HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008.11.10 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 6:00 p.m. November 10,2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) 2009 Budget Presentation (approximately 90 minutes). (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON
AGENDA). 2009 Preliminary Budget available for public review at the Pasco Library and on
the City's webpage at www.pasco-wa,gn`.
(b) Corridors and Gateways Plan 2008(MF#INFO 08-070):
1. Agenda Report from Jeff Adams, Associate Planner dated November 5,2008.
2. Memo to the Planning Commission including the draft plan.
(c) Ambulance Service Agreement with Walla Walla District No. 5:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated November 5,2008.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Letter to City Manager from D. 14ultgren.n dated 6/24/08.
4. Proposed Interlocal Agreement.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT.
REMINDERS:
1. 9:30 a.m., Saturday, November 8 —2008 West Richland Regional Veterans' Day Parade (line up
on Van Giesen between 62nd & Grosscup; staging begins at 8:00 a.m.). (COUNCILMEMBER
MATT WATKINS)
2. 12:00 p.m., Monday, November 10, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Luncheon
Meeting. ("Our Babies Can't Wait" presented by Rod Webring, Vice-Chair, United Way Board
of Directors.)
3. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, November 13, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS, Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
4. 9:00 a.m., Friday, November 14, 1600 N. 20'x' Avenue, Suite A — Veterans' Resource Center
Grand Opening(MAYOR JOYCE OLSON).
City Hall will be closed Tuesday, November 11 in honor of Veterans' Day.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 75
FOR: City Council November 5, 2008
TO: Gary Crutchf Manager Workshop Mtg.: 11/10/08
Rick White, Die o JZW Workshop Mtg.: 11/24/08
Community& conomic Development
FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Corridors and Gateways Plan 2008 (MF4 INFO 08-070)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Memo to the Planning Commission including the draft plan
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11/10: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In a 2007 National Citizens Survey, nearly 90% of Pasco survey respondents
supported the idea of the City installing and maintaining landscape along select
major street corridors to improve the appearance of the community.
B) An ad-hoc committee was appointed by the City Council to update the 1995
Corridors Plan, define policy framework and recommend specific corridors for
improvement and their relative priority.
C) A majority of the committee was composed of business representatives to assure
that the perspective of those most likely to be affected financially would help to
define the goals and policies of the program.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The draft plan expands the area under consideration beyond the central core area.
It uses design policies rather than specific "concepts". These broad policies are
basic and adaptable, and are driven primarily by long-term maintenance costs,
safety concerns and adaptability to a wide range of city conditions.
B) The committee selected corridors and suggested prioritized projects. Corridors
were chosen primarily for their connectivity-primary streets that linked people to
goods and services and to major highways. Projects were prioritized based on
economics (such as cost-sharing opportunities), concerns for continuity (fill-in-
the-gaps, join the gateway and the corridor), and safety (transit route location,
roadway functionality). Prioritized routes are reflected in Table 2 of the draft
Plan.
C) The "preferred" design policy calls for distancing the sidewalk from the street,
landscaping both sides of the sidewalk, and planting trees and grass with minimal
shrub areas. This policy balances safety, aesthetics, and maintenance
considerations.
D) An inviting, aesthetic environment can also translate into an inviting economic
climate. Businesses'are usually more confident about investing in a community
committed to maintaining property values.
E) The draft plan, as recommended by the ad hoc committee, has been reviewed by
the Planning Commission. Following a public hearing the Planning Commission
has recommended the plan's adoption.
4(b)
I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 21, 2008
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate City Planner
SUBJECT: Corridors and Gateways Plan
The Pasco City Council recently authorized formation of an Ad Hoc Committee
assigned to provide a fresh evaluation of the 1995 Corridors and Gateways Plan
and its objectives, to evaluate corridors it deemed appropriate and to make
recommendations for modifications to the Plan for City Council consideration.
The purpose of the original 1995 Plan was to identify landscape policies that
would enhance safety, aesthetics, consistency, and ease of maintenance in
transportation corridor design. This plan served as a focal point for efforts and
resources. Two city-sponsored corridor projects were completed and designs were
prepared for a third. As well, new private development largely followed design
principles found in the plan for several other corridor areas.
However the previous plan only included the "Central Core" area. The City has
since grown dramatically in both land area and population. As well, the previous
effort's highly specific design requirements may have been too limiting and
inflexible for broader application.
The new plan expands the area under consideration beyond the central core area.
It also uses design policies rather than specific "concepts." These broad policies
are extremely basic and adaptable, and are driven primarily by long-term
maintenance costs, safety concerns, and adaptability to a wide range of city
conditions. This policy breadth becomes important in cases of limited right-of-
way, unusual topography, preexisting landscaping, and so forth.
The "preferred" design policy calls for distancing the sidewalk from the street,
landscaping both sides of the sidewalk, and planting trees and grass with
minimal shrub areas. This preferred design policy incorporates the observations
of the Committee and City of Pasco maintenance administrators, by balancing
and optimizing safety, aesthetics, and ease of maintenance.
The Committee selected corridors and suggested prioritized projects. Corridors
were chosen primarily for their connectivity--primary streets that linked people to
goods and services and to major highways. Projects were prioritized based on
economics (such as cost-sharing opportunities), concerns for continuity (fill-in-
s
the-gaps, join the gateway and the corridor), and safety (transit route location,
roadway functionality). Prioritized routes are as follows:
i. 4th Ave from Court Street to the I-182/12 Interchange
ii. 4th Ave from Lewis Street to Court street
iii. Oregon Avenue from Lewis Street to the Highway 12 Interchange.
iv. Court Street from Road 68 to Road 84.
v. Oregon Avenue from "A" street to Lewis Street.
vi. Oregon Avenue from Ainsworth Avenue to "A" Street.
vii. Court Street from Road 84 to Road 100.
viii. Road 36 from Argent road to Burden Boulevard.
Because of preexisting development regulations, the Plan doesn't address
prioritization of corridors that will ultimately be enhanced by future private
development or redevelopment.
Policies for City entrance enhancements (Gateways) address site inaccessibility,
lack of infrastructure and the special challenges of intergovernmental
partnerships. These challenges tend the City toward very simple but attractive
low-water, low-maintenance designs.
The plan contains maps and tables illustrating the types and locations of
corridors and their importance, as ranked by the committee.
In sum, this document details the purpose of providing corridor streetscape policy
guidance, past efforts, lessons learned, existing conditions, options for corridor
improvements and policy statements to guide the development of improvements
and focus of resources.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council adopt the Corridors and Gateways Plan 2008.
2
CORRIDOPIS AND GATEwAys PLAN
PA S C E , WA S H I N I-VO jN
kr
,r
f
OCTOBER 2005
PA -' •
-rr
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco, Washington
DRAFT
October 8, 2008
Prepared by:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, Suite 201
Kennewick, Washington 99336
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Matt Watkins, Chair, City Council
Al Yenney, City Council
Dave Little, Planning Commission
Todd Samuel, Planning Commission
Fred Ackerman, Chamber member
Carrie Chambers, Chamber member
Spence Jilek, Chamber member
Jim O'Conner, Chamber Member
John Serte, Chamber Member
CITY OF PASCO STAFF
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
Jeff Adams, Planner
Dan Dotta, Maintenance
CONSULTANT (J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC)
Spencer Montgomery
Justin Baerlocher, AICP
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Table of Contents
Executive Summa "'
Summary......................................................................................... tit
Introduction................................................................................................... 1
Purposeof Update ........................................................................................ 1
1995 Gateways and Corridors Plan ..................................................................... 1
Purpose................................................................................................... 1
Goals...................................................................................................... 2
Accomplishments ....................................................................................... 2
Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 3
PlanningProcess........................................................................................... 4
ExistingConditions .......................................................................................... 5
Corridors.................................................................................................... 5
Gateways ................................................................................................... 8
Opportunities and Priorities............................................................................... 11
Opportunities ............................................................................................. 11
Private............................................. ................................................... 11
CityOpportunity ....................................................................................... 13
Priorities...................................................................................................14
Corridor and Gateway Improvement Options...........................................................17
Option 1: Sidewalk with grass strip and trees and shrubs ......................................... 18
Option 2: Sidewalk with grass strip and landscaping on both sides of walk ....................19
Option 3: Sidewalk with landscape planting strip...................................................20
Option 4: Sidewalk with trees..........................................................................21
Option 5: Sidewalk with shrubs ........................................................................22
Option 6: Sidewalk only .................................................................................23
Option 7: Pathway with landscaping..................................................................24
Option 8: Low Maintenance.............................................................................25
PolicyGuidance.............................................................................................26
ExistingPolicies ..........................................................................................26
Corridor and Gateway Policies .........................................................................26
10-08-08/Draft Gateways and Corridors Plan
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
List of Figures
Figure 1. South Side of Lewis Street near 281h Avenue Looking East ............................... 2
Figure 2. North Side of Lewis Street West of Elm Street Looking East............................. 2
Figure 3. Corridors and Gateways........................................................................ 6
Figure 4. Existing Conditions Map .......................................................................10
Figure 5. Improvement Opportunities ..................................................................12
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing Conditions by Corridor Segment..................................................... 9
Table 2. City Opportunity Prioritization Table........................................................ 16
10-08-08/Draft Gateways and Corridors Plan ii
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Corridors and Gateways Plan
Executive Summary
The Pasco City Council recently authorized formation of an Ad Hoc Committee assigned to do
the following:
• Provide a fresh evaluation of the 1995 Plan and its objectives,
• Evaluate corridors it deemed appropriate and
• Make recommendations for modifications to the Plan for City Council consideration.
Key items covered in the resulting plan update are as follows:
1. Purpose of the plan: To identify landscape policies that would enhance safety, aesthetics,
consistency, and ease of maintenance in transportation corridor design.
2. The 1995 Plan-
a. Merits: The previous plan served as a focal point for efforts and resources. Two
city-sponsored corridor projects were completed and designs were prepared for a
third. As well, new private development largely followed design principles found in
the plan for several other corridor areas.
b. Shortcomings: The previous plan only included the "Central Core" area. The City
has since grown dramatically in both land area and population. As well, the
previous effort's highly specific design requirements may have been too limiting
and inflexible for broader application.
