HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.05.07 Council Meeting PacketAGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 7, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be
no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public,
the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately.
(a) Approval of Minutes:
1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 16, 2012.
(b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance
Manager's office.)
1. To approve General Claims in the amount of $1,510,062.55 ($128,187.97 in the form of
Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 9798, 9864, 9919 and 9929; and $1,381,874.58 in the form of
Wire Transfer Nos. 1194, 1195, 1198, 1199, 1200 and 1202; and Claim Warrants numbered
187438 through 187708).
2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $2,087,990.51,Voucher Nos. 43912 through
43995 and 80140 through 80149; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30051245 through 30051790.
(c) Appointments to Historic Preservation Commission: (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON
AGENDA)
To reappoint Marilynn Baker to Position No. 3 and appoint Tom Brandon to Position No. 4 (both
with the expiration date of 8/1/2015), and to appoint Devi Tate to Position No. 5 (expiration date
of 8/I/13) to the Historic Preservation Commission.
(d) Resolution No. 3395, a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2889 and authorizing the
establishment of a program to improve the facades of buildings located in the downtown area of
Pasco.
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated May
1, 2012.
2. Proposed Resolution.
To approve Resolution No. 3395, revising Resolution No. 2889, authorizing a program to
improve the facades of buildings located in downtown Pasco.
(e) Resolution No. 3396, a Resolution establishing recreation facility rental and aquatics use fees.
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
April 19, 2012.
2. Proposed Resolution.
3. Resolution No. 3225.
To approve Resolution No. 3396, establishing Recreation Facility Rental and Aquatics Use Fees.
(f) Resolution No. 3397, a Resolution reallocating estimated 2012 Federal HOME Funds.
1. Agenda Report from Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator dated April 30, 2012.
2. Resolution Reallocating 2012 HOME funds.
To approve Resolution No. 3397, reallocating 2012 HOME Funds.
(g) Resolution No. 3398, a Resolution acknowledging the Tri- Cities Rivershore Enhancement
Master Plan.
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated April 20, 2012.
2. Propnsed Resolution.
To approve Resolution No. 3398, acknowledging the Tri- Cities Rivershore Enhancement Master
Plan.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Commut Agenda as read,
Regular Meeting 2
May 7, 2012
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
(a) Presentation of Proclamation for "National Police Week" and "Peace Officers' Memorial
Day." Mayor Matt Watkins to present Proclamation to Bob Metzger, Chief of Police, Pasco
Police Department.
5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
(b)
(c)
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
*(a) Franchise Agreement — LightSpeed Networks.
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated April 9, 2012.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Proposed Franchise Agreement.
4. LightSpeed Networks Proposed Locations.
5. LightSpeed Networks Fact Sheet.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
*(b) Franchise Agreement — Northwest Open Access Network - NoaNet.
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated April 9. 2012,
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Proposed Franchise Agreement.
4. NoaNet Proposed Route.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
Q *(c) Street Vacation (MF #VAC2011 -008) Excess East Lewis Place Right -of -Way.
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated April 30, 2012.
2. Overview Map.
3. Vicinity Map.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION: 1 move to deny the proposed vacation.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Q *(a) Rezone Appeal (MF #SP2012 -001): R -1 and C -1 to R -3 on N. Charles Avenue (Pasco Family
Housing).
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated April 30, 2012.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Binder Containing the Hearing Record.*
4, Proposed Ordinance.
*(Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco
Library or on the City's webpage at httu:// www.l) asco- wa. eov/ ,i�eneralinfo /citycouncilrgports).
CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING
Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the zoning
classification of property located in Block 2 and 3, Whitehouse Addition from R -1 (Low Density
Residential) to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) with a Concomitant Agreement.
MOTION: l move to adopt Ordinance ; re7xining tlac prgkul v front. R -1 and C -1 to R
3, as re cinimended by the Planning Commission and. fUrther, tiUthorize publication by surum@ y
only.
(b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Title 16 of the
Pasco Municipal Code, regarding plan review fees for R -3 Occupancies.
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community R Economic Development Director dated May
1, 2012.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
M(iT10N: I naovk- to adopt Ordinance No- atnending Title 16 of the Pasco Municipal
Code rcgarding plan review feast; for R -3 Occupancies and. fui#her, authorize publication by
summary only,
Regular Meeting
9
May 7, 2012
Q *(c) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and
approving a special permit for the location of an elementary school.
I . Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated April 30, 2012,
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5, Ptaiming Commission Minutes dated 3/15/12 and 4/19/12_
MOTION: I move to approve: Resolution No. , approving a spochil permit for an clemenla y
school al the roMliwest earner gal° Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 as rccommended by tltc
Pl anai nl C011111aission.
Q *(d) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and
approving a special permit for the location of a private bus terminal at 205 South 4 "' Avenue.
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated April 30, 2012.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/15/12 and 4/19/12.
MOTION: L inovetct approve Resulti(ion No. , approving th,: special punnil. fi,r t1w inealioli
of a private bus tcrrninal at 205 South 4 "' Avenue as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Q *(e) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and
denying a special permit for the location of a caretaker residence at 1 102 Fast "A" Street.
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill. Planner I dated May I, 2012.
2. Vicinity Map,
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/15/12 and 4/19/12.
110TION: I move to approve Resolution Na. , denying a special porrnil it) louaitL ar uiu-ei rkkc i
inside -rice at 1102 Fast "A" Stet as recommended by the Planning Commission.
*(f) Resolution No. , a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington,
declaring the City's commitment to provide operating revenues for a Regional Aquatics Facility
at the TRAC site upon certain conditions.
1. Agenda Report frown Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 2, 2012.
2. Proposed Resolution.
3. Memorandum to City Manager from Deputy City Manager dated 4/20/12.
MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution No, , declaring the cit -,'s conditional comillitrtaent
of of eratirtg revenues for a regional agtaatic: center at TRAC.
*(g) Resolution No. , a Resolution concerning annexation and bonded indebtedness.
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated April 30, 2012.
2. Table of Property Tax Elements.
3. Proposed Resolution.
MOTION: I move to apprcivc Resol iii ii :n Nip. coyiccrnnig annexation and hooded
indebtedness_
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
10. NEW BUSINESS:
*(a) Award 4'b Avenue Corridor (Sylvester to Court), Project No. C2- 11- 07 -STR:
1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated April 24, 2012.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Bid Summary.
(RC) MOTION: 1 move to award the low bid for the 4 "i Avenue Corridor (Syt ester to Cowl) project
to A&H .asphalt, Inc-, in tltc amount of $1,063,666,26 arid, farther. authorize the Mayor to sign
the contract documents.
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
(a)
(h)
(c)
Regular Meeting 4 May 7, 2012
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
W
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
MF# "Master File #......
Q Quasi - Judicial Matter
REMINDERS:
1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 7, KGH — Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER
TOM LARSEN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.)
2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 8, Senior Center -- Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN, Alt.)
3. 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 8, BF Health Department — Continuum of Care Task Force.
(COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY)
4. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, May 10, Cousins' Restaurant -- BFCG Tri -Mats Policy Advisory Committee
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
5. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 10, Transit Facility -- Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT
WATKINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16, 2012
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom
Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney.
Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel,
Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director;
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public
Works Director; Jim Raymond, Police Captain and Dunyele Mason, Financial Services
Manager.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(a) Approval of Minutes.
Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 2, 2012.
(b) Bills and Communications:
To approve General Claims in the amount of $1,261,744.64 ($296,095.48 in the form of
Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 9652, 9667, 9677, 9683, 9696, 9718, 9747 and 9755; and
$965,649.16 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1193, 1196 and 1197; and Claim
Warrants numbered 187188 through 187437).
To approve bad debt write -offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts,
miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court (non - criminal, criminal, and parking)
accounts receivable in the total amount of $185,100.10 and, of that amount, authorize
$138,451.95 be turned over for collection.
(c) Appointments to Planning Commission:
To reappoint Andy Anderson to Position No. 3 and Alecia Greenaway to Position No. 4
(both with the expiration date of 2/2/2017); and to appoint Paul Hilliard to Position No. 9
(expiration date 2/2/2015) to the Planning Commission.
(d) Resolution No. 3388, a Resolution providing a process for appointments to
City Boards and Commissions.
To approve Resolution No. 3388, providing a process for appointments to City Boards
and Commissions.
(e) Resolution No. 3389, a Resolution establishing primary goals of the City of
Pasco for the ensuing calendar years 2012 -2013.
To approve Resolution No. 3389, establishing primary goals for the city for calendar
years 2012 -2013.
(1) Resolution No. 3390, a Resolution authorizing the disposal of Fire
Department emergency medical equipment considered surplus property to City
needs.
To approve Resolution No. 3390, to declare emergency medical equipment surplus to
City needs.
To authorize the Mayor to sign the Intergovernmental Transfer Agreement with Franklin
County Public Hospital District No. 1.
3(a).1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16, 2012
(g) Resolution No. 3391, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington,
authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Procurement Agreement with
the City of Walla Walla, Washington and purchase an Aerial Ladder Truck.
To approve Resolution No. 3391, authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal
Procurement Agreement with the City of Walla Walla Washington and purchase an
Aerial Ladder Truck.
(h) Resolution No. 3392, a Resolution accepting work performed by Winthrop
Construction, Inc., under contract for the rebid of Desert Sunset Well House,
Project No. C4- 10- 03 -IRR.
To approve Resolution No. 3392, accepting the work performed by Winthrop
Construction Inc., under contract for the rebid of Desert Sunset Well House,
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison
seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS:
Mayor Watkins along with Ms. Francik and Messrs. Martinez, Hoffinann and Larsen
attended the Annual Volunteer Reception.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ordinance No. 40531 an Ordinance of the City of Pasco amending Chapter 3.07 "Fee
Summary," Section 3.07.010 "Ambulance" of the Pasco Municipal Code.
Council and staff discussed the proposed amendment.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4053, adjusting the ambulance
utility rates effective May 1, 2012 and January 1, 2013 and, further, authorize publication
by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carved 6 -1. No — Larsen.
Estate Fence Issue:
Ordinance No. 4054, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending
Section 26.32.090 "Subdivision Fence Buffering" establishing a standard for "Estate
Fences."
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4054, amending Section
26.32.090 of the Pasco Municipal Code, establishing a standard for Estate Fences and,
further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
Resolution No. 3393, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington, providing for
the replacement of nonconforming subdivision Estate Fences.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3393, providing for the
replacement of nonconforming subdivision Estate Fences. Mr. Martinez seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 3394, a Resolution approving the purchase of certain real property
by the Water Utility Fund.
Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed purchase.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3394, approving the purchase
of certain real property for the proposed new Columbia Water Supply— 25 MGD Raw
Water Intake, Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL l6, 2012
NEW BUSINESS:
Lease Renewal for Municipal Court:
Council and staff discussed the proposed lease.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the lease renewal for the Franklin County
Public Safety Building as housing for Pasco Municipal Court and, further, authorize the
City Manager to sign the document. Mr. Hoffmann seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
Mayor Watkins noted the Yard of the Month program will begin soon and invited
volunteers to serve as judges.
Mr. Hoffmann inquired about the estate fence construction timeline.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 7t' day of May, 2012.
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of: May 7, 2012
Accounts Payable Approved
The City Council
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
e, a undersi hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the
se ices ren red or the bor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid
oblig ion against t city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
1
r
to ie C i1V M a n a Dunyeie Mason, F' ance Services Manager
We, the updersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do
hereby certify on this 7th day of May, 2012 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received:
Check Numbers and
Electronic Funds Transfers
Electronic Funds Transfers
(Journal Entries)
Councilmember
187438 - 187708
1194, 1195, 1198,
1199, 1200, 1202
9798, 9864, 9919,
9929
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative
Judicial
Executive
Police
Fire
Administration & Community Services
Community Development
Engineering
Non - Departmental
Library
TOTAL GENERAL FUND:
In The Amount Of: $1,381,874.58
In The Amount Of: $ 128,187.97
Combined total of $1,510,062.55
Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
STREET
ARTERIAL STREET
STREET OVERLAY
C. D. BLOCK GRANT
HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT
NSP GRANT
KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
CEMETERY
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
GOLF COURSE
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
MULTI MODAL FACILITY
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING
LITTER CONTROL
REVOLVING ABATEMENT
TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING
ECON DEVEL & INFRASTRUCT
STADIUMICONVENTION CENTER
GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION
WATER/SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS
MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE
CENTRAL STORES
PAYROLL CLEARING
LID CONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST
TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL
SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:
1,469,32
8,245.65
28,322.99
209,757.40
8,190.94
120,564.23
2,066.72
6,259.42
36,200.65
94,177.09
515,254.41
18,4 74.36
413.50
0.00
119.14
850.00
134.40
1,108.48
22,314.45
2,657.09
5,686.25
109,562, 95
15,538.13
1,264.49
130.97
14,901.22
1,030.47
1,225.90
20,252.00
8,143.67
9.217.82
41,016.20
256,450.73
64,062.68
7,800,88
48,853.50
17.530.87
155,207.79
0.00
84,665.78
0.00
35,999.42
49,905,00
90,00
$ 1,510,062.55
3(b).1
CITY OF PASCO
Payroll Approval
The City Council
City of Pasco
Franklin County, Washington
The f eflowinj is a summaraq�roll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of
April 2012 qhich aro presente"erewith fAr your review and app oval.
Council Meeting of:
May 7, 2012
ary rutch field, City n er Rice vay, AdministrativeA Clommunity Services Director
We, the undersigned City Council members of the City Ccuncil of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,
Washington, do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received
and that payroll voucher No's. 43912 through 43995 and 80140 through 80149 and EFT deposit
No's. 30051245 through 30051790 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of $2,087,990.51 are
approved for payment on this 7th day of May 2012.
Councilmember
ounc ImemLyer
SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative
$ 7,875.18
Judicial
78,481.71
Executive
66,298.92
Police
578,551.37
Fire
312,777.39
Administrative & Community Services
260,772.72
Community Development
86,904.30
Engineering
89,942.59
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
1,481,604.18
CITY STREET
36,113.77
BLOCK GRANT
3,721.46
HOME CONSORTIUM
3,304.77
NSP
0.00
MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER
6,748.71
AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND
182,059.77
CEMETERY
15,773.93
ATHLETIC FUND
3,928.56
SENIOR CENTER
15,047.99
STADIUM OPERATIONS
0.00
MULTI -MODAL FACILITY
0.00
BOAT BASIN
0.00
REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND
0.00
TASK FORCE
0.00
WATER /SEWER
304,577.06
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING
27,689.19
OLD FIRE PENSION FUND
7,421.12
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS
$ 2,087,990.51
Payroll Summary
Net Payroll 974,603.45
Employee Deductions 581,254.25
Gross Payroll 1,555,857.70
City of Pasco Contributions 532,132,81
Total Payroll $ 2,087,990.51
3(b).2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfield Manager
FROM: Rick White, r
Community & conomic Development Director '¢
SUBJECT: Downtown Facade Improvement Program
[. RFFF.RF.NCF,(S):
Proposed Resolution
May 1, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 4/23/12
Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Ii. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5 /7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolutioa �. revising Resolution 2889
authorizing a program to improve the facades of buildings located in
Downtown Pasco,
III. FISCAL IMPACT-.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The City created a fayade improvement program in 2004 for buildings fronting on 4'"
Avenue between Clark and Columbia Streets and for buildings fronting on Lewis
between 3`d and 5 "' Avenues. The program was funded through Community Development
Block Grant funds.
B. Through Resolution 2889, Council outlined the parameters of the program, including
design guidelines, the designated improvement area, maximum funding amounts, owner
contributions and the composition of an advisory committee for reviewing proposals.
C, Although the program received CDBG funding in years 2005 through 2009, most of that
was unused and the program funds were reallocated to other CDBG projects.
D. This past year, the program helped install an awning on a retail furniture business at the
southwest corner of 4"' and Lewis and another business owner has recently made
application to the program to enhance the fagade across the street at the southeast corner.
Council has also approved the use of $60,000 for the program in the 2012 CDBG
a] location process.
V. DISCTJSSION:
A. With the creation of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) and the
partnering with Columbia Basin College's Facade Improvement Revitalization and
Support (FIRST) program, the fagade improvement program will have a dedicated source
of staff assistance to help guide business owners and contractors through the project
proposal and financing process. Staff expects more business owners to take advantage of
the program now than in the past.
B. The proposed resolution makes revisions to the composition of the review committee to
include the DPDA, slight expansion of the eligibility area, revisions to the terms of the
deferred loan and an increase in the maximum amount of City funding per project from
$20,000 to $25,000.
3(d)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2889 AND AUTHORIZING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE FACADES OF BUILDINGS
LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF PASCO.
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2003, the City Council adopted the August 5, 2003 Pasco
Downtown Revitalization Action Plan as a general guide for the revitalization of downtown Pasco;
and
WHEREAS, a preferred color palette was compiled by Makers Architecture and Urban
Design for the downtown revitalization area with input from stakeholder economic development
organizations, business and property owners; and
WHEREAS, the Action Plan recommends that facades in the pedestrian shopping core
around 4'h Avenue and West Lewis Street be initially improved by the selective application of the
recommended color palette and improved signage to be followed by more substantial building
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may approve annual requests for allocation of Federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the downtown fagade improvement
program now, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. The City Council directs the City Manager to develop and maintain administrative
procedures and establish a program to provide financial and technical assistance to improve the
facades of buildings within the downtown revitalization area.
Section 2. The fagade improvement program shall be administered in conformance with the
following principles:
(a) Participation in the program is voluntary. No downtown property or business
owner, shall be required to participate in the fagade improvement program or
abide by its standards unless such owner elects to receive financial assistance
from the program.
(b) Proposals for fagade assistance shall be evaluated by a five member advisory
committee which shall make a recommendation to the City Manager regarding
the award of fagade improvement assistance funds. The Fagade Improvement
Advisory Committee shall consist of:
The Manager of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA), or
designee.
2. The Community and Economic Development Director or designee.
3. Three at large members appointed by the Mayor, two of which shall own
property or a business in the downtown.
(c) Applications for assistance shall be evaluated upon the basis of consistency with
the Downtown Action Plan and potential impact on improving the downtown.
More specifically fagade improvements shall:
1. Build a coordinated image consistent with the approved color palette.
2. Promote additional coordination with improved signage and store
graphics.
3. Compliment adjacent building facades.
4. Use color and patterns in a sophisticated, restrained application that
places vibrant colors on small areas (building highlights) and trim
features and uses softer, more subdued or muted colors for the main
building elements.
5. Respects the architectural character of existing buildings and understand
that some fagade materials such as stone, glazed tile, and brick are better
left unpainted.
(d) Assistance under the program shall be limited to the area shown on Exhibit 1.
(e) Financial assistance shall be for 75% of eligible costs with the applicant paying
the remaining 25 %. The financial assistance shall be in the form of a deferred
payment loan to be forgiven over a ten (10) year period at the rate of 10% per
year.
(f) The total cost of technical and direct financial assistance shall not exceed $25,000
per applicant.
(g) The source of financial assistance shall be CDBG and any other funds
appropriated by the City Council. Grantees shall fully comply with all applicable
regulations for the use of grant funds or be declared in default of the deferred
payment loan.
(h) Eligible use of the funds shall be limited to changes to building exterior facades
which are visible to pedestrians; specifically: awnings, canopies, painting,
windows, lighting, entryways, cornices, signage and fagade
renovations /restorations. Such work shall be consistent with the Downtown
Action Plan and with federal, state and local regulations.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2012.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark
CIVIC City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
,ONNEViLLE
Legend
DPDA Boundary
Original Facade Improvement Area
Expanded Facade Improvement Area
Mew # #M # ■ ■ ■R ■ ■ ■■ #■■■ # # ■ ■R ■ ■RR ■ ■Rw #� ~�
*too
Downtown Pasco
Development Authority
N
W + E
S
•
M
X
Osman** ## 03
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfiel ,
Ter-way, Rick Teray, 'rector
Administrative and Co
AGENDA REPORT
Manager
unity Services
SUBJECT: Recreation Facility Rental and Aquatics Use Fees
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Resolution No. 3225
April 19, 2012
Workshop Mtg: 4/23/12
Regular Mtg; 517%12
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4123: Discussion
517: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. establishing Recreation Facility
Rental and Aquatics Use Fees.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
1V. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In 2010, Council approved Ordinance No. 3955 authorizing the City Manager or his designee
to set park and recreation program fees and charges based upon operation costs and demands
of each program, benefit to community, fees charged by nearby jurisdiction and recreation
market trends.
B) At the same time Council approved Resolution No. 3225 approving fees for facility rentals as
well as setting pool rental and entrance fees.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The Kiwanis Club is constructing a new shelter in 'Memorial Park and the city is adding two
shade shelters inside Memorial Pool facility. These facilities need to be added to the fee
schedule. There are no changes to the fees currently being charged, only the addition of the
new shelters and corresponding fees.
B) Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
3(e)
RESOLUTION NO. 3m
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RECREATION FACILITY RENTAL AND
AQUATICS USE FEES.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it in the best interest of the citizens of the City of
Pasco, that certain of the City's recreation facilities be available for rent by individuals, groups and
assemblies at equitable fees; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. Rent of City Recreational Facilities. City parks and recreation facilities, including pools,
buildings, rooms, parks and shelters, shall be available for any group or assembly on a first come, first serve
basis.
Section 2. Reservation - Application. Reservations for recreation facilities rentals may be made by
obtaining a written permit through the office of the Director of Administrative and Community Services or
his designee. A reservation of the facility may be obtained by submitting a written application to the
Director's office at least fourteen (14) working days prior to the day of the intended use. The application
shall contain such information as the Director shall deem necessary to insure compliance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
Section 3., Reservation Application - Denial. Applications will be denied, approved or approved
with conditions within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of said application. Denial of applications will be
based on one or more of the following:
A) The space has already been applied to for reservation at the time of the application submission,
or;
B) The event or assembly for which the reservation was sought would, because of its time, place or
nature, obstruct or substantially interfere with the enjoyment and use by the general public; or
C) The event or assembly for which a reservation was sought was in violation of any applicable
ordinance, law or regulation.
The Director shall have the authority to approve a permit subject to the applicant meeting reasonable
conditions consistent with all City ordinances and policies as now existing or are hereafter amended.
Section 4. Schedule of Recreation Facility Rental and Aquatics Use Fees, Exhibit "A."
Section 5. Resolution No. 3225 is superseded by this resolution.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7th day of May, 2012.
CITY OF PASCO:
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Recreation Facility Rental
and Aquatics Use Fees
Exhibit "A"
Location
112 day
1/2 day
Full day
Full day
Supervisor
Deposit
Shelter
Resident
Non -Res
Resident
Non -Res
Volunteer - Pavilion
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.00
Memorial - Pavilion
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.00
Memorial - Kiwanis shelter
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.00
Kurtzman - Pavilion
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.00
Chiawana #1
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.00
Chiawana #2
35.00
52.50
60.00
90.00
50.00
Chiawana #3
35.00
52.50
60.00
90.00
50.00
Hourly rate
Hourly rate
Supervisor
Deposit
Facility
Resident
Non -Res
perlhour
City Hall Gym
15.00
22.50
12.00
100.00
MLK Center
15.00
22.50
12.00
100.00
City Fall Classroom
15.00
22.50
12.00
50.00
Min 4 -hours
Min 4 -hours
Alcohol
(1st 4-
hours)
Alcohol
(1st 4-
hours)
Supervisor
per /100
per /hour
Deposit
Deposit
w/
alcohol
Senior Center
Resident
Non -Res
Resident
Non -Res
SC Multipurpose Room (entire)
75.00
112.50
120.00
1 180.00
15.00
300.00
450.00
SC Multipurpose Room - north
only
25.00
37.50
40.00
60.00
15.00
100.00
150.00
SC Multipurpose Room - south
only
25.00
37.50
40.00
60.00
15.00
100.00
150.00
SC Multipurpose Room -
middle only
25.00
37.50
40.00
60.00
15.00
100.00
150.00
SC Education Room
25.00
37.50
NA
NA
15.00
100.00
NA
SC Craft Rooin
25.00
37.50
NA
NA
15.00
I00.00
NA
NA
NA
Computer Lab
25.00
37.50
NA
NA
15.00
100.00
Kitchen (per hour /supervisor
re g.)
75.00
112.50
NA
NA
15.00
200.00
Entire SC Fee (no pool or
computer)
200.00
300.00
NA
NA
NA
15.00
t5.00
600.00
100.00
NA
NA
Card Area
25.00
37.50
NA
Fields (rental only,not league)
Field
Pre
Lights
Supervisor
Field location
Resident
Non -Res
PSC hi
7.00
25.00
7.50
15.00
PSC #2
7.00
25.00
7.50
15.00
PSC #3
7.00
25.00
7.50
15.00
PSC #4
7.00
25.00
7.50
15.00
PSC #5
7.00
25.00
7.50
15.00
PSC #6
7.50
50.00
25.00
7.50
15.00
Mound Rental (daily)
PSC Spray Park (rent for closed
party)
50.00
75.00
15.00
Memorial Field #1
7.00
9.00
7.50
15.00
Memorial Field 42
7.00
9.00
NA
15.00
Highland Football 01
10.00
12.00
NA
15.00
Highland Football #2
10.00
12.00
NA
15.00
Highland Football #3
10.00
12.00
NA
15.00
36th Soccer #1
10.00
12.00
NA
15.00
36th Soccer #2
10.00
12.00
NA
15.00
36th Soccer #3
10.00
12.00
NA
15.00
36th Soccer #4
10.00
12.00
Adult
NA
15.00
Memorial Pool
Mon -Fri
Child
Lap Swim
Noon -I pm
2.00
Open Swim
1-4 prn
3.00
5100
Open Swim
5 -8:30 pm
3.00
5.00
Memorial Pool
Sat -Sun
Child
Adult
Open Swim
1-4 pm
3.00
5.00
Open Swim
5 -8:30 pm
3.00
Child
5.00
Richardson Pool
Mon -Fri
Adult
Open Swim
1-4 pm
1.00
2.00
Open Swim
7-8:30 pm
1.00
2.00
Richardson Pool
Sat -Sun
Child
Adult
Open Swim
I -4 pm
1.00
2.00
Open Swim
5 -8.30 pm
1.00
2.00
Kurtzman Pool
Mon -Fri
Child
Adult
Open Swim
1 -4 pm
1.00
2.00
Open Swim
7 -8:30 pm
1.00
2.00
Kurtzman Pool
Sat -Sun
Child
Adult
s
Open Swim
1 -4 pm
1.00
2.00
Open Swim
5 -8:30 pm
1.00
2.00
Memorial Pool Rental
2 hour minimum (includes 8 lifeguards - 300 people or less)
350.00
Each additional hour
1
150.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 300)
15.00 /hr
Sh do SIvIters (per semion)
Resident
Non -
Resident
Richardson fool Rental
2 hour minimum (includes 2 lifeguards - 75 people or less)
100.00
Each additional hour
50.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75)
15.001hr
Kurtzman Pool Rental
2 hour minimum (includes 2 lifeguards - 75 people or less)
100.00
Each additional hour
1
1
50.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75)
15.00111r
RESOLUTION NO. Z7-
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RECREATION FACILITY RENTAL FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Pasco,
that certain of the City's recreation facilities be available for rent by individuals, groups and assemblies at
equitable fees; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CM OF PASCO:
Section 1. & pf C'tv ecrearional F i12` es. City parks and recreation facilities, including pools,
buildings, rooms, parks and shelters, shall be available for any group or assembly on a first come, first serve basis,
Section 2. erva�ir�r - A.. :cation,,. Reservations for recreation facilities rentals may be made by
obtaining a written permit through the office of the Director of Administrative and Community Services or his
designee. A reservation of the facility may be obtained by submitting a written application to the Director's office
at least fourteen (14) working days prior to the day of the intended use. The application shall contain such
information as the Director shall deem necessary to insure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Section 3. Reservation Appi anon - Denial. Applications will be denied, approved or approved
with conditions within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of said application. Denial of applications will be
based on one or more of the following:
A) The space has already been applied to for reservation at the time of the application submission,
or;
B) The event or assembly for wbicb the reservation was sought would, because of its time, place or
nature, obstruct or substantially interfere with the enjoyment and use by the general public; or
C) The event or assembly for which a reservation was sought was in violation of any applicable
ordinance, law or regulation.
The Director shall have the authority to approve a permit subject to the applicant meeting reasonable
conditions consistent with all City ordinances and policies as now existing or are hereafter amended.
Section 4. Sche_dulosf Rental Few. (See attached schedule)
Section S. Schedule Qf AgotiC, Use and R 1 ees. (See attached schedule)
Section 6. Resolution No. 3217 is superseded by this resolution.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this _2_ day oflt', 2010.
CITY OF PASCO:
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
De ra I Leland B. Kerr
City Cleric City Attorney
Parks and Recreation Fees Schedule
Location
1/2 day
112 day
Full Fay
Full Day
Supervisor
Deposit
Proposed Shelter Fees
Resident
Non -Res
Resident
Non -Res
Volunteer - Pavilion
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.GD
Memorial - Pavilion
50.00
75.00
90.00
135.00
100.00
Kurtzman - Pavilion
50.03
75.00
90,001
135.00
100.00
Chiawana #1
50.00
75.00
90.001
135.00
100.00
Chiawana #2
35.00
52.00
60.0,01
90.00
50.00
Chlawana #3
35.00
52.00
60.00
90.00
50.00
Hourly rate
Hourly rate
ISupervisor
Deposit
i
Proposed Facility Fees
Resident
Non -Res
per /hour
City Hail Gym
15.00
22.00
12.00
100.00
MILK Center
15.00
22.00
12.001
100.00
City Hall Classroom
15.00
22.00
12.00
50,00
Min 4 -hours
Min 4 -hours
Alcohol
(1st 4-
hours)
Alcohol (1st.
4- hours)
Supervisor
per /100
per /hour
Deposit
Deposit
w /alcohol
Current Senior Center Fees
Resident
Non -Res
Resident
Non -Res
SC Multipurpose Room (entire)
75.00
25.00
122.00
37.00
120.00
180.00
15.00
300.00
450.00
SC Multipurpose Room - north only
40.00
60.00
15.00
100.00
150.00
SC Multipurpose Room - south only
25.00
37.00
40.00
60.00
15.00
100.00
150.00
SC Multipurpose Room - middle only
25.00
37.00
40.00
60.00
15.00
100.00
150.00
SC Education Room
25.00
37.00
NA
NA
15.00
100.00
NA
SC Craft Room
25.00
37.00
NA
NA
15.00
100.00
NA
Computer Lab
25.00
37.00
NA
NA
15.00
100.00
NA
Kitchen (per hour /supervisor req.)
75.001
112.001
NA
NA
15.00
200.00
NA
Entire SC Fee (no pool or computer)
200.001
300.00
NA
NA
15.00
600.00
NA
Card Area
25.00
37.00
NAI
NA
15.00
100.00
NA
Hourly rate
Hourly rate
Hourly rate
Field Fees (rental only; not league)
Field Prep
lights
Supervisor
Field location
Resident
Non -Res
PSC #1
7.00
25.00
12.00
As required
@ $15.00 /hour
PSC #2
7.00
25.001
12.00
PSC #3
7.00
25.00
12.00
PSC #4
7.00
25,001
12.00
PSC #5
7.00
2-5,001
12.00
PSC #6
7.00r
25.00
12.00
Mound Rental (daily)
50.00
PSC Spray Park (rent for closed party)
50,00
75.00
Memorial Field #1
7.00
9.00
12.00
Memorial Field #2
7.00
9.00
INA
Highland Football #1
7,00
9.00
JNA
NA
Highland Football #2
7.00
9.00
Highland Football #3
7.00
9.00
NA
36th Soccer #1
10.00
12.00
NA
36th Soccer #2
10.00
12.00
NA
36th Soccer #3
10.001
12.00
JNA
NA
36th Soccer #4
1O.G01
12,00
Proposed Aquatics Fee Schedule
Memorial
Mon -Fri
Child
Adult
Lessons
8:50- 12noon
$350.00
Each additional hour
Lap Swim
12 :15 -1 :15 pm
NA
$2.00
1 hour
Open Swim
1:15-4:45pm
$3.00
$5.00
3.5 hours
Open Swim
5- 8:30pm
$3.00
$5.00
3.5 hours
Memorial
Sat -Sun
Child
Adult
$50.00
Open Swim
1:15 -4 :45pm
$3.00
$5.00
3.5 hours
Open Swim
5- 8:30pm
$3.00
$5.00
3.5 hours
Richardson
Mon -Fri
Child
Adult
Each additional hour I
Lessons
8 :50- 12noon
•
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75) 1
Aerobics
12-1pm
/hour
Open Swim
1 -4pm
$1.00
$2.00
3 hours
Aerobics
5 -6pm
•
Lessons
6 -7pm
'
Open Swim
7- 8:30pm
$1.00
$2.00
1.5 hours
Richardson
Sat -Sun
Child
Adult
Open Swim
1 :15-4 :45pm
$1.00
$2.00
3.5 hours
Open Swim
5- 8.30pm
$1.00
$2.00
3.5 hours
Kurtzman
Mon -Fri
Child
Adult
Lessons
8:50- 12noon
"
Open Swim
1-4 m
$1.00
$2.00
3 hours
Lessons
15 -7pm
Open Swim
7- 8:30pm
$1.00
$2.00
1.5 hours
Kurtzman
;Sat -Sun
Child
Adult
Open Swim
'1:15 -4 :45pm
I S1.001
$2.00
3.5 hours
Open Swim
5- 8 :30pm
I $1.001
$2.001
3.5 hours
* Program Fees to be set by staff.
Proposed Aquatics Rental Fees
Memorial
2 hour minimum (includes 8 lifeguards - 300 people or less)
$350.00
Each additional hour
1
1
$150.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 300)
$15.00
/hour
Richardson
2 hour minimum (includes 2 lifeguards - 75 people or less)
$100.04
Each additional hour
1
$50.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75)
$15.00
/hour
Kurtzman
2 hour minimum (includes 2 lifeguards - 75 people or less)
$100.00
Each additional hour I
1
$50.04
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75) 1
$15.00
/hour
Pool Rental Hours
8:45pm - 10:45pm
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
Date: April 30, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop: 4/23/12
Rick White, Dir �c r /j IU Regular: 5/7112
Community & onom . Development (�
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator M-P
Community & Economic Development Department
SUBJECT: 2012 HOME Fund Reallocations and Annual Work Plan Sianificant Amendment
(MF# BGAP2011 -008)
1. REFERENCE(S):
Resolution Reallocating 2012 HOME funds.
