HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.09.08 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. September 8, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Downtown Pasco Development Authority:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 3, 2014.
2. Downtown Pasco Development Authority - Applications (5) (Council Packets Only).
(b) Franklin County Request for TRAC:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 2, 2014.
2. Franklin County Request for TRAC - Letter from County dated 8/5/14.
3. Franklin County Request for TRAC - Page 29 of Interlocal Agreement dated 5/25/94.
(c) Charter Cable Franchise Extension:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 3, 2014.
2. Charter Cable Franchise Extension- Proposed Ordinance.
(d) Road 76 Local Improvement District:
1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated August 26, 2014.
2. Road 76 Local Improvement District - Map of Proposed Local Improvements District.
3. Road 76 Local Improvement District - Resolution.
(e) Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones (MF #CA2014 -003):
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 3, 2014.
2. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones - Proposed Ordinance.
3. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones - Memo to the Planning
Commission dated 8/21/14.
4. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones - Planning Commission
Minutes dated 7/24/14 and 8/21/14.
(f) Waiver of Sewer Utility Service Requirement (MF #USW2014 -001):
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
September 3, 2014.
2. Sewer Waiver - Vicinity Map.
3. Sewer Waiver - Overview Map.
4. Sewer Waiver - Proposed Utility Service Waiver Agreement.
(g) Amendment No.1 to Water System Extension Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated September 3, 2014.
2. Amendment No.I -Water System Extension -Vicinity Map.
3. Amendment No. 1 -Water System Extension -Proposed Amendment No. 1.
(h) Annexation Policy:
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated September 3, 2014.
2. Annexation Policy - Annexation Facts Committee Statement.
(1) Emergency Powers of Mayor:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated September 2, 2014.
2. Emergency Powers of Mayor - Proposed Ordinance.
3. Emergency Powers of Mayor - Current PMC Chapter 2.04.
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Workshop Meeting 2 September 8, 2014
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(e)
7. ADJOURNMENT
11:45 a.m., Monday, September 8, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon. (Annual Sunshine Business Luncheon; Keynote address by Megan Clubb, CEO of Banker
Boyer Bank and Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)
2. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, September 11 — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
3. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, September 11 - Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT
WATKINS, Rep; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Mana�
SUBJECT: Downtown Pasco Development Authority
I. REFERENCE(S):
September 3, 2014
Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14
1. Downtown Pasco Development Authority - Applications (5) (Council packets only)
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8: Council to conduct brief interviews with A. Yesenia Celestino, Michael Erickson,
Ana Cecilia Lopez, Rolando Rodriguez and Gracie Valle - Chimal.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) City Council formed the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) in
December 2010 under Ordinance No. 3985, to initiate the creation of a new
downtown revitalization organization. The DPDA undertakes and facilitates
revitalization efforts in downtown Pasco and oversees the activities and efforts of the
Authority's manager.
B) The Authority is composed of nine members; terms are for four years (original
appointments were staggered in two, three and four year terms). The Board is to be
comprised o£ five members representative of for -profit business or property owners;
two members representative of the banking and/or real estate profession; two
representative of business or corporate management. Those requisite considerations
may overlap in candidates (for example, a bank manager may represent both the
banking and business management considerations). The Authority meets on the third
Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m.
C) At the present time there are three vacancies:
1. Position No. 1
2. Position No. 2
3. Position No. 4
D) Due to the number of vacancies and the relative short- tenure of the DPDA, the group
was struggling with having enough members to conduct meetings. At the Mayor's
request, staff worked to put together a targeted mailer to downtown businesses as
well as those in the banking/real estate sector in order to solicit qualified applicants.
As a result of the mailings, several new applications were recently received.
E) After review of all applications, it was determined that the following met the
requirements for serving on the Board and the Mayor recommended for interview:
1. A. Yesenia Celestine
2. Michael Erickson
3. Ana Cecilia Lopez
4. Rolando Rodriguez
5. Gracie Valle - Chimal
V. DISCUSSION:
A) After conduct of interviews at the September 8 workshop meeting, it is proposed that
appropriate appointment(s) be made by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the
Council, at the September 15 business meeting.
4(a)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager/
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Managed
SUBJECT: Franklin County Request for TRAC
I. REFERENCE(S):
September 2, 2014
Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14
1. Franklin County Request for TRAC - Letter from County dated 8/5/14
2. Franklin County Request for TRAC - Page 29 of Interlocal Agreement dated
5/25/94
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8: Discussion and provide direction to staff
HI. FISCAL IMPACT:
$100,000
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City entered into an agreement with Franklin County for the financing,
construction and operation of the TRAC facility in 1994. The term of the
agreement is 30 years, ending May 2024. The agreement provides that the City
and County will equally share operating costs in excess of revenue from
operations in any calendar year (see Agreement, Section 8.4, page 29).
B) As the TRAC facility experiences cash flow shortages, mainly during summer
months, in 2006, the County deposited $200,000 into the TRAC fund to elevate
seasonal cash flows (see letter of 8/5/14). When the County's general fund
budget tightened up during the economic downturn, the County needed to return
$100,000 of the $200,000 advance.
C) As per the attached letter from Fred Bowen, County Administrator, the County is
now seeking for the City to provide one half of the anticipated $200,000 cash
flow reserve. Mr. Bowen has indicated that he will attend the meeting of
September 8 to more fully discuss the situation and the County's request.
4(b)
FRANKLIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1883 BRAD PECK ROBERT E. KOCH RICK MILLER
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3
Fred H. Bowen
August 5, 2014 County Administrator
Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager
CITY OF PASCO
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: TRAC CENTER CASH FLOW
Dear Mr. St�lel: S7-Art
Pasco Cty Hall
RECEIVED
AUG 0 6 2014
City Vianager's Office
The TRAC Center facility has experienced cash flow shortages for the past several years, mainly during the
summer months. This is common for the industry. With all of the summer outdoor activities and family
vacations, there isn't a high demand for the rental of the TRAC facility. September through April are
TRAC's busiest months. From May to September, TRAC is utilizing the profits from the busy season to
support the off season.
After making inter -fund loans for the first few years of operations, the County Commissioners decided, in
November of 2006 during the County's budget process, to deposit $200,000 into the TRAC budget to help
elevate seasonal cash flow issues. This had worked successfully until the economy took a downturn in 2009.
Struggling to balance the County budget, the Commissioners decided to transfer $100,000 of the $200,000
back into current expense to balance the 2013 budget. As the 2014 season began, TRAC's cash flow held
out until mid -July and, again, TRAC was in need of an inter -fund loan. On July 16, 2014, the County
Commissioners authorized a $100,000 inter -fund loan with 0.08% interest to be paid back to the County by
July 31", 2015.
The 2015 budget cycle is approaching and the County is requesting the City join with the County in
supporting TRAC through the seasonal cash flow issues. The County is requesting that both the County and
City share the $200,000 cash flow reserve. The $200,000 reserve fund balance shall be fully replenished by
the end of each year and set aside in an investment fund. TRAC will notify the County Treasurer's office
when a transfer is needed.
At any time in the future, upon separation/termination of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the
City and County, the $200,000 reserve fund shall be divided in half and $100,000 will be returned to each
agency.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Fred Bowen
County Administrator
1016 North 416 Avenue, Pasco, Washington 99301 -3706 1 Phone (509) 545;3535 I Fax (509) 545 -3573 I web site www.co.franklin.wa.us
continue this Agreement in full force and effect; or (2) terminate
this Agreement.
If and to the extent the County receives insurance proceeds as
a result of such Major Damage, if the County has elected to repair
the TRAC Facility, such proceeds shall be applied to such repair,
and if the County has elected to terminate the Agreement, the
County shall apply such proceeds first to pay off or defease the
Bonds, pay the costs of demolition, pay any other costs associated
with the TRAC Facility, and distribute any surplus funds to the
County and City in equal amounts.
Section 8.3. Modifications and Additions to the TRAC
Facility.
The County shall undertake all modifications and additions to
the TRAC Facility necessary to comply with Government Regulations.
Section 8.4. Payment of Operating Costs.
The Parties covenant they will each pay 50% of any Operating
Costs that exceed Revenues from operation of the TRAC Facility in
any calendar year. If any Party advances funds for the other
Party, such funds shall bear interest at the rate paid by the State
of Washington local government investment pool. Each Party
reserves the right to determine the source of such payment.
Section B.S. Emergency Expenditures.
The County or its manager may undertake emergency expenditures
without review of the Advisory Board where such expenditures are
necessary to meet operating commitments and are required prior to
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board.
0113823.06
29
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager ��
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Managef %J' o
SUBJECT: Charter Cable Franchise Extension/
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Charter Cable Franchise Extension - Proposed Ordinance
September 3, 2014
Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14
Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8: Discussion
9/15: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , extending the Cable
Television Franchise Agreement with Charter Communications
(Falcon Video Communications, L.P.) through December 31, 2014
and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City has been preparing for and conducting negotiations with Charter for
renewal of the franchise agreement for the last 36 months. While a great deal of
progress has been made on issues the cities (Richland and Pasco are partnering in
the process) and Charter, are in need of additional time to review outstanding
issues in light of the request received in June from Comcast (who is in the process
of acquiring all of Charter's systems in the state) for approval for it to succeed
Charter as the franchise holder. The current franchise is set to expire September
30, 2014.
B) In order to provide additional time to complete the transfer agreement process,
staff proposes to extend the franchise to December 31 of this year.
C) Staff would anticipate another extension, possibly to December 31 into 2015, to
complete a renewal franchise agreement with Comcast.
C) Under the proposed ordinance, Charter must provide its acceptance of the
extension within 12 -days of passage by the City (Charter has indicated its
acceptance of the extension to staff).
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing the extension.
4(c)
ORDINANCE NO.
An ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Extending
the Cable Television Franchise Agreement with Falcon Video
Communications, L.P., locally known as Charter Communications, Inc.,
hereinafter referred to as "Grantee" Through December 31, 2014.
WHEREAS, cable providers are required to hold a franchise agreement with the City of
Pasco ( "City") to use the City's public right -of -way to provide cable services; and
WHEREAS, the current cable franchise agreement was entered into pursuant to
Ordinance No. 3304 ( "Cable Franchise ") on June 20, 1998; and
WHEREAS, control of Grantee was subsequently transferred from Falcon
Communications, L.P., to Charter Communications Holding Company, L.L.C., pursuant to
Resolution No. 2468; and
WHEREAS, the Cable Franchise is due to expire on September 30, 2014 pursuant to
Ordinance No. 4159; and
WHEREAS, Grantee and the City have been engaged in informal renewal negotiations
in accordance with Section 626(h) of Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Cable Act "); and
WHEREAS, the City has been conducting franchise renewal ascertainment in
accordance with Section 626(a)(1) of the Cable Act; and
WHEREAS, the parties continue to reserve all rights under the formal procedures of
Section 626 of the Cable Act, and do not waive any rights related thereto; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has filed timely notice of intent to renew its Franchise Agreement
with City pursuant to Section 626 of the Cable Act; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant an extension of the current Franchise until
December 31, 2014, to give the parties additional time to initiate a transfer of control process of
this franchise; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Extension of the Term of the Franchise Agreement through December 31
2014. The Cable Franchise, as amended, is hereby extended, subject to the terms and conditions
set forth below, until December 31, 2014.
