essence they are not requiring cities to change overall zoning, but to evaluate individual properties. It becomes clearer why many cities such as Richland and Kennewick use the "letter" approach-to enable many home owners to sell or obtain mortgages on these properties. You should have enough information above to facilitate the zoning department review of these issues. This should assist in presenting an informed position/fact of the manner to,the city council for review. Again I want to thank you for your efforts with these zoning issues on the non- conforming properties. The bottom line is,"the inability to build to the same density/footprint" is preventing rile from selling my property. The secondary. market will not knowingly purchase mortgages where the properties marketability/density is in jeopardy. Thanks I Terry Milham l Jr I t.; t 509-539-391 U / _t I MRE _ Property & Appraisal Analysts filF cC�yr.cnt 7/2cc- Cow, 907 be used to evaluate both the ►,,ventory of two- to four-family properties currently for sale in the subject neighborhood and competing Nvith the subject property, as well as the recent price and marketing tune trends that affect the subject property. SITE ANALYSIS 907 The property site should be of a size, shape, and topography that is generally conforming and acceptable in the market area. It must also have competitive utilities, street improvements, and other amenities. Since amenities, easements, and encroachments may either detract from or enhance the marketability of a site, the appraiser must comment on them if the site has adverse conditions or is not typical for the neighborhood. If there is market resistance to a property because Its site is not compatible with the neighborhood or with the requirements of the competitive market, the lender sbould undem-rite the mortgage more carefully and, if appropriate, require more conservative mortgage terms. 90 907.01 ZONING: The appraiser is responsible for reporting the specific zoning classification for the subject property.The appraiser must include a general statement to describe what the zoning permits ( "one-family", 'Two-family'•, etc. } when he or she indicates a specific zoning such as R-1, R*2, etc. Tlie appraiser must also include a specific statement irtdicatin; whether thz improvements represent a legal use; a legal, but non-conforming (grandfathered) use; or art illegal use under the ?Oring regulations; or whether there is no local zoning. We generally will not purchase or securitize a mortgage on a property if the improvements do not constitute a legally permissible use of the land. We do make certain exceptions to this policy, as long as the property is appraised and underwritten in accordance with the special requirements we impose as a condition to agreeing to snake the exception: We will purchase or securitize a mortgage that is secured by a one- to four- family property or a brit in a PUD project if the property represents a legal, but non-conforming, use of the land -- as long as the appraiser's analysis reflects any adverse effect that the non-conforming use has on the value and tnarketabil of.the property_ = We will purchase or securitize a conrloniinhon unit mortgage or a cooperative share load from a project that represents a legal, but non-conforming, use of the land only if the improvements can be rebuilt to current density in the event of their partial or full destruction. (TnSuch cases, the mortgage file must include a 90 copy of the applicable zoning regdTa-7to—n—sbT a letter from the local zoning authority that authorizes reconstruction to gurrent ensily . We will purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a one family property that includes an illegal additional writ or accessory apartment (which may be referred to as a mother-in-law, mother-daughter, or granny unit) as long as the illegal use conforms to the subject neighborhood and to the market. The property must be appraised in conformity with its legal rise, that of a one-family property (and the borrower must qualify for the mortgage without considering any rental income from the illegal unit). The appraiser must report that the improvements represent an illegal use and demonstrate that the improvements are typical for the market tlirough an analysis of at least three comparable properties that have the same illegal use. The lender must also make suxe that the existence of the illegal additional unit will not jeopardize any future hazard insurance claim that P inight need to be 51ed for the property. We will not purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a Avo- to four-faintly,property that includes an illegal 206 FN%!A Memo To: Planning Commission From: Dave McDonald, City Planner Subject: Nonconforming Uses Date: February 24, 2005 At the January meeting staff introduced the Planning Commission to the definition of nonconforming uses. In the context of zoning the term nonconforming means land uses, buildings or premises that were lawfully established and in existence at the time the zoning regulations were enacted..and are maintained after the effective date of the regulations even though they do not comply with the regulations. When zoning was initially established in the United States the writers of zoning legislation believed that certain land uses were not compatible and that efficiencies in the allocation of land resources could be achieved if incompatible uses were' clearly separated. To accomplish the desired land use.. efficiencies, cities were divided into distinct districts or compartments that restrict uses to residential, commercial or industrial development. The thought process behind the districting of a city was that no residence would have a commercial business for a direct neighbor and industrial plants would be free of complaining homeowners and unattended children. However by dividing, existing development into tidy compartments or zones it was nearly impossible to establish zones that were completely developed . with similar land uses. Drafters of the original zoning ordinances quickly realized this and made provision for uses that did not conform to the majority of uses in a given zoning district. The few uses in a district that were not the same as the majority of uses were classified as legal nonconforming uses and were permitted to continue. However certain restrictions were placed on nonconforming uses. The continued presence nonconforming uses was conditioned by regulations that prevented expansion or continuance if catastrophic damage occurred. Over the years courts have ruled that the rights of nonconforming uses and the application of zoning regulations should be strictly construed. Courts have determined nonconforming uses "should be restricted, decreased, and finally eliminated." A court in Maine went so far as to state that nonconforming uses "should not be perpetuated any longer than necessary. The policy of zoning is to abolish nonconforming uses as speedily as justice will permit." Pasco's original zoning regulations were established following the national trends. Pasco's zoning regulations like others grouped similar land uses together.for the purposes of avoiding conflicts between uses, to maintain security of home life, to stabilize property values and to encourage orderly growth. When zoning districts were originally established in the 1960's or earlier, not all neighborhoods were completely homogeneous. Occasionally a duplex or four-plex would be in a single family zone or a house would be located in a commercial zone. Rather than requiring the immediate elimination of the few uses that did not match the majority uses in a given zone the non matching uses (such as a house in a commercial zone) were identified as nonconforming uses. The intent of Pasco's code is for nonconforming uses to eventually be phased out. In one particular area of the City (south of "A" Street, west of Maitland Ave) we have seen a number of nonconforming structures that have been phased out as intended by the zoning regulations. Pasco's nonconforming uses regulations have been in place for many years. It has only been recently that property owners have pointed out that the nonconforming status of properties creates problems for conventional financing. Historically the nonconforming status of buildings was not an impediment to financing. The standard loan requirements for property insurance provided mortgage companies with the security needed to protect the loans in the event a building was damaged or destroyed. Those requirements are present today regardless of the zoning status of a building. It is unclear why mortgage companies are concerned, given that the proceeds from an insurance settlement can be used to pay off any outstanding mortgage debt. In response to financing questions some cities in Washington, including Yakima, Kennewick, Walla Walla, and Richland permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt following substantial damage provided they are rebuilt to the exact footprint of' the original building. Other cities such as Spokane have a complex process that permits `reconstruction of nonconforming uses depending on the type of adjoining land use. Permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings to their original footprint addresses the concerns of a few property owners about financing; However, it does not address the original purpose for the creation of nonconforming uses. Permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial or commercial zone does not protect and enhance the value of nearby industrial or commercial properties. Allowing a damaged house to be rebuilt adjacent to a chemical plant or welding shop does not encourage orderly growth nor protect such industrial uses from inherent nuisances when homes are located adjacent to industrial or commercial uses. Permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings in essences makes them conforming. There will never be an opportunity to resolve conflicts between competing uses if nonconforming buildings can continually be rebuilt. Reconstructing nonconforming buildings is counter to the fundamental purposes for which the City established zoning. Before the Planning Commission entertains proposals to possibly amend the current nonconforming uses regulations it would be important to have a clear understanding of the purpose and intent of zoning regulations as a whole. The purpose statement that guided the development of the zoning regulations and future amendments is provided below. 