IL ACTION REQUE$TED OF_COUNCILISTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/23/12: DISCUSSION
5/7/12: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. reallocating
2012 HOME funds.
111. FISCAL IMPACT
$17,465 HOME Funds
IV, HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In September 2011, Council approved the 2012 Annual Action flan, which was
submitted to HUD on November 15, 2011. The Annual Action Plan allocated
approximately $542,188 for 2012 HOME activities from estimated entitlement of
$167,188 and program income of 5375,000. Staff proposed $142,500 be used for
fifteen First Time Homebuyer's Assistance loans, $362,188 for three infill
property acquisition and gap financing projects, and $37,500 for administration.
B. In April of this year, the Tri- Cities HOME Consortium executed the entitlement
award agreement which was reduced by 5150,900. This translated to an actual
entitlement of $149,723 for Pasco 2012 HOME activities, a shortfall of $17,465.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Staff proposes the acquisition and infill projects be reduced by $17,465 to
$344,723 and all other allocations remain unchanged for revised allocations
totaling $524,723.
B. Any change in HOME allocations greater than 10% of the entitlement, regardless
of what caused the change, triggers a substantial amendment to the Annual Action
Plan and requires approval by City Council.
3(f)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION REALLOCATING ESTIMATED 2012 FEDERAL HOME FUNDS,
WHEREAS, the Council approved the 2012 Federal HOME Work Plan Allocation for
Program Year 2012 by Resolution 3335; and
WHEREAS, the Consortium received a reduced grant award, which reduced Pasco's
entitlement to $149,723 from estimated $167,188 and requires a significant amendment to the
Annual Action Plan; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. 2012 HOME funds received by the City of Pasco shall be reallocated to
the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) as revised below. Priority will be given
to neighborhood improvement areas and low- moderate income census tracts as needed for the
following activities below:
Activity
Estimated Units
Original
Allocation
Revised
Allocation
HOME Administration
$37,500.00
$37,500.00
First Time Homebu er's Program
15
$142,500.00
$142,500.00
Infill Homebu er's Program
3
$362,188.00
$344,723.00
TOTAL ALLOCATED
18
$542,188.00
$524,723.00
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this
CITY OF PASCO:
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark
CMC City Clerk
day of , 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
TO: City Counc
FROM: Gary
SUBJECT: Tri- Cities Rive shor
1. REFERENCE(S):
1, Proposed Resolution
AGENDA REPORT
Manager
ancement Master Plan
April 20, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 4/23/12
Regular Mtg.: 5/7112
1I. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/23: Discussion
517: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _ acknowledging the
Tri - Cities Rivershore Enhancement Master Plan.
III, FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The original Rivershore Master Plan, created in 1997, served as a blueprint for
many, shoreline - related improvements over the past decade, including lowering of
the levee walls, development of a continuous 23 -mile rivershore trail, lighting of
the Cable Bridge and many other amenities. Most of the plan recommendations
have been realized and updating the plan was carried out over the past year under
sponsorship of the cities, ports and counties.
B) The new Tri- Cities Rivershore Enhancement Master Plan provides contemporary
recommendations for further enhancement of the shoreline and its integration into
the community. Implementation of the recommendations will require commitment
by each of the jurisdictions, with recognition that the whole cannot be realized
without a coordinated effort amongst the individual jurisdictions. To date, that
coordination has occurred principally through the Tri - Cities Rivershore
Enhancement Council (TREC). That concept is proposed to continue, TREC
recommends that each jurisdiction approve a resolution similar to that offered as
reference no. 1.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The proposed resolution acknowledges the benefit of having a regional plan and
declares formally the City of Pasco's intent to fulfill the plan's recommendations,
to the extent practicable. In addition, the city will recognize the master plan as a
resource in making decisions related to the shoreline. Essentially, the resolution
declares in writing what the City of Pasco has practiced the past 15 years. Thus,
staff recommends its approval.
3(g)
RESOLUTION NO. 3398
A RESOLUTION acknowledging the Tri- Cities Rivershore Enhancement Master Plan.
WHEREAS, the construction of dams and the associated system of river levees along the
Columbia River in the mid -20`h century effectively separated the people of the Tri- Cities region from
its greatest natural asset, the Columbia River; and
WHEREAS, a volunteer effort in the form of the Tri - Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council
(TREC) formed in the mid -1990s to develop a common vision of restoring access and use of the
rivershore throughout the Tri - Cities urban area, resulting in creation of the Tri - Cities Rivershore
Enhancement Master Plan in 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan has served as a blue print for individual and common actions by the
various local jurisdictions, resulting in lowering of the excessively high levee walls, development of a
continuous 23 -mile rivershore trail, lighting of the cable bridge and many other amenities associated
with the river and of benefit to all citizens of the region; and
WHEREAS, the member jurisdictions of TREC financed preparation of an updated Master Plan
during 2011, presenting a fresh plan of recommended actions to be undertaken individually and
collectively to accomplish further enhancement of the various attributes of the rivershore throughout
the Tri - Cities; and
WHEREAS, the commitment of individual local jurisdictions to the common objectives
recommended in the updated master plan will be essential to the plan's implementation and the
region's realization of further rivershore enhancement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that:
Section 1: The Pasco City Council hereby acknowledges the content and objectives of the updated
Rivershore Master Plan and, to the greatest extent practicable, pledges to support and participate in
efforts to implement recommendations of the plan.
Section 2: The Pasco City Council hereby recognizes the TREC Master Plan as a resource to assist
jurisdictional planning and decision making relative to the shoreline environment within its jurisdiction
and that regional coordination of such plans is crucial to realization of the plan's goals.
Section 3: The City Manager is authorized and directed to take such administrative actions as are
necessary and appropriate to effect the conclusions of the City Council as reflected in Sections l and 2
hereinabove.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this 7th day of May, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
FOR; City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfiel
AGENDA REPORT
r
FROM; Stan Strebel, 4puty City Manager
SUBJECT: Franchise Agreement — LightSpeed Networks
1. REFERENCE(S):
I. Proposed Ordinance
2. Proposed Franchise Agreement
3. LightSpeed Networks Proposed Locations
4. LightSpeed Networks Fact Sheet
April 9, 2012
Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Regular Mtg.: 5/21/12
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
5/2I: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , granting a franchise
to LightSpeed Networks, Inc., dba LS Networks and to authorize
the Mayor to sign the franchise agreement and, further, to
authorize publication of the Ordinance by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) LS Networks is a telecommunications company with headquarters in Portland,
Oregon. The company operates a fiber optic network with the intent of
facilitating the expansion of the 4G network operated by US Cellular.
B) Franchises are reviewed and granted pursuant to Title 15 of the Pasco Municipal
Code. Prior to granting a franchise, the City Council must conduct a public
hearing and thereafter make a decision on the franchise based on the following
standards:
1. Whether the applicant has received all requisite licenses, certificates,
and authorizations from the Federal Communications Commission, the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and any other
federal or state agency with jurisdiction over the activities proposed by
the applicant;
2. The capacity of the public ways to accommodate the applicant's
proposed facilities;
3. The capacity of the public ways to accommodate additional utility,
cable, open video, and telecommunications facilities if the franchise is
granted;
4. The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities,
improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the franchise is
granted;
5. The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of
construction within the public ways;
6. The service that applicant will provide to the community and region;
7. The effect, if any, on public health, safety and welfare if the franchise
is granted;
7(a)
8. The availability of alternate routes and/or locations for the proposed
facilities:
9. Applicable federal and state communications laws, regulations and
policies;
10. Such other factors as may demonstrate that the grant to use the public
ways will serve the community interest and;
11. Such other and further factors as may be deemed appropriate by the
City.
C) The Council cannot approve a franchise until the next regularly scheduled
meeting following the hearing. Assuming Council agrees to grant the franchise,
adoption of the attached proposed ordinance is recommended. A written
determination is required for denial of a franchise.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The franchise document grants authority and establishes essential parameters for
the installation/operation of the franchisee's improvements within the city's
rights -of -way, such as permitting, insurance, records, fees, etc.
B) Staff has prepared the attached, proposed franchise agreement in compliance with
Title 15 and applicable state and federal law.
C) Individual permit applications for specific installations are required of
franchisees.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Approving the
LightSpeed Networks, Inc., (dba LS Networks) Franchise and Authorizing the
Mayor to sign the Franchise Agreement
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington ( "City ") and LightSpeed Networks, Inc., dba
LS Networks ( "Franchisee "), are parties to the Franchise Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit
A; and
WHEREAS, the City has authority to regulate telecommunication franchises pursuant to
RCW 35A.47.040 and Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 15.10; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed Franchisee's application for a franchise and
determined that the Franchisee possesses the legal, technical and financial capability to operate
within the City's rights-of-way; and that the grant of a franchise will meet the standards set forth
in Pasco Municipal Code Section 15.10.050; and
WHEREAS, the City and Franchisee have mutually negotiated a Franchise Agreement
containing the Franchisee's obligations and responsibilities while operating within the City's
rights -of -way; and
WHEREAS, the City has provided opportunities to the public for participation in the
application process by publishing this Ordinance and by conducting a public hearing on May 7,
2012; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Franchisee is hereby granted a franchise subject to the terms and
conditions of the Franchise Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A; and furthermore, the Mayor
of the City of Pasco, Washington, is hereby authorized to execute said Franchise Agreement,
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of , 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT entered into this day of
' 2012, by and between the City of Pasco, Washington, a Washington
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City ", and LightSpeed Networks Inc., dba LS
Networks, an Oregon Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Franchisee ").
WHEREAS, Section 35A.47.040 and Chapter 35.99 of the Revised Code of Washington
authorize the City to grant, permit, and regulate non - exclusive franchises for the use of public
ways; and
WHEREAS, Franchisee has applied to the City for a non - exclusive franchise to enter,
occupy, and use public ways to construct, install, operate, maintain, and repair fiber optic
facilities to offer and provide telecommunications service for hire, sale, or resale in the City of
Pasco; and
WHEREAS, a franchise is a legislatively approved master permit granting general
permission to a service provider to enter, use, and occupy the public ways for the purpose of
locating facilities subject to requirements that a franchisee must also obtain separate use permits
from the City for use of each and every specific location in the public ways in which the
franchisee intends to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair or remove identified facilities;
and
WHEREAS, a franchise does not include, and is not a substitute for any other permit,
agreement, or other authorization required by the City, including without limitation, permits
required in connection with construction activities in public ways which must be administratively
approved by the City after review of specific plans; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public hearing and reviewed the application based
upon the standards set forth in Pasco Municipal Code Section 15.10.050 (A); and
WHEREAS, the City approved this Franchise Agreement pursuant to RCW 35A.47.040
at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting following the public hearing pursuant to
Ordinance No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the franchise terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement are in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do agree as follows;
1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Agreement, all terms shall have the meaning as
defined in PMC 15.10,020. Terms not specifically defined therein shall be given their
ordinary meaning. The following additional definitions shall apply:
A. "Conduit" means optical cable housing, jackets, or casing, and pipes, tubes, or
tiles used for receiving and protecting wires, lines, cables, and communication and
signal lines.
B. "Dark Fiber" means properly functioning optical cable which is not used or
available for use by Franchisee or the general public.
C. Gross Revenue" means Any and all revenue, of any kind, nature, or form, without
deduction for expense in the City and as further defined in Section 10. All such
revenue remains subject to applicable FCC rules and regulations.
D. "Information" means knowledge or intelligence represented by any form of
writing, signs, signals, pictures, sounds, or any other symbols,
E. "Optical Cable" means wires, lines, cables and communication and signal lines
used to convey communications by fiber optics.
2. FRANCHISE.
A. The City grants to Franchisee, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and PMC Title 15, a non - exclusive franchise to enter, occupy, and use
public ways for constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, and
removing wireline facilities necessary to provide telecommunications services.
Franchisee shall construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, and remove its
facilities at its expense.
B. Any rights, privileges, and authority granted to Franchisee under this Franchise
are subject to the legitimate rights of the police power of the City to adopt and
enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the safety and welfare of the
public, and nothing in this Franchise excuses Franchisee from its obligation to
comply with all applicable general laws enacted by the City pursuant to such
power. Any conflict between the terms or conditions of this Franchise and any
other present or future exercise of the City's police powers will be resolved in
favor of the exercise of the City's police power.
C. Nothing in this Franchise excuses Franchisee of its obligation to identify its
facilities and proposed facilities and their location or proposed location in the
public ways and to obtain use and /or development authorization and permits from
the City before entering, occupying, or using public ways to construct, install,
operate, maintain, repair, or remove such facilities.
D. Nothing in this Franchise excuses Franchisee of its obligation to comply with
applicable codes, rules, regulations, and standards subject to verification by the
City of such compliance.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 2
E. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to create a duty upon the City to be
responsible for construction of facilities or to modify public ways to accommodate
Franchisee's facilities.
F. Nothing in this Franchise grants authority to Franchisee to provide or offer cable
television service,
G. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to create, expand, or extend any
liability to the City or to any third party user of Franchisee's facilities or to
otherwise recognize or create third party beneficiaries to this Franchise.
3. TERM. Authorization granted under this Franchise shall be for a period of ten (10) years
from the effective date of this Franchise. The Franchise may be renewed as provided in
PMC Chapter 15.20. This Agreement shall be effective five (5) days following the
passage of an authorizing Ordinance and publication of this Franchise, or a summary
thereof, occurs in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to RCW
35A.47.040, or upon execution by all parties hereto whichever occurs later.
4. LOCATION OF FACILITIES. Franchisee will locate its facilities consistent with the
requirements of PMC Title 15 and as directed by the City Engineer. Prior to installation
of any facilities, Franchisee shall obtain all required City permits.
5. COORDINATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES
AND OTHER WORK. All construction or installation locations, activities and
schedules shall be coordinated, as ordered by the City consistent with PMC Chapter 15.70
and as directed by the City Engineer, to minimize public inconvenience, disruption or
damages.
6. HOLD HARMLESS AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
A. Hold Harmless.
(1) Franchisee hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected officials,
officers, employees, servants, agents, and representatives against an), and
all claims, costs, damages, judgments, awards, or liability, of any kind
whatsoever, to any person, including claims by Franchisee's own
employees to which Franchisee might otherwise be immune under Title 51
RCW, arising from injury or death of any person or damage to property
arising out of the acts or omissions of Franchisee, its officers, employees,
servants, agents or representatives.
(2) Franchisee further releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected officials,
officers, employees, servants, agents, and representatives from any and all
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 3
claims, costs, damages, judgments, awards, or liability to any person,
including claims by Franchisee's own employees, including those claims
to which Franchisee might otherwise have immunity under Title 51 RCW,
arising out of Franchisee's exercise of the rights, privileges, or authority
granted by this Franchise which are made against the City, in whole or in
part, due to the City's ownership or control of the public ways or other
City property, by virtue of the City permitting the Franchisee's entry,
occupancy or use of the public ways, or based upon the City's inspection
or lack of inspection of work performed by Franchisee, its officers,
employees, servants, agents or representatives.
{3) These hold harmless covenants include, but are not limited to claims
against the City arising as a result of the acts or omissions of Franchisee,
its officers, employees, servants, agents or representatives in barricading,
instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of
any excavation, construction, or work in any public way or other public
place in performance of work or services permitted under this Franchise.
(4) Franchisee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City,
its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and
representatives against any claims for damages, including, but not limited
to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under
users of the Franchisee's facilities as the result of any interruption of
service due to damage or destruction of the user's facilities caused by or
arising out of damage or destruction of Franchisee's facilities, except to
the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the
active sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
(5) In the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons
or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent
negligence of Franchisee and the City, Franchisee's liability hereunder
shall be only to the extent of Franchisee's negligence.
(b) It is further specifically and expressly understood that the hold harmless
covenants provided herein constitutes the Franchisee's waiver of immunity
under Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the
parties.
(7) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Franchisee
at the time of completion of construction or installation shall not be
grounds for avoidance of any of these hold harmless covenants. Said hold
harmless obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit
and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any
litigation or the institution of any Iitigation.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 4
7.
(8) In the event that Franchisee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any
claim, said tender having been made pursuant to the hold harmless
covenants contained herein, and said refusal is subsequently determined by
a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall
agree to decide the matter); to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of
Franchisee, then Franchisee shall pay and be responsible for all of the
City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert
witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees and the reasonable costs of the
City, including reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this hold
harmless clause.
B. Assumption_ of Risk.
(1) Franchisee assumes the risk of damage to its facilities located in the City's
public ways from activities conducted by third parties or the City, its
elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, or representatives.
Franchisee releases and waives any and all claims against the City, its
elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and representatives
for damage to or destruction of the Franchisee's facilities except to the
extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from active
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
(2) Franchisee bears sole responsibility to insure its property. Franchisee shall
ensure that its insurance contracts waive subrogation claims against the
City, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and
representatives, and Franchisee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and
representatives against any and all subrogation claims if it fails to do so.
INSURANCE. Franchisee shall obtain and maintain, at its cost, worker's compensation
insurance and the following liability insurance policies insuring both Franchisee and the
City, and its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives,
engineers, consultants, and volunteers as additional insureds against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise
of the rights, privileges, and authority granted to Franchisee:
A. Comprehensive general liability insurance, written on an occurrence basis, with
limits not less than:
(1) $1,000,000.00 for bodily injury or death to each person;
(2) $1,000,000.00 for property damage resulting from any one accident; and
(3) Franchisee and its contractors and/or subcontractors shall maintain
umbrella liability insurance coverage, in an occurrence form, over
underlying commercial liability and automobile liability of $5,000,000.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 5
B. Automobile liability for owned, non -owned and hired vehicles with a limit of
$1,000,000.00 per occurrence,
C. The liability insurance policies required by this section shall be maintained by
Franchisee throughout the term of this Franchise, such other periods of time
during which Franchisee's facilities occupy public ways, and while Franchisee is
engaged in the removal of its facilities. Franchisee shall provide an insurance
certificate, together with an endorsement naming the City, and its elected and
appointed officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives, engineers,
consultants, and volunteers as additional insureds, to the City prior to the
commencement of any construction or installation of any facilities pursuant to this
Franchise or other work in a public way. Any deductibles or self - insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Payment of deductibles
and self - insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of Franchisee. The
insurance certificate required by this section shall contain a clause stating that
coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Franchisee's insurance shall be primary insurance with respect to the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents, consultants, and volunteers. Any insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents, and
volunteers shall be in excess of the Franchisee's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
D. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this section, each such
insurance policy shall contain an endorsement in a form which substantially
complies with the following:
"[t is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled
nor the intention not to renew be stated until 10 days after receipt by the
City, by registered mail, of a written notice addressed to the Pasco City
Manager of intent to cancel or not to renew for reason of nonpayment of
premium and until 30 days after receipt by the City, by registered mail, of
a written notice addressed to the Pasco City Manager of intent to cancel or
not to renew for reason for any other reason."
E. At least ten (10) days prior to said cancellation or non - renewal, Franchisee shall
obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance policies meeting the
requirements of this section.
8. SECURITY FUND. The fund described herein shall be considered an additional security
and protection above, beyond and in addition to those rights and remedies already
provided by other law including, but not limited to, PMC Title 15. Franchisee shall
establish and maintain a security fund in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), at
its cost, with the City by depositing such monies, bonds; letters of credit, or other
instruments in such form and amount acceptable to the City, No sums may be withdrawn
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 6
from the fund by Franchisee without consent of the City. The security fund shall be
maintained at the sole expense of Franchisee so long as any of the Franchisee's facilities
occupy a public way.
A. The fund shall serve as security for the full and complete performance of this
Franchise, including any claims, costs, damages, judgments, awards, or liability,
of any kind whatsoever, the City pays or incurs, including civil penalties, because
of any failure attributable to Franchisee to comply with the provisions of this
Franchise or the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, standards, or permits of the
City.
B. Before any sums are withdrawn from the security fund. the City shall give written
notice to Franchisee:
(l) Describing the act, default or failure to be remedied, or the claims, costs,
damages, judgments, awards, or liability which the City has incurred or
may pay by reason of Franchisee's act or default;
(2) Providing a reasonable opportunity for Franchisee to first remedy the
existing or ongoing default or failure, if applicable;
(3) Providing a reasonable opportunity for Franchisee to pay any monies due
the City before the City withdraws the amount thereof from the security
fund, if applicable; and
(4) Franchisee will be given an opportunity to review the act, default or failure
described in the notice with the City or his or her designee.
C. Franchisee shall replenish the security fund within fourteen (14) days after written
notice from the City that there is a deficiency in the amount of the fund.
D. Insufficiency of the security fund shall not release or relieve Franchisee of any
obligation or financial responsibility.
9. TAXES, CHARGES, AND FEES,
A. Franchisee shall pay and be responsible for all charges and fees imposed to
recover actual administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly
related to receiving and approving this Franchise, any use and /or development
authorizations which may be required, or any permit which may be required, to
inspect plans and construction, or to the preparation of a detailed statement
pursuant to RCW Ch. 43.21C. Regular application and processing charges and
fees imposed by the City shall be deemed to be attributable to actual
administrative expenses incurred by the City but shall not excuse Franchisee from
paying and being responsible for other actual administrative expenses incurred by
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 7
the City. Following the execution of this Franchise Agreement, Franchisee shall
pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of the date of its billing, reimbursement for
actual expenses for meeting notice and ordinance publications required in
connection with the franchise approval.
B. Franchisee shall pay and be responsible for takes permitted by law.
10. COMPENSATION FRANCHISE FEE.
A. Franchisee warrants that it is not engaged in any of the activities of a "Telephone
Business" as used in RCW 35.21.860 and defined in RCW 82.16.010. Franchisee
warrants that it is not engaged in any of the activities of a "Service Provider" as
used in RCW 35.21.860 and defined in RCW 35.99.010. In consideration of
permission to use the streets and Rights -of -Way of the City for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of a Telecommunications system within the Franchise
area, and to compensate the City for actual costs incurred in administration of the
Franchise and as a result of Franchisee's occupancy of City Rights -of -Way, the
Franchise shall pay to City during the term of this Franchise an amount equal to
seven percent (7 %) of the Franchisee's Gross Revenues ( "Franchise Fee "). Any,
net uncollectibles, bad debts or other accrued amounts deducted from Gross
Revenues shall be included in Gross Receipts at such time as they are actually
collected. Revenue from point to point services is based on the pro -rata share of
the revenue from those services.
B. Modification Resulting from Action by Law. Upon thirty days' notice and in the
event any law or valid rule or regulation applicable to this Franchise limits the
Franchise Fee below the amount provided herein, or as subsequently modified, the
Franchisee agrees to and shall pay the maximum permissible amount and; if such
law or valid rule or regulation is later repealed or amended to allow a higher
permissible amount, then Franchisee shall pay the higher amount commencing
from the date of such repeal or amendment, up to the maximum allowable by law.
C. Payment of Franchise Fees. Payments due under this provision shall be computed
and paid quarterly for the preceding quarter, as of March 31, June 30, September
30, and December 31, each quarterly payment due and payable no later than 45
days after such dates. Not later than the date of each payment, the Franchisee
shall file with the City a written statement, in a form satisfactory to the City and
signed under penalty of perjury by an officer of the Franchisee, identifying in
detail the amount of gross revenue received by the Franchisee, the computation
basis and method, for the quarter for which payment is made,
D. The Franchise Fee shall not be deemed to be in lieu of or a waiver of any ad
valorem property tax which the City may now or hereafter be entitled to, or to
participate in, or to levy upon the property of Franchisee.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 8
E. The regulatory fees and costs provided for in this Franchise, and any
compensation charged and paid for the use of City property, are separate from,
and additional to, any and all federal, state, local and City taxes as may be levied,
imposed or due. Fees are intended to compensate the City as a reasonable estimate
of actual costs that will be incurred in administering the Franchise and as a result
of Franchisee's occupancy of City Rights -of -Way. To mitigate impacts to City
Rights -of -Way Franchise fees paid to the City shall be allocated first to the Street
Fund.
11. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. The City reserves the right to vacate any public way
which is subject to rights, privileges, and authority granted by this Franchise, If
Franchisee has facilities in such public way, the City shall reserve an easement for
Franchisee. Franchisee acknowledges its responsibility to provide the City with
information on its system /facilities, pursuant to PMC sections 15.70. 100 and 15.70.310,
12. Competitively Neutral Application. The City shall impose, on a competitively neutral
and nondiscriminatory basis, similar terms and conditions upon other similarly situated
providers of Telecommunications services operating within the City. Any requirement
imposed on Franchisee that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction not in
compliance with this Section 12 shall be unenforceable against Franchisee, and shall be
subject to renegotiation pursuant to the same procedure as described in Section 20..
13. RECORDS.
A. Franchisee will manage all of its operations in accordance with a policy of
keeping its documents and records open and accessible to the City. The City will
have access to, and the right to inspect, any documents and records of Franchisee
and its affiliates that are reasonably necessary for the enforcement of this
Franchise or to verify Franchisee's compliance with terms or conditions of this
Franchise. Franchisee will not deny the City access to any of Franchisee's records
on the basis that Franchisee's documents or records are under the control of any
affiliate or a third party. Franchisee will take all steps necessary to assist the City
in complying with the Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56, including
providing the City with a written statement identifying how long it will take to
produce records not immediately available, and for any records that are not
disclosed in whole or in part, a written statement from Franchisee's legal counsel
stating the authority upon which the documents are withheld
B. All documents and records maintained by Franchisee shall be made available for
inspection by the City at reasonable times and intervals; provided, however, that
nothing in this section shall be construed to require Franchisee to violate state or
federal law regarding subscriber privacy, nor shall this section be construed to
require Franchisee to disclose proprietary or confidential information without
adequate safeguards for its confidential or proprietary nature. The City agrees that
such infonnation is confidential and that the City will use such information only
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 9
for the purpose of managing its Rights -of -Way, determining compliance with the
terms of this Franchise, and verifying the adequacy of Franchisee's fee payments.
The City further agrees to protect such information from disclosure to third parties
to the maximum extent allowed by Washington law, except that the City shall not
be required to seek injunctive relief under RCW Chapter 42.56 or otherwise..
C. Right to Perform Franchise Fee Audit or Review; Default. _ In addition to all
rights granted under Section 13, the City shall have the right to have performed, a
formal audit or a professional review of the Franchisee's books and records by an
independent private auditor, for the sole purpose of determining the Gross
Receipts of the Franchisee generated through the provision of
Telecommunications Services under this Franchise and the accuracy of amounts
paid as Franchise fees to the City by the Franchisee; provided, however, that any
audit or review must be commenced not later than 3 years after the date on which
Franchise fees for any period being audited or reviewed were due. The cost of any
such audit or review shall be borne by the City, but if the audit determines that
Franchisee has failed to pay fees in the amount required by this Agreement, then
Franchisee shall bear the cost of the audit. The City agrees to protect from
disclosure to third parties, to the maximum extent allowed by State law, any
information obtained as a result of its rights pursuant to this Section, or any
compilation or other derivative works created using information obtained pursuant
to the exercise of its rights.
14. NOTICES.
A. Any regular notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties
under this Franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise
specified:
The City: City of Pasco
Attn: City Manager
525 North 3rd
Pasco WA 99301
Phone: (509) 545 -3404
Franchisee: Contracts Administration
LS Networks
921 SW Washington St., STE 370
Portland, OR 97205 99362
Phone: (503) 294 -5300
Fax: (503) 227 -8585
LS Networks Franchise Agreement -Page 10
B. Franchisee shall additionally provide a phone number and designated responsible
officials to respond to emergencies. After being notified of an emergency,
Franchisee shall cooperate with the City and make best efforts to immediately
respond to minimize damage, protect the health and safety of the public and repair
facilities to restore them to proper working order.
15. NON- WAIVER. The failure of the City to exercise any rights or remedies under this
Franchise or to insist upon compliance with any terms or conditions of this Franchise
shall not be a waiver of any such rights, remedies, terms or conditions of this Franchise
by the City and shall not prevent the City from demanding compliance with such terms or
conditions at any future time or pursuing its rights or remedies.
16. EMINENT DOMAIN. This Franchise is subject to the power of eminent domain and
the right of the City Council to repeal, amend or modify the Franchise in the interest of
the public. In any proceeding under eminent domain, the Franchise itself shall have no
value.
17. DAMAGE TO FACILITIES. Unless directly and proximately caused by the active sole
negligence or willful misconduct COMPENSATIONof the City, the City shall not be
liable for any damage to or loss of any facilities as a result of or in connection with any
public works, public improvements, construction, excavation, grading, filling, or work of
any kind on, in, under, over, across, or within a public way done by or on behalf of the
City.
18. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Franchise and use of the applicable public
ways will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, unless preempted by
federal law. Franchisee agrees to be bound by the laws of the State of Washington, unless
preempted by federal law, and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of
Washington. Any action relating to this Franchise must be brought in the Superior Court
of Washington for Franklin County, or in the case of a Federal action, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington at Richland, Washington, unless an
administrative agency has primary jurisdiction. Prior to initiating any litigation under this
Agreement, the parties shall meet in a good faith effort to mutually resolve disputes.
19. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Franchise or its
application to any person or entity should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality will not affect the
validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Franchise nor its application to any other person or entity.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page I 1
20. CHANGES IN LAW. 1f, during the term of this Franchise, there becomes effective any
change in Federal or State law, and such change specifically requires the City to enact a
code or ordinance which conflicts or is inconsistent with any provision of this Franchise,
or creates additional rights or responsibilities which would materially alter the terms of
this Franchise, or if the circumstances described in Section 12 become operative, then in
such event either party may within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the effective
date of such change, notify the other party in writing of such party's desire to commence
negotiations to amend this Franchise. Such negotiations shall only encompass the
specific term or condition affected by such change in Federal or State law, and neither
party shall be obligated to re -open negotiations on any other term or condition of this
Franchise, although the parties may voluntarily choose to do so.
If no agreement is reached within ninety (90) days of reopening the negotiations, either
party may declare its intent to terminate the Franchise, which termination shall become
effective one hundred and eighty ( 180) days thereafter.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Franchise to the contrary, the right of either
party to terminate the Agreement pursuant to material changes in Federal and State law
and unsuccessful renegotiation of the Franchise shall be an independent right not subject
to the administrative requirements for tennination of the Franchise contained in PMC
Title 15, or this Franchise Agreement.
21. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Equal Employment and Nondiscrimination. Throughout the term of this
Franchise, Franchisee will fully comply with all equal employment and
nondiscrimination provisions and requirements of federal, state, and local laws,
and in particular, FCC rules and regulations relating thereto.
B. Local Employment Efforts and Contractor Oualifications. Franchisee will use
reasonable efforts to utilize qualified local contractors, including minority
business enterprises and woman business enterprises, whenever the Franchisee
employs contractors to perform work under this Franchise. Franchisee's
contractors and subcontractors must be licensed and bonded in accordance with
the City's ordinances, rules, and regulations. Work by contractors and
subcontractors is subject to the same restrictions, limitations and conditions as if
the work were performed by Franchisee.
C. Descriptive HeadiM. The headings and titles of the sections and subsections of
this Franchise are for reference purposes only and do not affect the meaning or
interpretation of the text herein.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 12
D. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. If any action or suit arises in connection with this
Franchise, the substantially prevailing party will be entitled to recover all of its
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, as well as costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees on appeal, in addition to such other relief as the court may deem
proper.
F. No Joint Venture. Nothing herein will be deemed to create a joint venture or
principal -agent relationship between the parties, and neither party is authorized to,
nor shall either party act toward third persons or the public in any manner that
would indicate any such relationship with the other.
F. Mutual Nev.otiatiop. This Franchise was mutually negotiated by the Franchisee
and the City and has been reviewed by the legal counsel for both parties. Neither
party will be deemed to be the drafter of this Franchise.
G. Third -Fumy Beneficiaries. There are no third -party beneficiaries to this Franchise,
Franchisee is prohibited from subleasing any of its facilities operated by this
Franchise. This shall include a prohibition against any sharing of facilities on a
voluntary or compensated basis by Franchisee with third parties.
H. Actions of the City or Franchisee. In performing their respective obligations under
this Franchise, the City and Franchisee will act in a reasonable, expeditious, and
timely manner. Whenever this Franchise sets forth a time for any act to be
performed by Franchisee, such time shall be deemed to be of the essence, and any
failure of Franchisee to perform within the allotted time may be considered a
material breach of this Franchise, and sufficient grounds for the City to invoke any
relevant remedy.
I. Entire A.�reement. This Franchise represents the entire understanding and
agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes
all prior oral and written negotiations between the parties.
J. Modification. The parties may alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of
this Franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration,
amendment or modification. Nothing in this subsection shall impair the City's
exercise of authority reserved to it under this Franchise.
K. Non - exclusivity. This Franchise does not confer any exclusive right, privilege, or
authority to enter, occupy or use public ways for delivery of telecommunications
services or any other purposes. This Franchise is granted upon the express
condition that it will not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or
further franchises in, on, across, over, along, under or through any public way.
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 13
L. Rights, Granted. This Franchise does not convey any right, title or interest in
public ways, but shall be deemed only as authorization to enter, occupy, or use
public ways for the limited purposes and term stated in this Franchise. Further,
this Franchise shall not be construed as any warranty of title nor shall it grant any
right to enter, occupy or use public property.
M. Limitation on Liability. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to create,
expand, or extend any liability of the City to any third party user of Franchisee's
facilities or to otherwise recognize or create third party beneficiaries to this
Franchise.
N. This Franchise shall not be sold, leased, assigned or otherwise transferred, nor
shall any of the rights or privileges herein granted or authorized be leased,
assigned, mortgaged, sold or transferred, either in whole or in part, nor shall title
hereto, either legal or equitable, or any right, interest or property herein, pass to or
vest in any person, except the Franchisee, either by act of the Franchisee or by
operation of law, without the consent of the City, expressed in writing, such
consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Consent may be withheld if the City
determines that the transfer is to a person or entity which does not possess the
legal, technical, or financial qualifications necessary to properly manage the
Franchise. If the Franchisee wishes to transfer this Franchise, the Franchisee shall
give City written notice of the proposed transfer, and shall request consent of the
transfer by the City.
(1) Any transfer of ownership affected without the written consent of the City
shall render this Franchise subject to revocation. The City shall have 60
days to act upon any request for approval of a transfer. If the City fails to
render a final decision on the request within said 60 days, the request shall
be deemed granted unless the Franchisee and the City agree to an
extension of time.
(2) The Franchisee, upon any transfer, shall within 60 days thereafter file with
the City a certified statement evidencing the transfer and an
acknowledgment of the transferee that it agrees to be bound by the terms
and conditions contained in this Franchise.
(3) The requirements of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the use of
the Franchisee's property as collateral for security in financing the
construction or acquisition of all or part of a Telecommunications System
of the Franchisee or any affiliate of the Franchisee. However, the
Telecommunications System franchised hereunder, including portions
thereof used as collateral, shall at all times continue to be subject to the
provisions of this Franchise.
LS '.Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 14
22.