Section 2. Terms and Conditions of Extension of the Franchise Agreement. The
City's consent to the extension, described above, is subject to, and conditioned upon, the
following terns and conditions:
A. All terms and conditions of the existing Franchise Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect during the extension period.
B. The extension shall have no adverse effect on Grantee's compliance, nor shall the
extension be grounds for any change or modification in the remaining terms, conditions and
obligations of the Franchise Agreement.
C. The City and Grantee's agreement to extend the Franchise Agreement, as set forth
herein, shall not be construed, in any manner whatsoever, to constitute a waiver or release of any
rights that the City or the Grantee may have under the Franchise Agreement.
D. Both parties hereby reserve all rights under applicable provisions of the Cable Act,
including, without limitation, Sections 626 and 635 of the Cable Act. Nothing herein shall be
deemed or construed as a waiver, release or surrender of any right that either party may have
under the Cable Act or any applicable law.
E. Within twelve (12) days after passage of this Ordinance by the City Council,
Grantee shall file with the City Clerk its written acceptance of this Ordinance, substantially in the
form of Exhibit A, attached hereto.
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, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this _ day of 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
EXHIBIT "A"
Acceptance of Ordinance No.
TO: City of Pasco, Washington
Attention: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Pasco City Hall
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
This is to advise the City of Pasco that Falcon Video Communications, L.P. (the
"Grantee "), hereby unqualifiedly accepts Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council
on , 2014, regarding the extension of the Franchise Agreement between
Grantee and the City.
FALCON VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, L.P.
( "Grantee ")
Name: Mark Brown
Title: V.P., Government Affairs
Date:
AGENDA REPORT NO. 20
FOR: City Council
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manage
FROM: Ahmad Qayoumi, PubliC47V orks Director
SUBJECT: Road 76 Local Improvement District
I. REFERENCE(S):
August 26, 2014
Workshop Mtg.: 09/08/2014
Regular Mtg.: 09/15/2014
1. Road 76 Local Improvement District — Map of the proposed Local Improvements
District
2. Road 76 Local Improvement District — Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
09/08: Discussion
09/15: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. relating to public
improvements; declaring the City's intention to order the
improvements of Road 76 (Wrigley/Walmart Property Line)
and to create a Local Improvement District to assess a portion
of the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements
against the property specially benefited thereby; and, notifying
all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear
and present their objections at a hearing before the City
Council to be held on October 6, 2014.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Road 76 (Burden Blvd. to Sandifur Blvd.) has been improved and widened in
segments as the properties have been developed. The recent frontage
improvements were completed as part of the library development.
B) This portion of Road 76 is approximately 2560 feet, and the portion of Road 76
that does not have frontage is approximately 505 feet or 20% of the segment.
C) With the opening of the new library and general growth of traffic, the missing half
street starting at Wrigley Street south, has created potential safety concerns.
There are more left turn movements at the intersection of Wrigley and Road 76.
The missing half street has created an offset roadway potentially confusing
drivers.
D) Staff has evaluated the needed improvements and completed the necessary design
to complete the improvements. The project was identified in the CIP list.
E) Staff has started discussions with property owner Mr. Tom Kidwell and his plans
to complete the frontage improvements. Mr. Kidwell indicated there is no
potential of property development in the near future. He sees and understands the
city's concerns.
F) Mr. Kidwell requested to take the project through an LID process.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The need to complete the frontage along Mr. Kidwell's property is immediate.
B) Mr. Kidwell has proposed to use LID to complete the project.
C) Staff has completed the design for the improvements. Staff recommends approval
of the resolution for Road 76 LID.
4(d)
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE
LPROVEMENTS; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE EUPROVEMENTS OF
ROAD 76 (WRIGLEY TO WALMART PROPERTY LINE) TO CREATE A LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS DISTRICT TO ASSESS THE COST AND EXPENSE OF CARRYING OUT
THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITTED
THEREBY; AND, NOTIFYING ALL PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO OBJECT TO THE
IMPROVEMENTS TO APPEAR AND PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS AT A HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 2014.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, as
follows
Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, to order the
improvement of the property within the area described in Exhibit B, by the improvement of Road 76
(Wrigley to Walmart property line). The improvements are more fully described in Exhibit A, and
completing a half street that includes road widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain system and street
lighting (collectively, the "Improvements "). The referenced exhibits A and B are attached hereto and by
this reference made a part hero£
All of the foregoing Improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications
therefore prepared by the City Engineer of the City and may be modified by the City as long as that
modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements.
Section 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the Improvements is declared to be $200,000,
of which an estimated $200,000 shall be home by and assessed against the property specially benefited by
the Improvements to be included in a local improvement district to be established and embracing as
nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the Improvements. Actual assessments may
vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair
value the Improvements add to the property.
Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this
resolution and of the date, time and place fixed herein for the public hearing to each owner or reputed
owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local improvement district by
mailing such notice at least fifteen days before the date fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed
owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the Franklin County Assessor at the address shown
thereon, as required by law.
This resolution also shall be published in its entirety in at least two consecutive issues of the
official newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date fixed
herein for the public hearing.
Section 4. All persons who may desire to object to the Improvements are notified to appear and
present those objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the
City Hall, 525 N. 3`s Ave., Pasco, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on October 6, 2014, which time and place are
fixed for hearing all matters relating to the Improvements and all objections thereto and for determining
the method of payment for the Improvements. All persons who object thereto should appear and present
their objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council
may do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the Improvements in the
event the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property
owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that
protest should be delivered to the City Clerk.
Section 5. The City Engineer is directed to submit to the City Council on or prior to October 6,
2014, all data and information required by law to be submitted.
The foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington,
at a regular open public meeting thereof this 6`s day of October, 2104.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. -Ken•, City Attorney
°hh
(`�
M31A NOLLO3S QIJV NVId
"his
An
NOISIA3N
444£ -S4S 60S
-ax'
P
ONIN33NION3 - SN80M OIIBOd
OoSdd JO LLLo
o`s&
t
Cl)
OOSVd AO AID
JNIN�QIM 9L Qd0li
��
���gW
8 $ 8
I
r
( s,
i
�
i
i 14'
i
2 1
C
i I
m
fi
E I
e -yam•
l
8
°i L I_
.
r •
A i
l l
_$�. L.I
.<rs
a
WI
g
L I
ri
5
is
s
tll tom+
�k W' NFU x
nu
l
w
AM
II
I a
x
1
N4 G
n
I
ajH^f"A1
I I
s s
33
j is
Z
Ln
w e
WII
Q I
} I r
W $
o
> &
O
Q0 Q
- - - - --
o
I
LJ
�
Tom-
vd
S E
ry 3
{I
pi'"
9--
„3 I II
_ Q
W
µ
\l
I
i
�le
5 „R
I I
88
i +4611
z
{3
I
M
^
_ rya {n..
Nil
I I
k
y I
'
— _
—I �
Yt
I
I
�
aikl
e,
I p
T
Q
_ y
-?I
1 - -�
- - - --- - - - - -- `
e
T
1333
� - - -1
I
�
e
I
NOIlVA=
"�
,ice;
�.
�,
__.�
�-
,�
•
,�.
�,
�;
i�
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 3, 2014
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Mtg: 9/8/14
Rick White, q6
Community & Economic Development Director (/
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Amendment: Single- Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones CA2014 -003) Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones# CA2014 -003)
I. REFERENCES
1. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones — Proposed Ordinance
2. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones — Memo to the Planning
Commission dated 8/21/2014
3. Code Amendment Single - Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones —Planning Commission
Minutes dated 7/24/2014 and 8/21/14
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8: DISCUSSION
9/15: MOTION: I moved to adopt Ordinance No. , an ordinance
amending Title 25 modifying minimum lots sizes in multi - family
zoning districts.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On June 2, 2014 the Council passed a resolution establishing a moratorium on the
platting of single - family lots in multi - family zoning districts.
B. The Planning Commission held a workshop on the single - family lot question during their
July 24, 2014 meeting followed by a public hearing on August 21, 2014.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts were established primarily for the development
of multi - family housing. These zoning districts are used to provide transition areas
between low- density residential areas and more intense land uses.
B. Although not specifically intended for single - family development the multi - family
zoning districts have permitted single - family homes on individual lots since the
inception of zoning in Pasco. Single - family lots within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones
can be a minimum of 5,000 square feet.
C. As the result of concerns over the development of large single - family developments in
multi - family zones without forethought to building design, subdivision integration
with existing and adjacent neighborhoods and overall acceptance by the community
the moratorium was established.
D. During their workshop and subsequent hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the
history of single - family lots sizes including past trends and current development activity.
The Commission also considered the minimum lot size standards in surrounding cities.
E. Following considerable discussion on the matter the Planning Commission recommended
the minimum size for single - family lots be increased to 6,000 square feet in the R -2 zone,
5,500 square feet in the R -3 zone and that there be no change in the 5,000 square foot
minimum for R -4 zone.
4(e)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES IN THE
R -2 AND R -3 ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within
their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
amending the minimum lot size requirements for the R -2 Medium Density and R -3 Medium Density
zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a
quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.34.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
25.34.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Six
thousand (6.000) square feet;
(2) One single family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be
permitted based on the density standards in Section 25.34.050(3);
(3) Density: One dwelling per 5,009— 6,000 square feet of lot area for side family
dwellings and 5,000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings except as provided in 25.34.030
(8);
(4) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40) percent;
(5) Minimum Yard Setbacks:
(a) Front: Twenty (20) feet.
(b) Side: Five (5) feet.
(c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling.
Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley
line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors
parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley the
setback shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit
hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line, may not
exceed six (6) feet in height and thirty (30) square feet in size, and must be located behind the
rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed
within five (5) feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the
alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor;
(6) Maximum building height:
(a) Principal building: Twenty -five (25) feet, except a greater height may be
approved by special permit.
(b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (15) feet.
(7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75;
(8) Parking: See Chapter 25.78;
(9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75; and
(10) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085.
Section 2. That PMC Chapter 25.36.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as
follows:
25.36.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five
Five thousand five hundred (5,500) square feet;
(2) One single family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be
permitted based on the density standards in Section 25.36.050(3);
(3) Density: One dwelling unit per 3;099 5,500 square feet of lot area for single family
dwellings and 3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings except as provided in 25.34.030
(4) Maximum Lot Coverage: Sixty (60) percent;
(5) Minimum Yard Setbacks:
(a) Front: Twenty (20) feet.