3. The Updated plan:
a. The new plan expands the area under consideration beyond the central core area.
b. The new Plan uses design policies rather than specific "concepts." These broad
policies are extremely basic and adaptable, and are driven primarily by long-term
maintenance costs, safety concerns, and adaptability to a wide range of city
conditions. This policy breadth becomes important in cases of limited right-of-way,
unusual topography, preexisting landscaping, and so forth.
c. The "preferred" design policy calls for distancing the sidewalk from the street,
landscaping both sides of the sidewalk, and planting trees and grass with minimal
shrub areas. This preferred design policy incorporates the observations of the
Committee and City of Pasco maintenance administrators, by balancing and
optimizing safety, aesthetics, and ease of maintenance.
4. Location and prioritization of Corridors
10-08-08/Draft Gateways and Corridors Plan iti
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
a. Corridors defined: Corridors were chosen primarily for their connectivity—primary
streets that linked people to goods and services and to major highways.
b. Projects prioritized: Projects were prioritized based on economics (such as cost-
sharing opportunities), concerns for continuity (fill-in-the-gaps, join the gateway
and the corridor), and safety (transit route location, roadway functionality).
Prioritized routes are as follows:
i. 4th Ave from Court Street to the 1-182/12 Interchange
ii. 4th Ave from Lewis Street to Court street
iii. Oregon Avenue from Lewis Street to the Highway 12 Interchange.
iv. Court Street from Road 68 to Road 84.
v. Oregon Avenue from "A" street to Lewis Street.
vi. Oregon Avenue from Ainsworth Avenue to "A" Street.
vii. Court Street from Road 84 to Road 100.
viii. Road 36 from Argent road to Burden Boulevard.
c. Because of preexisting development regulations, there is little need to address
prioritization of corridors that will ultimately be enhanced by future private
development or redevelopment.
5. Gateways: Policies for City entrance enhancements address site inaccessibility, lack of
infrastructure and the special challenges of intergovernmental partnerships. These
challenges tend the city toward very simple but attractive low-water, low-maintenance
designs.
6. Maps and Tables: The plan contains maps and tables illustrating the types and locations of
corridors and their importance, as ranked by the committee.
In sum, this document details the purpose of providing corridor streetscape policy guidance,
past efforts, lessons learned, existing conditions, options for corridor improvements and
policy statements to guide the development of improvements and focus of resources.
10-08-08/Draft Gateways and Corridors Plan iv
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Introduction
For several years the City of Pasco, Washington has worked towards improving the streetscape
of major corridors throughout the City as a way to enhance the attractiveness of the City.
Existing City ordinances identify design standards that influence the provision of sidewalks
and landscaping on all City streets through development and redevelopment. The City feels
that some corridors and gateways are of sufficient importance to justify the additional effort
of coordinating the design and maintenance of streetscape features to provide an enhanced,
consistent and clean appearance that will inspire pride in the City and improve mobility and
safety for pedestrians. The City recognizes that an overall Plan to identify significant
corridors and gateways as well as design options is needed to focus this endeavor.
An earlier effort was undertaken in 1995 which identified conceptual improvements for
corridors in the central core of Pasco. However, since that time the City has grown
significantly in population and area. This increase has brought redevelopment along existing
corridors as well as development of new corridors outside of the original study area. City
leaders have felt it appropriate to revisit the earlier plan.
This document details the purpose of providing corridor streetscape policy guidance, past
efforts, lessons learned, existing conditions, options for corridor improvements and policy
statements to guide the development of improvements and focus resources.
Purpose of Update
Rather than foster an assortment of frontage improvements in any given corridor resulting in
uncoordinated development, the City feels it is appropriate to identify desired landscape
features to be incorporated into roadway corridors that will provide consistency and ease of
maintenance.
This effort has been undertaken to:
• update the earlier plan, accounting for lessons learned and new opportunities
• redefine the network of primary Gateways and Corridors
• prepare new policy guidance that recommends conceptual improvements and
priorities.
1995 Gateways and Corridors Plan
Purpose
In 1995 the City of Pasco undertook a planning effort that was recognized as a "grand first
step toward achieving the vision of an attractive, welcoming network of primary streets and
entryways for the visitors, citizens, and business owners of Pasco."
The purpose of the Plan was to serve as a comprehensive guide for future gateway and
corridor improvement projects. The Plan addressed the "central core" and East Lewis
neighborhoods and included design concepts for 7 gateways and 8 corridors.
Page 1
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Pian
City of Pasco
2008
Goals
The 1995 Plan stated 5 specific goals:
1. Conduct a planning process which achieves consensus by involving critical community,
civic, and government representatives throughout the process.
2. Develop a plan which wilt enhance the image and character of the City of Pasco.
3. Develop concepts for the gateways and corridors which will reflect Pasco's history,
people and geographic location.
4. Develop concepts which carry the greatest potential for implementation.
5. Develop a document which clearly presents information needed to support success ful
follow-up funding procurement, design refinement, and community volunteer efforts.
Accomplishments
In the last few years the City has implemented corridor improvements amounting to several
hundred thousand dollars on both the east and west ends of Lewis Street. Improvements have
included the addition of curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as landscaping and utility
undergrounding. An example of these improvements are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1. South Side of Lewis Street near 28"' Avenue Lookin East
,{
Before After
Figure 2. North Side of Lewis Street West of Elm Street Looking East
,j
Before After
Page 2
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
In some cases a considerable amount of effort was put forth to work with adjacent property
owners to acquire right of way, relocate utilities and coordinate improvements with multiple
property owners. These improvements have been viewed as a major enhancement for these
segments of Lewis Street.
Lessons Learned
As part of past projects and several other ongoing efforts, the City has learned much with
respect to development of streetscape improvements in these important corridors. These
Lessons serve as a guide in the development of future design plans to implement streetscape
improvements.
• In addition to providing a safe place for pedestrian travel, curb, gutter and sidewalks
provide a clean finished look to urban roadway corridors.
• Grass is the preferred landscape option with respect to maintenance. While the
perception is that shrubbery is easy to maintain whereas grass requires constant
trimming, the reality is that shrubbery also requires routine maintenance and requires
specific training and full-time staff (as opposed to seasonal workers). Shrubbery also
catches litter, thus detracting from the desired beautification effect. Furthermore,
methods have been devised to minimize the amount of edge trimming required,
facilitating maintenance of grass strips.
• Flexibility is important in working with owners of developed property. As much as
consistency is desired, some concepts may be very difficult to implement given
topography and other constraints in any given corridor.
• Gateway areas are generally located within the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way. Due to state funding constraints and safety
mandates, WSDOT limits the amount of landscaping within the interchange areas.
Interchange areas can be vast and would require a significant amount of maintenance.
Other limitations which are present include difficult access and terrain and the limited
ability to provide water to the gateway areas. As a result, specific gateway areas
need to be rethought. A low-water-usage and law-maintenance design should be
developed for these areas which integrates vegetation native to the Pasco area. Most
of the gateway improvements should be focused around the entrance into the
adjacent corridor in order to mitigate the access, water and maintenance issues.
• Overhead utilities are a significant detraction from otherwise improved corridors.
Whenever possible, utilities should be placed underground so as to remove clutter
from a corridor.
• Long established corridors have already been developed and in many cases have barely
enough right-of-way for sidewalks. The City will probably have to wait for
redevelopment to occur before being able to secure sufficient right-of-way to
implement landscaping enhancements in the corridor.
Page 3
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
• Where it is important enough to create a consistent corridor appearance it is equally
essential to maintain that landscaped corridor. Any great project that the City could
undertake to improve Corridors and Gateways could be compromised by a few shabby
properties with weeds or dead landscaping. Any new efforts must be coupled with
increased code enforcement efforts on private properties, particularly rental
properties.
Planning Process
The Pasco City Council authorized the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of
members of City Council, the Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. The
Committee was assigned to provide a fresh evaluation of the 1995 Plan and its objectives,
evaluate corridors it deemed appropriate and make recommendations for modifications to the
Plan for City Council consideration.
The Committee has been supported by staff and the consulting team and has met several
times to discuss and consider appropriate corridors, desired improvements as well as
priorities. The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed a draft document and changes were incorporated
into a final document for City Council review and approval.
Page 4
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Existing Conditions
Given the significant growth to the west of the central core area included in the 1995 Plan,
several new roadways have been constructed white others have been annexed from Franklin
County. As part of this planning effort the Committee considered what Corridors and
Gateways within the Urban Growth Area should be included in the Plan. The 1995 definitions
of Corridors and Gateways were also examined and it was determined that new definitions
would be appropriate, especially with respect to gateways.
Figure 3 identifies the Corridors and Gateways deemed appropriate by the committee to be
included in the Plan and subject to the policies listed later in this document. This chapter
presents the definition of Corridors and Gateways and identifies the existing features of each
Corridor and the Gateways. Evaluations of the gateways and corridors were based on input
from the committee members and staff, field observation and research performed by the
consultant. Improvement opportunities, constraints and priorities are discussed in the
following chapter.
Corridors
The Corridors have been defined by the Committee, for the purposes of this Plan, as:
A primary street which provides a connection to and from various uses throughout
the City including residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, public space,
recreational areas, and business. Corridors also provide vital connections to
Interstates 1-182, US 395, and US 12 which bisect the City.
The following roadways have been identified as Corridors suitable for special streetscaping
requirements which will provide a consistent presentation of each corridor.