25.04.020 PURPOSE OF TITLE. . The purpose of this Title is to implement the Comprehensive Plan for the Pasco Urban Area. This Title is to also further the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Pasco Urban Area, and; (1) To encourage and facilitate the orderly growth and development of the Pasco Urban Area. (2) To provide adequate open space for light and air, to prevent overcrowding of the land, and to lessen congestion on the streets. (3) To secure economy in municipal expenditures, to facilitate adequate provisions for transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public facilities and services. (4) To increase the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area. (6) To secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers. (7) To stabilize and improve property values. (8) To enhance the economic and cultural well being of the inhabitants of Pasco. (9) To promote the development of a more wholesome, serviceable and attractive city resulting from an orderly, planned use of resources. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) After review of the information contained in this memo the Planning Commission will need to begin formulation a recommendation to the City Council on the nonconforming uses. Another workshop will be scheduled for March to be followed by a possible hearing in April. Memo To: Planning Commission From: Dave McDonald, City Planner Subject: Nonconforming Uses Date: March 17, 2005 In response to requests to modify the current nonconforming provisions of the zoning regulations the Planning Commission has held workshops for the past two months. In responding to requests for changes in the code the Planning Commission recognized the fact that permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings to their original footprint addressed the concerns of a few property owners about financing; However, it did not address the original purpose for the creation of nonconforming uses. Permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial or commercial zone does not protect and enhance the value of nearby industrial or commercial properties. The staff received the direction that it was not appropriate to relax the non conforming standards across the community. There was a particular concern about allowing the continuation of non conforming uses in industrial and commercial zones. After reviewing the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations the Planning Commission suggested that the only change to be considered in the nonconforming uses regulations should be restricted to multi family structures in residential areas only. Following that direction staff has prepared the attached code amendment. The proposed code amendment reflects the direction provided by the Planning Commission to limit nonconforming code changes to non conforming multifamily structures in residential zones only. Proposed Nonconforming Code Amendment 25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION. (2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of such assessment of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt, except multi family units in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; b. The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the original building footprint; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set backs; e. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. (3) Any structure or portion thereof declared unsafe by a properly authorized person may be restored .to a safe condition and continue as a nonconforming use, unless such repairs exceed fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor except multi family units in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; b. The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the original building footprint; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set backs; (4) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting_public safety. 4� V - Memo To: Planning Commission From: Dave McDonald, City Planner Subject: Nonconforming Uses Date: April 21, 2005 Over the past several months the Planning Commission has held workshops to discuss nonconforming uses issues. In responding to requests for changes in the code the Planning Commission recognized the fact that permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings to their original footprint addressed the concerns of a few property owners about financing; However, it did not address the original purpose for the creation of nonconforming uses. Permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial or commercial zone does not protect and enhance the value of nearby industrial or commercial properties. The Planning Commission felt it was not appropriate to relax the non conforming standards everywhere in the community. There was a particular concern about allowing the continuation of non conforming uses in industrial and commercial zones. After reviewing the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations the Planning Commission suggested that the only change to be considered in the nonconforming uses regulations should be restricted to multi family structures in residential areas only. Following that direction staff has prepared the attached code amendment. The proposed code amendment reflects the direction provided by the Planning Commission to limit nonconforming code changes to non conforming multifamily structures in residential zones only. A public hearing has been set for the April 21St meeting. Following the hearing a recommendation will need to be sent on to the City Council. Recommendation Motion: I moved to recommend the City Council amend PMC Section 25.72.050, by creating provisions for the continuation of certain nonconforming uses in residential zoning districts as identified in Exhibit it 1. EXHIBIT # l ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to signage amending PMC Title 25 dealing with Nonconforming Uses. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and insure the 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, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.72.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION. (2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of sueh assessm. e t, of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt, except multi family units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district ma 'be rebuilt under the following conditions: a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; b. The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the original building footprint; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set backs: e. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring t_o a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. 3 An structure or portion thereof declared� ) y p unsafe by a properly authorized person may be restored to a safe condition and continue as a nonconforming use, unless such repairs exceed fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor except multi family units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; b. The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the original building footprint; c. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set backs; (4) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of-any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. Section 3. 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 2005. Michael B. Garrision Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney ' I 2 REGULAR MEETING January 20, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2005 OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other Business: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use Code Amendment, (City of Pasco) IMF# 2004-137-I) Acting Chair Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. Staff reported that in November of last year City Council held a workshop to discuss issues related to non-conforming uses. Staff explained what nonconforming uses were and how such uses were created. Non-conforming uses are allowed to continue under a grandfathering provision that allows them to be used until those uses are abandoned for a period of one year or more or destroyed by 50% or more of its value by fire or other cause. The idea was that non-conforming uses would eventually be phased out and replaced with conforming uses. Over the years, that didn't seem to pose a significant problem for property owners. However recently it has created difficulties for people trying to sell or refinance their properties. The city council has asked the Planning commission to study this matter and develop a recommendation. Terry Milham, 1016 W 37th Place, Kennewick, owner of a 4-plex at 410 Sylvester, recently found the buyer for his building was unable to get a loan. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac predominantly buy all of the mortgages. The reason the property cannot be financed is because of the non-conforming issue, if it burned down more than 50 percent it could not be rebuilt. Mr. Milham asked the City to consider an amendment to the code to allow nonconforming buildings to be rebuilt. Mr. Milham stated most cities have a mechanism to deal with non-conforming issues. Staff stated that they would be bringing this item back to the Planning commission over the next few months. REGULAR MEETING February 24, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: WORKSHOP A. Workshop: CODE AMENDMENT: Noon-conforming Use Code Amendment, (City of Pasco (MF# 2004-137-I1 Acting Chair Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. Staff reported that the Non-conforming Use Code issue was discussed briefly at the last Planning Commission meeting in January. A concerned property Mr. Milham also spoke to the Commission. Staff provided the Planning Commission with a memo that gives a better explanation of the term "non-conforming" and how it is applied in Pasco. Staff asked if Planning Commission understood what the term "non-conforming" means. Planning.Commission answered affirmatively. Staff reviewed the written memo for the benefit of the Planning Commission. It was pointed out that in the area of town south of "A" Street between the rail tracks is zoned for industrial uses. While most of the properties are developed with homes there have been some homes that have been phased out due to damage. As a result there has been an increase in industrial development in the area. Commission Anderson stated he would not want to see the code changed to permit the reconstruction of homes in industrial or commercial areas that it should be restricted to residential areas only. Terry Milham 1016 37th Place, Kennewick addressed the Commission. He explained that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not purchase loans for non conforming properties unless they can be rebuilt. Barrett Brown, 7807 S Jeorrd Rd, Kennewick stated he owned two duplexes off 32nd He has tried four times in the last year to sell his buildings and every time they have fallen through because of the zoning. Brian Tucker, Richland stated he has tried several times to purchase properties in Pasco and each time he was not able to get financing because of the nonconforming issue. Acting Chair Smurthwaite asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were none. Staff stated they would provide additional material on this subject at the next meeting. - 1 - REGULAR MEETING March 17, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 2005 WORKSHOP: A. Workshop: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use Code Amendment, (City of Pascol IMF# 2004-137-11 Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. There was some discussion on the non-conforming use amendment and staff recommended a public hearing at the next meeting. The recommended code amendment would benefit residential nonconforming uses in residential zoning districts, but not in commercial or industrial zoning districts. OTHER BUSINESS: In July of 2004, Planning Commission approved siting two portable class rooms for Tri-Cities Junior Academy. The school wants to re-configure their arrangement. Instead of an L-shape, they want to mate the portables and put them on a basement. Parking would be slightly modified. Special permits are conditioned to completed substantially in conformance with the site plan submitted. In this case, everything is the same except for the configuration. Concensus of the Planning Commission was that it is essentially the same request, they did not have a problem with the slight modification. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Hay moved for adjournment at 8:45 p.m., Commissioner Mosebar seconded, motion carried unanimously. - 1 - DRAFT REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 21, 2005 E. Public Hearing: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use Code Amendment, (CitV of Pasco (MF# 04-137-11 Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. Staff reported that this request is for approval of a Code Amendment for Non- conforming Use Code Amendment PMC-25.72.050. This amendment is to address the issue of people wishing to rebuild duplex or multiplex buildings. Staff reiterated the purpose of zoning is to help retain property values and to preserve the safety and welfare of the community. Staff recommends the changes only apply to residential rebuilds and not to rebuilds in industrial and commercial zones. As such the recommendations cover multifamily units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district to be rebuilt under the conditions stated in the ordinance. Staff reported that these conditions include: 1) the unit can only be rebuilt if it is determined that the damage is accidental or a natural disaster, 2) the rebuilt building duplicates the footprint of the old building so you are not expanding or changing the nonconformity, 3) does not increase the size of the nonconformity, 4) honors the required setbacks of the property, 5) nothing in the ordinance shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. Staff advises the Planning Commission recommend this code amendment, as written, to the City Council for approval. Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite asked if there were any questions of Staff. There was none. ACTING CHAIRPERSON SMURTHWAITE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. Terry Milham, 1016 W 37th Place Kennewick, questioned item four dealing with setbacks and how they would apply to his four-plex over on Sylvester. Staff clarified that if his unit accidentally burned down or a natural disaster was to strike he could build his unit back to the way it was originally approved. Bruce Schnabel, 368 Riverwood St. Richland, thanks staff for their recommendation. Bruce Schnabel reported that without the proposed changes it is not only a finance issue but also an insurance issue. Following three (3) calls from Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite for comment from the floor, either for or against, the public meeting was declared closed. Commissioner Little moved the Planning Commission recommend the City - 1 - DRAFT Council amend PMC Section 25.72.050, by creating provisions for the continuation of certain nonconforming uses in residential zoning districts as identified in Exhibit # 1 Commissioner Hay seconded, motion carried unanimously. Staff explained the appeal process and stated this item would go before the City Council on May 3rd. I - 2 - AGENDA REPORT NO. FOR: City Council DATE: 05/18/05 TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Workshop: 05/23/05 Regular: 06/06/05 FROM: Robert J. Albert ,44-6wr of Public SUBJECT: Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2006 - 2011 I. REFERENCES 1. Proposed Plan 2. Resolution 3. Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 05/23: Discussion 06/06: Conduct Public Hearing MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. thereby adopting the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan for 2006 through 2011. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND BRIEF FACTS: Each year, all Cities and Counties in the State are required to adopt an updated Six- Year Transportation Improvement Plan specifically for federal and state funded projects. For the City of Pasco, this plan has consisted of all projects including the annual overlays, street widening, and signal projects which are within the City limits. Larger projects such as the Ainsworth Overpass, and the Lewis Street Overpass also have been shown. The proposed six-year program represents those projects that are anticipated to be needed within six years. Several projects will need to be coordinated with utility projects which could change the actual timing of the projects. Although this process of adopting a six-year plan is a state requirement, the Council will again review the projects in the Six-Year C.I.P. process and the budgeting process. While the worksheets presented by staff include a potential funding source, many of the projects listed will be dependent upon available funding and/or local improvement districts. In addition, Staff will be pursuing available grants from the various funding programs. It is staff's desire to present this program to the public at a public hearing on June 6, 2005, and request that the Council adopt the plan by resolution. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING: Project File 3(a) Y O 0 N O O O a O o O O 0 c 00 O 00 0 LL 00 O o 0 04 �, N O N_ C3) _O a � Ei9 b9 d4 c 7 O : LL m LL LL. LL LL O Q? 4? N O Q? O N (1) Q) Q) N CO V 00 � OC) �m to m m O O N Q1 N T O O O O M U ` O - C r � CT 0 Q co QQ O OQ � O OO ea 601C) 6q 0 0 Qb90 00 !V 70 'a -0 -a ° -C7 m070 -0 = N -c 00 -0C 7c70 oo E c c '00 E pp c c c 00 0 c 0 c c LO 0 O O :3 CO =I 0 0 :3 C-) X 00 D A N to O C LL LL LL LL T- LL fll LL LL LL — M LL ti LL_ LL cD N LL c aai aoi ai aoia a0i =� a) � a c � a aLL f -- y--. +--. -�-- �-- +- .F.. LL C� (n U? � tI) NW (n fl3 LL t� {n (� Cn C/) VU1 Cn >+— >+— >+— La) t� T t� CL5 N CU Ca / W L yL- L •L 'L L yL�- L L yL+ � yL� � L 'L •yL Q� ?. O > 1... L.. L W Q� L > L Q� L Q� > L ia) a) m a. 0 < < < LLQL.LLLQQ OQLLLLQLL. 0 < < LLLL F Q) N E U 0 .a O 00000 0C) o 0 0000 O 000 u C] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qy O CD) O0000CQ000 000000 OOOOO 0 000000000 CD C) 0 �0 O Q •� 000000OC (DLnO CD C) CD CD co C) 000 DLO (D V") V- �- CV � NIn CDin = Mr- 0 COU') = tl- a. GS ff3 ft3 EFT to 69-Cf} 6a Gq ka 69 K}U!)- 69. to CF} 64 CF)-6f} E0:� Cf3 03 c O ++ .gym+ L O c co ¢ > N O O O O 0 O W _ i L O O 00 00 D N O N C C W C c D O V- 'D� (0 u) O 0 m 0 0 () M U) O O M U O 0 X 0 �= 0�S 02S o 025 E v 0 O ' o 0 0� a C a o _ U J0tS � 0tS .. U .� �co LL CD OU K N In U? � � (00 , CD o = to (n -4t cc to to wIq00 � > > m 73 � � D uo .2 -0 o o � `ov -C 0 0 0 � v •- •L' L m m cn /RCS m 3 'SLR TLI ca m �: m I 0 m m m `i/ O 0 yJ 0 O 0 � .L �V O O m 0 lV \V lY a a 0 J >> > < QL c -1 >> Ofof ) w >> > � � V m a co a is r cc � co C "D lu cn Cn V rL = C Y3 Cn O f/} O � mi3 = a_� 0) c �,� 000 0 is p y U) co 'v) °' ro a0i v) O � `° w a0i `° °° tv 4)S0G .a� 0 � � > two V) 0 cp m N > Y a. � LO L. (L C.`�/0) ` = Y H i �oo aC to a o r - ojSt!) H .Ec�t > oNON �' °� � � olS � H y o N C O .` 0 �. O tl) y m rn y y 0 m 0 0 d U a Q 0 m d O O d -- d o� �- i L. m � w � � � ° � c�vN � 0 a) cn o - - N O N _N t0 M m 3 w m m 3 N C ,� C C O O O N N o O c� cu to o, �' r r o c 0 cv W O C N C Q) 00 as Q� 7 0 0 O 0 ° C °Q v1 0O °o E 0 CY) 0 O L BOOU Co L CD da a O �- ° U~j U) � c°n 0 T- LO _ 03, tO c`�o -c3 ) -a -0 -0 -0 (D 70 � 70 70 w = = O a) N =; 3 LL_ u- LL_ LL. LL_ LL. LL. LL. LL. LL_ U- 6-0 a) C a� N -0 a) N ° � ° _0 a) ° w c a) 0asa� 00 ° ca) 00 - CA0U) U) co U) LL 000/) >, C) > _ O C) >,- C) III to M L 60-'t 00 (o m J'Nn m L L L L L L �' V), L L L 0 > m > mmm > V- mIt CL o O f= oa a 4w U) 0 V c ° V O COO O C:) C:) O O O O ° 0000 ° OO ° = o 0OOo y 0 0 = 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° - Q 0 0 0 0 � o°--moo C3 C) o° o °- L 0 0 (O O O O 5 0 N O 0 0 0 0 (O LLB r r LO CO LO r (O r 00 (O LO Nr N d E!