23
(4) The requirements of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit sale of
tangible assets of the Franchisee in the ordinary conduct of the
Franchisee's business without the consent of the City. The requirements
of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit, without the consent of the
City, a transfer to a transferee whose primary business is
Telecommunications System operation and having a majority of its
beneficial ownership held by the Franchisee, a parent of the Franchisee, or
an affiliate, a majority of whose beneficial ownership is held by a parent of
the Franchisee.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This Agreement, specifically by this
reference, incorporates PMC Title 15.
PUBLICATION. The City CIerk is authorized and directed to publish a summary hereof
in accordance with Revised Code of Washington §§ 35A.13.200 and 35A.12.160.
24. EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement shall take effect five (5) days following the
passage of an authorizing ordinance and publication of this Franchise, or a summary
thereof, occurs in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to RCW
35A,47.040, or upon execution by all parties hereto, whichever occurs later.
DATED this day of
CITY OF PASCO
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
, 2012.
LIGHTSPEED NETWORKS, INC.
Michael Weidman, President and CEO
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 15
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
M
County of Franklin
On this day personally appeared before me MATT WATKINS, Mayor of the City of Pasco, to
me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary deed for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this day of , 2012.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at
My Commission Expires
STATE OF OREGON)
ss
County of
On this day personally appeared before me MICHAEL WEIDMAN, President and CEO of
LightSpeed Networks, Inc., to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the
within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary
deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this day of , 2012.
Notary Public in and for the State of Oregon
Residing at
My Commission Expires
LS Networks Franchise Agreement - Page 16
F''� C'. i�'• 7i �C o.' d r rat 3t c
Awl
L,
�+ i rir+a i • � ' zP• '� _ P - � ; : 'r� Q `c � Ci.:r �i.,� 0 I' _ � "F' "�
� � in 1• � � r • E e • �"� � ,' [� �+� -
• • t
es
0 ^5L �•
A It
4
.. W Ct
P ,
Ire 0, LS
Networks
LS Networks is working with a major wireless carrier to increase
their 4G network which will facilitate our network expansion further
into Washington State. We'd like to introduce ourselves to you.
LightSpeed Networks Inc., dba "LS Networks" is one of the fastest -
growing telecommunications companies in the Pacific Northwest.
We are a privately -held inter - exchange network services provider
and competitive local exchange carrier, with our headquarters in
Portland, Oregon. LS Networks is owned by upwards of 60,000
Oregonians (consisting of rural electric power cooperatives'
members and a tribal nation), and as such focuses on providing
benefit and value -added services to rural communities in Oregon
and now into several rural communities of Washington.
LS Networks operates a fiber optic backbone throughout Oregon
and has focused on bringing state -of- the -art connectivity to State
and Local governmental agencies, schools, hospitals, wholesale
opportunities and businesses. We have designed our network using
the latest in resilient broadband technologies that effectively level
the "playing field" of service - delivery capabilities between rural and
metropolitan areas around the Pacific Northwest. Additional
information can be found on our website at www.LSNetworks.net.
This expansion to the 4G wireless network will provide world class
technology with our neighborly attention to service and provide
your community an additional resource to high speed broadband
connectivity.
LS Networks — 921 SM/ Washington Street, Suite 370, Portland, OR 97205 -- '031294 -5300
FOR: City Council( J April 9, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchf Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Regular Mtg.: 5/21/12
FROM: Stan Strebe1, 7ep-uty i ty Manage
SUBJECT: Franchise Agreement — Northwest Open Access Network - NoaNet
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Proposed Franchise Agreement
3. NoaNet Proposed Route
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
5/21: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , granting a franchise
to Northwest Open Access Network and to authorize the Mayor to
sign the franchise agreement and, further, to authorize publication
of the Ordinance by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) NoaNet is a non - profit corporation owned by several Public Utility Districts
(including Benton and Franklin) in Washington State. NoaNet operates a fiber
optic network with the intent of offering broadband services pursuant to a federal
grant, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and as trustee
for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
B) Franchises are reviewed and granted pursuant to Title 15 of the Pasco Municipal
Code. Prior to granting a franchise, the City Council must conduct a public
hearing and thereafter make a decision on the franchise based on the following
standards:
1. Whether the applicant has received all requisite licenses, certificates,
and authorizations from the Federal Communications Commission, the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and any other
federal or state agency with jurisdiction over the activities proposed by
the applicant;
2. The capacity of the public ways to accommodate the applicant's
proposed facilities;
3. The capacity of the public ways to accommodate additional utility,
cable, open video, and telecommunications facilities if the franchise is
granted;
4. The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities,
improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the franchise is
granted;
5. The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of
construction within the public ways;
6. The service that applicant will provide to the community and region;
7(b)
7. The effect, if any, on public health, safety and welfare if the franchise
is granted;
S. The availability of alternate routes and /or locations for the proposed
facilities;
9. Applicable federal and state communications laws, regulations and
policies;
10. Such other factors as may demonstrate that the grant to use the public
ways will serve the community interest and;
11. Such other and further factors as may be deemed appropriate by the
City.
C) The Council cannot approve a franchise until the next regularly scheduled
meeting following the hearing, Assuming Council agrees to grant the franchise,
adoption of the attached proposed ordinance is recommended. A written
determination is required for denial of a franchise.
V. DISCUSSION,.
A) The franchise document grants authority and establishes essential parameters for
the instal lation/operation of the franchisee's improvements within the city's
rights -of -way, such as permitting, insurance, records, fees, etc.
B) Staff has prepared the attached; proposed franchise agreement in compliance with
Title 15 and applicable state and federal law.
C) Individual permit applications for specific installations are required of
franchisees.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Approving the
Northwest Open Access Network Franchise and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign
the Franchise Agreement,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington ("City ") and Northwest Open Access
Network ( "Franchisee "), are parties to the Franchise Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, the City has authority to regulate telecommunication franchises pursuant to
RCW 35A.47.040 and Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 15,10; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed Franchisee's application for a franchise and
determined that the Franchisee possesses the legal, technical and financial capability to operate
within the City's rights -of -way; and that the grant of a franchise will meet the standards set forth
in Pasco Municipal Code Section 15.10.050; and
WHEREAS, the City and Franchisee have mutually negotiated a Franchise Agreement
containing the Franchisee's obligations and responsibilities while operating within the City's
rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City has provided opportunities to the public for participation in the
application process by publishing this Ordinance and by conducting a public hearing on May 7,
2012; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Franchisee is hereby granted a franchise subject to the terms and
conditions of the Franchise Agreement attached hercto as Exhibit A; and furthermore, the Mayor
of the City of Pasco, Washington, is hereby authorized to execute said Franchise Agreement.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage, and publication as required by law,
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of 22012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland R. Kerr, City Attorney
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT entered into this day of
, 2012, by and between the City of Pasco, Washington, a Washington
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and Northwest Open Access Network,
a Washington Non - Profit Mutual Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Franchisee "),
WHEREAS, Section 35A,47.040 and Chapter 35.99 of the Revised Code of Washington
authorize the City to grant, permit, and regulate non - exclusive franchises for the use of public
ways; and
WHEREAS, Franchisee has applied to the City for a non - exclusive franchise to enter,
occupy, and use public ways to construct, install, operate, maintain, and repair fiber optic
facilities to offer and provide telecommunications service for hire, sale, or resale in the City of
Pasco; and
WHEREAS, a franchise is a legislatively approved master permit granting general
permission to a service provider to enter, use, and occupy the public ways for the purpose of
locating facilities subject to requirements that a franchisee must also obtain separate use permits
from the City for use of each and every specific location in the public ways in which the
franchisee intends to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair or remove identified facilities;
and
WHEREAS, a franchise does not include, and is not a substitute for any other permit,
agreement, or other authorization required by the City, including without limitation, permits
required in connection with construction activities in public ways which must be administratively
approved by the City after review of specific plans; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public hearing and reviewed the application based
upon the standards set forth in Pasco Municipal Code Section 15.10,050 (A); and
WHEREAS, the City approved this Franchise Agreement pursuant to RCW 35A.47.040
at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting following the public hearing pursuant to
Ordinance No. ; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the franchise terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement are in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Agreement, all terms shall have the meaning as
defined in PMC 15.10.020. Tetras not specifically defined therein shall be given their
ordinary meaning. The following additional definitions shall apply:
A. "Conduit" means optical cable housing, jackets, or casing, and pipes, tubes, or
tiles used for receiving and protecting wires, lines, cables, and communication and
signal lines.
B. "Dark Fiber" means properly functioning optical cable which is not used or
available for use by Franchisee or the general public.
C. "Information" means knowledge or intelligence represented by any form of
writing, signs, signals, pictures, sounds, or any other symbols.
D. "Optical Cable" means wires, Iines, cables and communication and signal lines
used to convey communications by fiber optics.
2. FRANCHISE.
A. The City grants to Franchisee, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and PMC Title 15, a non - exclusive franchise to enter, occupy, and use
public ways for constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, and
removing wireline facilities necessary to provide telecommunications services.
Franchisee shall construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, and remove its
facilities at its expense.
B. Any rights, privileges, and authority granted to Franchisee under this Franchise
are subject to the legitimate rights of the police power of the City to adopt and
enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the safety and welfare of the
public, and nothing in this Franchise excuses Franchisee from its obligation to
comply with all applicable general laws enacted by the City pursuant to such
power. Any conflict between the terms or conditions of this Franchise and any
other present or future exercise of the City's police powers will be resolved in
favor of the exercise of the City's police power.
C. Nothing in this Franchise excuses Franchisee of its obligation to identify its
facilities and proposed facilities and their location or proposed location in the
public ways and to obtain use and /or development authorization and permits from
the City before entering, occupying, or using public ways to construct, install,
operate, maintain, repair, or remove such facilities.
D. Nothing in this Franchise excuses Franchisee of its obligation to comply with
applicable codes, rules, regulations, and standards subject to verification by the
City of such compliance.
E. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to create a duty upon the City to be
responsible for construction of facilities or to modify public ways to accommodate
Franchisee's facilities.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - page 2
F. Nothing in this Franchise grants authority to Franchisee to provide or offer cable
television service,
G. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to create, expand, or extend any
liability to the City or to any third party user of Franchisee's facilities or to
otherwise recognize or create third party beneficiaries to this Franchise.
3. TERM. Authorization granted under this Franchise shall be for a period of ten (10) years
from the effective date of this Franchise. The Franchise may be renewed as provided in
PMC Chapter I5.20. This Agreement shall be effective five (5) days following the
passage of an authorizing Ordinance and publication of this Franchise, or a summary
thereof, occurs in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to RCW
35A.47.040, or upon execution by all parties hereto whichever occurs later.
4. LOCATION OF FACILITIES. Franchisee will locate its facilities consistent with the
requirements of PMC Title 15 and as directed by the City Engineer. Prior to installation
of any facilities, Franchisee shall obtain all required City permits.
5. COORDINATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES
AND OTHER WORK. All construction or installation locations, activities and
schedules shall be coordinated, as ordered by the City consistent with PMC Chapter 15.70
and as directed by the City Engineer, to minimize public inconvenience, disruption or
damages.
6. HOLD HARMLESS AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
A. Hold Harmless.
(1) Franchisee hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected officials,
officers, employees, servants, agents, and representatives against any and
all claims, costs, damages, judgments, awards, or liability, of any kind
whatsoever, to any person, including claims by Franchisee's own
employees to which Franchisee might otherwise be immune under Title 51
RCW, arising from injury nr death of any person or damage to property
arising out of the acts or omissions of Franchisee, its officers, employees,
servants, agents or representatives.
(2) Franchisee further releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected officials,
officers, employees, servants, agents, and representatives from any and all
clairns, costs, damages, judgments, awards, or liability to any person,
including claims by Franchisee's own employees, including those claims
to which Franchisee might otherwise have immunity under Title 51 RCW,
arising out of Franchisee's exercise of the rights, privileges, or authority
granted by this Franchise which are made against the City, in whole or in
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 3
part, due to the City's ownership or control of the public ways or other
City property, by virtue of the City permitting the Franchisee's entry,
occupancy or use of the public ways, or based upon the City's inspection
or lack of inspection of work performed by Franchisee, its officers,
employees, servants, agents or representatives.
(3) These hold harmless covenants include, but are not limited to claims
against the City arising as a result of the acts or omissions of Franchisee,
its officers, employees, servants, agents or representatives in barricading,
instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of
any excavation, construction; or work in any public way or other public
place in performance of work or services permitted under this Franchise,
(4) Franchisee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City,
its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and
representatives against any claims for damages, including, but not limited
to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under
users of the Franchisee's facilities as the result of any intemiption of
service due to damage or destruction of the user's facilities caused by or
arising out of damage or destruction of Franchisee's facilities, except to
the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the
active sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
(5) In the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons
or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent
negligence of Franchisee and the City, Franchisee's liability hereunder
shall be only to the extent of Franchisee's negligence.
(b) It is further specifically and expressly understood that the hold harmless
covenants provided herein constitutes the Franchisee's waiver of immunity
under Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the
parties.
(7) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Franchisee
at the time of completion of construction or installation shall not be
grounds for avoidance of any of these hold harmless covenants. Said hold
harmless obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit
and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any
litigation or the institution of any litigation.
(8) In the event that Franchisee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any
claim, said tender having been made pursuant to the hold harmless
covenants contained herein, and said refusal is subsequently determined by
a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall
agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of
Franchisee, then Franchisee shall pay and be responsible for all of the
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 4
City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert
witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees and the reasonable costs of the
City, including reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this hold
harmless clause.
B. Assumption of Risk.
(1) Franchisee assumes the risk of damage to its facilities located in the City's
public ways from activities conducted by third parties or the City, its
elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, or representatives,
Franchisee releases and waives any and all claims against the City, its
elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and representatives
for damage to or destruction of the Franchisee's facilities except to the
extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from active
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
(2) Franchisee bears sole responsibility to insure its property. Franchisee shall
ensure that its insurance contracts waive subrogation claims against the
City, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and
representatives, and Franchisee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, agents, and
representatives against any and all subrogation claims if it fails to do so,
7. INSURANCE. Franchisee shall obtain and maintain, at its cost, worker's compensation
insurance and the following liability insurance policies insuring both Franchisee and the
City, and its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives,
engineers, consultants, and volunteers as additional insureds against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise
of the rights, privileges, and authority granted to Franchisee:
A. Comprehensive general liability insurance, written on an occurrence basis, with
limits not less than:
(1) $5,000,000.00 for bodily injury or death to each person;
(2) $5,000,000.00 for property damage resulting from any one accident; and
(3) $5,000,000.00 for all other types of liability.
B. Automobile liability for owned, non -owned and hired vehicles with a limit of
$1,000,000.00 per occurrence.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 5
C. The liability insurance policies required by this section shall be maintained by
Franchisee throughout the term of this Franchise, such other periods of time
during which Franchisee's facilities occupy public ways, and while Franchisee is
engaged in the removal of its facilities. Franchisee shall provide an insurance
certificate, together with an endorsement naming the City, and its elected and
appointed officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives, engineers,
consultants, and volunteers as additional insureds, to the City prior to the
commencement of any construction or installation of any facilities pursuant to this
Franchise or other work in a public way. Any deductibles or self - insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Payment of deductibles
and self - insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of Franchisee. The
insurance certificate required by this section shall contain a clause stating that
coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Franchisee's insurance shall be primary insurance with respect to the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents, consultants, and volunteers. Any insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, consultants, agents, and
volunteers shall be in excess of the Franchisee's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
D. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this section, each such
insurance policy shall contain an endorsement in a form which substantially
complies with the following:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled
nor the intention not to renew be stated until 10 days after receipt by the
City, by registered mail, of a written notice addressed to the Pasco City
Manager of intent to cancel or not to renew for reason of nonpayment of
premium and until 30 days after receipt by the City, by registered mail, of
a written notice addressed to the Pasco City Manager of intent to cancel or
not to renew for reason for any other reason."
E. At least ten (10) days prior to said cancellation or non - renewal, Franchisee shall
obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance policies meeting the
requirements of this section.
S. SECURITY FUND. The fund described herein shall be considered an additional security
and protection above, beyond and in addition to those rights and remedies already
provided by other law including, but not limited to, PMC Title 15. Franchisee shall
establish and maintain a security fund in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), at
its cost, with the City by depositing such monies, bonds, letters of credit, or other
instruments in such form and amount acceptable to the City. No sums may be withdrawn
from the fund by Franchisee without consent of the City. The security fund shall be
maintained at the sole expense of Franchisee so long as any of the Franchisee's facilities
occupy a public way,
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 6
A. The fund shall serve as security for the full and complete performance of this
Franchise, including any claims, costs, damages, judgments, awards, or liability,
of any kind whatsoever, the City pays or incurs, including civil penalties, because
of any failure attributable to Franchisee to comply with the provisions of this
Franchise or the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, standards, or permits of the
City.
B. Before any sums are withdrawn from the security fund, the City shall give written
notice to Franchisee:
(1) Describing the act, default or failure to be remedied, or the claims, costs,
damages, judgments, awards, or liability which the City has incurred or
may pay by reason of Franchisee's act or default;
(2) Providing a reasonable opportunity for Franchisee to first remedy the
existing or ongoing default or failure, if applicable;
(3) Providing a reasonable opportunity for Franchisee to pay any monies due
the City before the City withdraws the amount thereof from the security
fund, if applicable; and
(4) Franchisee will be given an opportunity to review the act, default or failure
described in the notice with the City or his or her designee.
C. Franchisee shall replenish the security fund within fourteen (14) days after wmitten
notice from the City that there is a deficiency in the amount of the fund.
D. Insufficiency of the security fund shall not release or relieve Franchisee of any
obligation or financial responsibility.
9. TAXES CHARGES AND FEES.
A. Franchisee shall pay and be responsible for all charges and fees imposed to
recover actual administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly
related to receiving and approving this Franchise, any use and /or development
authorizations which may be required, or any permit which may be required, to
inspect plans and construction, or to the preparation of a detailed statement
pursuant to RCW Ch, 43.21C, Regular application and processing charges and
fees imposed by the City shall be deemed to be attributable to actual
administrative expenses incurred by the City but shall not excuse Franchisee from
paying and being responsible for other actual administrative expenses incurred by
the City. Following the execution of this Franchise Agreement, Franchisee shall
pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of the date of its billing, reimbursement for
actual expenses for meeting notice and ordinance publications required in
connection with the franchise approval.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 7
B. Franchisee shall pay and be responsible for taxes permitted by law.
10. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. The City reserves the right to vacate any public way
which is subject to rights, privileges, and authority granted by this Franchise. if
Franchisee has facilities in such public way, the City shall reserve an easement for
Franchisee. Franchisee acknowledges its responsibility to provide the City with
information on its system /facilities, pursuant to PMC sections 15.70.100 and 15.70.310.
11, RECORDS,
A. Franchisee will manage all of its operations in accordance with a policy of
keeping its documents and records open and accessible to the City. The City will
have access to, and the right to inspect, any documents and records of Franchisee
and its affiliates that are reasonably necessary for the enforcement of this
Franchise or to verify Franchisee's compliance with terms or conditions of this
Franchise. Franchisee will not deny the City access to any of Franchisee's records
on the basis that Franchisee's documents or records are under the control of any
affiliate or a third party. Franchisee will take all steps necessary to assist the City
in complying with the Public Records Act, RCW Chapter 42.56, including
providing the City with a written statement identifying how Iong it will take to
produce records not immediately available, and for any records that are not
disclosed in whole or in part, a written statement from Franchisee's legal counsel
stating the authority upon which the documents are withheld.
B, All documents and records maintained by Franchisee shall be made available for
inspection by the City at reasonable times and intervals; provided, however, that
nothing in this section shall be construed to require Franchisee to violate state or
federal law regarding subscriber privacy, nor shall this section be construed to
require Franchisee to disclose proprietary or confidential information without
adequate safeguards for its confidential or proprietary nature.
C. One copy of documents and records requested by the City will be furnished to the
City at the cost of Franchisee. If the requested documents and records are too
voluminous or for security reasons cannot be copied or removed, then Franchisee
may request, in writing within ten (10) days of the City's request, that the City
inspect them at Franchisee's local office. If any documents or records of
Franchisee are not kept in a local office and /or are not made available in copies to
the City, and if the City determines that an examination of such documents or
records is necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of this Franchise, or to
verify Franchisee's compliance with terms or conditions of this Franchise, then all
reasonable travel and related costs incurred in making such examination shall be
paid by Franchisee.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 8
12. NOTICES.
A. Any regular notice or information required or permitted to be given to the parties
under this Franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise
specified:
The City: City of Pasco
Attn: City Manager
525 North 3rd
Pasco WA 99301
Phone: (509) 545 -3404
Franchisee: Northwest Open Access Network
Attn. Greg Mamey, CEO
5802 Overlook Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98422
With copy to;
Northwest Open Access Network
Attn: Chris Walker
422 W Riverside Ste 408
Spokane, WA 99201
B. Franchisee shall additionally provide a phone number and designated responsible
officials to respond to emergencies. After heing notified of an emergency,
Franchisee shall cooperate with the City and make best efforts to immediately
respond to minimize damage, protect the health and safety of the public and repair
facilities to restore them to proper working order.
13, NON - WAIVER. The failure of the City to exercise any rights or remedies under this
Franchise or to insist upon compliance with any terms or conditions of this Franchise
shall not be a waiver of any such rights, remedies, terms or conditions of this Franchise
by the City and shall not prevent the City from demanding compliance with such terms or
conditions at any future time or pursuing its rights or remedies.
14. EMINENT DOMAIN. This Franchise is subject to the power of eminent domain and
the right of the City Council to repeal, amend or modify the Franchise in the interest of
the public. In any proceeding under eminent domain, the Franchise itself shall have no
value.
15. DAMAGE TO FACILITIES. Unless directly and proximately caused by the active sole
negligence or willful misconduct of the City, the City shall not be liable for any damage
to or loss of any facilities as a result of or in connection with any public works, public
improvements, construction, excavation, grading, filling, or work of any kind on, in,
under, over, across, or within a public way done by or on behalf of the City.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 9
16. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Franchise and use of the applicable
public ways will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, unless preempted
by federal Iaw. Franchisee agrees to be bound by the laws of the State of Washington,
unless preempted by federal Iaw, and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State
of Washington. Any action relating to this Franchise must be brought in the Superior
Court of Washington for Franklin County, or in the case of a Federal action, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington at Richland, Washington,
unless an administrative agency has primary, jurisdiction. Prior to initiating any litigation
under this Agreement, the parties shall meet in a good faith effort to mutually resolve
disputes.
17. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Franchise or its
application to any person or entity should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality will not affect the
validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Franchise nor its application to any other person or entity.
18. CHANGES IN LAW. If, during the term of this Franchise, there becomes effective any
change in Federal or State law, and such change specifically requires the City to enact a
code or ordinance which conflicts or is inconsistent with any provision of this Franchise,
or creates additional rights or responsibilities which would materially alter the terms of
this Franchise, then in such event either party may within one hundred and twenty (120)
days of the effective date of such change, notify the other party in writing of such party's
desire to commence negotiations to amend this Franchise. Such negotiations shall only
encompass the specific term or condition affected by such change in Federal or State law,
and neither party shall be obligated to re -open negotiations on any other term or condition
of this Franchise, although the parties may voluntarily choose to do so.
If no agreement is reached within ninety (90) days of reopening the negotiations, either
party may declare its intent to terminate the Franchise, which termination shall become
effective one hundred and eighty (180) days thereafter.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Franchise to the contrary, the right of either
party to terminate the Agreement pursuant to material changes in Federal and State law
and unsuccessful renegotiation of the Franchise shall be an independent right not subject
to the administrative requirements for termination of the Franchise contained in PMC
Title 15, or this Franchise Agreement.
19. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Equal Employment- --and _Nondiscrimination. Throughout the term of this
Franchise, Franchisee will fully comply with all equal employment and
nondiscrimination provisions and requirements of federal, state, and local laws,
and in particular, FCC rules and regulations relating thereto.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - page 10
B. Local Emnloyment Efforts and Contractor Qualifications. Franchisee will use
reasonable efforts to utilize qualified local contractors, including minority
business enterprises and woman business enterprises, whenever the Franchisee
employs contractors to perform work under this Franchise. Franchisee's
contractors and subcontractors must be licensed and bonded in accordance with
the City's ordinances, rules, and regulations. Work by contractors and
subcontractors is subject to the same restrictions, limitations and conditions as if
the work were performed by Franchisee.
C. Descriptive Headings. The headings and titles of the sections and subsections of
this Franchise are for reference purposes only and do not affect the meaning or
interpretation of the text herein.
D. Cosis and Attorneys' Fees. If any action or suit arises in connection with this
Franchise, the substantially prevailing party will be entitled to recover all of its
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, as well as costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees on appeal, in addition to such other relief as the court may deem
proper.
E. No Joint Venture. Nothing herein will be deemed to create a joint venture or
principal -agent relationship between the parties, and neither party is authorized to,
nor shall either party act toward third persons or the public in any manner that
would indicate any such relationship with the other.
F. Mutual Nep.otiation. This Franchise was mutually negotiated by the Franchisee
and the City and has been reviewed by the legal counsel for both parties. Neither
party will be deemed to be the drafter of this Franchise.
G. Third_ -Party Beneficiaries. There are no third -party beneficiaries to this Franchise.
Franchisee is prohibited from subleasing any of its facilities operated by this
Franchise. This shall include a prohibition against any sharing of facilities on a
voluntary or compensated basis by Franchisee with third parties.
H. Actions of the City or Franchisee. In performing their respective obligations under
this Franchise, the City and Franchisee will act in a reasonable, expeditious, and
timely manner. Whenever this Franchise sets forth a time for any act to be
performed by Franchisee, such time shall be deemed to be of the essence, and any
failure of Franchisee to perform within the allotted time may be considered a
material breach of this Franchise, and sufficient grounds for the City to invoke any
relevant remedy.
Entire A reement. This Franchise represents the entire understanding and
agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes
all prior oral and written negotiations between the parties.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page i l
J. Modification. The parties may alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of
this Franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration,
amendment or modification, Nothing in this subsection shall impair the City's
exercise of authority reserved to it under this Franchise.
K. Non - exclusivity. This Franchise does not confer any exclusive right, privilege, or
authority to enter, occupy or use public ways for delivery of telecommunications
services or any other purposes. This Franchise is granted upon the express
condition that it will not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or
further franchises in, on, across, over, along, under or through any public way,
L. Rights Granted, This Franchise does not convey any right, title or interest in
public ways, but shall be deemed only as authorization to enter, occupy, or use
public ways for the limited purposes and term stated in this Franchise. Further,
this Franchise shall not be construed as any warranty of title nor shall it grant any
right to enter, occupy or use public property.
M. Limitation on Liability. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to create,
expand, or extend any liability of the City to any third party user of Franchisee's
facilities or to otherwise recognize or create third party beneficiaries to this
Franchise.
N. Sale, Transfer or Assignment. Franchisee shall not assign or transfer its rights,
benefits, or privileges in and under this Franchise without the prior written
consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
The City may withhold consent to any transaction if the proposed Franchisee will
not possess the requisite financial, technical or legal qualifications to operate and
maintain the facilities subject to this Franchise Agreement. Prior to any
assignment or transfer, the Franchisee must provide the City with thirty (30) days
notice and an opportunity to review the transaction. Prior to any transaction
occurring, the proposed Franchisee must address any outstanding obligations of
the current franchise holder, and enter into an agreement specifically incorporating
all rights and responsibilities of this Franchise. Franchisee shall not sublease its
facilities.
O. City understands that Franchisee will be using funds under a Federal Grant under
the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to finance the
construction, purchase and /or installation of broadband facilities and equipment to
be located in the City Right -of -Way. Pursuant to BTOP, as trustee for Federal
Agency administering that program, specifically, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In light of the
foregoing, the parties hereto agree that Franchisee may assign its interest in the
Franchise to NT1A if required to do so under the rules and regulations of BTOP,
provided, however, Franchisee shall give not less than ninety (90) days advance
written notice of its intent to assign such interest to the City.
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 12
20.
21.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This Agreement, specifically by this
reference, incorporates PMC Title 15.
PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish a summary hereof
in accordance with Revised Code of Washington §§ 35A.13,200 and 35A.12.160.
22. EFFECTIVE DATE. This agreement shall take effect five (5) days following the
passage of an authorizing ordinance and publication of this Franchise, or a summary
thereof, occurs in a newspaper of general circulation in the City pursuant to RCW
35A.47.040, or upon execution by all parties hereto, whichever occurs later.
DATED this day of , 2012.
CITY OF PASCO NORTHWEST OPEN ACCESS NETWORK
Matt. Watkins, Mayor Greg Marney, CEO
Attest:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 13
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
:ss
County of Franklin )
On this day personally appeared before me MATT WATKINS, Mayor of the City of Pasco, to
me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary deed for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this day of , 2012.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at
My Commission Expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
:ss
County of
On this day personally appeared before me GREG MARNF.Y, Chief Fxeeutive Officer of
Northwest Open Access Network, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and
voluntary deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this day of , 2011
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at
My Commission Expires
NoaNet Franchise Agreement - Page 14
O J
v�r°i Oz
Car
Elv
4S1
a
U
"
i NoaNet.
11 N°rr6 ;0,n,AamAW i►
£nMUO
n
� 1
f`'1f~ E
C 375 750 1.500
�terro
1P
= lnterslate
� St a Rout y
-- -StateRoule
L, CityBou chary
Gy Boundary
NoaNet
Route SE -2 -Pasco
Washington Rural Access Project
(WRAP)
_
Franklin PoP o
Uncorn U, r4 say St c
a'
E jan,0!
St
Rlw'r13.w� Vi Jan St z
i
a w t.eoia at
,w, s'
UT 5vp
C
a'
2 W Poarl St
t 5
: W Agatr Si St
� 51
Horizon Ridge St
cw/SF
a
W Ruby S,
N Cuun Se e
r - SkyC,°zl St
H�ghfana 51
a
f K' Bro wn Sf "X
a z
n
o ESPOkan�S`
�S
o
a F PatkWow 0116
= W klaAe St
q
,
5
3
`
= "a
z
v
Q
v
-
z E 8,oadway St
E
3
°
12
NH.nry St e Z
t
z =
- EA dulia 51=
CWtAargare, Sl y
W Park Si
F
Z
; <
° Z
2
^'
.Z
f Ceorge St
4 z
W Nixon S,
w srrveare, St
.xa a
' ;
0
A
zEAtvfnaStw
51
Vey,1ma c't Y'1 ST%Op �s
�
° 51
Ctall. St
=
W
�a�Ule
W $on. e
£
E Lvwia$f
o
a
? v
a eo
E10wls Pt
4
C O a
� �
W
La«tia
w,
EAIlonst
Yt
`O1
T.
W col• trtbW
Y¢
(
C rMr
WA St
y
e
O
? a
'E
Ectrclla� �,
e
FASt�
E B St
N
P
h
ao r C
a !
7�
q Y . y
a nlyAer In
°
4
yon
S+
R
3
/
_
wRilor
N
3oi \ Sl
o°
h
fisworylt q�•
o'a
�o
ti1u u.
fa
C '4j
p spa
�S
Fr_ nle. in
r.;J)un
� n
Y�
n
er4 flA�rv0
Car
Elv
4S1
a
U
"
i NoaNet.
11 N°rr6 ;0,n,AamAW i►
��
�
ffa pate Oet�mGef 2011
n
� 1
f`'1f~ E
C 375 750 1.500
�terro
zaerial FJNaBoml�'VildifeR¢ruy6
unde ground National Park
':.NaGorrelFaes!
BL'N Land
81-ML Land
= lnterslate
� St a Rout y
-- -StateRoule
L, CityBou chary
Gy Boundary
NoaNet
Route SE -2 -Pasco
Washington Rural Access Project
(WRAP)
p
Feet --
11(xsYrRF301Ye AanDOa een,t:zgY.lee[S a�'eN o_ e4aelt,l ap. ,ma0eeemasr
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 30, 2012
TO. Gary Crutchf Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Rick White,
Community & &onomic Development Director�`V�
FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: STREET VACATION 0H# VAC 2011 -008) Excess East Lewis Place Rit ht -of-
Way
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Overview Map
2. Vicinity Map
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct Public Hearing:
517: MOTION: 1 move to deny the proposed vacation.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The new owners of Bradley Auto Wrecking petitioned for the vacation of the south
40 Feet of East Lewis Place fronting the wrecking yard. The current right -of -way
fronting the wrecking yard is 100 to about 104 feet in width depending on the
location. Due to the inconsistent width of the right -of -way for East Lewis Place staff
recommended a comprehensive vacation be considered.
B. City Council set May 7, 2012 as the date to consider the vacation.
V. DISCUSSION.
A. When the petition was originally submitted the width of the right -of -way proposed for
vacation raised a number of questions. The right -of -way on East Lewis Place ranges
from 60 feet to over 200 feet in width depending on the location along the street. As staff
was preparing an ordinance for the right -of -way called out in the Council Resolution for
the proposed vacation, additional anomalies were discovered. Right -of -way deeds have
not been properly reflected in a short plat and other records for properties on the north
side of East Lewis Place. Additional research will be needed before a reasoned decision
can be made about vacating any right -of -way on East Lewis Place.
B, Because a hearing has been set to consider this matter on May 7th staff recommends the
hearing be opened briefly for an explanation of the issues followed by a motion to deny
the vacation.
C. In addition to uncertainty about the width of the existing right -of -way it appears past
street dedications were based on an offset center line rather than the section line. The
only accurate way to determine the correct location of the street center line and the right -
of -way width is to have the street surveyed. The Public Works Department is in the
process of seeking the services of a surveyor to establish the correct location and width of
East Lewis Place. Once that work is completed, staff will request that Council set a new
hearing to consider possible vacation of any excess right -of -way.
7(c)
Over"*ew
Vacation
Applicant: Ramiro In-na Mendoza
Map
File #: VAC 2011-
A- WWI
0� �Fn �0 �aPA M%�ir�i� Y�
but Pq
IL
� lit �(►�".+G�� e'��_,�4'� �, 7��°��1�'��� ' * �,•" 'r y�' � '" ',�' III
�j
JS )
" • .A-It
IT
IOWA
"Xw
brag
a& a t _�►,= ,},�:�l
:a oar _ ®�Q J �1►��`�iEa ; ���*��`�R�I�11i!
Li Vol
EIM
_�.
� � fj,: ��- r..�,� tail:' 1l .- . , r ,�. .�..,,.. , ;�. ^.. . �� M.:y-�,.:.�►��• '�`'�I�i`i+i� t. �1���! �.