(b) Side: Five (5) feet.
(c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling.
Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line
provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an
alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five
(5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops,
must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line, may not exceed six (6) feet in height and thirty (30)
square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or
chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five (5) feet of the alley line provided there are no
openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a
nuisance due to noise or odor;
(6) Maximum building height:
(a) Principal building: Thirty -five (35) feet, except a greater height may be
approved by special permit.
(b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (15) feet.
(7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75;
(8) Parking: See Chapter 25.78; and
(9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75;
(10) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of September 2014.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 21, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size in Multi- Family Zones (CA2014 -003)
Introduction
On June 2, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution No. 3557 imposing a
six month moratorium on the acceptance of plat applications for properties in
R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts.
The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts are primarily intended for the
development of multiple family structures such as duplexes, four - plexes and
apartment buildings. Although not specifically intended for single - family
development the multi - family zoning districts have permitted single - family
homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single family
lots within the R -2, R -3, and R -4 zones must be at least 5,000 square feet.
Earlier this year a developer applied for R -2 zoning with the intent of building
only single - family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed
development will be in excess of 6,000 square feet there was potential for a
development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000
square foot single - family lots without forethought to building design and
subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods has the
potential to impact those neighboring developments. As a result the Planning
Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter as to whether or
not the multi - family zoning districts should be reviewed as it relates lot sizes.
From the Planning Commission's original discussion on this matter in May,
the City Council established the moratorium to provide an opportunity to
study the matter before any additional single - family plats are considered for
approval.
Background
The earliest zoning ordinance to be found for the City dates to 1939. Between
1939 and 1965 the minimum lot size for single family lots in the R -1 district
was 4,500 square feet; a 37.5 foot by 120 foot lot. There was no separate R -2
zoning district in the early code.
1
In 1965 the code was amended to add regulations for R -2 and R -3 districts.
The minimum lot sizes were established by lot dimensions. No lot within
those two districts could be smaller than 50 feet by 100 feet. This 5,000
minimum lot size has been in the code in one form or another since 1965.
Many of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment
of zoning. The general practice for platting in the early years was to divided
blocks into 25 foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to
build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find
single - family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of
town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between Pasco High School and
Sylvester Park (Zoned R -1) are 4,750 square feet. Other lots in that area of
town range in size from 5,550 square feet to over 7,000 square feet. There
are many lots in the range of 5,750 to 6,000 square feet. The smallest lots
south of "A" Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square
feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. The Kurtzman Park
area east of Wehe Avenue which is also zoned mostly R -2, has lots ranging
size from 6,000 square feet to over 7,500 square feet.
In recent years smaller single - family lots have been created in the following
subdivisions:
Sun Willows (5,200 sq. ft.)*
Sunny Meadows (4,876 sq. ft.)*
Three Rivers (5,000 sq. ft.)*
Columbia Place (5,400 sq. ft.)*
Loviisa Farms (5,100 sq. ft.)*
* (Smallest lot created)
These subdivisions are zoned R -1 and developed with Planned Density
Development plats permitting single- family lots smaller than 7,200 square
feet; Sun Willows being the exception. Sun Willows is a Planned Unit
Development. The developer of Sunny Meadows and Loviisa Farms (AHO
Construction) subdivisions used the smaller lots to build cottage style homes
providing some variety in the housing market.
Three Rivers West is the only subdivision in the City that has ever included
an R -2 zoning element specifically for the construction of single - family homes.
Due to the requirement for 60 feet of frontage and the configuration of the
streets, the average lot size in the R -2 portion of this proposed development is
6,812 square feet. Considerably larger than the lots developed under the
planned density process in the subdivisions listed above.
The City currently has approximately 57 acres of vacant land zoned for various
multi - family uses. This multi- family zoning includes seven acres of R -4 ground,
24.5 acres of R -3 zoning (not including the Housing Authority Property) and 25
acres of R -2 zoning. In addition, there are 26 individual lots of varying sizes
zoned R -2 located south of "A" Street and in the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood.
The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres of land in
various locations within the Urban Growth Area for mixed residential uses.
Approximately 500 acres remain to be developed. The mixed residential land
use category allows zoning that would permit a full range of residential
development including single - family, multi - family, townhomes, patio homes
and condominiums. Zoning in these areas could range from RS -20 to R -3. The
largest (300 acres) single area containing the Mixed Residential designation is
located along the Columbia River west of Road 100. The Mixed Residential
designation was chosen for this area because it would permit the development
of townhouses and condominiums within close proximity to the river similar to
Columbia Point in Richland.
Given past experience it is highly unlikely the Mixed Residential sites will be
rezoned R -2 and R -3 strictly for single - family development. Market demand
and the highest and best use doctrine generally determine the zoning
developers seek. The Chapel Hill development for example was designated for
Mixed Residential development and zoned R -1, R -3 and R -4. Single - family
homes were constructed in the R -1 areas and apartments were built in the
multi - family areas.. Once a developer goes through the process (which
sometimes is a struggle) to obtain multi- family zoning he does not usually
squander his potential return by building single - family homes.
Not all Mixed - Residential areas will be or have been rezoned for multi - family
development. This land use designations provides a range of options for the
developers but does not require lands within the designated areas to be zoned
multi - family. The Linda Loviisa subdivision located east of the soccer complex
is partially in a Mixed Residential area but, the developer requested and
received approval for R -1 zoning for single family lots. The Sun Willows
development is also within a Mixed Residential area but, is developed with
mostly single - family homes (91 %). There are fifteen condo units in Sun
Willows each on a lot that is equal to or larger than the lots occupied with
single - family homes.
One of the problems with choosing multi - family zoning for single - family lots is
the apprehension it may create for some home buyers who do not want a
single- family home in a multi- family district. If a family buys a single - family
home in a multi - family zoning district they have no guarantee there will always
be single - family development around them.
The fundamental question remains this: what is the smallest single - family lot
size the city is willing to permit in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts?
3
Zoning Comparisons
Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R -2
and R -3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. Lots sizes for single
family homes in multi - family zoning districts for surrounding communities is
as follows:
Richland
R -2s 4,000 sq. ft.
R -3 4,000 sq. ft.
Kennewick
RM -2 4,000 sq. ft.
RM -3 4,000 sq. ft.
West Richland
MR -2 4,000 sq. ft.
MR -3 4,000 sq. ft.
Spokane
RSF 4,350 sq. ft.
RSF -C 3,000 sq. ft.
The cities listed above all have minimum lot standards for comparable districts
with less square footage than currently required in Pasco.
Non - Conforming Questions
Increasing the minimum lot size in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts will
create some minor non - conforming issues for owners of existing lots that meet
the current standards. The non - conforming issue will mainly create confusion
for insurance companies and real estate agents. It may also prohibit a
property owner that may have been planning to develop some lots in older
portion of the town from developing his property to match existing lots in the
neighborhood. This would only impact properties that need to be short platted
or re- platted. Legal lots of record would still be able to be developed even if
they were only 5,000 square feet.
4
Options
#1 Increase the minimum lot size in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones to 6,000
square feet or increase the minimum in the R -2 zone to 6,000 square feet,
the R -3 zone to 5,500 square feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square
feet.
#2 Some other variation of Option # 1.
#3 Allow lot dimensions to control lot size.
#4 Permit lot size averaging based on the existing lots within a given block.
#5 Reduce the minimum site development area for Planned Density
Development projects to make the process available to more properties
#6 Maintain the current standard.
Planning Commission Direction
Following a workshop on this item in July the Planning Commission generally
determined Option # 1 above would be appropriate to address the concern
about single - family development within multi - family zoning districts. The 6,000
square foot minimum lot size for R -2 districts corresponds to the minimum lot
dimensions required by the subdivision regulations.
The attached code amendment includes the minimum lot sizes highlighted in
Option # 1.
This item has been schedule as a public hearing. The Planning Commission
will need to hold the hearing prior to making a recommendation to the City
Council.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Pasco Zoning Ordinance contains R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts
primarily intended for multiple - family dwellings with a range of minimum
densities.
2) Single - family homes are permitted in all multi - family zoning districts in
Pasco.
3) The current minimum lot size in multi- family zones is 5,000 square feet.
4) Developers often build subdivisions to the minimum standard with
respect to lot sizes.
5) The creation of 5,000 square foot lots without forethought to building
design, subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods
5
and overall acceptance by the community has the potential to harm the
residents of Pasco.
6) Single - family lots within the most recent R -2 development (Three Rivers
West) averaged 6,800 square feet due to dimensional requirements and
due to street configuration.
7) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 2014 to
receive public comment on the proposed code amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of
fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on minimum lot
size in multi - family zoning districts.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council adopt the proposed code amendments for minimum lot size
requirements in multi- family zoning districts as attached to the
August 21, 2013 staff memo to the Planning Commission.
rl
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7/24/14
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi - Family Zones (MF# CA
2014 -003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot size in
multi- family zones. Mr. McDonald explained the City Council recently approved a
resolution establishing a moratorium on the acceptance of any plats for single - family
development within multi- family zoning districts (R -2, R -3 and R -4). The concern that
caused the moratorium to be established was the fear that perhaps a developer could take
a plat and rezone it R -2 or R -3 for the purpose of building single - family dwelling units on
5,000 square foot lots. As a result of the moratorium, the Planning Commission has been
tasked with the job of reviewing the code to provide input as to whether or not the code
needs to be changed or to determine whether the concern is more perceived than real.
Mr. McDonald explained the background for minimum lot sizes within the community
and stated the original zoning ordinance established 4,500 square feet as the minimum
size for single - family development. The 5,000 square foot standard was established in
1965. Discussion then centered on lots sizes in the central core of the community where
they range from 4,000 to 7,500 square feet. Smaller lots in the new subdivisions in the I-
182 area were also discussed.
It was pointed out there are roughly 57 acres of land available with multi - family zoning,
and roughly 26 lots in the older parts of the community that are vacant that are also
zoned R -2. Most of these lots are in the 5,000 -6,000 foot range. The Comprehensive Plan
identifies several hundred acres that could in theory be zoned for multi - family residential.
The largest such area is located along the Columbia River west of Road 100 and the gravel
pit. The thought was that area is well suited for condos and townhouses to take
advantage river views similar to the development on Columbia Point in Richland.
Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the minimum lot size in other local jurisdictions. He also
discussed non - conforming issues that may create some confusion.
Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the following options available to the the Planning
Commission;
(1) Increase the minimum lot size in the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones to 6,000 square
feet or increase the minimum in the R -2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R -3 zone
to 5,000 square feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square feet;
(2) Some other variation of Option 1;
(3) Allow lot dimensions to control lot size;
(4) Permit lot size averaging based on the existing lots within a given block;
(5) Reduce the minimum site development area for Planned Density Development
projects to make the process available to more properties;
(6) Maintain the current standard.