} Gq bA fA 64 Ef3 Efl CA fig 6c3 (f} 60- E!} Efl 69 Q1 O O O C) Lf'3 a L O o O � Q) Cll to O O In to C O cn >+M +L. OU) fII O ON + � ot5 U) L a 0 U) a=' — T- III In c O >+ co co CY OL U O In o O '= O In 0) O W N U) N to) 0 (n (n om � � O O O O {nZ�/� •� O O � L L 0 W � L L L. CO co {n 4 CU Co r �' o CII CG CII ° 0 (o III O 0 .J > > Q > > > < J > > it LL le In O 'p 'O to o N d _ +� V U) _ V O V C C E .� fq O cm R > N L- �0+ -)c a. m m a U V 0 0 �c CL _ C) #+ L = L 0 i ti ++ c — Q CL L O S Lo tm CD U , r- a °� VLF � - U mco off N C � � ojs � HN > G3 pjSi/) �_ w 4) m C d � w <o m O O CA c6 !a d N � O -C G1 C1 z- i d d1 m > � 0c W > � � U) > � � Z m 0 d c O Q +. y � O ( L v tea) 0OL) 0 � 3 � � � U) = o (U N O O t. L N V- H H Q O O N O O O O � N � LLQQ � C4 JU � rl � ULL 0 EXHIBIT A 2006 to 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan 2006 a) Overlays and Crack Seal—Yearly project to improve roadway surfaces through- out the City of Pasco. b) Miscellaneous Street Projects—Yearly project to maintain roadway infrastructure. c) Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Upgrades—This project is funded every two years and is used to upgrade and maintain existing traffic signals. 1. Road 68 Widening (Rodeo to Burden)—Adds a lane on the west side of Road 68 to improve traffic movement. 2. Road 68 & I-182 Improvements - Overpass improvements to complete the corridor. 3. Road 68 & Wrigley Traffic Signal—Install traffic signal to be reimbursed by Impact Fees. 4. Lewis Street Overpass—Replace the existing underpass with an overpass. 5. Road 100 & I-182 Ramps & Signals—Install additional ramps and install traffic signals. 6. Road 68 & Court Street Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal at the intersection. 7. Road 28/Road 26 Improvements—Improve the traffic flow from Court Street south to Commercial area. 8. Lewis St. /"A" St. Connector—New road from Lewis St. interchange to "A" St. 2007 9. Road 44 & Burden Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal to improve traffic flow. 10. Sandifur Parkway (Rd 52 to Rd 60)—Construct the north half of Sandifur. 11. Sandifur & Broadmoor Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal to improve traffic flow. ZMYEARTIP&CIP12006-2011 TIPIEXHIBIT A.doc 12. Court Street Widening (Rd 68 to Rd 84)—First phase to increase the width of the existing road to 48 feet wide. 2008 13. Road 44 & Court Street Traffic Signal—Install a new traffic signal to improve traffic flow. 14. Court Street Widening (Rd 84 to Rd 100)— Second phase to increase the width of the existing road to 48 feet wide. 2009 15, Road 100 Widening—Widen the existing road from I-182 to Court Street. 16. Argent& Road 100 Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal to increase traffic flow. 17. Argent Road Widening(Rd 72 to Rd 84)--Improve the road in conjunction with the new school. 2010 18. "A" St. & SR 12 Interchange—Design phase of the project. 19. Commercial Ave. Improvements—Complete Commercial Ave. with curb, gutter & storm water facilities. 2011 20. Court Street Widening—Complete Court Street to the City limits with additional width, curb & gutter 21. Foster Wells/SR-395 Interchange—Study for the installation of an interchange. I I ZA6YEARTIP&CM2006-201I TIPIEXHIBIT A.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 provides for annual revision and extension of the Comprehensive Street Program of each city and town, after holding public hearings thereon; and WHEREAS, it is now time to revise and extend the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council of the City of Pasco hereby adopts the revision and extension of the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the ensuing six years as attached hereto and labeled "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2006 - 2011" incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and That the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs shall be filed with the Benton-Franklin Regional Council and the State of Washington. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 6th Day of June 2005. Michael L. Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: Sandy Kenworthy Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: I Leland B. Kerr City Attorney a J Z +, 0 Z LE F- 3A U� L, vi Ln �w w ♦ti m g� Z LJ J ww p� > F`r' 40 FE ¢ ~g e � ow O } e o`` Z JO 5 m 9*39 Lucr a - ' °~� i~ w Wa i "¢1 ~Erz Qum HILgAW W /f O - d O m m 20 r oZ � � z 0 ` L) ;n o V1 m m F A F V F o W a � W [y O enanM r ^' pUZ Z �q Z G Z F a X � o^ ON I� _q Q z ° WZ ° I �. A - —- F .. _ a .! Cn 0 F3 � zap+ > � rW V Ca C Q < ff { I rasa a o �" < aw opt ae � � � � ow d C7 CS p - 6L' to $ ° ° ° a e En O O d O 0 v 0 aa ° °w a 436 � �C Cp .�!'. .10 i r a0 .tea N N z � d z rn V �: X Z m 6 X 0. O W > <[<s. rz trl C, E--F d fn a w 0. 2 1- 000 V� 4 d a S N V) ; O _ O fn --_'-- .. v'1 dl d{ � y - CO m m m 0 m N f ♦ / A O m G < 0 WCa pq d d d < Z 2 4 O 0 0 0 0 0 w O < d I ax `s` a: WOd a0: V) V) G� o Fx 44mV -A �ot- 00Ch �z AGENDA REPORT NO. 33 FOR: City Council Date: May 2, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfiel Manager Workshop: 05-23-05 „� Regular: THRU: Richard J. Smi , Director (l Community & Economic Development FROM: Thomas Colleran, Planner I SUBJECT: Stealth Cell Towers I. REFERENCES A. Memo outlining Stealth Tower Ordinances around Washington II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 05-23-05: DISCUSSION III. FISCAL IMPACT None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. As more people begin to carry cell phones and the cell phone carriers expand there network coverage and capacity, cell phone towers are becoming more abundant and noticeable as they are scattered around the landscape. Some members of Council have expressed concern about the appearance of the towers and asked staff to look into options for concealing the towers. B. Currently in Pasco, PMC-25.70.070 regulating communication towers states: (2) Wireless Communication Towers are permitted under the following conditions: (a) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3 zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires special permit approval. (b) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all other zoning districts provided said structures are: (i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or (ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility. C. Currently in Pasco there are ten wireless communication towers. D. About a quarter of the estimated 130,000 cellular towers across the U.S. are camouflaged to not be readily noticeable. Such cell towers are known as "Stealth Towers." E. The first Stealth Tower was developed in 1992 by Larson Camouflage. Concealing an antenna can be expensive. The least expensive option is the basic flagpole, which adds $10,000 to $20,000 to the price of a tower. Stealth Towers designed to look like trees can cost double that amount. The more customized the installation, the higher the price. 3(f) F. The most common types of stealth installation are as part of a building such as a penthouse, the top of a church, or on a water tower. The other common stealth installations resemble objects found in the community such as trees, flagpoles and church crosses. G. Some common regulations to help minimize the visual impact of cell towers include: (1) requiring stealth (or camouflage) towers and antennas; (2) encouraging co-location; (3) imposing significant setbacks of at least 150 percent of the tower's height; and (4) limiting tower heights to no more than 10-20 feet above other features such as trees and buildings. H. Currently in the City of Pasco there are no provisions in the zoning code requiring that stealth technology to be considered when constructing a tower. V. DISCUSSION: A. The attached 4/26/04 memo outlines ordinance requirements pertaining to cell towers in other Washington municipalities. Most of the stealth provisions of other ordinances establish camouflage as a goal or a performance standard but allow cell tower companies to find the means to camouflage the tower subject to the Planning Commission and City Council's approval. B. If Council desires to consider Stealth Tower aesthetics, the Planning staff can analyze possible amendments and ask the Planning Commission to review this matter at their June 16, 2005 meeting. A recommendation would be forwarded to City Council. I To: Rick Smith From: T.C. Colleran Date: April 26, 2005 Re: Stealth Tower Aesthetics Included below are ordinances on cell phone lowers from other cities around Washington State A) Kennewick-18.75.350: The purpose of this section is to provide predictability to service providers in the permitting process and to allow for site development issues to be addressed through clear and objective sighting criteria and development standards. Co-location on existing structures is strongly encouraged to allow for the increased need for wireless communication facilities while minimizing the adverse visual impacts of such facilities. (1)Co-location of wireless antennas on existing structures is allowed in all zoning districts.The parent structure can be a cellular tower, building, public power line, light pole, other public utility structure, or any multiple- family structure of four units or more. Approval is subject to the following: (e)All antennas must be painted a neutral, non-reflective color that will blend with the surrounding landscaping and parent facility. Recommended shades are gray, beige,sand,taupe, or light brown.A color chip or other sample of the proposed color must be approved by the Community and Economic Development Director. (3) New wireless communication facilities, as defined in KMC 18.09.537 up to fifty-five (55)feet in height, are permitted uses in all Commercial, Industrial,and Public Facility Districts except"CN" (Commercial, Neighborhood) Districts.The only type of tower allowed for wireless communication facilities are monopoles. New guyed towers or latticed towers are prohibited. New wireless communication facilities, other than collocated facilities, are prohibited in all other zoning districts.A site plan must be approved in accord with KMC 18.80.120. B) Richland-23.76.070 A. Visual Impact: 2. Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communications towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area. 4. All monopoles and lattice type facilities shall be screened with trees, shrubs and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier within five(5)years. Said landscaping shall have a minimum mature height of eight(8)feet. C. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers or Other Structures: Applications for a special use permit shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission that alternatives are not capable of accommodating the applicant's needs. Evidence and information shall be submitted to establish the following: 1. Permitted shorter support structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 2. No existing support structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 3. Existing support structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the proposed antenna and related equipment. I C) Federal Way- 22-967 Development standards 4) Screening standards for all PWSFs. PWSFs shall be screened or camouflaged through employing the best available technology and design, as determined by the city.This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, location, landscaping, color, stealth techniques such as, but not limited to, artificial trees and hollow flag poles, and/or other methods or techniques to achieve minimum visibility of the facility as viewed from public streets or residential properties. In addition, the provisions for landscaping as outlined in the use zone charts,Article XI of this chapter, District Regulations, shall apply. Rick Smith April 26, 2005 Page 2 D) Maple Valley- 18.50.020 Personal wireless service facilities F. Site Development Standards.All wireless facilities shall be constructed, erected or built in accordance with the following site development standards: 1.Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available technology. This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, location, color, stealth technologies, and/or other tactics to achieve minimum visibility of the facility as viewed from public streets or residential properties.The City of Maple Valley shall approve all screening and camouflaging. E) Redmond-20D.170.45-070 Wireless Communications Facilities—Development Standards. (a) Placement of a freestanding wireless communication facility shall be denied if placement of the antenna(s)on an existing structure can accommodate the operator's communications needs. The co-location of a proposed antenna(s) on an existing broadcast and relay tower or placement on an existing structure shall be explored and documented by the operator in order to show that reasonable efforts were made to identify alternate locations. (b) No wireless equipment reviewed under this section shall be located within required building setback areas. (c)The combined antenna(s)and supporting structure shall not extend more than 15 feet above the existing or proposed roof structure. (d) No wireless equipment shall be used for the purposes of signage or message display of any kind. (e) Location of wireless communication antenna(s)on existing buildings or other structures shall be screened or camouflaged to the greatest practicable extent by use of shelters,compatible materials, location,color, and/or other stealth tactics to reduce visibility of the antenna(s) as viewed from any street or residential property. F) Sumner- 18.37.040 Performance standards. A.Wireless Communication Facility Preference. Proposed antennas, associated structures and placement shall be evaluated, based on available technologies, for approval and use in the following order of preference: 1. Stealth antennas. 2. Attached wireless communication facilities, only when subsection(A)(1) cannot be reasonably accomplished. 3. Co4ocation wireless communication facilities, only when subsection(A)(1)or(2)cannot be reasonably accomplished. 4. Freestanding wireless communication facilities which extend no more than 15 feet above adjacent existing vegetation or structures,only when subsections(A)(1), (2)or(3)cannot be reasonably accomplished. 5. Freestanding wireless communication facilities which extend more than 15 feet above adjacent existing vegetation or structures,only when subsections(A)(1)through (4)cannot be reasonably accomplished. If the applicant chooses to construct a new freestanding wireless communication facility,the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show a wireless communication facility of a higher order of preference cannot reasonably be accommodated on the same or other properties.The city reserves the right to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense,to review the supporting documentation for accuracy. G) Fife- 19.72.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is: B. The provisions of this chapter shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting a WCF in the city.This chapter is to be applied in such a manner as to not unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent wireless communication services. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city ordinance,the provisions of this chapter shall control. However, each provision of this chapter,to the extent reasonably possible, shall be construed to be consistent with other city codes and regulations; C.To encourage the use of stealth technology so that WCFs blend into the surrounding environment, thus minimizing the visual impact to surrounding properties; D.To encourage creative approaches in locating and constructing WCFs so that they will be compatible with surrounding land uses; E. To encourage co-location of WCFs in order to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of WCFs within the city. (Ord. 1317§3, 1998). 19.72.070 Facility preference. A proposed WCF shall be evaluated for approval and use in the following order of preference: A. Stealth Support Structure and Antenna.A WCF which is completely blocked or sufficiently camouflaged from view from public rights-of-way, residential uses and districts such that a casual observer cannot identify the WCF from any of the above locations. B.A WCF which extends not more than 15 feet above adjacent existing vegetation or structures, only when subsection A of this section cannot be reasonably accomplished. C.A WCF which extends more than 15 feet above adjacent existing vegetation or structures, only when subsections A or B of this section cannot be reasonably accomplished. AGENDA REPORT NO. 34 FOR: City Council Date: May 2, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfiel Manager Workshop: 05-23-05 Regular: THRU: Richard J. Smit , Director r. Community & Economic Deve pment FROM: Thomas Colleran, Planner 1-1� SUBJECT: Transportable Storage Units I. REFERENCELSL A. Memo outlining transportable unit Ordinances around Washington II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 05-23-05: DISCUSSION III. FISCAL IMPACT None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Some members of Council have expressed concern about the appearance of transportable storage containers in the community and asked staff to look into options for preserving the aesthetics of the community. B. Transportable storage units, also known as cargo containers and portable storage units are the units used to ship goods across the ocean. At the harbor the unit can then be put onto a truck or train for shipment to the final destination. C. The available lengths of the units are 10, 20, 30, and 40 feet. The 20 and 40 foot lengths are the standard in ocean freight shipping, making them more readily available for the average consumer to acquire. The width of an average cargo container is 8 feet and the height of an average container is 8.5 feet. The containers originate in Asia where they are used to ship consumer goods to the United States. Due to the relative lack of exports to Asia the containers are plentiful and become surplus. D. The raw shell of a cargo container costs on average $5 a square- foot or $1600 for a 40 foot x 8 foot container. Surplus containers are thus becoming increasingly popular as inexpensive, preassembled storage units E. In the City of Pasco's Zoning code, portable storage units are prohibited in Residential areas, but allowed in Office, C-3 and Industrial zones by "Special Permits." A memo outlining container regulations in other Washington cities is attached. V. DISCUSSION: A. Staff believes that due to their industrial appearance cargo containers are inappropriate in residential/office zones and questionable in commercial areas. Staff believes when one calculates the cost of screening the containers per Pasco's "Special Permit" criteria, the cost savings appear to be marginal which in 3(9) affect negates the reason for acquiring the transportable unit, as inexpensive storage, in the first place. B. If Council desires to consider transportable unit aesthetics and/or to further restrict permissible locations, the Planning staff can analyze the issue further and ask the Planning Commission to review this proposed amendment at their June 16, 2005 meeting. A recommendation would be forwarded to City Council. To: Rick Smith From: T.C. Colleran Date: April 26, 2005 Re: Transportable Units Included below are ordinances on Transportable Units from other cities around Washington State A) Kennewick- 18.75.480: Transportable Units: (1)Transportable units may be used for permanent storage purposes when ancillary to a permitted use in C, 1, PF and OS zones provided that all setbacks and access requirements are met_ (2)Transportable units that are uniformly painted and in good repair may be used for temporary storage in subdivision sales areas and equipment yards(18.75.090)and in C, I, PF and OS zones for storage during construction and/or remodeling after a building permit has been issued.The units shall be removed from the site once the permit expires or at the end of twelve months,whichever occurs first. Screening is not required in these instances. (3)Transportable units may also be used for temporary storage in"R"and"HMU"zones for new residential construction or remodeling after a building permit has been issued. The units shall be removed from the site at the expiration of the building permit. In no case shall the units remain on the site for more than twelve months. (Ord.4012 Sec. 3,2001) B) Richland- Not allowed in residential areas. No code written specifically for cargo containers, but can apply for a "Special Permit"to place one in the Central Business Use District, General Business Use District, Commercial Recreation Use District,Waterfront Use District, Limited Manufacturing Use District, Medium Industrial Use District, and Heavy Manufacturing Use District. C) Moses Lake Chapter 18.76 18.76.010 Purpose:The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum standards for the placement of cargo containers as storage facilities in C-2, MLIP, L-1, and H-1 zones,where they are allowed by conditional use permit. 