13L it y
104 41
WtZq; -12
IU V �C s9 pit 1 09
Item: ROW Vacation t E. Lewis Street
Vicinity
Applicant: Ramiro & Irma Mendoza x
Map File #: VAC 2011 -008
L j•
4-12 _ ,� ` O yam- V•
41
T
�107Z, EAS p LEWIS PLACE 60
5 r
der• �• � r j � '�� t .,
3 � e w�! � �'� 1!' Y � �' r rj t "►'���`"''7�'"�k'^'+M�+'�^S SITE
� :! �`:s � ;: C ��C.+: 7�''�� ••'Ai`; y,.,t _. a .. Drly}; . - f R , ♦ -' ,� '� b
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City CouncK 11 April 30, 2012
TO: Gary Crutch`fs.e anager Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Rick White,
Community & Mcono D evelopment DirectoK�g
FROM: David McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: REZONE APPEAL NF# SP2012 -001): R -1 and C -1 to R -3 on N. Charles Ave,
jPasco Family Housing)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Binder containing the Hearing Record*
3. Proposed Ordinance
* (Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the
Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at hltP //%',-WW-fiasco-
wa. s= ovl generaliufo /citycouncilre /orts)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING:
5/7: Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the property
from R -1 and C -1 to R -3, as recommended by the Planning
Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On February 16, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a rezone for approximately 3.5 acres in
the 200 -300 block of North Charles Avenue,
B. Following a continued hearing on March 15, 2012 the Planning Commission
recommended the property in question be rezoned from R -1 and C -1 to R -3 with a
condition that no access be permitted from North Charles Avenue.
C. Neighboring property owners filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's
recommendation, City Council set a Closed Record Hearing for May 7, 2012.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing"
consisting of the written record of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation
application, including testimony and the Planning Commission's deliberations.
B. At the conclusion of the Closed Record Hearing the City Council has the option
of taking one of the following actions:
8(a)
Approve the rezone as recommended by the Planning Commission with a
restriction on access from North Charles Avenue.
2. Approve the rezone without access restrictions.
3. Deny the rezone,
4. Remand to the Planning Commission with directions to consider specific
issues.
C. Staff recommends the Council approve the rezone as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Should the Council decide to take option 2 or 3 in item B
above, this item should be tabled until the next regular meeting to allow time to
prepare appropriate findings of fact.
D. The neighbors submitting the appeal cited concerns over increased crime,
increased traffic, impact to schools and a desire to have single - family homes built
in the neighborhood as a basis for their appeal.
E. The initial hearing of February 16'h was continued by the Planning Commission to
allow time for staff to meet with the applicant to work out a possible solution for
traffic concerns on North Charles Avenue and to provide additional information
on crime rates and the impacts on property values related to higher density
development.
F. To address the neighborhood concern about possible increases in traffic due to
future development as a result of a rezone the applicant agreed to a prohibit access
to the property in question from North Charles Avenue. This would require all
access points to be from the west causing traffic to largely bypass the North
Charles neighborhood.
FEE: $700.00
1 ' '
CITY OF PASCO
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
MASTER FILE # z 2-cif- 00k DATE SUBMITTED: 10 L7--
PLEASE COMPLETE APPLICATION NEATLY
(Name of licant) '�3 (Name of Owner, (if other than Applicant))
Sax'Hc,r\-e , W A apt j9'Kiatk ,,—VJ-fl qg9 Cg
(Address) (Address)
Sci
(Phone) (Phone)
General Location of Property: 3o2S/ N
(Give location in relation to streets, intersections, etc.)
W. 1
Legal Description: Sne 6 -4 A, t� _ -u-1 A Uz kp
(Attach to Application if too Lengthy)
Square Feet/Access of Property: 2 5-7 5 S
Current Classification: pl-1 LOW be,r►--4':� 1
Requested Classification: - bC'-i/'Je
1. Briefly describe the nature and effect of the proposed change:
2. Estimated timeframe of development: CaMk'►rk2n 5iLA l kl
3. Date existing classification became effective
FEE: $700.00
4. 'What changed or changing condition warrant the proposed change?
i s
4
12 ce-1604
Czn- Ave t i� uAL by,0�-c kte- rysOe"4 uses,
5. How will the proposed change advance the health, safety and general
welfare if the community?
t ,
6. What effect will the proposed change have on the value and character of
adjacent propperty? , [�_v%ja /1���IO�cIAr• s��' �'`c� N �r�'•� vrsccs�►� �. 0�� ��- �` -5 d-
7. How does the proposed change relate to City's Comprehensive Plan? t
`-k' l `
�n ; Pty.. cc�4�,�c_ Q no:1'a � -V--24t 2
8. Ut er circumstances:
9. What effect will be realized by the owner(s) if the proposed change is not
granted? ��
CI �Ii
10. List any maps, drawings or other exhibits attached to this application:
i-A is
AFFIDAVIT
I, _ _;� 6 , v4 et , being duly sworn, declare that I am the legal
owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing
statements are answers herein contained and the application herewith
submitted are in all respects the true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief. �i ,)
(Signature of Owner)
Subscribed and sworn before me this A day of 0-'t'! , 200
-��.�lrru&lr�
Notary Public in and for the State o�Vu�-s�ri��
Residing at C L/P '� � C IA- 9 Y-C
CAr'K �akAGEZIAIN
Notary P�s�aIIC -C�:3torriict
' °1 Los Angeles County
FEE: $700.00
NOTE: Variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of all
property within 300 feet of the applicant's property, as shown by a local
title company OR payment of $80.00 which shall be utilized to
purchase an ownership listing from the Franklin County Assessor's
Office must be included.
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Parcel 112071026
Block 3, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION TO PASCO,according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume B of
plats, Page 56, Records or Franklin County, Washington, TOGETHER WITH the west 10 feet of Charles
Avenue adjacent to said Block 3 as vacated by City of Pasco ordinance no. 3099 and recorded under
auditor's file no. 522965.
Parcel 112072098
Lots 11 through 24, inclusive, Block 2, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION TO PASCO, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Volume B of plats, Page 56, Records of Franklin County, Washington, TOGETHER
WITH the north 10 feet of Alvina Street adjacent to said Lot 24, as vacated by City of Pasco ordinance
no. 3345 and recorded under auditor's file no. 1566193 AND TOGETHER WITH the West 10 feet of
Charles Avenue adjacent to said Lots 13 through 24, inclusive, as vacated by City of Pasco ordinance no.
3099 and recorded under auditor's file no. 522965.
t
4410
� rr zap �3
t� �
c,
Q
4 2+ l'
Zz
iP3
I
2.4
1
4 !P „ 13 it
I $�
!1 , 14 to
tca ,C 15
17 S
{
- 4 _
i0
19
i
I� El
: 1
E4
Z- V11\7A
6 l
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-001 APPLICANT: Pasco Family Housing
HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 12 E. Fifth
ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Spokane, WA 99202
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: All of Block 3 Whitehouse Addition and Lots 11-24
Block 2 Whitehouse Addition together with adjoining
vacated right-of-way.
Location: The west side of Charles Avenue between Adelia Street
and Alvina Street.
Property Size: 3.58 Acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Charles Avenue on the east and
Alvina Street from the south.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is vacant and contains a
block building that was once used as an auto repair shop. Surrounding
properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North "R-1" Low Density Residential - Highland Park
South "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family & Vacant
East "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family
West "C-3" General Business - Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for Mixed Residential uses. Goals of the
Comprehensive Plan suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of
housing options for residents of the community (H-2) and supports
efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate income households (H-5). Plan Goal LU-2 also encourages the
maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
1
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158. This is a non-project action and will therefore have no
immediate effect on the Pasco School District.
ANALYSIS
The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres. The two
parcels are divided by the unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The
northern most parcel located between Highland Park on the north and East
George Street on the south contains 1.98 acres. The balance of the property is
located south of East George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This
property was platted in lots and block in 1911 and has remained mostly
undeveloped since that time. The property north of George Street contained one
single-family house which was demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13-
18 of Block 24 located south of George Street were used as a vehicle storage
yard that was filled with broken down and partially dismantled cars, barrels
and other items. Lots 19-24 of the same block contained an automotive shop
(the shop building still remains on the property) at least one house and a large
storage building. In the early 1990's the City required the property owner to
remove the slum and blight conditions cause by the impound yard, the
accumulation of debris and the substandard buildings located on the property.
The property remains undeveloped in a substandard condition today as a
result of the lack of infrastructure improvements (no gutter, sidewalk, street
lights, storm drainage, etc) and the existence of dead trees, weeds and the
dumping that has occurred on the site.
The site is located between property that is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) on
the west and R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the east. Recognizing sound
planning practices often suggest there should be a transition or gradation of
land uses from more intense uses to less intense uses the City Council
designated the site for mixed residential during the last major Comprehensive
Plan update in 2008.
The site is currently zoned R-1 and C-1. The C-1 District permits the
development retail, office and commercial services such as retail stores,
automotive repair shops, tire store, restaurants and taverns.
One of the major concerns property owners often have about the location of
higher density residential zoning adjacent to low density zoning is the possible
impacts the high density zoning may have on the values of properties in
adjacent lower density zoning district. A search of the Franklin County
Assessor Records in February of 2012 indicates that in many cases this may be
2
more of a perception than a fact. For example the single-family homes that
share a common lot line with the Stonegate Apartments have generally
increased in value in the last four years. All of the homes in question were
constructed two years after the construction of the Stonegate Apartments.
Similarly the single-family homes in the Loviisa Farms subdivision constructed
directly across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the Sandy Heights RV Park and the
Silver Creek Apartments have appreciated in value. It should also be pointed
out that the single-family homes located on Charles Avenue were constructed
long after the Pasco Housing Authority constructed the multi-family housing
units directly to the east. According to the records of the Franklin County
Assessor's (2012) the homes in the 300 block of North Charles Avenue have
increase in value since they were constructed in 2007.
In the cases referenced above it should be noted that the apartment complexes
and RV park are not accessed directly from the same street the lower density
housing is accessed. The apartment buildings may be considerably higher than
the adjoining single-family homes and may impact privacy in rear yards but the
traffic impacts are significantly reduced due to the location of access driveways.
For example the new multi-family complex built at the southwest corner of
Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street is accessed from Spokane Street rather than
Wehe Avenue, which fronts future single family residential lots.
Even though the property in question is identified in the Comprehensive Plan
for mixed use residential development the Planning Commission should
consider ways of ameliorating traffic impact to the neighborhood by
conditioning where the location of access driveways should be located. The site
is large enough to permit the construction 15 to 20 single family homes which
would generate 150 to 200 vehicle trips through the neighborhood each day. If
the site was developed with 51 apartment units about 336 vehicle trips could
be expected in the neighborhood or about 136 more vehicle trips than would be
generated by single family homes.
Multi-family complexes are often located on or convenient to major streets. The
proposed site is accessed only by local streets through the surrounding
neighborhood. Bonneville Street and California Avenue are both located on the
western edge of the proposed site and could provide an alternate means of
accessing the site. However both of these streets are currently unimproved.
The nearest improved street west of the site is Oregon Avenue which is over
600 feet away. While Bonneville Street may provide the best option of providing
an alternate means of access that would eliminate the need for traffic using
Charles Avenue there is a significant cost involved with improving Bonneville
Street. Because of the issues involved with access and increased traffic it may
be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow staff and the applicant time to
explore options for addressing these concerns.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
3
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property in question
was changed from Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential in
2011.
• Sewer service was extended north in Charles Avenue from George
Street in 2007.
• The former auto storage yard on the property has been removed.
• All single-family homes have been removed from the property.
• The commercially zoned portion of the property has not been used
for commercial purposes for approximately 30 years.
• The most recent residential development within the vicinity has
been the construction of a multi-family complex directly north of
the Whittier Elementary School at the southwest corner of Wehe
Avenue and Spokane Street.
• Much of the commercially zoned property along Oregon Avenue
has been developed in the last 20 years.
• Commercial development is beginning to extend east of Oregon
Avenue.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property has remained largely undeveloped for 100 years and has
seen a regression in development over the past 25 years with the removal
of all housing units and removal of the former automotive repair shop
from the property. Rezoning the property to R-3 Medium Density
Residential will provide additional flexibility for site development
providing a catalyst for the development of the partially improved streets
in the neighborhood and providing a buffer between the lower density
development to the east and the commercially (C-3) zoned property to the
west.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Rezoning the property and eliminating the commercial zoning from the
neighborhood could enhance development options for the site benefiting
the neighborhood by completing street improvements and eliminating
nuisance conditions created by the weeds and dead trees on the
property. The rezone would also eliminate any chance for commercial
activities to be re-established in the neighborhood. The properties on
Charles Avenue east of the commercial zoned portion of the site have
decreased in value in recent years per Franklin County records. Based
on experience in other neighborhoods where multi-family development
4
has occurred improvements on the site and the property clean-up
associated therewith may improve property values in the neighborhood.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted.
The current R-1 and C-1 zoning has been in place for 30 years or more
and has not encouraged development on the property and in fact the
property has remained largely undeveloped since it was platted 100 years
ago. The proposed rezone may provide the property owner with some
flexibility for development and may make the installation of streets and
utilities more affordable. If the request is not granted it is probable the
property will continue to remain vacant as both commercial and single-
family development on the property has proven to be unviable.
5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Density
Residential development. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into
conformance with the Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 retail
Business.
2) The property to the west is zoned C-3 and the property to the east is
zoned R-1 and R-2.
3) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential
development.
4) The property was platted into lots and blocks 100 years ago.
5) The one remaining house on the site was demolished in 2003.
6) The property is vacant and undeveloped except for a vacant block
building formerly used as an automotive shop.
7) Commercial use of the C-1 portion of the site has not occurred for
approximately 30 years.
8) The site has never been improved with standard streets, curb, gutter,
storm drainage and other infrastructure typical of an urban setting.
9) Multi-family duplex units are located directly east of the homes in the
300 block of Charles Street.
5
10) The multi-family duplex units directly east of the homes in the 300
block of Charles Street were constructed in 1978.
11) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office
the homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue have increase in value.
12) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office
the homes in the 200 block of Charles Avenue east of the commercial
portion of the site and not sharing a common property line with multi-
family housing have decreased in value in recent years.
13) Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms
subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver Creek
Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have increased in
value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years.
14) The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property
line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed
after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on
Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records
2012) in recent years.
15) As the result of Commercial development along Oregon Avenue over the
past 20 years few properties are left to develop on Oregon Avenue.
Remaining vacant commercial properties east of Oregon Avenue toward
Highland Park and the site in question are beginning to develop.
16) If a 51 apartment unit apartment complex was developed on the site it
would generate 136 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was
developed with 20 single-family homes.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the
development of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable
places to live (Goal LU-2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages
the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2)
and the Plan and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to
meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H-5).
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be
materially detrimental.
6
The property in question has remained largely undeveloped for the
past 100 years. Rezoning the property may provide some flexibility
for development options which could lead to the improvement of the
streets and utilities in the neighborhood there by improving
conditions in the neighborhood that have only been partially
developed over the past 100 years. The proposed rezone is being
request to allow the construction of up to 51 apartment units. Fifty-
one apartment units would generate (per the ITE Trip Generation
Manual 8th Edition) approximately 136 more vehicle trips on local
streets than a 20 unit single-family development. The additional
traffic could be reviewed by the neighborhood as having a
detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a
whole.
As a whole the larger community would benefit from the proposal
additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and
the community would benefit from the development clean-up of an
underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and
value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate
neighborhood the completion of neighborhood streets and the
elimination of a parcel overgrown with weeds would have merit but
the additional traffic would not.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in
such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on
Charles Avenue.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City
and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an
agreement.
A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of
increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to continue the hearing to the March 15, 2012
Planning Commission meeting.
7
Vicinity Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3
Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N
Map
File #. Z 2012-001
jr
SIP k
Aw
Ord .y ► �. l < X �. 1 i E .s `�.
i - �, ADELIA SiT
to
F r
SITE W ,
1 F
bTEORGE ST•
W s ; W — Q 'A W
ui
ui
a
m•. NN �► .vs �,
ALV1, -ST.
s#
Y -
1 I '
Z ^
0�1 41V
, E
LEWF�S T °
Land Item: Rezone R- I to R-3
Use Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N
Map File Z 2012-001
II�� III . . . � • � � � � � �
MW
zoning
Map Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N
File Z 2012-001
II�� III . . . � • � � � � � �
� s
rit � M I
iX I Vii . mob ' .
I '.
� �
, .
Y
'�� •
_ � <
y>-
_ � � s .
a� ' �
� <
Y.� A
l � �_
n Y
� � �
�. �. -
.- . ,�:
6zv <
'
. � � /
.:- � �®
, :s '7
, ,
�: ",�
- �i
� �
, �. �
fi
� � •
,. •
b •
— ii
� .
i
I i
t
� �bl ,
� .� �}
}�i �P r,�q�.
Y '�A�~-.'M.
' ..
�;� � ,
i
*-� ' --
4
%� _
|
& .
r
0
o
Y •
J
. r
�� J
;��`
��;',.' �
�,:�; :_
a.�.�`'_
;;� : ?
=�: � ,
, ` , ,,
�? r
-, c
. � - _
0
�.
ara
0
c�
�, ; rr
, i
i
" ; , '�-
I STATE OF WASHINGTON
2 CITY OF PASCO
3
4
In Re: Rezone from R-1 )
5 (Low Density Residential) )
to R-3 (medium-density ) Master File# 22012-001
6 Residential) )
(Pasco Family Housing) )
7 -
8
9
10
11 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
12
13
14
TIME: 7 : 00 p .m. , Thursday, February 10, 2032
15
TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall
16 Pasco, Washington
17 CALLED BY: City of Pasco
18 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
License No. 2408
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION:
3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ
COMMISSIONER JAMES L. HAY
4 COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF
COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY
5 COMMISSIONER ZAHRA KHAN
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
3
1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, February 16, 2012
2 at 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the
3 Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before
4 ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered
5 Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took
6 place _
7
8 P R O C E E D I N G S
9
10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All right. Moving right along. Item
11 number 6B is zoning, rezone from R-1 low-density
12 residential to R-3 medium-density residential, Imagination
13 Academy, Master File number 22012-001. Mr. McDonald.
14 MR. MCDCNALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members,
15 as indicated, this public hearing involves a possible
06 rezone of property located on Charles Avenue from the
1"I existing designation of R-1 to R-3 medium-density
"_8 residential. This property, as indicated on the overhead,
19 is located just to the west side of Charles Avenue north
20 of Alvina Street . The property was platted over 100 years
21 ago in 1911 and basically has remained undeveloped since
22 that time. Property to the -- properties directly to the
23 west of the site are vacant and zoned C-3, general
24 commercial., which is our heavy commercial designation.
25 The properties to the north are R-1 and developed
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244
4
I into a city park. And the properties to the east are
2 zoned R-1. And the property to the south is zoned R-1
3 with some C-1 along Lewis Street.
4 The parcel in question for the site in question
5 actually is comprised of two different parcels divided by
6 George Street. There is 1 . 98 acres to the north up
7 towards the park and then the balance of it is south of
8 George Street . About one-third of the property south of
9 the George Street is currently zoned C-1, retail business,
10 which allows a variety of retail businesses; it ' s store
11 shops, convenience stores and so forth.
12 As I mentioned just a minute ago, this property was
13 platted in 1911 . It never really has developed. There
14 was a house at one time on the north end up by Island
15 Park. That was demolished several years ago.
16 On the southern end of the property there was one or
17 two houses, if I remember correctly, and a couple of other
18 out structures and then a block building that was used for
19 an automotive repair shop. In addition to that the site
20 had a bone yard or an impound area that was full of old
21 vehicles and barrels and so forth and through the City
22 code enforcement efforts that was cleaned up.
23 The property was designated in the comprehensive plan
24 a couple of years ago for mixed-residential development,
25 which would allow it to be rezoned R-1 -- excuse me, R-2
ChaRae Dent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
5
1 or 3, and would allow anywhere from single-family
2 development to multi-family units.
3 One of the major concerns that neighbors often have
4 when properties are up for potential rezone from R-1 to
5 multi-family is the impact that that may have on the
6 neighborhood, particularly values of the neighborhood.
7 And we just concluded a public hearing for an apartment
8 project on Road 68 . And as we look around the community
9 and compare where multi-family projects are across the
10 street or back up to a single-family residential, for
11 example, Stonegate apartment complex, the homes directly
to the west of Stonegate Apartments were actually
13 constructed a couple years after the apartment complex was
14 constructed and those homes have, according to the county
assessor ' s records, increased in value in the last few
16 years .
17 We have also examples on Chapel Hill Boulevard and
18 The Crossings at Chapel Hill where the homes directly
19 across the street and were actually built after or
20 simultaneously with the apartments . We see some increases
21 in value there. And the same thing has occurred on Chapel
22 Hill Boulevard just east of Road 100 with the Silver Creek
23 Apartments and the Sandy Heights RV Park. So there are
24 indications within the records of the Franklin County
25 Auditor that multi-family construction in the neighborhood
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
6
1 does not always lead to a lowering of property values .
2 Another big concern that neighbors often have is the
3 increase that would occur in traffic through the
4 neighborhood. This particular property could be developed
5 for 15 to 20 single-family homes and that would generate
6 anywhere from 150, perhaps 200, vehicle trips per day.
7 The proposal is to develop it with 51 apartment units, if
8 it was rezoned. And the vehicle trip generation from that
9 would be approximately 336 according to the trip
10 generation manual, which is about 136 more vehicles per
11 day than the site was developed for single family. So
12 there are some concerns with traffic .
13 And maybe T should just jump now to some of the other
14 sections of your -- on page 4 . We provide a listing and
15 discussion on the criteria that you are required to review
16 when you consider rezones. The first item you are
17 required to review is the changed conditions within the
18 neighborhood -- and we 've listed several for your
19 consideration; facts to justify the change and the basis
20 for advancing public health and safety and general
21 welfare. Again, we 've provided information on that . And
22 same with the other two or three that you are required to
23 consider.
24 We ' ve also provided for your consideration findings
25 of fact and a review of the criteria that we are required
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
7
1 to in P .M. 0 25 . 88 . 060 .
2 And then just backing up again, with the concern over
3 access to this property, it ' s located off of Lewis Street
4 about a block. The streets are poorly developed within
5 the neighborhood. Some of them basically are not
6 developed at all . And so that creates some concerns.
7 There may be a means of accessing this property from the
8 west, from Morgan; however Bonneville is just a dirt
9 street which is problematic.
10 And what staff is suggesting the Planning Commission
11 do at this point is to hold the public hearing and receive
12 comments from both the proponent, the applicant, and the
13 neighbors and then we ' re recommending that the matter be
14 continued for one month to allow staff to meet with the
15 proponent and explore ideas on access to the site that
16 would address traffic concerns throughout the neighborhood
17 and then come back next month and have you continue the
18 hearing and move forward from there.
19 So are there any comments or questions?
20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, Mr. McDonald.
21 Any questions or comments on behalf of the
22 commission?
23 Okay. I have one. Has this been up in front of us
24 before --
25 MR. MCDON1=: It was --
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
8
1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : -- two years ago?
2 MR. MCDONALD: It was before you two years ago; 2008
3 time frame. Excuse me . Just last year it was a comp plan
4 amendment to include it in the come plan for
5 mixed-residential . Similar to the portion of the price
6 Addition just north of the Whittier School. That was also
7 included in the comp plan for mixed-residential .
8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much.
9 Okay. At this time we ' ll open the public hearing.
10 Would the applicant please come forward at this time
11 and again please state your name and address for the
12 record. Thank you.
13 MR. KEITH JAMES: Good evening, Commissioners. Keith
14 James, 2304 South Meadowview Road in Green Acres,
15 Washington 99016.
16 Thank you, David, for the thorough summary of the
17 proposed rezone .
18 I 'm here on behalf of Pasco Family Housing for the
i9 applicant. That ' s an entity owned and controlled by
20 Catholic Housing Services of Eastern Washington as it ' s
21 affiliated with the Catholic charities of Spokane .
22 We 've developed two other farm-worker housing
23 projects . This is a site for a proposed third farm-worker
24 housing project. Our most recent is Bishop Topel Haven
25 Apartments about four blocks to the north, 43 units. To
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
9
1 give you some idea of the need, those 43 units opened in
2 February; were completely full in 60 days and there ' s a
3 wait list of about 250 families . So we know for certain.
4 that in this case if you build this product of this
5 quality, there' s definitely a need. They will definitely
6 be occupied.
7 Unfortunately I can' t provide project information
8 quite like the previous applicant . We currently have the
9 site under contract for purchase. And until we close on
1.0 that and we close on financing and build something, if the
11 rezone goes through -- in other words, the rezone could go
12 through, we could not close on the property and therefore
13 our project could become someone else' s project. So I
14 want to caution you and the audience with that fact .
15 Having said that, what we would propose is additional
16 townhome style units, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units, for
17 additional occupancy by low income farm-worker housing
18 families . That means, in this case, incomes for a family
19 of four not to exceed about $34, 000 per year. That ' s
20 initial occupancy. An agricultural worker has to earn an
21 income of about -- of at least $3, 000 per year in
22 agriculture for purposes . After initial occupancy the
23 income restriction remains but the farm-worker housing
24 does not . So in future years it could be occupied by
25 nonagricultural workers .
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244
10
1 Our proposal, as mentioned, is for several townhome
2 buildings and adequate parking and adequate or appropriate
3 amenity spaces, including like a child' s play structure
4 and one common building where there would be community
5 room, computer lab and an outdoor barbecue congregation
6 area.
7 In our initial plans, based on some feedback from
8 David and staff, we tried to pull as many of the units
9 away from the single-family neighbors to the east as
10 possible. And accordingly, there' s more -- thank you --
11 there ' s more -- there ' s units toward the south of the site
12 along Charles Avenue. There ' s very few along the north.
13 I think the biggest challenge for us and for the
14 neighborhood is really access . And I know that ' s a scary
15 trip generation number and I am respectful of that. So we
16 definitely want to work to make that as palatable as
17 possible. And the trouble is, just frankly, that access
18 from the south -- we want to make that work -- but if 600
19 feet of road has to be developed, we as an affordable
20 housing developer, just can 't afford to do that. So we' re
21 hoping for some creative solutions with Dave ' s help.
22 That ' s about the extent of my presentation, unless
23 there are questions.
24 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Actually it probably wouldn ' t hurt to
25 go into a little bit more about your management policies
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RRR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
11
1 and such for your previous projects . Because, without the
2 benefit of that, I think it ' s hard for people who may not
3 be familiar to understand the concept . We 've all heard
4 that before. But if you can kind of go through that about
5 management policy and consistency and oversight . --
6 MR. KEITH JAMES: Well, specifically, currently we
7 hire a third-party management company, Coast Property
8 Management. They manage thousands of units . They have a
9 regional manager here in addition to an on-site manager at
10 Bishop Topel Haven. The same would be proposed here,
11 where there' s actually an on-site manager living in one of
12 the apartments.
13 There ' s, of course, the standard lease agreement that
14 can be terminated and forced eviction if house rules and
15 relevant regulations are not followed. These rules and
16 regulations are pretty standard in the industry.
17 I think that the Catholic Charities, the property
18 management asset management overseeing the professional,
19 third-party management company has a pretty low tolerance
20 for any activity that either hurts the reputation or hurts
21 the properties continuing financial feasibility. I know
22 that Topel Haven thus far, you know, it ' s new, it 's only a
23 year old, but it ' s not only been smoothly operated but, as
24 I understand it, there ' s been a nice sense of community
25 built there so far, which is also one of the main goals.
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
12
1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Another question : is there any
2 history of code enforcement or additional police presence
3 in Bishop Topel Haven compared to the surrounding
4 neighborhood?
5 MR. KEITH JAMES : Not that I am aware of. I don' t
6 know, to be completely honest, but not that I 'm aware of.
7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : That ' s okay. I just -- anybody on
8 the staff have anything that they' d like to add on that
9 topic?
10 MR. MCDONALD: No.
11 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I know that was a big discussion with
12 the previous project so I just thought I would bring that
13 up to you. Okay. Thank you very much. And if you can
14 stand by until we got done with public comment, we' ll have
15 you back up again. Thank you, Mr. James.
16 Okay. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak
17 on this item please come forward at this time.
18 MS . GRACIE CHACON: Hi, my name is Gracie Chacon and
19 I live at 323 North Charles Avenue .
20 I am here today because, like I said, my name is
21 Gracie Chacon and I 'm the captain of the Charles Avenue
22 Block Watch Program. And I 'm here to represent the seven
23 families that -- we live along the -- right in front of
24 the property. Yeah, right there (indicated) .
25 Okay. We are aware of what happens in apartments and
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
13
1 are extremely concerned about the safety of our
2 neighborhood. We already have apartments on the east side
3 of us. The question is: Why put more? Why not build
4 more single-family homes, which would be better for the
5 community and homeowners would be more stable. Building
6 apartments would just cause a lot of problems that would
7 affect us dramatically. Apartments come with plenty of
8 hazards and dangers to consider like fires, water damages,
9 is more common in apartments where many people reside all
10 together in one house where only one family resides.
11 Also, it would bring increased traffic flow, increase
12 in break-ins, increase of crime, increase of gang
13 activity. It would definitely cause a huge impact on
14 schools since they are already overcrowded as it is. And
15 that ' s all I have to say.
16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All right. Thank you. Any questions
17 that we can answer for you or any questions you would like
18 to pose to the staff?
19 MS . GRACIE CHACON: Not at this time.
20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you.
21 MS . GRACIE CHACON: Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Anyone else in the audience who would
23 like to speak for or against this item?
24 I expected everyone to come up on B and everybody is
25 here waiting for C. Oh, we ' ve got one more.
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
14
1 MR. DANNY JIMENEZ : My name is Danny Jimenez, 323
2 North Charles .
3 it sounds like it ' s the same people that want to
4 build apartments as last time. And last time they wanted
5 to have the entrance to their apartments here and down
6 here (indicated) . So, I mean, this area here (indicated)
7 is a death child area. So that would increase a lot of
8 traffic through here (indicated) , because these roads,
9 like I said, these are pretty small roads from here down
10 (indicated) . All these are just little roads . Just it
11 brings crime . I 've been listening to the scanner. It
12 seems like 75 percent of the calls are from apartment
13 complexes . There' s always problems going on. That ' s all
14 I got .
15 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, sir.
16 Any other people in the audience who would like to
17 speak for or against this item?
18 Ma ' am, did we swear you in?
19 MS . ANITA SOTO: Yes .
20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you.
21 MS . ANITA SOTO: My name is Anita Soto and I live at
22 209 North Franklin and we own property there.
23 And the thing is that it ' s quite renown, but if we do
24 get a complex there, it would create more problem for our
25 trucks . Because our trucks, we run more than 15 to 20
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
15
1 trucks and we always get somebody that breaks all our
2 windows, steals our batteries and that is not having a big
3 complex there yet . But if one is developed there that
4 would be more trouble for us. So a residential housing,
5 single home, would be more stable than a complex. Thank
6 you.
7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much.
8 Anyone that would like -- anyone else who would like
9 to come forward at this time before I invite the applicant
10 to come back up?
11 Okay. Mr. James, would you like another opportunity
12 to speak?
13 MR. KEITH JAMES: I don' t have anything else, unless
14 there is specific questions from commissioners .
15 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. The applicant doesn' t have
16 anything else to add at this time and so -- do I close the
17 public hearing and continue or leave it open?
18 MR. MCDONALD: No, you' ll need to continue the public
19 hearing.
20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Continue the public hearing.
21 MR. MCDONALD: Yes .
22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : See, you guys change these and I
23 can ' t keep up sometimes. Okay.
24 So any other questions or comments on behalf of the
25 commission or guidance towards staff on this one?
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
16
1 I think we heard crime, probably some statistics on
2 Bishop Topel and any other sister developments and then
3 some conclusions on traffic.
4 I 'm assuming from the comments the preference would
5 be from the west or the south for the occupants in the
6 audience. A show of hands . West or south access? i
7 Not getting anything. So you guys will have to work
8 with the developer a little bit .
9 Okay. So I don' t think -- do I need a motion to
l6 continue that?
11 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, we do. We do have a motion on
12 page 7 .
13 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I 'm not always on top of stuff here.
14 COMMISSIONER KHAN : Mr. Chairman, I move to continue
15 the hearing to the March 15, 2012 Planning Commission
i. 6 meeting .
1'7 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second.
18 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moved by Commissioner Khan. Seconded
19 by Commissioner Greenaway.
20 All those in favor say aye.
21 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye .
22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. You can be chair any time you
23 would like.
24 COMMISSIONER HAY: Been there. Done that .
25 (ITEM CONCLUDED. )
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
17
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss .
3 COUNTY OF BENTON )
4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the
5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing
6 at Richland, reported the within and foregoing Planning
7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said
8 meeting was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter
9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of
10 the meeting.
11 I further certify that I am not a relative or
12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am
13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day
16 of 2012 .
17
18
19
���11111111l1I1�/
20 `���� �pE kfi/i,�� CHA E KENT, RPR, CC
21 y�,�`�1NGTp lX��� CCR N0. 2408
. CCR
d.
22 '0+.ro��:
��+• �.
23 �?cps I��q,• � `\`.
24 !!ln111%0
25
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-001 APPLICANT: Pasco Family Housing
HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 12 E. Fifth
ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Spokane, WA 99202
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1
(Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: All of Block 3 Whitehouse Addition and Lots 11-24
Block 2 Whitehouse Addition together with adjoining
vacated right-of-way.
Location: The west side of Charles Avenue between Adelia Street
and Alvina Street.
Property Size: 3.58 Acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Charles Avenue on the east and
Alvina Street from the south.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is vacant and contains a
block building that was once used as an auto repair shop. Surrounding
properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North "R-1" Low Density Residential - Highland Park
South "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family & Vacant
East "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family
West "C-3" General Business - Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for Mixed Residential uses. Goals of the
Comprehensive Plan suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of
housing options for residents of the community (H-2) and supports
efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate income households (H-5). Plan Goal LU-2 also encourages the
maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
1
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158. This is a non-project action and will therefore have no
immediate effect on the Pasco School District.
ANALYSIS
The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres. The two
parcels are divided by the unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The
northern most parcel located between Highland Park on the north and East
George Street on the south contains 1.98 acres. The balance of the property is
located south of East George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This
property was platted in lots and block in 1911 and has remained mostly
undeveloped since that time. The property north of George Street contained one
single-family house which was demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13-
18 of Block 24 located south of George Street were used as a vehicle storage
yard that was filled with broken down and partially dismantled cars, barrels
and other items. Lots 19-24 of the same block contained an automotive shop
(the shop building still remains on the property) at least one house and a large
storage building. In the early 1990's the City required the property owner to
remove the slum and blight conditions cause by the impound yard, the
accumulation of debris and the substandard buildings located on the property.
The property remains undeveloped in a substandard condition today as a
result of the lack of infrastructure improvements (no gutter, sidewalk, street
lights, storm drainage, etc) and the existence of dead trees, weeds and the
dumping that has occurred on the site.