Questions for the Planning Commission to ask were;
(1) Will increasing the minimum lot size for multi- family zones discourage
developers from requesting R -2 or R -3 zoning to develop single- family lots?
(2) Will market forces and current minimum lot dimensions be enough to address
the concern?
(3) Does the current Planned Density Development process provide enough
flexibility for the development community to create a wide range of lots for
single - family development?
(4) Why do neighboring cities have smaller minimum lot sizes in multi - family
zoning districts?
(5) Have the smaller lot sizes in the neighboring cities encouraged rezones for
single - family development in multi - family zones?
After considering the issue, staff asked the Planning Commission to provide direction as to
whether or not a code amendment is necessary.
Commissioner Greenaway asked how this would affect the former "donut- hole" area.
Mr. McDonald answered that it would have minimal to no impact. A developer could
possibly request an R -2 or R -3 rezone but it would have to be in the corridor along Road
68 or Court Street where the mixed - residential designations are. Another problem in that
area is the lack of sewer so lots would have to be a little over a half acre per.
Commissioner Bachart asked what the row homes by Walmart are zoned.
Mr. McDonald answered R -4 and the lots are roughly 2,400 square feet.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the lot size minimum was increased if it would limit the
ability to build those types of homes.
Mr. McDonald responded he didn't believe so since they are treated as a multi- family
complex which is why the R -4 zoning was used.
Chairman Cruz discussed that Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots at
4,000 square feet. He asked if they had anything to fit a planned development to allow for
the row type of homes.
Mr. McDonald answered that when he talked to the Planner in Richland, he stated that
their developers use the PUD process, such as Sun Willows, to get a mix of smaller and
larger lots. Kennewick uses the same process.
Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if they had any issues with continuing to
use the Planned Unit Development process. He added that using the PUD would prevent
having an area of high- density of single - family homes on small lots, rather a mix of small
lots and larger lots. Chairman Cruz wanted to look at Options 1, 2 and 6. Increasing the
minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet doesn't seem consistent across the Tri- Cities.
Chairman Cruz discussed variability in lot sizes adding character to a neighborhood and
he would not have an issue with that. He asked what would be the advantage to
increasing the minimum lot size relative to the other jurisdictions in the area. And in
clarifying Option 1, it is for minimum lot sizes for single - family dwellings in the mixed-
residential areas.
Commissioner Bachart was in agreement with Chairman Cruz
Commissioner Kempf stated that she wouldn't mind maintaining the current standard and
didn't understand the need to change.
Chairman Cruz responded that he didn't know how attractive it is to developers to allow
for a large block of 5,000 square foot lots for single - family homes. He stated that at 6,000
square feet it would be a skinny lot and would not want any smaller.
Commissioner Khan agreed with Commissioner Kempf and didn't feel that there really
needed to be an amendment and would like to maintain the current standard.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a special permit process for a developer to build a
single - family in the R -2 zone.
Mr. McDonald answered that single - family dwelling units are listed as permitted uses in
R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts.
Commissioner Khan tried to clarify some of the concerns if the lots were too small.
Mr. McDonald added that in all cases a 5,000 square foot lot wouldn't allow for anything
other than a single - family home. A duplex requires 10,000 square feet in the R -2 zone
and 6,000 square feet in the R -3 zone.
Commissioner Khan responded that she could go along with Option 1.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there was an R -3 zone with a minimum lot size of 6,000
square feet, then a duplex could be built.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, answered that a duplex could
be built but this code amendment is mainly to focus on the single - family lots.
Commissioner Barchart responded that if the minimum lot size is moved up to 6,000
square feet and there are single - family homes in the neighborhood, your neighbor could
still put a duplex next to your house and could create problems for the neighbors.
Mr. White stated that the real question is, what is the smallest lot size the community
wants for single - family dwellings in the multi - family zoning districts?
Commissioner Polk asked if this code amendment will come back as a public hearing for
the community to voice their opinion.
Mr. White stated that the intent is to have a public hearing next month. Staff is trying to
complete the review process by the end of September.
Don Paddock, 2574 Magnolia Court, Richland, was present representing Habitat for
Humanity. Mr. Paddock suggested that the Planning Commission recommend Option 6,
maintaining the current standard.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Paddock why he wished to recommend Option 6
Mr. Paddock replied that they would like to get down to the 5,000 square foot lots. Most of
their homes would be built using 6,000 -7,000 square foot lots but some lots would need to
drop down to 5,500 square feet for what they currently have planned to be developed in
order to make the neighborhood look presentable.
Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Harms agreed
with Mr. Paddock in recommending Option 6 and perhaps adding Option 3 to it if needed.
He stated that the 5,000 square foot lot size has been a relatively useful tool and stated
that there must have been a significant event to cause an emergency moratorium on
subdividing but, he is unaware of what situation must have happened to bring this about
so abruptly. Mr. Harms discussed the need for people to have smaller lots. People will
choose to buy what they can afford and developers are sensitive to that. Mr. Hanes stated
that ultimately he would like to see the code stay the way it is. Habitat for Humanity has
projects in process waiting to advance and the lot sizes for their proposed plat are between
5,000 -6,000 square feet and would like to see the rescinding of the moratorium.
Chairman Cruz stated that some of their concerns are having entire subdivision of 5,000
square foot lots and whether that would be attractive for the community Chairman Cruz
felt that 6,000 square foot lot size is pretty generous in R -2, 5,500 square feet in R -3 and
5,000 square feet in R-4. He asked Mr. Harms why they shouldn't pursue the change to
protect the City from a situation with 30 acres of 5,000 square foot single - family homes.
Mr. Harms responded that was reasonable rationale. The Planned Unit Development
process works well for higher -end communities. The challenge with a PUD is that is has
to be unique is some way to qualify as a PUD. Sometimes that is not easy to accomplish
so perhaps there could be a way that is addressed.
Chairman Cruz asked staff what the plans are for PUD's.
Mr. McDonald answered that in order to qualify to use the process you have to have at
least 20 acres. Some developers, such as Habitat for Humanity, do not have 20 acres,
they have 2 -3 acres and that would be off the table for them.
Commissioner Khan asked if the developer did have the 20 acres then the developer could
still have the 5,000 square foot lots.
Mr. McDonald stated that in a PUD you aren't going to get 100% of the lots at 5,000
square feet. There is an overall density assigned to the 20 acres and it cannot be
exceeded. To get the smaller lots, there will still have to be some larger lots in the
development.
Chairman Cruz stated that he just didn't like the idea of a wash of 5,000 square foot lot
sizes in one area. In the R -2, R -3 and R -4 he asked if there were any other ideas to
protect against that super high - density of single - family homes.
Mr. Harms suggested averaging lot sizes, where you have a minimum lot as 5,000 square
feet but the average of all of the lots would have to meet a certain square footage. That
would perhaps provide some relief from having a "cookie- cutter" grid.
Chairman Cruz stated that would make him more comfortable but there will need to be
more discussion and thought from staff. He stated that he just really opposes 5,000
square foot lot sizes as the mass. Chairman Cruz asked what is the regular minimum lot
size in residential.
Mr. McDonald responded that 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size in an R -1 zone.
Chairman Cruz stated that he felt something needed to be done rather than leaving the
code alone.
Mr. McDonald made a clarification that with the idea of averaging the lot sizes is already
somewhat in place with the Planned Density Development.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he didn't have a problem with 5,000 square foot lot
sizes here and there because some people want a smaller house or smaller yard. The only
concern is to have a 20 acre parcel and having it all developed as 5,000 square foot lots.
Chairman Cruz added that they don't want to get in the way of developments such as
Habitat for Humanity who do a good job and is a win for all, but they simply want to
prevent large acres of becoming filled up with 5,000 square foot lots.
Chairman Cruz brought the discussion back to Option 1 and stated there is difference
between 5,000 and 7,200 square foot lot sizes.
Commissioner Polk asked if there could be exceptions built into the code for cases like
Habitat for Humanity.
Chairman Cruz asked if for those cases a rezone could be done instead.
Mr. McDonald answered that they could if the Comprehensive Plan had the site
designated for mixed residential but only a few areas would permit R -4, allowing the 5,000
square foot minimum.
Commissioner Polk asked if they needed to pick an option before coming back to a public
hearing.
Chairman Cruz stated that he would recommend that they choose Option 1, increasing
the minimum lot size in the R -2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R -3 zone to 5,500 square
feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square feet.
The Planning Commissioners were in agreement
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
8/21/14
D. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi - Family Zones (MF#
CA 2014 -0031
Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot size
in multi - family zones. Staff provided the Commission with a memo including facts,
background and history on lot sizes within the community. at the last workshop there
was considerable discussion on this topic and essentially there was a concern in the
community relative to developers using multi - family zoning districts to develop
subdivisions with smaller lot sizes without thought to design standards. As a result of
that a moratorium was established to allow that City time to study the issue and
perhaps amend the code if needed.
As a result of the previous month's discussion, where the Commission was provided a
number of options to consider, the prevalent option was to increase the minimum lot
size for single - family homes in the R -2 Zone to 6,000 square feet and 5,500 in the R -3
Zone. There was one correction since the previous meeting related to the R -3 Zone
and one suggestion. Mr. McDonald provided clarification on the correction and
suggestion.
Rick Jansen, 313 Wellsian Way, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He stated
that the proposed 5,500 square foot minimum lot size for single - family dwelling units
in the R -3 Zone would be fine. They are more concerned about getting the process
moving since they are ready to start building on land that this code amendment would
apply to.
Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of this item. He was in agreement with
Mr. Jansen and stated they would like to get the project going and the 5,500 square
foot lot minimum would work.
With no further discussion the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo
on minimum lot size in multi - family zoning districts. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for
minimum lot size requirements in multi - family zoning districts as discussed and as
attached to the August 21, 2014 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion
passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 3, 2014
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manage Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/2014
Regular Mtg.: 9/15/2014
FROM: Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Waiver of Sewer Utility Service Requirement (MF# USW 2014 -001)
I. REFERENCE(s):
1. Sewer Waiver— Vicinity Map
2. Sewer Waiver — Overview Map
3. Sewer Waiver — Proposed Utility Service Waiver Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8: DISCUSSION
9/15: MOTION: I move to conditionally approve the sewer utility service waiver at
1916 Road 64 and authorize the City Manager to sign the waiver
agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The applicant has applied for a utility service waiver to install a septic system for
new construction of single family dwelling at 1916 Road 64 on an existing lot.
PMC 16.06 requires connection to the utility system when a building permit is
issued unless such r6quirement is waived by action of City Council.