➢ "A" Street - 10th Avenue to US-12
➢ 14th Avenue - Cable Bridge to Lewis Street
20th Avenue - Columbia River to Argent Road
➢ 4th Avenue - Lewis Street to the 1-182 Interchange
Ainsworth Avenue - 10th Avenue to Oregon Avenue
Argent Road - Road 100 to 20th Avenue
Burden Boulevard - Road 68 to Road 36
Chapel Hill Boulevard - Road 100 to Road 68
➢ Court Street - Road 100 to 4th Avenue
Heritage Boulevard - "A" Street to Lewis Street
➢ Lewis Street- US 395 to US-12
➢ Madison Avenue - Road 44 to Burden Boulevard
Oregon Avenue - Ainsworth Street to the 1-182 Interchange
Powerline Road - Road 100 to Road 52
➢ Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard - Court Street to Powerline Road
Road 36 - Argent Road to Burden Boulevard
➢ Road 44 - Argent Road to Madison Avenue; Burden Blvd to Sandifur Pkwy
➢ Road 52 - Court Street to Argent Road; Burden Boulevard to Powerline Road
➢ Road 68 - Court Street to Power Line Road
➢ Road 84 - Chapel Hill Boulevard to Argent Road
➢ Sandifur Parkway - Broadmoor Boulevard to Road 44
Page 5
i
-.................f \ La
CL
0 cc
US
CL
w
......................r.r.� •t - d
aAl93`JVILAGH
LU
CD
i
f
i w d w
t
� � I
9AV Hloz N
I
1 1
i ee anon r
j W Gaon - -
i
j
—' zs avon Nemvn— zs avow /r
9 �
m � O
5 - 1
1 m ar
t i l
' c
° /.
i f f
t x f I
! t 4
Jr
LL
i v! �lIj f f A
! �1 � caapon � • � �pa�a
r
0
f
�.� ante aoowavone _ oos avq ����' •� c 3 m ,� ����a
�� RUN �
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
The existing conditions of each Corridor segment are defined in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4
which indicates where sidewalks, landscaping, street trees, and overhead utilities are present
as well as whether the corridor is on a transit route, is designated as a bicycle route, has any
identified Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects, is within the City or in
unincorporated Franklin County and what the current zoning is.
The status of the corridors can be grouped into three areas based on how the development
pattern has occurred: Pasco Central Core, West Pasco north of 1-182 and West Pasco south of
1-182. The street cross sections within each of these areas represent a common theme
regarding conditions, limitations and opportunities. Each of these three areas is unique due
to the differences in development patterns and regulatory jurisdiction.
Pasco Central Core
This area is defined as the original central core of the City as identified in the 1995 plan.
This area is bounded by Highway 395 to the west, Interstate 1-182 to the north and US-12 to
the east. The majority of the land within this area is currently developed with the exception
of "A" Street east of Oregon Avenue and some portions of Oregon Avenue which remain
vacant. Typical cross sections of the corridors within this area include sidewalks located
adjacent to the curb with limited right-of-way available beyond the back of sidewalk. Where
there is landscaping along the corridors it is typically located on private property.
Two corridor improvement projects consistent with the 1995 Plan were completed by the City
along portions of west Lewis Street from 28"Avenue to 17th 1h Avenue and on East Lewis
Street from Oregon Avenue to Cedar Avenue. These projects consisted of adding curb,
gutter, and sidewalk along with landscaping and trees where sufficient right-of-way was
available or could be reasonably purchased. Other properties along the corridors which have
been redeveloped have also been required to add landscaping features consistent with the
City's landscape ordinance. While these projects have incorporated many of the
recommended design features of the previous plan, a consistent design pattern and
landscaping features is lacking throughout each corridor.
West Pasco north of 1-182
This area is generally defined as being north of 1-182, south of Powerline Road, east of
Broadmoor Boulevard and west of Road 36. Since the adoption of the 1995 Plan this area has
been incorporated into the City of Pasco and a majority of the area has been developed
primarily with residential uses with commercial uses focused along Road 68 and the
Broadmoor Boulevard/Sandifur Parkway intersection. Corridor improvements within this area
have been primarily completed by the private sector as part of development approval.
Special design standards for some of these corridors have been developed by the City and
incorporated into the Pasco Municipal Code including sidewalk, landscaping, access
management and screen requirements. Future improvements to these corridors will primarily
depend on the private development.
West Pasco south of 1-182
This area is generally defined as being south of 1-182, east of Road 100, north of the Columbia
River and west of Highway 395. The outer boundaries of this area have been incorporated
within the City of Pasco with a large area in the middle which remains in the jurisdiction of
Franklin County. However, the County portion is located within the City's Urban Growth Area
as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 7
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Due to the nature of the "county island", most of the roadways in this area are built to
county standards and lack curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. The primary land use
within this area continues to be agricultural with an increasing demand for residential
development. Similar to the area north of 1-182, portions of this area are bounded by special
design standards identified in the Pasco Municipal Code requiring specific sidewalk,
landscaping, access management and screening requirements along specific corridors within
the City including Road 100 and Chapel Hill Boulevard. These standards may need to be
expanded to include roadways within the County which are in the Urban Growth Area as they
are annexed. Future improvements to these corridors will also primarily depend on the
private development as they implement existing standards and apply the policies described
later in this document.
Gateways
Gateways have been defined by the Committee, for the purposes of this Plan, as:
An area located around various interchanges located throughout the City from
Interstate 1-182, US 395 and US 12. These gateway areas are located adjacent to a
corridor and provide transition into the city environment.
The following areas have been identified as Gateways into the City suitable for landscaping
and signage and are shown in Figure 3.
Cable Bridge area
1-182/20"' Street - northeast entrance along the westbound off-ramp;
southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp; along the east side of 20th
Avenue south of 1-182
1-182/4th Street - southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp
'w 1-182/Oregon Avenue - southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp
1-182/Road 100 - southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp and
northeast entrance along the westbound off-ramp
➢ 1-182/Road 68 - southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp and
northeast entrance along the westbound off-ramp
US 12/"A" Street Interchange- southwest and northwest entrances
US 12/Lewis Street Interchange - northwest entrance along the eastbound off-
ramp
v US 395 / Court Street Interchange
US 395 / Lewis Street Interchange
In general, the existing conditions of the gateway areas are unimproved with limited
landscaping. Two exceptions are the US 395/Lewis Street Interchange and the Cable Bridge
area of 10t Avenue. These two gateways are currently landscaped and are in excellent
condition, the first with low water and low maintenance requirements and the second with
nicely groomed trees and grass.
Page 8
Table 1. Existing Conditions by Corridor Segment
" i 3y
Corridors d 4 a / ±
.T j
Powedino Rd &Oad.00,-Road 52 A A NoA P L No. No lndusmal
Sandfur Pkwy Broadmoor-Road 68 C C.i C U C Yes P C 1 P Yes Commectat
Sandifur Pkwy jRoad 68-Road 44 P P P U P IV'a' _M i L- 2 No Yes Commerr:ial
Burden Blvd Read 6B-Road 36 _ _ C C C U C Yas MC C 2 P Yes Commercial
Chapel Hill Blvd Road$00-Road 64 P P T P U P !'Nii M L _ I No. .Yes_ Commercial
Chapel Hill Blvd Road 84-Road 68 -T A .,A U - NO M L t No.. Yoe Residential
Argent Rd Road 100-Road B4 A A. A Di P Yes P C 2 Yam I No Residential
Argent Rd Road 84•Road 88 -- �A A I A a A Yes P C 5 Yam j P Residential
Argent Rd_ Rmd 68-Road 52— A� A A (Y P Yes M M Yes! No-, Residential
Argent Rd ;Road 52-Road 38 P -A. A_ U A Yes M M Ya-1, P i Residential
Argent RdRgad 36-201h Ave P A ! A U P Yee M M Yes Yes j Residential
Court SI iRoad 100-Road 84 C'. A A ' 0" P Yea M M Done P P Residential
Court 31 Road 84-Aoad 66 !C P C PU' P Yes M M P P Residential
_ ._—....__.. _._ _ _—_._._.