The site is located between property that is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) on
the west and R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the east. Recognizing sound
planning practices often suggest there should be a transition or gradation of
land uses from more intense uses to less intense uses the City Council
designated the site for mixed residential during the last major Comprehensive
Plan update in 2008.
The site is currently zoned R-1 and C-1. The C-1 District permits the
development retail, office and commercial services such as retail stores,
automotive repair shops, tire store, restaurants and taverns.
One of the major concerns property owners often have about the location of
higher density residential zoning adjacent to low density zoning is the possible
impacts the high density zoning may have on the values of properties in
adjacent lower density zoning district. A search of the Franklin County
Assessor Records in February of 2012 indicates that in many cases this may be
2
more of a perception than a fact. For example the single-family homes that
share a common lot line with the Stonegate Apartments have generally
increased in value in the last four years. All of the homes in question were
constructed two years after the construction of the Stonegate Apartments.
Similarly the single-family homes in the Loviisa Farms subdivision constructed
directly across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the Sandy Heights RV Park and the
Silver Creek Apartments have appreciated in value. It should also be pointed
out that the single-family homes located on Charles Avenue were constructed
long after the Pasco Housing Authority constructed the multi-family housing
units directly to the east. According to the records of the Franklin County
Assessor's (2012) the homes in the 300 block of North Charles Avenue have
increase in value since they were constructed in 2007.
In the cases referenced above it should be noted that the apartment complexes
and RV park are not accessed directly from the same street the lower density
housing is accessed. The apartment buildings may be considerably higher than
the adjoining single-family homes and may impact privacy in rear yards but the
traffic impacts are significantly reduced due to the location of access driveways.
For example the new multi-family complex built at the southwest corner of
Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street is accessed from Spokane Street rather than
Wehe Avenue, which fronts future single family residential lots.
Even though the property in question is identified in the Comprehensive Plan
for mixed use residential development the Planning Commission should
consider ways of ameliorating traffic impact to the neighborhood by
conditioning where the location of access driveways should be located. The site
is large enough to permit the construction 15 to 20 single family homes which
would generate 150 to 200 vehicle trips through the neighborhood each day. If
the site was developed with 51 apartment units about 336 vehicle trips could
be expected in the neighborhood or about 136 more vehicle trips than would be
generated by single family homes.
Multi-family complexes are often located on or convenient to major streets. The
proposed site is accessed only by local streets through the surrounding
neighborhood. Bonneville Street and California Avenue are both located on the
western edge of the proposed site and could provide an alternate means of
accessing the site. If Bonneville Street and other streets to the west were used
as the main access there would be little need for traffic from future
development on the site to used Charles Avenue or other neighborhood streets
to the east. Staff met with the applicant and discussed the issues related to
access and as a result of that discussion the applicant has agreed to a
concomitant agreement limiting access from the west only.
During the initial hearing on this matter the Planning Commission asked staff
to provide some information about crime statistics related to low income
housing complexes. In a study prepared by the Urban Land Institute (High
Density Development Myth 8, Fact 2005) it was reported that crime rates at
higher-density developments are not significantly different than crime rates for
3
lower-density development (See Exhibit # 1). Other recent studies confirm the
fact that low-income housing does not necessarily cause increases in crime
rates (See Exhibit #2 Cornell University Study Abstract). Other studies have
considered both the impacts on crime and property values as they related to
the development of affordable housing and have concluded affordable housing
does not increase crime or reduce neighboring property values (See Exhibit #3
Myths & Facts about Affordable & High Density Housing and Exhibit # 4
Princeton University Study Abstract). (Full copies of the referenced studies are
available in the Planning Office.)
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property in question
was changed from Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential in
2011.
• Sewer service was extended north in Charles Avenue from George
Street in 2007.
• The former auto storage yard on the property has been removed.
• All single-family homes have been removed from the property.
• The commercially zoned portion of the property has not been used
for commercial purposes for approximately 30 years.
• The most recent residential development within the vicinity has
been the construction of a multi-family complex directly north of
the Whittier Elementary School at the southwest corner of Wehe
Avenue and Spokane Street.
• Much of the commercially zoned property along Oregon Avenue
has been developed in the last 20 years.
• Commercial development is beginning to extend east of Oregon
Avenue.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property has remained largely undeveloped for 100 years and has
seen a regression in development over the past 25 years with the removal
of all housing units and removal of the former automotive repair shop
from the property. Rezoning the property to R-3 Medium Density
Residential will provide additional flexibility for site development
providing a catalyst for the development of the partially improved streets
in the neighborhood and providing a buffer between the lower density
development to the east and the commercially (C-3) zoned property to the
west.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan.
4
The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Rezoning the property and eliminating the commercial zoning from the
neighborhood could enhance development options for the site benefiting
the neighborhood by completing street improvements and eliminating
nuisance conditions created by the weeds and dead trees on the
property. The rezone would also eliminate any chance for commercial
activities to be re-established in the neighborhood. The properties on
Charles Avenue east of the commercial zoned portion of the site have
decreased in value in recent years per Franklin County records. Based
on experience in other neighborhoods where multi-family development
has occurred improvements on the site and the property clean-up
associated therewith may improve property values in the neighborhood.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted.
The current R-1 and C-1 zoning has been in place for 30 years or more
and has not encouraged development on the property and in fact the
property has remained largely undeveloped since it was platted 100 years
ago. The proposed rezone may provide the property owner with some
flexibility for development and may make the installation of streets and
utilities more affordable. If the request is not granted it is probable the
property will continue to remain vacant as both commercial and single-
family development on the property has proven to be unviable.
5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Density
Residential development. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into
conformance with the Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 retail
Business.
2) The property to the west is zoned C-3 and the property to the east is
zoned R-1 and R-2.
3) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential
development.
4) The property was platted into lots and blocks 100 years ago.
5) The one remaining house on the site was demolished in 2003.
5
6) The property is vacant and undeveloped except for a vacant block
building formerly used as an automotive shop.
7) Commercial use of the C-1 portion of the site has not occurred for
approximately 30 years.
8) The site has never been improved with standard streets, curb, gutter,
storm drainage and other infrastructure typical of an urban setting.
9) Multi-family duplex units are located directly east of the homes in the
300 block of Charles Street.
10) The multi-family duplex units directly east of the homes in the 300
block of Charles Street were constructed in 1978.
11) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office
the homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue have increase in value.
12) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office
the homes in the 200 block of Charles Avenue east of the commercial
portion of the site and not sharing a common property line with multi-
family housing have decreased in value in recent years.
13) Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms
subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver Creek
Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have increased in
value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years.
14) The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property
line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed
after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on
Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records
2012) in recent years.
15) Studies prepared by the Urban Land Institute, Cornell University,
Princeton University, and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (Higher Density Development Myth and Facts,
2005; Low Income Housing Development and Crime, Cornell University
2010; Do Affordable Housing Projects harm Suburban Communities?
Crime, Property Values and Property Taxes in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey
2011; Myths and Facts About Affordable & High Density Housing, 2002.
Full copies of these reports are on file in the Planning Office.)
16) As the result of Commercial development along Oregon Avenue over the
past 20 years few properties are left to develop on Oregon Avenue.
Remaining vacant commercial properties east of Oregon Avenue toward
Highland Park and the site in question are beginning to develop.
17) If a 51 apartment unit apartment complex was developed on the site it
would generate 136 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was
developed with 20 single-family homes.
6
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the
development of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable
places to live (Goal LU-2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages
the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2)
and the Plan and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to
meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H-5).
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be
materially detrimental.
The property in question has remained largely undeveloped for the
past 100 years. Rezoning the property may provide some flexibility
for development options which could lead to the improvement of the
streets and utilities in the neighborhood thereby improving
conditions in the neighborhood that have only been partially
developed over the past 100 years. The proposed rezone is being
requested to allow the construction of up to 51 apartment units.
Fifty-one apartment units would generate (per the ITE Trip
Generation Manual 8th Edition) approximately 136 more vehicle trips
on local streets than a 20 unit single-family development. The
additional traffic could be viewed by the neighborhood as having a
detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a
whole.
As a whole the larger community would benefit from the proposal
additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and
the community would benefit from the development clean-up of an
underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and
value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate
neighborhood the completion of neighborhood streets and the
elimination of a parcel overgrown with weeds would have merit but
the additional traffic would not.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
7
The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in
such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on
Charles Avenue.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City
and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an
agreement.
A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of
increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) and R-1 (Low Density
Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a
concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property from
Charles Street.
8
Vicinity Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3
Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N
Map
File #. Z 2012-001
jr
SIP k
Aw
Ord .y ► �. l < X �. 1 i E .s `�.
i - �, ADELIA SiT
to
F r
SITE W ,
1 F
bTEORGE ST•
W s ; W — Q 'A W
ui
ui
a
m•. NN �► .vs �,
ALV1, -ST.
s#
Y -
1 I '
Z ^
0�1 41V
, E
LEWF�S T °
Land Item: Rezone R- I to R-3
Use Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N
Map File Z 2012-001
II�� III . . . � • � � � � � �
MW
zoning
Map Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N
File Z 2012-001
II�� III . . . � • � � � � � �
� s
rit � M I
iX I Vii . mob ' .
I '.
� �
, .
Y
'�� •
_ � <
y>-
_ � � s .
a� ' �
� <
Y.� A
l � �_
n Y
� � �
�. �. -
.- . ,�:
6zv <
'
. � � /
.:- � �®
, :s '7
, ,
�: ",�
- �i
� �
, �. �
fi
� � •
,. •
b •
— ii
� .
i
I i
t
� �bl ,
� .� �}
}�i �P r,�q�.
Y '�A�~-.'M.
' ..
�;� � ,
i
*-� ' --
4
%� _
|
& .
r
0
o
Y •
J
. r
�� J
;��`
��;',.' �
�,:�; :_
a.�.�`'_
;;� : ?
=�: � ,
, ` , ,,
�? r
-, c
. � - _
0
�.
ara
0
c�
�, ; rr
, i
i
" ; , '�-
i
1 STATE OF WASHINGTON
2 CITY OF PASCO
3
4
In Re: Rezone from R-1 )
5 (Low Density Residential) )
to R-3 (medium-density ) Master File# 22012-001
6 Residential) )
(Pasco Family Housing) )
7 )
8
9
10
11 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
12
13
14
TIME: 7 : 00 p.m. , Thursday, March 15, 2012
15
TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall
16 Pasco, Washington
17 CALLED BY: City of Pasco
18 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
License No. 2408
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
2
I APPEARANCES
2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION:
3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ
COMMISSIONER JAMES L. HAY
4 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEVIN
COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF
5 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY
COMMISSIONER ZAHARA KHAN
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
3
1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, March 15,
2 2012 at 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the
3 Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before
4 ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered
5 Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took
6 place :
7
8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moving onto agenda item number 6,
9 public hearing, 6 (A) , rezone from R-1 (low-density
10 residential) to R-3 (medium-density residential) . Pasco
11 Family Housing, Master File Z2012-001 .
12 Mr. McDonald?
13 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members,
14 you recall last month this item was before you in public
15 hearing process . And during the course of that hearing
16 staff recommended that the hearing be continued to allow
17 staff time to meet with the applicant to discuss some of
18 the issues related to traffic in the neighborhood. And
19 then some of the neighbors have some concerns or questions
20 about crime and property values .
21 We can report that we met with the applicant and
22 worked out details on the access . The applicant is
23 agreeable to signing a concomitant agreement that would
24 prohibit access to this property from Charles street . And
25 so that would require or force all traffic coming to the
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
4
1 site to enter the site from the west, from basically
2 Bonneville Street and Franklin Avenue . So with that,
3 that ' s part of our recommendation this evening that if
4 this was to be approved it would be with the concomitant
S agreement ,limiting the access .
6 The other issue related to crime and property values,
7 we 've provided some research papers that have been
8 attached to your report that indicate that through various
9 studies that have been done in different parts of the
10 country that high-density or medium-density residential
11 development adjacent to single-family development does not
12 necessarily impact or diminish the value of the
13 surrounding single-family neighborhood. And those studies
14 pretty much bear what we see within. Pasco when you do
15 research on the Franklin County Assessor' s web page
16 dealing with property values .
17 The reports also contain information relative to a
18 crime statistics in higher-density development versus
19 single-family development . And again, the various studies
20 indicate that there isn' t a significant increase in crime
21 related to the development of multi-family near
22 single-family development .
23 So with that, I 'm not going to go through all of the
24 information we went through last time about land use and
25 so forth. But I would be open to any questions you may
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
5
1 have.
2 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, Mr. McDonald.
3 Any questions or comments on behalf of the
4 commission?
5 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I have a question. So I saw in
6 the analysis it stated that there should be a transition,
7 a gradation from low density, medium and to high.
8 MR. MCDONALD: Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER KHAN: So in this case why not recommend
10 R-2 instead of R-3?
11 MR. MCDONALD: Well, R-2 and R-3 are similar. They
12 both allow duplexes, fourplexes or multi-plex buildings.
13 The applicant is the one that requested the R-3 in this
14 particular case because it suited their needs for their
15 development.
16 Now as far as the gradation is concerned, the proper
17 planning practices always encourage a gradation from
18 commercial to residential with a buffer of mixed
19 residential or higher density in between the low density
20 and the commercial . And that ' s what this proposal
21 accomplishes . We have the C-3 zoning to the west, which
22 is a heavy commercial zoning district . And then to the
23 east we have the lower density R-1 . And those two would
24 be buffered with this proposal in between.
25 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Thank you.
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627 -2244
6
1 MR. MCDONALD: I did forgot to mention that you will
2 need to reopen the hearing for public comment .
3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you for the reminder.
4 For those of you in the audience who may not have had
5 the chance to look at the packet, the studies are pretty
6 thorough. There ' s some academic study and studies by
7 housing and urban development organizations and it' s not
8 HUD. What was it?
9 MR. MCDONALD: Urban Land Institute.
10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Urban Land Institute. So it ' s a
11 pretty diverse study and they' re largely consistent in
12 their conclusions and for a variety of east coast, west
13 coast suburb and urban development. So it ' s a fairly
14 comprehensive data set, if you want to read more about it
15 on your own.
16 Any other questions or comments on behalf of the
17 commission?
18 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: I 've got a question, Dave . So
19 basically R-3 is how many units per acre?
20 MR. MCDONALD: R-3 is one unit per 3, 000 square feet
21 and divide that into 43560 . I can' t do the math right now
22 but somewhere around 16 to 20 . Somewhere around there .
23 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So I total of about 68 units .
24 MR. MCDONALD: Yes . And the applicant is proposing
25 51 units .
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
7
1 You need to be aware, though, that even though the
2 code will allow you to go to that density, you' ve got
3 building setbacks, you 've got parking requirements, one
4 parking -- two parking spaces for every unit . And once
5 you get your yard areas, your parking, you don't always
6 get the density that the code with allow you to get .
7 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Good question..
9 Any other questions or comments on behalf of the
10 planning commission?
11 Okay. So we ' re going to reopen the public hearing on
12 this item. And at this time we would like the applicant
13 to come forward.
14 MR. KEITH JAMES : Good evening, I 'm Keith James, 2304
15 South Meadow View, Greenacres, Washington 99016.
16 Thank you, Dave, Commissioners for having us back.
17 I don' t have much additional prepared. I think the
18 research -- I tried to find as diverse of research as
19 possible so it really hit on not just an urban area and
20 not just a suburban, not just high density, not just
21 affordable housing.
22 So if you took the time to read it, I know it ' s kind
23 of painstakingly dry, especially the academic and
24 statistical research. But I do think it bears the point
25 of sort of dispelling the myths about higher crime in
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
8
1 housing, especially in affordable housing. I think that
2 is important to note.
3 More than anything I ' d just reiterate our commitment
4 relative to the concomitant agreement and access from the
5 south or access from other than Charles Avenue, and make
6 myself of available for any questions.
7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much, Mr. James .
8 Any questions or comments for the applicant?
9 Okay. So if you' ll take a seat . Thank you very much
10 for coming back. And if there ' s any other questions or
11 comments brought up during the remainder of the public
12 hearing, we ' ll ask you to come back up.
13 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
14 speak on behalf of this item?
15 Okay. Going once for public comment .
16 Going twice for public comment .
17 The public hearing on this item is now closed. Okay.
18 Mr. McDonald?
19 MR. MCDONALD: I have no further comments .
20 The Planning Commission needs to discuss the matter
21 and make a recommendation to the City Council.
22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. It ' s back in our court.
23 Any other discussion, thoughts, comments, concerns on
24 behalf of the Planning Commission?
25 Commissioner Greenaway?
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
9
1 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I am like Commissioner Khan.
2 I would rather see it R-3 than R-2 . I understand the R-3
3 perspective . I just think that ' s a .little high for that
4 part of the town. That ' s all.
5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Any thoughts?
6 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: Why don ' t we have the gentleman
7 comment on that . Do you want to comment on that? We
8 can't do that .
9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Now it ' s in our court.
10 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So my question is: What ' s the
11 difference between R-2 and R-3?
12 MR. MCDONALD: R-2 requires. 5, 000 square feet of land
13 area for each dwelling unit versus the 3, 000 .
14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : So 5, 000 square feet of dwelling
15 unit, by the time you add the net and everything in like
16 that, that cuts the project probably by 40 percent, is my
17 guess off the top of my head.
18 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So from 51 units to 40 perhaps?
19 No, less .
20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : 35 .
21 COMMISSIONER LEVIN : That ' s a big difference, right .
22 What are your feelings on that?
23 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Just from where the R-2 is
24 located, all the R-1s, there ' s one little section of R-2
25 and then you ' ve got your C-3s . I don't think you need to
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
10
1 put that much impact into that amount of space.
2 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Also, what I was taking into
3 consideration was from the last public hearing we had the
4 neighbors who commented about already prevalent crime in
5 the area, graffiti and break-ins . And so when reading
6 these, I guess the myths and facts of urban housing and
7 high-density housing and affordable housing, what came to
8 mind was we have a lot of housing on the east side that ' s
9 lower income. So it just seems concentrated.
10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay.
11 COMMISSIONER KHAN: It doesn' t seem disbursed well
12 enough. But I know that ' s up to the developer and the way
13 they choose to purchase land.
14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Well, no, there ' s nothing to saying
15 that these can't be $1, 900 a month apartments or dwelling.
16 The price point is something different than the zoning.
17 What they charge is different than the zoning
18 determination.
19 And so I, you know, from my perspective if you look
20 at the history of the site, which has been undeveloped 100
21 years, right? Over 100 years . And you look at the
22 proximity to the commercial, the commercial property it' s
23 highly unlikely that it would develop effectively at
24 density in the R-2 range. That ' s my observation of
25 sitting on the planning commission for a while.
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
�l
I I think that it ' s important to note we are dealing
2 with a developer whose purpose is a higher purpose than
3 just making money and they have other things they do to
4 facilitate growth. We 've had a lot of success with these
5 kind of developments in the city. And, you know, the
6 information that was added to the packet is consistent
7 with our experience in the city. So I don' t have an issue
8 with the R-3 zoning. Just because I think it fulfills a
9 need.
10 One of the things in the packet is it talks about,
11 you know, the need for affordable housing. These people
12 are already in our community. And so this is generally
13 higher quality of housing at the same price point if these
14 developments are set up right . That is not something I
15 think we should let go when we have the opportunity to
16 facilitate it .
17 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I agree which is why I 'm not
18 opposed to development at all, just was wondering why it
19 couldn' t be a little bit more, I guess, trimmed down.
20 COMMISSIONER KEMPF: I think in order to keep with
21 the comprehensive plan going from C-3 to an R-2 isn ' t
22 going to help the City. I think we need to stay within
23 the City' s use and go from C-3 to R-3 . I think that ' s so
24 that we have enough of R-3 in the community.
25 The lot size isn' t going to be big enough for them to
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
12
1 put in as many units as R-3 will allow but the zoning is
2 going to be proper for the city I think.
3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER HAY: Yes, I would like to make a
5 motion. I think it should be R-3.
6 1 move to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions
7 therefrom as contained in the March 15th, 2012 staff
8 report .
9 COMMISSIONER KEMPF: Second.
10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : It' s been moved by Commissioner Hay.
11 Seconded by Commissioner Kempf.
12 All those in favor say aye.
13 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye.
14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All opposed?
15 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay.
i6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let the record show the motion passed
17 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
18 COMMISSIONER KHAN: And Khan.
19 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Excuse me, and Khan.
20 So that ' s 4 to 2 .
21 Anyone want to comment on both?
22 COMMISSIONER HAY: I further move, based on the
23 findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning
24 Commission recommend to the City Council approve the
25 rezone from C-1 (retail business) and R-1 (low--density
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
13
1 residential) to R-3 (medium-density residential) , with a
2 concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property
3 from Charles Street.
4 COMMISSIONER KEMPF: Seconded.
5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moved by Commissioner Hay. Seconded
6 by Commissioner Kempf. Ali those in favor say aye.
7 COMMISSION MEMBERS Sin unison) : Aye .
8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All opposed?
9 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay.
10 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Nay.
11 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let the record show it was 4 to 2 .
12 Motion passes with Khan and Greenaway dissenting.
13 Where is this headed?
14 MR. MCDONALD: As with the other items, this will go
15 to the City Council at their April 2nd meeting unless an
16 appeal is filed. And if the appeal is filed, that would
17 cause a closed-record hearing.
18 If you have questions or want to know about the
19 process, you are welcome to call the office.
20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much.
21
22
23 (ITEM CONCLUDED. )
24
25
ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244
14
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 STA'T'E OF WASHINGTON )
) ss .
3 COUNTY OF BENTON )
4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the
5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing
6 at Richiand, reported the within and foregoing Planning
7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said
8 examination was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter
9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of
10 the testimony of said meeting.
11 1 further certify that I am not a relative or
12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am
13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day
16 of 2012 .
17
18
CHA T, RPR, CC
19 CCR NO. 2408
20 Ei1l1I�j�,i
`N kF� ris
21 .� �; 1 G
y � �CR •; r
22
'M��+�• .
23 �A . 1 4408 Q°.:o
2 4 rxi�iAq�►,��```
25
ChaRae Cent, CCR, RPR
Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244
March 22,2012
Att: Pasco City Council,
This appeal is to inform you of our concerns for the proposed development between N. Charles Ave,and
N. Franklin Ave.
On behalf of my Neighbors,
Daniel Jimenez @ 323 N. Charles Ave,Rogelio Caristo @1509 E. George St, Isidro Chavez @1510 E.
Adelia, Celina Garcia @307 N. Charles Ave,Angelita Nunez @ 315 N. Charles Ave, Carolina Chavez
@319 N. Charles Ave, Isidro Zamudio @ 311 N. Charles Ave,Antonio&Anita Soto @ 209 N. Franklin
Ave, Samuel &Martha Limon cr? 220 N. Wehe Ave.
We began our neighborhood through the self-housing program for the first time home buyers
sponsored by La Clinica in October of 2007. A total of seven families participated to build and establish a
safe neighborhood. Our hard work and dedication paid off when the completions of all seven homes were
completed. Due to unfortunate budget cuts,La Clinica was no longer able to sponsor additional projects
such as these.
In its original plan, it was to continue building single family homes in the area of the current
proposed project. We as neighbors want to see more single family homes instead of apartments.
It is evident that homeowners take better care and pride in their ownership than the constant
tenant turn around. In addition it is also proven that property value depreciates when apartment complexes
are built near homes.
Our entire neighborhood also participates in the"Neighborhood watch"enforced by the Pasco
police department. We continue to provide support for each other and are dedicated to establish a crime
and drug free environment for our children.
Upon my research of other projects such as the proposed one we,as neighbors, are extremely
concerned. I also interviewed residents in Toppenish who stated that crime rate increased dramatically as
well as traffic after the completion of apartment complexes. They also stated that burglaries increased and
a swat team was even called out during one incident.In addition graffiti increased,which in some
locations took approximately three months for the removal. This is also true for the projects completed in
Buena, Sunnyside and other communities.
I also interviewed the principal and other teachers at Whittier Elementary School who stated that
it would affect the school dramatically since they are so overcrowd as is. So the idea of the proposed
project is not where this idea should be" implemented.
The proposed location would bring many concerns to our neighborhood We as neighbors are
extremely concerned due to the fact that E. Clark St,N. Franklin Ave,E Alvina St and N. Charles Ave
are not adequate for the"Increase"of the traffic flow. It will affect us significantly. We arc trying very
hard to keep our neighborhood safe for our children. We are also concerned with the huge impact that it
would have on school district and hospitals. It will"Increase"and pressure them because of the influx of
people. We don't want high crime rate like in Toppenish, Sunnyside, and Yakima. We want a safe
environment and we want to keep it that way.
Pasco is a nice place to live in. Why build more apartments? We already have the new addition
of apartments just two blocks N. of the proposed property. Which is impacting Whittier Elementary
school and it's over crowed.
In conclusion I am also attaching the latest vicious crime taking place at 915 N. 22 Ave.
Tepeyac Haven. I am also attaching a capital facilities plan that provides important information about the
schools capacities and how the proposed project will impact the schools dramatically.
Please understand our concerns; it's just not the location for it since we want to continue
establishing single family homes.
Thank You for your time and this appeal is supported by the following community neighbors:
Name l .[!�rf Date
z La
Nam �L17A 1�°Z- Date
Name_ 1 °y�G `A 6L,I t i A. Date 2D
Name c Date
Namer[y ' C` G� Date ..
Name DateGl -
Name - Date .
Name � P - Date
atrne ! /r Date _
Name 9 Date _
Nam — Date1�
Name �'�- '11w'6 , Date
Name Date
Bail set at $5 million in Pasco mom's slaying - Crime I Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia n... Page 1 of 2
Current Sun Mon Tue
a� 33°F M� CI*Vdywah w� Cloudywith Cloudy and
s 3s°23' �. snow _ ,.� snow e� chihy 1
Complete Forecast showers showers 33,124`
35'23• 34°24•
voice ofthe Mid Columbia I Kennew,r„L,Paaco and Richland.Wash.I Sa:arday,Cecamber 18.,2010 3,27 Ph' FO-,:L!. SUBSCR€BE PLACE Ark AD E-EDH ION
I HOME NEWS CRIME I SPORTS BUSINESS I OPINION A&E I LIFESTYLE SLOGS PHOTp51VIDED WINE CLASSIFIED OBITS ABOUT USIHELP
t_.. ....._..____ . ........ ..... ............... .,., ._ .....,..,.... ..... ......_... .. .. ......... ....,....,....
SEARCH SIGN IN BECOME A MEMBER
Search o trl-eltyherald.eom Wei)Search powered by YAHOO!SEARCH 1
kncityhera]d.COm/News;Mid-Calurnhia News/Crime C,�.{Ck�,,� � � 9� Fawrveernenrs —
A Print reprint or license Buzz upl �Email Story ` - N y {.
siillik _10 4:PdCom ey,tAay.2q 2o1a
Comments
o ments
Bail set at$5 million in Pasco mom's slaying
Kristin M.Kraemer,Herald staff writer
PASCO A—A 5-year-old boy was rushed out
of a Pasco apartment Monday morning just `
minutes before his mother was stabbed in the lO�fTMlilllilf
chest,court documents revealed. Two OnnNallo
Griselda Ccampc Meza,21,died of her
injuries but the quick actions of her boyfriend
Jairo Flores-Flores may have saved her son's
life. so aIdMIC
Documents filed Tuesday in Franklin County
Superior Court show Gregorio Luna Luna- --
Ocampo Mel former live-in boyfriend and Re } Y /"�
the father of her son-then allegedly turned Why C`tCl�l You Can
his rage on Flores-Flores in an attempt to find
the boy.He was unsuccessful and left the Herakileab emwdy
y Gregorio Luna Luna keeps his head and eyes down through most lm%i
scene,documents said, his first appearance Tuesday in Franklin County Supenor Court.Luna Luna is accused of sabbiag to death his romrer live-in
The boy now is safe in protective custody gidfrlend.Griselda Ocampo Meza.21,eddy Monday during a
and is""getting counseling,"said Prosecutor romesbc dispute En her North 22nd Avenue apartment Hewas
g g ordered held on 35 r ion bail,see complete story below.
Steve Lowe.
Meanwhile,Luna Luria LICK FOR MORE PHOTOS a is behind bats on$5 144ZS'F3r3ID�+�ZBAA2f�L'f�/a~alge
million bail while prosecutors decide if the 7`!�"i'?V!
deadly domestic dispute warrants pursuit of 509- + r
the death penalty.
The 31-year-old man,who was deported to Mexico on May 1,is in the Franklin County jail on
suspicion of first-degree murder.Prosecutors have until Thursday afternoon to file charges. 01 MCI U
Luna Luna bowed his head Tuesday through his first court appearance.
Director of Institutional
Lowe told the court that the investigation over the next couple of days will determine if he seeks Planning and
an aggravated murder charge and the potential for a death sentence. Assessment
Walla Walla Community
If charged,Luna Luna will return to Superior Court on June 1.Shawn Sant and Karla Kane have Co6ege
been appointed to represent him. Associate in Research
Entomology This
Lawyer Matt Rutt stood in for Sant and Kane on Tuesday and said that he thought the bail was position conducts
excessive,but left it to Luna Luna's new attorne y s to ar ue. research
_ g Dental Assistant Full
Luna Luna has been ordered to have no contact with his son and five witnesses,includin Flores- Time
g Member Service
Flores,while the case is pending. Representative n
Numerica Credit Union,
Ocarnpo Meza and Luna Luna were together for seven years and had one chiid during their Financial Services
relationship.Luna Luna was believed to have moved out of their North 22nd Avenue apartment in Officer Treasury
January. Services Of icer$5.638
COMMERCIAL LOAN
Ocampo Meza got a protection order against Luna Luna nearly three months ago after filing OFFICER SUNNYSIDE,
documents that said she feared for her Life because he'd"tried two times before"to kill her and WA x is a great day
had twice taken their son and threatened to kill the boy. a See More Jabs
The two-year order included instructions for Luna Luna to stay away from Ocampo Meza and his Find a Job
son and to not commit any"acts of abuse"on them.
Keywords:
Luna Luna sat in jail from Jan.30 to March 16 on an arrest for alleged domestic violence and e.g..raghtered none
malicious harassment,both involving his ex-girlfriend and his son. Location:
He was then turned over to U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement and held in Tacoma's Oty.siti *Zp
Northwest Detention Center until an immigration judge ordered his removal from the United
States.
Luna Luna was flown back to Mexioo on May 1.It is not known when in the following 23 days he
recrossed the Mexican border and returned to Pasco.
anrr,..,4;r
careerbadder,ilian
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/05/26/1028988/suspect-get-5-million-bail-in.html 12/18/2010
Bail. set at $5 million in Pasco mom's slaying - Crime f Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia n... Page 2 of2
According to court documents,he called a friend about a day before Ocarnpo Meza's death and 02010
said he was going to kill her.He called the fiend again shortly after the slaysng to say he had Tri•Ctty
done it,documents said. Herald,
Pasco police got the call at 4,09 a.m.Monday for an assault involving a knife at 841 N.22nd Ave.
Officer Brett Hansen found Ocampo Maze laying on the floor inside her home.Neither Hansen
nor responding paramedics could find a pulse.She was taken to Lourdes Medical Center in
Pasco,where she was pronounced dead.
Investigators learned from Ocampo Meza's boyfriend that Luna Luna had entered the apartment
"and threatened to kill the victim and her 5-year-old son,"Flores-Flores then grabbed the boy and ANOHOME
fled the apartment,court documents said. PHONE
A neighbor in the Tepeyac Haven apartment complex told police he had heard the two arguing
and was familiar with both of them because his wife provided daycare for their son.That same
neighbor heard the argument stop,saw Luna Luna leave the apartment and begin to fight Flores-
Flores as he tried to find his son,documents said.
Luna Luna was tracked down 11 hours later inside a vacant east Pasco home.In a subsequent
interview with police,he reportedly"indicated he had been in a fight and he accidentally killed the
victim."
An autopsy Tuesday afternoon revealed that Ocampo Meza died from a single stab wound to her
chest,said Franklin County Coroner Dan$fasdel_
Dr.Daniel Selove,a forensic pathologist from Everett,performed the autopsy.
Ocampo Meza's family is in Mexico,Blasdel said.Her body is expected to be retumed there.
An administrator with the state Division of Children and Family Services confirmed Tuesday that
the boy is in their custody and is safe.Officials are providing services to him and will try to find the
best placo for him,the state official said.
Ocampo Meza is the second woman to be killed in a domestic dispute in Pasco in two weeks.
Shenay Greenough of West Richland,who was eight months pregnant,was strangled to death
May 8.
Mid-Columbia residents in domestic viofenoe relationships can call a 24-hour hotline at 582-9841
for information about services and the shelter.
—Herald reporter Paula Horton contributed to this report
—Kristin M_Kraemer:509-582-1531;kktaemer@tricityherald.cum
Similar Stories' Associated press,McCtatehy-Tribune Other wire Services
Murder trial delayed until January Terris of ServicalPrrvacy PollcylAbout our adslCopyright
Pasco murder trial delayed until January
Deferrse seeks time to transcribe interview in Paws slaying case
Kennewick center removes 1 bamer for violence victims
Connell man pleads innocent to raping girl
Add New Comment
Required:Please login below to comment.
Type your comment here.
I
Post as... {
Showing 0 comments
Sort by Newest first : Subscribe by email -j Subscribe by RSS
Real-time updating is enabled.(Pause)
1 Tig To Lose I Weird Tip To Belly Columbia Colteg€
£t4Amach Fat fm Get your degree online
FoNpw This 1 Simple Follow This 1 Rule And faster than you think.
Diet Tap And Lose 9 Lbs Lose 13lbs to 14 Days. Financial Aid Available.
A week rjPWo1eaVi6,c_,m Urlvars.'*_y-College
CUXuchen_corr
Ads by Yahoo?
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/05/26/1028988/suspect-get-5-million-bail-in.html 12/18/2014
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 - 2017
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sherry Lancon, President
William Leggett, Vice President
Jeffery Dong, Member
Ruben Peralta, Member
Ryan Brault, Member
SUPERINTENDENT
Saundra L. Hill
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS
John Morgan
Adopted by the Pasco School Board
December 13, 7011
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 1 of 21
November 2011
SECTION 9
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan
Washington land use and environmental Paws include schools in the category of
public facilities and services for which cities and counties must plan. When new
development places demands on schools, cities, counties and developers must
ensure school facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional demands.
School districts adopt capital facilities plans to assist counties and cities to address
legal requirements to ensure adequate school facilities will exist to serve new
development. The capital facility plans identify school facilities that are necessary
to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations.
The Pasco School District has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the "CFP") to
provide the community, Franklin County, the City of Pasco and the developers
information regarding the District's facilities and forecast needs for the next six
years (2011-2017).