B. Utility waivers are granted/denied by City Council in accord with the
requirements of PMC 16.06.050. This section of the PMC requires that City
Council base their decision on the following criteria:
• Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or the
intended use that do not generally apply to either properties or classes of
uses in the same vicinity or zoning classification.
• A waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right or use possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
same zoning classification, which because of special circumstances is
denied to the property in question.
• The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
egregious to, other property improvements in such vicinity and zoning
classification, which the subject property is located.
• The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the general intent of this
chapter.
C. The above criteria contained in PMC 16.06.050 is established to measure unusual
or unique circumstances peculiar to a certain property that would justify waiver of
a requirement for utility connections similar to the way a land use variance would
be evaluated.
4(f)
D. The recent annexation of Riverview Area #2, to which the subject parcel belongs,
poses a different set of circumstances where most developed and undeveloped
properties share a common condition — unavailability of sewer service.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Presently, there is no sewer service provided near the property. The existing
closest sewer line is approximately 3,500 feet from the applicant's property and it
is not cost effective for a private party or the City to provide for the extension of
such line. In addition, the Sewer Master Plan shows this area is served by lift
stations expected to be provided approximately in the year 2025. While the date
could change depending on the rate of development, it is accurate to state that
sewer infrastructure is not in place now or in the near future for extension to the
properties in question.
B. The applicant's property is similar and in some respects identical to much of the
surrounding residential development. All of the single family homes in this
vicinity have been developed with septic systems on relatively large lots. A local
improvement district to extend sewer to this part of Pasco is not likely in the near
future due do the existing development pattern in the area.
C. Standards for septic systems are administered through the Benton Franklin Health
Department and will apply to the installation of septic systems on this property. It
is not expected that the waiver will be detrimental to public health or welfare in
this vicinity.
D. The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the intent of Chapter 16.06 of the
PMC. The significant costs associated with sewer line extension, the timeframe
expected for the provision of infrastructure to allow the area to be served by city
sewer, and the unlikelihood of a local improvement district in the near future,
leads staff to recommend that a sewer connection waiver be granted for the
property.
Fl
� Gy;
a..
I 0
4.:
19 �
k
y �g
s
Y.r�i9, 1e"
1, •l
j
1
Y
Fl
� Gy;
a..
I 0
4.:
19 �
k
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
Engineering Department
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER AGREEMENT
(CHAPTER 16.06 PMC)
1) The undersigned is the owner of the real property situated in Franklin County, Washington
addressed as 1916 Road 64 and described as:
Tax Parcel #: 118 -591 -044
Legal: Lot 2, Short Plat 2013 -011, according to the Plat thereof recorded in
Volume 1 of Plats Page 930, records of Franklin County, Washington
2) The undersigned has made application for waiver of the utility service requirements of Chapter
16.06 PMC and the Pasco City Council has by motion approved said waiver based on the
following Findings:
a) Presently, there is no sewer service provided near the property. The existing closest sewer
line is approximately 3,500 feet from the applicant's property and it is not cost effective for a
private party or the City to provide for the extension of such line. ht addition, the Sewer
Master Plan shows this area is served by lift stations expected to be provided approximately
in the year 2025. While the date could change depending on the rate of development, it is
accurate to state that sewer infrastructure is not in place now or in the near future for
extension to the properties in question;
b) The applicant's property is similar and in some respects identical to much of the surrounding
residential development. All of the single family homes in this vicinity have been developed
with septic systems on relatively large lots. A local improvement district to extend sewer to
this part of Pasco is not likely at this time due do the existing development pattern and
conditions in the area;
c) Standards for septic systems are administered through the Benton Franklin Health
Department and will apply to the installation of septic systems on this property. It is not
expected that the waiver will be detrimental to public health or welfare in this vicinity;
d) The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the intent of Chapter 16.06 of the PMC. The
significant costs associated with sewer line extension, the timeframe expected for the
provision of infrastructure to allow the area to be served by city sewer, and the unlikelihood
of a local improvement district in the near future support the granting of a waiver for
connection to the city sewer system for the property.
3) The waiver is conditioned upon the undersigned making the following agreements and
acknowledgments with the City, which the undersigned does hereby freely and voluntarily
make:
a) The undersigned agrees to provide the City of Pasco with all necessary Health District
approvals for the use of a septic tank system at the above referenced property;
b) The undersigned acknowledges that the granting of a sewer utility waiver does not exempt
him/her from any obligation that results from the formation of a Local Improvement District
to provide sanitary sewer to the undersigned's property;
c) The undersigned shall pay an equitable share of any private sewer utility extensions abutting
the undersigned's property;
d) The above covenants to the City shall run with the land and be binding on the owner, on the
undersigned, his/her heirs, devisees, successors and assigns and all owners now or hereafter
of the land above described, or of any of said land described above;
e) A violation of any of the above covenants may be enjoined and the same enforced at the suit
of the City.
This utility waiver and agreement has been approved by the Pasco City Council on day of
20
Signature of Legal Property Owner(s)
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of Franklin
On this day personally appeared before me , to be known
to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER AGREEMENT (MF# USW2014 -001) — PAGE 2
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 20_.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:
................................................ ..............................0
This utility service waiver and agreement has been approved by the Pasco City Council on
— day of 20_
Dave Zabell, City Manager
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
6X71
County of Franklin
On this day personally appeared before me, Dave Zabell, to be known to be the individual(s)
described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they
signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of 20_.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:
UTILITY SERVICE WAIVER AGREEMENT (MF4 USW2014 -001) — PAGE 3
AGENDA REPORT NO. 26
FOR: City Council
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manag
Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director
FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Mar_/
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
September 3, 2014
Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14
Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14
1. Amendment 1 -Water System Extension - Vicinity Map
2. Amendment 1 -Water System Extension — Proposed Amendment No. 1
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
09/08: Discussion
09/15: MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Water System
Extension Agreement with Big Sky LLC and Ted Tschirky and,
further, authorize the City Manager sign the agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Water Utility Fund ($50,145)
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Owners of two parcels of land in the northwest quadrant of the Pasco Urban Growth
Area (UGA) have planned for residential development of their respective parcels.
Both parcels are currently outside the City boundaries but within the Pasco UGA.
Consequently, they have determined it most appropriate for their developments to
extend City water for domestic use. Doing so allows half -acre lots with septic tanks,
rather than one -acre lots with septic tank and on -site well. Franklin County has
approved the zoning to accommodate half -acre lots dependent on City water service.
B) The developers (Big Sky LLC and Ted Tschirky) have coordinated with City staff
over the past several months to identify an appropriate extension of the City's water
system. A water extension agreement was approved by City Council on October 21,
2013 to memorialize the obligations of the developers and the City, respectively, in
terms of cost- sharing for the extension as well as design requirements, annexation
agreements and water rights. In essence, the developers will pay the cost equivalent
to an 8" waterline (minimum size) the entire length of the extension, while the
City will pay the equivalent cost of "oversizing" the waterline (to 12" and 16"
sizes) so it can function as a distribution main for the water system and serve the
larger vicinity in the future (this will avoid duplicate line installations in the future).
C) The City's share of the extension project as described in the original agreement is not
to exceed $290,000, or about 43 percent of the total project cost. The developers will
pay the balance of the project costs and the City will provide them a "latecomer
agreement ", 'whereby future connections to the water main will reimburse the
developers their fair share of the developers' expense not attributable to their own
properties. Participation in the developers' extension results in a much lower cost
project, as it is a private project not subject to prevailing wages; consequently, the
City's cost is likewise lower.
D) The original agreement includes provision to ensure the developments provide for or
offset their consumption of the limited pool of water rights owned by the City.
The calculation of average domestic use by a home which has separate lawn irrigation
water is .45 acre -feet. At a market value of $1,500 per acre -foot, that represents
approximately $700 per dwelling unit. The agreement provides for payment of that
amount before the City accepts the waterline improvements.
4(g)
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The original agreement ensures appropriate extension of the City's water system to a
portion of its UGA that is quite likely to experience growth over the next decade.
B) During construction of the water system extension, the City was approached by other
potential water users north of the subject development (Spencer Estates). City staff
recognized the long -term need to provide a reliable water system along Kohler Road
north of the Spencer Estates subdivision, and determined that the prudent course of
action would be to upsize the watermain along the Kohler Road frontage of Spencer
Estates. Staff proposes that the City cost share the upsizing of their section of watermain
in the same manner as specified in the original agreement. City share of the costs is
estimated at $14,145.
C) The City requires a particular pre - packaged Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly and
Vault (PRV) for use in the City's water systems. The size and cost of the required PRV
was not known at the time of the original agreement. Staff recommends that the City
share 75% of the cost of the PRV as it is a system component that will regulate water
pressures to a larger area that the Spencer Estates subdivision. City share of the costs is
estimated at $36,000.
D) Due to certain construction difficulties and the delay in receiving the PRV, the
construction has taken longer than originally anticipated. The term of the original
agreement needs to be extended to reflect construction delays.
E) Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 of the Water System Extension
Agreement.
Jfi
JA-
7
3-
K
}
Y
K
2
u U
it
y .
t -,✓c 1 ���e.i49
i
I '
k ..3
ri a�
a• �
W a�
z_
� 4
S 1'
,. ,.!
e
� l k , r sY x
ViA i '° �n4j ay y ` A
I. >i
�� LL
J
1
212131H0N \
v J
m 0
m
D
LL
J
O
N
W
W
LU
j
Z
r
o
i l N
l7
w
w
m 0
m
D
LL
J
O
N
'v
W
W
W
Z
Z
a
Z
J
_
LU
WW
>j
l0
N
Ur
W
W
N
Ln
z
o
0
CL
a.
^
O
o
X
�
�
{
w
a
a
'v
AMENDMENT No. 1
to
WATER SYSTEM EXTENSION AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 amends and modifies the WATER SYSTEM EXTENSION
AGREEMENT entered into on October 30, 2013, by and between Big Sky Developers, LLC, a
Washington Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as Big Sky), Ted Tschirky, an Individual
(hereinafter referred to as Tschirky), and the City of Pasco, Washington, a Washington Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), for the purpose of extending water system improvements
for the benefit of the properties to be developed by Big Sky and Tschirky.
WHEREAS, certain construction activities have caused the need to extend the term of the original
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the cost of certain facilities of the Project have exceeded the estimated costs contained in
the original agreement and all parties recognize the need to construct those facilities in order to have a
complete and operational system; and
WHEREAS, all parties recognize the importance of the water system extension and desire to amend the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in the original Agreement, as
modified by this Amendment No. 1, do agree as follows:
1. BIG SKY OBLIGATIONS. Big Sky shall:
A. Upsize the waterline along its Kohler Road frontage, approximately 1,320 LF, from an 8 -In.
Ductile Iron pipe to a 12 -In. Ductile Iron pipe to permit possible future extension to include
potential service connections to the north, and shall be responsible for the equivalent cost of
an 8 -In. Ductile Iron pipe.