Court SI Road 86-40th Ave _ l A A I_A_ O P Yea- P P i 22 Yee LP Cormnarcial
SI _ 4Wt Ave-26M Ave C P A O_ No P P i P `Yes f Commercial
------ I C P P O A ~No P -_M Commercial
��-- P�k Yea I
Court Sl 261h Ave•4th Ave _ _
Lewis SI _.. 2841 Ave-2011 Ave ! X C C • C U I - Yes P P P t Yes Commercial
Lewis SI _�2_0_t_h_Ave•171h Ave C t C C -`�ll�-t---P �- P -- P _Yes Commercial
Levas& 1' 711 Ave•1011 Ave P A _A U I Yes! P P _ Yea i Yes Commercial
Lewle SI - 1011 Ave•RR Tracks C A P 1 Q i Yss P -C P 2 P 'Yes Gommercial
Lewis SI RR Tracks•Cedar Ave ;-.0 C � C U P Yp P P �, P Yes Commereial
Lewis St Cedar Ave.Interchange X ' A A� P�U I P Yu P I P I I h No Yes Commercial
1011 Ave•Oregon Ave .....-_-.-_ t•C A ! A O A• {es M M 0_ 1 P Yss Residenlia!
'A"St Oregon Ave-Heritage Blvd_ P A A 0' A t e;i P -' M P �Yse. Commercial
'A'Sl -_---Horilage Blvd-US 12 _X A i A -j.-A _0'T A Yes I M M I : No Yes Commercial
Ainswgrlh Ave•-�.Ruil h Ave-Oregon Ava —_- P h A A I 0 I P yes P P No -!' industrial
Road 100 Sl-Argent Rd A..-; A I A Or I A Yu j P M 5 E No :�P Residential
Road 100 -IArgent Rd-Chapel Hill Blvd ( I P i P P �- -
f 0 P Yes P M 5 !Yam;Yes' Residential
Road 100 -_:Chapel Hill Blvd-Interchange X--�' A P r P__O P Yes P M ,l 2 {Ps's. Yea Commercial
Broadmoor Blvd Mtsrchange-Sandtur Pkwy _I X r A P P r U Yes P y—C-F I ! Yms.Yes. Commercial
Broadmoor Blvd hSandilur Pkwy.City Limits j 1 P P P U P No. P C r 1 No Yes- Commercial
Road 64 jArgellt Rd-Chapel Hill - I P P i P O P No M L 1 1 r No I P Residential
Road 88 ;Court St-Argent Rd 1�A A A -+O P E Yes r P P INo Ns.; Industrial
Road 68 :Argent Rd-Chapel Hilt Blvd A A_ A t O ! A s Yes. P P 5 j No j Yes 1 Commercial
' ..�I ..---�.--.-I.'-'- --t-__'--_
Road 68 --_-_jChapet Hill Blvd-Intertlang_e X A A A 0 A Yos I P P _ 5 No Yet i Commerdal
Road 68 T iIterchange-Burden Blvd j X C C U Yes to M 5 No :'Yes Commercial
Road 68 Burden Blvd-Sandifur Pkwy_---' '.' C C-L C Yn P P�. Yes f Commercial
Road 68 'Sandlur Pkwy-POwerline R d ? A A A j U AP ---M No Yes j Commercial
Road 52 ICourl St-Argent Rd_ ___ __ i a A�, A }•0 A Yes C C I No No Residernial
Road 52 I Burden Blvd•Sandifur Pkwy C_ 11 C C I U C No G L I No h Yes Residential
Road 52 i Sandifur Pkwy-Power ins Rd A .TA` U I - No I C L I No I P 1 Residential
A
Madison .Argent Rd-Burden Blvd r A. A A U ~No L No Yea. Residential
Road 44 T 'Burden Blvd-Sandifur Pkwy -_-- 0 I C A U P No C L NoTYea t�Resir]eniial_
Road 36 Argent Rd-Burden Blvd P P P~� O P_ No C C Nm_e_s: Industrial
ZOIh Ave River-Lewis SI I I P A ? A 1 U TA Yes' M C 0 No Yes Commercial
201h Ave_ .Lewis St-Court St_ C P P i PU•{ A .Yrs+1� P -P I P Yea-r: Residm6al
20Th Ave - ,Court SI-Intercharge�---i % G� A_ A ! IY P {Yes -�P L_ ��P i Yas l R.;al;ti.
201h Ave--- nrchange.Argent--_------_j X_ C ' C C t U A t y-PP P -�1 P Yes' Commercial
101h Ave iCable Bridge to Lewis S1 _ I_X__. C A� 'A O A No P _- yes I Commercial
r—'•`--'----- --' --'
4th A_re_ !Lewis St-Court St P P P U P -No P P P Yes' Commercial
4th Ave COUri S1-Interchange _ X : P P P U P Yes P I P Na cis Commercial
Oregon Ave IAlnsworth Ave-A SI 'A A A U A !Yes• P i P i 0 No Yes_ Industrial
_ .
Oregon Ave _IA Street-Lewis Street P No P P NO�Yms Industrial
Oregon Ave LeJ+EsSt-Interchange X l A ! P P U ' P ;.No.1 P i P No Yes I Commercial
Sidewalk C.Complele P-PaniaF A.Absent
Landscape C•CgmPlele P-Partial A-Abserhl
Trees C•COmplale P-Partial A.Absent
Overhead Power U-Underground PU•Partial Undergec O-Overhead'-Franklin PUD proposed location for convening overhead pov.er lines to w
Fence C•Complele P-Partial A-Absent
Bicycle Route YeS1No
Street Classification P•Principal,M-Minor•C-Collector,L-Local
YIP Project Rojedl Numbs,
Transit Route Yae1No
City Yes/No
Zoning Name
Land Use Name
z
CL
.a.w.a....1M.� � V
2
(Q
•_ i
ul
� 193Jtl11 1 -
qT
1 _
1 n
y1
oole , e
a
c
� j I
f j
i ss ovoa r I
f 1 1
f
Ly , I . .�.
Zq
LJ
l
1 :
j
„a=
; m to roOF��
a m c �n 0. €6w
�e a v O 3
oz
i u �• E a y t t c &ga
.J. w ..a ..;• ;' �' /� I � to � �8���
. . . es
A18 ; c
oeaoowavoae yp��� , . g
Taa—gg
m`d34�
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Opportunities and Priorities
Opportunities
Opportunities to improve the Corridors and Gateways identified in this Plan can be limited by
a number of factors including existing and future development, right-of-way availability,
maintenance needs, neighborhood coordination, funding and other constraints.
During the course of this planning effort legal advice was sought. The City's constitutionally
granted police powers provide for the regulation of landscaping incident to the development
of its rights-of-way. The City has the capacity to identify a specific district and establish
landscaping standards that are compatible with the city's vision for that area. The city has
absolute control over that area within its right of-way. In addition to sidewalk, curb, and
gutter, the city can require swates, parking strips, street trees, irrigation improvement, water
features, grass and other types of specifically designated vegetation. The City's authority to
control landscaping requirements beyond the City's property lines, however, is significantly
more limited, especially in developed neighborhoods. Voluntary agreements with property
owners could be pursued, but cannot be required.
Given the various constraints that will be encountered in the Corridors, there are two general
types of opportunities available for improving Corridors:
1) Some improvements wilt occur primarily by private development with coordination and
review/approval by the City, and
2) Other improvements will necessarily require the City to take the lead and coordinate
with private property owners along the corridor during the design phase.
Within each of these categories there are more specific improvement types that are
explained below. Figure 5 shows the corridors and gateways based on the general
opportunity types as well as indicating which corridors are complete and which are yet to be
created.
Private
New Development
Several corridors in the west Pasco area, north and south of 1-82, are generally undeveloped
or the current land use is agricultural in nature. They are likely to be improved or developed
privately in association with future growth. By and large these corridors have little or no
streetscape improvements with respect to sidewalks and landscaping.
Most of the streetscape improvements are likely to be made by private development in these
corridors, at least on one side of the street in association with the new development.
However, there are numerous locations along the corridor frontage where existing
development (primarily individual homes) is present adjacent to the undeveloped land.
Private landowners cannot be required to install streetscape improvements in these locations
unless in conjunction with redevelopment. Thus, when owners of private development will be
completing significant portions of the streetscape on one of the corridors, it may be in the
best interest of the City to work with adjacent property owners to expand on the private
project to complete a corridor segment with full streetscape improvements.
Page 11
i •% f
R.r.-.-...r.-...d C6
Z � �
CL
o m
US
r
r-,r,-,-i C
_ v
oA1633Vi1a3H V
i I�O a
w
0 0
i
a
..................
CL
N
1.. 3AYH N
1 l
N
i O 3 l
.r.r.r.r.l 3AV H10EN
1 �
i 9£rnroa
1 �
»avoa
zs ovoa ■mo6ieosa f(/ zs avoa 1
oc
a
a
i m
� z
r
1• r
i �. w
aoro z
l r ♦ 3
i �■ j HI voa
I/ t
i a w ll
1 1'J � C - Q N o a-�
V �
�r■ �/ t� d W ma�w�
'r. a �a wa
oovoae
rt o
M CL
ell M
E .� .� n
A
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Nan
City of Pasco
2008
Redevelopment
Current City Code Chapter 25.75 outlines the current minimum standards for landscaping and
screening. It also requires, for existing non-conforming commercial and industrial property,
that upon remodel or expansion exceeding 33% of the assessed value landscaping and
screening requirements of the code shall apply. Many of these types of corridors exist in the
central core of the City.
As these redevelopment opportunities present themselves, City staff must be diligent in
working with property owners to design and implement a consistent landscaping within that
corridor.
City Opportunity
Roadway Improvement Projects
The City regularly undertakes roadway improvement projects. Some projects will involve
roadway widening, others may be more maintenance related. Whenever the City anticipates
improvements on any of the corridors included in this Plan, it is recommended that
appropriate streetscape improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping be
incorporated into the design of the project and implemented during construction. It may also
be important to consider undergrounding utilities that may be in the corridor, or at least
placing conduit and vaults for future use. Adjacent property owners should be contacted as
necessary in order to secure adequate right-of-way to implement a reasonable scale of
improvements. Existing features of the corridor should be taken into account to create a
consistent appearance throughout the corridor.
Utilities
Electrical utilities are currently provided by the Franklin Public Utilities District (Franklin
PUD). The utility lines are located along nearly all of the corridors and consist of a mixture of
overhead and underground distribution lines with the majority of the lines being overhead.
The poles within some of these corridors are beginning to show age and are in need of repair.
The Franklin PUD has continually been replacing these poles with new ones. In addition to
the distribution lines a 115+ KV electric transmission line runs along a portion of Powerline
Road, Road 84, Court Avenue, and "A" Street. This is a high voltage line which cannot be
placed underground.
The Franklin PUD has expressed willingness to underground all utility tines which are in need
of repair rather than replacing the poles if the City were to pay the extra cost of
undergounding. The City has partnered in a few instances and this effort has cleaned up the
visual appearance of the corridors and has provided an opportunity for future landscaping
improvements. The City should establish a format agreement with the Franklin PUD that will
create a partnership to underground the tocal distribution power tines in the corridors
included in this Plan. The schedule can be determined by the Franklin PUD based on their
normal pole replacement program and safety needs.
Regarding landscaping in corridors where overhead power exists, it makes the most sense to
not install new landscaping in a corridor until after the powerlines have been placed
underground. Otherwise landscaping could be damaged or removed by the installation of
Page 13
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
underground utilities. Landscaping efforts would be best spent on those corridors where
power is already underground.
Areas of Existing Development
Some opportunities exist in areas where development is present but has little streetscape
improvement (sidewalk Ft landscaping) or consistency and the right-of-way is adequate for
improvements to be added. These corridors are typically found in the Central Core area
where development is present with limited building setbacks or right-of-way and would be
similar to the areas of Lewis Street which were recently updated.
In order to achieve a consistent corridor appearance and/or add landscaping on these
corridors, it will likely take a significant effort on the part of City staff to coordinate with
property owners along the corridor to achieve consensus on appropriate improvements. It
may be possible to enter agreements with property owners such that the City pays for the
landscaping and maintenance while the property owner pays for the installation of the
sidewalk where necessary.