In accordance with capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act,
this CFP contains the following elements:
• The District's standard of service or educational program standards which
is based on program year, class size by grade span, number of
classrooms, types of facilities and other factors identified by the District.
• An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing
the locations and capacities of the facilities, based on the District's
standard of service.
• Future enrollment forecasts for elementary, middle, and high schools.
• A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites based
on the District's enrollment projections.
• The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the
next six years based on the inventory of existing facilities and the
standard of service.
• The cost for needed facilities and the plan for financing capital facilities
within projected funding capacities.
• A school impact fee calculation identifying the amount single-family and
multi-family developers should pay to mitigate the impacts new
construction of single-family and multi-family homes has on the District.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Flan
Page 2 of 21
November 2011
B. Overview of the Pasco School District
The Pasco School District serves students in the City of Pasco and in
unincorporated Franklin County. The Pasco community is experiencing accelerated
growth and has experienced significant growth for the past fifteen years. Pasco is
near six other school districts: North Franklin, Star, Columbia, Finley, Kennewick,
and Richland.
The District serves over 15,600 students. The District currently has one (1) early
learning center, seven (7) elementary schools serving K-5, four(4) elementary
schools serving grades 1-5, three (3) middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2)
high schools serving grades 9-12 and one alternative middle/high school serving
grades 6-12. The District also has 171 portable classrooms that provide capacity
for 4,275 students.
The most significant issues facing the District in terms of providing classroom
capacity to accommodate existing and projected demands follow.
• K-12 facility needs have been projected for the short and long term.
Presently, the elementary and middle schools are housing students in
excess of capacity_
• Providing the educational programs that are either required by the state
and federal government, or that are desired by the public for quality
education, requires additional facility space. For example, to provide for
the visual and performing arts programs the District must find additional
facility space that can accommodate music instruction without
interrupting general education classrooms.
• The District is expected to experience significant growth in Franklin
County. Over 2000 residential lots have been previously approved by
the City of Pasco without school capacity mitigation remain vacant and
the market continues to consume them at the rate of over 400 per year.
Developers continue to approach the City for additional new residential
development, which is subject to SEPA mitigation. This continued
growth is of concern in light of the overcrowding and inadequate
capacity at the existing schools.
• The District must obtain a super majority vote (60% yes votes) to secure
the funds that are necessary to build new schools. The most recent
bond to address current needs failed with just a 48% yes vote.
• Assessed property values in Franklin County are relatively low, which
limits the district's bonding capacity and increases the tax burden on
district patrons. Pasco's per pupil AV in 2009-10 was $311,000 placing
Pasco 271St out of the 295 districts, the largest district in the bottom 25.
The majority of this assessed value is in residential property with a
serious lack of commercial and industrial value. This makes it more
difficult to obtain the voters' approval on bond measures.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 3 of 21
November 2011
• There is a shortage of large parcels that are suitable as school sites and
as growth continues to occur there will be fewer suitable sites to acquire
at prices the District's taxpayers will support in the locations where the
largest growth is occurring.
• The prolonged and significant growth in the District has resulted in
enrollment that significantly exceeds capacity in the school facilities.
The District, out of necessity, must look at less desirable methods of
providing education such as Multi Track Year Round Education, double
shifting and other solutions that create a subpar learning environment.
The District also has to increase the number of students that are served
in portables beyond generally acceptable levels that strain and exhaust
the school's infrastructure or lease and renovate facilities never intended
for serving children as schools. These approaches to providing more
capacity to serve students may be implemented on a short term and
temporary basis until measures can be taken to permanently increase
capacity in the schools.
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of
space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The
role that quality education plays in growing a strong local economy is vital. In order
to accomplish the community value of having a strong local economy, schools must
have quality facilities. These facilities serve as the supporting space for developing
the whole child within a community to prepare them for a competitive global
economy.
The educational program standards which typically drive needs for educational
space for students include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size,
educational program offerings, supplemental program offerings, specialty spaces,
classroom utilization and scheduling requirements. On October 11 , 2011, the Pasco
School Board voted to adjust the elementary schools' configuration from a K-5
model to a K-6 model in order to serve the enrollment growth at a reduced per pupil
cost to Pasco taxpayers. This shift delays the need for a middle school but
increases the need for additional elementary schools. The per pupil cost for
elementary schools is significantly less than the cost for a middle school.
While the District is exploring and may implement Multi Track Year Round
Education, double shifting, changes to service area boundaries, increased use of
portables and/or use of leased facilities, these measures are temporary. They are
not the preferred or permanent standard of service.
In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining
agreements, government mandates, and community expectations affect classroom
Pasco School District Capita! Facilities Plan
Page 4 of 21
November 2011
• There is a shortage of large parcels that are suitable as school sites and
as growth continues to occur there will be fewer suitable sites to acquire
at prices the District's taxpayers will support in the locations where the
largest growth is occurring.
• The prolonged and significant growth in the District has resulted in
enrollment that significantly exceeds capacity in the school facilities.
The District, out of necessity, must look at less desirable methods of
providing education such as Multi Track Year Round Education, double
shifting and other solutions that create a subpar learning environment.
The District also has to increase the number of students that are served
in portables beyond generally acceptable levels that strain and exhaust
the school's infrastructure or lease and renovate facilities never intended
for serving children as schools. These approaches to providing more
capacity to serve students may be implemented on a short term and
temporary basis until measures can be taken to permanently increase
capacity in the schools.
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of
space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The
role that quality education plays in growing a strong local economy is vital. In order
to accomplish the community value of having a strong local economy, schools must
have quality facilities. These facilities serve as the supporting space for developing
the whole child within a community to prepare them for a competitive global
economy.
The educational program standards which typically drive needs for educational
space for students include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size,
educational program offerings, supplemental program offerings, specialty spaces,
classroom utilization and scheduling requirements. On October 11, 2011, the Pasco
School Board voted to adjust the elementary schools' configuration from a K-5
model to a K_5 model in order to serve the enrollment growth at a reduced per pupil
cost to Pasco taxpayers. This shift delays the need for a middle school but
increases the need for additional elementary schools. The per pupil cost for
elementary schools is significantly less than the cost for a middle school.
While the District is exploring and may implement Multi Track Year Round
Education, double shifting, changes to service area boundaries, increased use of
portables and/or use of leased facilities, these measures are temporary. They are
not the preferred or permanent standard of service.
In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining
agreements, government mandates, and community expectations affect classroom
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 4 of 21
November 2011
space requirements. Space is necessary for regular classrooms, the fine and
performing arts, physical education, special education, Highly Capable, English as
a Second Language (ESL), technological applications, computer labs, preschool
and daycare programs, and other specialized programs. Space must be provided
for common areas such as media centers, gyms, cafeterias, kitchens, and
auditoriums. Space is needed for groups of students and employees to work
together. These programs can have a significant impact on the available student
capacity within school facilities. Further, the community expects all spaces to be
well utilized during the school day and available after the school day for public use.
A. District Educational Program Standards:
Core program includes the following:
• Core classroom space for all curriculum areas which includes space for group
learning, direct instruction, and individual student work to meet the rigors set
forth in state standards.
• Science classroom space that supports advanced coursework (including water,
sinks, gas, fume hoods, and safety equipment). Students must achieve rigorous
state-mandated science standards. This requires specialty space that is not met
by adding portables. High school and middle school science lab space is a high
priority.
• Physical education space is needed for students to meet rigorous health and
fitness standards. This includes covered areas, fields, gymnasiums, and other
multi-use spaces.
• Technological competency is expected for all students. Space must be
allocated for technological equipment and applications in classrooms and
specialty spaces. Space must also be provided for state assessments required
to be administered to every student on a computer. Square footage for this
equipment and its infrastructure is not calculated in current state allowances, yet
must be provided.
• Art, music, and theatre arts spaces are critical to the core program for students.
Spaces are necessary to adequately meet the rigorous standards of these state
required programs and programs that are local priorities. The visual and
performing arts programs for students are a high priority for the Pasco
community and adequate space needs to be provided.
• Library/media services (research, technology, collaboration) and space must be
provided for students to achieve the rigors in the core program. In an
information-driven environment, student access to information through
appropriately sized library/media spaces is essential.
• Extra-curricular activities need adequate space in order to safely support
program activities.
Special programs are essential to meet the needs of special populations.
• Special Education services are delivered at each of the schools within the
District. Program standards and services vary based on the disabling conditions
of the students and their Individual Education Plans (IEP). Implementing each
student's IEP requires large and small specialty spaces, which the District must
provide. Program standards change as a result of various external or internal
Pasco School District capital Facilities Plan
Page 5 of 21
November 2011
influences. External influences include changing federal mandates, funding
changes, and the introduction of new technological applications which meet the
needs of students. Internal influences include modifications to the program
year, class size, grade configurations, and facility changes. For example, some
students require significant equipment from wheel chairs to specialized
equipment for toileting. Others need room specially designed and equipped for
security.
® Special populations receive special support. Specialty space is essential to
delivery of this support. Federal and state programs, including Title 1/LAP
Reading and Math and Highly Capable, provide limited funding and do not
legally allow for the expense of adding facilities to support them.
Early childhood programs for special needs students are legally mandated,
essential educational programs to develop early childhood literacy skills and are
vital to the community. These programs require specialty space which is not
funded by the state.
6 Supplementary services in core academic areas (tutoring, on-line learning) and
providing multiple pathways to prepare students for a broader range of post-
secondary learning opportunities require additional spaces that have not been
calculated in current state square footage allowance formulas.
Support services are often overlooked services and are essential to a quality
educational program..
® Food delivery, storage, preparation, and service require spaces that are
specially designed and equipped also need specific attention. As student
populations increase, adequately calculating space needs for this core service is
crucial to the overall planning of the facility. Adequacy in planning for this space
has significant impacts on the overall learning environment for students if not
done appropriately.
• Transportation support centers are required to handle growing transportation
needs.
a Maintenance and administrative support facilities must also be considered and
are often overlooked as core support services.
0 Space for legally-mandated records retention must also be provided.
® State-approved secured space must be provided for high stakes state
assessment materials.
E. Elementary Educational Program Standards
The District educational program standards, which directly affect school capacity,
include:
0 Class sizes for grades K-1 are targeted not to exceed 25 students per class.
® Class sizes for grades 2-6 are targeted not to exceed 29 students per class.
• Music, which includes both strings and band instruction along with general
music, will be provided in separate classrooms.
A Physical education instruction must be provided in a full size area.
o Some special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for
some children, while others need highly specialized services. This means that
some special education classes have much smaller class sizes than general
education classes, based on the individual needs of the students.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 6 of 21
November 2011
• Title I and LAP programs may require specialized areas.
• All elementary schools will have a library/media resource center, which includes
space for a technology lab.
• A sufficient number of computer labs will be available and must be provided for
state-mandated testing for all students.
• A specialized science lab for grades 4-6 will be available.
C. Middle and High School Program Standards
The District education program's standards, which directly affect middle school and
high school capacity include;
• Class sizes for 6th grade are not to exceed 29 students per class.
• Glass sizes for grades 7-8 are not to exceed 32 students per class or 155
students per day.
• Class sizes for high school grades 9-12 are not to exceed 32 students or 155
students per day.
• The middle and high school classroom utilization standard is set at a factor of
85% (based on a regular school day) due to the need to provide planning and
teaming periods.
• Special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for some
children, while others need highly specialized spaces.
• Students will also be provided other programs in classrooms or specialty
classrooms, such as computer labs, individual and large group study rooms,
practice labs and production rooms.
i Each school will have an adequate library/Media Center.
* Career and Technical Education requires specialized spaces suited to the
curriculum.
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities
necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable
levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and
operated by the District including schools, portables, undeveloped land and support
facilities. School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to
accommodate the District's educational program standards. The capacity does not
include temporary capacity that may be provided through alternative delivery
methods, like Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting, excessive use of
portables or use of leased facilities.
A. Schools
The District currently maintains one (1) early learning center, seven (7) elementary
schools serving K-5, four(4) elementary schools serving grades 1-5, three (3)
middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2) high schools serving grades 9-12. The
District also operates an alternative program for middle and high school students in
portable facilities. Based on the October 11, 2011 action of the Pasco School
Board, the elementary configuration will be changed to include sixth grade, if
Pasco School District Capital Facilities flan
Page 7 of 21
November 2011
necessary, for the purposes of reducing the cost of new school construction for
Pasco taxpayers.
School capacity is based on the number of teaching stations within each building
and the space requirements of the District's current educational programs. This
capacity calculation is used to establish the District's baseline capacity, and to
determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The
District believes educational programs are best delivered in brick and mortar
facilities. However, the prolonged and significant rate of growth, and the state
funding policy of not providing state match until there are unhoused students,
requires use of portables.
In light of this, the District plans to house some elementary, middle and high school
population permanently in portables. The number of portables counted as
permanent capacity varies by building and is calculated based upon the reasonable
maximum each building's infrastructure can accommodate to provide all the
components of an adequate educational program, which include the ability to meet
health and fitness requirements, to feed students, to provide for adequate music,
band and orchestra instruction, to host the minimal amount of parent and family
programs, to provide for safety in the pickup and drop off of students as well as
provide classroom space. The portable classrooms housing more students than the
amount determined maximally reasonable for each school are deemed to provide
temporary capacity and are not included in the district's permanent capacity
calculations. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 8 of 21
Noverr ber 2011
Table 1 — Elementary School Brick and Mortar Inventory
Early Learning Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick &
Center Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar
Capacity
Captain Gray(K) 11_024N. 10" Ave 1986 8.6 _ 47,478 _ 22 484
Elementary Schools
K-5
Edwin Markham 4031 Elm Rd 1962/1984 12 34,898 13 312
James McGee 4601 N Horizon Dr 1981 14 44,774 20 480
Mark Twain 1801 Road 40 195311999 15 52,725 18 432
Maya An elou 6001 Road 84 2004 13 59,630 27 648
Ruth Livingston 2515 Road 84 1977 14 44,717 20 480
Whittier 616 N Wehe Ave 1998 16 46,845 19 456
Vi r ie Robinson 125 S Wehe Ave 2005 13 59,630 24 576
Elementary Schools
1-5
Emerson 1616 W Octave St 1997 8.6 46,845 22 528
Longfellow 301 N 10" Ave 1989 6 44,325 20 480
Robert Frost 1915 N 22" Ave 1997 10.6 46,845 20 480
Rowena Chess 715 N 24 1h Ave 2000 11 49,360 23 552
TOTAL 1 578,072 248 51908
Table 2 — Middle School Brick and Mortar Inventory
Middle Schools Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick &
(6-8) Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar
Capacity***
Ellen Ochoa 1801 E Sheppard St 2002 36 115,029 30 637
McLoughlin 2803 Road 88 1982 30 133,161 37 787
Stevens 1120 N 22r' Ave 1960/1984/ 12.7 91,934 28 595
2005
TOTAL 340,124 95 2,019
Table 3— High School Brick and Mortar Inventory
High Schools Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick &
(9-12) Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar
Capacity***
Pasco High School 1108 N 1 01h Avenue 1953/1972/ 34 255,992 86 1,827
1993/2005
Chiawana HS 8125 W. Argent 2009 80 1 337,703 1 102 1 2,167
New Horizons 3110 Ar ent Road All inventory in portables
TOTAL 593,695 1 188 3,994
The elementary capacity was calculated on 24 students to each teaching station using the state's
calculation of number of teaching stations per school, realizing some teaching stations serve
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 9 of 21
November 2011
substantially fewer and others substantially more than 24. Rooms such as music rooms, special
education rooms, LAP rooms, library, computer labs and science rooms, advanced placement rooms,
and similar rooms that are used for special programs have been included in the number of teaching
stations reported above. However, there are 35 teaching stations that are used to deliver special
programs in the elementary schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 25 to 29
students. There are 29 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the middle
schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 29 to 32 students. There are 9
teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the high schools, which cannot be used to
serve the standard class size of 32 students. The number of teaching stations in this chart excludes
portables.
"Captain Gray Early Leaming Center was calculated using 22 students per teaching station.
*** Permanent capacity for secondary schools is calculated by multiplying the number of teaching
stations times the students per classroom defined in the educational standards, times the 85%
efficiency factor. The efficiency factor recognizes the time teaching stations are not used due to
circumstances such as teacher planning periods.
B. Portables
Portables are used to house students until growth slows to a more manageable
level and until funding can be secured to construct permanent facilities. Because of
the prolonged and significant rate of growth in the District, students may be
permanently served in portables. To the extent the District is unable to
accommodate enrollment in brick and mortar facilities and the limited number of
permanent portables, additional portables may be used to provide temporary
capacity. The inventory of portables identifies the facilities that are used as regular
teaching stations, special programs and other educational purposes. Also noted is
the number of portables that are providing permanent capacity.
Table 4— Portables Inventory
School Portable School Portable
Classrooms Classrooms
Elementary Elementary
Edwin Markham 3 Robert Frost 5
Emerson 1 Vr ie Robinson 6
.lames McGee** 14 Rowena Chess 5
Longfellow 4 Ruth Livingston 13
Mark Twain 8 Whittier 9
Maya Angelou 6 Captain Gray 6
Total Elem 80*
*To serve approximately 1517 of the enrolled elementary students in
portables, 63 of the 80 portable classrooms provide permanent capacity.
Portable classrooms that are needed to serve more than the 1517 students
are considered temporary housing.
** McGee has one double portable (2 classrooms)that are not full size
classrooms and are not suitable for general education classes, thus limiting
their use.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 10 of 21
November 2011
School Portable School Portable
Classrooms Classrooms
Middle High
Ellen Ochoa 8 Pasco High 25
McLoughlin 26 New Horizons 16
Stevens 14 Total High 41***
Total Middle 48**
** To serve approximately 575 of the enrolled middle school students in
portables, 20 of the 48 portable classrooms provide permanent capacity.
Portables that are needed to serve the remaining enrolled middle school
students are temporary capacity.
*** All the portable classrooms currently at the high schools are deemed to
provide permanent capacity.
C. Support Facilities
In addition to schools, the District owns and operates facilities that provide
operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is
provided in Table 5.
Table 5 - Support Facility Inventory
Facility Location Building Area--sq ft
Booth Bldg / District Office 1215 W Lewis Street 55,000
Building 2101 M & O 3412 W Stearman Avenue 28,000
D. Land Inventory
Table 6-- Unimproved Parcels Owned by the District
Parcel Location Area —Acres Notes
Roads 48/52 21.93 Acres Potential elem or ELC site
Fre 's Addition/Block 18 1.88 acres
N California St. .32 acres
Rd 60/Sandifur 8 acres Elementary site
Rd 52 1Powerline 41 acres Middle School site
N California/Spokane St 6.25 acres Adjacent to Whittier
Henry St. between 22124 1.9 acres Adjacent to Stevens
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 11 of 21
November 2011
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
A. Projected Student Enrollment
The District's enrollment projections are based on an estimate by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). OSPI estimates future enrollment for
all Washington State school districts. OSPI uses a modified cohort survival
methodology to forecast future enrollment. This methodology estimates how many
students in one year will attend the next grade the following year by looking at
historical data. The methodology also forecast how many new kindergarten
students will enroll based on the number of live births in the county and historical
averages for the number of children that enter kindergarten relative to the number
of live births. The enrollment forecast is more accurate in the earlier years and less
accurate in later years. The adjusted forecast is released annually in November.
TABLE 7- ENROLLMENT FORECAST WITH K-5 CONFIGURATION
Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
K 1,408 1,471 1,534 1,597 1,660 1,723 1,788
1 1,428 1,485 1,552 1,618 1,685 1,751 1,817
2 1,371 1,470 1,528 1,597 1,665 1,734 1,802
3 1,385 1,407 1,508 1,568 1,638 1,708 1,779
4 1,235 1,423 1,445 1,549 1,611 1,683 1,755
5 1,298 1,252 1,442 1,465 1,570 1,633 1,706
Total Elern 8,125 8,508 9,009 9,394 9,829 10,232 10,647
7,971-
6 1,186 1,317 1,270 1,463 1,486 1,593 1,657
7 1,189 1,212 11,346 1,298 1,495 1,518 1,627
8 1,189 1,210 1,233 1,370 1,321 1,521 1,544
Total Mid 3,564 3,739 3,849 4,131 4,302 4,632 4,829
3,498*
9 1,520 1,697 1,727 1,760 1,965 1,886 2,172.
10 1,013 11,063 11,187 1,208 1,231 1,368 1,313
11 865 838 879 982 999 1,108 1,131
12 757 787 762 800 894 909 926
Total High 4,155 4,385 4,555 4,750 5,089 15,181 5,542
4,164*
TOTAL 15,844 16,632 1117,413 18,275 19,220 20,045 21,017
15,633*
*Reflects the actual student enrollment for October 1, 2011. The updated OSPI forecast will
not be available until the end of November 2011.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 12 of 21
November 2011
The Multi Track Year Round Task Force recommended that sixth grade become a part of the
elementary schools, thereby decreasing a need for middle school space and increasing the
need for elementary schools which sages the taxpayers the higher cost of building a new
middle school. The board approved the configuration change on October 11, 2011. The
projections using the new configuration follow in Table 8.
TABLE 8- ENROLLMENT FORECAST WITH K-6 CONFIGURATION
Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
K 1,408 1,471 1,534 1,597 1,660 1,723 1,788
1 1,428 1,485 1,552 1,618 1,685 1,751 1,817
2 1,371 1,470 1,528 1,597 1,665 1,734 1,802
3 1,385 1,407 1,508 1,568 1,638 1,708 1,779
4 1,235 1,423 1.445 1,549 1,611 1,683 1,755
5 1',298 1,252 1,442 1,465 1,570 1,633 1,706
6 1,186 1,317 1,270 1,463 1,486 1,593 1,657
Total 9,311 9,825 10,279 10,857 11,315 11,825 12,304
Elem 9,147*
7 1,189 1,212 1,346 1,298 1,495 1,518 1,627
8 1,189 1,210 1,233 1,370 1,321 1,521 1,544
Total 2,378 2,422 2,579 2,668 2,816 3,039 3,171
Mid 2,322-
9 1,520 1,697 1,727 1,760 1,965 1,886 2,172
10 1,013 1,063 1,187 1,208 1,231 1,368 1,313
11 865 838 879 982 999 1,108 1,131
12 757 787 762 800 894 909 926
Total 4,155 4,385 4,555 4,750 5,089 5,271 5,542
High 4,164*
TOTAL 15,844 16,632 17,413 18,275 1 19,220 20,045 21,017
15,633-
* Reflects the actual student enrollment for October 1, 2011. The updated OSPI forecast
will not be avaiiabie until the end of November 2011.
SECTION 5
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
A. Facility Needs
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 13 of 21
November 2011
Facility needs are derived by subtracting existing capacity from the existing and
forecast enrollment. The District's current capacity, its educational programs,
standard of service and enrollment forecast are used to determine its facility needs.
Existing needs are derived by subtracting the current capacity from the students
that are currently enrolled. The six year needs equal the forecast enrollment in
2017 minus the existing capacity, or the current needs plus the needs to serve
increased student enrollment attributed to growth.
As shown in Table 9 below, by 2017 in a K-6 elementary configuration, the district
needs to add capacity to serve 4879 elementary school students, 221 middle
school students and 749 high school students.
Fable 9— Enrollment, Capacity and Needs
Needs
Current Current 2017 Remaining Needs
Total 2017 Projected after Remaining
Brick � Permanent 9
Facilities Mortar Portable Current Projected Facility Phase 2 after
Capacity Capacity Capacity* Enrollment Needs Brick& Phase 2
Mortar Portables
Additions
Elementary 5,908 1,517 7,425 12,304 4,879 1,279 559
(K-6)
Middle (7-8) 2,019 575 2,59+4 3,171 577 577 577
High (9-12) 3,994 799 4,793 5,542 749 0 0
Totals 11,921 2,891 14,811 21,017 6,205 1856 1,136**
* Current capacity equals capacity in the brick and mortar facilities reflected in the inventory of
facilities, plus permanent portable capacity, to the maximum extent possible yet able to maintain an
optimal educational environment within each school's infrastructure limitations.
"Capacity to house the projected remaining 1,136 unhoused students is not included in either Phase
one or two to account for what may be an overestimate by OSPI of Pasco's growth by 2017. Because
this document must be updated every two years, the enrollment projections will be updated based on
real enrollment numbers.
To serve the projected 21,017 students in 2017, the District needs to restructure its
grade configuration to become K-6 elementary schools and 7-8 middle schools. This
postpones the need to construct another middle school for about six years but
creates the need to construct five schools serving elementary students, which could
be four 760-student elementary schools and one 600 student early learning center
serving half day kindergarteners. It must also add portables at the elementary
schools and add capacity at the high school level.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 14 of 21
November 2011
The District's current permanent facility needs are for 1722 K-6 elementary students
(Current K-6 enrollment at 9147 minus permanent capacity of 7425). Reconfiguring
the grade levels provides for adequate middle school capacity by using both brick
and mortar and permanent portable capacity at reasonable maximum levels until at
least 2016. This was calculated using the October 2011 state count of students who
are actually enrolled and attending Pasco Schools then subtracting the total
capacity.
B. Planned Improvements A
To serve the forecast growth, the District will construct needed facilities in
phases. In the first phase, the District will construct two 750-student elementary
schools, one early learning center and add portables. An early learning center is
recommended for two reasons. First, since it would be designed for kindergarten
needs, the cost per square foot is less. Second, an early learning center allows
for the whole school to focus solely on the needs of the young learner and
provides an enriched educational experience. The District will also make facility
improvements needed to maintain current facilities adequately to serve existing
students.
While the Phase 1 improvements are being constructed, the District will start
working on financing and plans to construct two additional 750-student
elementary schools, add capacity at the high schools and add additional portable
classrooms at the new elementary schools as needed. The additional capacity
and costs for the planned improvements is shown in Table 10.
Table 10 —Added Facility Capacity and Costs
Needed Facility Improvements Additional Capacity Total Cost
PHASE 1
New Elementary School#13 750* $23,827,071
New Elementary School#14 750 $27,044,006
New Early Learning Center 600** $20,717,573
Facility Site Needs 0 $5,100,000
Structural Needs 0 $525,000
HVAC Needs 0 $1,500,000
Energy Efficiencies 0 '$700,000
144 Elem**"
Portables 150 HS $1,350,000
300
Total Costs $80,763,650
PHASE 2
New Elementary School #15 750 $27,044,006"
New Elementary School #16 750 $27,044,006
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 15 of 21
November 2011
CHS Expansion 600*'' $5,600,000'
Portables 576 Elem' $2,700,000
Total $62,388,012
"This amount is less than the other elementary schools because the district
already owns the land and has already completed much of the architectural and
engineering work in preparation for construction. The cost for schools in future
phases is a conservative estimate using the cost to construct the Phase 1
schools and reflects the estimates based on the prevailing wage and green
building laws. The cost for inflation has not been included. It will be captured
when this CFP is updated.
"*The Early Learning Center would serve 600 full time students, meaning that it
could serve up to 1200 half day kindergarteners.
***To serve the remaining forecast K-6 growth, the District would need to add 54
more portable classrooms. However, it is estimated that space will exist on the
elementary campuses to only add 30 portable classrooms, totaling 110 portable
classrooms. The 30 new classrooms can serve another 720 students for a total
of 2,237 K-6 students served in portables all of which are permanent. Of the 110
portable classrooms, 93 classrooms would be considered permanent capacity
after Phases one and two. The remaining portable classrooms, or 17 of the 110
portable classrooms, will provide temporary interim capacity and are not counted
as permanent capacity. After adding portables to the maximum amount
_possible, 559 K-6 students will remain unhoused after Phase two. (See Table 11
for details.) About six portables will need to be added at the high school level to
serve about 150 more students as permanent capacity. School impact fees may
be used to pay for the cost of portables.
****The cost to add capacity for 600 high school students is conservative and is
based on an estimate of$232 per sq ft (10% more than the original construction
of$211)for about 1,000 square feet per classroom for 24 classrooms (includes
allowance for halls and stairwells). (The cost of per square foot in western
Washington ranges from $289-$312.) Chiawana was originally designed to add
the additional classrooms to the wings of the school to absorb future growth.
The 24 classrooms will house about 600 additional students. Therefore, about
six portable classrooms will need to be added to house the remaining 149
students in the projection and are scheduled in Phase 1.
Shawn in Table 11 is the analysis of the amount of current permanent K-6 portable
capacity and an estimate for the future. No set percentage is possible due to the
individual characteristics and limitations of each school and site. The district has
analyzed each site to determine the maximum enrollment possible yet maintain a
quality educational program and all of its components.
Table 11 —Analysis of K-6 Permanent and Temporary Portable Capacity
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 16 of 21
November 2011
Maximum Unhoused
Reasonable BEM Max- #Portable Temporary Total Remaining
Enroll Enroll for capacity B{M=#st in !Classrooms Port Portable Unhoused :
optimal perm as perm Classrooms Classrooms Students
Quality portables
20,11 7,971 7,425 5,908 1,517 63 17 80
2017 After Phase 1 12,304 9,669 8,008 *144 69 17 86
2017 After Phase 2 12,304 11,745 9,508 *576 93 17 110 559 .
*Portable capacity at unbuilt schools sites are estimates of 6 classrooms per new school.
*The permanent capacity attributed to portable classrooms at those schools that are not yet built is
only an estimate and subject to change once sites are secured and designs are finalized.
In 2017, the OSPI enrollment forecast projects that the District will be serving 21,017
students. Table 12 shows the current capacity, the added capacity for the planned
improvements, the total capacity when the planned improvements are complete, and the
forecast enrollment. As shown in Table 12, when all the planned improvements are
constructed the District will have permanent capacity to serve 11,745 out of the 21,017
projected students. Capacity to house the projected remaining 780 unhoused students is not
included in either Phase one or two to account for what may be an overestimate by OSPI of
Pasco's growth by 2017. Because this document must be updated every two years, the
enrollment projections will be updated based on real enrollment numbers.
Table 12-- Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment in a K-6 Configuration
2017
2017 Increased 2017 Increased Total Facility
2017 Total Facility Capacity
Projected Capacity Capacity Needs
Facilities Projected Current Jf P Y Needs after
1 Capacity- Facility from after from Phases 1 after
Enrollment Needs Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 and 2 Phases 1
and 2
Elementary(K-6) 12,304 7425 4,879 2,244* 2,635 2076* 11,745 559
Middle(7-8) 3171 2,594 577 0 577 0 2,594 577
High (9-12) 5,542 4,793 749 150 599 600 5,543 (1)
Totals 21,017 14,811 5,849 2,394 3,811 2,676 19,882 1,136
*Includes brick and mortar schools and portables.
Table 13— Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment
Facility Current Added Total Planned Forecast Remaining
Capacity* Capacity Capacity Enrollment Projected
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 17 of 21
November 2011
unhorsed
Students
Elementary K-6 7,425 4,320 11,745 12,304 559
Middle (7-8) 2,594 0 2,594 3,171 577
High (9-12) 4,793 750 5,543 5,542 (1)
TOTAL 14,811 5,070 1%882 21,017 1,136
Total planned capacity in Phase 1 includes six portable classrooms at the elementary level, all of
which are considered permanent capacity. After Phase 2 construction, 24 more portable classrooms
will be considered permanent capacity. The 6 portable classrooms for the high school are also
considered permanent capacity.
The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent
upon the passage of bond elections at a 60% supermajority and capital construction funds
from the state.
Numbers for permanent portable classroom capacity for schools not yet constructed are only
estimates and may change based on site selection and layout.
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
A. Planned Improvements
Planned improvements in Phase 1 include the construction of two elementary schools
and one early leaming center, the addition of six portable classrooms at the high
school level and another six portable classrooms at the elementary level. The District
also needs to acquire school sites and must make a variety of improvements that are
needed at existing facilities. When the planned Phase 1 improvements are constructed
there will be permanent capacity for 9,669 students.
B. Financing for Planned Improvements
9. General Obligation Bonds
Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital
improvement projects. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes.
The District must pass a bond election with a 60% majority since it is the primary
source of funding for the capital improvements listed in this plan.
2. State Capital Construction Funds
State Capital Construction funds come from the Common School Construction Fund
("the fund"). Bonds are sold on behalf of the Fund, and then retired from revenues
accruing predominantly from the sale of timber from the common school lands. If these
sources are insufficient, the Legislature can appropriate funds or the State Board of
Education can change the standards. School districts may qualify for state match
funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. Based on the
District's assessed valuation per student, the formula in the state regulations and the
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 18 of 21
November 2011
significant number of unhoused students (calculated by the State's definition), the
District is currently eligible for state match funds for new schools at a factor of
approximately 86% within the state's calculation formula only if local voters approve the
funds for the local portion of the projects.
3. Impact or Mitigation Fees
Impact or mitigation fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for
construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School
impact fees or SEPA mitigation fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at
the time plats are approved or building permits are issued. Improvements that do not
add capacity and that are constructed to existing schools to serve existing enrollment,
are not included in impact fee or mitigation fee calculations. The existing needs and
deficiencies are excluded from the cost that is attributed to growth because impact and
mitigation fees cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies.
C. Six-Year Financing Plan
Table 14 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and
improvements to school facilities in the first phase of the Capital Facility Plan. A similar
financing plan will be prepared for improvements that are planned for Phase 2 once the
improvements in Phase 1 are under construction. The financing components include a
bond issue, state match funds, and impact fees. Projects or portions of projects which
remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fees. Thus, fees collected
from new developers will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which
remedy existing deficiencies.
Table 14- Capital Facilities Financing Plan Phase 1
Unsecured Funds
Project Added Cost
Capacity Bonds State Match* impact Fees"
New Elementary School#13 750 $23,827,071"** $9,757,686 $13,169,385 $900,000
New Elementary School#14 750 $27,044,006 $11,647,044 $14,496,962 $900,000
New Early Learning Center 600 $20,717,573 $9,612,446 $10,655,127 $450,000
Facility Sites 0 $5;100,000 $5,100,000 $0 $0
Existing Facility Improvements 0 $2,725,000 $2,725,000 $0 $0
Portables 300 $1,350,000 $0 $0 $1,350,000
TOTAL 7400 $80,763,650 $38,842,176 538,321,474 $3,600,000
*This number is an estimate of state match and is subject to verification by OSPI.
**This number is an estimate that assumes housing development will occur at a rate similar to what
has been experienced the past six years and impact fees in the amount of at least$4,683.34 will be
collected from builders for every new housing unit.
***This amount is less than other similar elementary schools because the district already owns the
land and has already completed much of the architectural and engineering work in preparation for
construction.