B. Install the pre - packaged Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly and Vault (PRV) as specified by
the City, and shall be responsible for one - quarter of the cost of the furnishing and installation
of the PRV; such cost estimated at $12,000.
2. CITY OBLIGATIONS. The City shall:
A. Be responsible for the costs associated with the upsizing of the waterline and appurtenances
along the Kohler Road frontage of Big Sky's development, approximately 1,320 LF,
consistent with the unit prices and calculation methods contained in the original Agreement,
such cost estimated at $14,145.
B. Be responsible for three - quarters of the cost of the Pressure Reducing Valve Assembly and
Vault in recognition that the PRV is a system component that will serve a larger area than the
Big Sky development, such cost estimated at $36,000.
Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement
City of Pasco, Big Sky Developers, LLC and Ted Tschirky
September 3, 2014
C. Shall be responsible for a share of the additional costs as defined in this Amendment No. 1,
not to exceed $50,145. The total City share of all costs for the water system extension shall
not exceed $339,933.
3. TERM. This Amendment No. 1 shall extend the original Agreement until November 1, 2014, or
until the completion and acceptance of the water system extension improvements, whichever is
sooner.
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. All other conditions, terms and covenants of the Water System
Extension Agreement, except as expressly modified by this Amendment No. 1, shall remain in
full force.
DATED this
CITY of PASCO
Dave Zabell
City Manager
day of
BIG SKY DEVELOPERS, LLC
Dave Greeno
Managing Member
2014
Amendment No. 1 to Water System Extension Agreement
City of Pasco, Big Sky Developers, LLC and Ted Tschirky
September 3, 2014
TED TSCHIRKY
Ted Tschirky
Property Owner
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 3, 2014
Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner ( 1 "
SUBJECT: Annexation Policy
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Annexation Policy — Annexation Facts Committee Statement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8/14: DISCUSSION
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. At the regular meeting of September 2nd the Council considered a Notice of Intent
to commence annexation from Richard and Carel Rogers. The Rogers own five
and a half acres of land in the 7100 block of West Argent Road that they would
like to annex to the City. The Rogers plan to take advantage of the sewer system
in Argent Road and build 12 to 15 new single - family homes.
B. The proposed Rogers annexation, if accepted, would cause the West Pasco County
Island to be divided into two additional unincorporated islands. The possible
creation of two additional unincorporated islands raised a number of questions
related to the annexation process, past annexation practice and policy.
IV. DISCUSSION:
A. The City has once rejected a "Notice of Intent ". Over the past 29 years the City
has completed 32 annexations of varying sizes. The DNR annexation at the east
end of Hillsboro Street was originally denied and then accepted a short time later.
The DNR submitted their request for annexation during the time the City was in
the process of identifying the boundaries for the Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Following the establishment of the City's UGA the DNR resubmitted their request
for annexation and the property was annexed.
B. Discussion occurred related to the use of outside annexation agreements (power of
Attorney statements) for receiving the benefit of connecting to the City water
system and why the same benefits were not extended to use of the sewer system.
The use of outside annexation agreements as prerequisite for connecting to the
City water system is a long standing practice that began in the late 1970's. The
same benefit was extended for connection to the sewer system for a brief time
from 1979 to 1982. The Newton's Second Addition at the southeast corner of
Road 36 and Wernett Road was developed in the County with the use of the City's
sewer system. Since that time the practice has not continued. Why water and not
sewer? The simple answer is that the water system was in place throughout much
of the West Pasco area and sewer was not. There may have also been a desire to
reserve capacity in the Rd 36 trunk line for development within the City.
Additionally the extension of sewer lines is not as simple as extending water due
to the fact that sewer lines are developed to the extent possible to allow for gravity
flow. The sewer system needs to be well designed and due to the lack of sewer
lines in unincorporated areas, it was difficult to connect the use of sewer facilities
4(h)
with outside annexation agreements. It wasn't until a number of annexations
occurred in the late 1990's and early 2000's that an extensive sewer system was
installed west of Highway 395. The sewer system is now adjacent to and in close
proximity to unincorporated areas where it is no longer as difficult to extend the
system beyond the City limits. However, that is not the case in all circumstances.
Major portions of the remaining Riverview County Island will require one or
more lift stations to be able to be served by sewer.
C. The Municipal Code currently allows the extension of the sewer system beyond
the City limits, but up until the past 15 years it was not generally available west of
Highway 395. In certain circumstances the extension of sewer lines could now be
beneficial in allowing the annexation of the County Island to occur more quickly.
It would also allow more logical and efficient boundaries to be created from
individual annexations and result in land use densities more common to what is
experienced in the City. To use outside annexation agreements in connection with
the use of the City's sewer is now a practical option whereas a dozen years ago it
was not practical.
D. As a reminder, Council authorized the formation of an Annexation Committee in
2012 for an objective analysis of the impacts of annexation of "Area 2" on
citizens and property owners. The committee concluded that:
• There are no appreciable differences in regulations for animal
keeping (with the exception of dogs);
• There are no differences in the use of existing wells, irrigation
water and septic systems;
• Zoning regulations are nearly identical; and
• There are advantages to annexed properties in the cost of utilities
(water, sewer, solid waste collection) and the provision of police,
fire and ambulance service.
E. Staff respectfully recommends Council's favorable consideration of allowing the
extension of City sewer in the unincorporated County Island in circumstances
where extension is consistent with the adopted Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
ate.+ U 0 lull +
Cd.
—,n
OU Q
R y
C/1 d° y U p O IU. 00 w0 Cd
cd a aw
VQ W
F o ° aU "� k pW' v��
CIA: �
0 U
3 N ° ° ° W .4 U o q
U
oq
C O U U "� O Q U b
> F� o U WQ
CO Cd
U U U
,� U . U p .� � Q id rA
rA
V�•P� w° O 0U 0,W p O t.•a� 0
~
Ln
Cd
H v� c°i Q°
O
hey
U
�i
ra
m
O
U
O
a
�I
O
U
N
Vl ~
� N
N
eN
L
H G
F o.
O
U
.-4
i
a
o O
qq tl
m 4, 0 O V C q N N 0 T tST
❑ pp y
N 0 y N 0aJ ~ N 7 w Fr w CL
�^..O ^� CO ri �. m 0 .b p bA .~1 bA
U q ) Z°U N0 2w .1 °�v° 0.av
'fl t O 0 a .UU �y tO 0 p . 41 o d
q � w
0 U bttl O b W
C cC y
p a
h .' m bq x O
cC N .0 0 tC
U .�J 0 0 y CL O N 0. N
O N h W ��.. V U v q q
0 q b �' m 0F cOi 0 y v ti
.S •� U 4)-9 2 9 w h ro O O
kC aq O Ni tom. y N o Q O N c . N .d A~ b
A. O 00 ° § o ° A va 0 3 0o p o wd
W D m ti O O
p q U
O iii q .� p� w '3 , Y.. ❑qC�+ U 0
w .}'. Q'•a ^O' p Fl d1 p �' T a0.. q OO.'J"
b B .� p •tl 0 a .roC '� 0 m c0i O
C ^ r w _
CD al C O G➢ 0 0 to a h
wa P. I a &'oo
C O w U ^O
0 O O O O~ O q O ro O w N N U
�yN7, w 3 ,c OW
y �^ " O w Cq O w O p .� O 'O �V 'i'
o�� P..a= q U
r Z o v a'"i o bin `� Ej W c
° a ° o y
O v° o 0
ow..
fr
.�. O yN w p aNi N abi 0 a3i of "i •'C 'fir rn 'C7 ,�, v 'e
0 P 'O o= 2 p o 0
LL O O 0 O. U 0�
2 t5 « (J O w C eD y
� O i yd o o �b 0 o
qqo y� 0 a o°
A^ r+ . x cd N i �3 b C 0 0 .y C N ti
0 {v 0 C w bow i0. .0.. a0+ O M
o '��` oI U�
JS O4-
VI
W
s
N
w
A
rn a'
^ N
N
61 a.
o
d
043,E
•� o
N
a N w° 0
.�
y¢ a G'0 w
a v
a�3 Sa
0
p?
O
o ',V,, 'h
.: a
a
3 y
o o
U
y ,U •� � a
y a'7
p
��
�o
app a'ao
w 0' o yyS
44
O F.
~ �tl .a ^y ° 5 O
y
b
y
N
q t Q v
�-' y itl
O A 3 iV Z w
° 3 00"o
d
N
A
00
a.�
N 'i
Q o • � 'ty
00
U
i•ry
O
.,• y 0j'
o
N.0
ea A
q p, .,,_ A vOi
O
V
�..,
N .
7, �i .,A., >1 h U
a to 14 yn
�o
U178&W.
a• h
N N N°
Q
y
'gyp o A b a
a T �7 �O p to •`"��
m a>
U O
N ,'� �' cC q �.
q b9 py
4. •Xi n
y 0
o O
3•
av
°w
3
E o. �
0..
w �
w
v, 2
O
is row �
-.
o axi
.°o
.2%2
a°a4
T 3
g
•q
�3
°'' t9 U A
7a
U
OA.Y
W
3 3,o
�a
oo'ti
q
o
o v
U°Aaa
��
w °
lor
0
U m a 0 3�'
3
Npqa
.�w„ ,b y
O
p aO+ y GO
A
N
O
b a
' N ti •� .O
�
W � ,l
a y
ate-
Q •a'7
..�.
� lG rl ldiy
O
N 0
N
.�
.� w
N
ro
M 'b N
N
A N y° V
a.p
�
i.
aU..
y 'O o'
O. ° A, aroi ti °
ai o 3'k
•" °
0
Q)
4) �° b
0
Q o to
3
�.. U. cd
WW
o ow a
y
y
x
w
3
o
F
^ N
N
61 a.
m
29
8"p.
y �
apy o
�
U O
W O
0
�
cn
.-1 U O b oui
m
aoU
aoo��.hNN°
w
T JS
avgaai
0' p
m W a� 2
+'
N O O> 4
° °'y w
g
0 0
i b a qU
F�.. 0; 0�->,
W
oil 06
g00 o4
ti
uq
F
2°
-44
°
u w O 0
°
U
wLj
64 y
FI
u
Y A N �O 'i
F� Q p
O o p� Q b
p T3 0,, y
c pap o 0 , 6
U
�>
a �yv ��
m
e�n� cp
U .0 .mil yO
eVw U
U �UUi y [yj
G 'NO ca ° y ''�
L b Q
Q
jA�
-14 CL,
a
y
b y A
o o d
ti a1
° U
a
o b
3°
cd
c•
u �
v
4a 3 y a�iv`VS
W
.a �
U a�
3a
o
b
N
N O
�pp _
O .2 N O
y O
b �•
O
U P0. .�''
U O Q tE
GL •rte TJ U 4 U
N
U Fri
a• u
C.