Ideally, in order to bring this Plan to fruition, the City should consistently be working on
developing and implementing improvements in developed corridors that have adequate right-
of-way. One goal could be to design one corridor each year and implement it the following
year. It may take a year of working with property owners through neighborhood meetings to
come to an agreement that meets the approval of all.
Gateways
For those Gateways yet to be developed it will be necessary for the City to take the lead.
Right-of-way is for the most part already owned by the Washington State Department of
Transportation, thus the City will need to work with WSDOT to develop an agreement with
acceptable landscaping plans. The design plans should include low-water-usage and low-
maintenance design and integrate the native landscape vegetation of the Pasco area. As
described earlier in the Existing Conditions chapter, access for maintenance purposes should
be mitigated based on how Gateways are now defined such that only the outside of the
WSDOT interchange area along the off-ramps are anticipated to be landscaped.
Regarding implementation of the Gateway improvements, it is suggested that they be
completed at the same time as the corridor improvements of an adjacent corridor. In this
way any necessary irrigation could be extended with the adjacent corridor project.
Consideration for a "Welcome to Pasco" sign should be given in the overall context of the
Corridor and Gateway together (many of the existing welcome signs are actually placed at the
beginning of the next roadway segment). This implementation strategy should be able to be
achieved whether the adjacent corridor will be done by the private sector or by the City. In
the case of the private sector, the City may choose to assist using City funds. There are only
2 Gateways that can not be attached to a corridor project, and that would need to be carried
out independently because the adjacent corridors are already complete, namely 201h Avenue
and Road 68.
Priorities
In order to provide a focus for the expenditure of City staff time and funding , Corridor
segments that fall in the category of City Opportunities were prioritized using a process that
Page 14
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
considered the factors outlined below. A point system was developed and is presented in
Table 2. Priority segments are also shown in Figure 5.
• Segments with utilities already underground received higher priority because
landscaping could be implemented without later disturbing it to place utilities
underground.
• Segments with upcoming Transportation Improvement Program projects were given
higher priority in order to foster corridor improvements with other projects.
• Segments with partial corridor improvements (sidewalks, landscaping or trees) were
ranked higher in order to promote the completion of segments at lower costs.
• Transit routes were given priority, with those that have no sidewalks being
emphasized.
• Segments with significant adjacent developed property were given priority due to the
fact that there are fewer opportunities for private development to implement
improvements. Segments with available right-of-way were given additional priority
over those without.
• Corridor segments adjacent to Gateways were given priority to emphasize the
importance of entrances to the City. The 20th Avenue and Road 68 Gateways were
ranked independently because the adjacent corridors are complete.
• Roadway functional classification, bicycle routes and existing land use were also
considered giving priority to arterials, segments with bicycle routes and commercial
corridors.
It is recognized that some of the corridors may fall within the County island and as such City
funds could not be expended there. If a Corridor segment falling within the County is the
next highest priority, consideration of the improvements to undertake must account for this.
It may be prudent to skip that Corridor until it is annexed into the City.
Page 15
N m v Lo to n co
OD LO
�!�Olad N N N N N o n N m O
.- Id
Q O
elOd Jba w of LO 0 w to m w L v
464 c o
W/ V Fyi y `y a ° °
m m m4i d m m c O'
.o 0 m a o
o c
a` a a a O. 4 a` 4`
8 �' Y •� � z � = a . c Q o
R10 U U U U U U U Cl c c
a o
! eel N o 0 0 0 y ��o `o
^ a–
a�'CL c
6L!oo 2 ° � oo °n
N N N O O O U
a' U ^
c o 0
m o
N N N N N N C C 'd V 0
0n C 1fi
_ aln�b b °a
0-5
a
Ln N O
fj�S ! dl Jae!O,d 1 m o o
O 0 E c
d l l 1 0 = , s
O UO
1p n) - 1 c N
` a
N ° c) c,
d SAO/ 6{{ r_ al
EL all a d U � aa
eMOE/a �— —; -- N In N It co
N j 0 1 O N ! O N N ' O C O Oy7
CL 0
1D. 40410 didid d cLl ¢ Ia. m ma V
O dpe ;_ �_ � F U �
F m
0,10 on i u�l LO N to m N o .__ O> y
QI
I
ee�.( rl .-1 ^fi rlo � o � p
N I m
I—�-
Vftj'ovpT r ' r c 0 c °
c
CD
a°pleb
lt TII m �
1 --�-• I 2 N N N N to N
C y
�a ? E
m
CD
w
C: �(ff� c �
t (A = cG to Q}-p a m
2 v, Co
tD
H o m o > 0 CO
L V C J L Q f6 E
CD
p r tm. N
V a y c p
U Q Q Fz Q
c °
m Uj
> m GD °Q Q Q O ' m O
> O O O w co U
O
fd N S
Q Q :3 w my G y V m C
L L O O O p r-
v v 0 U 010 0 cc z a iz -A 140
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Pia
City of Pasco
2008
Corridor and Gateway Improvement Options
This chapter identifies improvement options for the Corridors and Gateways. These options
were developed by the Committee using the design options from the 1995 Plan and the
existing developed corridors as reference. Each option represents different variations of the
corridor improvements based on the right-of-way available.
The current Pasco Municipal Code has specific minimum requirements for landscaping and
sidewalks. The intent of the corridor design standards is to strengthen the current code
requirement and provide a more enhanced design than currently required. As a result these
options will provide a catalyst for what is desired when a corridor specific plan is prepared.
Some corridor specific plans include Road 100, Chapel Hill Boulevard, Burden Boulevard,
Sandifur Parkway and Broadmoor Boulevard.
Sidewalk- A 5-foot sidewalk (4.5 foot sidewalk with 6" curb) in residential areas and 7-
foot sidewalk (6.5 foot sidewalk with 6" curb) in Commercial areas is required along all
city streets as per chapter 12.04 of the Pasco Municipal Code. However many variations
of sidewalks including locations and design are not identified. The typical sidewalk
Location is directly adjacent to the street and curb. It has been identified by the
Committee that a separated sidewalk with a landscape strip in-between the curb and
sidewalk is preferred, although it is not always achievable. Due to right-of-way
constraints this may be the only option available. However, if possible, a wider sidewalk
should be considered to mitigate for pedestrian safety along the higher traffic volume
corridors.
Landscape planting strip trip - If adequate right-of-way is available, a landscape planting
strip is desired. Several variations exist combining grass, trees, and shrubs. While
specific design plans have not been prepared, it is desired to have a landscape strip
located both between the curb and sidewalk and behind the back of the sidewalk. This
wit[ give the best appearance, safety and functionality for pedestrians and provide an
aesthetically pleasing environment to the driver.
Many of the newly developed corridors within the City have already begun implementing
this idea by preparing specific design standards for each corridor. These corridors
include Road 100, Broadmoor Boulevard, Sandifur Parkway, and Burden Boulevard.
Another example is Lewis Street from 28`x' to 17th and from Oregon Avenue to Cedar
Street, where the City has implemented a corridor improvement project which
integrates this design concept while retrofitting it to the existing right-of-way.
Special consideration must be made for ease of maintenance. Some design options may
be more difficult to mow and maintain, depending on the width of the landscape strip
and location of trees and shrubs,. Mower width, access to grass edges, and other such
items should be considered in the design.
The improvement options below have been developed and are presented in order of
preference. The intent is to landscape the right-of-way beyond the sidewalk and to provide a
clean, consistent and maintained landscape pattern and theme along each corridor.
Therefore it is intended that each development identify and integrate landscaping materials
and patterns which currently exist. Within the central core the 1995 Plan may provide some
specific items for consideration when going to project level design.
Page 17
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Option 1: Sidewalk with grass strip and trees and shrubs
:� ', �` .,>K„ 'C,F_,tt 6RS'7_, ,�.t., �' -�`j C y ��r �5.. l, .y�" iri4-" j •.�
3
n :�t✓N.,">��c, x fyi3 3+� f"M-.:4 i' t 'P z 4
:r x
"
�f
_4.
yam...
t7
As shown above this design option is presently used for the Sandifur Parkway corridor
between Broadmoor Blvd and Road 68 and is the desired design option if right-of-way is
available. Specific details include a meandering sidewalk, multiple varieties of trees on both
sides of the sidewalk, fencing, and pockets of various shrubberies. This concept was
developed by city staff and has been incorporated into the Pasco Municipal Code as the
required landscaping for all development fronting Sandifur Parkway. This design provides the
best visual appearance with appropriate integration of grass, trees, and shrubs for minimal
maintenance required. Having a landscape strip between the sidewalk and the fencing is also
a benefit because full use of the sidewalk is available.
Page 18
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Option 2: Sidewalk with grass strip and landscaping on both sides of walk
= . 4' •"$,R? x",I( VIZ. I..
"iYgi ,2 ,L .�,r+n-` r..,w 5µt. v hs: �`r
ON
�....k��Yf. ��.,7. .q i'(':.
r�
It is the intent of this Plan to landscape the entire corridor right-of-way. As shown in the
images above this option is similar to Option 1, but does not have shrubbery. Two important
features of this option are the increased security for the pedestrian and the buffer area
provided between the residential uses and the roadway. When using this option the
landscape width and tree location should be carefully considered. These two issues could
have significant impact on the amount of maintenance required for the corridor.
Page 19
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Ptan
City of Pasco
2008
Option 3: Sidewalk with landscape planting strip
'3
This option is desired as a minimum if right-of-way is available for landscaping. This provides
for pedestrian safety as well as a consistent landscape pattern along the corridor segment.
Depending on the width of the available right-of-way for the landscape strip, it is
recommended that instead of having an extra wide landscape strip between the sidewalk and
curb the landscape strip should be split up to provide a grass buffer between the sidewalk and
fence. This will improve the functionality of a sidewalk with multiple uses.
Another issue to consider is the location of the sidewalk. As shown in the second photo above
some physical features of the corridor may limit the ability to cost effectively separate the
sidewalk from the street. For instance on Lewis Street, the topography limited the ability to
have a separated sidewalk so a modified design option was used.