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 19 of 21
November 2011
The Growth Management Act(GMA) authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to
supplement funding of additional public facilities needed to accommodate new
development. The State Environmental Policy Act requires mitigation of impacts that new
development has on schools and the State Subdivision Act requires there be adequate
provision for schools prior to approving subdivisions. Impact fees or mitigation fees
address these legal requirements. They cannot be used for the operation, maintenance,
repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities used to meet existing service
demands.
A. Fee Calculations
Franklin County and the City of Pasco have not adopted a school impact fee
ordinance. However, the District's Capital Facility Plan addresses the forecast growth
for which the City and County must plan, and it identifies the need to collect fees to
address a portion of the cost the District will incur to build facilities to serve growth..
The fees have been calculated using a standard school impact fee formula that is
authorized by the Growth Management Act and adopted in Washington counties and
cities. The fees, calculated as shown in attached Appendix A, are based on the
District's cost per dwelling unit to construct new elementary and middle schools to add
capacity to serve new development. Construction costs do not include that portion of
the total cost to build new schools that is being incurred to serve unhoused students (to
remedy existing deficiencies). Credits have been applied in calculating the fees to
account for future state match funds the District could receive and projected future
property taxes that will be paid by the owner of the dwelling unit. The fees have been
discounted by 25% to minimize the impacts the fees may have on new development
and ensure new development is not paying more than its fair share.
B. District's Proposed Fees
The District requests collection of school impact fees in the amounts of:
Single Family: $4,633.34
Multi-Family: $4,525.36
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 20 of 21
November 2011
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 25%reduction
2011 Impact Fee Calculation APPENDIX A
SIP' c°s(sr�)._lstV ..
� .. {l-,t)lU a w AA r°n rr x x A.....Fc
Ifl' ,Fjt4
Single Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$72,203 1350.00 $0.40 $675.OM 00 Facility Cast
2,244 300 150 AddWonal Capacity
532 203.05 $000 $4,500,00 t=ort per Student;�:
0.450 03180 01190 Student Facto,1S=
$14,49'[.37 $0.00 SBB.ri.00 CS x SE
518017 $18017 $180.17 80edk index
90.00 117.40 1311.00 OSFt SG Ft
86,10% 8614% 88.M% State Match Bgitaility%
55.262.62 50100 S4.00 State Match Credit•`.S`r'i
M208.78 SO.00 5855.130 CS x SF-SM
Cost per Single Family Residence
4.0434 Average irde€est Rate
0.5283550758 Tax Credit Nurnerator
0.46637401 Tax Credit Denominator
s:975336462 Tax Cfed t Multiplier fTGM)
5147.600.00 Average Assessed Value(AAV)
1177715966 TCM x AAV
0.00240 Tax Lesy Rate`TLR)
S2.81920 TCM x AAV x TLR=(TC.)
6.244.48 Cost per Single Family Residence-Tax Credit
S1,5431.19 25%reducttan W
$4,863.34 Calculated Single Fatuity Fee Amount
TBD Reconuinow ded Fee Amount
A4ulti-Family Residence:
Meanentary Muddle srchoo{ High School Formula
572,263£50:00 S0.00 515,0M.00 Facility Cost
2244 300 150 Additional Capacity
$32.2013.05 54.00 $4 500.00 Cost per Studer; 4j
3a.3.R0 0.1217 0.120 Student Factor "`i
$11,271.07 $0.00 $640.00 CS x SF
618017 $1aC.17 $180.17 Boeci<Index,
90-00 117.00 130.00 CGRt 8q Ft
86.10% 86.14% 86,110% State Match EligiNlq%
64,866.48 53.00 54,00 Stale Match Credit!F,;=
58,384.59 30.00 SSAOAO CS x SF-SM
38424.58 Cost per Multi-Family Residency
04434 Average interest Rate
a 52@3."5058 Tax Credit Numerwor
0.06637401 Tax Cretin Denominator
7-975336462 Tex Great Mutiplier(TCM)
646,6001.00 Average Assessed value(AAV)
371e,50.168 TCM x AAV
000240 Tax Levy Rale(TLR)
539010 TCM x AAV x TLR=(TC)
S 94.4 Cost per Multi-FerMiy Residence-Tax Credit
51.608.62 25%reduction r:)
54,625.88 Calcotated Multi-Family Fee Amount
TBD Rertanurtended Fw Amount
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 21 of 21
November 2011
Links to Planning Commission Meeting Videos:
February 16, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting:
http://Pscty.pegcentral.com/plaVer.php?video=fbda476de70647fad5afb7ed82f99c64
March 15, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting:
http://pscty.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=4c46a24ba7bc8bO5ec66c37fO24889f7
f.
ra
PI
Ty b4i
Item: Rezone R -1
to R-3
Vicinity
Applicant: Pasco
Family
�..
Map File Z 2012-001
Earl=
LW
wd
C—D
IL
SOP
.__
'dr
-
SON_
" . • • J , Icy
�y
lam'
"�
4 � � �:�s �",
its
l ��°�i,
i • ter
!, •�
y a.
�l•
, TA
f.
ra
PI
Ty b4i
WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 N. Third Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2 AND 3, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION FROM
R -1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R -3 (2NIEDIUM- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH A
CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been
received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such
petition; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially
detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the
requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the
requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in
the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning
classification; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section I. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map,
accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential
Transition) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached
hereto and described as follows:
All of Block 3, Whitehouse Addition (parcel ## 1 1207 1 026) and lots 11 to 17 Block 2, and
lots 18 to 24 Block 2, Whitehouse Addition together with the adjacent vacated 10' of
Alvina Street (parcel # 112072098)
Section 2. That the change of a zoning classification as pro-6ded in Section 1 is contingent and
conditioned upon execution of and compliance with a Concomitant Agreement entered into between the
Petitioner and the City which will attach to and run with the real property described in Section 1 above. Said
Concomitant Agreement is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit ` T'.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and
publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7th day of May, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
L I
"Exhibit 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non - charter code city, under the laws
of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to
promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and
development of property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such
property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy
Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance
with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property
situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows:
ALL of BLOCK 3, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION (Parcel # 112071026) and
LOTS 11 TO 17 BLOCK 2, and LOTS 18 TO 24 BLOCK 2, WHITEHOUSE
ADDITION TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED 10' OF ALVINA STREET
(Parcel # 112072098)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the
Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and
development of the above described property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law,
desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In the event the above - described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R -3
(Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and
subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and
agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the
event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above- described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in
interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
4. Conditions:
a. No driveways or vehicular access shall be permitted from North Charles
Street;
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the
sole holders of fee simple interest in a above - described property:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of n )
*�fbh
On this day of , 2012, before me,
th undersigned, y commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
V, to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrume as an agent of the owner(s) of r rd, and acknowledged to me that
he/she/ ey signed the same as his/her/ eir and voluntary act and deed,
for the s and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she %(� yam"' are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIV under by hand and official seal this day of
2012.
Notary Public in fbT 1
residing at
My Commission expires:
MELANIE S. WELLS
!Votary Public
State of Washington
My Commission Expires
August 17, 2013
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Counci
TO: Gary Crutch fie tanager
FROM: Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Directof-ptf
SUBJECT: Building Permit Plan Review Fee
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed ordinance
May 1, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 4/23/12
Regular Mtg.: S /7/12
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
517: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance , an ordinance amending Title
16 of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding plan review fees for R -3
Occupancies, and further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Title 16 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) adopts pertinent sections of the
International Building Code (IBC) for regulating a variety of activities and
establishing fee schedules.
B. The City's procedure for submittal of one and two - family residential building
permit applications is straightforward. An application is considered upon
submittal of the completed application form and site plan. There is no application
fee and there is no limit on the number of applications that can be submitted.
C. An unintended result of this straightforward and free application process has been
the submittal of large numbers of plans for review in order to vest development
regulations. This has coincided with an unusually high amount of applications for
other types of construction and remodeling and has significantly affected service
levels in the Inspection Services and Engineering Divisions.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The plan review process for single family homes requires the involvement of the
Inspection Services, Engineering and Planning Divisions. An average total review
time per single family plan is one and one -half hours. In addition, complete plan
reviews are monitored for expiration dates, corrections and revisions. Plan review
applications submitted simply for vesting purposes and with little probability of
fruition result in slowing the processing time for all applications — including those
intending to start immediately. Increased processing time also affects staff
availability to assist citizens at the public counters and over the telephone.
B. A reasonable measure to recoup a portion of the costs of residential plan reviews
and minimize submittal of speculative applications, is to require a plan review fee
at the time an application is submitted for a single or two - family home. A $50 fee
is recommended and is contained in the proposed ordinance. Currently a S25 fee
is required but is collected after the review is complete when the permit is issued.
This does little to discourage speculative plan submittal. The proposed $50 fee is
intended to be collected at the time of application — unlike the current application
fee.
8(b)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY" OF PASCO, WASHINGTON AMENDING TITLE
16 OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING PLAN REVIEW FEES FOR
R -3 OCCUPANCIES.
WHEREAS, Title 16 of the Pasco Municipal Code adopts certain provisions of the International
Building Code regarding fees for construction plan review; and
WHEREAS, Review of construction plans for R -3 occupancies involve city staff from several
departments and an approximate review timeframe of one and one -half hours; and
WHEREAS, Review of construction plans for R -3 occupancies require electronic and paper
record keeping and monitoring, including review of revisions and corrections to submitted applications:
and
WHEREAS, A plan review application fee will minimize expenditure of city resources for plan
reviews that are not likely to come to fruition, thereby decreasing processing time for those reviews that
are likely to result in issuance of permit;
NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 16.04.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and the same is hereby
created and shall read as follows:
16.04.035 ADDITION OF IBC SECTION 109,2.1. Section 109.2.1 of the International Building Code
shall be added and shall read as follows: Sec. 109.2.1 Plan Review Fees. When the valuation of the
proposed construction exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and a plan is required to be submitted; a
plan- review fee of sixty-five percent (65 %) of the construction permit fee shall be paid to the Building
Official at the time of submitting plans and specifications for checking. EXCEPTION; Building permit
applications for construction of new R -3 occupancies require only a fifty dollar
$(__s_0) plan- review fee.
Plan- review fees for all buildings, other than group R -3 Occupancies, shall be sixty -five percent (65 %) of
the building permit fees.
Where plans are incomplete, or changed so as to require additional plan- review, an additional plan - review
fee shall be charged at a rate established by the Building Official not to exceed 65% of the value of the
building permit fee. (Ord. 3964, 2010; Ord. 3859, 2008; Ord. 3670 Sec. 2, 2004; Ord. 3133 Sec 5, 1996;
Ord. 2153 Sec. 4, 1980; Ord. 1853 Sec. I (part), 1977.)
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect 5 days after approval, passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this _ day of , 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandy Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Counci April 30, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Rick White,`
Community & 1'conomic Development Director
FROM: David McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP2012 -004) Elementary School at Rd 601 Sandifur
Pkw
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3115/12 and 4/19112
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No.�, approving a
special permit for au elementary school at the northwest corner
of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 15, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the
location of a new elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway
and Road 60.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that
with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special
permit for the new elementary school.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(c)
Map
Item: Elementary School in R- I Zone
V'C'n"Y Applicant: Pasco School District File SP 00 +
qw
wr
IV
13�
It • �' ;� 1
irui
� �� � � !fin ?���ii'"!'"J"/� � � �'► rf i k �.. � � � � � kJ
.�_
r Mil
'WOR 'i n ■ISO
RESOLUTION.-S-0.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
THE LOCATION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WHEREAS, Pasco School District, submitted an application for the location of
an elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 (Tax
Parcel 116 - 240 -072 and 116 -240 -067); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2012
to review the proposed elementary school; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 14, 2012 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed elementary school with
certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Pasco School District for the location of
an elementary school in an R -1 (Low Density Residential) District under Master
File # SP 2012 -004 with the following conditions:
a) The elementary school and school site shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the special
permit application.
b) No driveway on Road 60 may be located closer than 270 feet from the center of
the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
c) One driveway will be permitted on Sandifur Parkway. The driveway shall not be
located closer than 350 feet from the center of the intersection of Road 60 and
Sandifur Parkway.
d) Sidewalks shall be off -set to match surrounding subdivisions on Road 60 and
Sandifur Parkway
e) The planting strip between the curb and the off -set sidewalk must be planted in
lawn and trees at 50 -foot intervals. The type of trees and landscaping plan must
be approved by the city prior to installation_
f) All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including but not limited
to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and crosswalks shall be paid
for by the School District.
g) All street/roadway signage abutting the property and off -site, is to be provided by
the school district and must be per the most current MUTCD & City of Pasco
construction standards.
h) The School District shall identify and provide all necessary accommodations for
pedestrian school routes along Sandifer Parkway and Road 60 adjacent to the
school site.
i) No mid -block crosswalks will be permitted.
j) The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time a
building permit is issued.
k) The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be submitted
with the building permit application.
1) No sports field lighting shall be permitted.
m) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by May, 2015.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7th day of May, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City CIerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
ON
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012 -004 APPLICANT: Pasco School District # 1
HEARING DATE: 3/15/12 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 4/19/12 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Elementary School in an R -1
District. (Sandifur Parkway 8, Road 60)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The easterly 564' of the southerly 846' of the southeast '/4 of the
northwest '/4 of Sec 10, T 9 N, R 29 E, W.M., except that portion
lying southerly of the north right -of -way line of Sandifur
Parkway.
General Location: Northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60
Pro , ert Size: Approximately 8 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to Sandifur Parkway and Road 60.
3. UTILITIES: Water service is available from adjoining streets. Sewer
service for the site has been extended east in an easement from
Coppercap Mountain Lane to the City park site to the north.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R -1 (Low Density
Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as
follows:
NORTH- R -1 Vacant future park site
SOUTH- R -1 Single- Family
EAST- R -S -20 County - Residential
WEST- R -1 Single - Family
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for low - density residential. Goal CF -5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF -5 -A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
I
Non - significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11 -158.
ANALYSIS
The site in question was identified during the preliminary plat process for the
Three Rivers Crossing development as a future school location. To ensure the
site would remain available for a school at some future date the School District
purchased the property in 2004.
Schools are conditional uses and may be permitted within the R -1 zoning
district only after review through the Special Permit process. Even though the
School District purchased the property in question 8 years ago the proposed
school is required by the Municipal Code to be reviewed through the Special
Permit hearing process. The proposed school was granted a special permit in
2003 and again in 2010.
Pasco currently has eleven elementary schools (the School District has one
additional elementary school [Edwin Markham] outside the Pasco UGA). With
the recent growth in population (Pasco's population has more than doubled in
size since 1997) and student enrollment, the School District needs to construct
several elementary schools. Elementary school enrollment in Pasco has
increased by an average of about 360 new students per year for the last
decade. This year the elementary enrollment increased by over 400 new
students. The State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
estimates Pasco's elementary enrollment will increase by 3,157 students over
the next 6 years. This continued growth in school enrollment will create the
need for additional elementary schools.
To address part of the need for additional school space the District is proposing
to develop the site in question with a 69,330 square foot elementary school
similar to Maya Angelou and Virgie Robinson. The two story building will have
classroom space for 730 students. The site will contain public parking and bus
loading off Road 60. The school site is the same size (8 acres) as the Maya
Angelou site. A future neighborhood park will be developed immediately to the
north of the school site, and will help provide necessary open space for student
use.
The proposed site is almost fully improved with necessary infrastructure.
Sidewalks and fire hydrants have not been installed. The overhead power lines
bordering the site will need to be placed underground. Hayden Homes, the
developer of the Three Rivers subdivision, previously undergrounded most of
2
the overhead power lines along Sandifur Parkway. The School District is
responsible for undergrounding the portion that remains overhead.
With respect to traffic - related issues a signal warrant test will be needed to
determine when a signal should be installed at Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
The I -182 Subarea Transportation Plan identifies the proposed school but the
plan does not identify a need for a traffic signal at Road 60 and Sandifur
Parkway. The Regional Transportation Analysis model used by the Regional
Council does not include elementary schools in the data used to identify future
traffic impacts because elementary schools do not impact the peak hour traffic
conditions in the way other land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8th Ed) an elementary school with 730
students on average can be expected to generate about 941 vehicle trips per
day. That would amount to $40,463 in traffic impact fees. If the site was fully
developed with single - family homes about 300 vehicle trips could be expected
per day.
Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana
High School are located in residential zoning districts. An on -line search of the
Franklin County Assessors records (February, 2012) revealed that many of the
residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary
School have increased in valued since the school was built. The Maya Angelou
neighborhood was not fully developed until after the school was built. This
provides a good indication that elementary schools do not discourage the
development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity of a school or
impair the value thereof. Recent development around the McGee Elementary
School also provides another example of a residential neighborhood that
developed after a school was constructed.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in an R -1 zone.
2. The site was identified during the preliminary platting process as a
location for a future elementary school.
3. The Pasco School District purchased the site in 2004 for a future
elementary school.
3
4. Schools are conditional land uses in the R -1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
S. The site is within the city limits of Pasco.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low- density residential
uses.
7. The site is currently vacant.
8. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF -5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
9. Street and utility improvements surrounding the site were completed in
2010.
10. Overhead power lines are located along the southern and eastern edge of
the site.
11. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(81k, Ed) a 730 student elementary school will generate about 941 vehicle
trips per day.
12. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 300
vehicle trips per day.
13. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to
15,633 in the 2011 -2012 school year.
14. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates Pasco's
elementary school enrollment will increase by another 3,157 by 2017.
15. Residential development near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary
School indicates elementary schools do not negatively impact the value of
surrounding homes or the intended development of residential
neighborhoods.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060_ The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
IJ Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan goal CF -5 that suggests adequate
provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth
Area. Transportation and utility policies support city standards that require
the extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school
4
development would also need to include the development of utilities through
the length of the site and development of corresponding street improvements.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Surrounding utility and street improvement have been completed and were
constructed in anticipation of an elementary school being constructed on the
site. The proposed school will generate about 600 more vehicle trips per day
than if the site was fully developed with homes. However, the operations of
elementary schools do not fully correspond with surrounding peak hour traffic.
The sewer system was designed with a stub specifically to service the proposed
school.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed elementary school has been designed to complement the existing
and future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks, landscaping,
screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the
school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes.
Elementary schools are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods
and are an accepted part of the character of residential areas.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages
development of nearby properties. Residential development around the Maya
Angelou and McGee schools was not completed until after the schools were in
place. An on -line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (February,
2012) revealed that values of many residential properties located near the
existing Maya Angelou Elementary School have increased since the school was
built.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from
neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes,
5
vibrations or flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 940
vehicle trips per day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break
periods very little traffic will be generated.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the
International Building Code, the fire code, the plumbing code, all other
construction codes and state regulations pertaining to elementary school
construction. The building will be required to have fire -rated corridors, area
separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the
safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements
will address pedestrian and traffic safety issues.
Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential neighborhoods. In
most communities schools, including elementary schools, are located in or near
residential neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The elementary school and school site shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the
special permit application.
2. No driveway on Road 60 may be located closer than 270 feet from the
center of the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
3. One driveway will be permitted on Sandifur Parkway. The driveway shall
not be located closer than 350 feet from the center of the intersection of
Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
4. Sidewalks shall be off -set to match surrounding subdivisions on Road 60
and Sandifur Parkway
5. The planting strip between the curb and the off -set sidewalk must be
planted in lawn and trees at 50 -foot intervals. The type of trees and
landscaping plan must be approved by the city prior to installation.
6. All costs associated with speed reduction /modification including but not
limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and
crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District.
T All street /roadway signage abutting the property and off -site, is to be
provided by the school district and must be per the most current MUTCD
& City of Pasco construction standards.
0
8. The School District shall identify and provide all necessary
accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Sandifur Parkway
and Road 60 adjacent to the school site.
9. No mid -block crosswalks will be permitted.
10. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time
a building permit is issued.
11. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be
submitted with the building permit application.
12. No sports field lighting shall be permitted.
13. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by May, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions
therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council grant a Special Permit to the Pasco School
District for the location of an elementary school at the northwest
corner of Sandifur Parkway & Road 60 (parcel #s 116- 240 -072 &
116 - 240 -067) with conditions as listed in the April 19, 2012 staff
report.
7
Item: Elementary V'c'n'ty Applicant: Pasco School District N
School
Map File . 2012-004
i
# �T d- IWl1;. Cta
OV
•,iii � -� �� �` ��° ��..'� Ot
Me
[ " ` � `.* ve Kid - U -
� - -� tit '•[�k'.Si,� f - � � ilt'�
r
i
gW 1 1
3
r is r �0•a !��' meaty �`�� wtg ® Tiir
w
:��r �
'16
dw-
77.7-MUM s�ia�.� r iEi
z
5
O
a
ti
w
L-
z
H
a
I-
Land Use
Map
�MEN
Item: Elementary School in R -1 Zone
Applicant: Pasco School District
File #: SP 2012 -002
z i
O
V GLACIER PEAK DR
THREE RIVERS DR
7,
a
DAMON POINT DR
}
,ENZIAN FALLS DR
SANDIFUR PKWY
SFDUs
1- 1. ! I...
Z
SFDUs
(County)
SFDUs
`f
z
in
D
Q
O
w
JOHNSON
Zoning Item: Elementary School in R -1 Zone
Applicant: Pasco School District
Map File #: SP 2012 -004
0 � I i
o GLACIER --L-J-- DR PEAK
THREE
6A-M N
ALPINE LAKES DR "'
0 R -1=
SANDIFUR PKWY
T71
n__ ROBINDR
-�-
1
i_--
R.1
SITE
4
LLLt-_
Lw
E �
�^ io
�4
RS -20
(County)
�i
ii
EDF-Ti-EOERSON DR
Ell �
R-1- -_
Looking North
Looking South
Looking East
p _ .�- .f_ ,.--- .� •tea,. , r 4t
_ y
s..rti - r 1 ate• - -' { � Loom-
M-.00� ` At
CA
� •
.y `rte \ Z • =YiVs- .rte , � v..- .►
' =P i '�: ..,• � >*�;�� s• si1;.,.� � i 1� � • .`•.a. � � A ..1�!� +fit! •'�'���
Looking West
disk =-
A � `
i- 'r
yI.A�-r
PASCO
ScI1001. ISI'XIC r #i
JV.
71K VVEST
A R C H F T E C T S
72,000 square feet
720 student
capacity
8 -acre site
WSSP certified
Pasco School District Elementary School No. 13
5706 Road 60
Pasco School District Elementary School No. 13
5706 Road 60
� e
PASO ADMINISTRATION
Sul 0 ISTRIC1, #1
MuSICI SPECIAL
V. � � PLATGp11M
t_
INSTRUCf'ONAL
A F9 H I T E C T S 9 'RIT[ KEN � CIRCULATION/SUPPORT
CAFETERW Q
Mi31T1- PURPOSE �
WULTT)
^ROOM~ frKORR
... — — / 7 � .._.._ fix° 4Y:rNASRJ4, ROOM` j..
® p r4 1
iLASSR00M CLASSROOM j —
CLASS
CLASS110OM ' CtASSRODRI �._30 J CLNS ;ROpA� MN.,
R i
r vESnsuLE
M
CLASSROOM CLASSR" CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM I 24 22 _ 26 T
2S CLASSROOM CLASSROOM j _
23 21 )nAFIOOR '�� _ wCI.ASSROOM ` - - .7
4 LIFESRILLS 7T C ALASSAOOM CLAS
CUISSROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOMS Iq i ^� KINDEACiAR�N
• - 15+
SKCIAL
r, EDUCATION - __ - --
SELF•CONTAINEO•, e '� x,4 a,�. ay ' IST GRAM TSTGRADE� Li�� �! RI�GARIEN�
`��CIASSROIM� CLASSROOM
� - 13
�y
CLASSROOM 1 I CLASSROOM
14 14 -1 4
IiL�4SL SPECIAL I �iSTGRAOE� I ' ISTGRAGE ii IST KMDFRGARM �
EcuaION
} R -
w
KINDERGANTEN
Q
Q
�r
M.
m
x �
c. M
O
CU
O
z
0
W -
i
N I �
I
2
re.
� ... � • Y�CI Y�
� •V � y
j
( via ROR PARMO .;.
Iryf �
� r
PMJbC ' Rp�t t � y
t
'i
0
R
�
n
O
�
a
0
0
a
�r
M.
m
x �
c. M
O
CU
O
z
0
W -
i
N I �
I
2
re.
� ... � • Y�CI Y�
� •V � y
j
( via ROR PARMO .;.
Iryf �
� r
PMJbC ' Rp�t t � y
t
'i
0
1
I
I
i
FUTURE PARK
{ I DEVELOPED BY CITY
f APPROX 5 ACRES
O
_._._.. 1._-.- --------------- -----
_._._._._.— -
!
�j !
o l \ l PROPOSED
a r� Q ,f . i ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #13
I
r
- LOCATED AT SANDIFUR ( ROAD 60
- APPROX. 130 STUDENTS
- APPROX. b 9p00 OF
- APPROX. 8 ACRES
ESP13 • CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLA*t a
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT
COP671RUCTION PRoJFCT9
d- i
Op —.
II6 MST LEUtB
PASCO, WA 99910
I (5) 549-60%
P 09
j--
r
I F f509! 549 -6115
•
ESN1A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ' ~'^�COPERGAP
- PERCA N -. �.`
MOUNTAIN LANE � •�
LN
� t
� i i IV'
_
—,
xvk
x'uw uci.r
a Q (D Y Ff E)
Fa; r. �#' �' C+'Ji�
9' :�`.� �i4 i� d i �� r� (2' v
ESP13 • CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/15/12
D. Special Permit Pasco School District (Renewall IMF#
SP2012 -004
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald discussed the proposed special permit for the location of an
elementary school in an R -1 (Low Density Residential) District. It was explained this
school was originally granted a special permit in 2003 and again in 2010. The School
District is seeking to keep the permit active in the event they can move forward on the
construction of the school.
Kim Marsh, 1215 W, Lewis, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District. He stated
there were no changes in the plans.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan., to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development
of a recommendation for City Council for the April 19, 2012 meeting, The motion
passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4/19/12
B. Special Permit Pasco School District (Renewall IMF#
SP2012 -0041
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, stated staff had no additional comments on this item.
Commissioner Kempf asked if the design of the school has changed due to any
changes in capacity due to the increase in students in the community.
Mr. McDonald answered that this particular school will not be upsized. Other schools
in the District might change, however.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of an elementary
school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway & Road 60 (parcel #'s 116- 204072
& 116- 240 -067) with conditions as listed in the April 19, 2012 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
This item will go to the next regular City Council Meeting, May 7, 2012 unless it is
appealed.
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfie
Rick White,
Community &
AGENDA REPORT
6 anager
Development Director�,�
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
April 30, 2012
Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2012 -003): Location of a Private Bus Terminal in a
C -3 Zone
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/15/12 and 4/19/12
I1, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. approving the
special permit for the location of a private bus terminal at 205
South 4'h Avenue as recommended by the Planning
Commission,
Ill. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 15, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the
location of a private bus terminal at 205 South 4`h Avenue.
B. Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned
that with conditions, it would he appropriate to recommend approval of a special
permit for the bus terminal.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received,
8(d)
Vicinity Item: Special Pen-int - Bus Terminal
Map Applicant: Griselda Melendez N . File ##. SP 2012 -003
4
`1
r, s SITE
i• � i a ,
+�1 � � � �^+ � } }} � � • r +fin -�w+w� � \ •b,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
LOCATION OF A PRIVATE BUS TERMINAL AT 205 SOUTH 4" AVENUE.
WHEREAS, Fronteras Travel, submitted an application for the location of an a
private bus terminal at 205 South 4b Avenue (Tax Parcel 112-041-317); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2012
to review the proposed bus terminal; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 19, 2012 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed bus terminal with certain
conditions; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Fronteras Travel for the location of a bus
terminal in a C -3 (General Business) District under Master File # SP2012 -003 with
the following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to parcel 112041317.
b) Scheduled van service shall be limited to one arrival and one departure per day.
c) No van loading or unloading shall occur on 4`h Avenue or Columbia Street.
d) Vans must be assisted across the sidewalk by one or more spotters when exiting
the site.
e) No more than a 25- passenger van may be permitted at the site.
f) The applicant shall maintain all necessary governmental approvals and licenses
required for the operation of a transportation business.
g) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license is not
obtained by June 1, 2012.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7'h day of May, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012 -003 APPLICANT: Griselda Melendez
HEARING DATE: 3/1S/12 516 S. 6th Street
ACTION DATE. 4/19/12 Yakima, WA 98901
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a private bus terminal (Fronteras
Travel) (Griselda Melendez) (205 S. 4th Avenue)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 13 -17, Block 19, Gerry's Addition
General Location: 205 S. 4th Avenue
Propertv Size: 14,300 square feet
2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to South 4th Avenue.
3. U'T`ILITIES: Water and sewer services are located in the alley to the
east.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -3 (General
Business) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as
follows:
NORTH- C -2 Farmer's Market parking lot
SOUTH- I -1 Vacant
EAST- C -3 & C -2 Commercial /old motel
WEST- I -1 Golden Nugget nightclub
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan (Goal TR -2) encourages
the efficient use of multi -modal transportation systems, which would
include bus and van services for residents.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non - significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11 -158.
ANALYSIS
A private van /bus service has been operating at 205 S. 4th Avenue for
approximately 4 years without the benefit of a City business license. The
business owner applied for a business license in 2010 and was informed by
staff that a license could not be issued for the van /bus services until a special
permit had been granted for the site. A Special Permit was approved by the
City Council in July of 2010 with a condition the applicant obtain a business
license by October 2010. The applicant failed to obtain a business license and
is now facing code enforcement action. Upon receiving notice of the need for a
business license the applicant submitted an application. Staff was unable to
approve the license because the Special Permit had expired.
This request is similar to other private bus service applications that have been
reviewed by the Planning Commission in the past. Private bus /van services
have operated with Special Permit approval at 115 N. 4th Avenue, 1320 N. 4th
Avenue, 702 W. Lewis Street and 1011 W. Sylvester Street. There is also a
bus /van service (Estrella Bianca) operating from the Pasco Multi -Modal
Terminal on North 1St Avenue.
The special permit application for proposed van /bus service indicated
scheduled service at 205 S. 4th Avenue, including one arrival and one
departure per day, seven days a week. The departing van leaves the site at 7:00
am and the arrivals occur at 7:00 pm. The applicant further emphasized to
staff that the scheduled arrival and departures are the Company's advertised
schedule. If no tickets have been sold, no stops are made in Pasco. During the
winter months when ridership is down vans do not arrive or depart from the
site on a daily business. The applicant further indicated their vehicle fleet
includes 15- passenger vans, 25- passenger vans and 51- passenger buses.
Twenty -five passenger vans are the primary vehicles used by Fronteras Travel
to transport passengers to Yakima where a 51- passenger bus provides
connections to other states.
No changes to the site or building are planned as a result of the bus service to
and from the Fronteras Travel office at 205 S. 4th Avenue.
2
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in a C -3 (General Business) zone.
2. The site is located at 205 S. 4th Avenue.
3. There is currently a van ticket office located at 205 S. 4th Avenue.
4. The applicant has plans to continue to operate a regularly scheduled van
service from an existing ticket office at 205 S. 4th Avenue.
5. Scheduled departures will occur at 7:00 a.m. every day of the week.
6. Scheduled arrivals will occur at 7:00 p.m. every day of the week.
7. Twenty -one passenger vans are the primary vehicles used in the
proposed van service.
8. A twenty -one passenger van is 24.5 feet in length.
9. Private operator carriers, charter or transit buses, vans and similar
businesses are listed as unclassified uses in PMC 25.86.020.
10. Unclassified uses require review through the special permit process
before locating in the community.
11. Private bus /van companies have been permitted by special permit to
locate in other commercial zoning districts on N. 4th Avenue, Lewis Street
and Sylvester Street.
12. No alterations are planned for the office or site.
13. The site has a small on -site parking area that can be used for passenger
loading and unloading.
14. The on -site parking and loading area is shared with a wholesale produce
business.
15. The wholesale produce business utilizes large trucks for receiving and
delivering produce.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit, the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and tent of the Comprehensive Plan?
3
The site is designated by the Plan for commercial uses. The Plan also
encourages the efficient use of multi -modal transportation systems. The van
service would be considered part of the multi -modal transportation system.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The site is developed with all municipal utility services. No building additions
or alterations are planned that would increase demands on the utility system.
Fourth Avenue is a designated arterial street and has been constructed to
arterial street standards to carry more traffic and heavier loads as compared to
local access streets. The addition of a van on 4th Avenue at off peak travel times
is not anticipated to generate significant demands on the surrounding street
system.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The intended character of the area includes the development of various
commercial enterprises. The proposed use is a commercial activity. No changes
to the building or site are planned as a result of the proposed van service.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The location and height of the structures on -site will not change as a result of
the proposed van service. The property will continue to be used for commercial
purposes.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
The proposed van service will create no more noise, vibrations, and fumes than
the semi - trucks and delivery trucks used by the produce business located on
the site.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The on- street parking area directly in front of 205 South 4th Avenue is about 37
feet long. On- street parking of a passenger van along with the loading and
unloading of passengers and luggage on a public sidewalk may lead to the
M
creation of a nuisance situation twice a day. This problem can be resolved by
requiring all vans to load and unload on private property.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The special permit shall apply to parcel 112041317.
2. Scheduled van service shall be limited to one arrival and one departure
per day.
3. No van loading or unloading shall occur on 4th Avenue or Columbia
Street.
4. Vans must be assisted across the sidewalk by one or more spotters when
exiting the site.
5. No more than a 25- passenger van may be permitted at the site.
6. The applicant shall maintain all necessary governmental approvals and
licenses required for the operation of a transportation business.
7. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license is not obtained by June 1, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: 1 move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2012
staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Fronteras
Travel for the location of a private van transportation business at
205 S. 4+h Avenue with conditions as listed in the April 19, 2012
staff report.
5
Vicinity Item: Special Pen-nit - Bus Terminal Map Applicant: Griselda Melendez N
File SP 2012 -003
15
1 r
1
* •. - _ 7 '
� •i
- S r
Jj ' r
SITE -
Land Use Item: Special Permit -Bus Terminal
Applicant: Griselda Melendez
Map File #: SP 2012 -003
5*1
74
0
�O
74
Commercial
Industrial
SITE
x
Zoning Item: Special Permit -Bus Terminal
Applicant: Griselda Melendez N
Map File #: SP 2012 -003
C -3
s
C -1
C -2
� C =2�
co�`'M
1=1
s
sz
� SITE
C -2
-1
0
E. z
0
m
r
H
o vs
� a n
o
'^ A
n
4c w
3n0�
V Z ' ;.
a w 1%
D D >
M�
o _ �
_ D t
yJ
1`l
1
t
a ..