00 A°
bU
g G y
Q6
O
d
N UgJ W
r••,
.1Q
p
U
O
S
A ° >
.p
,p -8 o at s t
c
U
too:
A a
.�
t—O
o
C°i .U+ N y .'�
j 0
y", .ti ,� ¢
y .ti ° �C O N
O n
b
01 U bD GF�
.ua
0
3•Gay O'M
0
OO
•ti
O
w°Oar
° a3
Q&'w
o7yva�i�O
o�
�., a
d
m
29
8"p.
N �
N �
�a
w
yaw.:
g o
N
-goo a
v
p N
N 'wad in F-i
o ooQ � .�
3
�0
ti
y y
�' N•�G
w9
.: '�
° o a .�
NO
y�
° �'�
U o Is
� y o a'01' y
YL' aNi° �•
o aw y
Cd
o
di 'Y Q
�
u oa y
7
v°
N
q k" O
R' � •tl
M �. b N
is ~ V � �
m ni
o
�0 b
�
_
� �
3 3
� V�]w �
i,
❑�{ w ^(ao�
p� � o a cs
F
w�.? °��
IZZS
O ... O Y
W U' O
N !U N o
°: � �"•F A
� � � �
.saw o � °
o
� b q �, a°i a �
P° uU :o
Uc°�Sh0 '.m
N
0
h
o T.
°
oi
a ti
aN w.
o w
m
U, 0 h w
0
O N
Y V N•� O
O Y Y
�a Y '"
4
O
too
cX
v N y
O
•O
CO
N O
a) O a
N b�
a O N
P
�' b' N
y a m O 'O
U O N M
b N ,^ 'C pOp
y C.
O O O
ty 2 op
~V
�.
O
N
.p�..
y�,+
N .-•
r^1. O
U
o
`ti p
N Y >p
�M
' NZ
,ay v,�ow
•5 a.
apq �. �V t' ia3i
o e
° o
•o
°
N a
N
O
� fW ,�. otU C •:tiN U y ea
N H iN
� 0'
4o
O '-' .Ni
°
b Y N w r3 N p
O p O
aai
A
wp'G
`.'-'
� �.y �
a' oo
d•° ci a
� �� v:o c3 U
� y
tl � tl
r a3i
GL ry w
w
69
h
�
V
V
O
q
N
cs V
iV
ew
w
aw
a�a
N �
N �
�a
N v�
N �W
a, a
U
N
"
b4
o
d'v
a°
vI
0
.�
N
�
p 'p
,O X %•
w w
b
Up
q
00i
p 0
N
a o
'O E
O b
a M
w
04
OA w
W) p
p vy U
oq •."r y O
O Q A
'� T
'D •�
''.-O
~
A
�Q�
'�'Jj
�
5�9 N
m
.BUJ' � .�
f�3
ob
�
.^aXi
"Sb�
° Na
El
ro x o'
3
a
$
ayi
v C a
o
s0
co
oa
v v b
W
N
o
a
G's 3
�.� 3�
xw m wb
pi
o
N
O Q
`V � q N
� �
�
tl
.� � �•OD W
O
.�
30.0 0ai°
3
a N
N
a
o°
N
ti
.�
O
b 'y 8 Q
o R
N
•�3 y cN
cc
o
N
0o
s
GL
z
z
2
x P. w A
Z
Gt,
23
R,
N
a ,-.
w v°'
a
a
R
A D
cc
a
8
c
F
,�
zUW
W W
FW
nW
R!
W
N v�
N �W
a, a
N04
a]
-
(2§
\
\
) \/
ƒ
2§)
)
)
�
(
%
\
)
�
�
]
=
u
\�k\
)
)
/ )
�
\
(
%
\
Z
)
(
~
]
-
=)u/
\k)k
m\mi
ƒA
I/
2
)�
,kk�
■a
a;. cc
' &3
Q&&pa&«
N04
H
W
w
a
H
CL
CL
M
O
N
649,
69
69
6q
O
69
O
69
O 0
N
b
69
ON
O
V3
�o
C
69
t-
M
N
69
Id.
00
N
O\
m
'.
O
w
N
a\
00
c
? 7
0
y
t0
A
O
go
y
O
u
. �
. "o
a
k a
5
°`M°.
° 3
G n
69
»w
(V
0 0
w o
'JG
M vi
69
o
U N .T+
°
69
69
o 8 a
fA
69
o
69
69
69
69
69
G b
rl
a
O
w
U
r
o
to
U
c°d
R�
iii T
O�
O
0 w T`aN3
69
y Q O
0
N
m
Ge
4p
O
o
A
bA
.-. O; M
�N'd
O 00 T p .'�.
o p p N
x•
ro �w
N
o
F•
faC
Vl
a
cr
N H
a •v
° y v
Q 0 y
o.+ri'
Th30:�7
U U...
U U W
F
N
O
`^
N
O
ON
,�
O
0
y
V]
^•>1
>
N
U
ry
a
U
O
N
Qi
Iw
k
.ti
a
U
F
O
0.1
N
O
0.!
ti
O'
U
\
cq
•.��'
k
d
a
0
.a
U
O
O
.Ni
b
O
q
•c�a
U
�
«�
U
O
c
¢I
v
o
(li
x
�'
U
M
0
Z
O
q
.F,,.
4
0
O
U
v
T
a
03
.n
U
'b
o
U
Vi
O
y
0
O
P.
O
o
U
o
O
5
y
y
y
v
�cvOri
r
_-; N M d' Vl
N W
m
U
O 0
� O
�
y
O
m
� y
M
� h
O
o
c
? 7
0
y
t0
A
O
go
y
O
u
. �
. "o
a
k a
5
°`M°.
° 3
G n
69
»w
o
'G
0 0
w o
'JG
M vi
.ro
o
U N .T+
°
a o
o °
o 8 a
O
� U
o
°O o
ca
U
vi W? a
O O
G b
O
a
O
w
U
r
o
to
U
c°d
R�
iii T
O�
O
0 w T`aN3
a N
y Q O
0
N
m
Ge
4p
O
o
A
bA
.-. O; M
�N'd
O 00 T p .'�.
o p p N
x•
ro �w
N
o
F•
faC
Vl
a
cr
N H
a •v
° y v
Q 0 y
o.+ri'
Th30:�7
U U...
U U W
_-; N M d' Vl
N W
m
r.
IQ
G7
y
b
C1
e�
y 3
�U
U�
m �
H a
v
en
N �
b
h
w
O
O
N
o
0
o
°
rn
r-
v
000
�o
r00
n
Oo
bs
69
69
b9
bM
N/s
6s
64
3
Old
N
M
69
H9
l�
0
0
0
00
vi
l-
O
�o
ao
N
N�
9
W
M
W
ONO
6
bps
6�9
N
69
69
69
69
69
Hs
N
3 0
O
O�
0
0
0\
O
O
O
N
�, O\
GN9
669
N(!3
NE04
U
C
0
O
N
0~o
n
dam•
000
*
M_
VNi
00
E9
69
69
69
69
7
N
M
3 0
o
0
0
0
o
a
o
0
0
0
E9
N
N
N
69
f•
bs
69
N
0
0)
O
0o
V
000
�D
7
M_
O
w
.-.
6s
69
6s
'.
69
6s
Ie
n N
M
E6
n
N
co
o
o
In
0
0
o
C,
0
0
0
to
�r. r-
w
tn
a
C-4
Gs
y
�
66
9
U
V9
r
N
N
�
q
o
�
U
Pte.
d
o
0
0
Y
N
.
U
O
U O
T O
O �
m
cYC N U q bq
O
r1 N
O 40.
P sJ m
N 0 T • N
r c a
�o o o
to 6eA 0 • Cr
d �y
Y
.moo° ti
n �
'�
a.? o -' a
O O O
bUA U Z .
� �
Y
.da��N«' aa.• °o
N
0 O U k O xy a
0
U N k
.q W) ai d '2 u o
q� �n°u a G
U' x tY N
W Q
� � � � O Y cC
o 0 U 0 U U co
Wn cW) Q
P.�Q7
C.) 06 oob 06 0
N a
M
U
H
ti
x�
>C
w
P
.7
O
U
O
O
7 lS
0
0
U �
to U
q
0
N
o
d U
7
U
Rs
a
O
U
U
U
bq
0
O
0
0
O
C
N
C
'�
14.
v
N
V
O
N
O
M
Z
rn
o
a
x
v
o
ao
y
CD
M
•b
bq
A
°
°
fw/]
O
N
H
N
O
—
N
'n
M.
�
7
a
x
Pr
W
°o
°0
b
0
A
o
O
N
In
G
M
V
N
7
O
N
O
.r
if)
N
m
M
COD
N
a
00
o
°
(U
O
vi
C
VA
N
V1
M
V1
N
7
O
a
V]
v
N
N
O
cV
O
0
W
Vi
�
W
•o
00
O
O
b�wv�aA��ss
0
N
N
V)
W
N
U
Q•1
x
M
L
�
O
4
aAad�w�na�w
U
Rs
a
O
U
U
U
b0
� 3
3Q
w o
co..0 o
0.Q 0
u ° w
Q
ZKO
N NW
oa
bq
C
N
W
M
Z
rn
a
x
o
ao
y
CD
M
•b
bq
�
�
a
x
o
O
N
In
G
M
V
V0'
k.
(U
A
°
ri
e
°
a
V]
N
N
O
cV
Z
•o
00
O
O
0
N
N
V)
W
N
U
Q•1
x
M
L
�
W
yI
W
)
"05
o
w
Ito
0
4
w
0
b0
� 3
3Q
w o
co..0 o
0.Q 0
u ° w
Q
ZKO
N NW
oa
4S
A
z
ai
Fy
O
a
m
dwr�
� p �
U Op 5
h 0 �
5 �
ti
�3 t3
o ti N
tyz O O�
O y O
:
�
5 _
m^, •0 0
13
tl �'
to
CS � •� � p
q zQ
Z2 '
�lvc)
N ` V
w .2
•-a� 'ti >, v o o ° -8 p
o pp o
a 0 T ti 0als 3
h
., w o °
Cd
d0X
'0 4 0 , o tl
O p p Y b O? Pr N ..•
Cd
0" o a o o q "�' - 8 a 4 d
° C4)
A {7 00 rn bA w 1+' •� N pp,
'5
o q q „' c •fl p N
oawv
o
U m d ° w° yq x o
y
,�$ q °� 3a o
°q 0 e U O i >
d
❑ �p a 0 r0+ y 0,0 GJ GO 'd U
0.4 °' o' >� °q
cc
en
o
Cd
cd 'b ti Q 'O 'ir' "�' id p p DA
0 a s ° e3 °� p > x ° 0 y r. o S
> 0°
er 0
h a Q y
y4W+ o y 0 0
3 ° 0 g U o ga r Q 0 i>,°
w w C
ti a .3 vci 5 0 o o r
y a
"a w o° y oa po
'd .:
0 U .w.r I.a A Qr u
N O
N �
m
m a.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council September 2, 2014
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manag� Workshop Mtg.: 9/8/14
Regular Mtg.: 9/15/14
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Emergency Powers of Mayor
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Emergency Powers of Mayor — Proposed Ordinance
2. Emergency Powers of Mayor — Current PMC Chapter 2.04
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
9/8: Discussion
9/15: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending the Pasco
Municipal Code regarding Emergency Powers of the Mayor and,
further, to authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Chapter 2.04 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) is outdated, having been
originally adopted in 1968. As a result, many of the provisions are in conflict
with the state laws regarding firearms and with provisions of both the US and
Washington Constitutions as interpreted by the courts.
B) In order to make the Emergency Powers provisions in the PMC more consistent
with current law, the City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance which
provides for the repeal of the current Chapter 2.04 (attached) and the creation of a
new replacement Chapter 2.05.
C) The proposed Chapter 2.05 does not purport to regulate firearms contrary to state
or Constitutional law; nor does it attempt to regulate the right of assembly.
Powers to deal with emergencies, more consistent with our current environment,
are enumerated. In addition, the ordinance provides for ratification by the City
Council of both declarations of emergencies and the actions taken in response
thereto, at the earliest meeting of the Council following such declaration or action.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance.
4(i)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Repealing Chapter 2.04 "Emergency Powers of Mayor "; and
Creating a New Chapter 2.05 "Emergency Powers"
Establishing the Powers and Procedures for the Declaration of
an Emergency
WHEREAS, the Code needs to be amended to be consistent with the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution Article 1,
Section 24, relating to the right of individual citizens to bear arms; and
WHEREAS, the State has preempted firearm's regulations pursuant to RCW 9.41.290;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Code to include additional provisions
for continuity of government consistent with RCW 42.14.050; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to do everything within its power during an emergency to
promote the health, welfare and safety of its citizens, and to provide for the continuity of
government; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 2.04 entitled "Emergency Powers of Mayor" of the Pasco
Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. That Chapter 2.05 entitled "Emergency Powers" of the Pasco Municipal
Code, shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows:
Chapter 2.05
EMERGENCY POWERS
Sections:
2.05.010
Proclamation of civil emergency — Emergency defined.
2.05.020
Action which may be taken.
2.05.030
Delivery to news media.
2.05.040
Continuity of Government.
2.05.050
Violation — Penalty.
2.05.010 PROCLAMATION OF CIVIL EMERGENCY — EMERGENCY
DEFINED.
Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 1
A) Whenever a civil emergency, or the imminent threat thereof, occurs in the City
and results in, or threatens to result in the death or injury of persons or the destruction of or
damage to property to such extent as to require, in the judgment of the Mayor, extraordinary
measures to protect the public peace, safety and welfare, the Mayor shall forthwith proclaim in
writing the existence of a civil emergency. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem
may declare a civil emergency and issue orders, and in the absence of the Mayor Pro Tern, the
City Manager may declare a civil emergency and issue orders. The authority granted to the
Mayor in this Chapter is in addition to and not in limitation of other policies allowing the Mayor
to declare an emergency and take action necessary to deal with such emergency. For the
purposes of this chapter a civil emergency shall mean:
1) A riot, unlawful assembly, insurrection, enemy attack, sabotage, or other
hostile action; or
2) A natural or human caused disaster, including fire, flood, stone,
explosion, earthquake, volcanic disturbance or other natural cause; or
3) Any emergency or disaster as defined by RCW 38.52.010.
B) Proclamations of civil emergencies issued by the Mayor shall as soon as
practicable, be filed with the City Clerk and presented to the City Council for ratification and
confirmation, modification or rejection. Proclamations which are rejected shall, after vote, be
void. Proclamations shall be considered in full force and effect until the City Council shall act.
2.05.020 ACTION WHICH MAY BE TAKEN.
A) Upon the proclamation of a civil emergency by the Mayor, and during the
existence of such emergency the Mayor may make and proclaim any or all of the following
orders:
1) An order imposing a general curfew application to the City as a whole, or
to such geographical area or areas of the City and during such hours as he deems
necessary, and from time to time to modify the hours such curfew will be in effect and
the area or areas to which it will apply.
2) An order requiring all business establishments within the geographic area
impacted by the civil emergency to close and remain closed until further order.
3) An order requiring the closure of any or all bars, taverns, liquor stores and
other business establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold or otherwise dispensed;
provided, that with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily
devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages and in which such alcoholic beverages may be
removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof utilized
for the sale of items other than alcoholic beverages may, in the discretion of the Mayor,
be allowed to remain open.
Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 2
4) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving
away of gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container
other than a gasoline tank property affixed to a motor vehicle.
5) An order closing to the public any or all public places, including streets,
alleys, public ways, schools, parks, beaches, amusement areas and public buildings.
6) An order waiving the public works competitive bidding requirements and
awarding contracts to address the emergency situation in accordance with RCW Chapters
38.52 and 39.04, and waiving other rime - consuming procedures and formalities
consistent with RCW 38.52.070(2).
7) An order directing the use of all public and private health, medical and
convalescent facilities and equipment to provide emergency health and medical care for
injured persons.
8) An order authorizing, in cooperation with utility management and
appropriate State and Federal agencies, the shutting off, restoration, and operation of
utility services in accordance with priorities established for combating such civil
emergency.
9) An order providing for the evacuation and reception of the population of
the City or any part thereof.
10) Such other orders as are immediately necessary for the protection of life
and property.
B) Provided, however, that any such orders shall, at the regular or special meeting of
the City Council next following the date the orders are issued, be presented to the City Council
or ratification and confirmation by Resolution of the City Council, and if not so ratified and
confirmed shall be of no further effect. Provided further, in the event an order is issued under
subparagraph (6) above, then the Mayor shall also make a finding that an emergency existed
within two (2) weeks from the date the order was issued and post the contract and findings on the
City's website. If the City's website is down due to the emergency, then the Mayor shall take
reasonable steps to notify the public of the award of the contract and the substance of his
findings in accordance with the State law.
2.05.030 DELIVERY TO NEWS MEDIA. The Mayor shall cause any
proclamation issued by him pursuant to the authority of this chapter to be delivered to all news
media within Benton and Franklin counties and shall utilize such other available means,
including public address systems, as shall be necessary, in his judgment, to give notice of such
proclamations to the public.
2.05.040 CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT. In the event that the Mayor and the
Mayor Pro Tern are unavailable by reason of civil emergency to exercise the powers and
Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 3
discharge the duties of the office, then those members of the City Council available for duty shall
by majority vote, select one of their members to act as the executive head of the City.
2.05.050 VIOLATION — PENALTY. It is unlawful for anyone to fail or refuse to
obey any such order proclaimed by the Mayor. Anyone convicted of a violation of this chapter is
punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or by imprisonment for not more than ninety
(90) days, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared
to be severable. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional,
the remainder of this Ordinance shall not as a result of said section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase be held unconstitutional or invalid.
Section 4. 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 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk
Ordinance Creating Chapter 2.05 - 4
Approved as to Form:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
CHAPTER 2.04 EMERGENCY POWERS OF MAYOR
Sections:
2.04.010 PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY ....................... ..............................4
2.04.020 ORDERS PROCLAIMED DURING EMERGENCY ...... ..............................4
2.04.030 PUBLICIZING PROCLAMATIONS .......................... ..............................5
2.04.040 REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDER - PENALTY ................ ..............................5
2.04.010 PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY. Whenever riot; unlawful assembly,
or insurrection, or the imminent threat thereof, occur in the City and result in, or
threaten to result in, the death or injury of persons or the destruction of property to
such extent as to require, in the judgment of the Mayor, extraordinary measures to
protect the public peace, safety and welfare, the Mayor shall forthwith proclaim in
writing the existence of public danger or emergency. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 1, 1968.)
2.04.020 ORDERS PROCLAIMED DURING EMERGENCY. Upon the proclamation
of public danger or emergency by the Mayor, and during the existence of such public
danger or emergency, the Mayor may make and proclaim any or all of the following
orders:
A) An order imposing a general curfew applicable to the City as a whole, or to
such geographical area or areas of the City and during such hours, as he deems
necessary, coupled with the authority to use such force or control as is necessary to
prohibit unlawful traffic: in any such area, and from time to time to modify the hours
such curfew will be in effect and the area or areas to which it will apply;
B) An order requiring any or all business establishments to close and remain
closed until further order;
C) An order requiring the closure of any or all bars, taverns, liquor stores, and
other business establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold or otherwise
dispensed; provided that with respect to those business establishments which are not
primarily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages and in which such alcoholic
beverages may be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the
portions thereof utilized for the sale of items other than alcoholic beverages may, in the
discretion of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open;
D) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away
of alcoholic beverages in any or all parts of the City;
E) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away
of firearms and /or ammunition for firearms in any or all parts of the City;
F) An order requiring the discontinuance of the sale, distribution or giving away
of gasoline or other liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other
than a gasoline tank property affixed to a motor vehicle;
G) An order requiring the closure of any or all business establishments where
firearms and /or ammunition for firearms are sold or otherwise dispensed, provided that
with respect to those business establishments which are not primarily devoted to the
sale of firearms and /or ammunition and in which such firearms and /or ammunition may
PMC Title 2 12/16/13 4
be removed or made secure from possible seizure by the public, the portions thereof
utilized for the sale of items other than firearms and ammunition may, in the discretion
of the Mayor, be allowed to remain open;
H) An order closing to the public any or all public places including streets, alleys,
public ways, schools, parks, beaches, amusement areas, and public buildings;
I) An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, inflammable materials or liquids, or any instrument or other dangerous
weapon which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed
with intent to use the same to cause such harm, provided that any such order shall not
apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official
duties;
J) An order prohibiting the assembly or meetings of three or more persons
without permission given by the Chief of Police of the City;
K) Such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and
property; provided, however, than any such orders shall, at the earliest practicable
time, be presented to the City Council for ratification and confirmation, and if not so
ratified and confirmed shall be void. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 2, 1968.)
2.04.030 PUBLICIZING PROCLAMATIONS. The Mayor shall cause any
proclamation issued by him pursuant to the authority of this chapter to be delivered to
all news media within the City and shall utilize such other available means, including
public address systems, as shall be necessary, in his judgment; to give notice of such
proclamations to the public. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 3, 1968.)
2.04.040 REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDER - PENALTY. It is unlawful for anyone to fail
or refuse to obey any such order proclaimed by the Mayor. Anyone convicted of a
violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred
dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both such fine and
imprisonment. (Ord. 1318 Sec. 4, 1968.)
PMC Title 2 12/16/13 5