Page 20
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
option 4: Sidewalk with trees
i
tk y S 1
U7J
!°•w 4 f Yom+ '.�.! ;�' - 1
Wa 1
M1iF1,1
1
k n%
�n
Some corridors within the City currently have trees integrated into the sidewalk. This option
provides for some landscaping where right-of-way is limited. It has been identified by the
Committee that this option should be avoided due to maintenance issues.
Due to the compaction of the soil surrounding roadbed and sidewalk and the limited water
source available it is very hard for a tree to survive in these conditions and spread out its
roots. Also, as the trees mature the roots can cause continued destruction to the sidewalk
including cracking and buckling. if this option is used a tree box should be considered to
improve the health of the tree and reduce the destruction of the sidewalk.
Page 21
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Option 5: Sidewalk with shrubs
g �, ,i�%t �•f... .'yak
o
i.. "��'M:f
�.�;r-�•c��""•a t � 's.P' '-- � c*,"F�@°rY."+�•s• .6+3.:4 ,,.� �"�'
r .,�i k` �� ,h .,yn,s .b_y� efi 65,x;r� `v,o,:'s```' �.�•.E
A
This option has not been recommended by the Committee as a design option to promote
within the right-of-way. Due to the off-season maintenance required from weeding, pruning,
spraying and litter cleanup this option could have a significant impact to the staffing of the
parks and recreation maintenance crew. This option is better than sidewalk alone or
undeveloped right-of-way.
Page 22
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
option 6: Sidewalk only (Not Desired)
i
x
*.;.
I - ._ .., Not Desired
Yc9. N`r ,�tlP"
rf
Better
This option is undesired by the Committee and is recommended to only be used if adequate
right-of-way is unavailable. As a possible mitigation a wider sidewalk should be considered in
order to improve pedestrian safety along the corridor. The City should also coordinate with
adjacent landowners to improve the landscaping fronting the right-of-way.
For example, as shown in the second photo above, 20th Avenue north of 1-182, this section has
a sidewalk located adjacent to the curb, but beyond the sidewalk outside of the right-of-way
the landscaping is consistent throughout the corridor segment with similar design of grass and
trees.
Page 23
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2068
Option 7: Pathway with landscaping
1�
xmr
p w
�� J e•. �NYrW.�`rr
n ,T-0f.r ,3" ah Y ♦fi Y"'.A Y'��A � i, � � t r
,;s�i°�
s.•x::'`..i-,. .';I L.:a'.v...bi'ti.'1.i4'n'tir_'1:..�r!�i,!>,a•'f:Al:.e. -
In some areas with high recreation opportunities and future connections to other
multipurpose pathways this option may be more appropriate. Some benefits to a
multipurpose path include cheaper construction cost and provision of a wider pathway
accommodating multiple user types (bike, pedestrian, stroller, etc...). The city-proposed
bikeway and pathway map should be consulted when considering which corridor segments
should be developed as pathways. Landscaping along the pathway should be consistent with
the Parks and Recreation Department standards for pathways.
Page 24
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Ptan
City of Pasco
2008
Option 8: Low Maintenance
°. fib.
IF
4 'A ky°'IS � � ..w�, �[`^4 Yom' C 'y.�"P 'n}.• F�F4 i ;1 � ''"•. :
m t�j°i V}i.1'��,t+"'.yti.,+x �t .�45� �+• :9 �.� Y-y�, t.�c'�'` ,: ..;,,�� "'�+t•
tyt7`,:.r.�p;,.;{,BR ,�' ,. '�M •tit+_ '^• '"1r. ';> •t:;'_
p
f'
As noted earlier within the plan the Gateway areas have unique constraints limiting the
amount and type of landscaping options available. These constraints consist of limited water,
steep slopes, limited access, weather and coordination with the Washington State
Department of Transportation. Due to these issues, it was noted by the Committee that the
desired treatment along the more remote Gateway entrances where water may not be
available should be drought resistant plants native to the Pasco area which require limited
maintenance.
The plant type should be carefully selected in order to limit the amount of maintenance
needed for litter patrol, pruning, weeding, and spraying.
Page 25
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Policy Guidance
Existing Policies
City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan (2007) - Volume I Goals Et Policies
TR-3. GOAL: BEAUTIFY THE MAJOR STREETS OF THE CITY.
TR-3-A Policy: incorporate extensive tree and landscape planting into alt
major arterial and collector streets as they are constructed.
TR-3-B Policy: institute retrofit projects that include significant
landscaping on major arterial streets.
Pasco Municipal Code
The Pasco Municipal Code currently addresses street improvements and
sidewalks, landscaping and screening including: design standards; the 1-182
Corridor Overlay District; special design standards for Sandifur Parkway,
Broadmoor Boulevard, Chapel Hill Boulevard, and Oregon Avenue;
maintenance; and fencing, under sections 25.58.010, 25.75, and 26.12.030.
Corridor and Gateway Policies
The policies below are categorized to provide both general and descriptive guidance. A
statement on the purpose or rationale follows each policy.
1. City Responsibility
1.1.City shall monitor development/redevelopment along each corridor to take
advantage of potential improvement opportunities and ensure that development
proposals fulfill appropriate landscaping and sidewalk requirements.
Y In order to provide a consistent design throughout each corridor, the City needs to
review each new development proposal (building permit, site plan, binding site
plan, etc.) that abuts a corridor included in this Plan. The suggested
improvements should include landscaping and accomplish the intents of this Plan
to the extent possible.
1.2.City shall work with property owners to determine appropriate improvements.
During the implementation process of this plan the City will encounter many
properties already developed but which do not reflect the corridor improvements
described by this plan. As part of this policy, it should be the City's responsibility
to work with adjacent landowner to identify reasonable and appropriate
improvements consistent with the desired corridor character.
1.3.Private improvements shall be done anticipating full ROW width requirements.
Improvements such as buildings, fences, paved areas, etc. become impediments to
beautification efforts when located within future right-of-way acquisition and
landscape improvement areas. The City should ensure that such developments are
located outside future right-of-way and landscape improvement areas.
Page 26
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
1.4.Corridor improvements should be incorporated into roadway projects within the
ROW of each corridor.
Various projects will be done within the ROW of each corridor by the City, private
developers, or utility companies. The City needs to develop a process, including
interdepartmental review, which reviews each project and determine what could
be done as part of the project to apply the standards and polices of the Corridor
Plan. Accomplishment of this plan will depend greatly on the City's commitment
and level of annual funding. Much can be accomplished at little cost to the City
when done in conjunction wit new development.
Redeveloping corridors within the older part of the City (or where development
already exists) will require more financial participation and associated
commitment from the City. Undergrounding of overhead utilities will likely
depend greatly on the City's willingness to commit to a financial partnership with
the PUD.
1.5.Adequate ROW within each corridor should be acquired during roadway and
development projects to provide for appropriate future corridor improvements.
Some of the corridors do not have adequate ROW for suggested improvements.
Adequate ROW should be acquired when developmentl redevelopment occurs
throughout the corridors. This effort could be facilitated through the
Transportation Planning process coordinating future roadway capacity needs with
landscaping objectives.
1.6.Landscaping and sidewalk improvements within the ROW should strive to be
consistent with the corridor plan options, to the extent practicable.
It is the intent of this plan to identify suggestions for preferred corridor
improvements for each corridor segment. In order to realize on aesthetically
pleasing environment throughout each corridor in the City, it is important to
provide a consistent landscape for each segment with a smooth transition from
segment to segment. Variations from the defined options should be used only to
the extent required by unusual circumstances (topography, right-of-way width,
etc.).
1.7.All other landscaping and sidewalk improvements outside of the ROW shall be
consistent with the City of Pasco Landscaping Ordinance.
The City of Pasco currently has a Landscaping Ordinance which identifies
improvement requirements outside of the ROW for residential, commercial and
industrial land uses. All landscaping within this area shall be consistent and
integrated into the Corridor plan.
2. Sidewalks
2.1.A sidewalk separated from the curb with a landscaped strip in-between is
preferred.
As mentioned in the City of Pasco Municipal Code, all new sidewalk improvements
are required to be separated from the curb. The purpose of this is to provide
both an aesthetically pleasing environment to the driver and a sense of safety for
the pedestrian. in some locations where ROW constraints exist, it may be very
costly or nearly impossible to separate the sidewalk.
Page 27
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
2.2.If a sidewalk must be located adjacent to the curb, additional width should be
required to provide pedestrian safety.
Since the corridors included in this plan have higher traffic volumes, extra
sidewalk width along the corridor will allow pedestrians improved safety and
comfort from the edge of curb when walking along the sidewalk and allow for
adequate space while passing other pedestrians.
2.3.A sidewalk should be placed on both sides of corridors. Exceptions may be
considered in areas of low pedestrian traffic where long stretches are not likely
to develop or in industrial areas.
➢ Sidewalk placement along both sides of the street will decrease the number of
pedestrians crossing the corridor to get to a pedestrian path and will provide
visual balance in the corridor and increase the connectivity for pedestrian
activity. In relatively few cases because of the industrial nature of a corridor
where development may not occur, a path/sidewalk on one side of the street may
be acceptable to reduce costs. However landscaping on such property would still
be appropriate.
2.4.The City shall coordinate with existing developed property owners adjacent to
developing properties to incorporate additional corridor improvements with new
developments. (Landscaping at City expense, sidewalk at property owner
expense.)
As new development and redevelopment occurs some corridors will see significant
portions of the corridor improvement completed by individual development
projects. Other portions of the corridor without existing sidewalks may be
developed already with limited redevelopment potential. In order to create
continuity throughout the corridor, the City may, if it deems appropriate, extend
sidewalk improvements to a logical conclusion through existing developed
frontage.
3. Landscaping
3.1.Landscaping along each corridor segment should be as consistent as possible (i.e.
if neighboring development is complete, similar characteristics should be
included in design of new developments).
Because the intent of the corridor plan is to provide a clean and consistent feel
throughout each corridor, it is important that each corridor be constructed to the
some standard. Since some corridors segments are already partially created, new
development will need to match or coordinatel transition with existing. if a
development is the first one to develop along a corridor segment they may pick a
landscaping option that is consistent with the design criteria identified in this
plan. It should be noted that the City and developer should work together to
choose a design which can be appropriately implemented and maintained for the
entire segment with minimal variation.
3.2.If ROW is available, landscaping should be provided on both sides of the
sidewalk.
This policy statement epitomizes the intent of this plan. Where possible within
the ROW constraints and existing development limitations, the ideal situation for
any given corridor would be to provide curb, gutter, landscape strip, sidewalk and
Page 28
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
additional landscape strip, then fence/wolf where appropriate. This gives the
best appearance, safety, and functionality for pedestrians. This would be similar
to Sandifur Parkway between Road 68 and Road 100 as well as the east side of
Road 100 near Chapel Hill.
3.3.As adjacent private property is developed, the landscaping shall be designed to
seamlessly integrate with the Corridor landscaping for that block.
The City recognizes that corridor landscape designs do not always match the
existing landscaping on adjacent private properties. As building permits are
obtained, required landscaping should smoothly transition into the adjacent
corridor landscape design.
3.4.The city should encourage private property owners to match their landscape
designs to the City standard for their block. The City may assist commercial
property owners who match their landscape plan to the City plan by offering a
joint landscape maintenance program.
r The intent of this policy is to encourage private participation through incentives
that promotes the landscape option chosen for a corridor without patchwork
effects.
4. Utilities
4.1.All overhead utilities (excluding 115+ kV electric transmission lines) should be
converted to underground.
r The visual effect of the landscape effort envisioned by the Corridors Plan can be
undermined by the existence of overhead electrical/telephone lines and poles.
Placing these utilities underground can dramatically improve the finished
appearance of the landscape improvements and should be accomplished to the
greatest extent possible. The City and the PUD have coordinated on some corridor
improvements in the recent past and should develop a definitive plan to place
distribution (but not transmission) lines underground in all corridors identified in
this plan.
4.2.Conduit for power and associated vaults should be installed during street
improvements if overhead power is not to be relocated underground as part of
the immediate project.
Due to budget constraints and timing, some overhead utility relocation may not
be completed at the time of a street improvement. However, any conduit or
vaults which will ease the underground conversion of the utility at a later date
should be considered and included with the project as appropriate. This will
assist in future corridor improvements and require coordination with various staff
to integrate corridor design options into future projects.
5. Gateway
5.1.City shall coordinate with Washington State Department of Transportation on
implementation of appropriate gateway treatments.
Due principally to state funding constraints, WSDOT's policy generally avoids
landscape improvements in the sate highway interchange areas (which also
represent gateways to the city). To the extent the City desires to improve the
designated gateways, the City will need to actively pursue an agreement with
Page 29
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
WSDOT to define the treatment options acceptable to both parties. The City
should expect to bear the majority of costs of any treatment options, including
maintenance.
5.2.Gateway improvements should consist of low maintenance and low water
usages.
Due to the difficult access and terrain and the limited ability to provide water to
the gateway areas, it is recommended that a low-water-usage and low-
maintenance design plan be developed for these gateways. It should integrate the
native landscape vegetation of the Pasco area. Most of the gateway improvements
should be focused around the entrance into the adjacent corridor. The US
395 1Lewis Street Interchange area is a good example of this concept. Grass may
be an option for landscape treatment where safe access for maintenance
personnel and irrigation are available.
5.3.A large scale "Welcome to Pasco" sign should be considered as part of each
gateway near the entrance to the City in conjunction with landscape
improvements.
As identified in the 1995 Gateway and Corridor Pion a welcoming sign as you enter
the City should be considered. These signs should be placed at a location visible
along the adjacent corridor segment as you enter the City.
5.4.Where possible, gateway improvements shall be incorporated as an extension of
applicable corridor improvements.
Due to the limited amount of gateway improvements it is recommended that the
improvements to each gateway be completed in conjunction with adjacent
corridor improvement projects. As described in Policy 5.2 gateway improvements
are recommended to be focused around the entrance to the corridor so it is easily
visible as on extension of this improvement.
5.5.Improvements for the 201h Avenue and Road 68 gateways should be pursued by
the City independently of a corridor improvement extension.
Corridors adjacent to these two gateways are currently enhanced or completed,
thus the improvements to these gateways will need to be pursued separately by
the City for implementation. All other gateways con be improved in conjunction
with the adjacent corridor project.
6. Maintenance
6.1.Maintenance of the landscaping area within each corridor ROW should be carried
out by the City.
7 The proper maintenance of a landscaped corridor is equally important as its
installation. Well-maintained corridors convey a sense of competence and caring
in a community, while poorly-maintained landscaped corridors send the opposite
message, thereby defeating the purpose of the landscape initiative.
6.2.Design of landscape areas shall consider ongoing City maintenance requirements
including width of grass strips, variation of tree species, placement of
shrubbery, irrigation systems, and any other landscape maintenance related
issue.
Page 30
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
➢ Since the intent is for the City to maintain the landscaped area within the ROW,
appropriate design standards should be considered. For instance, the width of the
lawn mower should be considered to avoid a narrow strip requiring an extra pass
with a mower. Curbing along a fence line would provide a clean edge and simplify
mowing. Placement and variety of trees should be appropriately planned.
➢ Use of shrubs should be minimized in order to limit the amount of maintenance
required from weeding, pruning, spraying, and litter cleanup. Grass and trees
have been found to be easier to maintain than shrubs.
7. Funding
7.1.City shall provide adequate and predictable funding to implement and maintain
corridor and gateway improvements.
Accomplishment of this plan will depend greatly on the City's commitment and
level of annual funding. Much can be accomplished at little cost to the City when
done in conjunction with new development. Redeveloping corridors within the
older part of the City (or were development already exists) will require more
financial participation and associated commitment from the City. Undergrounding
of overhead utilities will likely depend greatly on the City's willingness to commit
to a financial partnership with the PUD.
8. Priority
8.1.City staff shall work to implement corridor improvements, beginning at the
highest priority corridor as defined below as funds allow annually.
➢ Funding available for corridor improvements should be prioritized in order to
leverage resources and provide direction to this effort.
8.2.Highest priority should be for corridor and gateway improvements included with
roadway projects in the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
➢ All projects which will be redesigning or widening a roadway as part of the City's
TiP should incorporate the corridor landscape improvements. it is recognized that
the budgets of these TIP projects may not allow for the installation of the
corridor improvements. The City should nevertheless include the landscape
design into the overall roadway design so that the corridor improvements can be
installed at a later date with minimal conflict. Preferably, funding from this
program could augment road projects to complete the corridor.
8.3.High priority should be given to projects where electrical distribution lines have
been undergrounded.
The undergrounding of overhead utilities is a major portion of improving a
corridor aesthetically. As stated above, the City and the PUD should develop a
definitive plan to place distribution (but not transmission) lines underground in
all corridors identified in this plan.
8.4.High priority should be given to extend corridor improvements in conjunction
with private development (or redevelopment) to complete or maximize half
street improvements on corridor segments.
➢ As private development occurs along corridor segments the City should work to
assist existing developed properties in finalizing the corridor design for the
segment. For instance if a developer is improving three-fourths of a corridor
Page 31
DRAFT Corridors and Gateways P{an
City of Pasco
2008
segment as part of their project and the remaining one-fourth is existing
development with no corridor improvements the City should work with the new
development and existing landowners to complete the improvement for the entire
segment.
8.5.The next level of priority should focus on determining and implementing
appropriate improvements for the Corridor segments identified in the Table
"City High Opportunity Potential Priority Ranking".
Several corridors will not have private development impetus for the provision of
improvements. The City will need to be proactive in pursuing sidewalk and
landscaping improvements in these corridors. A priority ranking was developed to
give direction to those corridors needing significant City effort. Corridor
segments were ranked based on leveraging other types of funding such as roadway
projects, private development or utilities. Other consideration was given to
completing corridors that have existing components that will be easier to provide
a complete segment and also highest improvement potential for pedestrians and
transit users.
Page 32
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council November 5, 2008
FROM: Gary Crutchfiel anager Workshop Mtg.: 11/10/08
Regular Mtg.: 11/17/08
SUBJECT: Ambulance Service Agreement with Walla Walla District No. 5
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter to City Manager from D. Hultgrenn, dated 6/24/08
3. Proposed Interlocal Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11110: Discussion
11/17: MOTION: I move to approve the interlocal agreement for provision of
ambulance services to Walla Walla Fire Protection District No. 5
and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
General Fund: $24,000 annual revenue
Ambulance Service Fund: estimated $70,000 annual revenue
Unknown additional expenses (fuel, overtime, medical supplies)
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Walla Walla Fire Protection District No. 5 provides fire and emergency medical
services to the Burbank area of western Walla Walla County (see vicinity map).
District staff provides Basic Life Support (BLS) and Intermediate Life Support
(ILS) emergency service, but has no paramedic service or Advance Life Support
(ALS), capacity. For the past several years, it has relied on "AMR" (private
ambulance service) for ALS service to the District. As AMR is not always
available for District ALS incidents (AMR responds to a variety of calls
throughout the Tri-Cities area), the District has requested Pasco consider
provision of ALS service to the District(see letter).
B) Staff has negotiated a proposed interlocal agreement whereby the city would
provide ALS ambulance service to the District. The proposed agreement is
similar to the agreement between Pasco and Franklin County Fire District No. 3,
which has been in place for more than 10 years.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The proposed agreement essentially mirrors the Franklin County Fire-District No.
3 agreement except that Pasco will only respond to those incidents in Walla Walla
District 5 which are deemed by Walla Walla Dispatch (or the initial District
response) to require paramedic service (ALS); under the agreement with Franklin
County Fire District No. 3, the city provides automatic ambulance response to any
medical emergency called through Franklin County dispatch. Walla Walla
District No. 5 has experienced an average of about 120 such calls annually, or
about two per week; this compares to a current ambulance call volume of about 50
per week in the city and Franklin County District No. 3 combined.
4(c)
B) The agreement provides compensation in two forms: 1) an annual contract fee of
$24,000 paid by the District to the city; 2) city authority to bill users (patients) of
the ambulance service. The annual contract fee is necessary in consideration of
the $420,000 "contribution" to the ambulance service budget required by law to
come from the city's general taxes; without such a contract fee Pasco taxpayers
would be making its ambulance service available to an outside jurisdiction "free."
The billing of users is essential to assure recovery of a portion of the transport
cost, as determined by the rate analysis used to establish the city's billing rates.
The rates charged to users will be the same charge applied to any other user not
residing in Pasco (those not paying the monthly ambulance utility fee). Expected
revenue to the Ambulance Service Fund (approximately $70,000 annually) should
exceed additional costs associated with the provision of the additional service
responsibility.
C) In view of the financial commitments of the District in exchange for the service
obligations accepted by the city, staff recommends Council approval of the
agreement.
i �)� �-'.}",.y:.'r 'T-.a}. y 1'-�� �.,'.yls•.!:R::�.,��b' r A•�: ,..-
w Ix
PKA
`•ne"?;rf t: ;.-•: i ;� :"s�:a�'3. ,::: i .;:e:g.�.. ..yam.,..•:..... .:
Q�Syr` wey,.���� �xs
"��^�Q. '.i� r�".:ue. .�Y'`'�)t. >:'9a:tf ii� •'�<i'.'?s :lr ':iy,:.
r.'
•C
p
1f, Ay •1i• yl,te: Q tC'1 Nr�hj 5i2 r l '� },`+{ "'1yt +�-•• ,
x 4r
co Z
'•fn'A•'a:Y..'�.7E `A yco
�i •, ? N '� � a• 4 1 X� pa•Ci'' � •
.'>�y'r'�sr y� � (O � ,�,���y,", ., .N• !$ -Yrtrh"t�#f.r.�'• .� �, x .
f6 L
��� T A S.s.r..,� �.'•{:•E'nri�k,.fy� �u .I ( A I f�,
'cag+pyy
r.
,jp'9 Haney Rd...
co
LL _• 'fir•-',a
`�f� W tir•
�....... -
rill a c ro
fV
OV
._dSV1.9
k :!I
Ug
'ref }I d• e a''.;:Sr
q;i 4 y
a:. �X I � 'F.:
�5p rYI.
'r"� N N FS: '^��^�'ee t r� r�k�1a _ � ''fit,� _ •4 fifi�� s
jb Cc
ilk
V..;
lip
LL
Ai
Q [`
F /
KUFFEL, HULTGRENN9 KLASHKE & SHEA, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1915 Sun Willows Blvd PO Box 2368 Pasco WA 99302 (509) 545-8531 FAX(509) 545-3019
SM
t
June 24, 2008
Gary Crutchfield
City of Pasco
E
P. O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
Re: AILS Service to Walla Walla County Fire Protection District No. 5
Dear Gary:
As I indicated in our meeting yesterday, Walla Walla County Fire Protection
District No. 5 is interested in exploring the possibility of entering into a contract
with the City of Pasco for the City to provide ALS coverage to the residents of the
District. The District currently runs BLS, and ALS service is furnished by others.
The District would suggest that a contract be entered into similar to the current
contract the City has with Franklin County Fire Protection District No. 3, except
that Walla Walla County Fire Protection District No. 5 would only require the City
to respond to incidents in which advanced life support/paramedic level services
are necessary. Over the past four years the District has averaged 117 calls per
year necessitating ALS. Based upon the current compensation paid by Franklin
3, the District would propose to pay the City of Pasco $17,000.00 annually and
would expect annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index.
Thank you for your consideration of the District's proposal.
Very truly yours,
KUFFEL, HULTGRENN,
KLAS & SHEA, LLP
Dan F. ultgrenn
DFH:ch
cc: Commissioners
Bryan Bauer
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
City of Pasco and Walla Walla County Fire Protection District No. 5
BY THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT entered into this
day of , 2008, between the City of Pasco, Washington, a Washington Municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Walla Walla County Fire Protection District
No. 5, a Washington Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Fire District," as
authorized by Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, enter into the following
Agreement:
WHEREAS, the Fire District has heretofore determined that there is not an existing
private ambulance service available to adequately provide for "911" dispatched emergency
medical transport with Advanced Life Support(ALS) services to the District; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire District is authorized pursuant to RCW 52.12.031 to enter into an
agreement with the City to provide emergency medical transport services to the residents of the
Fire District; and,
WHEREAS, the City is authorized pursuant to RCW 35A.18.010 to provide emergency
medical transport services by agreement to other jurisdictions; and,
WHEREAS, the parties have determined that the rendering of emergency ALS medical
transport services by the City to the Fire District, under the terms provided below, is in the best
interest of the health, safety, and welfare of both the residents of the City and the Fire District;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
Interlocal Agreement
City of Pasco&Walla Walla Fire District No. 5
Page 1 of 5 Revised 10/24/2008
SECTION ONE
PURPOSES
The City shall make available emergency ALS medical transport services to the Fire
District for the benefit of those requiring emergency ALS medical transport services within the
Fire District's boundaries more particularly described on the map attached as Exhibit "A".
Emergency medical transport services shall include vehicles and personnel appropriately
equipped, manned and trained, meeting all City, State and Federal licenses necessary for the
performance of services set forth in Section Two.
SECTION TWO
LEVEL OF SERVICES
The City shall make available emergency ALS/Paramedic transport services within that
portion of the territorial boundaries of the Fire District as illustrated in Exhibit "A" on a 24-hour
per day, 7 days a week basis. The same level, priority and resources shall be extended to a call
located within the Fire District as a call located within the City limits; provided, however, the
Fire District shall bear full responsibility to determine whether an incident within its boundary
requires ALS service. In such event, the Fire District shall advise Walla Walla County Dispatch
with instructions to contact Franklin County Dispatch for emergency service from the city. The
City will respond under the terms of this agreement only through emergency dispatch by
Franklin County.
The City shall provide personnel certified to ALS/Paramedic level at all times as defined
in Chapter 18.71 RCW, to all trauma incidents, and medical problems where there is a potential
loss of life (including but not limited to all mass-casualty incidents, multi-patient incidents,
cardiac emergencies, pediatric emergencies, obstetrical emergencies, airway emergencies,
seizures, poisonings, overdoses, diabetic emergencies, back pain, chest pain and bum
emergencies), except those occasional situations where all ALS/Paramedics are committed to
other EMS emergencies. The City shall maintain a paramedic at its Oregon Avenue station at all
times, except those occasional situations where the City is prevented from doing so due to
illness, vacations or Kelly days of assigned paramedics.
Interlocal Agreement
City of Pasco&Walla Walla Fire District No. 5
Paee 2 of 5 Revised 10/24/2008
SECTION THREE
FUNDING
The Fire District shall pay to the City the sum of TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($24,000.00) annually, payable in two installments of TWELVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($12,000.00) each due June 1 and December 1 of each year, and the City shall be
entitled to charge and collect an emergency medical transport service fee to users or patients of
the City's service within the Fire District and the City shall assume all responsibility for the
billing and collection of such fees. Such fees and charges shall not exceed the City's "non-
resident ambulance service charges"as established by City ordinance or resolution.
After the Agreement has run for the first full year and any succeeding one (1) year
period, the annual fee paid by the Fire District shall be increased in accordance with the
following procedure. The annual fee paid by the Fire District in the most-recent year (current
fee) shall be multiplied by a factor equal to the percentage change for the 12-month October
Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Pacific Cities, West-B/C, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The resulting product shall
be added to the current annual fee to establish the annual fee for the succeeding contract year.
SECTION FOUR
TERM OF AGREEMENT
The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the I" day of January 2009 and
terminate on the 31" day of December, 2011. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed
for successive one-year terms thereafter, unless terminated by either party upon a one-year
advanced written notice to the other party.
Interlocal Agreement
City of Pasco&Walla Walla Fire District No. 5
Pap-e 3 of 5 Revised 10/24/2008
SECTION FIVE
INDEMNIFICATION
The City and the Fire District shall defend, indemnify and hold each other harmless from
any claims, damages, causes of action, or judgments arising from, or as a direct result of the
negligent or intentional acts of its respective agents, employees, or officers.
SECTION SIX
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT PROVISION
All vehicles, equipment, inventory and any improvements thereto shall remain the sole
property of the City. All personnel utilized by the City in the fulfillment of this Agreement shall
be solely within the supervision, direction and control of the City and shall not be construed as
"loan servants" or employees of the Fire District. All funding, incident to the fulfillment of the
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement, shall be the sole responsibility of the City and no special
budget or funds are anticipated nor shall be created. It is not the intention that a separate legal
entity be established to conduct the cooperative undertaking nor is the acquiring, holding, or
disposing of real or personal property anticipated. The City Fire Chief shall be designated as the
Administrator of this Interlocal Cooperative Agreement.
SECTION SEVEN
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Should any dispute arise
concerning the enforcement, breach or interpretation of this Agreement, the parties shall first
meet in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event the dispute is not resolved, it
shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, and the Mandatory
Rules of Arbitration (MAR); and venue shall be placed in Franklin County, Washington, the
laws of the State of Washington shall apply, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to its
reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Interlocal Agreement
City of Pasco&Walla Walla Fire District No. 5
Pase 4 of 5 Revised 10/24/2008
SECTION EIGHT
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. All
items incorporated by reference are attached. No other understanding, verbal or otherwise, in
regards to the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be deemed to exist. Any modifications to
this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties to be effective.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement by the duly authorized officers on the day and year first written above.
City of Pasco Walla Walla County Fire District No. 5
A
B >l
Y• .
Joyce Olson, Mayor
Interlocal Agreement
City of Pasco&Walla Walla Fire District No. 5
Page 5 of 5 Revised 10/24/2008