• `t
L•
_..A 's
U
A
A
1' �� _��
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/15/12
C. Special Permit Location of a Private Bus Terminal
(Frontera's Travell 1MF# SP2012 0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff,
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director briefly reviewed the written
report and explained this item was considered in the Spring 2010 but the applicant
had let the special permit expire prior to receiving a business license and this is why
the item is back on the agenda. Mr. White reviewed the recommended conditions
dealing with maneuvering room for larger buses, the number of arrivals and
departures per day and the prohibition of on- street loading.
Chairman Cruz stated that the Planning Commission discussed this item in great deal
the first time it was on the agenda.
Griselda Melendez, 516 S. 601 Street, Yakima, WA, the applicant, explained that proper
attention was not applied to this item originally but is ready to act on the proposal.
She stated that there were no changes to the plans since it was previously discussed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the
public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and
development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 19, 2012 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4/19/12
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a private bus terminal (Fronteras
Travel) (MF# SP 2012 -0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated staff had no
additional comments on this item.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report, The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to Fronteras Travel for the location of a private van
transportation business at 205 S. 4th Avenue with conditions listed in the April 19,
2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
This item will go to the next regular City Council Meeting, May 7, 2012 unless it is
appealed.
-1-
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Counco May 1, 2012
TO: Gary Crutch ie Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/7/12
Rick White, r�
Community & conomic Development Director 'a
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2012 -005) Location of a caretaker residence in an I-
1 (Light Industrial) Zone
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/15,12012 & 4/19/2012
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , denying a special
permit to locate a caretaker residence at 1102 East `A' Street as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 15`h and April 19`h, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted public
hearings to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted to
locate a caretaker residence at 1 102 East `A' Street.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing on April 19`h the Planning Commission
reasoned that the proposed caretaker facility would not be appropriate and
recommended denial of the special permit for the caretaker facility.
C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(e)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
LOCATION OF A CARETAKER RESIDENCE AT 1102 EAST `A' STREET.
WHEREAS, on February 23 "d, 2012 Dean Shelton submitted an application to locate a
caretaker residence at 1102 East `A' Street (Tax Parcel 112 -351 -143); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an open record hearing on March 15 and
April 19, 2012 to review the proposed caretaker residence application for a Special Permit; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 19, 2012, the Planning Commission
recommended denial of a Special Permit for the caretaker residence;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that a
Special Permit is hereby denied to Dean Shelton for a caretaker residence at 1102 East `A' Street
under Master File # SP 2012 -005 based on the findings and conclusions contained in the April
19, 2012 Planning Commission staff report.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7`j' day of May, 2012
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE 4 SP 2012 -005 APPLICANT: Dean Shelton
HEARING DATE: 3/15/2012 1102 E. "A" Street
ACTION DATE: 4/19/2012 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Caretaker's Facility in an
1 -1 (Lifzht Industrial) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 14, 15 & 16, Block 4, Steffins
Amended Addition
General Location: 1102 E. "A" Street
Property Size: Approximately 0.4 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from "A" Street and Maitland Ave.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned I -1 (Light Industrial)
and currently contains a retail auto parts business. The zoning
and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: I -1 - Vacant BNSF Railroad
SOUTH: I -1 -- Vacant
EAST: I -1 - Vacant BNSF Railroad
WEST: I -1 - Industrial Business
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for industrial uses.
b. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a
Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) has been issued for this
project under WAC 197 -11 -158,
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to locate a caretaker's residence on the second
floor of a retail auto parts business in a Light Industrial zone on "A"
Street. The site in question was originally developed in 1998 with an
8,000 square foot metal building for retail sales purposes. Sometime
after the original construction the property owner included an 858
square foot caretaker's living quarters within the building without the
benefit of a building permit.
On September 9, 2011 a fire destroyed a majority of the metal building's
interior. It is believed that the fire was caused by a gas powered
pressure washer being knocked over; allowing gasoline to spill. While the
business was closed, the spilled gasoline volatilized into fumes which
then ignited after coming in contact with the pilot light in the water
heater. Insurance adjusters investigating the fire then discovered the
presence of the living quarters. With no Special Permit authorizing the
residential area the insurance company will not reimburse the owner for
damages to said area.
The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's residence would be
whether or not there is a security need on site twenty -four hours per day.
Caretaker residences are not intended to provide low cost housing. The
intended purpose of such residences must be solely for security
purposes. The surrounding vicinity does not necessarily qualify as an
isolated area of the community where staff would typically encourage
caretaker facilities. Further discussion is provided in the Caretaker
Residence Criteria below.
During the March 15th public hearing the Planning Commission
sympathized with the applicant and discussed issues of general property
rights intrinsic to ownership. The discussion deviated from addressing
the intent of the law which clearly states that caretaker's residences
must be solely for security purposes.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are
initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the
staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to
this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted
during the open record hearing.
1. The site contains one parcel (112 -351-143).
2. The site is zoned I -1 (Light Industrial).
3. The site is approximately 18,750 square feet or 0.4 acres.
4. The site was developed with an 8,000 square foot metal building in
1998.
5. The site contains a retail auto parts sales business.
2
6. The site is accessed directly from "A" Street.
7. The intended purpose of caretaker residences is solely for security
purposes.
8. The site is completely contained within a 6 foot tall chain -link
security fence with three strands of barbed wire.
9. The applicant established an unpermitted living unit in the existing
building at an unknown date.
10. Customer's vehicles are periodically stored outdoors on the site.
11. A neighborhood of residential units is located directly to the south
and west.
12. Increasing industrial development continues to expand in this area
of the community.
13. A search of Pasco Police Department records related to properties
within 1000 feet of the subject site revealed that within the last two
years there have been twelve (12) cases related to either theft,
burglary or trespassing in which a police report was turned in. Of
the twelve cases ten (10) were theft, 1 was trespassing and 1 was
burglary. Only one of the police reports was tied specifically to the
Sonny's Auto Parts address.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings
are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is designated for industrial uses by the Comprehensive Plan.
The plan does not specifically address security issues.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have minimal demands on public infrastructure
and are less demanding than many types of permitted uses in the I -1
zone. Utilities in the area are sized to handle much greater demands
than a caretaker's facility.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated
to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity?
3
The area is zoned I -1 and designated for industrial uses by the
comprehensive plan. Located inside an existing structure, the caretaker's
facility may not be noticeable to surrounding businesses.
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on
property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The caretaker's facility will be located inside an existing industrial
building. The height of the building and the principle use of the site will
not be altered.
5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district?
The caretaker's facility will not create noise, dust, fumes, vibrations, or
additional traffic that would be more objectionable to adjoining
properties.
6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any way will
become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
Safety of the caretaker is a concern when dwelling accommodations are
located inside an industrial building. The IBC contains safety
requirements that must be adhered to in these situations.
CARETAKER RESIDENCE CRITERIA
In addition to the standard special permit review criteria the Planning
Commission needs to consider the requirements of PMC 25.70.060
dealing with the permitting of caretakers residences. Each criterion
should be answered in the affirmative for special permit approval.
(1) The caretaker's residence is solely intended to provide
security for the established principal permitted use of the
property;
The applicant has not demonstrated a specific need for enhanced
security 24 hours per day. The site is located on a major arterial street
which experiences steady traffic flows at all hours. A neighborhood of
4
residential units is located directly to the south and west, residents of
which regularly pass by the site via Maitland Avenue to access "A" Street.
Staff did notice a steady flow to rraffie on Maitland Avenue while
gathering site photos. Increasing industrial development (i.e. Northwest
Agriculture) continues to expand in this area of the community. The
applicant requests to use approximately 10% of the building area for
residential purposes to enhance security. The burden of proof to support
the need for 24 hour security is upon the applicant. In the opinion of
staff the applicant has failed to substantiate said need. The dominant
use of the site will remain commercial in nature. All aspects of criteria ## 1
have not been met.
(2) The residential structure, to include factory assembled homes,
will be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the
caretaker's residence;
The parcel is 18,900 square feet in area and the caretaker's residence is
858 square feet. The area of the residence equates to 4.5% of the lot area.
The parcel is 22 time the size of the residence. Criteria #2 is met.
(3) The structure will conform to other applicable codes and
regulations for residential structures.
Upon reconstruction of the residential space the applicant will be
required to obtain a building permit; part of which includes an inspection
respective to residential occupancy requirements drawn from the
International Building Code (IBC). Briefly, said habitation requirements
include amenities such as: a toilet, sink, shower, hot and cold water, a
cooking area and space heating.
TENTATIVE CONDITIONS
Conditions have not been prepared as staff does not believe a caretaker's
residence is warranted at this location.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed caretaker's facility,
adopt Findings of Fact, Conclusions as contained in the April 19, 2012
staff report and a Recommendation of denial to the City Council.
Looking North
D
Looking South
Looking East
p
1
•
Ab
mile 7�
mime
Vicinity Item: Sonnys Auto Caretaker's Residence
•
Ma p pp
A licant: Dean Shelton
File #: SP2012 -005
• - .4 °� �'i� �� _�i ��. rte,' - "1
.• •1 001.
r
SIT
WST
uwj
Yom• Tr.+ _ > _ ~� 1 . • i • �''. �'� ?° r�"�
Land Use Item: Sonny's Auto Caretaker's Reside ce
Map Applicant: Dean Shelton N
File #: SP2012 -005
Industrial
w
Spa w
l Q
T Commercial
-
—
s
"A" ST
?� �. M•�y
Residential ^ ,
& - -Rc
Heavy Commercial
Vacant
`scan
I
Res. [ ",\
Vacant
Industrial_
C ST
PUD
Sub - Station
\j
7
Q
02
0
Vacant
Zoning Item: Sonny's Auto Caretaker's
Map Applicant: Dean Shelton
File #: SP2012 -005
w
Q
r
(Li
"A" ST
[
LAC
"W ST w
I -1
ht Industrial'
I - i "C" ST
I
5
5
t
I -2 5'S
Q
OR
iv
Residence
N
Z
w
. 0
R -3I
I—
LL)
w
a
w
z
(Li
"A" ST
[
LAC
"W ST w
I -1
ht Industrial'
I - i "C" ST
I
5
5
t
I -2 5'S
Q
OR
iv
Residence
N
Z
w
. 0
R -3I
I—
Planning Commission Minutes
3/15/2012
E. Special Permit Location of a Caretaker's Facility
in an 1 -1 Li ht Industrial Zone
(Dean Shelton) (MF# SP2012 -0051
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained the applicant had request approval of a
caretaker's facility in an 1 -1 (Light Industrial) Zone for property located at 1102
E. "A" Street. The request was for a special permit to allow a caretaker's facility
on the second level of Sonny's auto Parts. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the written
report for the benefit of the Planning Commission.
The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's special permit specifically
relates to whether or not a caretaker's residence is needed solely for the
purpose of security. In this case staff is of the opinion the application does not
meet the criteria. The location is not an isolated area of the community, as "A"
Street is an arterial street that has a steady amount of traffic. Tentative
conditions have not been prepared because staff does not believe a caretaker's
residence is warranted at this location.
Chairman Cruz asked if there is any unusual or significant amount of crime in
the neighborhood.
Mr. O'Neill answered in the past two years police records indicate there were
between 12 -15 burglaries or thefts reported in the general area. A 1,500 buffer
was used to generate the reports.
Commissioner Khan asked about the fire damage to the building and whether
it had been repaired to make it fit for living.
Mr. O'Neill stated the question should be directed to the applicant.
Commissioner Levin asked what type of business was on the first floor.
Mr. O'Neill stated an auto parts store.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the Planning
Commission needed to understand why this application is before attention.
Following a fire at the site an insurance inspection revealed there was an
unpermitted living unit above the store, resulting in the application for the
caretaker's facility. The insurance claim will not be settled until the matter of
the special permit is settled, however there is already a caretaker's facility at
the site.
Commissioner Greenaway stated there were roughly seven burglaries or theft
per year. She asked at what rate was it considered "excessive ".
Mr. O'Neill answered that there isn't an established criteria_
Commissioner Greenaway responded that she considered the current number
of reported incidents to be high.
Chairman Cruz stated that in the past on the same topic, staff has had to use
their judgment on whether there is a safety concern.
David McDonald, City Planner, stated that the caretaker provision was placed
in the zoning regulations to allow businesses that were located on the fringes of
the community, that didn't receive a lot of police patrols and that lacked street
lighting, to allow those facilities to have on site night security to provide
property protection. It was never the intent to allow the caretaker's facilities to
be located in more developed or established areas of the community. Typically
this process is not used for an individual who would like the convenience of
living at their business to save rent or time. The crime statistics are not just
for this particular location, rather for the whole 1,500' radius, which takes in
the larger neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz asked about growth centers where residential and commercial
units are combined and someone could live and work within close proximity.
He wanted to know if there was a provision the Pasco Municipal Code that
would allow for this.
Mr. McDonald answered that in the C -1 (Retail Business) District this is
allowed as a conditional use, not a permitted use
Commissioner Levin wanted clarification in that it is just the owner who wants
to be able to live upstairs of his business to watch over the property.
Mr. McDonald answered that staff is under the impression that the applicant
wants the special permit for those reasons.
Dean Shelton, 1102 E. "A" Street, the applicant, stated he spends all of his
time at the business. The same day he applied for the special permit he went
to the Police Department and reported a stolen dolly. He has had other
incidents at this location. He was unaware that he was supposed to have a
caretaker's permit, otherwise he would have obtained one as soon as he found
out.
Chairman Cruz let the applicant know that he would need to report
information to illustrate the need for a caretaker's facility due to safety issues.
Mr. Shelton explained that he just bought the property a few months ago and
that he believed the previous owner had a caretaker's permit however the City
does not have a permit on record.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he could remember any other incidents
of crime other than the stolen dolly.
Mr. Shelton answered that he couldn't think of any other incidents. He believes
on site secure would help but would need more time to give the Planning
Commission details and examples of the need for on -site security. He needs the
Special Permit to deal with his insurance company.
Chairman Cruz stated that the Iast special permit he remembers for a
caretaker's facility, the applicant of the property or the neighboring property
had been a victim of crime roughly eight times in an unreasonable span of
time.
Chairman Cruz reiterated to the applicant that the Commission needs him to
explain his case to them in order to grant a special permit for a caretaker's
facility.
Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if his sole purpose was to just look
after his property.
Mr. Shelton answered that he only wants to be able to protect his property.
Commissioner Levin stated he believed in property rights and being able to look
after property that is rightfully the owners. He asked if the City will not allow
Mr. Shelton to watch his property in a caretaker's facility, would he have to
hire a security company or get a concealed weapons permit.
Mr. Shelton answered that just his presence alone on the property would be
sufficient protection.
Commissioner Levin believed the applicant should be able to protect his
property.
Mr. White stated that the issue is if the applicant meets the conditions for a
special permit for a caretaker's facility. In staff opinion those conditions have
not been met but perhaps at this point it would be wise to continue the public
hearing and allow the applicant gain time to provide evidence.
Chairman Cruz explained to the applicant what exactly staff and the
Commission will need to have presented at the next meeting to grant a special
permit.
Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, spoke in support of the applicant to
be able to protect his property as a land and business owner.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to approve
the amended motion and to continue the public hearing to the April 19, 2012
meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes
4/19/2012
A. .Special Permit Continued Public Hearing for the
mm Location of a Caretaker's Facility
in an I -1 (Light Industrial) Zone
(Dean Shelton) (MF# SP2012 -005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained that at the last Planning Commission
meeting this item was continued to allow the applicant to provide additional
information to support his need for an onsite caretaker's facility. The
applicant, Dean Shelton, failed to submit additional information to support his
need. It was also pointed out the staff report was revised to include a motion
for denial and a motion for approval for the Planning Commission's
consideration. Staff recommended the special permit be denied.
Mr. O'Neill also explained that base on the discussion form the last Planning
Commission meeting the applicant appears to be moving forward with the
insurance claim for a commercial/ industrial office use rather than a
caretaker's facility.
Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant decided he didn't want to proceed after
all.
Mr. O'Neill answered the applicant was under the impression that the special
permit would not be approved and chose an alternative route for his insurance
claim.
Commissioner Levin asked if the applicant ever made contact or moved forward
with staff since the last meeting.
Mr. O'Neill answered the applicant did contact the office but he did not submit
the information necessary to show the need for a caretaker's facility. Mr.
O'Neill sent a letter to the applicant requesting that he support his need for 24-
hour security at the site, however no information was provided.
Rick White, Community &, Economic Development Director, reiterated the staff
recommendation is for denial of the caretaker's facility and that optional
motions for approval have been included in the report per discussion from the
prior Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway asked staff why the police reports weren't as
substantial as they appeared at the last meeting.
Mr. White answered the findings contained in the staff report from the previous
month were much more general and involved an area much less defined.
Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing but no comments were made.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the
hearing on the proposed caretaker's facility, adopt findings of fact, conclusions
as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report and a recommendation of denial
to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously,
This item will go to the next regular City Council Meeting, May 7, 2012 unless
it is appealed.
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Counci( May 2, 2012
FROM: Gary Crutchfie anager Regular Mtg,: 5/7/12
SUBJECT: Financial Com itment for a Regional Aquatic Center at TRAC
1. REFERENCE(S):
1, Proposed Resolution
2. Memorandum to City Manager from Deputy City Manager dated 4120/12
I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , declaring the city's
conditional commitment of operating revenues for a regional
aquatic center at TRAC.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See reference #2
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) See reference 42.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) After discussion at the April 23 workshop, Council reached a general consensus
that it should provide a commitment of operating funds for a regional aquatic
center at TRAC if appropriately conditioned. As such, the proposed resolution
encourages the Pasco PFD to pursue an agreement with Franklin County to
acquire the TRAC facility, knowing it will have sufficient operating revenue for
such a facility.
8(f)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington,
declaring the City's commitment to provide operating revenues for a Regional
Aquatics Facility at the TRAC site upon certain conditions.
WHEREAS, the Tri- Cities Regional Public Facilities District (RPFD) has been created
by the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland, for the purpose of improving the "duality of life
within the Tri- Cities region through the planning and execution of regional centers approved by
the Districts' voters "; and
WHEREAS, the RPFD is in the process of evaluating four regional projects for possible
recommendation to the voters of the region for funding through a fractional increase in the local
sales tax; and
WHEREAS, the RPFD evaluation process includes review by the RPFD's consultant of
the feasibility, cost estimates and operating pro -forma prepared for each project under
consideration and such review necessarily addresses funding needs for both construction and
operational purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD) has prepared a feasibility study,
cost estimate and an operational analysis for the development and operation of an indoor- outdoor
aquatics facility to be developed at the site of the TRAC facility in Pasco; and
WHEREAS, in response to the questions of the consultant of the RPFD (attached hereto)
with regard to the potential operational funding backstop for the aquatics facility, should it be
approved and constructed at TRAC, the PPFD is in need of a funding commitment from the
Pasco City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council has included within its biennial goals list for 2012-
2013, the fostering of an agreement with Franklin County and the PPFD for the transfer of the
TRAC facility to the control of the PPFD, therefore allowing for the development of the
Regional Aquatics Facility, and the Council desires to further this goal by expressing its financial
commitment to the project; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pasco,
Washington does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: That the City Manager is authorized and directed to negotiate with the
Franklin Count), Commission and the PPFD with the goal of effecting the transfer of control of
the TRAC facility to the PPFD for the purposes of making the TRAC site available for the
development of a Regional Aquatics Facility, should such project be recommended by the RPFD
and approved by the voters of the region.
Section 2: That the City Council hereby provides its commitment to provide operational
funding for a regional aquatics facility at TRAC provided the RPFD gets to share equally the
first $400,000 of net operating cost.
Section 3: The City's commitment of funding shall be made from proceeds of the City's
excise tax on lodging and is further conditioned on the following:
A. Approval, by the Pasco Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, of the proposed use of the
City's lodging tax for the regional aquatic facility,
B. Approval by the City Council of a satisfactory agreement for the transfer of the
TRAC facilities to the City or PPFD.
C. Voter approval of a regional PFD sales tax ballot measure to provide the funding for a
regional aquatics facility.
D. Approval by the City Council of satisfactory agreement with the PPFD and/or RPFD
for ownership, operation and financing of a regional aquatics facility at TRAC.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this 7th day of
May, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
MEMORANDUM � �3
April 20, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfiel _ity Manager
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
RE: Aquatic Facility Proposal for TRAC
�Pv
With the City Council's adoption of a goal to foster an agreement with Franklin County and the
Pasco Public Facilities District (PFD) to advance the idea of repurposing TRAC as a regional
aquatics facility and with the recent unanimous action by the Regional Public Facilities District to
accept the Pasco PFD becoming the primary proponent for the aquatic facility at the TRAC site
(plus the acceptance of the draft market feasibility; site plan and cost estimate; and operational pro -
forma prepared by Pasco PFD'S consultant) there is a need to begin to clarify the basic form of the
agreement as well as the financial commitments that may be involved.
Perhaps most pressing is the need for the Pasco PFD to respond to questions that have been
developed by Eric Hovee, consultant to the Regional Public Facilities District (RPFD), regarding
the aquatic facility projects (see attached). in order for Hovee to complete his analysis of the four
projects under consideration by the RPFD for its June meeting, a response is needed by May 14.
Two of Hovee's questions address the pro -forma for the aquatics facility and a response is currently
being prepared by Ken Ballard, the consultant to Pasco PFD.
One question regards the proposed $35 million cost for the aquatic facility (which includes
demolition of the arena side of TRAC and development of the indoor - outdoor aquatics facility, but
not any associated re- purposing of the exhibition hall) and when that number could be "locked -in"
for planning purposes.
Both the current site plan/cost estimate and the prior ORB developed plan (2004 original, updated
in 2011) envisioned similarly sized and equipped facilities and similar costs ($35 million and $36.2
million, respectively). Based on this, and the relative ease to make incremental changes to the
aquatics facility [ 1) there are many different components that can be modified to effect cost
changes; 2) planning to do some features in phases, especially for outside spaces, is relatively easy]
it is recommended that the cost estimate can be assumed to be "locked -in" for purposes of the
RPFD. Of course, as with any project, final design considerations and value engineering could
modify final cost estimates.
The last question (and perhaps the most critical to this decision) regards the "Operating Funding
Shortfall" — which is projected at approximately $400,000 annually by Ballard. This represents
about 12% of the projected operating cost and would seem to be in the range expected for aquatic
facilities of this magnitude. (It should be noted that the ORB pro -forma estimated a positive cash
operating position but was largely based on similar facilities in British Columbia.) The projected
Gary Crutchfield
April 20, 2012
RE: Aquatic Facility Proposal for TRAC
Page 2
operating loss does not include operations that could be associated with the repurposed TRAC
exhibition hall, which Ballard estimates could reduce the total operational loss by as much as
$50,000 annually. (Ballard indicates that he has taken a conservative approach to estimating
expenses, estimating more for worse case but fairly aggressive with marketing owing to the other
recreational venues in the immediate area.)
The RPFD Board has discussed the question of operational shortfalls associated with the proposed
regional facilities. While the idea of having revenue streams or "backstops" in place (outside of the
resources of the RPFD) is appealing and would give the RPFD greater flexibility as the source of
"capital only funding," board members also realize that most facilities of truly regional nature
should be expected to have some regionally based operational funding on which to rely. It seems
that the key is in striking some reasonable balance between regional and local funding
commitments.
Lodging Excise Tax
The primary source for the City's funding of TRAC and the adjacent baseball stadium has been the
4% excise tax on lodging. The tax produces about $440,000 per year and has been allocated equally
to the TRAC Fund and the Stadium/Convention Center Fund (see the attached cash flow analysis
for each fund).
While the Stadium/Convention Center Fund provides partial funding for the Tri- Cities Visitor and
Convention Bureau and the Pasco Chamber of Commerce, the fund has outstanding debt
commitments which effectively tie up resources for the next several years. On the other hand, once
the City's debt associated with the TRAC facility is retired in 2014, and as the City would no longer
share in the TRAC operating loss (estimated at $240,000 annually), this one half of the lodging tax
($220,000) could be used to offset a portion of the aquatic facility operating loss (essentially trading
one loss for another, but perhaps meeting the needs of the public in a broader sense and benefitting
existing recreation venues as well as strengthening the Tri - Cities Convention Center).
Pasco PFD Revenue Stream
The Pasco PFD has no independent revenue stream, other than revenues associated with any project
it owns. The Pasco PFD would require financial commitment from the city to "backstop" its
financial commitment beyond "project revenues." The city's potential resources, other than the
lodging tax, would include the Economic Development Fund and General Fund.
Oueratinu Fundinn Backstor
So, what is the appropriate response to Hovee's question on the operating funding backstop? Given
the resources available to the City and the Pasco PFD, it might be suggested that the Pasco /TRAC
project limit the RPFD commitment to 50% of the operating losses up to a limit of $200,000 per
year. The Pasco PFD and the City of Pasco would be responsible for the balance of operational
losses.
SS /tlz
attachments
TCRPFD / Regional Center Follow -up Questions:
Tri- Cities Aquatics Center (4- 17 -12)
• Comparability with Prior Aquatics Task Force / ORB Proposal: At the April 11 TCRPFD
board meeting, the proposal of the Pasco PFD was accepted, replacing the prior
proposal (and associated pro forma projections) prepared in 2004 and updated in 2011
for the Aquatics Task Force. in effect, the current proposal assumes higher operating
cost (especially for staffing) together with fewer paid attendees but higher admissions
fees than was projected with the earlier 2011 ORB - prepared pro forma update.
1s there any relationship between the earlier ORB - prepared pro formal and the most
recent pro forma prepared by Ballard *King? Why are operating costs substantially
higher than with the prior proposal? Can more documentation be provided as to the
basis for admissions fees about double those of the ORB pro forma (see below)?
• Comparable Facilities: The 2004 ORB study's operating pro forma was prepared based
largely on the experience of four facilities in British Columbia; no updated comparables
information was provided by ORB with its 2011 update, The B *K study does not include
comparables data except for a non -local (Moses lake) facility focused on admission fees.
Is it possible to provide current data for 4 -5 facilities operating in the Pacific Northwest
(stateside) that might be considered as most comparable to what is proposed at the
TRAC site — including information on project size and features, capital cost, attendance
trend, staffing, earned and contributed income (by major source), operating expenses
(by major category), and funding responsibility for any deficit?
• Lock -In of Capital Funding Request: Capital cost with the TRAC / Aquatics Center
proposal is estimated at $35 million. Is this the amount proposed for TCRPFD capital
funding? Does this figure include all project costs (such as those related to re- purposing
the rest of the TRAC facility) or is it limited to the Aquatics Center portion only? is this
$35 million figure locked in or is it subject to change based on refined project planning?
When might such a lock -in occur?
• Operating Funding Backstop: Is there a proposal as to what entity(s) would underwrite
an annual operating deficit — currently projected by B *K at approximately $410,000?
Would this occur through a non - profit (as with a Friends of the Aquatics Center type of
organization), Pasco PFD, City of Pasco, the TCRPFD, other contributors, or some
combination? How would the deficit be covered if it proved to exceed the initial
projection (as might happen if swimming activity continues to decline nationally, new
competition Is introduced in the market area, or if projected admission rates are not
realized)? What recourse would the TCRPFD have in the event that operating funding
support was not forthcoming during the useful life of the project?
STADIUM /CONVENTION CENTER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
Fund 195 Cash Flow Projection - Seven Year Loan
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 t 0 1 •
Revenues
Hotel /Motel Tax 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 220,000
Stadium Rent 13,150 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Loan Proceeds 60,000 629,000
Total Revenues 293,150 862,000 233,000 233,000 233,000 233,000 233,000 233,000 233,000
Expenditures
Combined Ins
5,800
Electricity
2,400
State Leasehold
500
Admin Chg Back
9,500
TCVCB
104,500
Chamber of Commerce
10,000
Old Loan Principal
105,000
Old Loan interest
2,400
Interfund Principal
19,688
Interfund Interest
500
Transfer Out to CIP (Prkg Lot)
500
Total Expenditures
257,388
5,800
5,800
5,800
5,800
5,800
5,800
5,800
5,800
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
9,500
9,500
9,500
9,500
9,500
9,500
9,500
9,500
104,500
104,500
104,500
104,500
104,500
104,500
104,500
104,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
460,000
15,788
89,919
92,617
95,395
98,257
101,203
104,241
107,368
450
21,120
17,972
15,194
12,332
9,386
6,348
3,221
139,000
747,938
243,739
243,289
243,289
243,289
243,289
243,289
243,289
Fund Balance 48,729 162,791 152,052 141,763 131,474 121,185 110,896 100,607 90,318
Revenues
Hotel/Motel Tax
Interest
Transfer In
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Combined Ins
County Services*
Principal
Interest
Transfer Out to CIP
Total Expenditures
TRAC SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
Fund 191 Cash Flog Projection - Seven Year Loan
2010 2011 2012 1 1 14 2015 2016 1 i- 1'
240,726
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
220,000
235,000
93,000
74,000
124,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
475,726
313,000
294,000
344,000
240,000
240,000
240,000
240,000
240,000
340,660
240,000
240,000
240,000
84,828
91,034
93,103
99,310
17,861
13,747
9,332
4,817
443,349
344,782
342,436
344,127 - - -
Fund Balance 48,640 81,017 49,235 800 673 240,673 480,673 720,673 960,673 1,200,673
* City portion of facility operational expenses. This obligation expires with pay -off of the debt for the facility.
4/20/2012 3:14 PM C: \Users \strebeis \Documents \Pasco PFD \TRAC expense -debt 4-20
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
April 30, 2012
FROM: Gary Crutchfie�lanager Regular Mtg.; 5!7/12
SUBJECT: Resolution Con4erning Annexation and Bonded Indebtedness
I. REFERENCE(S):
I . Table of Property Tax Elements
2. Proposed Resolution
II, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , concerning annexation
and bonded indebtedness.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city has been discussing with Franklin County Fire District No. 3 and
Franklin County representatives the possibility of an interlocal annexation
agreement regarding the unincorporated portion of the Pasco Urban Growth Area
(commonly referred to as the "donut hole "). Those discussions have included
preparation of an information packet which will clarify "facts" of annexation.
B) One of the facts associated with property tax is that some portions of the city are
required to pay tax on bonds issued for voter- approved projects approved in the
past (specifically, City Hall, library and lire station). Those specific taxes become
elements of the annual property tax bill (see reference 1).
C) The City Council has consistently exempted annexation areas from paying that
portion of tax attributable to bonded indebtedness approved by city voters prior to
the date of annexation, but that decision has been made on each individual
annexation — not as a formal policy statement.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The information packet being developed must indicate the tax obligation upon
annexation. Rather than list the tax obligation and then try to explain that the City
Council is likely to exempt the annexation from the new tax, it would be much
more informative and assuring to prospective annexing properties to know the
city's position on the issue of assuming bonded indebtedness. To that end, the
attached resolution is proposed for Council action, to reflect the Council's practice
for more than 20 years.
8(9)
2012 Property Tax Levies
COUNTY
CITY
State Schools
$2.293
$2.293
County Regular Levy
$1,439
$1.439
City Regular Levy
- - -
$1.968
TRAC Bonds (expire 1211/2013)
$0.065
$0.065
Courthouse Remodel Bond (expire 121112022)
$0.149
$0.149
City Library Bond (expire 12/1/19)
- - -
$0.022
City Fire Station Bond (expire 12/1,12019)
- - -
$0,028
City Unlimited Refund Bond (expire 12/111013)
- - -
$0.151
Fire District No. 3
$1.035
---
County Road
$1.441
- - -
Mid- Columbia Library
$0.380
- - -
School
$6.602
$6.602
Port of Pasco
$0.332
$0.332
Mosquito Control
$0.178
$0.178
TOTAL
$1 3.914
$ 13.227
TOTAL, WITHOUT CITY BONDS
$13.914
$13.026
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION Concerning Annexation and Bonded Indebtedness.
WHEREAS, the eventual incorporation of the entire western portion of the city's urban
growth area has been a goal of the city for more than 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the urban growth area has been incorporated through the
annexation process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined for each annexation over the past 20 years,
that the annexing properties would be exempted from paying the property tax otherwise required
for bonded indebtedness approved by city voters prior to the date of annexation of the subject
properties; and
WHEREAS, the current annexation planning effort has raised the question of whether or
not the city would require payment of existing bonded indebtedness of the city upon annexation
of properties remaining in the urban growth area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interest of all concerned to provide a
clear and indisputable answer to the question; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
Section I: That the City Council hereby declares that it will not require any properties
within the current Pasco urban growth area to assume existing bonded indebtedness of the city in
concert with annexation of the respective properties.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this 7th day of
May, 2012.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT NO. 9
FOR: City Counci April 24, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfi v Manager
Ahmad Qayour � lic Works Director
FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 05/07/12
SUBJECT: Award 4a' Avenue Corridor (Sylvester to Court), Project #C2- 11- 07 -STR
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Bid Summary
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05/07: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the 4`h Avenue Corridor
(Sylvester to Court) project to A &B Asphalt, Inc. in the amount
of $1,063,666.26, and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the
contract documents.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$700,000 — Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant
$500,000 - Capital Improvement Fund
I.V. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) This project involves roadway safety improvements based on recommendations
and findings of a traffic study done in January 2009, and approved by City
Council on February 2, 2009. The project is to address pedestrian safety through
pedestrian crossing enhancements and mitigation of a skewed intersection at P
and 4`h Avenues.
B) In April, 2011 the City contracted with HDJ Design Group for the design of the
project.
C) The City received a $700,000 Transportation Improvement Board grant in
November 2011.
D) The project was advertised on April 1, 2012 and April 8, 2012, with a scheduled
bid opening on April 24, 2012.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) On April 24, 2012, staff received three (3) bids for the project. The low bid was
received from A &B Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $1,063,666.26. The second
lowest bid was received from Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of
$1,236,236.36. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is $998,238.00.
B) The project is approximately 6.5% over the Engineer's Estimate.
C) Staff recommends award of the contract to A &B Asphalt, Inc.
io(a)
i
�r
N
4th AVE. CORRIDOR (SOUTH) - VICINITY MAP w E
Z 5,1:jP-
AVE
AVE AW
t _
0 01
i y. f ��� � r i _ w. � �� � • r r ,� '�` i.- wN7Jtt -� _.- � jam+
PROJECT ;
1.
tot
ors, � : tt .:� a • •'> r '�
..-�� � -�` ;t�,. `'� ` � •� ` � 1 �" �� ° ` tit
v •1 .et 4
/
�t, e , •, /r ft%t_7L1� �. t�r::F�:`�� .��• \ ti. ,a�! � :"i- - �'• -' t �� A � _,
City of Pasco
41h Ave Corridor (Sylvester to Court)
Project No. C2- 11- 07 -STR
April 24, 2012
BID SUMMARY
Engineer's Estimate
1. A &B Asphalt, Inc.
2. Inland Asphalt Co.
3. Granite Construction, Inc.
Total
$998,238.00
$1,063,666.26
$1,236,236.36
$193973625.20