18.76.020 Submittal Requirements:The following shall be submitted along with an application for a conditional use permit for container placement: A.A site plan to a standard scale, showing: 1. The location and dimensions of the container(s)and the building to which it is appurtenant. 2. The access to the building and the containers. B.A statement of what will be stored in the container(s),for review by the Fire Marshal. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03) 1.8.76.030 Minimum Conditions:Where a conditional use permit has been granted for use of cargo containers as permanent or temporary storage facilities,the following minimum conditions shall be met: A. The cargo containers shall be used as an appurtenance to the primary use, such primary use being situated in an enclosed adjoining building. B. The cargo containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface at all times. C.The cargo containers shall not be stacked. D.A fire apparatus access road shall be provided to both the containers and to the building the containers are appurtenant to. Fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of twenty feet(20)wide with thirteen feet six inches (13'6")vertical clearance, shall be hard surfaced, and shall provide access to within one hundred fifty feet(150')of any portion of the container(s).Access roads shall be either looped or provide d with an approved turn around as specified in Moses Lake Municipal Code Chapter 16.36 E. The cargo containers shall not be visible to the motoring public or from residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the property where it is located unless other measures approved by the Planning Commission are employed to mitigate the visual impacts of the containers. However,the Planning Commission doe s not nee d to require mitigation measures if it determines that the motoring public or adjacent residential neighborhoods are not impacted. F.The cargo containers shall abide by all set back requirements applicable to the zone in which they are located. G.The recipient of the conditional use permit is the only party allowed to use the container(s). H.A container placement permit is required for each container.The permit shall be obtained from the Building Official prior to the arrival of the container on the site.The fee for the container placement permit shall be as Rick Smith April 26, 2005 Page 2 specified in MLMC 3.54. T he placement permit and fee is required each year for temporary containers. (Ord. 2144, 1219103) 18.76.040 Additional Conditions for Permanent Containers: A. The cargo containers shall be painted so as to blend in with the building to which they are associated. B. The cargo containers shall have a maximum allowable square footage of container storage area not to exceed five percent(5%)of the gross floor area of the building with which the container(s) is associated. In no event shall the number of permanent containers allowed as appurtenant storage facilities exceed three (3) in number. C.A cargo container shall not remain on site if the use it is appurtenant to is abandoned or changes use, unless a separate conditional use permit is granted. (Ord. 2144, 1219103) D)Tukwila Ordinance No. 1989 C. Criteria for approval are as follows: 1. Only two cargo containers will be allowed per lot, maximum length 30 feet. 2.The container is located to minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights-of-way as determined by the Director. Cargo Container Ord 5130102 3.The cargo container is sufficiently screened from adjacent properties, parks,trails and rights-of-way, as determined by the Director. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing, landscaping, or the placement of the cargo containers behind, between or within buildings. 4. If located adjacent to a building, the cargo container must be painted to match the building's color. 5. Cargo containers may not occupy any required off-street parking spaces. 6. Cargo containers shall meet all setback requirements for the zone. 7. Outdoor cargo containers may not be refrigerated. 8. Outdoor cargo containers may not be stacked. E) SeaTac-15.13.063 Cargo Containers--Accessory Use A. The Director of Planning and Community Development may allow a cargo container as an accessory use for permitted or conditional uses, but not including dwelling units, in all other zones not listed in SMC 15.13.062, subject to the criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Cargo containers allowed as an accessory use shall conform with the following criteria: 1. Be located to minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties, streets,and pedestrian facilities; 2. Be painted to match the color(s)of the adjacent building. If the container is located within a building or not visible from adjacent properties as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development, painting is not required; 3. Be screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing, landscaping, or the placement of the cargo containers behind, between,or within buildings. All proposed screening shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development; 4. The location and use of cargo containers on a site shall conform to all requirements and approvals of SMC Titles 1.3 and 15; 5. The location of a cargo container within a structure shall be approved by the Fire Department and Building Division; 6. Cargo containers shall not occupy any required off-street parking spaces for the site or property and the location must comply with all setback requirements; 7. If a cargo container is located on a lot within,or adjacent to a residential zone,the cargo container shall be no greater in size than ten (10)feet by twenty(20)feet, and shall have a stick-built structure,with a peaked roof,constructed to completely enclose the container. No stick-built structure shall be required if the cargo container is totally screened from adjacent properties as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development; 8. Only one(1)cargo container shall be allowed on property located within a residential zone or on property located adjacent to a residential zone. The property owner may request additional cargo containers subject to the Conditional Use Permit(CUP) process under SMC 15.22.030. Adjacent property is defined as property that abuts the residential zone. Property located across a public right-of-way is not regarded as adjacent property; 9. Cargo containers shall not be stacked.(Ord. 01-1010§3) F)Yakima, Spokane,Walla Walla There are no municipal regulations in any of these cities specifically allowing or banning cargo containers. AGENDA REPORT NO. 16 FOR: City Council Date: 05/19/05 TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 05/23/05 Regular Mtg.: 06/06/05 FROM: Robert J. Albertoaac Works Director SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional Services Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Amendment No. 1 IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 05/23: Discussion 05/09: Motion: I move to authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional Services Agreement for transportation and traffic management services. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Arterial Street Fund IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: This amendment is to have the Transpo Group provide the necessary traffic design and transportation review services. On August 16, 2004, the City signed an on-going services agreement with the Transpo Group to provide Traffic Engineering services as needed with an annual budget of$30,000. The proposed amendment is for services that are not considered on-going and not within the budget. The amendment is for two specific tasks. The first task is to provide the design for an additional north bound traffic lane on Road 68 between Rodeo Drive and Burden Boulevard. The design also includes a free right turn lane onto Burden Boulevard. The fee for this task is not to exceed $10,000. The second task is to review the traffic impacts due to events at the TRAC and the Sports Complex. Recommendation would be provided on both capital needed improvements along with operational suggestions. The fee for this task is not to exceed $15,000. Services performed under this amendment would not exceed $25,000. Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment and to include the cost in the year end budget supplement. V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING: Project File 3(h) AMENDMENT NUMBER.1 to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City and The Transpo Group entered into a Professional Services Agreement on August 16, 2004, with respect to on-going transportation and traffic management services. NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement is amended to allow The Transpo Group to provide additional transportation consulting and traffic design and engineering services. 1. Scope of Work. Task A Provide a design to add a lane on the east side of Road 68 and a free right turn lane at Burden Boulevard east bound. Task B—Review the traffic patterns for events at the TRAC and Sports Complex. Make recommendations regarding any needed capital and operational improvement to improve traffic flow for events. 2. Fee. Task A - The added services by the consultant shall be in an amount not to exceed $10,000. Task B - The added services by the consultant shall be in an amount not to exceed $15,000. 3. Time of performance. Task A- It is anticipated that the traffic design and engineering services shall be complete for the project within 30 days of approval of this amendment. Task B - It is anticipated that the transportation consulting services shall be complete for the project within 60 days of approval of this amendment. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2005. The Transpo Group i Amendment No. 1 Professional Services Agreement—On-going Services CITY OF PASCO: CONSULTANT—The Transpo Group: Michael L. Garrison, Mayor Signature Title ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney i The Transpo Group 2 Amendment No. 1 Professional Services Agreement—On-going Services AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council May 20, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutchf y anager Workshop Mtg.: 5/23/05 Regular Mtg.: 6/06/05 SUBJECT: Resolution, Ap roval of Drought Management Plan L REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Resolution with Drought Management Plan II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/23: Discussion 6/06: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. approving a Drought Management Plan. HL FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Council has discussed the need for and content of the Drought Management Plan at prior meetings. The proposed Drought Management Plan has been reviewed by Council and is recommended for approval as a policy framework to be used in the future by staff and Council in developing specific action plans to respond to reductions in the city's water supply. V. DISCUSSION: A) Staff recommends approval of the resolution and Drought Management Plan. i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco relies solely on the Columbia River to fulfill the domestic water supply needs for all of its citizens, resident and corporate alike; and, WHEREAS, any notable reduction in Columbia River water supply could have significant deleterious effects on the conduct and quality of urban life throughout the community; and, WHEREAS, the city desires to be prepared to address the possible reduction of water supply, due either to emergent conditions or the more gradual constraints associated with climatic drought conditions; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1: That the attached drought management plan is hereby approved as a framework of policy to manage potential water supply reductions. Section 2: That the City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to provide timely recommendations to City Council, consistent with the policy framework reflected in the drought management plan, so as to respond to the reduction of water supply while minimizing the adverse influence on the quality of community life. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 6`h day of June, 2005. I Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney City of Pasco Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan April 2005 This Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan addresses the restrictions and regulations, which may be imposed on the use of City of Pasco domestic and irrigation water during a time of a drought or water shortage. The plan is based on four thresholds in which the restrictions increase with the increase in thresholds. The requirements will vary by customer identified as the City, Public Institutions (County, College, Schools), Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Construction. Threshold Alert 1: Drought Alert A drought or water shortage (alert number 1) will be declared by the Mayor when a warning has been given that there is an anticipated water shortage in the Columbia River, depleting ground water levels, or a problem with the City's systems. Implementation Requirements: City - Public Notification — Notify the news media of the alert, provide information in utility billings, and work with other agencies and civic groups. Education — Emphasize the City's conservation programs and ask for voluntary reductions for both the indoor and outdoor use of water by working with the news media and mailings to customers. City Reductions - Require all departments to reduce water use. • Reduce use City-wide. • Parks Division coordinates with the GWMA and Soil Conservation District on improving efficiency and predicting minimum water needs. • Restrict vehicle washes to recycled washing facilities where possible. • Reduce amount of water used for hydrant programs, flushing, and non-essential uses. • Restrict water use in construction contracts. Public Institutions - Voluntary curtailment. • Monitoring outdoor irrigation systems to improve efficiency and reduce water waste. • Coordinate with the GWMA and Soil Conservation District on improving efficiency and predicting minimum water needs. • Restrict vehicle washes to recycled washing facilities where possible. Residential -Voluntary curtailment. • Reduction of indoor water use. • Scheduling of outdoor watering to every other day watering. • Emphasis on wise use of water. Commercial -Voluntary curtailment. • Reduction of indoor and outdoor water use. • Emphasis on wise water use. Industrial - Voluntary curtailment. • Reduction of indoor and outdoor water use. • Emphasis on wise water use. Construction-Voluntary curtailment and mandatory restrictions. Voluntary- • Reduction of city water use. • Ground cover in lieu of water for dust control. • Emphasis on wise water use. Mandatory - • Use of well water where available. • Use of FCID water where available. • No water settling of trenches. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 2 Alert 2: State Imposed Water Restrictions - Short term (1-2 months) A water shortage on the Columbia Riuer has occurred for the short term. An alert number 2 is declared by Council. A surcharge on water rates may be required. The surcharge may be on the amount of water not needed for typical indoor use and the moderate amount needed for outdoor watering. Customers on the City irrigation system will be required to adjust their watering with less water pressure. Implementation Requirements: City - Public Notification- Notify the news media of the alert and water rate changes, provide information to customers, and work with other agencies and civic groups. Council may pass an emergency water rate surcharge Ordinance. Any surcharge would be imposed on the amount of water not considered essential. The typical monthly residential indoor and summer outdoor uses will be considered in establishing the definition of essential use in the Ordinance. Irrigation system water pressure will be reduced 15% to encourage conservation. City Reductions - Mandatory reductions to all Departments. • Reduce all outdoor watering by 15%. Brown spots acceptable in turf. • Vehicle washing with recycled water only. • Use WTP effluent for sewer flushing programs. • Sweep & vacuum floors only, no washing or mopping unless health issues are a concern. • Reduce flows and pressures in City irrigation system. • Reduce use at swimming pools, restrict shower use. • Close spray grounds. • Further restrict water for construction projects. • Defer hydrant flushing programs. • No water for Fire Department training. • Place temporary water use restrictions on the approval of new developments and issuance of building permits. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 3 Public Institutions —Mandatory requirements. • Reduce all outdoor watering by 15%. Brown spots acceptable in turf. • Vehicle washing with recycled water only. • Sweep & vacuum floors only, no washing or mopping unless health issues are a concern. Residential — Mandatory requirements. • A water rate surcharge may be required on non- essential water defined in the emergency Ordinance. • Premises vehicle washing restricted to once a week. • Every other day outdoor watering. Brown spots should be acceptable in turf. Commercial — Mandatory requirements. • Water rate surcharge may be implemented to be calculated to encourage the reduction of historic use by 15%. Surcharge established in emergency Ordinance. • Reduce outdoor watering by 15%. • Restaurants to serve table water on request. • No parking lot flushing. Industrial — Mandatory requirements. • Water rate surcharge may be implemented to be calculated to encourage the reduction of historic use by 15%. Surcharge established in emergency Ordinance. • Reduce outdoor watering by 15%. Construction - Mandatory requirements • Construction water rates to be temporarily increased 200% to 300% on a rising block rate scale in emergency Ordinance. • No water waste at sites. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 4 Alert 3: State Imposed Water Restrictions — Long term (2+ months). A serious water shortage has occurred. An alert number 3 is declared by Council. An increase in water rate surcharge will be required. Outdoor watering will be limited to keep vegetation alive. Commercial and Industrial customers will be asked to reduce all water use. Construction water will be rationed. Water policing program will be implemented along with fee structure for fines. Implementation Requirements: City - Public Notification— notify the news media of the alert and water rate changes, provide information to customers, and work with other agencies and civic groups. Council will amend emergency Ordinance and temporarily increase all water rate classifications. Irrigation system pressures and flows further reduced to encourage conservation. City Reductions —Mandatory reductions to all Departments. • Create a water policing force and implement a water drought fee schedule for offenders. • Reduce all outdoor watering and provide only sufficient water to keep vegetation alive. • No testing programs that use water. • No vehicle washing. • Close swimming pools. • Defer construction projects that require construction water. • Call in all construction water hydrant meters. • No street sweeping. • Further reduce flows and pressures on City irrigation system. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 5 Public Institutions — Mandatory requirements. • Pay new water rate structure. • Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation alive only. No vehicle washing • Reduce indoor use. No visual water misuse or waste. Residential —Mandatory requirements. • Pay new water rate structure. • Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation alive only. • No visual water misuse or waste. Water waste subject to fines. Commercial — Mandatory requirements. • Pay new water rate structure. • Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation alive only. • No visual water misuse or waste. Water waste subject to fines. Industrial — Mandatory requirements. • Pay new water rate structure. • Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation alive only. • No visual water misuse or waste. Water waste subject to fines. Construction- Mandatory requirements. • Pay new water rate structure. • No construction water from hydrants. • Ground cover for dust control. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 6 Alert 4: City Water Supply Availability Critical. A critical water shortage has occurred. An alert number 4 is declared by Council. Water supply at 60% or less of historic usage and no increase in supply foreseen in the near future. A moratorium on new construction and new water service connections will be needed. Monitoring and water scheduling (rationing)program will need to be implemented. Implementation Requirements: City - Public Notification - Notify the news media of the alert and severity of conditions, provide information in utility billings, and work with other agencies and civic groups. Impose temporary building and new water service moratorium. Increase fines for water misuse and waste. Irrigation system will operate at minimum pressures and flows. City Reductions -Mandatory reductions to all Departments. • No waste of water. • Implement monitoring and scheduling program. • Close some public bathroom facilities. • Select turf areas that will receive no water. Public Institutions- Mandatory requirements • Impose new monitoring and scheduling program. • No water misuse or waste. • Select turf areas that will receive no water. Residential - Mandatory requirements. • Impose new monitoring and scheduling program. • No visual water misuse or waste. • Water waste or misuse subject to new fines and penalties. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 7 Commercial — Mandatory requirements. • Impose new monitoring and scheduling program. • High water users such as car washes and Laundromats subject to restricted flows. • Water waste or misuse subject to new fines and penalties. Industrial —Mandatory requirements. • Impose new monitoring and scheduling program • High water users subject to restricted flows. • Water waste or misuse subject to new fines and penalties. Construction — Mandatory requirements. • Only emergency construction water. • No fire hydrant meters. Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 8 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 17, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfie anager W/Shop Mtg.: 5123/05 FROM: Gregory L. Garcia, Fire Chief Reg. Mtg.: 6/6/05 SUBJECT: Implementing the National Incident Management System (NIMS) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Resolution 111. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , authorizing the implementation of the National Incident Management System. 1CII. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Since September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade center and the Pentagon, much has been done to improve prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation capabilities and coordination processes across the Country. A comprehensive national approach to incident management, applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across functional disciplines, would further improve the effectiveness of emergency response providers and incident management organizations across a full spectrum of potential incidents and hazardous scenarios. B) In Homeland Security Directive (HSPD)-5, President Bush directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System (NIMS), which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity. C) The Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities in the Fire Department. The Police Department is in the process of adopting the Incident Command System for their incidents. D) The Incident Command System is a proven, on-scene, all hazard incident management concept and has become the standard for on-scene management. The Incident Command System is interdisciplinary and organizationally flexible to meet the needs of incidents of any size or level of complexity. The system has been used for a wide range of incidents, from planned events to hazardous materials spills to acts of terrorism. E) Whether from different departments within the same jurisdiction, from mutual aid partners or from State and federal agencies, responders need to be able to work together, communicate with each other and depend on each other. V. DISCUSSION: A) While most incidents are generally handled on a daily basis by a single jurisdiction at the local level, there are important instances in which successful domestic incident management operations depend on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, functional agencies and emergency responder disciplines. B) NIMS provides a consistent, flexible and adjustable framework within which government and private entities at all levels can work together to manage incidents, regardless of their cause, size, location or complexity. 3(]) C) NIMS provides a set of standardized organizational structures, such as the Incident Command System (ICS), multi-agency coordination systems and public information systems as well as requirements for processes, procedures and systems to improve interoperability (use of communication devices) among jurisdictions and disciplines in various areas, including training; resource management; personnel qualifications and certification; communications and information management; technology support; and continuous system improvement. D) The multi-agency and multi jurisdictional terminology refers to fire departments, police department, public works, finance and City management, emergency management as well as other governmental organizations. E) The "Policy Level' refers to government officials, such as governors, mayors, city and county managers, department heads and other managers within the organization. F) There are several training sessions that are required for each level of management and for the non-management to be completed by January 1, 2007. The first step in adopting NIMS is to have the City of Pasco formally adopt NIMS by resolution. G) In order to receive FY 2006 preparedness funding, applicants will need to certify as part of the grant applications that they have met the FY 2005 NIMS requirements. This resolution is part of that requirement. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve this resolution and require that the National Incident Management System be implemented by the City. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION "IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM"(NIMS) WHEREAS, In Homeland Security Directive (HSPI3)-5, the President directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System(NIMS), which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local and tribal governments to work together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents,regardless of cause, size or complexity,and WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all federal,state,local and tribal homeland security partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation and utilization of a comprehensive Incident Management System;and WHEREAS, to facilitate and coordinate the most efficient and effective incident management it is critical that federal, state, local, and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized organizational structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training, and exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or disasters;and WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities and resources will improve the City of Pasco's ability to utilize federal funding to enhance local and state agency readiness, maintain first responder safety,and streamline incident management processes; and WHEREAS, the Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part of various incident management activities throughout the City of Pasco,including all public safety and emergency response organizations training programs; and WHEREAS, the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission)recommended adoption of a standardized Incident Command System;and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington desires that the National Incident Management System be utilized for all incident management in the City of Pasco; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1: That the City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all affected departments of the city be trained for and prepared to use the National Incident Management System. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 3 d day of June,2005. Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney