Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-18-2020 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
AGENDA 06P4�i �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING lip City Hall-Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,JUNE 18,2020 6:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2020 VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Code Amendment Waterfront Development District (MF# CA2019-001) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Block Grant 2021 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Allocations (MF# BGAP 2020-003) B. Block Grant 2021 Home Fund Allocations (MF#BGAP 2020-004) C. Comp. Plan Amendment Urban Growth Area(MF# CPA 2020-001) D. Comp. Plan Amendment Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2020-002) E. Code Amendment Street Connectivity(MF# CA 2019-013) VIII. WORKSHOP IX. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2020 AWC Municipal Excellence Award X. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired;contact staff for assistance. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 1WC0 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2020 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Tanya Bowers, Telephone: Paul Mendez, Ann Jordan, Able Campos, Isaac Myhrum, Pamela Ransier, Jerry Cochran quorum for declared. Commissioners Absent: Joseph Campos Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez, and Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Abel Campos led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. She further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Updates, Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code. The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,livability, economic opportunity, housing affordability, public services and the environment. Chair Bowers reminded the audience tonight's proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco's Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco's website, which is Pasco-wa.gov. Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Chair Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. She then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please come to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for the record. Chair Bowers reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair, but also appear to be fair. In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either benefited or harmed by the Planning Commission's decision. An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight's agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 May 21,2020 There were no declarations. Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City Council. Furthermore, in many cases, this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the official record and City Council will use to make the Commission's decision. She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ❖ Commissioner Myhrum moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of December 19, 2019. Commissioner Cochran seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Comp Plan Amendment (CPA2019-001) Kidwell: Commissioner Bowers stated that it should be noted that this item has been pulled from the agenda. This item will not be entertained at today's meeting. Comp. Plan Amendment-Urban Growth Area (MF#2020-001): Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez explained this is a continuation of the public hearing specifically tonight we are going to cover the upcoming request for Franklin County for the expansion of the Urban Growth area for the City of Pasco to go along with the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bowers asked the fellow commissioners if they had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Jordan asked some of the letters that we have received from community members makes it sound like planning has been happening between the city and them, is that something that has been happening on our end or on someone else's end with regards to the city. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated we received the letters and the comments on the UGA area application again we just want to restate that the item in front although it is titled Comprehensive Plan the focus on the Comprehensive Plan item tonight is the actual boundary itself obviously the land use is a significant component that there will be an opportunity to comment on the land use itself at a public hearing at the June Planning commission meeting with regards to the coordinated effort between staff and the public we took into account the twenty-nine plus comments that we received on the scope EIS in the fall of 2018, there were significant comments received during the 2018 process itself, not only by members of the planning commission and council, but also throughout the numerous open houses that were held at the time during the development of alternative number two, so we also went back and took a look at to those comments to make sure that when we came up with number three met the overall summary of what we could incorporate from the comments, while still meeting the requirements of the growth management act. He responded that no he does not believe that the staff has acted solely without any outside comment, I believe the comments is what allowed us to develop Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 May 21,2020 the scoped EIS and the EIS process itself. Commissioner Ransier thanked the staff for the fabulous EIS draft. Commissioner Bowers stated that there were several letters that state that proper procedure was not followed and I am specially referring to a letter from Halverson/Northwest law group from Mark Fickes says that our clients did not receive notice of the change. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated that to reiterate staff has sent notices to properties as required by the Pasco Municipal Code to all properties impacted by the Urban Growth area it was approximately 330 notices that were sent out multiple times as we have had some cancelled meetings over the past few months and again I think that we should remember that the whole intent of the compact real target was to revise the Urban Growth area and subsequently the land use is associated with that. This is a second public hearing that we have held on the Urban Growth area. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez wanted to note that what was proposed in 2018 would not have been approved by the county. ❖ Caleb Stromstad stated that there were significant changes made to create alternative three speaking as a whole for the development community that the public comment in 2018 was sufficient for alternative two, alternative three with significant changes to the Urban Growth boundary line and the land uses there was not public comment received to create alternative three. We have attempted to engage city staff and it has been over a year now that the time for public comment is at the public comment period. He feels that the development community has been left out in the loop. The schedule that was proposed stays the course and does not include any revisions or review of public comment. We are asking the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City council, that City staff seriously consider these comments. The first item that we want to address is Fred Olberding property, there is a 30 acre commercial island in a sea of residential that is the letter that Mr. Fickes has provided the planning commission that commercial land use designation appeared out of nowhere, without consultation from the land owner. That any plan that we know of and the only thing that we can make sense of that is was done to artificially manipulate the traffic study. ❖ Dave Greeno with Big Sky Developers stated that we have developed over 500 lots in the last five years in Franklin County and the City of Pasco. We have played big ball with the City I brought City water down from Road 100 two miles to intersect at Dent and Culver, so I am very aware of the growth and what we are trying to do. I have talked with multiple people involved in the UGA expansion there's probably twenty to thirty percent that don't want to sell that are included in this, and I know that can change I can understand that. We have under contract Ms. Culver's property that is a budding this UGA, it's a 100 acres we are going to be forced to do one acre lots, we have the opportunity to bring down City utilities right into the UGA and create 150 lots. Mr. Olberding property we do have under contract as well 80 acres as Caleb said in a sea of residential they are throwing in 30 acres of commercial, which makes no sense. ❖ George Dockstader stated he just wants the planning commissioner to look at this thing it's not just looking at a map, drive out there and look at these properties and go out 68 and look at the mess it already created north of Burns road. Road 68 should be five lanes all the way out to Clark Road and we are going to have a mess in there that is already started. You people need to go out and look at this stuff before you approve it. You got twenty percent of the ground is proposed for the UGA that's not going to get developed. You got both sides of Road 68 one owner a legacy farm he doesn't want to do anything cause he is saving it for Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 May 21,2020 his grandkids ❖ Fred Olberding stated when we did the UGA boundaries the Port of Pasco was against it one of my pieces of property because it interfered with their flight zone so I worked with them and I signed over an easement an air easement to that property and then that piece of property was pulled out of the UGA never got notification of that. I was working with Mr. Greeno and Mr. Dockstader because I sold a piece of property to the school district and it would only make sense that next to the school district would be residential and come to find out there is thirty acres of commercial in there. Well you all need to get out and drive down Burns Road to Road 68 there is no pavement there. There is a no trespassing sign and they aren't going to go down a cow trail, there's at least 2 signs that say deaf children please drive slow that inaccessible. The next thing I wanted to touch on is the traffic implantation besides 182 the next best one is Clark Road and you can take Clark Road cross the railroad tracks because the development industrial in Pasco and all that is going to have to have roads, highways, overpasses over railroads tracks. ❖ Randy Mullen stated that his family has lived in the Pasco area since 1945, we have some property right along Road 68 that is prime commercial property we have a ready willing and able buyer that needs a lot of that property right now for commercial use and its zoned mixed family. Fred has a bunch of property that he is trying to get rid of commercial zone and we want that commercial zone and we would have someone who would be an asset to the City of Pasco who wants quite a bit of that property in there right now and the way its zoned according to this map they would not be able to do that. I think it would be a benefit to the City if this commercial user could locate there. ❖ Steve Bauman stated that under the heading reduce sprawl it says reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. First question would be who decided if it is inappropriate, as a developer I haven't been asked if it inappropriate, I have asked a lot of land owners that I know and they haven't been asked about that so who decides if it's inappropriate. I trust as representatives that represent us, you on the commission that you would be the one that decides that not City staff. The EIS that was presented tonight was that in fact at any point put before the public for comment not the 2018 one but the one from tonight, was there any way for the public to see that and have comment on it. I have brought about 350 lots to development in the last 4 years into development, I believe that we have a significant stake what is in these decisions we have before us. ❖ Rick White, Director Community Economic & Development department stated about the availability of the EIS the public comment period as Mr. Gonzalez mentioned the draft EIS was released Friday May 15 there is a thirty-day comment period. We notified approximately 450 owners Franklin County notified another 50 owners it's on our webpage, if you haven't received a notice you will shortly and the comment period ends June 15 so thirty-day comment period from May 15 to June 15 and I would urge all the speakers tonight that want to provide comments here verbally this evening also provide some version of written comments to be included in the record for the Environmental Impact Statement. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 May 21,2020 ❖ Mr. Gonzalez, Senior Planner stated that he did take some notes and obviously, I know everyone that has commented here so we can reach out but written comments would be appreciated so we can respond appropriately and put them in the public record of the final EIS prior to its release and be considered for the rest of its process here. I just want to say that as development occurs there is an expectation in that roads would be improved with the necessary capacity for safety improvements as necessary depending on the adjacent land use development, while today some of these roads may look bare or primitive in some cases when development does occur through the City's normal review process there will be improvements required prior to the development being approved here locally. I think that there is to note that if there was a significant change it because there was, it is a necessary change as I mentioned earlier just for the capital facilities plan of the UGA itself so not the rest of the City of what already exist just the expanded boundary itself 3500 or so acres there is an estimated cost of$114 million that does not include maintenance, operations and what it takes to keep those facilities up and running throughout the duration of their life spans, and I think it's important for us to understand that while we throw around the term growth will pay for growth and there should be a caveat with an asterisk beside that slogan because not all growth pays for growth, if you're talking about industrial growth than perhaps but low-destiny development patterns specifically when it's the majority of your land use will not pay for the entire life span that it takes to maintain these facilities thus putting the onus on the rest of the existing property owners and taxpayers of the City of Pasco. That is a requirement of the Growth Management Act we do believe that alternative number three gives us a much better opportunity at meeting the intent of the Growth Management Act, I also urge anyone interested to take a look at the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and the draft Comprehensive Plan goals and policy that are established by the Pasco City Council obviously they take into account public considerations, that is where we get a lot of input from and we encourage folks to continue taking the surveys that is what allows us to develop these long range plans. ❖ Charles Layard stated he is speaking on behalf of the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership which is a Partnership comprised of Tibbett family siblings,who have been investing in real estate in Pasco since the seventy's and full disclosure Paul Tibbett who is the management partner is my father-in-law and I am the designated broker and Bob Tibbett who have provided planning consultant for this property for a number of years. Back in 2011 partnership began discussing including 120 acres of the UGA with the City of Pasco the idea originated from two needs one the City needed a soccer complex and two the partnership wanted to work with its neighbors to create a land use buffer between the industrial development which was coming from the south and the residential neighbors to the north. The Partnership went so far as to submit a proposal a detailed proposal to sell the City land and water rights for a soccer complex and the City went so far as to design a soccer complex, consult a water rights expert and meet with the neighbors to discuss how the complex would be managed. After meeting with the neighbors the partnership applied to have 120 acres included in the UGA of which 30 acres would be zoned for the soccer complex and the remaining 90 acres C-3 upon annexation. TLP meet with the City department heads as late as October 2019 to discuss the proposal and we left with no idea that the UGA had been modified to exclude 80 of the 120 acres originally approved through resolution 3845 as alternative two. I am here to ask tonight that the planning commission reconsider staffs proposal to include all 120 acres of the TLP property that was originally Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 May 21,2020 approved in resolution 3845 for the following reasons we understand the City is not focused on a soccer complex in that area but this should not exclude the TLP from building a soccer complex as a legacy project that will also provide a practical land use buffer.If as inspected, our neighbors to the south of the TLP property put in a Casino/Hotel on their recently acquired property located adjacent to TLP property we think this will be compliment to these uses. The most important thing Capital Avenue has extended as part of the American Recovery Investment Act through the Obama administration and it was intended to stimulus the economy and by excluding all this growth we can't figure out why it doesn't make any sense that the City would not be more keen to utilize these assets sooner rather than later. ❖ Mark Fickes stated he is a real estate land use attorney in Yakima I am here on behalf of Fred Olderbing and Big Sky Developers I have two matters to discuss with the planning commission;I did submit a detailed letter on the Olderbing commercial designation I ask that you review that prior to any additional meetings. Long story short I disagree while I appreciate Jacob Gonzalez summary and what happen I do think there is a significant procedural defect in this process and that alternative three has not had adequate public participation and development and I think it violates RCW 36.70A.035 and I suggest the City consultant with legal counsel doesn't serve a purpose for an attorney to argue with commission members and Rick White should consultant with Eric Ferguson. Long story short this meeting should not have happened until after the EIS comment period was expired. Not to mention that fact that during a Covid crisis with only given three minutes doesn't meet the spirit and intent of the State's Growth Management Act, which is to allow your development community and property owners to comment. I appreciate that the City and County is behind on their GMA mandates this should have been done a couple ofyears ago, but you want to do the process right or its going to have to be started over.Again going to Fred Olberding the merits of the letter there is no evidence on this record of why 30 acres of prime residential property next to your future high school would be zoned commercial, nobody wants it and there is no evidence in the record to support it,you don't have a demand for it and as Caleb Stromstand stated Bruns Road isn't a commercial arterial there is no way you can handle commercial traffic from Burns Road so the request would be to go back to alternative two or you as the planning commission have the power to make recommended minor modifications. We would propose regarding the Olderbing property that the commercial designation be removed and that if you go with some form of alternative three which is not cast in stone contrariety to what Mr. Gonzalez told you the commercial designation should be removed not supportable on the record and it violates all kinds of goals and policies of the GMA which is you only have commercial development where the infrastructure is needed like along Road 68. ❖ Mark Fickes stated switching to the Culler expansion this is 104 acres of prime residential property overlooking the Columbia River that was included in alternative one and two the reason our clients didn't comment is they thought it would be within the UGA. Alternative three now has it located outside the UGA. This property is already ready to be developed now by Mr. Greeno and Big Sky Developers with a simple water extension/sewer extension you can developed it in a responsible way using City services, which is what the GMA want. This property all the UGA is remember where you expect urban level growth to happen in the next twenty years. This property is ready to be developed immediately, current owner Debra Culler does not want to farm it any more, the property is under contract and again Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 May 21,2020 with a responsible developer that you are familiar with, and with a simple water/sewer extension you can develop it in a denser level without onsite septic system,protecting the Columbia river and without use of ground water also protecting the environment and Columbia river. I doubt there would be an opposition to adding another 100 acres into the UGA in the far northwest corner of the property. ❖ Randy Hayden stated he is with the Port of Pasco, the City of Pasco request in adding industrial land to the UGA, to promote economic development and that refers to option three. The additional land to be added to the UGA within the 395 corridor just north of existing development all this land is already industrial land for the county. Question becomes whether it is better to be developed in the county or the city. It is also close to railroads, highway inner change and major power and gas. We also believe it is a balanced request the City has taken out other industrial land already in their inventory to add the new lands in, so we think it is a balanced approach. ❖ Caleb Stromstad stated he just wants to irritate the Culler property, Big Sky Developers proposing to extend City sewer one mile up Dent Road it is going to open up 900 acres for immediate development and again the planning commission, we encourage you to read the letters that were already submitted. Jacob you mentioned that you were going to comment and respond to letters, we would greatly appreciate written comments being responded to, we have not seen that happen in the past.I will justgive an example from Tibbetts summited a letter in March and there has been no dialogue or discussion or comment in response to that. Big Sky Developers has contracted with Mr. Fickes, land use attorney who submitted a letter in the staff report and he just recently submitted another one for the Culler property that I encourage the planning commission to read. Again, we would very much appreciate the City to comment on these letters, because we have been asking for information how the commercial land use designation there is and is there justification and we can only speculate. ❖ Jacob Gonzalez stated residential development along the shoreline would likely have to comply with the shoreline management plan required in the shoreline management act, so while it may be available for development that does not necessary mean that is in the best interest of the City of Pasco to develop along the shoreline. Commercial designations surrounded by residential in 2017 maybe even 2016 the City of Pasco partnership with the Washington Transportation actually worked on an interstate justification report looking at future land use a lot of them, which ended up in alternative number two and that report ended being held up because the lack of commercial land use allocated in the City of Pasco predominantly north of the interstate. What we see which we count basic travel patterns is that the majority of the residents that live north of the interstate end up having to travel through Road 68 through Road 100 onto the interstate and work elsewhere, and while we can't control where anybody works, we have limited employment opportunities in the City of Pasco. We have done well on the industrial however, regarding the industrial allocation itself the City of Kennewick actually commissioned a regional industrial analysis, which determine that we had over capacity of industrial room in the region. The City of Pasco took a little bit more in depth approach we were able to take away some places including the Port they requested a larger area along with the Tibbett company east of Capital Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 May 21,2020 ❖ Rick White stated that he wanted to make sure that on the June 18 Planning Commission meeting this topic would also be on the agenda. I want to irritate again that we are in the public process right now and thatMr.Dockstader comments perceive that we are not having public comment that is what we are doing right now, that is what the draft EIS statement process is for public comment. Yes, there is an alternative no action there is a larger 4800 expansion and then alternative three, which is the subject of many of the speakers we are in a public comment and that you should put something in writing so that they are on the record for the future consideration for the planning commission for the final decision not only by City council but by Franklin county planning commission and the Franklin County commissioners. The commissioners have the final say in the Urban Growth boundary areas the City does not. Commissioner Tanya Bowers stated that she is looking at staff recommendation to accept the public comments on the Urban Growth Area and the draft EIS to continue the public hearing until the June 18 planning commission meeting. ❖ Commissioner Myhrum stated is it customary that in this process that there could be tailor custom modifications made to the plan based on property owners request or is the process more of a based on capacity, looks like the maps are more based on capacity less on individual property owners.In regards to the Broadmoor master plan is fully flushed out in alternative two and it looks like in alternative three it is but I don't see as much detail in the Broadmoor area which would allow for higher density development in there. ❖ Rick White stated that in response to Commissioner Myhrum first question that of course the scale of the request or comments, which would dictate how much reworking the transportation analysis, the capital facility analysis and anything else connected with the change would dictate. So if we are talking about 100 acres here 100 acres there it's going to entail some more additional work If we are talking about one or two acres,perhaps a different configuration, or four or five acres of commercial that may not. However, it depends on the scale of the request. ❖ Jacob Gonzalez stated about the Broadmoor area we did incorporate the majority of forecasted of housing growth target in Broadmoor within the twenty year time frame obviously Broadmoor isn'tgoing to develop fully within the next eighteen to nineteen years but we tried to incorporate as much as reassembly possible to take advantage of thatgrowth. Code Amendment-Waterfront Development District(MF# CA2019-001): Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated this was a continuation of the public hearing on the proposed creation of the Waterfront Develop District the applicant is the Port of Pasco. This item has been discussed with the planning commission at a workshop in September of 2019, and public hearings in February and March of this year. Staff has had productive discussions with the Port of Pasco regarding the code its development standards and the compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies including the Shoreline Master plan and program. The staff report remains relativity the same but it should be noted that there is one update regarding the permitted use of private streets. As identified Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 May 21,2020 in the attached to the staff report from AHBL, staff agrees with the concept and the applicability with the Waterfront Development District. ❖ Nicole Stickney with AHBL stated she is presenting on behalf of the Port of Pasco. We are proposing a new creation of a zoning district in the City of Pasco this will be known as the Waterfront Development District. Therefore, it will be a new chapter in your zoning code titled 25 I believe. The intent here is to implement a mixed use of land designation, which will be forthcoming once the City updates their Comprehensive Plan. So for a while now the City has been interested in seeing a portion of the waterfront development there off Osprey Pointe be changed to a mixed-use designation on their land use map and that this proposal will help implement that. ❖ Gary Below the director of economic development for the Port of Pasco stated that he supports the planning commission and staff that this has been a long process and I figured planning commission had really heard enough from me just want to get on record that the Port of Pasco does support the addition to the zoning code. ❖ Commissioner Jerry Cochran made a motion to close the public hearing on the creation of the Waterfront District and set June 18, 2020 as the date for deliberations and recommendation for City Council. Commissioner Able Campos seconded the motion and motion carried. WORKSHOP Code Amendment- Street Connectivity (MF# CA2019-013): Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated this was an item that was continued from prior meetings this was at workshops in December 2019 and March 2020. At the prior meetings that focus was on the need for this code amendment to meet already existing and established goals of the City Council, Comprehensive Plan, numerous federal and state regional guidance on transportation specifically on providing multi mobile connectivity opportunities for the public. The objective of this effort is to revise the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 21.15, PMC 21.20)to meet adopted Council goals,policies and to meet the needs of our community and future growth. Code Considerations • Block Perimeters • Block Length/Width • Mid-Block Connections • Connection to adjacent properties Staff is seeking preliminary comments from the Planning Commission on the proposed draft revisions. A full code amendment will be brought back to the Planning Commission as a public hearing at the June 18, 2020 meeting. ❖ Commissioner Tanya Bowers stated that on page 6 I heard you say 1320 feet is the current average. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated no 1320 is the maximum block length currently permitted in the Pasco Municipal Code. Commissioner Bowers asked do you want our feedback whether we prefer scenario one, two, three or four. Senior Planner Jacob Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 May 21,2020 Gonzalez stated that would be preferred or just a general guidance. The larger you make your block you lose the intended benefits. We will bring this back for a public hearing in June to hear from the public and anyone else that would like to comment. ❖ Commissioner Cochran stated do we have a comparison of other similar metropolitan areas surrounding eastern Washington, is this also a problem in Kennewick and Richland. It would be help full to understand what are their block parameters.I do not know how much you have exposed this to the development community but is there any comments on these changes. ❖ Commissioner Paul Mendez asked what is the impact to the annual transportation cost per household is there a correlation will it increase it. ❖ Commissioner Anne Jordan would like to have more of a visual of what the lot sizes will look like in real terms to lots in Pasco now. ❖ Commissioner Abel Campos asked are we talking about in terms of the surveys are the residents wanting to see a different pattern are we talking about the grid pattern or are we talking about still using others and if so based on the scenarios that we saw is there one better for the grid. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT With no further business to bring before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:07 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Webb, Administrative Assistant II Community&Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 May 21,2020 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Ciry"1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1�I� Pasco City Hall —525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, June 18, 2020 6:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: MF #CA 2019-007 Waterfront District Background The Port of Pasco requested an amendment to the Pasco Municipal (Zoning) Code for the creation of a new zoning district titled "Waterfront District." PMC 25.210.020 states that any person, firm, corporation or group of individuals, or municipal department may petition the Pasco City Council for a zone or text change. The Port of Pasco owns, operations and manages major facilities in the greater Pasco area including the Tri-Cities Airport, Big Pasco (Industrial Center),the Pasco Processing Center and has led and participated in various programming and planning for economic development in our region. The proposed amendment would encompass approximately 52 acres of property owned by the Port of Pasco, north of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail and bound by E Ainsworth to the North, S Gray Street to the West and SE Road 20 to the East. The primary use of the existing property is Osprey Pointe, a business and office center home to the Port of Pasco offices. Although the properties included are currently zoned industrial, the upcoming City Comprehensive Plan has re-classified the area for Mixed Residential/Commercial land use. The Port of Pasco and the City of Paso have identified the Osprey Pointe area as a significant opportunity to provide residents with a unique experience providing additional access to the waterfront. Proposed Code Amendment Considerations The proposed Waterfront District Zoning code would be permitted under the Mixed Residential/Commercial Land Use per the upcoming Comprehensive Plan. The Waterfront District Zone itself will be permitted on the Port of Pasco/ Osprey Point owned site. The code contains several departures from current zoning requirements that will more easily encourage and permit mixed-use development opportunities identified for the Osprey Point vision. The primary change in zoning is the allowance of residential uses for Osprey Pointe. The combination of residential, commercial, office with light industrial provides the Port of Pasco with an opportunity to maximize development potential in Osprey Pointe. Additional considerations and discussion for the Planning Commission should include the following items (excerpts from the proposed code amendment): 1 Permitted Uses/Prohibited Uses Flexible range of permitted uses reflects the necessary diversity of development required to encourage and reinforce the Osprey Pointe and Waterfront vision and purpose that would include offices, restaurants, retail, hospitality and entertainment uses. Residential uses would be allowed on the western edges of the property. Conditional uses shall be considered for the following: retail/wholesale (exceeding 80,000 sgft), service stations and drive-through uses. Prohibited uses would cover those that are high impact and could not be made compatible with the development including (but not limited to) heavy industrial and manufacturing uses. Density/Height A minimum density of 14 units per acre would be required for residential portions of the Waterfront District, and a height limit of 60 feet would be in place thus limiting the maximum density of any residential development. The Comprehensive Plan permits the Mixed Residential/Commercial Land Use to include a range of 5-29 dwelling units per acre, thus permitting the proposed densities proposed in the draft amendment. Setbacks Development standards for setbacks in the proposed code would allow commercial and residential uses with higher intensities to be placed closer the street while lower intensity uses (single-family dwelling units) would be separated from the street and other units. Parkin In an effort to promote a safe and walkable environment, the proposed code decreases the required parking than what is required by the existing Pasco Municipal Code. The Waterfront District includes a series of features and tools to ensure that adequate parking is provided and used efficiently without overburdening properties. Streets (Private) The code amendments proposes the use and permitting of both public and private streets. The City does not currently have standards for private streets, and only permits the use of private streets through the Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PMC 25.140). City staff believes that streets serving the Waterfront District shall include considerations for the safe movement of all users, residents and customers and should include accommodations for safe pedestrian access, bicycle travel and automobile traffic. As identified in the attached submittal from the Port of Pasco and AHBL (Appendix B), the allowable use of private streets that perform and create active places will further implement the vision identified for Osprey Point. 2 State Environmental Policy Act A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on March 23, 2020. The DNS for the non-project action was made per WAC 197-11-340(2). The SEPA received one comment letter, from the Washington State Department of Transportation (Appendix C). RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the creation of the new Waterfront Development District as contained in the June 18, 2020 Planning Commission Report. 3 Overview Item: Rezone " Applicant: Port of Pasco W+E Map File #: CA2019-007 - Waterfront Development District S W a Z = J W - Q U) = WCST ECST U) Q' W Cob RTyAVF j �. i i 40 0 Ai rnCo -O \ oC o Q s`� w�sy/No CO � F TpN ST OCO CRA�F ST OSPREY POINTE BLVD F w�RFyOUSFST ro FglNsw o� oRT yAVF �� F CgRO o CV F OST � OOCkST C- ti O Osprey Pointe 0 550 1,100 Feet Chapter 25.XX Waterfront Development (WD) District Sections: 25.XX.010 Purpose. 25.XX.015 Terms defined. 25.XX.020 Permitted uses. 25.XX.030 Permitted accessory uses. 25.XX.040 Conditional uses. 25.XX.050 Prohibited uses. 25.XX.060 Unlisted uses. 25.XX.070 Development standards. 25.XX.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the waterfront development (WD) district is to allow the location of a compatible mix of commercial, residential, light industrial, and recreational uses on parcels situated close to the Columbia River waterfront and within the Osprey Pointe property, historically owned by the Port of Pasco. 25.XX.015 TERMS DEFINED. "Artisan manufacturing" means small-scale businesses that manufacture artisan goods or specialty foods. Small manufacturing production primarily focuses on direct sales rather than the wholesale market. 25.XX.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the waterfront development district: (1) Commercial, office, educational, and government uses: (a) All uses permitted in the "O" Office district; (b) Artisan manufacturing, provided that such uses are intended to be compatible with surrounding commercial, industrial, and residential development and shall adhere to the following requirements: (i) Structures shall not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of area, and the 10,000 square foot total shall include all indoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. (ii) Outdoor storage is prohibited. (iii) Loading docks. Where the site abuts a residential use, the building wall facing such lot shall not have any service door openings or loading docks oriented toward the residential use. (iv) Public viewing. Artisan manufacturing uses must accommodate public viewing or a customer service space. Public viewing shall be PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 1 accomplished with windows or glass doors covering at least 25 percent of the front of the building face abutting the street or indoor lobby wall, allowing direct views of manufacturing. The display area may be reduced below 25 percent where fire-rated separation requirements restrict opening size as determined by the building official. A customer service space including a showroom, tasting room, restaurant or retail space may be provided that substitutes for the exterior public viewing area. (v) All uses shall not emit smoke, gas, odor, dust, sound, vibration, soot, heat, glare, or light that is detectable beyond the property line. (c) Banks and financial institutions; (d) Breweries, wineries, and distilleries; (e) Churches and similar places of worship; (f) Dancing schools; (g) Gyms and fitness centers; (h) Hotels and motels; (i) Laundries/dry cleaners; 0) Portable food vending/food trucks; (k) Printing shops; (1) Public or commercial parking garages; (m) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work; (n) Restaurants and eating establishments, including food halls with shared common areas; (o) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business and similar services in buildings not exceeding 80,000 gross square feet such as: (i) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises; (ii) Barber and beauty shops; (iii) Bookstores, except adult bookstores; (iv) Catering establishments; (v) Artist and office supplies; (vi) Florists; (vii) Specialty retail stores; (viii) Museums and art galleries; (ix) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused materials only); (x) Crafts, stationery, and gift shops; (xi) Department and drug stores; PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 2 (xii) Grocery or specialty food stores; (xiii) Furniture and home appliance stores; (xiv) Import shops; (xv) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work; (xvi) Shoe repair shops; (xvii) Sporting goods stores; (xviii) Tailor and seamstress shops; (xix) Upholstery shops; (p) Locksmith shops; (q) Membership clubs; (r) Theaters (movie or live theater); (s) Veterinary clinics serving household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment facilities); and (t) Universities, colleges, and business, professional, technical, and trade schools. (2) Industrial and business park uses as follows, provided they are located east of South Oregon Avenue or its extension: (a) Creameries; (b) Research laboratories and facilities, (c) Wholesale facilities and operations; and (d) Warehousing and distribution facilities. (3) Residential uses: (a) Single-family detached dwellings may be located west of the alignmentof South Maitland Avenue at densities prescribed under PMC 25.XX.070; (b) Attached single-family dwellings (duplexes and townhouses) may be located east of the extension of South Maitland Avenue, but no further than 500 feet east of the alignment of South Oregon Avenue at densities prescribed under PMC 25.XX.070; and (c) Multifamily dwellings may be located no further than 500 feet east of the alignment of South Oregon Avenue. (d) Short-term vacation rental uses and Bed and Breakfasts may be located where residential uses are allowed. (4) Recreational and entertainment uses: (a) Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial or public), not to exceed one acre; PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 3 (b) Marinas and marine repair facilities; (c) Mixed-use buildings containing any combination of residential, commercial, office, educational, and government facilities in a single building; and (d) Public and private parks and trails. 25.XX.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. (1) Accessory dwelling units when associated with a permitted residential use; (2) Family home child care in conformance with WAC 170-296A-0010; (3) Sheds not exceeding 200 square feet provided they are located in the rear yard of residential uses or a place of business; (4) Outdoor storage of goods and materials for an industrial or business park use located east of South Oregon Avenue or its extension; (5) Private parking lots and garages meeting the development standards of this chapter; (6) Storage facilities accessory to multifamily dwellings for the sole use of residents; (7) Home occupations in accordance with PMC 25.150; and (8) Alcoholic beverage sales, provided it is for on-site consumption and located within a restaurant; and (9) Private streets, meeting the standards of PMC 25.XX.070(14). 25.XX.040 CONDITIONAL USES The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of special permit as provided in Chapter 25.200 PMC: (1) Retail, wholesale, and department stores and shops exceeding a gross floor area of 80,000 square feet; (2) Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, provided that plants and materials are located behind a building and are not visiblefrom the public right-of-way or residential uses; (3) Nursing homes and assisted living facilities; (4) Marine gas sales; (5) Gasoline and service stations; (6) Drive-thru uses; and (7) Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial or public), exceeding one acre. PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 4 25.XX.050 PROHIBITED USES. The following uses are prohibited in the WD district: (1) All uses permitted conditionally in the 1-2 Medium Industrial district; (2) Automobile assembly, services, or repair; (3) Vehicle rental; (4) Tire stores; (5) Car washes; (6) Automobile detail shops; (7) Automobile sales; (8) Auto body shops; (9) Mini-storage facilities; (10) Pawn shops; (11) Card rooms and bingo parlors; (12) Secondhand dealers — similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also prohibited; (13) Adult bookstores or entertainment facilities; (14) Truck stops — diesel fuel sales; (15) Truck terminals; (16) Heavy machinery sales and service; (17) Contractor's plant or storage yards; (18) Mobile home and trailer sales and service; (19) Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities; (20) Pharmaceutical laboratories; (21) Industrial medical facilities; (22) Any outdoor manufacturing, testing, processing, or similar activity; (23) On-site hazardous substance processing and handling or hazardouswaste treatment and storage facilities; (24) Kennels and animal boarding facilities; (25) The manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging of cosmetics, pharmacology, and the reducing and refining of fats and oils; (26) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards, scrap iron, scrap paper, or rag storage, sorting, or baling; (27) Cemeteries; and (28) Recreational vehicle parks. PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 5 25.XX.060 UNLISTED USES. All unlisted uses shall be classified as conditional uses and require a special use permit under PMC 25.200. 25.XX.070 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) All structures, uses, and shoreline modifications shall comply with the City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program (PMC 29.15), where applicable. (2) Minimum density: (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Industrial and business park uses: none. (c) Residential uses: 14 units/net acre average for residential portions of the WD district (net acre excludes infrastructure (roads, utility easements, stormwater infrastructure) and critical areas, and applies to the entire WD district rather than to individual developments). Additionally, residential uses shall not comprise more than 50 percent of the gross land area within the WD district. (3) Minimum lot area: (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Industrial and business park uses: none. (c) Residential uses: 4,500 square feet (single family detached), 1,500 square feet per unit (duplex and single-family attached). There is no minimum lot area for multifamily dwellings. (4) Minimum lot width: (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Industrial and business park uses: none. (c) Residential uses: 40 feet (single family detached), 20 feet per unit (duplex and single-family attached). There is no minimum lot width for multifamily dwellings. (5) Lot coverage: Dictated by parking requirements, setbacks and landscaping; (6) Minimum Yard Setbacks - Front. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Industrial and business park uses: As required by PMC 25.110 for business park uses and by 25.180 and 25.185 for industrial uses.. (c) Residential uses: 10 feet (single family detached and attached, and duplexes), 20 feet (garden-style apartments/ condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed-use buildings. PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 6 (7) Minimum Yard Setbacks — Interior side yard. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Industrial and business park uses: As required by PMC 25.110 for business park uses and by 25.180 and 25.185 for industrial uses. (c) Residential uses: 5 feet (single family detached and attached, and duplexes), 15 feet from other buildings (garden-style apartments/ condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed-use buildings. (8) Minimum Yard Setbacks — Street side yard and rear. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Industrial and business park uses: As required by PMC 25.110 for business park uses and by 25.180 and 25.185 for industrial uses. (c) Residential uses: 10 feet (single family detached and attached, and duplexes), 20 feet from other buildings (garden-style apartments/ condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed-use buildings. (9) Maximum building height: (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: 60 feet (b) Industrial and business park uses: 45 feet. (c) Residential uses: 35 feet (single family detached and duplexes), 40 feet (single-family attached and garden-style apartments/ condominiums), 60 feet (multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed-use buildings). (10) Fences and hedges: (a) Fences and walls shall meet the requirements of PMC 25.180, with the following exceptions: (i) Fences and walls shall be constructed using a combination of natural materials such as wood, stone, or brick including those on industrially used properties. (ii) Barbed wire and electrified fencing are prohibited on all properties; (11) Parking: (a) All new uses in the WD district must provide parking in accordance with Table 25.XX(1). The Community and Economic Development Director may approve ratios lower than the minimum if the new use provides bicycle parking. See subsection (d) of this section pertaining to parking reductions. The Community and Economic Development Director shall determine parking requirements for unlisted uses. Uses which are not listed in the table shall have parking requirements of the nearest analogous use which is included in the table, as determined by the Community and Economic Development Director. (b) On-street parking or off-street public parking lots may be used in PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 7 combination with dedicated off-street parking to accommodate parking demand from individual developments. (c) On-street and off-street public parking may be time-limited, metered, or otherwise restricted in order to ensure that parking demand from individual developments does not adversely impact parking availability for the district as a whole and may be managed by either the Port or City (depending on public or private ownership). No more than 30 percent of the minimum parking requirement for an individual use may be on-street spaces or off- street public spaces and must be located within 500 feet of the proposed use. (d) Bicycle parking reduction. For every five bicycle parking spaces provided, the number of vehicle parking spaces may be reduced by one up to maximum of 10 percent of the minimum number of spaces otherwise required. Table 25.XX(1): Number of Minimum Required and Maximum Allowed Parking Spaces by Use in the WD District Use Category Minimum Maximum COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENT USES (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified) Churches, places of worship, clubs, 1 per 100 square 1 per 60 square fraternal societies feet main feet of main assembly area assembly area Commercial lodging (hotel, motel, bed 0.5 per room 1 per room and breakfast, short-term vacation rentals) Educational Uses Elementary schools 1 per classroom 1.5 per classroom and 1 per employee Middle schools 1 per classroom 2 per classroom High school 7 per classroom 10.5 per classroom Universities, colleges, 0.3 per full-time 0.5 per FTE business, professional, student and 0.8 per student and 0.8 technical and trade schools employee per employee Gyms or fitness centers 3 5 Museums and art galleries 2.5 4 Offices: Administrative, 2 4 Professional, Government Portable food vendors/food trucks None required None required Restaurants/bars/ breweries, wineries, 0.5 per 3 seats 1.0 per 3 seats and distilleries Retail sales and services 3 5 Wholesale sales 3 5 PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 8 INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK USES (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified) Industrial services 2 5 per 1,000 square feet of GFA of office space; 2 per 1,500 square feet of GFA of assembly space and 0.5 per 1,000 square feet of GFA of warehouses ace Manufacturing 1.25 2.0 Warehousing and distribution facilities 0.25 0.5 RESIDENTIAL USES (per unit unless otherwise specified) Single-family detached 1 2 Accessory dwelling units 0.5 1 Single-family attached and two-family 1 2 dwellings Multifamily dwellings 0.75 1.5 Nursing homes and assisted living facilities 0.25 per bed 0.5 per bed RECREATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USES (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified) Public and private parks and trails To be determined during land use approval process Event entertainment (indoor or outdoor) 1 per 8 seats 1 per 5 seats Theaters 1 per 4 seats 1 per 2.7 seats INSTITUTIONAL USES per 1,000 square feet of net floor area unless otherwise specified Hospitals 1 per bed 1.5 per bed Police and fire stations 2 4 (12) Landscaping: (a) Surface parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with PMC 25.180.070. (b) Single-family detached and attached residences and duplexes shall be landscaped in accordance with PMC 25.180.050(4). (c) Single-use commercial and industrially used property shall be screened in accordance with 25.180.050(3). Commercially-used property in multistory and/or mixed-use buildings are exempt from landscaping requirements. (13) Transportation (a) The internal transportation network of the Waterfront District shall be designed to maximum multi-modal travel options. All transportation infrastructure shall meet the intent of the City Complete Streets Ordinance (PMC 12.15) and comply with the International Fire Code. PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 9 (14) Design Standards (Transportation) (a) Speed Limits: 20 MPH (b) Sidewalk Widths: • Residential: Minimum 6' • Commercial/Mixed Use: Minimum: 10' (c) Local Access Streets: • Driving Lane Minimum width: 11' • Parking Lane Minimum width: 8' • Dedicated Bicycle Lane: minimum width: 5' (d) Alleys: • Minimum: 20' width (e) Private Street/Lane: (i) Private street improvements shall meet the standards for Local Access Roads, at a minimum, with the exception being that sidewalk must be present on at least one side and on-street parking must be present on one side. This will result in a roadway section, with curb and gutter, that measures 31' back-to-back of curb. (ii) Private streets must not interfere with vehicle, public transportation or non-motorized access to public areas, and may not preclude the connection of the transportation system. (iii) Storm water facilities must be able to treat and retain all storm water on-site without any runoff enter City of Pasco right- of-way. (iv) Every private street within the district shall be named and names shall be clearly posted. PMC Title 25 - DRAFT May 12, 2020 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator SUBJECT: 2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM ALLOCATION (MF#BGAP2020-003) Requests for Funding Attached for your review and consideration are the CDBG Fund and Proposal Summaries (Attachments 1 & 2) relating to our Community Development Block Grant Program for program year 2021. Sixteen (16) requests for funds were submitted totaling $1,828,750. Applicants will present their proposals before the Planning Commission on June 18, 2020.No action is required of the Planning Commission at the June 18' meeting, only consideration of the applications is necessary. Estimated Funds Available It is estimated that the 2021 annual entitlement grant will be$700,000 based on the award for program year 2020.Together with prior year funds and estimated program income it is estimated there will be$1,005,814 available for 2021 activities. There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available funding for these FY 2021 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when the CDBG allocation is made by Congressional Resolution. If funding levels are lower than estimated or eliminated the city will need to consider a number of options, including a voluntary or proportionate reduction of allocation, possible inclusions in the 2021 city general fund budget requests. If funding levels are higher than estimated, activity funding will be reallocated in accordance with the contingency plan according to the greatest need. Public Service Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities may not exceed 15%of the combined total of the entitlement plus the prior year's program income. Based on the estimated entitlement of$700,000 and prior year program income of$55,000, the maximum available for public service activities in 2021 is $113,000. Current requests for public services total $201,500. Planning & Administration Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support planning and administration activities may not exceed 20%of the combined total of the entitlement plus the current year's program income.For 2021,the estimated entitlement of$700,000 makes the maximum available for planning and administration $140,000. Current requests for planning and administration total $140,000. Staff recommends a maximum of$140,000 for planning and administration (20%) due to the additional burden f'or HOME grant administration and project delivery. No action from the Planning Commission is necessary. The Commission is expected to hear from the 2021 applicants and have the opportunity to ask questions. The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance. Attachments: 1 2021 CDBG Fund Summary 2 2021 CDBG Proposal Summary 3 2021 CDBG Projects and Proposal Requested Attachment 1 2021 CABG Fund Summary BGAP2020-003 06.2.20 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Proposals-Recommendations LOCI NonCDBG Agency Goalstrat PJID D RECIPIENT ACTIVITY I AGENCY NAME Match Re nested PC Recommend Ob Risk Priority 1 1 City of Pasco-Community&Economic Development CDBG Program Administration 20.488.00 140,000.00 All 1 All 2 2 City of Pasco-Administrative&Community Services Civic Center Recreation Specialist 44,490.00 37,500.00 3 3 B2 2 3 City of Pasco-Administrative&Community Services Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist 105,916.00 37,500.00 3 3 B2 2 4 City of Pasco-Administrative&Community Services Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist 198,739.00 37,500.00 3 3 B2 2 5 YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Progr 35,000.00 20,000.00 3 3 02 2 6 City of Pasco-Administrative&Community Services Pasco Recreation Scholarship Fund 2,000.00 10,000.00 3 3 B2 2 7 Boys 8 Girls Club of Benton 8 Franklin Counties Boys&Girls Club-COVIDI9 Teen Program,Main Branch facil 464,052.47 50,000.00 3 6 B2 2 15 The Arc of the Tri-Cities Arc Theraputic Recreation Scholarship Fund 20,000.00 9,000.00 3 3 B2 3 8 Downtown Pasco Development Authority-SK Pasco Specialty Kitchen Technical Assistance 54,837.50 140,000.00 2 3 3 9 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Culture Specific Small Business/Microenterprise Grant Progam 15,000.00 165,000.00 2 6 3 10 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Downtown Pasco Facade Improvement Program(Service Area 25,000.00 172,500.00 2 8 Al 4 11 Benton Franklin CAC-Home Energy Energy Efficient Home Program(15 households) 50,000.00 50,000.00 1 5 Ct 5 12 Boys&Girls Club of Benton&Franklin Counties Boys&Girls Club-Improvements/Removal of Architectural Ba 0.00 259,750.00 2 4 Al 6 13 City of Pasco-Community&Economic Development-CE Code Enforcement Officer 220,000.00 100.000.00 1 0 c 7 14 City of Pasco-Public Works&Engineering Pasco Neighborhood Business District Improvements 370,000.00 400,000.00 1 2 3 Al 8 16 City of Pasco-Community&Economic Development SECTION 108-DEBT REPAYMENT 0.00 200,000.00 2 1 Al 1,625,522.97 1,828,750.00 0.00 2021 Estimated Entitlement $ 700,000 20%CAP 2020 Available to Commit $ 100,000 15%CAP 2019 Available to Commit $ 40,000 _ 2018 Available to Commit $ 21,722 2017 Available to CommK f 34,092 2021 Rehab Estimated Program Income $ 25,000 2021 IPSK Estimated Program Income $ 85,000 CDBG Funds Available(Entitlement,Prior Year&Program Income $ 1,005,814 Proposals Received $ 1,828,750 SURPLUSIDEFICIT $ (822,9361 6/11/2020 Percent of Total Requested Planning & Section 108 Debt Administration, Pymt, $200,000 , 11% $140,000 , 8% C Planning & Administration Public Sery es, " Public Services $201,500 , 11% Economic Opportunities Decent Housing Community 7 Public Facilities Infrastructure, 7 Code Enforcement $400,000 , 22% — Community Infrastructure Economic — Section 108 Debt Pymt Opportunities, $477,500 , 26% Code Enforcement, Public Facilities, $100,000 , 5% $259,750 , 14% } Decent Housing, $50,000 , 3% 2021 Projects and Activities - Requested 0001 Project Administration SUM $140,000.00 Activity Activity Matr&lCitation Nat Objective Ohj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 01 CDBG Program 21A 570.206 N/R 570.205 SLE Availability/Accessibility 79156 $140,000.00 $20,488.00 Administration Goa6StratOhj: All Program Administration StralegyDesc: Program Administration Tahle3Desc: CDBG funds provide for salary and benefits for the Block Grant Administrator to plan,administer and provide for the successful delivery of housing,community development and economic activities.The City receives funds for CDBG,HOME and NSP activities.The Block Grant Administrator ensures compliance with local,state and federal rules,regulations and laws for programs that primarily benefit low to moderate income people in Pasco. 0002 Public Services SUM 5201,500.00 Activity Activity Malrix/Citation Nat Ohjective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDRG 02 Civic Center Recreation 05Z 570.201(e) LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Availability/Accessibility 16300 $37,500.00 $44,490.00 Specialist GoalStralObj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Table3Desc: CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist at the Civic Center.This facility's program is to provide recreation programs for at risk youth and families in the immediate service area. 03 Martin Luther King 05Z 570.201(e) LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Availability/Accessibility 29475 $37,500.00 $105,916.00 Community Center Recreation Specialist GoalStratOhj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Tahle3Desc: CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist at the Martin Luther King Center.This facility's program is coordinated with the YMCA,Salvation Army and Campfire USA,who all collaborate to provide education and physical activities to school age children and families in the Kurtzman neighborhood service area. 04 Senior Citizen's Center 05A 570.201(e) LMC 570.208(a)(2) SLE Availability/Accessibility 850 $37,500.00 $198,739.00 Recreation Specialist Goa6StratOhj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Tahle3Desc: CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist to oversee and operate program at Pasco's senior center. This facility's program provides supervision and leadership necessary for programs serving the elderly of Pasco with support services,nutrition,health and living skills support. Tuesday,June 9,2020 Page 1 of 4 05 YMCA Martin Luther King 05Z 570.201(e) LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Availability/Accessibility 29475 $20,000.00 $35,000.00 Community Center Recreation Program GoalStratObj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Table3Desc: CDBG funds provide YMCA recreation programs at the Martin Luther King Center.This facility's program is coordinated with the YMCA,Salvation Army and Campfire USA,who all collaborate to provide education and physical activities to school age children and their families. 06 Pasco Recreation 05D 570.201(e) LMC 570.208(a)(2) SLE Affordability 120 $10,000.00 $2,000.00 Scholarship Fund GoalStratObj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Table3Desc: CDBG funds provide funds to help low-income youth participate in recreation programs. 07 Boys&Girls Club- 05D 570.201(e) LMC 570.208(a)(2) SLE Availability/Accessibility 300 $50,000.00 $464,052.47 COVID19 Teen Program, Main Branch facility GoalStratObj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Table3Desc: CDBG funds are requested to support the Teen Program at the Main Branch facility.This site serves more than 30 teens each day,with an annual membership of over 300 teens each year.93%of members are youth of color,and over 50%live in single parent households.More than 90%of the youth served at the Main Branch qualify for free and reduced lunches through the Pasco School District. 15 Arc Theraputic Recreation 05B 570.201(e) LMC 570.208(a)(2) SLE Affordability 20 $9,000.00 $20,000.00 Scholarship Fund GoalStratObj: 3 Homeless interventions and prevention,and supportive services StrategyDesc: Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Table3Desc: CDBG funds provide funds to help disabled adults participate in recreation programs. 0003 Economic Opportunities SUM ,8477,500.00 Activity Activity Matrix/Citation Nat Objective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 08 Pasco Specialty Kitchen 18B 570.203(b) LMJ 570.208(a)(4) EO Availability/Accessibility 15 $140,000.00 $54,837.50 Technical Assistance GoalStratObj: 2 Community,neighborhood&economic development StrategyDesc: Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-income residents. Table3Desc: CDBG funds from entitlement funds and generated from program income provide for operating costs to provide Technical Assistance at the Pasco Specialty Kitchen,a certified commercial incubator kitchen.By providing technical assistance to small startup food-related businesses the Pasco Specialty Kitchen improves their success rate by helping them to establish and achieve their goals.In consideration for technical assistance,the startup businesses agree to create and/or make 15 full time equivalent jobs available,51%of which must be low-to-moderate income persons. Tuesday,June 9,2020 Page 2 of 4 09 Culture Specific Small 18A 570203(b) LMJ 570.208(a)(4) EO Sustainability 25 $165,000.00 $15,000.00 Business/Microenterprise Grant Progam GoalStratObj: 2 Community,neighborhood&economic development StrategyDesc: Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. Table3Desc: CDBG funds provide support to downtown businesses short term,low interest,loans for up to 25 to low-mod business owners. 10 Downtown Pasco Fagade 14E 570.202 LMA 570.208(a)(1) EO Sustainability 4 $172,500.00 $25,000.00 Improvement Program (Service Area) GoalStratObj: 2 Community,neighborhood&economic development StrategyDesc: Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. Table3Desc: CDBG funds support downtown businesses with up to four(4)facade improvements to increase business flow and area appearance.(Census Tract 202). 0004 Decent Housing SUM 550,000.00 Activity Activity Matrix/Citation Nat Objective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 11 Energy Efficient Home 14A 570.202 LMH 570.208(a)(3) DH Affordability 15 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Program(15 households) GoalStratObj: 1 Increase and preserve affordable housing choices StrategyDesc: Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock.(Support acquisition or rehabilitation,code enforement,energy efficiency improvements,or new construction in targeted neighborhoods.) Table3Desc: CDBG funds are used to provide 15 low-income households with improvements to their property at an affordable cost,including health/safety codes and energy effiency standards improvements(City-wide). 0005 Public Facilility Improvements SUM 5259,750.00 Activity Activity Matrix/Citation Nat Objective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 12 Boys&Girls Club- 03D 570.201(c) LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Availability/Accessibility 16300 $259,750.00 $0.00 Improvements/Removal of Architectural Barriers GoalStratObj: 2 Community,neighborhood&economic development StrategyDesc: Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80%of AMI. Table3Desc: CDBG funds are requested for facility and safety improvements at the Boys&Girls Club Main Branch.Improvements include replac existing blacktop which is cracked and degraded, install additional safety lighting on the front and rear of the building,and re-engineer front step to include ADA accessible ramp, sidewalk access and clear crossing areas are also included. If funds are available, utility expansion for teen services dedicated space. Tuesday,June 9,2020 Page 3 of 4 0006 Code Enforcement SUM ,8'100,000.00 Activity Activity MatrixXitation Nat Objective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 13 Code Enforcement Officer 15 570.202(c) LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Sustainability 500 $100,000.00 $220,000.00 GoalStratObj: 1 Increase and preserve affordable housing choices StrategyDesc: Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock.(Support acquisition or rehabilitation,code enforement,energy efficiency improvements,or new construction in targeted neighborhoods.) Table3Desc: CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for one of five code enforcement officers to help bring approximately 500 properies into compliance with City codes.Code enforcement encourages property owners to maintain housing units to minimum property standards and improves neighborhood appearance in primarily low to moderate income neighborhoods(Census Tracts 201,202,203,204). 0007 Community Infrastructure SUM ,8400,000.00 Activity Activity MatrixXitation Nat Objective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 14 Pasco Neighborhood 03L 570.201(c) LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Availability/Accessibility 30080 $400,000.00 $5.00 Business District Improvements GoalStratObj: 2 Community,neighborhood&economic development StrategyDesc: Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly by improving streets and sidewalk systems. Table3Desc: CDBG funds are requested for pedestrian safety and disability access improvements to downtown Pasco Nieghborhood Business District in the Vicinity of 4th and Lewis Streets between 2nd and 4th,and Clark and Columbia. 0008 Neighborhood Revitalization SUM ,8200,000.00 Activity Activity Matrix/Citation Nat Objective Obj Outcome Proposed Requested NonCDBG 16 SECTION 108-DEBT 19F 570.206 LMA 570.208(a)(1) SLE Availability/Accessibility 30080 $200,000.00 $0.00 REPAYMENT GoalStratObj: 2 Community,neighborhood&economic development StrategyDesc: Support the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and supporting public facilities that serve low-and moderate-income neighborhoods and households. Table3Desc: CDBG funds are requested for continuing the multi-year Peanuts Park restoration project Phase 3 design documents.Funds are used to redesign the community park which includes the Farmers Market Pavilion,construction includes replacement of existing curb,gutter,sidewalk,accessibility improvements, and replacement of aging water/sewer lines. ,81,828,750.00 $1,255,527.97 Tuesday,June 9,2020 Page 4 of 4 i RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-2-7 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BENTON & FRANKLIN COUNTIES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - COVI1)I9 TEEN PROGRAM, MAIN BRANCH FACILITY # Assessment Question Yes No N/A Score 1. Is the Subreci ient new to the CDBG Program? 3 2. Is this a new activity for the subrecipient? V0 Z a. Has this activity been completed 0 1 successfully in prior years? b. Have performance goals been met in prior 0 1 years? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 0 inex erienced? 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service Economic Development 2 Acquisition 1 Planning/infrastructure/facilities 0 8. Does your project involve construction/ 3 0 renovation? a. Do you own the property? 0 1 b. Do you have construction contract management experience? 0 1 10. Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: 0-5 points LOW RISK 16-9 oints MEDIUM RISK 10-15 points HIGH RISK 15+ points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK Z CP( 0��b REQUEST $ 50,000 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $464,052 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 03D — Youth Centers National Objective: LMC Goal/Strategy: 3 / 3.2 C - 2021 - 2 - 7 Alloc./priority = 132 AVERAGE Project Title: Boys & Girls Club - COVID19 Teen Eligible YES / NO Program, Main Branch facility Perf. Goal 300 People Assisted NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: Boys & Girls Club of Benton & OK on terms current grant? YES / NO Franklin Counties RISK FACTOR: REVIEWER: Comments concerns & questions: vt ' u -e- Activity Category: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES U NO❑ 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES NO[] 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES 0i NO[] 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES NO[:] 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES NO[:] 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES NO[:] 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES ©` NOF 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ NOD' Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES ❑ NO❑ 9. Application form is complete? YES ©``NO❑ Additional information needed?Date requested_ 10. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/Audits/Other YES ❑ NO❑ Date received _Follow-up Action__ IL Application addresses a national objective? YES ❑ NO[—] LMC, 570.208(a)(2) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed ✓ Nature&Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income persons benefit requirements will be met? YES ❑ NO❑ Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response , p ✓ Census ract No. ) VW) ll� %Benefit to low income�� Z7 Client files V 1 Presumed benefit or nature and location Information provided by: � J 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010—2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 3/3.2 Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK B2 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES (2'NO[:] If yes,indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 03D Youth Centers 570.201(c) 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity)does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? / YES U' NOR r 17. Does the proposed activity(or applicant) involve COMPLEX,or HIGH RISK,involving a level of technical assistance, which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES [' NO❑ If response is YES, identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, __project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, __applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, applicant is a new organization, activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: 18. Risk Assessment Factor: LOW ❑ MEDIUM O HIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2. 2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date OBJECTID GEOID Source geoname Stusab CountynarT State County Tract Blckgrp Low Lowmod Lmmi Lowmodun Lowmod_pct 205752 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20100 3 345 945 1095 1365 69.23 205755 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 1 1155 1380 1445 1590 86.79 205756 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou Franklin Co 53 21 20200 2 455 1285 1630 2480 51.81 205757 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 3 1200 1405 1995 2075 67.71 205758 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20300 1 815 1220 2125 2350 51.91 205760 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20300 3 1285 1920 2180 2610 73.56 205761 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 1 965 1155 1220 1660 69.58 205762 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 2 285 535 710 855 62.57 205763 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 3 1610 2230 2970 3210 69.47 205764 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou Franklin Co 53 21 20400 4 85 235 255 390 60.26 205765 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou Franklin Co 53 21 20400 5 1010 1320 1585 1585 83.28 205766 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 6 295 790 1270 1315 60.08 9505 18480 a - F i '"`''•`' �Yr;. A � : .. try` a,^' X,. v B .Yr VIA X -jr f r 6 a. ALL . ,. �► •+t tl` e 71. 3_ 1;. ..'E �cuvf 13'i�co Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant Boys& Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties Address 801 N 18th Ave Pasco, WA 99301 Project Name Teen Services—COVID Impact Contact Person Brian Ace Telephone 509-543-9980 Email Brian.acePgreatclubs.org Federal Tax ID# 91-1673327 DUNS# 090886094 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $50,000.00 Leverage _$464,052.47 1. Describe your project and its proposed location, including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The Boys&Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties (BGCBFC) is committed to empowering all young people,especially those who need us most,to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens. Since 1996, BGCBFC has helped thousands of local children claim great futures through our award- winning programs and life-changing mentorships.We currently offer 27 Club sites throughout our region serving over 4,400 youth ages 0-18 years each year.Consistent with our values of Respect, Integrity, Stewardship,and Passion for Youth;we provide a broad range of programs and activities focused on our priority outcomes of Academic Success, Healthy Lifestyles, and Good Character and Citizenship. The Boys&Girls Club has been blessed to operate our services out of a City owned building since 1999. Since that time, we have become a meaningful part of the service framework that allows youth to reach their full potential. The Main Branch serves approximately 200 youth each day,with about 30-40 of those youth being I teens from the surrounding neighborhood and key outreach areas in central Pasco. In spring of 2020, as our community was being impacted by the reality of COVID-19,we saw a drastic change to our funding model. Neighborhood based Clubs, like the Main Branch in Pasco,are financially supported through donations, public support, and revenue from licensed childcare operations. This balanced model has allowed us to sustain our work for the past 20 years. However,COVID-19 has drastically changed the financial outlook for Clubs. Donations are expected to be much reduced for the next 12 months, especially in light of the cancelling of fundraising events. Additionally,social distancing and business closures have created an environment where licensed childcare does not generate revenue to support the Main Branch, but is instead draining resources. We are requesting CDBG funds to support the Teen Program at the Main Branch facility located at 801 N. 18th Ave. This site serves more than 30 teens each day,with an annual membership of over 300 teens each year. 93%of our members are youth of color, and over 50%live in single parent households. More than 90%of the youth we serve at the Main Branch qualify for free and reduced lunch through the Pasco School District, 2021 CDBG Application-Public Service Project 1 Teen services provide a positive and supportive environment for local youth,with a focus on mentoring, prevention programs, career exploration, and academic success. College visits and leadership programs are signature components of this program. We are committed to ensuring that teens have dedicated facilities and dedicated staff that increases their sense of belonging and ownership,while ensuring safety and supervision. Our staff are committed to developing developmental relationships with youth,ensuring that they have the support they need to reach their great futures. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics, demographics or other factual information. As mentioned above, the Main Branch serves close to 200 youth each day during afterschool hours. Specifically,the teen program serves more than 30 teens each day,with an annual membership of over 300 teens each year. 93%of our members are youth of color,and over 50%live in single parent households. More than 90%of the youth we serve at the Main Branch qualify for free and reduced lunch through the Pasco School District. The Tri-Cities Gang Assessment states that the top reasons that local youth join gangs include protection,to make friends,to belong, and to make money.The assessment recommends a holistic approach to addressing community gang problems that includes prevention,intervention and suppression. Boys& Girls Clubs are the opposite of a gang, though we provide many of the benefits that gang members are searching for.At the Club, we provide youth a sense of belonging,usefulness,influence,and competence. This is our Youth Development Strategy. Criminal street gangs provide these same opportunities to youth, but in a way that damages the framework of our society rather than building it up. The Main Branch is a place where youth find a place to belong and make friends. it is a place where children, teens, and their families can rest assured knowing they are safe and protected.The Club is a resource to the community, offering positive and empowering programs at a cost of no more than$20 per year. Our Clubs have a history of changing the trajectory of at-risk youth by engaging them in impactful and empowering programs. The Boys &Girls Club is a lot more than a safe,supervised location,though that is an important part of who we are. We do not just want to provide Pasco youth with a place to go—we also want to encourage them to grow and flourish in life.When children and teens visit our Main Branch,they are provided with the tools and relationships needed to excel academically, lead a healthy life and grow into a productive and caring citizen. Academic Success means that we are committed to keeping our Club members on track to graduate.We help them every day with their homework and work hard to get them back in school if they drop out.We are helping teen members prepare for college,trade school, military or employment. Healthy lifestyles means encouraging our youth to take care themselves. Modeling and teaching healthy lifestyles is important at the Club. Our youth members learn to eat healthy and stay active through fun activities, as well as make healthy lifestyle choices to protect their futures. Good Character and Citizenship is teaching our kids that they can make a difference in their community. We believe in them and, because of this,we hope they will begin to believe in themselves. Our Club members will be active in the community as volunteers and become leaders in their school and/or social circles. Central to all activities are relationships with positive and caring adults.Our team of supportive professionals will be there to walk beside these children and teens.They will empower them daily to be the best they can be. Our Club members will always have an advocate and mentor, regardless of where they come from. 2021 CDBG Application -Public Service Project 2 Studies from the Institute for Social Research and School of Public Health at the University of Michigan show that every dollar invested in Boys&Girls Club generates$12.30 of positive economic impacts in our local community. 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs(Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 2 Strategy#t 7 Objective#t 3 Outcome#i 2 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority ❑ B.Average Priority ® C. Low Priority ❑ D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: This specific proposal is in regards to Teen Services at our Main Branch in Pasco. Although we have submitted a capital grant to reduce barriers to access(high priority)the public service proposal for Teen programs is clearly a social service project to address community needs by assisting disadvantaged youth. 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a, b,c,d) a. ❑ You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other: Describe C. ❑ Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ® Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map (separate page)showing the location of the project and service area.Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address) and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: 801 N. 18`h Ave Boundaries: Census Tract 020200&020400 Block Groups 202—Block Group 2 & 3 Tract(s)## (s)## 204—Block Group 1, 2, 3&6 2021 CDBG Application -Public Service Project 3 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example, how many unduplicated persons will be served, how many homes assisted,how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates —the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. Public Service—People/Housing—Households .Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households `Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses .Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost 1"Quarter 150 Youth $83.33 $12,500 j 2nd Quarter 50 Youth $62.50 $12,500 311 Quarter 25 Youth $55.55 $12,500 4 I Quarter 75 Youth $41.66 $12,500 TOTAL 300 Youth $41.66 $50,000 7. Of the total "number served" listed in the above table,please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30%median income 189 Number of clients below 50%median income 242 Number of clients below 80%median income 279 Number of elderly clients 0 Number of minority clients 279 Number of disabled clients 30 Total Pasco residents served 300 I 8. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 2018 2016 I. Kennewick 0 0 0 0 Pasco 0 0 0 0 Richland 0 0 0 0 9. What impact will your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? The Teen Program at the Main Branch will have a clear impact on the Pasco community based on the delivery of life changing programs and mentorship to teens in our community. Relevant statistics on Club impact include the following: • A recent Harris Survey found that 52%of Club Alumni say that their Club experience "saved their life". • Club members outperform their peers in areas such as grade progression, attendance,graduation, and reduction in risk behaviors. • Teens who stay in the Club as they get older seem better able to resist high-risk behaviors than their peers nationally. • A study in partnership with OSPI of more than 10,200 Club members in Washington found that our j members were 36%less likely to be chronically absent when compared to students across the state. • A study conducted at the University of Michigan in 2015 found that every$1 invested in Boys&Girls Club returns $9.60 in current and future earnings and cost-savings to local communities. Success of this program will be measured through youth engagement,specifically measures like Average Daily Attendance(ADA), Frequency of Attendance, and grade progression. 2021 CDBG Application-Public Service Project 4 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs (80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 50% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 1 96,500 96,800 103,000 Effective June 1,2019 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: $48,085.60 $338,169.87 Federal Grants, $386,255.47 Fundraising, Licensed Childcare Salaries OPERATIONS: Fundraising Rent/Lease Utilities $4,239.00 $38,151.00 $42,390.00 Supplies $7,675.40 $68,898.60 $76,574.00 CONSTRUCTION: Engineering Fundraising Materials $2,400.00 $2,400.00 Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: 1 Non-Personnel Fundraising Expenses $1,614.00 $1,614.00 Janitorial& $13,410.00 $13,410.00 Admin Training $320.00 $320.00 Misc Expenses $1,089.00 $1,089.00 TOTAL $60,000 $464,052.47 $524,052.47 2021 CDBG Application -Public Service Project 5 12. Are the above"other sources"of funds secured? Please describe: At this point, for 2021,we do not have funding commitments for the above funds. However, we are committed to increased fundraising efforts to ensure continued operation of our traditional Clubs in both during and in the aftermath of the COVID crisis. CDBG funding for 2021 will help to balance out fundraising and revenue losses to ensure sustained operations moving forward. 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? We are committed to sustaining and growing the Teen Program at the Main Branch, even in the financial challenges post COVID. However,without an investment by the City of Pasco that may be limited. We will continue to invest in private fundraising as a sustainability mechanism for this work,and will work diligently to protect services for vulnerable youth. However, without an increase in community support,our ability to deliver our mission and services may be limited. 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) Although public support for our work is always welcome and needed,we do feel that the economy will recover in upcoming years and will once again allow for fundraising activity and profitability in licensed childcare. We anticipate that 2022 will be a more sustainable environment for services than 2021 will be. 15. Check yes "or no for each of the following questions; Assessment Question Yes No7l 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? ❑ ® 1 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ® ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? ® ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? ❑ 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ IR 5. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? I Li ® 11 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? a. Do you own the property? ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ® ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service 3) Economic Development ❑ 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation, etc.) ❑ 5) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks, etc.) ❑ 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure (curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water,etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization (Describe): ❑ 2021 CDBG Application- Public Service Project 6 Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete, late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre- award costs. All applications will become the property of the City, and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings, items or samples. SUBMITTED BY: Signature of Authorized Agency Official 1" 1,9N /--u: E C U1-211 Printed Name&Title Dat ?-- 2021 CDBG Application - Public Service Project 7 Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 CDBG Program Year Public Service Special Attachment#1 Complete this page if you are continuing a "Public Service"activity 1. When was your agency organized/formed? Boys&Girls Club was formed in 1996 2. Is your agency a Washington State municipal or non-profit corporation and/or a faith Yes ® No ❑ based organization? 3. Does your agency have federal IRS non-profit status? Yes ® No ❑ 4. List any required accreditation your agency/staff must have in order to do business: In addition to normal business compliance for the City of Pasco,we also adhere to the following accreditation processes: • Washington State Early Achievers • Weikart Center "Youth Program Quality Initiative" • Annual Safety Assessment through Boys& Girls Clubs of America • Annual program assessment through the Boys&Girls Clubs of America • Annual youth experience survey(National Youth Outcome Initiative)through the Boys& Girls Clubs of America. S. To what other agencies have you applied for funding and what commitments have you obtained for this purpose? Teen Programming at the Main Branch is currently partially supported through the following funders. ` 6. Will CDBG assist in leveraging or matching other funding? Yes ® No ❑ f 7. Is this the first year for the program? Yes ❑ No a. Year began: 2013 8. If you receive funding for 2021, how will our program be funded in the future? Y g Y P g Following resumption of normal economic operations once the COVID crisis is past us, normal fundraising and childcare operations are presumed to take place. However,we would love for the City to consider a long-term investment of non-CDBG funds into Boys& Girls Club services in order to sustain and grow this critical work. 9. If you received CDBG funding in 2020 and are requesting increased funding,please quantify the increase in service that you will provide during 2021 and explain new demand or unmet need in the community for the increase in service. NA 2021 CDBG Application- Public Service Project 8 2020 CDBG — Service Vicinity Map r .f ri "i-i T*: jai sie.� f.h".;.3Y�.+a .,.el= i �pw�r'. .., � •-.r""• 7,:"u%"'y 1w; TIM . + I , ai s � ���;�'� < '�.`.:`"i�,�.; ��. � .�+�+.--yrk�t��� t ��'�:t6:� bA N�� ° .'<s-a� 11r,,y�, � �; e.; �•• ��� u�,• �. ;�� ,L,�;` aey,.�.� ,-3• �r;'S t'„� ^f.;i�, id-tZ��,_�. � �fp•'� .Pppx}� �:'. e....'�r- � 6''�� `,�.• -,�y E„}r � .rr t uf. °4:fi two ��fe `� Wx � ,�.�, ,y},k+'� y,� �+ , +•,°' w k" F �'�' ,. ,Z J* -" M } ..� w v d °f' +."q......-.z ,,H+,••�f f n.,q».�, 3 �A` t +aa + t'^ m � .® . � ''3 `t k3 r, ,n.., r .. ,.mac u i .�s z�i# :, � � �_.-r r Vw.-.•.,,r, ' � G.:� pF'.•�e• � F' . WE �h}f kif�"*y � =r ` •� ,� 'Dr+ R�' t tax _ ,'�[') 9 as-�++•. w �, ,� r .;,r , �• �` '4`+r+4�'� � ji t � � �{� �� �; _rte ,� � e �. 4W It OTI a 'Ss q }� Fj$ 4 t: • , ' 3.:. , a, .• .� +• ', ', �' a:�'few,. "ik�•��•��" � � -k;.�.+f ,ri .' F ,.�a 1- � ,.,��. 1. it rW; • *�- - • • �"' mak$. Y �`'++�� ��� ..:...�� a+ ti RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-2-15 THE ARC OF THE TRI-CITIES ARC THERAPUTIC RECREATION SCHOLARSHIP FUND # Assessment Question Yes No N/A Score 1. Is the Subreci fent new to the CDBG Program? 3 0 (� 2. Is this a new activity for the subrecipient? 2 0 d a. Has this activity been completed � 1 successfully in prior years? b. Have performance goals been met in prior OO 1 1 years? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 findings? l 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 �0 inexperienced? 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service CD Economic Development 2 Acquisition 1 Planning/infrastructure/facilities 0 8. Does your project involve construction/ 3 renovation? a. Do you own the property? 0 1 b. Do you have construction contract 4J- management experience? 0 1 10. Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: 0-5 oints LOW RISK -9 points MEDIUM RISK 10-15 points HIGH RISK 15+points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK Lm L 3 Z- �2� REQUEST $ 9,000 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $ 20,000 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 05B — Handicapped Services National Objective: LMC Goal/Strategy: 3 / 3.2 C - 2021 - 2 - 15 Alloc./priority = 62 AVERAGE Project Title: Arc Theraputic Recreation Eligible YES / NO Scholarship Fund Perf. Goal 20 People Assisted NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: The Arc of the Tri-Cities OK on terms current grant? YES / NO RISK FACTOR: REVIEWER: Comments concerns uestions: Activity Category: Public Services 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES EZ NO[:] 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES [g,'NO[:] 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES ED- NO[:] 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES R NO❑ 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES a NOD 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES a NO❑ 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES ❑' NO❑ 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES [:1 NOE]' Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES ©" NO❑ 9. Application form is complete? YES [I]-NO❑ Additional information needed?Date requested 10. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/Audits/Other YES ❑ NO❑ Date received __Follow-up Action ____ 11. Application addresses a national objective? YES NO[:] LMC, 570.208(a)(2) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature&Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income persons benefit requirements will be met? YES PNO❑ Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response Census Tract No. %Benefit to low income_ Client files Presumed bebenefit�t or nature and location Information provided by:_ AV _ 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010—2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: _3/3.2 Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK B2 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES E2"NO[—] If yes,indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 05B Handicapped Services 570.201 e 16. If applicant is new (and is proposing a public service activity) does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? YES ❑ NOF-1 17. Does the proposed activity(or applicant) involve COMPLEX, or HIGH RISK,involving a level of technical assistance, which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES ❑ NOE' If response is YES,identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: __applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, —project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, __applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, __applicant is a new organization, activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: �I 18. Risk Assessment Factor: LOWOf MEDIUM ❑ HIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2, 2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date City-fL�asca Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant The Arc of Tri-Cities Address 1455 Fowler, Richland WA Project Name Therapeutic Recreation/Health and Wellness Contact Person Donna Tracy Telephone 509-783-1131 ext 105 Email ..donnat@arcoftricities.com Federal Tax ID# 91-6056360 DUNS# 834925293 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested 9000.00 Leverage 20000 1. Describe your project and its proposed location,including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving, and why the project is needed. e Arc of Tri-Cities proposes to provide individuals with developmental disabilities who reside in the City of Pasco Therapeutic Recreational/Health and Wellness opportunities. Activities will occur in the City of Pasco pool,parks,and facilities,including Pasco School District facilities.Participants that will be accessing this funding will be 18 and over who have a developmental disability. Activities include Partners N Pals summer day amps, which give families a break and reduce isolation for the individual with the disability.Evening and day ctivities that include cooking classes,art classes,social skill practice activities,and community participation. The Arc access over 300 volunteers to support people to participate and receive the personal care and cognitive assistance needed to reduce the barriers in the community. The Arc of Tri-Cities has been in the community for over 65 years.It is a membership organization consisting of amilies and individuals with developmental disabilities who want to be included and participate in their Rp nity.The Arc has been serving over 120 individuals and theirfamilies living in Pasco and has reached our acity to serve the additional requests for service. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. Individuals with developmental disabilities are recognized nationally to face community barriers,including vulnerability, social isolation, and poverty-level income.Nationally,they also are recognized to be below 80% he average income.The Arc helps families and individuals by offering support to access the community,connect '/other people,reduce barriers to the community. Adults with develo Dental disabilities have the following barriers 1:1 E] 1:85%adult with developmental disabilities are unemployed 82%live with their families 10%are waiting for services from the state Pasco School District has the la est Special Education De artment out of the Tri-Cities 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 1 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs(Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal#i 3 Strategy#1 2 Objective#! 1 Outcome#! 2 _ 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority .overage Priority® C. Low Priority D. No Priority Explain how your application satisfies that priority: Severely disabled adults 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 1 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a,b,c,d) a. D,You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. LIJ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons 1Severelydisabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other: Describe C. ❑ Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ❑ Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map(separate page)showing the location of the project and service area. Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address)and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: Boundaries: Census Block Groups Tract(s)# (s)# 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example,how many unduplicated persons will be served,how many homes assisted,how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate yourestimates —the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. `Public Service—People/Housing—Households `Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households `Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses `Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost V Quarter 2,d Quarter 10 Per Person 450.00 4500.00 w/Disability 3'd Quarter 10 Per Person 450.00 4500.00 w/Disability 4th Quarter TOTAL 7. Of the total"number served"listed in the above table,please categorize your clientele by the following criteria; Number of clients below 30%median income 20 Number of clients below 50%median income Number of clients below 80%median income Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients Number of disabled clients 20 Total Pasco residents served 20 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 6 8. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 2018 2016 Kennewick 22500 22500 22000 20000 Pasco 9000 9000 0 0 Richland 11500 11000 11000 8827 9. What impact will your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? The Arc of Tri-Cities is a saftey net in our community to offer health and wellness support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. We will measure impact through surveys. The Arc offers accessibility and supports for health and wellness during this challenging time of the Cornavirus. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs(80%is the maximum eligible).These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 ! 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 50% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,7001 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 96,500 96,800 103,000 Effective June 1,2019 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. list any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds.Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: 20,000 DSHS Developmental 20,000 Salaries Disabilities Pasco SD OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Engineering Materials Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: 9,000 scholarship 9000 (Describe) assist i TOTAL 9000 20000 29000 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 7 12. Are the above 'other sources"of funds secured?Please describe: We receive other funding supports to help designated students from the Pasco School District. United Way and DDA dollars.No other funds at this time has been secured for 2021 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? We have to limit#i served 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-prof it organization.) The purpose of the funds is to provide scholarships for individuals and families who meet low-income status. These funds are not used to maintain operation of our organization.Without these funds, families with low- income status would not be able to participate. 15. Check"yes"or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes Not. 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? n 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? ❑ 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? R� 5. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ❑ a. Do you own the property? ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project?(Choose one) 1)Administration 2) Public Service 3)Economic Development ❑ 4)Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation,etc.) ❑ 5) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks,etc.) ❑ 6)Code Enforcement ❑ 7)Community Infrastructure(curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water,etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization(Describe): i 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 8 Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete, late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre- award costs.All applications will become the property of the City, and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings,items or samples. S ED BY: CC Signature of Authorized Agency Offic' Printed Name&Title d� �I s2y2v Date 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 9 Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 CDBG Program Year Public Service Special Attachment#1 Complete this page if you are continuing a `Public Service"activity 1. When was your agency organized/formed? 1952 2. Is your agency a Washington State municipal or non-profit corporation and/or a faith Yes r�r No ❑ based organization? 3. Does your agency have federal IRS non-profit status? Yes t� No ❑ 4. List any required accreditation your agency/staff must have in order to do business: 5. To what other agencies have you applied for funding and what commitments have you obtained for this purpose? United Way and Pasco School District 6. Will CDBG assist in leveraging or matching other funding? Yes J No ❑ 7. Is this the first year for the program? Yes ❑ No Nj a. Year began: 1965 8. If you receive funding for 2021, how will your program be funded in the future? The Arc of Tri-Cities looks to the community to ensure opportunities exist for individuals with developmental disabilities 9. If you received CDBG funding in 2020 and are requesting increased funding,please quantify the increase in service that you will provide during 2021 and explain new demand or unmet need in the community for the increase in service. Families do not have daycare options for children over 12 years of age and few daycares will accept kids who require a higher supervision level and personal care.The Arc recruits volunteers and staffing to provide the support needed to participate.This n ing meets an ongoing gap in our community 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 1 Map : t • �+ s r 1 .YY � � sM� •�.It �. s At;as op �, ;,' •� xsts�rr y � , � '�wwa.na<+r+s«,<w.xwaY...,d�...+ - Vii. R�J M �✓r Y Yr 4 , t .�,.wr.r-.�l+r:....-..n.,.........sn..:..w..:�.a._...v�.✓.....+s.aarrw..x�...a..:_..y..w::�..w..:a�.w_.,�:.w..:»..s..,..r....>..........r...:. --�-..:.a.:.:uaoxwaw.....«..."..::rarua;.u:w..+...au...w.._..�c — wn.wrx.wx.Astlwrw+ RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-3-IB DO«INTONA'N PASCO DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-SK PASCO SPECIALTY KITCHEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE # Assessment Question Yes No N/A Score 1. Is the Subreci fent new to the CDBG Program? 3 0 2. Is this a new activity for the subrecipient? 2 a. Has this activity been completed 00 1 Q successfully in prior years? b. Have performance goals been met in prior j� 1 1 years? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 0 findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 inexperienced? 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 0 corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service 3 Economic Development Acquisition Planning/infrastructure/facilities 0 8. Does your project involve construction / 3 0 r renovation? a. Do you own the property? 0 b. Do you have construction contract management experience? 0 1 10. Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: u _ 0-5 oints LOW RISK 6-9 points MEDIUM RISK 10-15 points HIGH RISK f ; ztn a 15+points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK E,n4la 3 C:� T REQUEST $140,000 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $ 54,838 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 18B — ED Technical Assistance (51% LMJ) National Objective: LMJ C - 2021 - 3 - 9 Goal/Strategy: 2 /2.1 Project Title: Pasco Specialty Kitchen Technical Alloc./priority = A2 HIGH Assistance Eligible YES / NO Perf. Goal 15 Jobs Applicant: Downtown Pasco Development NEW/EXISTING? Authority-SK OK on terms current grant? YES / NO RIRK FAr.TOR- REVIEWER:Comments,concerns & questions: Activity Category: Economic Development 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES ❑r NO[:] 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES E? NO❑ 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES a NO[:] 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES [I-NO[:] 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES [D-NO❑ 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES ®�NO[:] 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES U'NOF-1 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ NOD- Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES ❑ NO®`` 9. Application form is complete? YES [j�-NOD Additional information needed?Date requested ?o 0. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/ udits.! er YES ❑ NOD Date received _Follow-up Action 11. Application addresses a national objective? YES 2NOD LMJ, 570.208(a)(4) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature& Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income pefsons benefit requirements will be met? YES E] NO❑ Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response Census Tract No. %Benefit to low income___ Client files Presumed benefit or (mature and location Information provided by: P 0 VI 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010—2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 2/2.1 Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-income residents. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK A2 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES 0�11NO❑ If yes,indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 18B ED Technical Assistance (51% LMJ) .570.203(b) 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity) does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? YES ❑ NO[:] /A; 17. Does the proposed activity(or applicant)involve COMPLEX, or HIGH RISK,involving a level of technical assistance, which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES ❑ NO[a If response is YES,identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, __applicant is a new organization, activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: 18. Risk Assessment Factor:_ LOW [a' MEDIUM ❑ HIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2. 2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date Leasco t - Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant Downtown Pasco Development Authority Address 110 S.4thAvenue, Pasco, WA Project Name Pasco Specialty Kitchen Technical Assistance Contact Person Gustavo Gutierrez Gomez Telephone 509-528-8131 Email ggomez@downtownpasco.com Federal Tax ID# 45-3169348 DUNS# 078888852 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $140,000 (EN + PI) Leverage $27,500.00+ Private 1. Describe your project and its proposed location, including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The CDBG Technical Assistance grant allows PSK to serve low, low-moderate and above individuals interested in starting a food business, whether catering,manufacturing,baking or mobile vending.These micro-enterprises foster economic development by creating jobs in Pasco and the surrounding community. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. PSK is the only commercial kitchen in the area that is both a commissary kitchen as well as a USDA certified facility.This allows PSK to be a viable option to all types of food service entrepreneurs. PSK is also a facility able to produce and sell its products online.According to Forbes magazine,smaller start- ups with less than 20 employees have a higher failure rate in the first 1-3 years then the national average which already has a high failure rate in that same window.This number is further exacerbated when a 3- month reserve is not available. PSK has a target of helping the very people that meet all of these criteria and our 3-year renewable membership helps them to keep costs low. This allows us to serve the Pasco community which has a higher percentage of low to moderate income individuals. According to Food Truck Stats, "In general,it costs between$28,000 and$114,000 to get a food truck business up and running".The cost to operate the same business at PSK,will cost them a fraction of those amounts, between $600 to$9,600 a year on average. This allow us to help micro enterprises to build a path for success,with the goal of creating new jobs and a sustainable source of income while growing their business and finding a brick and mortar space in the near future. 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs (Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 2 Strategy# 2.1 Objective# 3 Outcome# 1 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 1 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority ❑ B.Average Priority ® C. Low Priority ❑ D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: PSK creates jobs for individuals with low and low-moderate income. 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a, b,c,d) a. ❑ You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other: Describe C. ® Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ❑ Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map(separate page)showing the location of the project and service area. Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address) and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: Boundaries: Downtown Revitalization Area Census Block Groups Tract(s)#I (s)## 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example,how many unduplicated persons will be served,how many homes assisted,how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates —the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. *Public Service—People/Housing—Households *Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households *Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses *Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost v,Quarter 3 Jobs $9333 $28,000 211 Quarter 5 $9333 $47,667 3`d Quarter 5 $9333 $47,667 4 1 Quarter 1 2 1 $9333 1 $16,666 TOTAL 1 15 $140,000 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 2 7. Of the total "number served" listed in the above table, please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30% median income Number of clients below 50% median income Number of clients below 80% median income 8 Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients Number of disabled clients Total Pasco residents served 15 S. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 1 2018 2016 Kennewick Pasco $167,105 $57,500 $79,105 57,750 Richland 9. What impact will your project have in the community? Howwill you measure your success? LOur goal is to continue to be the go-to commercial incubator kitchen and serve as a launching pad for food start-ups and entrepreneurs in our community. Our success will be measured by creating the jobs projected in 2020 and new and current PSK clients that remain sustainable. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs (80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 50% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 j 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 96,500 96,800 103,000 Effective June 1,2019 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 3 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: Salaries $67,500 $32,500 Program fees; PSK $100,000 Operating Budget OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease $72,500 $22,338 Grants,private $94,838 sourcing, loans Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Engineering Materials Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: (Describe) Program Development Costs TOTAL $140,000.00 $54,838.00 $194,838 12. Are the above"other sources" of funds secured? Please describe: A portion of the funds come directly from program and usage fees and is a forecastable knowable number.A portion comes from general fundraising that has been consistent over a five year span. 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? We would have to offer a reduction of services that have been paramount to our recent membership growth. We would have to look at updating pricing structures that would eliminate us as an option for some potential clients, especially low to moderate income clients. PSK would also have to look at a reduction in staff time which would mean reducing programs that provide economic stimulus to both PSK members and the local community. 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) f We would look to alter our client pricing structure and look to private and corporate funding resources. 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 4 IS. Check"Yes"or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes No 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? I ❑ 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? ❑ a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ® ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? ® ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? ❑ 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ 5. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? ❑ Z 11 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ❑ ❑ a. Do you own the property? ❑ ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ❑ ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service ❑ 3) Economic Development 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation, etc.) ❑ 5) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks, etc.) ❑ 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure (curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water, etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization (Describe): 1 1 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 5 Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete, late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre- award costs. All applications will become the property of the City, and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings, items or samples. SUBMITTED BY: cl".5'T Q L-� l:Y!E� Signature of Authorized Agency Official Gustavo Gutierrez Gomez Executive Director Printed Name&Title 5/21/2020 Date 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 6 Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 CDBG Program Year Economic Development Special Attachment#2 Complete this page if you are proposing to provide an "Economic Development"project 1. We are a: ® non-profit ❑ for-profit ❑ faith-based 2. Describe how your project will make the most effective use of CDBG funds? L oal is to drive down the budgetary per job costs by focusing on better client screening,enhancing our y to offer more direct to customer sales opportunities and actively canvasing our local community to e we are placing businesses that meet a community based need. 3. Is there leverage of other funds? We actively pursue grants,community contributions and private dollars to fund our budget.We also leverage kitchen usage, storage and event fees to create a homogenous budget. 4. How will you assure that CDBG funds are not substituted for other non-federal investment? FWe'11 adhere to CDBG guidelines and stipulations. 5. How will you demonstrate that your project will meet the minimum federal CDBG threshold of providing one full time equivalency (FTE)job (40 hours per week) per$35,000 of CDBG funds,or provide goods or services to residents of a low-moderate income(LMI)area,such that the number of LMI persons residing in the area served amounts to at least one LMI person per$350 of CDBG investment,and that at least more than 51% of the total FTE jobs created will be filled by very low, low and moderate-income persons? How will you make sure that the jobs will be made available to very low, low and moderate-income persons? We'll require income verification of potential employees of PSK and/or use approved Work Source agencies that will provide that information. 6. Is your request being used for business incentives or for recruitment of a business from another city or state? If yes,describe in detail. Are the proposed jobs existing positions or are they new? No I 7. Show the number of new permanent jobs projected to be created (seasonal jobs do not count): Job Title #FTE Jobs Created #Part Time FTE # FTE Jobs Filled by #Part Time FTE hours LMI hours Filled by LMI Food Service Wrkr 2 40 40 Food Service Wrkr 2 120 1 80 Food Service Wrkr 1 2 1 120 1 1 80 Food Service Wrkr 1 40 140 7 320 2 1 240 ••LMI jobs refer to any job that can be held by a person with no advanced training or education beyond high school —oro job that the business agrees to hire unqualified persons for and provide training.Income documentation is required of the first individual that fills the position created by this project. 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 7 Attachment "A" Allocation Policy Community Development Block Grant The Planning Commission has the responsibility of reviewing applications for Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)funding and making a recommendation to City Council. Using the general direction provided by Council and considering the needs identified in the 2021-2024 Consolidated Plan,the Planning Commission will use this procedure for allocation of CDBG funds. I. Applications will be reviewed for eligibility: A. National Criteria: 1. Project must be an eligible activity under CDBG regulations (24 CFR 570.200) 2. Project must address a national objective (24 CFR 570.208) B. Local Criteria: 1. Applications must be complete and clearly state the scope of the project. 2. Project must address a specific priority objective as identified in the Stratesic Plan(attached). 3. Project must demonstrate ability to be completed within the program year or proposed schedule. 4. Applicant must demonstrate ability to deliver the project. 5. Project must serve City of Pasco residents. II. Eligible projects will be ranked according to the following: A. High Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in visual physical improvements(engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost). a. Projects to reduce barriers for physically impaired person b. Acquisition,construction or improvements to public facility c. Neighborhood preservation and revitalization 2. a. Economic Development projects resulting in creation of jobs B. Average Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in creation or preservation of housing for elderly or special needs population (engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost) 2. Social Service projects to address community needs a. Projects to assist seniors or special needs population b. Projects to assist disadvantaged youth 3. Projects,which consist primarily of salary and benefit expense C. Low Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in preservation of affordable housing through rehabilitation or acquisition/rehabilitation (engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost) 2. Social Service projects which assist in the prevention of homelessness D. No Priority 1. Projects with CDBG as the sole source of funding 2. Projects other than those described above III. The Planning Commission will allocate funds and make a recommendation to Council based on the following: A. Priority rating of the project(allocation policy&strategic plan) B. The value of the project as judged from the Proposal and Presentation (in the best interest of the City) C. Amount of available funds 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance g Attachment"B" Community Priority Needs 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan GOALS&STRATEGIES STRATEGIC PLAN The five-year strategic plan sets the framework for projects and activities in Pasco over the next five years. 1. The need for affordable housing creation,preservation,access and choice. 2. The need for community, neighborhood and economic development. 3. The need for homeless intervention and prevention and supportive public services. GOALS Goal 1: Improve Affordable Housing Opportunities for Lower-Income Individuals and Households Strategy 1. Maximize homeownership opportunities for lower-income and special needs households. Strategy 2. Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock.(Support acquisition or rehabilitation,code enforcement,energy efficiency improvements,or new construction in targeted neighborhoods.) Goal 2: Improve Community Infrastructure,Public Facilities and Local Economies Strategy 1. Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-income residents. Strategy 2. Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. Strategy 3. Support activities that improve the quality of local workforces and prepare lower-income and special needs workers to access living wage jobs. Strategy4. Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80%of area median income. Strategy 5. Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly by improving streets and sidewalk systems. Strategy 6. Access new funding opportunities to revitalize neighborhoods and address other community needs. Strategy 7. Support the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and supporting public facilities that serve low-and moderate- income neighborhoods and households. Strategy 8. Improve parks and recreation facilities in targeted neighborhoods. Strategy 9. Support the beautification of communities by integrating art into public facilities as needed to address local policies. Goal 3: Reduce Homelessness and Support Priority Public Services Strategy 1. Support public services programs that address specific targeted needs that are a barrier to lower-income persons becoming self-sufficient. Strategy 2. Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Strategy 3. Support the development of a crisis response center to provide immediate stabilization and assessment services to persons in crisis, including homeless persons. Strategy 4. Support existing homeless facilities and increase housing resources that assist homeless persons toward housing stability and self-sufficiency. 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 9 OBJECTIVES—OUTCOMES—INDICATORS HUD requires recipients of federal funding to assess the outcomes of the program in question, in orderto better assess the effectiveness of the activity. A Performance Measurement System has been designed to establish and track measurable objectives and outcomes for the CDBG program. There are three key elements to the Performance Measurement System—Objectives,Outcomes and Indicators. All approved applicants will be required to comply with the Performance Measurement System. Determine which one of the three objectives best describes the purpose of the activity/project: Objective 1. Suitable Living Environment—This objective relates to activities that are designed to benefit communities,families,or individuals by addressing issues in their living environments. Objective 2. Decent Housing—This activity typically is designed to cover the wide range of housing possible under CDBG. This objective focuses on housing programs where the purpose of the program is to meet individual family or community needs and not programs where housing is an element of a larger effort, since such programs would be more appropriately reported under Suitable Living Environment. Objective 3. Create Economic Opportunity—This objective applies to the types of activities related to economic development, commercial revitalization or job creation. Determine which Outcome best describes your proposed activity/project: Outcome 1. Improve availability/accessibility—This category applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public facilities, housing,or shelters available or accessible to low/moderate income people,including persons with disabilities. In this category,accessibility does not refer only to physical barriers, but also to making the affordable basics of daily living available and accessible to low/moderate income people where they live. Outcome 2. Improve affordability—This category applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways in the lives of low/moderate income people. It can include the creation or maintenance of affordable housing, basic infrastructure hook-ups,or services such as transportation or day care. Outcome 3. Improve sustainability—This category applies to projects where the activity or activities are aimed at improving communities or neighborhoods, helping to make them livable or viable by providing benefit to persons of low/moderate income or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas through multiple activities or services that sustain communities or neighborhoods. These are the key Indicators that HUD will use to assist in demonstrating benefits that result from the expenditure of CDBG funds. These are for your information only—you do not have to choose an Indicator. • Public facility or infrastructure activities • Public service activities • Geographically targeted revitalization effort • Jobs retained • Commercial facade treatment/rehabs that are not target area based • Number of homeless persons given overnight shelter • Acres of brownfields remediated that are not target area based • Number of beds created in overnight shelter or other emergency housing • New rental units constructed that are affordable,504 accessible,quality • Number of new or existing businesses assisted and the DUNS number of as Energy Star,are occupied by special needs populations etc. the business • Homeownership units constructed,acquired,and/or acquired with • Jobs created for previously unemployed,number that now have access to rehabilitation,numberthat are affordable,how many years affordable, employer sponsored health care,types of jobs created,training provided, 504 accessible,qualify as Energy Star,are occupied by special needs etc. populations,etc. • Owner occupied units rehabilitated or improved that are brought from • Number of households with short-term rental assistance,number of substandard to standard condition, qualify as energy efficient, are now special needs households,number of homeless households,etc. compliant with lead safe housing rules, are accessible for persons with disabilities,are occupied by special needs populations,etc. • Assistance of down payment/closing costs to homebuyers to purchase a • Households that received emergency financial assistance to prevent home, number of first time homebuyers, number who receive housing homelessness,or received emergency legal assistance to prevent counseling homelessness 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 10 2021 CDBG DPDA PSK Technical Assistance 11 RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-3- DOWNTOWN PASCO DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CULTURE SPECIFIC SMALL BUSINESS/MICROENTERPRISE GRANT PRO GAM # Assessment Question Yes N/A Score 1. Is the Subrecipient new to the CDBG Program? 3 0 O 2. Is this a new activity fbr the subrecipient? 2 0 a. Has this activity been completed 0 1 successfully in prior years? 3 b. Have performance goals been met in prior 0 1 17) years? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 inexperienced? 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been l 2 0 corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service 3 Economic Development z Acquisition 1 Planning/infrastructure/facilities 0 8. Does your project involve construction/ 3 0 renovation? a. Do you own the property? 0 b. Do you have construction contractsf p management experience? 0 1 10. E Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: , r r 0-5 points LOW RISK r 6( -9 omts MEDIUM RISK .L fi 10-15 points HIGH RISK 15+points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK P� v h - REQUEST $165,000 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $ 15,000 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 18A— ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Profits National Objective: AAAA �-M7' C - 2021 - 3 - 8 Goal/Strategy: 2 / 2.2 Project Title: Culture Specific Small Alloc./priority = A2 HIGH Business/Microenterprise Grant Eligible YES / NO Progam Perf. Goal 4 Persons Assisted NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: Downtown Pasco Development OK on terms current grant? YES / NO RISK FArTOR- Authority REVIEWER: Comments, concerns &questions: � ' U✓11 i '4-�' Tl,-'e'(.l �Yl N'tU Activity Category: Economic Development 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES [l2' NO[:] 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES ED'NO❑ 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES [a NOD 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES ❑ NOS 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES NO[:] 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES [D NO❑ 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES [' NO[:] 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ NOER Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES ❑ NOD 9. Application form is complete? YES 0 NOD Additional information needed? Date requested liu 010. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/Audits/Other YES ❑ NO❑ Date received _Follow-up Action 11. Application addresses a national objective? YES ❑ NO[:] LMA, 570.208(a)(1) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature& Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income persons benefit requirements will be met? YES ❑ NO[] Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response Census Tract No. %Benefit to low income 1� Client files Presumed benefit or`nature and location Information provided by: 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010–2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 2/2.2 Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK A2 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES [�"NO❑ If yes,indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 18A ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Profits 570.203(b) 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity) does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? YES ❑ NO❑ 17. Does the proposed activity(or applicant)involve COMPLEX, or HIGH RISK,involving a level of technical assistance,which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES ❑ NO[] If response is YES, identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: __applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, __project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, __applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, __applicant is a new organization, —Lzactivity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: 18. Risk Assessment Factor: LOW ❑ MEDIUM[ HIGH El Reviewed by: June 2. 2020 Angela R Pitman, Block Grant Administrator Date CITY OF PASCO 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW — APPENDIX I SERVICE AREA DETERMINATION LMA HUD Activity # Project Title: Culture Specific Small Business/Microenterprise Grant Progam Applicant: Downtown Pasco Development Authority PROPOSED PROJECT: Economic Opportunities..Culture Specific Small Business/Microenterprise Grant Progam,CDBG funds support downtown businesses with facade improvements to increase business flow and area appearance. (Census Tract 202). Location(address): 110 South 4th Avenue Narrative: LMA4-Downtown Revolving Loan Program-Downtown revitalization area defined in Makers Revitalization Plan as Bonneville/14th north west to Tacoma/1st to Columbia Street south east,this area serves the Longfellow and Museum Neighborhoods to the north. Boundary 14th/Sylvester north-west to Tacoma/Columbia south-east. CT201.3,CT202.1 AND.3 (LMISD 6/3/16 4285 LM/5810 LMU 73.8%) Is the area pre-determined?: _ • Police precinct • Fire station 0 School • Other Is the area in a community-based planning or service map? • Library • Parks(specify) • Playground • Pool • Other Does the activity serve only small areas such as a residential neighborhood improvement area which is limited to a few census block groups surrounding the area in which they are located? • Curb,gutter and sidewalk • Streetlights&Trees • Neighborhood Improvement Plan • Revitalization Area a Other Primarily Residential: • Geographic Area(Map) • Percent Residential_____ Proposed Beneficiary of Project_ • Areas Contiguous?__ Factors: • Nature of the Activity • Location of the Activity • Barriers to accessibility • Available Comparable Activities • Fit of Service Area • Commercial Service Areas FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SERVICE AREA When grantee does not have a pre-determined identification of the area served for a given facility or service,it is necessary to determine the service area for qualification under LMA benefit. Service area determination will generally be accepted by HUD unless the grantee-defined area is clearly too small or too large.Factors to be considered in making the determination of the area served are: Nature of the Activity: In determining the boundaries of the area serviced by a facility,its size and how it is equipped need to be considered. Example, a park expected to serve an entire neighborhood cannot be so small or have so little equipment (number of swings, slides, etc.)that it would only be able to serve a handful of persons at any one time. Conversely, a park which contains three ballfields or a ballfield with grandstands cannot reasonably be said to be designed to serve a single neighborhood.The same comparison would apply to the case of assisting a small,two- lane street in a residential neighborhood versus that of an existing arterial four-lane street that may pass through the neighborhood but is clearly used primarily by persons passing through from other areas. What is the Nature of the Activity? Location of the Activity: Where an activity is located will affect its capacity to serve particular area,especially when the location of a comparable activity is considered.A library, for example,cannot reasonably be claimed to benefit an area that does not include the area in which it is located.When a facility is located near the boundary of a particular neighborhood, its service area would be expected to include portions of the adjacent neighborhood as well as the one in which it is locate. (Note that the grantee may carry out activities that are even outside its jurisdiction if it is done in accordance with §570.309.) Is the Activity an appropriate fit for the location?_____________________ Accessibiliry issues: The accessibility of the activity also needs to be considered in defining the area served.For example,if a river or an interstate highway forms a geographic barrier that separates persons residing n an area in a way that precludes them from taking advantage of a facility that is otherwise nearby,that area should not be included in determining the service area. Other limits to accessibility may apply to particular activities. For example,the amount of fees to be charged, the time or duration that an activity would be available,access to transportation and parking, and the distance to be traveled can all constitute barriers to the ability of persons to benefit. Language barriers might also constitute an accessibility issue in a particular circumstance. What are the barriers to accessibility? Available comparable activities: The nature,location,and accessibility of comparable facilities and services must also be considered in defining a service area. In most cases,the service area for one activity should not overlap with that of a comparable activity (e.g.,two community centers,two clinics,or two neighborhood housing counseling services). Are there comparable activities available?_ FIT OF SERVICE AREA Because the regulations require that census data be used to the maximum extent feasible for determining the income of persons residing in service area,the boundaries of the service area determined by the grantee for the activity need to be compared with the boundaries of census divisions(tracts,block groups,etc.).The census divisions that best fall within the service area should be used for defining the service area for purposes of reporting on the activity and for calculating the percentage of L/M income persons residing in that area. While this means that the census divisions chosen for this purpose may exclude some limited number of persons that are in the actual service area or include some who are not,the practicality of using the census data will override unless the proportion of persons so excluded or included is too great. The alternative would be to survey excluded/included persons and to adjust the data obtained from the census computer runs accordingly. Surveys can be quite costly and their use should be limited whenever possible. Are the boundaries of the service area appropriate? COMMERCIAL SERVICE AREAS A store will usually be considered to serve an area generally. Where the business itself has had a recent market survey to define the area it serves,it should be used for CDBG purposes. Where it does not have such a survey,an analysis of the location and accessibility of comparable stores should be taken to define the area served.When the CDBG assistance provided is not to a particular business but to the shopping center or commercial strip in which it is located(e.g.,fagade improvements),the area served would be that of the entire center or strip. Again,an analysis of comparable centers/strips should be undertaken in defining the service area.Note that it may not always be possible to define the area served by a commercial business, such as in the case where the businesses depend on tourists.Moreover, some commercial facilities serve a very broad area(e.g.,a regional shopping mall)and the area may be so large an area that it is unlikely to meet the 51%L/M income residents test. How does this activity serve the low-mod residents in the area? WORKSHEET Physical Boundaries: North Barrier? West Barrier? South B arrier? East Barrier? What area(who)will be served: CHECK MAPS INCLUDED: Vicinity/Geographic Map(zoning%Residential) %Residential Census Chart Census Tract(s): Block Group(s): Beneficiary Data/Demographics LM LMU %LM LMISD Date C N"f AJ co Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant Downtown Pasco Development Authority Address 110 S.4th Avenue, Pasco,WA Project Name Culture Specific Micro Grant Program Contact Person Gustavo Gutierrez Gomez Telephone 509-528-8131 Email ggomez@downtownpasco.com Federal Tax ID# 45-3169348 DUNS# 078888852 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $165,000.00 Leverage $15,000.00+ Private 1. Describe your project and its proposed location,including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The purpose of the Culture Specific Micro Grant Program is to help the Downton Culture Specific Business to survive the low sales of the Winter months. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. The winter months are harsh for our Latino Business Community in Downtown Pasco,their sales drop to a 95%compare to the Summer months. (Excluding COVID-19) 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs(Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 2 Strategy# 2.2 Objective# 3 Outcome# 3 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority ® B.Average Priority ❑ C. Low Priority ❑ D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: The CSMGP will benefit a number of small businesses that usually get high interest loans to survive during the Winter Months for the last 20 years or more. 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a,b,c,d) a. ❑ You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 1 ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other:Describe C. ® Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ❑ Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map(separate page)showing the location of the project and service area. Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address) and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: Boundaries: Downtown Revitalization Area Census Block Groups Tract(s)tl (s)tl 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example, how many unduplicated persons will be served,how many homes assisted,how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates —the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. *Public Service—People/Housing—Households *Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households *Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses *Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost I"Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4"Quarter 15 Loans $10,000 $150,000 TOTAL 7. Of the total "number served"listed in the above table,please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30%median income Number of clients below 50%median income Number of clients below 80%median income 15 Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients 15 Number of disabled clients Total Pasco residents served 15 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 2 8. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 2018 2016 Kennewick Pasco $167,105 $57,500 $79,105 57,750 Richland 9. What impact will your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? The impact of improved cash flow to these culture specific business will carry them to the Summer,when their sales will normalized and they will still in business for one more year. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs (80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 50% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 96,500 1 96,800 103,000 Effective June 1,2019 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Requested CDBG Source of Other Expense Funds Other Funds Funds TOTAL BUDGET PERSONNEL: Salaries $15,000.00 $15,000.00 OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Engineering Materials Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: (Describe) Program Development Costs $150,000 $15,000.00 Private $165,000 TOTAL $165,000.00 $15,000.00 Private $180,000.00 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 3 12. Are the above"other sources"of funds secured? Please describe: A portion of the funds will come directly from private donations and a portion will be secured by event income. 13• if you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? (Continue to promote the project with an average of$10,000.00 per culture specific businesses. 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) Project delivery 15. Check"yes" or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes No 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? ❑ 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? ® ❑ a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ❑ ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? ® ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? E—]- 4. 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ ® f 5. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? ❑ ® 11 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ❑ 1E I a. Do you own the property? ❑ ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ❑ ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service ❑ 3) Economic Development 1E 1 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation,etc.) ❑ 5) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks, etc.) ❑ 1 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure (curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water, etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization (Describe): Help businesses to survive during winter months. 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 4 Certifications and Assurances 5 Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 CDBG Program Year Economic Development Special Attachment#2 Complete this page if you are proposing to provide an "Economic Development'project 1. We are a: ❑ non-profit ❑ for-profit ❑ faith-based 2. Describe how your project will make the most effective use of CDBG funds? [_Will keep people employed during the low season in the downtown area. I 3. Is there leverage of other funds? rW actively pursue grants,community contributions and private dollars to fund our budget. 4. How will you assure that CDBG funds are not substituted for other non-federal investment? We'll adhere to CDBG guidelines and stipulations. 5. How will you demonstrate that your project will meet the minimum federal CDBG threshold of providing one full time equivalency(FTE)job(40 hours per week) per$35,000 of CDBG funds, or provide goods or services to residents of a low-moderate income(LMI)area,such that the number of LMI persons residing in the area served amounts to at least one LMI person per$350 of CDBG investment, and that at least more than 51% of the total FTE jobs created will be filled by very low, low and moderate-income persons? How will you make sure that the jobs will be made available to very low, low and moderate-income persons? We will suggest to hire low to moderate income individuals that work in construction. 6. Is your request being used for business incentives or for recruitment of a business from another city or state? If yes,describe in detail. Are the proposed jobs existing positions or are they new? The idea is to hire local people. 7. Show the number of new permanent jobs projected to be created (seasonal jobs do not count): Job Title #FTE Jobs Created #Part Time FTE # FTE Jobs Filled by #Part Time FTE hours LMI hours Filled by LMI •'LMI jobs refer to any job that can be held by a person with no advanced training or education beyond high school -ora job that the business agrees to hire unqualified persons for and provide training.Income documentation is required of the first individual that fills the position created by this project. 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 6 Attachment "A" Allocation Policy Community Development Block Grant The Planning Commission has the responsibility of reviewing applications for Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)funding and making a recommendation to City Council. Using the general direction provided by Council and considering the needs identified in the 2021-2024 Consolidated Plan,the Planning Commission will use this procedure for allocation of CDBG funds. 1. Applications will be reviewed for eligibility: A. National Criteria: 1. Project must be an eligible activity under CDBG regulations (24 CFR 570.200) 2. Project must address a national objective(24 CFR 570.208) B. Local Criteria: 1. Applications must be complete and clearly state the scope of the project. 2. Project must address a specific priority objective as identified in the Strategic Plan(attached). 3. Project must demonstrate ability to be completed within the program year or proposed schedule. 4. Applicant must demonstrate ability to deliver the project. 5. Project must serve City of Pasco residents. II. Eligible projects will be ranked according to the following: A. High Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in visual physical improvements(engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost). a. Projects to reduce barriers for physically impaired person b. Acquisition,construction or improvements to public facility c. Neighborhood preservation and revitalization 2. a. Economic Development projects resulting in creation of jobs B. Average Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in creation or preservation of housing for elderly or special needs population (engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost) 2. Social Service projects to address community needs a. Projects to assist seniors or special needs population b. Projects to assist disadvantaged youth 3. Projects,which consist primarily of salary and benefit expense C. Low Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in preservation of affordable housing through rehabilitation or acquisition/rehabilitation(engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost) 2. Social Service projects which assist in the prevention of homelessness D. No Priority 1. Projects with CDBG as the sole source of funding 2. Projects other than those described above III. The Planning Commission will allocate funds and make a recommendation to Council based on the following: A. Priority rating of the project(allocation policy&strategic plan) B. The value of the project asjudged from the Proposal and Presentation(in the best interest of the City) C. Amount of available funds 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 7 I?alyrca Attachment "B" Community Priority Needs 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan GOALS&STRATEGIES STRATEGIC PLAN The five-year strategic plan sets the framework for projects and activities in Pasco over the next five years. 1. The need for affordable housing creation,preservation,access and choice. 2. The need for community,neighborhood and economic development. 3. The need for homeless intervention and prevention and supportive public services. GOALS Goal 1: Improve Affordable Housing Opportunities for Lower-Income Individuals and Households Strategy 1. Maximize homeownership opportunities for lower-income and special needs households. Strategy 2. Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock.(Support acquisition or rehabilitation,code enforcement, energy efficiency improvements,or new construction in targeted neighborhoods.) Goal 2: Improve Community Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Local Economies Strategy 1. Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-income residents. Strategy 2. Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. Strategy B. Support activities that improve the quality of local workforces and prepare lower-income and special needs workers to access living wage jobs. Strategy4. Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80%of area median income. Strategy 5. Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly by improving streets and sidewalk systems. Strategy 6. Access new funding opportunities to revitalize neighborhoods and address other community needs. Strategy 7. Support the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and supporting public facilities that serve low-and moderate- income neighborhoods and households. Strategy 8. Improve parks and recreation facilities in targeted neighborhoods. Strategy 9. Support the beautification of communities by integrating art into public facilities as needed to address local policies. Goal 3: Reduce Homelessness and Support Priority Public Services Strategy 1. Support public services programs that address specific targeted needs that are a barrier to lower-income persons becoming self-sufficient. Strategy 2. Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Strategy 3. Support the development of a crisis response center to provide immediate stabilization and assessment services to persons in crisis,including homeless persons. Strategy 4. Support existing homeless facilities and increase housing resources that assist homeless persons toward housing stability and self-sufficiency. OBJECTIVES—OUTCOMES—INDICATORS HUD requires recipients of federal funding to assess the outcomes of the program in question, in order to better assess the effectiveness of the activity. A Performance Measurement System has been designed to establish and track measurable objectives and outcomes for the 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 8 1 CDBG program. There are three key elements to the Performance Measurement System—Objectives,Outcomes and Indicators. All approved applicants will be required to comply with the Performance Measurement System. I 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program R1 9 i ? Determine which one of the three objectives best describes the purpose of the activity/project: Objective 1. Suitable Living Environment—This objective relates to activities that are designed to benefit communities,families,or individuals by addressing issues in their living environments. Objective 2. Decent Housing—This activity typically is designed to cover the wide range of housing possible under CDBG. This objective focuses on housing programs where the purpose of the program is to meet individual family or community needs and not programs where housing is an element of a larger effort, since such programs would be more appropriately reported under Suitable Living Environment. Objective 3. Create Economic Opportunity—This objective applies to the types of activities related to economic development, commercial revitalization or job creation. Determine which Outcome best describes your proposed activity/project: Outcome 1. Improve availability/accessibility—This category applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public facilities, housing, or shelters available or accessible to low/moderate income people, including persons with disabilities. In this category,accessibility does not refer only to physical barriers, but also to making the affordable basics of daily living available and accessible to low/moderate income people where they live. Outcome 2. Improve affordability—This category applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways in the lives of low/moderate income people. It can include the creation or maintenance of affordable housing, basic infrastructure hook-ups, or services such as transportation or day care. Outcome B. Improve sustainability—This category applies to projects where the activity or activities are aimed at improving communities or neighborhoods,helping to make them livable or viable by providing benefit to persons of low/moderate income or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas through multiple activities or services that sustain communities or neighborhoods. These are the key Indicators that HUD will use to assist in demonstrating benefits that result from the expenditure of CDBG funds. These are for your information only—you do not have to choose an Indicator. Public facility or infrastructure activities • Public service activities • Geographically targeted revitalization effort • Jobs retained • Commercial facade treatment/rehabs that are not target area based • Number of homeless persons given overnight shelter • Acres of brownfields remediated that are not target area based • Number of beds created in overnight shelter or other emergency housing • New rental units constructed that are affordable,504 accessible,quality • Number of new or existing businesses assisted and the DUNS number of as Energy Star,are occupied by special needs populations etc. the business • Homeownership units constructed,acquired,and/or acquired with • Jobs created for previously unemployed,number that now have access to rehabilitation,number that are affordable,how many years affordable, employer sponsored health care,types of jobs created,training provided, 504 accessible,qualify as Energy Star,are occupied by special needs etc. populations,etc. • Owner occupied units rehabilitated or improved that are brought from • Number of households with short-term rental assistance,number of substandard to standard condition, qualify as energy efficient, are now special needs households,number of homeless households,etc. compliant with lead safe housing rules,are accessible for persons with disabilities,are occupied by special needs populations,etc. Assistance of down payment/closing costs to homebuyers to purchase a • Households that received emergency financial assistance to prevent home, number of first time homebuyers, number who receive housing homelessness,or received emergency legal assistance to prevent counseling homelessness 2021 CDBG DPDA Microenterprise Program RI 10 RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-3-10 DOWNTOWN PASCO DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DOWNTOWN PASCO FA('ADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SERVICE AREA) # Assessment Question Yes No N/A Score 1. Is the Subrecipient new to the CDBG Program? 3 0 0- 2. Is this anew activity for the subrecipient? 2 r-o-�� CD a. Has this activity been completed 1 successfully in prior years? ;� b. Have performance goals been met in prior 0 '_lam 1 years? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 0 findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 0 inexperienced? _ 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 0 corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service 3 Economic Development ° 2 Acquisition/ uJi!OL, 10 I Planning/infrastructure/facilities 0 8. Does your project involve construction / 0 renovation? 4 -� a. Do you own the property? 0 � b. Do you have construction contract management experience? 0 1 10. Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: Y' L 0- oints LOW RISK _ F { 6-9 o i n t s MEDIUM RISKT,;��s 10-15 points HIGH RISK r` r t 15+points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK Vi CJ LM LfA �A REQUEST $172,500 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $ 25,000 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 14E — Rehab; Publicly or Privately- Owned Commercial/Industrial National Objective: LMA C - 2021 - 3 - 10 Goal/Strategy: 2 / 2.2 Project Title: Downtown Pasco Fagade Alloc./priority = Al HIGH Improvement Program (Service Eligible YES / NO Area) Perf. Goal 4 Businesses NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: Downtown Pasco Development OK on terms current grant? YES / NO Authority RISK FACTOR- REVIEWER: Comments concerns & questions: v Activity Category: Economic Development 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES ['NO[:] 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES a NOD 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES [1gN0❑ 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES ❑ NO[Z' 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES [Z NO[:] 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES [D'NO[:] 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES ©ANO❑ 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ NO[D' �j Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES ❑ NO❑ 9. Application form is complete? YES R NO❑ Additional information needed?Date requested_ 147. Has incomplete or additional information been provided? Financials/Audits/Other YES ❑ NOD Date received_ Follow-up Action_______ ]I. Application addresses a national objective? YES [12'NO[:] LMA, 570.208(a)(1) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature&Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income per ons benefit requirements will be met? YES pe Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response� ^ 0 Census Tract No.-Zy %Benefit to low income Client files Presumed benefit or nature and location Information provided by:_ (w -6 I 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010—2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 2/2.2 Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK Al 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES 0]�NOD If yes, indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity (ies)meets. 14E Rehab; Publicly or Privately-Owned Commercial/Industrial 570.202 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity) does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? YES ❑ NO[] 17. Does the proposed activity(or applicant)involve COMPLEX,or HIGH RISK,involving a level of technical assistance, which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES ❑ NO[2/ If response is YES, identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: __applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, __applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, __applicant is a new organization, activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: 18. Risk Assessment Factor : LOW ❑ MEDIUM [� HIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2, 2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date CITY OF PASCO 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW — APPENDIX 'I SERVICE AREA DETERMINATION LMA HUD Activity # Project Title: Downtown Pasco Fagade Improvement Program (Service Area) Applicant: Downtown Pasco Development Authority PROPOSED PROJECT: Economic Opportunities,Downto-,N,n Pasco Facade Improvement Program(Service Area),CDBG funds support downtown businesses with fagade improvements to increase business flow and area appearance. (Census Tract 202). Location(address): 110 South 4th Avenue Narrative: LMA4-Fagade Improvement Program-Downtown revitalization area defined in Makers Revitalization Plan as Bonneville/14th north west to Tacoma/1st to Columbia Street south east,this area serves the Longfellow and Museum Neighborhoods to the north. Boundary 14th/Sylvester north-west to Tacoma/Columbia south-east. CT201.3, CT202.1 AND.3 (LMISD 6/3/16 4285 LM/5810 LMU 73.8°/x) Is the area pre-determined?: • Police precinct • Fire station • School • Other I Is the area in a community-based planning or service map?-------- • Library • Parks (specify) • Playground • Pool • Other Does the activity serve only small areas such as a residential neighborhoodi provem/�en�t area which is limi ed to a few census block groups surrounding the area in which they are located?_UDcu/)7 U of &it ,eck, • Curb,gutter and sidewalk • Streetlights&Trees • Neighborhood Improvement Plan Revitalization Area • Other Primarily Residential: • Geographic Area(Map) • Percent Residential • Proposed Beneficiary of Pro'ect • Areas Contiguous? I Factors: • Nature of the Activity �tv • Location of the Activity DUWn�b W h • Barriers to accessibility • Available Comparable Activities r J A • Fit of Service Area • Commercial Service Areas FACTORS FOR DETERNIINING SERVICE AREA When grantee does not have a pre-determined identification of the area served for a given facility or service,it is necessary to determine the service area for qualification under LMA benefit. Service area determination will generally be accepted by HUD unless the grantee-defined area is clearly too small or too large.Factors to be considered in making the determination of the area served are: Nature of the Activity: In determining the boundaries of the area serviced by a facility, its size and how it is equipped need to be considered. Example, a park expected to serve an entire neighborhood cannot be so small or have so little equipment (number of swings, slides, etc.)that it would only be able to serve a handful of persons at any one time. Conversely,a park which contains three ballfields or a ballfield with grandstands cannot reasonably be said to be designed to serve a single neighborhood.The same comparison would apply to the case of assisting a small,two- lane street in a residential neighborhood versus that of an existing arterial four-lane street that may pass through the neighborhood but is clearly used primarilyyL by persons passing through from other areas. What is the Nature of the Activity? Location of the Activity. Where an activity is located will affect its capacity to serve particular area, especially when the location of a comparable activity is considered. A library, for example, cannot reasonably be claimed to benefit an area that does not include the area in which it is located.When a facility is located.near the boundary of a particular neighborhood, its service area would be expected to include portions of the adjacent neighborhood as well as the one in which it is locate.(Note that the grantee may carry out activities that are even outside its jurisdiction if it is done in accordance with §570.309.) Is the Activity an appropriate fit for the location? b//�M)� Accessibility issues: The accessibility of the activity also needs to be considered in defining the area served. For example,if a river or an interstate highway forms a geographic barrier that separates persons residing n an area in a way that precludes them from taking advantage of a facility that is otherwise nearby,that area should not be included in determining the service area. Other limits to accessibility may apply to particular activities. For example,the amount of fees to be charged, the time or duration that an activity would be available, access to transportation and parking, and the distance to be traveled can all constitute barriers to the ability of persons to benefit. Language barriers might also constitute an accessibility issue in a particular circumstance. What are the barriers to accessibility? Available comparable activities.- The ctivities:The nature,location,and accessibility of comparable facilities and services must also be considered in defining a service area. In most cases,the service area for one activity should not overlap with that of a comparable activity (e.g.,two community centers, two clinics,or two neighborhood housing counseling services). Are there comparable activities available?_ [,Jn _ FIT OF SERVICE AREA Because the regulations require that census data be used to the maximum extent feasible f'or determining the income of persons residing in service area,the boundaries of the service area determined by the grantee for the activity need to be compared with the boundaries of census divisions(tracts,block groups,etc.).The census divisions that best fall within the service area should be used for defining the service area for purposes of reporting on the activity and for calculating the percentage of L/M income persons residing in that area. While this means that the census divisions chosen for this purpose may exclude some limited number of persons that are in the actual service area or include some who are not,the practicality of using the census data will override unless the proportion of persons so excluded or included is too great.The alternative would be to survey excluded/included persons and to adjust the data obtained from the census computer runs accordingly. Surveys can be quite costly and their use should be limited whenever possible. //� Are the boundaries of the service area appropriate?__ Pryi" ��5�� ��✓Ut � G��K►�G OtS�'G�J� OBIECTID GEOID Source geoname Stusab CountynarrState County Tract Blckgrp Low Lowmod Lmmi LowmodunLowmod_pct 205755 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 1 1155 1380 1445 1590 86.79 205757 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 3 1200 1405 1995 2075 67.71 205766 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 6 295 790 1270 1315 60.08 2650 3575 4980 53% 72% 100% Pili y ` Cit Masco Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant Downtown Pasco Development Authority Address 110 S.4th Avenue, Pasco,WA Project Name Facade Improvement Program Contact Person Gustavo Gutierrez Gomez Telephone 509-528-8131 Email ggomez@downtownpasco.com Federal Tax ID# 45-3169348 DUNS# 078888852 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $165,000.00 Leverage $27,500.00+ Private 1. Describe your project and its proposed location,including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The purpose of the Facade Improvement Program is to build a coordinated image, promote cohesiveness with improved signage and store graphics, and compliment adjacent facades consistent with the DPDA brand and work plan for Downtown Pasco. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. The Facade Program will help beautify Downtown Pasco,fit into the DPDA work plan and align with City Code and ordinances that help eliminate blithe in the area.The community needs beautification and the result will be a beautified downtown that will help attract consumers as well as possible business. 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs(Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy, Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 2 Strategy# 2.2 Objective# 3 Outcome# 3 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority ® B.Average Priority ❑ C. Low Priority ❑ D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: The Facade Improvement will help with the neighborhood revitalization,but will also create jobs through construction and project management. S. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a, b,c,d) a. ❑ You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 1 ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other: Describe C. ❑ Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ® Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map(separate page) showing the location of the project and service area.Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address) and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: Boundaries: Downtown Revitalization Area Census Block Groups Tract(s)# (s)# 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example, how many unduplicated persons will be served,how many homes assisted,how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates —the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. *Public Service—People/Housing—Households *Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households *Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses *Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost r,Quarter 1 Facades $28,750 $28,750 2nd Quarter 2 $28,750 $57,500 3`d Quarter 2 $28,750 $57,500 411 Quarter 1 $28,750 $28,750 TOTAL 6 $172,500 7. Of the total"number served"listed in the above table,please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30%median income Number of clients below 50%median income Number of clients below 80%median income 4024 Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients Number of disabled clients Total Pasco residents served 5030 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 2 8. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 2018 2016 ii Kennewick Pasco $167,105 $57,500 $79,105 57,750 Richland 9. What impactwill your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? I The impact of improved facades will help promote a positive,inviting Downtown image. In addition,the added construction will help create jobs in a traditionally low-income market. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs (80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 I 50% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,4001 Median 1 54,600 1 62,400 L 70,200 78,000 84,300 1 96,500 96,800 103,0001 Effective June 1,2019 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: Salaries $22,500 $22,500 OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Engineering Materials Labor/Contracts $150,000 $150,000 i PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER. (Describe) Program Development Costs $27,500.00 Private $165,000 TOTAL $172,500.00 $27,500.00 Private $180,000.00 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 3 12. Are the above"other sources"of funds secured? Please describe: A portion of the funds will come directly from private donations and a portion will be secured by event income. 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? (Continue to promote the project with an average of$25,000.00 per project. 14• If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) Project delivery 15. Check"yes" or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes No 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? ❑ 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? ❑ a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ® ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? ❑ ® [ 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ 1 5. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? ❑ 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ® ❑ a. Do you own the property? ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ® ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service ❑ 3) Economic Development 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation,etc.) ❑ 5) Public Facility (Buildings/Parks, etc.) ❑ 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure(curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water,etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization (Describe): Help businesses to survive during winter months. 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 4 Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete, late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre- award costs. All applications will become the property of the City, and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings,items or samples. SUBMITTED BY: C�'T" Q e—i t t e-4 Signature of Authorized Agency Official Gustavo Gutierrez Gomez, Executive Director Printed Name&Title 5/21/2020 Date 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 5 Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 CDBG Program Year Economic Development Special Attachment#2 Complete this page if you are proposing to provide an "Economic Development"project 1. We are a: ® non-profit ❑ for-profit ❑ faith-based 2. Describe how your project will makethe most effective use of CDBG funds? Our goal is to help the Downtown Pasco Businesses to look their best and attract more foot traffic to the area, creating economic development. 3. Is there leverage of other funds? We actively pursue grants, community contributions and private dollars to fund our budget. 4. How will you assure that CDBG funds are not substituted for other non-federal investment? We'll adhere to CDBG guidelines and stipulations. 5. How will you demonstrate that your project will meet the minimum federal CDBG threshold of providing one full time equivalency(FTE)job (40 hours per week)per$35,000 of CDBG funds, or provide goods or services to residents of a low-moderate income(ILMI)area,such that the number of LMI persons residing in the area served amounts to at least one LMI person per$350 of CDBG investment,and that at least more than 51% of the total FTE jobs created will be filled by very low, low and moderate-income persons? How will you make sure that the jobs will be made available to very low,low and moderate-income persons? We will suggest to hire low to moderate income individuals that work in construction. I 6. Is your request being used for business incentives or for recruitment of a business from another city or state? If yes, describe in detail. Are the proposed jobs existing positions or are they new? The idea is to hire local people. 7. Show the number of new permanent jobs projected to be created (seasonal jobs do not count): Job Title #FTE Jobs Created #Part Time FTE # FTE Jobs Filled by #Part Time FTE hours LMI hours Filled by LMI LMI jobs refer to any job that can be held by a person with no advanced training or education beyond high school —ora job that the business agrees to hire unqualified persons for and provide training.Income documentation is required of the first individual that fills the position created by this project. 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 6 Attachment"A" Allocation Policy Community Development Block Grant The Planning Commission has the responsibility of reviewing applications for Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)funding and making a recommendation to City Council. Using the general direction provided by Council and considering the needs identified in the 2021-2024 Consolidated Plan,the Planning Commission will use this procedure for allocation of CDBG funds. I. Applications will be reviewed for eligibility: A. National Criteria: 1. Project must be an eligible activity under CDBG regulations(24 CFR 570.200) 2. Project must address a national objective(24 CFR 570.208) B. Local Criteria: 1. Applications must be complete and clearly state the scope of the project. 2. Project must address a specific priority objective as identified in the Strategic Plan(attached). 3. Project must demonstrate ability to be completed within the program year or proposed schedule. 4. Applicant must demonstrate ability to deliver the project. 5. Project must serve City of Pasco residents. II. Eligible projects will be ranked according to the following: A. High Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in visual physical improvements(engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost). a. Projects to reduce barriers for physically impaired person b. Acquisition,construction or improvements to public facility c. Neighborhood preservation and revitalization 2. a. Economic Development projects resulting in creation of jobs B. Average Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in creation or preservation of housing for elderly or special needs population (engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost) 2. Social Service projects to address community needs a. Projects to assist seniors or special needs population b. Projects to assist disadvantaged youth 3. Projects,which consist primarily of salary and benefit expense C. Low Priority 1. Bricks and mortar projects resulting in preservation of affordable housing through rehabilitation or acquisition/rehabilitation (engineering and architectural design and inspection costs are allowed but limited to 15%of funded project cost) 2. Social Service projects which assist in the prevention of homelessness D. No Priority 1. Projects with CDBG as the sole source of funding 2. Projects other than those described above III. The Planning Commission will allocate funds and make a recommendation to Council based on the following: A. Priority rating of the project(allocation policy&strategic plan) B. The value of the project as judged from the Proposal and Presentation(in the best interest of the City) C. Amount of available funds 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 7 Cityd Attachment"B" Community Priority Needs 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan GOALS&STRATEGIES STRATEGIC PLAN The five-year strategic plan sets the framework for projects and activities in Pasco over the next five years. 1. The need for affordable housing creation,preservation,access and choice. 2. The need for community, neighborhood and economic development. 3. The need for homeless intervention and prevention and supportive public services. GOALS Goal 1: Improve Affordable Housing Opportunities for Lower-Income Individuals and Households Strategy 1. Maximize homeownership opportunities for lower-income and special needs households. Strategy 2. Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock. (Support acquisition or rehabilitation,code enforcement, energy efficiency improvements, or new construction in targeted neighborhoods.) Goal 2: Improve Community Infrastructure,Public Facilities and Local Economies Strategy 1. Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-income residents. Strategy 2. Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods. Strategy 3. Support activities that improve the quality of local workforces and prepare lower-income and special needs workers to access living wage jobs. Strategy4. Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80%of area median income. Strategy 5. Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly by improving streets and sidewalk systems. Strategy 6. Access new funding opportunities to revitalize neighborhoods and address other community needs. Strategy 7. Support the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and supporting public facilities that serve low-and moderate- income neighborhoods and households. Strategy 8. Improve parks and recreation facilities in targeted neighborhoods. Strategy 9. Support the beautification of communities by integrating art into public facilities as needed to address local policies. Goal 3: Reduce Homelessness and Support Priority Public Services Strategy 1. Support public services programs that address specific targeted needs that are a barrier to lower-income persons becoming self-sufficient. Strategy 2. Focus on the basic living needs of lower-income households and individuals by addressing one or more priority populations and needs. Strategy 3. Support the development of a crisis response center to provide immediate stabilization and assessment services to persons in crisis, including homeless persons. Strategy 4. Support existing homeless facilities and increase housing resources that assist homeless persons toward housing stability and self-sufficiency. 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 8 OBJECTIVES—OUTCOMES—INDICATORS HUD requires recipients of federal funding to assess the outcomes of the program in question,in order to better assess the effectiveness of the activity. A Performance Measurement System has been designed to establish and track measurable objectives and outcomes for the CDBG program. There are three key elements to the Performance Measurement System—Objectives,Outcomes and Indicators. All approved applicants will be required to comply with the Performance Measurement System. Determine which one of the three objectives best describes the purpose of the activity/project: Objective 1. Suitable Living Environment—This objective relates to activities that are designed to benefit communities,families,or individuals by addressing issues in their living environments. Objective 2. Decent Housing—This activity typically is designed to cover the wide range of housing possible under CDBG. This objective focuses on housing programs where the purpose of the program is to meet individual family or community needs and not programs where housing is an element of a larger effort, since such programs would be more appropriately reported under Suitable Living Environment. Objective 3. Create Economic Opportunity—This objective applies to the types of activities related to economic development, commercial revitalization or job creation. Determine which Outcome best describes your proposed activity/project: Outcome 1. Improve availability/accessibility—This category applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public facilities, housing,or shelters available or accessible to low/moderate income people,including persons with disabilities. In this category, accessibility does not refer only to physical barriers, but also to making the affordable basics of daily living available and accessible to low/moderate income people where they live. Outcome 2. Improve affordability—This category applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways in the lives of low/moderate income people. It can include the creation or maintenance of affordable housing, basic infrastructure hook-ups,or services such as transportation or day care. Outcome 3. Improve sustainability—This category applies to projects where the activity or activities are aimed at improving communities or neighborhoods, helping to make them livable or viable by providing benefit to persons of low/moderate income or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas through multiple activities or services that sustain communities or neighborhoods. These are the key Indicators that HUD will use to assist in demonstrating benefits that result from the expenditure of CDBG funds. These are for your information only—you do not have to choose an Indicator. • Public facility or infrastructure activities • Public service activities • Geographically targeted revitalization effort • Jobs retained • Commercial facade treatment/rehabs that are not target area based • Number of homeless persons given overnight shelter • Acres of brownfields remediated that are not target area based • Number of beds created in overnight shelter or other emergency housing • New rental units constructed that are affordable,504 accessible,quality • Number of new or existing businesses assisted and the DUNS number of as Energy Star,are occupied by special needs populations etc. the business • Homeownership units constructed,acquired,and/or acquired with • Jobs created for previously unemployed,number that now have access to rehabilitation,number that are affordable,how many years affordable, employer sponsored health care,types of jobs created,training provided, 504 accessible,qualify as Energy Star,are occupied by special needs etc. populations,etc. • Owner occupied units rehabilitated or improved that are brought from • Number of households with short-term rental assistance,number of substandard to standard condition, qualify as energy efficient, are now special needs households,number of homeless households,etc. compliant with lead safe housing rules, are accessible for persons with disabilities,are occupied by special needs populations,etc. • Assistance of down payment/closing costs to homebuyers to purchase a • Households that received emergency financial assistance to prevent home, number of first time homebuyers, number who receive housing homelessness,or received emergency legal assistance to prevent counseling homelessness 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 9 2021 CDBG DPDA Facade Improvement Program 10 RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-4-11 BENTON FRANKLIN CAC - HOME ENERGY ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME PROGRAM (15 HOUSEHOLDS) # Assessment Question Yes NO N/A Score 1. Is the Subreci fent new to the CDBG Program? 3 0 2. Is this a new activity for the subrecipient? 2 a. Has this activity been completed S 1 �1 successfully in prior years? �J b. Have performance goals been met in prior 0 1 1 ears? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 S findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 0 S inexperienced? 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 0 C) corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service 3 Economic Developmer(t. 2 Acquisition/Q*0[61 11IAJI- 1 Planning/infrastructure/facilities 0 8. Does your project involve construction/ 0 renovation? a. Do you own the property? 0 b. Do you have construction contract manage ent experience? 0 1 10. Total score S 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: �oints LOW RISK r 6-9 points MEDIUM RISK 10-15 points HIGH RISK 15+ oints EXTREMELY HIGH RISK S REQUEST $ 50,000 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $ 50,000 2021 CDBG APPLICATION! REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 14A— Rehab; Single-Unit Residential National Objective: LMH Goal/Strategy: 1 / 1.2 C - 2021 - 4 - 11 Alloc./priority = C1 LOW Project Title: Energy Efficient Home Program (15 Eligible YES / NO households) Perf. Goal 3 Household Housing Unit NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: Benton Franklin CAC - Home OK on terms current grant? YES / NO Energy RISK FACTOR._ REVIEWER: Comments, concerns & questions: Activity Category: Housing 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES ❑' NO[] 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES ❑- NO❑ i 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES [D- NO❑ 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES 2- NO[] 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES a- NO❑ 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES ©' NO❑ 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES 2- NO❑ 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ NOD- Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES E3 NOF 9. Application form is complete? YES KI NOF] Additional information needed?Date requested 10. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/Audits/Other YES ❑ NO❑ Date received______ Follow-up Action 11. Application addresses a national objective? YES ❑ NO[] LMH,570.208(a)(3) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature& Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income pe ons benefit requirements will be met? YES ff NO❑ Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response Census Tract No. %Benefit to low income Client files Presumed benefit/or nature and location Information provided by: (�'I ____ 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does theapplication address as stated in the 2010—2014 g J Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 1 /1.2 Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing stock. (Support acquisition or rehabilitation, code enforement, energy efficiency improvements, or new construction in targeted neighborhoods.) 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK(g) 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES Z NO❑ If yes, indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 14A Rehab; Single-Unit Residential 570.202 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity) does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? YES ❑ NO❑ 17. Does the proposed activity(or applicant)involve COMPLEX,or HIGH RISK, involving a level of technical assistance,which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES ❑ NO[' If response is YES, identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, __applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, __applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, __applicant is a new organization, activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: is. Risk Assessment Factor S LOW � MEDIUM [IHIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2. 2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date RECe El IN asci COMMUNITY& ECONOWJC � DEVELOPMENT _J. Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant Benton Franklin Community Action Committee dba Community Action Connections(CAC) Address 720 W Court Street-Pasco, WA 99301 Project Name Energy Efficient Healthy Homes Contact Person Judith A. Gidley, Executive Director or Melissa Hess, Operations Director Telephone 509-545-4042 Email irtidley@bfcac.org mhess(a)bfcac.o[g Federal Tax ID N 91-0792238 DUNS q 025262890 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $50,000 Leverage $50,000 1. Describe your project and its proposed location,including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The project will improve and increase the affordability of housing for low-to moderate-income residents of the City of Pasco through home weatherization assistance. Homes assisted under this project are made more durable, energy efficient,safe and healthy by installing insulation,and repairing or replacing furnaces,roofs, windows or insulated doors.Testing of indoor air quality systems,lead based paint clearance testing,and customer education on energy usage and lead based paint hazards are also services provided under the project. The CDBG funds requested will be used to leverage State energy conservation funds made available to agencies such as Community Action Connections(CAC).Washington State Department of Commerce(COM) sponsors the Energy Matchmakers Program authorized through RCW 70.164.The Legislature created the program in 1987, and has authorized the use of state capital funds each biennium since 1991, to provide weatherization services to low-income households.The program is designed to leverage matching funds,and a community can participate by providing a dollar-for-dollar match. By taking advantage of this opportunity to leverage funds,this program can help as many as fifteen(15)households cost-effectively,and make available additional revenue to the local economy at a time when other resources are dwindling. The project would use an existing energy conservation program format with policies and specifications developed by CAC and COM. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. Based on a presentation given by Joel Warren of The Cloudburst Group at the stakeholders meetings for the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for the Tri-Cities Consortium,`The most common housing problem for both owners and renters in the Tri-City region is cost burden.Cost burden=paying more that 30%of household income towards housing costs."Housing costs include the amount of household paid utilities. Based on that report,46%of renters and 20%of owners experience housing cost burden in the City of Pasco. 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs(Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 1 _ Strategy# 2 Objective$1 2 Outcome*1 2 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority ❑ B.Average Priority ❑ C. Low Priority ® D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: This project satisfies priority"C" as it results in the preservation of affordable housing through rehabilitation or acquisition/rehabilitation. 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a,b,c,d) a. ® You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other:Describe C. ❑ Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ❑ Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map (separate page) showing the location of the project and service area. Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address)and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: City of Pasco,WA Boundaries: Census Block Groups Tract(s)# (s)# 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example,how many unduplicated persons will be served, how many homes assisted, how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates—the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. •Public Service—People/Housing—Households •Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households 'Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses •Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses �- Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost In Quarter Houses 2" Quarter Houses 3' Quarter 7 Houses $3,333 $23,331 4"Quarter 8 Houses $3,333 $26,669 TOTAL 15 Houses $3,333 $50,000 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 2 7. Of the total "number served"listed in the above table,please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30%median income Number of clients below 50%median income 15 Houses Number of clients below 80%median income Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients Number of disabled clients Total Pasco residents served 15 Houses 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 3 8. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 j 2018 2017 Kennewick $0 $0 $0 $0 Pasco $0 $0 $0 $0 Richland $0 $0 $0 $0 9. What impact will your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? The project will improve and increase the affordability of housing for low-to moderate-income residents of the City of Pasco through home weatherization assistance.This proposal's goal is to increase the energy efficiency of homes owned or rented by low-income households thereby reducing their energy consumption costs and increasing housing affordability.Success will be measured by the decrease in household energy costs.On average,home ener use is reduced by 25%in the homes weatherized under this program. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs(80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 50% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 96,500 96,800 F 103,000 Effective lune 1,2019 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: $3,000 $3,000 WA State Energy $6,000 Salaries Matchmakers OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: $47,000 $47,000 WA State Energy $94,000 Engineering Matchmakers Materials Labor/Contracts PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: } (Describe) TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 WA State Energy $100,000 Matchmakers l 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 4 I 12. Are the above `other sources"of funds secured? Please describe: Yes.CAC receives Matchmaker Program funding from WA State Department of Commerce.This program requires a dollar-for-dollar match and increases resources for low-income home weatherization by leveraging local matching dollars and resources from utilities,rental owners and other sources. 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? [If awarded less than requested amount,the number of LM1 households in the City of Pasco that CAC would be able to provide weatherization assistance to would be decreased. 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time,supplies,etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) The costs requested in the CDBG budget for staff time would be used to cover environmental reviews, lead clearances and project reporting.These are requirements of HUD but not requirements of the Energy Matchmaker Funds that will be used alongside the CDGB funding to complete the project if awarded. 15. Check"yes"or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes No 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG ro ram? 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? ❑ a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ® ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior ears? ® ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ S. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? ❑ 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ® ❑ a. Do you own the property? ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ® ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service ❑ 3) Economic Development ❑ 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation,etc.) 5) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks, etc.) ❑ 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure(curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water,etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization(Describe): El I 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 5 I f Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached,understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete, late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre-award costs. All applications will become the property of the City, and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas,writings, items or samples. SUBMITTED BY; Sig te of Auth rized Agency Official Printed Name&Title 1 Date 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 6 • ~%M wl$~Cc Am 6 r J + ._� _ -j.r. .� ROOM 7-4;Wrewick ApVW a ...arm+,•--�, _ -- -----..� s_.v— ''fw�i�4- a.w..v � �.lC �snw v City of Pasco RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-5-12 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BENTON & FRANKLIN COUNTIES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - IMPROVEMENTS /REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS # Assessment Question Yes N N/A Score 1. Is the Subrecipient new to the CDBG Program? 3 2. Is this a new activity for the subrecipient? 2 a. Has this activity been completed 0 1 successfully in prior years? b. Have performance goals been met in prior 1 1 D ears? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 (0 findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 0 inexperienced? ` 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 0 corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service 3 Economic Development 2 Acquisition 1 ' Planning/infrastructure/facilities 8. Does your project involve construction/ 3 0 renovation? a. Do you own the property? 0 b. Do you have construction contract management experience? _ 0 1 10. Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: 0 points LOW RISK 6-9 points MEDIUM RISK f 10-15 points HIGH RISKY 15+points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK logzo V � REQUEST $259,750 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $ 2021 CABG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 03E — Neighborhood Facilities National Objective: LMA Goal/Strategy: 2 / 2.4 C - 2021 - 5 - 12 Alloc./priority = Al HIGH Project Title: Boys & Girls Club - Improvements Eligible YES / NO /Removal of Architectural Barriers Perf. Goal 1 Households Assisted NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: Boys & Girls Club of Benton & OK on terms current grant? YES / NO Franklin Counties RISK FACTOR: REVIEWER: Comments concerns & uestions: 2 4Yl Activity Category: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES 2NO❑ 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES ❑' NO[:] 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES [g-NO[—] 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES E�'NO[:] 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES Y NO❑ 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES YNO❑ 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES [Er NO❑ 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ 'NOZ Conflict of Interest Statement Received: YES [f NO❑ 9. Application form is complete? YES a NO❑ Additional information needed?Date requested_ 10. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/Audits/Other YES [El-NO❑ Date received _Follow-up Action ___ IL Application addresses a national objective? YES ['NO❑ LMA, 570.208(a)(1) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature& Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income persons benefit requirements will be met? YES Ea—'NOM Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed F Adequate sample/response Census Tract No. J %Benefit to low income_%-1 - Client files Presumed benefit or nature and location 7 i Information provided by:�:j'i' F 0.1" 1 �` _ � v l:y5di 6 !�''t 4 6 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010—2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 2/2.4 Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80% of AMI. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Rankin contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK Al 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES a NO❑ If yes,indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 03E Neighborhood Facilities 570.201(c) 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity)does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? ^ YES ❑ NO❑ /1 Does the proposed activity(or applicant)involve COMPLEX, or HIGH RISK,involving a leve] of technical assistance, which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES [ NO❑ If response is YES, identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, __project involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, — applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, __applicant is a new organization, __activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: 18. Risk Assessment Factor :� LOW MEDIUM ❑ HIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2. 2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date CITY OF PASCO 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW — APPENDIX I SERVICE AREA DETERMINATION LMA HUD Activity # �-0t( Project Title: Boys & Girls Club - Improvements /Removal of Architectural Barriers Applicant: Boys & Girls Club of Benton & Franklin Counties PROPOSED PROJECT: Public Facilility improvements,-Boys& Girls Club-Improvements/Removal of Architectural Barriers,CDBG funds are requested for facility and safety improvements at the Boys& Girls Club Alain Branch.Improvements include replac existing blacktop which is cracked and degraded,install additional safety lighting on the front and rear of the building, and re-engineer front step to include ADA accessible ramp,sidewalk access and clear crossing areas are also included.If funds are available,utility expansion for teen services dedicated space. Location(address): 801 North 18th Avenue(21.204) Narrative: 201,202,203,204 Is the area pre-determined?: ■ Police precinct • Fire station • School • Other p� Is the area in a community-based planning or service map? • Library • Parks(specify) • Playground • Pool • Other Does the activity serve only small areas such as a residential neighborhood improvement area which is limited to a few census block groups surrounding the area in which they are located?_ • Curb,gutter and sidewalk • Streetlights&Trees • Neighborhood Improvement Plan • Revitalization Area • Other Primarily Residential: • Geographic Area (Map) • Percent Residential • Proposed Beneficiary P Y of Project • Areas Contiguous? Factors: • Nature of the Activity .1p," Cly • Location of the Activity • Barriers to accessibility N D • Available Comparable Activities i • Fit of Service Area 0 Commercial Service Areas FACTORS FOR DETERA'IINING SERVICE AREA When grantee does not have a pre-determined identification of the area served for a given facility or service, it is necessary to determine the service area for qualification under LMA benefit.Service area determination will generally be accepted by HUD unless the grantee-defined area is clearly too small or too large.Factors to be considered in making the determination of the area served are: Nature of the Activity: In determining the boundaries of the area serviced by a facility,its size and how it is equipped need to be considered. Example, a park expected to serve an entire neighborhood cannot be so small or have so little equipment (number of swings, slides, etc.)that it would only be able to serve a handful of persons at any one time. Conversely, a park which contains three ballfields or a ballfield with grandstands cannot reasonably be said to be designed to serve a single neighborhood.The same comparison would apply to the case of assisting a small,two- lane street in a residential neighborhood versus that of an existing arterial four-lane street that may pass through the neighborhood but is clearly used primarily by persons passing through from other areas. What is the Nature of the Activity?___ Location of the Activity: Where an activity is located will affect its capacity to serve particular area,especially when the location of a comparable activity is considered.A library, for example,cannot reasonably be claimed to benefit an area that does not include the area in which it is located. When a facility is located near the boundary of a particular neighborhood, its service area would be expected to include portions of the adjacent neighborhood as well as the one in which it is locate. (Note that the grantee may carry out activities that are even outside its jurisdiction if it is done in accordance with §570.309.) Is the Activity an appropriate fit for the location? Accessibility issues: The accessibility of the activity also needs to be considered in defining the area served. For example,if a river or an interstate highway forms a geographic barrier that separates persons residing n an area in a way that precludes them from taking advantage of a facility that is otherwise nearby, that area should not be included in determining the service area. Other limits to accessibility may apply to particular activities.For example,the amount of fees to be charged,the time or duration that an activity would be available,access to transportation and parking,and the distance to be traveled can all constitute barriers to the ability of persons to benefit. Language barriers might also constitute an accessibility issue in a particular circumstance. What are the barriers to accessibility? Available comparable activities: The nature,location,and accessibility of comparable facilities and services must also be considered in defining a service area. In most cases,the service area for one activity should not overlap with that of a comparable activity (e.g., two community centers,two clinics,or two neighborhood housing counseling services). Are there comparable activities available? FIT OF SERVICE AREA Because the regulations require that census data be used to the maximum extent feasible for determining the income of persons residing in service area,the boundaries of the service area determined by the grantee for the activity need to be compared with the boundaries of census divisions(tracts,block groups,etc.).The census divisions that best fall within the service area should be used for defining the service area for purposes of reporting on the activity and for calculating the percentage of L/M income persons residing in that area.While this means that the census divisions chosen for this purpose may exclude some limited number of persons that are in the actual service area or include some who are not,the practicality of using the census data will override unless the proportion of persons so excluded or included is too great. The alternative would be to survey excluded/included persons and to adjust the data obtained from the census computer runs accordingly.Surveys can be quite costly and their use should be limited whenever possible. Are the boundaries of the service area appropriate? OBIECTID GEOID Source geoname Stusab Countynarr State County Tract Blckgrp Low Lowmod Lmmi Lowmodun Lowmod_pct 205752 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20100 3 345 945 1095 1365 69.23 205755 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 1 1155 1380 1445 1590 86.79 205756 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 2 455 1285 1630 2480 51.81 205757 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 3 1200 1405 1995 2075 67.71 205758 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20300 1 815 1220 2125 2350 51.91 205760 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20300 3 1285 1920 2180 2610 73.56 205761 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 1 965 1155 1220 1660 69.58 205762 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co S3 21 20400 2 285 535 710 855 62.57 205763 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 3 1610 2230 2970 3210 69.47 205764 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 4 85 235 255 390 60.26 205765 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co S3 21 20400 S 1010 1320 1585 1585 83.28 205766 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 6 295 790 1270 1315 60.08 9505 18480 67% 100% a..,r y 1 4 t r < ate. 6, a s�' �� ' �, � �- '� �f '��• - s map r ! i — �.— Citv'f 1-1� CO i nj Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant Boys& Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties Address 801 N 181h Ave Pasco, WA 99301 Project Name Main Branch Safety and Accessibility—Pavement and Lighting Improvement Contact Person Brian Ace Telephone 509-543-9980 Email Brian.acePgreatclubs.org Federal Tax ID# 91-1673327 DUNS# 090886094 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $200,000.00 Leverage $0—In-Kind Program Services 1. Describe your project and its proposed location,including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The Boys&Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties(BGCBFC)is committed to empowering all young people, especially those who need us most,to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens. Since 1996, BGCBFC has helped thousands of local children claim great futures through our award- winning programs and life-changing mentorships. We currently offer 27 Club sites throughout our region serving over 4,400 youth ages 0-18 years each year.Consistent with our values of Respect, Integrity, Stewardship, and Passion for Youth;we provide a broad range of programs and activities focused on our priority outcomes of Academic Success, Healthy Lifestyles, and Good Character and Citizenship. The Boys&Girls Club has been blessed to operate our services out of a City owned building since 1999. Since that time,we have become a meaningful part of the service framework that allows youth to reach their full potential. The Main Branch serves approximately 200 youth each day, with about 30-40 of those youth being teens from the surrounding neighborhood and key outreach areas in central Pasco. We are requesting CDBG funds to provide much needed exterior safety and accessibility improvements to the Main Branch located at 801 N. 18`h. This is a City owned building,leased to the Boys&Girls Club for the purpose of providing youth services in the City. The building is owned by the City of Pasco and the land is owned by the Pasco School District. This partnership with three entities have allowed for a mixed investment of private funds to support public facilities, bringing great value to the City of Pasco. The scope of work would include repaving existing blacktop which is currently exhibiting cracks and degradation. Additionally, additional safety lighting would be installed on the front and rear of the building. The front step would be reengineered to include an ADA accessible ramp and low maintenance stair entry. Sidewalk access and clear crossing areas would also be identified as part of the scope of work. As funds allow, utilities may be relocated to the northeast corner of the property to prepare for future expansion of teen services into a dedicated space. 2021 CDBG Application-Brick and Mortar Project 1 This project would allow for accessibility into the facility for physically impaired youth and adults via a ramp and additional sidewalk access. Additionally,this renovation would represent a large safety improvement by eliminating tripping hazards on current asphalt and improvement to exterior lighting. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. As mentioned above,the Main Branch serves close to 200 youth each day during afterschool hours with an annual membership of more than 800. 93%of our members are youth of color,and over 50%live in single parent households. More than 90%of the youth we serve at the Main Branch qualify for free and reduced lunch through the Pasco School District. At the Club,we provide youth a sense of belonging,usefulness, influence, and competence. This is our Youth Development Strategy. Criminal street gangs provide these same opportunities to youth, but in a way that damages the framework of our society rather than building it up. The Main Branch is a place where youth find a place to belong and make friends. It is a place where children, teens, and their families can rest assured knowing they are safe and protected. The Club is a resource to the community,offering positive and empowering programs at a cost of no more than$20 per year. Our Clubs have a history of changing the trajectory of at-risk youth by engaging them in impactful and empowering programs. The Boys &Girls Club is a lot more than a safe,supervised location,though that is an important part of who we are. We do not just want to provide Pasco youth with a place to go—we also want to encourage them to grow and flourish in life.When children and teens visit our Main Branch,they are provided with the tools and relationships needed to excel academically, lead a healthy life and grow into a productive and caring citizen. Academic Success means that we are committed to keeping our Club members on track to graduate.We help them every day with their homework and work hard to get them back in school if they drop out.We are helping teen members prepare for college,trade school, military or employment. Healthy Lifestyles means encouraging our youth to take care themselves. Modeling and teaching healthy lifestyles is important at the Club. Our youth members learn to eat healthy and stay active through fun activities, as well as make healthy lifestyle choices to protect their futures. Good Character and Citizenship is teaching our kids that they can make a difference in their community.We believe in them and, because of this, we hope they will begin to believe in themselves.Our Club members will be active in the community as volunteers and become leaders in their school and/or social circles. Central to all activities are relationships with positive and caring adults. Our team of supportive professionals will be there to walk beside these children and teens.They will empower them daily to be the best they can be. Our Club members will always have an advocate and mentor, regardless of where they come from. Studies from the Institute for Social Research and School of Public Health at the University of Michigan show that every dollar invested in Boys&Girls Club generates$12.30 of positive economic impacts in our local community. 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs (Attachment B)—what Goal, Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 2 Strategy# 4 Objective# 3 Outcome# 1 2021 CDBG Application -Brick and Mortar Project 2 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A.High Priority ® B.Average Priority ❑ C. Low Priority ❑ D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: This capital improvement is a clear high priority as part of the City of Pasco Allocation Policy. Not only is this a bricks and mortar project resulting in visual physical improvements, but also will reduce barriers for physically impaired persons and well as improve a public facility. 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a, b,c,d) a. ❑ You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other:Describe C. ❑ Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ® Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map(separate page)showing the location of the project and service area. Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address) and the area to be served. Project Address/Location;801 N. 181h Ave Boundaries: Census Tract 020200& 020400 Block Groups 202—Block Group 2&3 Tract(s)# (s)# 204—Block Group 1, 2,3 & 6 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example,how many unduplicated persons will be served,how many homes assisted,how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates —the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. *Public Service—People/Housing—Households *Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households *Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses *Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost 151 Quarter 300 Youth $666.67 $30,000.00 2"d Quarter 200 Youth $400.00 $170,000.00 3rd Quarter 100 Youth $333.33 0 41h Quarter 300 Youth $222.22 0 TOTAL 900 Youth $222.22 $200,000.00 2021 CDBG Application-Brick and Mortar Project 3 7. Of the total"number served" listed in the above table,please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30% median income 590 Number of clients below 50%median income 741 Number of clients below 80% median income 843 Number of elderly clients 0 Number of minority clients 837 Number of disabled clients 90 Total Pasco residents served 900 8, What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 2018 2016 Kennewick 0 0 0 0 Pasco 0 0 0 0 Richland 0 0 0 0 9. What impact will your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? The Main Branch will continue to have a clear impact on the Pasco community based on the delivery of life changing programs and mentorship to teens in our community. Relevant statistics on Club impact include the following: • A recent Harris Survey found that 52%of Club Alumni say that their Club experience"saved their life". • Club members outperform their peers in areas such as grade progression,attendance,graduation, and reduction in risk behaviors. • Teens who stay in the Club as they get older seem better able to resist high-risk behaviors than their peers nationally. 1 • A study in partnership with OSPI of more than 10,200 Club members in Washington found that our members were 36% less likely to be chronically absent when compared to students across the state. • A study conducted at the University of Michigan in 2015 found that every$1 invested in Boys &Girls Club returns$9.60 in current and future earnings and cost-savings to local communities. Success of this program will be measured through youth engagement,specifically measures like Average Daily Attendance(ADA), Frequency of Attendance, and grade progression. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs (80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 So% 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 96,500 96,800 1 103,000 Effective June 1,2019 2021 CDBG Application -Brick and Mortar Project 4 11, Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: Salaries OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Engineering $30,000 $30,000 Materials $70,000 $70,000 Labor/Contracts $100,000 $100,000 [PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: (Describe) TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 12. Are the above"other sources" of funds secured? Please describe: I Not Applicable 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? If only a portion of the funds are allocated,we will scale the project to stretch available resources as far as possible. Priority ranking of scope of work include: 1. Resurfacing of parking areas and blacktop 2. Relocation of utilities for future expansion 3. Installation of exterior safety lighting 4. Installation of ADA accessible ramp for front entry 5. Resurfacing of entry stairs to eliminate damage and improve safety 6. Sidewalk alternations to improve accessibility 7. Crosswalk identification for parking lot crossing 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc.,what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) As a capital improvement project,not sustainability funds will be necessary. The lifespan of requested improvements will be 20-30 years. 2021 CDBG Application -Brick and Mortar Project 5 15. Check"Yes"or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes I No 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? ❑ 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? ❑ a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ® ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? ® ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? ❑ 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ S. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? ❑ 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ® ❑ a. Do you own the property? ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ® ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service ❑ 3) Economic Development ❑ 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation, etc.) ❑ S) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks, etc.) 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure(curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water, etc.) ❑ 8) Revitalization (Describe): 2021 CDBG Application-Brick and Mortar Project 6 Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete,late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre- award costs. All applications will become the property of the City, and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings, items or samples. SUBMITTED BY: �y Signature of Authorized Agency Official 7=fs-L,L/%l vi_ 01A61,7-74 - Printed Name&Title Date 2021 CDBG Application -Brick and Mortar Project 7 2020 CDBG — Service Vicinity Map ' �r r' �' r t 1 t." S{I`'��, �.�+fn �p s�' ti�y'W�.h +� ► � � � • • _,r- r { '. . � \.._ ti..�ek..rY_,.. ._ 4+i-a s"1,ce's �_..i,,l, � ��a4 T•V��_"1..�,°lR' 'Q'� w m _ { � f �+.•.^2 y� y :.�-«.r+, F ±C�. ' - j t - . � .�,: _ ry��F,m OCFl� S 2 '1 t, �,�C• � � t =T `R`7�'�,x • k-d,._Y+.. " ,r-,. :,t fit- � .'• i , y�'�,�'i tit. u� r4 - fi4 .�- '� .: �..r ! ., r� " 4�°.���,,"'yy�•� � �'. _. , ' .:, ± :.;jY La � ,�{�Illo, yi �lt;W,�, `�..�� �,`Y "^""`"��.�a �Cf,`.►�. . ��c 1 '•" `�,�.�,t�j`� �C4t 4 ���~rte. �!' � �� r"7 Aut � L <. [ ! .. i�G�` �'��l `4 {�° i•4✓ • Fsy� pis `t. >fi"' }rry 6te Q i `'+�.M K +rte 9t °r•,i � <�'•. !u ✓A, I" 'At, �e_ • s i� {1 `i o A c s i t 4 +y you k x . RISK ASSESSMENT FORM C-2021-7-14 CITY OF PASCO-PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING PASCO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS # Assessment Question Yes No N/A Score 1. Is the Subrecipient new to the CDBG Program? 3 0 2. Is this a new activity fbr the subrecipient? 2 0 a. Has this activity been completed 1 successfully in prior years? n b. Have performance goals been met in prior i 1 ears? 3. Does the subrecipient have unresolved audit 1 0 D findings? 4. Subrecipient staff responsible for CDBG new or 1 0 O inexperienced? 5. Have all prior monitoring issues or findings been 1 2 0 O corrected? 6. Does your project displace or relocate any 3 individual or business? 7. What type of Activity? Public Service 3 Economic Development 2 Acquisition 1 Planning/infrastructure/facilities 8. Does your project involve construction / 3 0 renovation? a. Do you own the property? on 1 b. Do you have construction contract management experience? 0, 1 10. Total score 11. CIRCLE RISK FACTOR: 0- points LOW RISK , 6-9 points MEDIUM RISK 10-15 points HIGH RISKt{ r 15+points EXTREMELY HIGH RISK i rb 7/04 r r qui�-�- — ��5(� , � s�� r ..r ; , �;.��� •; ��t �� �,� . -�� , REQUEST $400,000 CITY OF PASCO NONCDBG $370,000 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW HUD Matrix Code: 03L — Sidewalks National Objective: LMA Goal/Strategy: 2 /2.5 C - 2021 - 7 - 14 Alloc./priority = Al HIGH Project Title: Pasco Neighborhood Business Eligible YES / NO District hnprovements Perf. Goal 10000 People Assisted NEW/EXISTING? Applicant: City of Pasco-Public Works & OK on terms current grant? YES / NO Engineering RISK FACTOR: REVIEWER: Comments con erns & questions: Activity Category: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements 1. Application received prior to deadline? YES [D' NO[:] 2. Application clearly states proposal? YES M—NO[:] 3. Was application submitted by an eligible applicant? YES [D-NO❑ 4. Project demonstrates it can be completed within project year? YES [�J-NO❑ 5. Applicant documents the capability to conduct the proposed activity? YES ©"NO[:] 6. Application signed by an authorized official of the organization? YES ©' NO[:] 7. Project serves Pasco residents? YES 3- NO❑ 8. Applicant has direct business relationships with Planning Commission members? YES ❑ NOD- Conflict of Interest Statement Received: % ' YES NO 9. Application form is complete? YES ©>NO❑ Additional information needed?Date requested 10. Has incomplete or additional information been provided?Financials/Auditslpther YES ❑ NO❑ Date received Follow-up Action 11. Application addresses a national objective? YES [1PNOO LMA, 570.208(a)(1) Administration Area benefit Limited clientele Housing Job creation Presumed Nature&Scope 12. Does does applicant document National Objectives to extremely low,very low and low income persons benefit requirements will be met? YES L3'NO❑ Source of documentation: Survey Instrument reviewed Adequate sample/response Census Tract o. _ /o Benefit to low income Client files Presumed benefit or nature and location > A�__ Information provided by: P "" M In. 13. What Strategic Action Plan Objective does the application address as stated in the 2010—2014 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan? Goal/Strategy: 2/2.5 Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly by improving streets and sidewalk systems. 14. What priority allocation level does the proposed activity address? (Refer to Priority Needs Ranking contained in the Allocation Policy? RANK Al 15. Application requests funds for eligible activity(ies) YES 2'NO[:] If yes, indicate which TYPE,HUD Matrix Code and Citation activity(ies)meets. 03L Sidewalks 570.201 c 16. If applicant is new(and is proposing a public service activity)does applicant document that the activity is new or an increased service level and does application meet criteria of Resolution#1969? YES ❑ NO❑ Vv 17. Does the proposed activity (or applicant)involve COMPLEX,or HIGH RISK,involving a level of technical assistance,which is greater than that normally provided for like activities? YES E2 NO❑ If response is YES,identify potential compliance areas where special or extensive technical assistance might be needed: __applicant has no history of managing Federal funds, _1,,�roject involves extensive or long term labor standards compliance actions, __applicant is proposing a newly developed human service, applicant has no experience at hiring contractors or managing construction projects, applicant proposes to construct a facility without using an architect or professional project manager, applicant is a new organization, activity is new to the City's CDBG Program Other: 18. Risk Assessment Factor: LOW MEDIUM ❑ HIGH ❑ Reviewed by: June 2,2020 Angela R Pitman,Block Grant Administrator Date CITY OF PASCO 2021 CDBG APPLICATION REVIEW — APPENDIX I SERVICE AREA DETERMINATION LMA HUD Activity # Project Title: Pasco Neighborhood Business District Improvements Applicant: City of Pasco-Public Works & Engineering PROPOSED PROJECT: Community Infiastructure.Pasco Neighborhood Business District Improvements, CDBG funds are requested for pedestrian safety and disability access improvements to downtown Pasco Nieghborhood Business District in the Vicinity of 4th and Lewis Streets between 2nd and 4th,and Clark and Columbia. Location(address): 525 N Third Avenue Narrative: LMA4-The Pasco Neighborhood Busines Disctrict Improvements project replaces sidewalks and improves pedestrian safety and disability access in the vicinity of Lewis Street between 2nd and 5th and 4th Avenue between Clark and Columbia Streets. Service Area Boundary: I-182/US-395 to the northwest and US-12 to A �1 Street/Columbia River south east. CT201.3, CT202.1,3 (LMISD 6/11/2018 4285 LM/5810 LMU 73.75%) t3-1—�vi I Is the area pre-determined?: ✓ ?� • Police precinct • Fire station • School • Other Is the area in a community-based planning or service map?_ • Library • Parks(specify) • Playground • Pool • Other Does the activity serve only small areas such as a residential neighborhood improvement area which is limited to a few c sus block groups surrounding the area in which they are located? (SCurb,gutter and sidewalk • Streetlights&Trees • Neighborhood Improvement Plan Revitalization Area • Other In Primarily Residential: �` "`"�JIn • Geographic Area (Map) JPercent Residential • Proposed Beneficiary of Project_________________ • Areas Contiguous? Factors: • Nature of the Activity • Location of the Activity • Barriers to accessibility • Available Comparable Activities • Fit of Service Area • Commercial Service Areas FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SERVICE AREA When grantee does not have a pre-determined identification of the area served for a given facility or service, it is necessary to determine the service area for qualification under LMA benefit.Service area determination will generally be accepted by HUD unless the grantee-defined area is clearly too small or too large.Factors to be considered in making the determination of the area served are: Nature of the Activity. In determining the boundaries of the area serviced by a facility,its size and how it is equipped need to be considered. Example, a park expected to serve an entire neighborhood cannot be so small or have so little equipment (number of swings,slides, etc.) that it would only be able to serve a handful of persons at any one time. Conversely,a park which contains three ballfields or a ballfield with grandstands cannot reasonably be said to be designed to serve a single neighborhood.The same comparison would apply to the case of assisting a small,two- lane street in a residential neighborhood versus that of an existing arterial four-lane street that may pass through the neighborhood but is clearly used primarily by persons passing through from other areas. What is the Nature of the Activity? ' ,l d����4 Location of the Activity. Where an activity is located will affect its capacity to serve particular area,especially when the location of a comparable activity is considered. A library,for example,cannot reasonably be claimed to benefit an area that does not include the area in which it is located. When a facility is located near the boundary of a particular neighborhood, its service area would be expected to include portions of the adjacent neighborhood as well as the one in which it is locate. (Note that the grantee may carry out activities that are even outside its jurisdiction if it is done in accordance with§570.309.) ��-- Is the Activity an appropriate fit for the location? /,.' �,1 r 1'`�r`` 1:'. •'. f' lr �','r"- Accessibility issues: The accessibility of the activity also needs to be considered in defining the area served.For example, if a river or an interstate highway forms a geographic barrier that separates persons residing n an area in a way that precludes them from taking advantage of a facility that is otherwise nearby,that area should not be included in determining the service area. Other limits to accessibility may apply to particular activities.For example,the amount of fees to be charged,the time or duration that an activity would be available,access to transportation and parking,and the distance to be traveled can all constitute barriers to the ability of persons to benefit. Language barriers might also constitute an accessibility issue in a particular circumstance. What are the barriers to accessibility? ' Available comparable activities.- The ctivities:The nature,location,and accessibility of comparable facilities and services must also be considered in defining a service area. In most cases,the service area for one activity should not overlap with that of a comparable activity (e.g.,two community centers,two clinics, or two neighborhood housing counseling services). Are there comparable activities available? G '�� FIT OF SERVICE AREA Because the regulations require that census data be used to the maximum extent feasible for determining the income of persons residing in service area,the boundaries of the service area determined by the grantee for the activity need to be compared with the boundaries of census divisions(tracts,block groups,etc.).The census divisions that best fall within the service area should be used for defining the service area for purposes of reporting on the activity and for calculating the percentage of L/M income persons residing in that area.While this means that the census divisions chosen for this purpose may exclude some limited number of persons that are in the actual service area or include some who are not,the practicality of using the census data will override unless the proportion of persons so excluded or included is too great.The alternative would be to survey excluded/included persons and to adjust the data obtained from the census computer runs accordingly. Surveys can be quite costly and their use should be limited whenever possible. l� Are the boundaries of the service area appropriate? � COMMERCIAL SERVICE AREAS A store will usually be considered to serve an area generally. Where the business itself has had a recent market survey to define the area it serves, it should be used for CDBG purposes. Where it does not have such a survey, an analysis of the location and accessibility of comparable stores should be taken to define the area served. When the CDBG assistance provided is not to a particular business but to the shopping center or commercial strip in which it is located(e.g.,fagade improvements),the area served would be that of the entire center or strip.Again,an analysis of comparable centers/strips should be undertaken in defining the service area.Note that it may not always be possible to define the area served by a commercial business, such as in the case where the businesses depend on tourists. Moreover,some commercial facilities serve a very broad area (e.g., a regional shopping mall) and the area may be so large an area that it is unlikely to meet the 51%L/M income residents test. How does this activity serve the low-mod residents in the area?— WORKSHEET Physical Boundaries: North Barrier?. West Barrier? South Ba rar? East Barr er?. What area(who) will be served:___ CHECK MAPS INCLUDED: Vicinity/Geographic Map(zoning%Residential) %Residential Census Chart Census Tract(s): Block Group(s): Beneficiary Data/Demographics LM LMU %LM LMISD Date Pasco Neighborhood Business Dist Imp OBJECTID GEOID Source geoname Stusab CountynarrState County Tract Blckgrp Low Lowmod Lmmi LowmodunLowmod_pct 205755 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 1 1155 1380 1445 1590 86.79 205757 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20200 3 1200 1405 1995 2075 67.71 205766 5.3E+11 2015ACS Block Grou WA Franklin Co 53 21 20400 6 295 790 1270 1315 60.08 2650 3575 4980 53% 72% 100% k 3 a y uE CEWED t inj 1'. ;' 21 2020c� COMMUNITY & ECONOWC DEVELOPMENT � { Community Development Block Grant Application 2021 Program Year Applicant City of Pasco—Public Works CIP Engineering PO Box 293 Address 525 N. 3rd Ave., Pasco,WA 99301 Project Name Pasco Neighborhood Business District Improvements Contact Person Jon Padvorac, Senior Civil Engineer Telephone 509-544-3080 Ext Email padvoraci@pasco-wa.2ov 6413 Federal Tax ID# 91-6001264 DUNS# #070972799 (required) (required) CDBG Funds Requested $400,000 Leverage $370,000 1. Describe your project and its proposed location, including what exactly the CDBG funds will be used for,a description of the persons you will be serving,and why the project is needed. The City of Pasco is actively working to improve the Pasco Neighborhood Business district, and currently has two fully funded projects at various stages of bidding/construction along the Lewis Street corridor(Peanuts Park, Lewis Street Overpass). Between these projects is a corridor lined with various shops and restaurants, one of the most culturally critical corridors of downtown Pasco. The proposed Lewis Street Corridor Improvement project will increase pedestrian safety and ADA accessibility,and leverage the investments being made on both ends of the corridor. The project will consist of new ADA accessible sidewalks and driveways, street lights,pavement surface treatment and re-striping,planters,trees,and benches. A master-plan has been prepared for the neighborhood around the Lewis Street Corridor by KPG Interdisciplinary Design that recommended the corridor improvements included within this proposal. Note that CDBG funds will not be used for street improvements,that element of the project will be funded by the City's Asphalt Overlay and Stormwater funds. 2. Describe the unmet need in the community using statistics,demographics or other factual information. The neighborhood business district is an economically distressed area. According to the 2011—2015 census, over 63%of the residents of the served community are classified as low income according to the HUD guidelines. Property values in the area have been depressed,and a number of buildings are vacant or underutilized. The Lewis Street corridor between 2nd and 5th is lined with restaurants and shops; businesses that are suffering severe impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Encouraging patronage of these businesses in the coming years will be critical to the surrounding community that is financially supported by them. The City has replaced most of the hazardous individual sidewalk panels,but a number of sections still require replacement. In addition, pedestrian lighting and ADA accessibility improvements would help enhance resident's experience and encourage foot traffic along the business-lined corridor. 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 1 3. Refer to the Community Priority Needs (Attachment B)—what Goal,Strategy,Objective and Outcome does your project fulfill? Goal# 2 Strategy# 5, 7 Objective# 1 Outcome# 1 4. Projects will be ranked according to the attached Allocation Policy(Attachment A) (Check only one box) A. High Priority ® B. Average Priority ❑ C. Low Priority ❑ D. No Priority ❑ Explain how your application satisfies that priority: The project reduces barriers for a physically impaired person by providing ADA accessible sidewalks. The project consists of improvements to a public facility(new sidewalks, improved lighting, landscaping, benches, etc.). The project specifically targets an area within the neighborhood that was struggling pre-COVID-19, and primarily consists of businesses that are highly susceptible to loss of revenue due to the ongoing pandemic. It will be critical that this area within the community is bolstered up to prevent a worsening of conditions.The proposed improvements would help increase pedestrian traffic outside the local business,which would both preserve legacy businesses and revitalize the currently run-down downtown corridor. 5. How does your application meet the National Objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate-income persons? (Check only one box—a, b,c,d) a. ❑ You receive income data verification from each individual or household beneficiary of the program b. ❑ Your project serves only the following clientele: (check only one box) ❑ Elderly persons ❑ Homeless persons ❑ Severely disabled adults ❑ Illiterate persons ❑ Abused children ❑ Persons living with AIDS/HIV ❑ Battered spouses ❑ Migrant farm workers ❑ Other: Describe C. ❑ Your project will create jobs that employ low to moderate-income employees. d. ® Your project/activity serves only a limited area which is proven by American Community Survey data to be primarily low-moderate income Provide a vicinity map (separate page)showing the location of the project and service area. Include a narrative description of the project boundaries(or address) and the area to be served. Project Address/Location: Boundaries: Lewis Ave between 2"&5th 020100(Block 1);020200 (Blocks 1,2,3); 020300 Census (Blocks 1, 3);020400(Blocks Block Groups Tract(s)# 2, 3,4,5,6) (s)# 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 2 6. Provide program benchmarks you hope to achieve in 2021. For example,how many unduplicated persons will be served,how many homes assisted, how many jobs created or retained. Do not inflate your estimates—the numbers provided will be used to assess your proposed project's success. 'Public Service—People/Housing—Households `Homebuyer—Unit of measure is households *Rehabilitation—Unit of measure is houses *Economic Development—Unit of measure is FTE jobs and/or businesses Number Served Unit of Measure CDBG Cost Per Unit CDBG Total Cost r Quarter 2"1 Quarter 3'd Quarter 4"Quarter Estimated number of 30,080 people benefiting $30.07/person $904,584 from the project. TOTAL 7. Of the total"number served" listed in the above table, please categorize your clientele by the following criteria: Number of clients below 30%median income Number of clients below 50%median income Number of clients below 80%median income 19,225 Number of elderly clients Number of minority clients Number of disabled clients Total Pasco residents served 30,080 �0 I 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 3 8. What is the dollar amount of CDBG funds your agency has received in the past four years? 2020 2019 2018 2017 Kennewick Pasco $560,084 $344,500 $243,000 $420,000 Richland 9. What impact will your project have in the community? How will you measure your success? The project will improve pedestrian safety and accessibility for low income residents and people with disabilities. It will also improve the sustainability of the neighborhood business district by improving safety and accessibility. Success will be measured by reduction in damage claims, reduction in street crimes, increased business activity, increased attendance at festivals and events,increased property values, employment and sales tax. The project will match the aesthetics of the nearby projects (Peanuts Park, Lewis Street Overpass), and will provide a revitalized, refreshed appearance to core of downtown Pasco. 10. The following are the maximum income guidelines for 2020 CDBG funded programs(80% is the maximum eligible). These guidelines will be updated mid-year 2021. 2019 HUD income Limit Guidelines for Kennewick-Pasco-Richland 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 30% 16,400 18,750 32,330 25,750 30,170 34,590 39,010 43,430 5051. 27,300 31,200 35,100 39,000 42,150 45,250 48,400 51,500 80% 43,700 49,950 56,200 62,400 67,400 72,400 77,400 82,400 Median 54,600 1 62,400 70,200 78,000 84,300 96,500 96,800 1 103,000 Effective June 1,2019 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 4 11. Give a detailed breakdown of the total budget for this project. Show where the CDBG funds you are requesting will be applied toward the listed expenses. List any other sources of funds you will use to match with the CDBG funds. Your total expenses should equal the amount of CDBG funds requested and all other source funds. Expense Requested CDBG Other Funds Source of Other TOTAL BUDGET Funds Funds PERSONNEL: Salaries $50,000 $50,000 OPERATIONS: Rent/Lease Utilities Supplies CONSTRUCTION: Engineering $144,500 CDBG 2019 Materials Labor/Contracts $350,000 $360,084 CDBG 2020 $1,324,584 $100,000 REET Fund $160,000 Asphalt Overlay Fund $110,000 Stormwater Fund PROPERTY: Purchase Price Closing Costs OTHER: (Describe) TOTAL $400k $1,374,584 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 5 12. Are the above"other sources"of funds secured? Please describe: The CDBG 2019 and 2020 funds are secured. Other local funds, stormwater and Overlay, are planned for completing funding of the project. Overlay and Stormwater funds will be used to cover activities eligible for such funding. Estimated amounts needed for this project are anticipated to be available in these funds and are expected to be secured as part of the 2021-2022 budget adoption. 13. If you do not receive the requested funds or receive only a portion of what you request,what will you do? If the entire project could not be funded,the City would implement a phased approach to the project. At a minimum, it is desired to construct the pedestrian improvements between 2"d and 4th,which would connect the Peanuts Park improvements with the new Lewis Street Overpass. Cost estimates were prepared for a phased approach. 14. If your request includes recurring costs such as staff time, supplies, etc., what is your plan to secure funds for these needs in the future? (The purpose of CDBG funds is not to fund projects that are the general responsibility of government or to maintain the operation of a non-profit organization.) N/A 15. Check"yes"or"no"for each of the following questions: Assessment Question Yes No 1. Is your organization new to the CDBG program? 2. Is this a new activity for the organization? ❑ a. Has this activity been completed successfully in prior years? ® ❑ b. Have CDBG performance goals been met in prior years? ® ❑ 3. Does the organization have unresolved audit findings? El 4. Is staff responsible for the CDBG project new or inexperienced? ❑ 5. Does your project displace or relocate any individual or business? 6. Does your project involve construction/renovation? ® ❑ a. Do you own the property? ® ❑ b. Do you have experience with federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements? ® ❑ 7. What type of CDBG activity is your project? (Choose one) 1) Administration ❑ 2) Public Service ❑ 3) Economic Development ❑ 4) Affordable Housing(acquisition/rehabilitation, etc.) ❑ 5) Public Facility(Buildings/Parks,etc.) ❑ 6) Code Enforcement ❑ 7) Community Infrastructure(curb/gutter/sidewalks/sewer/water,etc.) 8) Revitalization(Describe): The project will attempt to revitalize this critical corridor by replacing old and deteriorated features including sidewalks,curb/gutter, providing improved lighting for increased safety, and providing an environment that attracts more people to the area who may patronize the local businesses. 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 6 Certifications and Assurances I/we make the following certifications and assurances as a required element of the Application to which it is attached, understanding that the truthfulness of the facts affirmed here and the continuing compliance with these requirements are conditions precedent of the award or continuation of the related contract(s). The City of Pasco reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any or all applications received without penalty and is not obligated to enter into a contract of any applicant. Incomplete, late or ineligible Application packets will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. I understand that the City will not reimburse for any costs incurred in the preparation of this Application or any pre- award costs. All applications will become the property of the City,and I/we claim no proprietary right to the ideas, writings, items or samples. SUBMITTED BY: Signature of Authorized Agency Official _SCKQ/� HArkA L . - 5 f fr 1A� Printed Name&Title Date 2021 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocatin Application 7 Woo LEWI LEWIS CORRIDOR EXTENTS OF IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMFNTS OVERPASS I PHASE 2(FUTUREPHASE 1 PHASE 1 PROJECT i PROJECT) . • b• , . . �;.= � 11 i . D . 1 p p a D ty ew s ree . . / x x\ f PEANUTS '- PARK PROJECT PLAN & PHASE KEY w z_ -._. New ews§treet Overpass, m NEW LEWIS STREET OVERPASS Q Q - - . PLAN & PHASE KEY SHEET 1 PEANUTS PARK IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PASCOT^ DATE: 5/19/2020 LEWIS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS (2"d TO 5") CITY OF PASCO 2007 Lewis Street Corridor Improvements (2nd to 5th) 5/21/2020 Engineer's Opinion of Construction Cost- PH1 Only Phase 1 improvements extend from 2nd to 4th Ave. Item Description Unit Unit CostOverall Overall Cost No. I I Quantity _] Schedule A 1 Minor Chane IFA 1 $15,000.0011 11 $15,000.00 2 1SPCC Plan LS 1 $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 3 1 Mobilization ILS 1 $90,000.0011 1 $90,000.00 4Pro ect Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $70,000.0011 1 $70,000.00 5 1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 $5,000.01 1 $5,000.001 6 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS $1,500.0011 1 $1,500.00 7 Unclassified Excavation Incl. Haul Icy 1 $40.00 838 $33,539.04 8 1 Pavement Planing ISY I $3.001 62001 $18,600.00 9 Crack Sealing FA $7,000.00 1 $7,000.00 10 HMA CI.3/8-Inch PG 65s-28 ETON 1 $110.00 7601 $83,600.00 11 1 Pavement Markings LS 1 $18,000.0011 1 $18,000.00 12 Stormater S stem-T pe 1 Catch Basin LS $2 000.00 10 $20,000.00 13 Stormater System-Type 2 Catch Basin ILS 1 $4,000.0011 51 $20,000.00 14 Stormater System-Underdrain Pie Infiltration Trench 60'each LF 1 $150.00 300 $45,000.001 15 Shoring or Extra Excavation ILF 1 $10.001 3001 $3,000.001 16 New Light Pole JEA 1 $12,500.0011 18 $225,000.00 17 New Sidewalks 4" Sy 1 $60.0011 29881 $179,262.001 18 ]New Driveways 6" Sy 1 $80.00 1001 $8,000.001 19 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp JEA 1 $1,750.0011 18 $31,500.00 20 !Cement Concrete Curb&Gutter&Subgrade ILF 1 $30.0011 21391 $64.170.00 1 21 !Plantings 96 trees) IEA 1 $1 100.0011 661 $72.864.001 22 Roadside Restoration JFA 1 $6,000.0011 1 $6,000.00 23 Irrigation System, complete ILS 1 $25,000.0011 1 $25,000.00 1 24 !Valve Adjustment ILS 1 $1,000.001 1 $1,000.00 25 1 Permanent Signage ILS 1 $5,000.001 1 $5,000.00 26 (Trash Can+Bench JEA 1 $5000.0011 8 40.000.00 Schedule A Subtotall 51 089.035 04 Assumptions: 1. Existing roadway/parking is 52'wide SCHEDULE A $1,089,035.04 2. Existing sidewalks are around 14.5'wide 3. Four trees between each pair of street lights CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEERING(3%) $35,938.16 5. 8'Parallel parking on each side of road 6. Two 17'travel lanes DESIGN(15%) $163,355.26 7. Catch Basin paving 2/block with 2 type 1 catch basins and 1 type 2 catch basin each 8.60 LF infiltration per catch basin pairing CONSTRUCTION ADMIN(8%) $87,122.80 9. Grind and overlay 0.17' 10. Light poles include Service+Conduit+Conducter TOTAL $1,375,451.26 Estimate Prep red By: 5/20/2020 Jon Pa vorac, E Date City of Pas CITY OF PASCO 2007 Lewis Street Corridor Improvements (2nd to 5th) 5/21/2020 Engineer's Opinion of Construction Cost- PH1 & PI-12 Phase 1 improvements extend from 2nd to 4th Ave. Item Description Unit LUnit Cost Overall Overall Cost No. Quantity Schedule A 1 Minor Chane FA $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 2 SPCC Plan LS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 3 Mobilization LS $100,000.00 1 $100,000.00 4 Pro ect Temeorary Traffic Control LS $75,000.00 1 $75,000.00 5 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 6 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00 7 Unclassified Excavation Incl.Haul CY $40.0011 17511 $50,058.27 8Pavement Planing Sy $3.0011 92001 $27,600.00 9 Crack Sealing FA $10,000.0 1 $10,000.00 10 HMA Cl. 3/8-Inch PG 65s-28 ITON $100.0011 1100 $110,000.00 11 Pavement Markings ILS 1 $25,0010.0011 1 $25,000.00 12 Stormater System-Type 1 Catch Basin ILS 1 $2,000.0011 14 $28,000.00 13 Stormater System-Type 2 Catch Basin ILS 1 $4,000.0 7 $28,000.00 14 Stormater System-Underdrain Pie Infiltration Trench 60'each LF 1 $150.00 420 $63,000.00 F-1-57—horing or Extra Excavation ILF 1 $10.00 4201 $4,200.00 16 New Light Pole JEA $12,500.00 30 $375,000.00 17 New Sidewalks 4" SY 1 $60.0011 4330 $259,800.00 18 New Driveways 6" ISY $80.00 150 $12,000.00 19 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp JEA $1,750.00 24 $42,000.00 20 Cement Concrete Curb&Gutter&Sub rade ILF $30.0011 31001 $93,000.00 21 Plantings 96 trees EA $1.000.0011 96 96.000.00 22 Roadside Restoration IFA $6,000.0011 1 $6,000.00 23 Irrigation System,complete ILS $30,000.0011 1 $30,000.00 24 1 Valve Adjustment ILS $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 25 Permanent Signage LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 26 1 Trash Can+Bench JEA 5.000.00 12 60 000.00 chedule A ubtotal %3 2Z Assumptions: 1.Existing roadway/parking is 52'wide SCHEDULE A $1,523,158.27 2.Existing sidewalks are around 14.5'wide 3. Four trees between each pair of street lights CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEERING(3%) $50,264.22 5.8'Parallel parking on each side of road 6.Two 17'travel lanes DESIGN(15%) $228,473.74 7.Catch Basin paving 2/block with 2 type 1 catch basins and 1 type 2 catch basin each 8.60 LF infiltration per catch basin pairing CONSTRUCTION ADMIN(8%) $121,852.66 9.Grind and overlay 0.17' 10.Light poles include Service+Conduit+Conducter TOTAL $1,923,748.90 Estimate Pr pared By: r-4��2— 5/20/2020 Jon dvo ,PE Date City of asco Pasco LMA Service Area clryei LMA Service Area LMSID Effective Date: 6/11/2018 CO Acs 2006 - 2010 �4achin�mn Trac: rac 0206')5 0 00 Blk Grp: Tract: Tract: Grp: 020605 980100 �r Blk Grp:1 Blk Grp:1 T 7 a 2 1 Bilk�[p:3 ract:020300 Tract:020100 T — - ^- ---- — Blk Grp:1 Tract: Peanuts Park 020502 Blk Grp:2 Tract: 020502 Low M od: 20395 Blk Grp:1 LowModUniv: 27330 r Trt. LowMod Percent: 74.62% ---+---- BIG Residential Area: 53.23% Tract: Tract: Tract: Tract: Tract: 020200 Tract: 020502 020502 020400 020200 Blk Grp:1 Blk Grp: Blk Grp:5 Blk Grp:6 Tract: Blk Grp:2 Bilk Grp:2 rp:2 020400 Tract: Bilk Grp:3 r:3 cn 020700 Blk Grp:2 Tract: Tract: Tract:Grp: 020400 020200 Tract- 020502 ract: 02Bilk Grp:3 020100 Blk Grp:4 Blk Grp:6 131k Grp:4 Tra 020 2 Tract: Grp: 020400 7 Blk Grp.1 Tract: 020100 Residential Parcels Blk Grp:3 Census Block Groups LMA Service Area n Census_Tract_2016 Pasco Tract: 020100 ®Included in Residential Area Blk Grp:5 1 Esri,HERE.Garmin,(c)OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS u community Pasco LMA Service Area Mko LMSID Effective Date: 5/23/201! ACS 2015 - 2020 N f� [Pewanuts Park Renovation Mod: 19225 1 LowModUniv: 30080 LowMod Percent: 63.91% � Residential Area: 56.24% LEGEND Esri,HERE.Garmin,(c)OpenStmetMap contributors,and the GI sercommunity ��ulNllp;� In addition to the core park/plaza space,the streets within the core downtown areas should be improved for creating a more pedestrian-friendly, accessible and inviting walking environment. y� t � Improvements would include new sidewalks, " street trees,decorative lighting,street furniture, curb bulbs, decorative crosswalks,potential street narrowing,upgrades to utilities where needed and other amenities such as parklets,street banners, and wayfinding signage. • W Clark St "to 3 rd a - 'j .� , •s • W Lewis St (5"to 3`d) h' • W Columbia(51h to 3`d) • S 5"Avenue(Clark to Columbia) • S 4"Avenue (Clark to Columbia) • S3 d Avenue (Clark to Columbia) RVAEDIMMW WWI7 ................ ................ cept IM, .. 9-4m.,pasco con C ' i• k S � � M r � • ....+t,,_•c.+ ;�y •r:. MMMM�" M t�'yw"`-P,r. r'i". � • ".fi �. 7�m Right-of-way for downtown streetsra' --ice";' 1 r-„ ��`,i r+•,,�+� *•—; �,e,T_ ,_.++ _ �` is as follows: ,` '1, . ,p `'. Veo • W Clark St (80') V'''' .�:. �F��",,.•;�, ,� '✓" 6 K • W Lewis St (80') v1Oe • W Columbia (80) • S S"Avenue (80') • S 4`h Avenue (80') . S 3`d Avenue(80') : � +'''' •`�., S ,,g't Based upon these right-of-ways,the s S 1. .. r!'� � following pages show existing and tis ` K— 10''• proposed street width dimensions. OWN "� '��= •' ���, '^' 4. '"�'' S4r .00000,1 �1 r yCOV ,.. +"d•�: ,A 5� K CO r 00 r.. 14.5'srdeualk le -}I— -}I- IT(ravel lane17'travel lanel+ 145sidev.alk-^8ay parking parking W LEWIS STREET- EXISTING SECTION t9 5'scevark -8 + 12travel lane 12 tr velI ne 8' v195s.dewalk- Fry curb bulb. curb bu!br oarailel oaralle' W LEWIS STREET- PROPOSED SECTION existing conditions photos a 1 pasco Calf, . �, t � L _ V t✓ b.l-�./ '1./ '\% d/ s V. 3 _ T �YR'.. Y1t1 �: •� Jill t Mi a$co concept ti. --a.T v�' _ • Decorative galling fl rt !Bike racks ✓ � � � �a cvc;tt�r. sC• � Tree g rates t Litter receptacles �.. ,.. ;.V .'ate!' � �Y-•' :�. � .. .' ...�.. ....,��—T 111111111 1111111111 ■�■111 11��111 II�IIIr Illluu 111� � � ,���� , 111111111 1111111111 ■111111 11111111 1��■■ 1 : :; • ., 111111■I■ 11111111■ I IIIIII 111111■ .���� - � �� ��� 11111111■1 �� 1�.■ �__._ J■�11� 11.111 ���� ♦ . ��� ♦ . 1■ , 1111 NINE ■II■ �� ♦ �,,����� ,�� �� ����� ON �� ��� ♦ �� . , 111 ,E ■■111 11111111 ►� i i ♦� � � �� •� ����� ����� ��• • : • - • III M111111 IIIWE I . , • �� ���V ��� ♦� ,♦ �� :���� ♦� III � 111111■ ■11 . ... . •• � �� ♦�� ♦ � , 111 -x: ��i■It 11111 ♦i � ��♦♦ ���� ����. r�� • �� . 1■ VIII■ ■■1111\ -- -. ���� , ��. . �♦• .. r �!. � ���� 111111■ ■IIIIII . • • . •♦�� ��� �`•, , ♦ �� • . • ♦ ♦� � ♦� 111 : • ♦ ♦ • • INNIS ME _. _!!::' .� IIII11111111111I mm mm mm mma E_ WEI ■■ WE w� MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Ciry"1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1�I� Pasco City Hall —525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 18th, 2020 6:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: MF# CPA 2020-001— Urban Growth Area Expansion Background The City of Pasco is continuing its efforts to the update the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). The Comprehensive Plan consists of goals, policies and an analysis of a variety of topics including economic development, transportation, and public services, land-housing and capital facilities. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan also guides decisions on development and growth within the City limits and the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) develops population projections for each county, followed by each county determining where that growth shall occur. Per RCW 36.70A.110, each county is then responsible for designation Urban Growth Areas where urban growth shall be encouraged. The delineation of each Urban Growth Area shall be sufficient to accommodate the projected population growth identified by the OFM and County. The population estimates for Pasco indicate the City is expected to reach a total of 121,828 residents by 2038, an increase of 48,238 (from 2018). In order to accommodate that growth, the City identified that an expansion of the Urban Growth Area would be necessary. As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Planning update efforts, the City of Pasco has been developing an application to Franklin County to increase our Urban Growth Area (UGA). Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement During the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) evaluation, the City (as the Lead Agency) determined that the Comprehensive Plan proposal would likely have significant adverse impact on the natural and built environment therefore requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Scoping Notice for the EIS was released on October 8, 2018, and identified three alternatives for the expansion of the Urban Growth Area: 1. No Action: No UGA Expansion 2. Alternative No. 2: Traditional Growth Target (^'4,800 acres) 3. Alternative No. 3: Compact Growth Target (^3,500 acres). 1 The EIS provides the analysis for the Comprehensive Plan that will help determine the appropriate Urban Growth Area expansion for the City of Pasco. Staff and our consulting team released the Draft EIS on May 15th, 2020. Land Capacity Analysis Additionally, with recommendations from the Washington State Department of Commerce and Franklin County Planning Staff, the City conducted a Land Capacity Analysis. The Land Capacity Analysis identified the development capacity within the existing city limits and UGA.This allowed the city to make reasonable decisions on how much land was necessary and justifiable for expansion purposes. The results of the Land Capacity Analysis determined that Pasco has capacity to accommodate 63% of the forecasted growth within the existing City Limits and UGA. Approximately 3,500 acres would be needed to support the additional growth the year 2038. Capital Facilities Analysis The Capital Facilities Analysis for the UGA (see exhibits) identifies that a variety of revenue sources will be necessary to fund the new infrastructure including transportation, water, sewer along with the public services needed to serve the immediate growth. The estimated projected capital facility costs is $114,146,000.000. This cost is to serve the expanded Urban Growth Area for through the year 2025 and takes into consideration already adopted Transportation, Sewer and Water Plans along with the Capital Improvement Program by City Council. Per RCW 36.70A.110(3); adequate public facilities and the ability to provide service to developments must be identified. It should also be noted that projects may be partially funded during the development process to meet concurrency or mitigation required. It is expected that the revenue sources to fund infrastructure expansion of the UGA will include a variety of feeds, funds and contributions from developers. Summary It should be noted that while the City can request the expansion of the Urban Growth Area per title 17.84.010 of the Franklin County Municipal Code, the Growth Management Act grants the authority to the County to establish the boundaries. Upon an approved resolution from the Pasco City Council identifying the City's preferred Urban Growth Area boundary, the resolution along with a complete application will be submitted to the Franklin County for consideration. The expansion of Pasco's Urban Growth Area should be done with careful review sensitive to the variety of impacts it may have on the environment and taxpayers The Growth Management Act requires UGA's to be limited in size and justified with appropriate measures including the development densities and patterns expected of an urban area. Staff believes that the proposal for Alternative #3 is justified and reasonably able to meet the intent and requires of the Growth Management Act provisions as enacted by the Washington State Legislature. 2 Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission to close the public hearing and recommend to the Pasco City that the preferred Urban Growth Area be amended per Exhibit#1 (Alternative #3) attached to the staff report dated June 18th, 2020. 3 �rQ, k N } FRANKLIN COUNTY `- W ; E 4-L V AW ^l� ■ &Z ` Ri-chIA` t'i all e• #�M. -�L 9 .,.� FAIF - nl � _ y f _ ,h W EF BENTON COUNTY Va River Kennewick �. City Limits t i Current Urban Growth Area 0 1 2 Proposed Urban Growth Area Miles City of Pasco - UGA Comparison Map Updated: December 201 ,ree:Esr;,Di italGlobe,GeoEye, E-a`rthsta raphi's ►N i CONNECTING HERE WITH THERE PORL EXHIBIT A Port o1 Pasco Administrative Office Phone:509.547.3378 .2547 RECEIVED Fax 509.54 co.org PASCO portofpasco prey Poinsco.or. 1110 Osprey Pointe Blvd. Suite 201 FEB 18 2020 P.O. Box 769 February 14, 2020 Pasco Washington U.S A 99301 COtAUJITY& EC01`401,11C DEVELOPMEW Port Commissioners Jean Ryckman Planning Commission James T Klindworth City of Pasco Vicki Gordon PO Box 293 Executive Director Pasco, WA 99301 Randy Hayden Subject: Comments to Urban Growth Area Expansion Honorable Commissioners, The Port of Pasco is the primary economic development organization within Franklin County. As such we strongly support the City of Pasco's request for adding industrial land to the Urban Growth Area (UGA)to promote economic development and meet a number of Growth Management Act (GMA) goals in Pasco and Franklin County. There are many reasons to support this expansion: 1. Large scale, modern industrial development requires large contiguous parcels (20 acres or greater), nearby utilities, access to transportation (highway and rail), and for heavy industry, a buffer from residential property. While there is industrial land in Pasco and in the greater Tri-Cities, much of the industrial property does not meet these criteria. In the current Pasco UGA, much of the available property is in the Commercial Avenue corridor and will likely be developed soon making it unavailable for the long term planning contemplated by GMA. 2. Certain large industrial tracts are unavailable or very limited in their development. For example at the Tri-Cities Airport, we own approximately 220 acres of industrial land, but the land is in the runway protection area.While airport rules allow industrial development, it is restricted to the benefit of airport operations. Another 640 acre tract of industrial land east of the new Autozone is owned by the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) who has said that the land is too valuable as agricultural land to be used for industrial growth. 3. Recent agency purchases—the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation recently purchased 165 acres of industrial land located in the Commercial Avenue area. This is prime industrial land that will now likely become a casino. In 2016, DNR acquired 450 acres of industrial property within the UGA near the Snake River(separate from the parcel described previously), with no plans to pursue industrial development. It should be noted that neither of these governmental purchasers sought input from the local governments prior to making the purchase. !011x1 OIWOMI LVuv IV 14 MIM Pasco Planning Commission February 14, 2020 Page 2 of 2 4. The additional land to be added to the UGA within the Highway 395 corridor is just north of existing industrial development. All of this land is already in an industrial land use designation but within Franklin County.The question then becomes whether it is better for this industrial land to be developed outside or within the UGA. We believe it is better to develop the land within the city limits. By neighboring industrial growth with existing industrial development, a hub is created that reduces sprawl, reduces local traffic congestion, and takes advantage of complimentary industrial development such as cold storage facilities for food processors. 5. Creating a strong community—where industrial development occurs matters when creating a stable tax base for a community to provide needed services. The per capita assessed value in Franklin County is $40,000 per person. In Benton County that number is over 50% higher at $61,000 per person. Franklin County is also a net exporter of talent, exporting 6% (net) of its workforce each day to neighboring counties. Keeping the industry and the jobs that come with it in the same community where the workers are housed provides a more socially equitable outcome. 6. Aiding regional transportation - each day 11,000 workers from Franklin County commute to Benton County to work. The majority of this workforce is heading to Hanford,the Tri-Cities Research District and the Horn Rapids Industrial Park. Further regional reliance on industrial development located distant from workforce housing in Pasco will further clog roads. Companies will locate closer to their workforce if the right land is available, but that requires a UGA expansion. 7. Balanced request—the City of Pasco request to bring industrial land into the UGA is balanced by lands taken out of an industrial designation to more accurately reflect their development potential. This includes new designations of public reserve for property adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport and lands farmed indefinitely by DNR. Other lands are transitioning to other uses. The Port owns several waterfront parcels that are more appropriate for mixed use than heavy industrial. Goals of the GMA include reducing sprawl, regional transportation and economic development. The City of Pasco request for adding industrial lands in the UGA is supportive of these goals and should be approved. Respectfully, PORT OF MCO Randy Hayden, P.E. -2 Executive Director uAport of pascoVic\letter-cop uea-2012.0214,docx EXHIBIT B RECEIVED To: City of Pasco MAK U j ?020 Community Development Department COMMUNITY 8 ECONOI,jIC P.O. Box 293, DEVELOPMENT 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Notice of Public Hearing— Urban Growth Area Expansion Dear Planning Commission I wish to expression my opposition to the proposed urban growth area expansion. Specifically the area of 2,810 acres North of Burns Road. 1. The expansion further North will increase the congestion on RD 68 and its arterial roads of Burden RD, Sandifur Parkway, RD's 44 and 36, and the corresponding interchanges of Rd 68 and 100 and hwy182.The interchange already gets backed up onto hwy 182 from exit 7 and 9 during evening commute hours. The already planned expansion west of RD 100 will further congest that traffic as well. 2. Expansion north will also put a strain on city services, police and fire and rescue. That can remediated by hiring, buying and building more of necessary components of personnel, equipment and trucks. Additional Schools and teachers will be needed as well. Again more spending. More bonds, more taxes to approve, more funding to secure. 3. Expansions that have already taken place have brought in increasing number of real estate speculators that are building and buying homes to rent, rather than being affordable for families to purchase. The number of quick build storage units can confirm that. I am for progress and growth to meet the needs of prospering area. However, before expansion goes further there need to be plans set to accommodate the logistics of traffic and that the funding is available for the required service needs. We also need to build a community that helps build people and families. I appreciate the work that those who serve the city have done to make Pasco a good place to live and have a family. Please do the ground work planning to prevent problems rather than trying remediate them when they appear. Best Regards, Neil Withers EXHIBIT C THANKSGIVING LIMITED PARNTERSHIP P.O. BOX 3027 PASCO WA 99302-3027 (509) 545-3355 RECEIVED March 7,2020 MAK 0 y 2020 COW1UNITY 8 ECONOr,11C OEVELOPtIENT Mr.Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco WA 99301 Re:Notice of Public Hearing—Urban Growth Area Expansion Dear Jacob: This letter is on behalf of the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership (TLP). As Managing Partner, I ask that staff and the planning commission,reconsider the current Urban Growth Boundary to include all of the TLP property,as previously approved in Resolution 3845 dated June 18,2018. TLP is an entity comprised of Tippett family siblings. The Tippett family has been real estate investors in the City of Pasco since the 1970's. TLP owns+/- 140 acres of land immediately adjacent to City limits, and immediately north of 160 acres recently purchased by the Confederate Tribes of the Colville Reservation. The westerly property boundary (approximately 2,000 lineal feet) fronts Capital Avenue. The land is currently zoned AP-20 and Rural Residential 5 Acre Tracts. Capital Avenue is a fully developed public road that was funded by President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It has been the partners understanding that the Capital Avenue project was intended to serve as stimulus for industrial development in the City. In 2016-2017,TO became aware of the need for a community soccer complex in the City. The partnership had an idea that would involve the City developing a community soccer complex,which would also act as a buffer between our residential neighbors to the north,and any future commercial/industrial development to the south. After a series of positive meetings with City Parks, City Planning, and City Management, the City provided the partnership with a preliminary design for the complex (see attached soccer complex design). After obtaining approval from the neighbors,the partnership then provided the City with a proposal to sell+/-30 acres of land zoned rural residential 5 acre tracts,which included a portion of the water right,and a shared interest in the irrigation well (see attached Sale Proposal dated September 7,2017). The proposal was well received by the City. The partnership per the advice of both,the City, and the County met with the neighbors to discuss the nature of a soccer complex next door to them. The general consensus from the neighbors was that they would find it an acceptable use. The partnership then applied to have 120 acres included in the UGB. The application was approved by the planning commission in Resolution 3845(as shown below). Mr.Jacob Gonzalez Page 2 of 4 March 9,2020 F—Resolution 3845 Exhibit #1 'f a TLP-120 acres N s PASCO UGA (2018) l The commitment made by TO to the City was to develop the property as follows: k TLP-120 acres 4 + ` In the most recent Notice of Public Hearing,the City unexpectedly announced that the UGB had been modified to include only 40 of the original 120 TO acres proposed to be in the UGB(as shown below). Mr.Jacob Gonzalez Page 3 of 4 March 9,2020 ®RAFT Proposed Urban Growth Area �,t> i! neo TO-120 acres Y Q)""Urbnn Cyv A Y .rw car Ofsti,.w.an• 4M RC(f:AGl Urban G-.1hA/!A u,r�.uwa.^aw•olc�++ We have come to understand that over time the City's interest in a soccer complex at this location has waned due to acquisition of land on A Street(to our knowledge this site has no irrigation source or water rights). While TLP respects the City's decision to shift its focus elsewhere,the partners do not want to give up on the notion of a soccer complex as a land use buffer between its neighbors, and are in the process of obtaining costs to develop a soccer complex as a family legacy project. Furthermore, per RCW 36.70A.110,the TLP property is postured to utilize existing sewer and water infrastructure available in Capital Avenue. To include the sewer lift station installed for the AutoZone project,which we understand was adequately sized to accomodate the TLP property. RCW 36.70A.110 Paragraph(3)Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development,second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. It also satisfies a City planning goal as defined in Appendix III of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under the heading Growth Management Mandate, which states "Encourage development of urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner". Over the years TLP has worked diligently and intelligently on how to develop this property. It appears as though all this effort has somehow been lost in the process. TLP remains committed to develop the property as described above. Therefore, I ask again that staff and the planning commission reconsider the current UGB to include all 120 TLP acres. Mr.Jacob Gonzalez Page 4 of 4 March 9,2020 I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for its service to the citizens of Pasco, and for giving this matter ample consideration, and lastly,I apologize that I cannot be at the hearing in person to deliver this message. Sincerely, w Y Robert M.Tippett,Managing Partner PC: Dave Zabell Rick White EXHIBIT D HALVERSON NORTHWEST Ra AlannD G,Alexander Campbelll++ J.Jay Carroll LAW GROUP Paul C.Dempsey" James S,Elliott Yuridia Equihua Robert N.Faber F.Joe Falk,Jr.+ May 14, 2020 Mark E.Fickes Carter L.Fjeld+ Frederick N.Halverson- Via Email (whifer(a�pasco-wa.gov, gonza1ezib(0-)-pasco-wa.gov) Lawrence E.Martin' and US Mail Terry C.Schmalz+ Linda A.Sellers Michael F.Shinn Stephen R.VNntree+ 'Also ar Me be City of Pasco AState StteBarroofCAMember CommunityDevelopment Department +O/Conneel d p p -Honorery/ReOred P.O. Box 293 ++Retired 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez AND TO: City of Pasco Planning Commission P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson RE: Comments on CPA 2020-01, the Proposed (Modified) City of Pasco UGA Expansion Our Clients: Property Owner: Fred Olberding Purchaser/Developer: Big Sky Developers, LLC Dear Sirs: Introduction and Background Our office represents Mr. Fred Olberding who owns property north of Burns Road adjacent to the current Pasco city limits and slated for inclusion in the City of Pasco's ("City" or "Pasco") UGA expansion currently being considered by the City of Pasco and its Planning Commission as part of its required periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan. Our office also represents Big Sky Developers, LLC currently under contract to acquire the property and develop it for residential use. Collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A is a Franklin County parcel map and the City's draft October 2019 Future Land Use Map showing the property at issue (the "Property"). The Property currently is under contract to be sold to Big Sky Developers, LLC for future residential development contingent upon the property being included in Pasco's UGA and zoned for residential development. halversonNW.com HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C. Yakima Office:405 E.Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 2255o I Yakima,WA 98907 1 P)509.248.6030 1 0 509.453.688o Sunnyside Office:9ro Franklin Avenue,Suite i J PO Box 210 1 Sunnyside,WA 98944 1 P)509.837.5302 1 0 509.837.2465 City of Pasco Community Development Department Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson May 14, 2020 Page 2 CPA 2018-03, a proposal to expand the City's urban growth area, was originally submitted in June of 2018. The City's original Future Land Use Map included the Property within the City's expanded UGA with a land use designation of Low Density Residential consistent with all the surrounding property in the area. The City now proposes to reduce its UGA expansion in accordance with a draft (updated) Future Land Use Map dated October 2019 attached as Exhibit B. The proposed new Future Land Use Map, without specific notice to our client and without notice being republished or recirculated in accordance with SEPA and GMA mandates, now proposes to designate an approximately 30-acre portion of the Property (highlighted in red on the attached Future Land Use Map) as "Commercial" rather than Low Density Residential property as originally proposed. Our clients are opposed to the proposed Commercial designation and believe that such a designation is contrary to the goals of the state's Growth Management Act, would be a clearly erroneous land use designation and is being proposed without adequate public notice and without consideration of the as-built environment. Our clients would request that the entire 80-acre Property within the City's proposed UGA remain designated Low Density Residential as originally proposed for the reasons set forth below. Please consider this letter a specific and continuing request for special notice of all maps, recommendations, hearings and meetings relating to the City's UGA expansion requests, including those relating to the Property. The Olberding Property Should Remain Designated Low Density Residential and The City's Proposed Commercial Designation Cannot be Supported. A. Notice of the proposed map change has not been properly given.. The proposed draft, October 2019 Future Land Use Map proposed by the City was not properly published and circulated to affected property owners as required by applicable law. Washington law is clear that county or city actions to change an amendment to a comprehensive plan triggers the statutory mandate for public review and comment and robust public participation. RCW 36.70A.035; also see, e.g. Spokane County v. E. Wash Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 188 Wn. App. 467, 353 P3d. 680 (2015). While apparently on the last Planning Commission meeting agenda for Thursday, March 19, 2020 as item VII C (Urban Growth Area (MF# CPA 2020-001)), our clients did not receive notice of the change from a residential to a commercial designation in time to provide written comments. While Big Sky Developers' engineering representative, Caleb Stromstad attended the meeting, he noted that options for public comment were extremely limited. There were only a few people in attendance. Comments were limited to two minutes and City of Pasco Community Development Department Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson May 14, 2020 Page 3 the meeting occurred at the beginning of the social distancing requirements of the pandemic, making public participation limited. At the meeting, Mr. Stromstad recommended that the commercial designation be removed and was told that the proposed UGA modifications (Alternative Number 3) was in draft from only and that additional opportunities for public and property owner comment would be provided. Our clients' position is that the March 19 Planning Commission meeting did not meet the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act and SEPA as applied to any material modifications to the Future Land Use Map. This letter and the attachments should be considered our clients' additional comments to be made part of the record without in any way waiving or limiting their right to supplement the record with additional written materials or in-person testimony at future Planning Commission meetings. B. The City's proposed Commercial designation cannot be supported. As an initial matter, the property owner and developer (Big Sky) both strongly support the City's inclusion of the Property within the City's new UGA. This is not in dispute. Our clients simply believe that based on GMA goals, the as-built environment and practical considerations, that an island of commercially-designated property is not needed and cannot be supported along Burns Road in the southwest portion of the Property. First, there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the City of Pasco's inventory of commercially-designated and zoned property is inadequate. As a practical and legal matter, commercially-designated and zoned property should be located in and along established commercial corridors where commercial property and development already exists, such as along Road 68 or Broadmoor Boulevard. Our clients believe that the commercial designation proposed without notice to the owners or without any support on the record, violates one or more of the State's GMA planning goals including but not limited to the following: (1) It fails to encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. RCW 36.70A.020(1). (2) It fails to encourage efficient transportation systems coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020 (3). (3) It fails to promote the retention or expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, and fails to encourage such growth where public services and facilities are available. RCW 36.70A.020 (5). City of Pasco Community Development Department Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson May 14, 2020 Page 4 (4) It fails to protect the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. RCW 36.70A.020 (6). (5) It fails to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support the commercial development will be adequate. RCW 36.70A.020 (12). Simply stated, the proposed small island of commercially-designated property is an illegal spot zone that violates the GMA goals set forth above. The current as-built environment and practical considerations also make this site completely unsuitable for commercial development in the next 20 years. There is a large BPA power line on the west side of the Property which would be inconsistent with most commercial development, and which is a BPA main trunk line that cannot be moved. The 80-acres immediately east of the Property recently has been sold to the Pasco School District for a future high school site, which use would be inconsistent with any type of more intensive commercial use. Last and most importantly, the entire area (north, south, east and west) is designated Low Density Residential and already supports significant low-density residential development. The owners and developers are aware of no City or County property owner that supports a 30-acre island of commercial property in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Finally, Burns Road is not a commercial collector arterial and is inadequate to handle any type of commercial traffic. Burns Road does not even have the needed right-of-way and is not connected west, to Road 68. GMA mandates recognize that urban growth should first occur in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facilities and capacities to serve the development. RCW 36.70A.110(3). Homeowners do not want the additional traffic from commercial development, and Burns Road would be inadequate to handle any significant amounts of commercial traffic and is not scheduled for improvement on the City's or County's 6-year road improvement plan. If the City of Pasco believes it needs more commercially-designated and zoned land within its UGA, this is not the place for it. Based on the comments submitted to date, it appears the primary demand for Pasco's UGA is for additional residential property to support its documented population growth. All the City's proposed Commercial designation does in this instance is take 30 acres of prime residential development property out of its urban growth area, where significant residential development already is occurring. There is no evidence of a demand for additional commercial property in this area and even if there was, as set forth above, infrastructure won't support it. A simple review of the proposed Future Land Use Map shows this small 30-acre Commercial designation to be in effect an illegal spot zone City of Pasco Community Development Department Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson May 14, 2020 Page 5 inconsistent with the surrounding community. In north Pasco, commercially-designated properties should remain around established commercial collector arterials such as Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68 and should not be located in isolated residential communities. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, the property owner and developer request that the City's proposed Future Land Use Map be modified to remove the Commercial designation on the Olberding property. Our office is confident that after proper public comment and consideration of this letter and additional testimony that there will be no basis to include a commercial designation on the Olberding property. To insist on such a designation without legal support would be arbitrary and capricious conduct in violation of applicable GMA planning goals. Respectfully submitted, Halverson [Northwest Law Group P.C. Mark E. Fickes MEF/jk 5/13/2020 EXHIBIT A *` 10 ��a1w 111 114330045 mom 115, fi 0-0 Ps WAO- 4 Q04� t t �r tom: .ws ff. art ; :W.8 ;3gpasat— , me q ' spa f .apt = •�.tr du■r . t V a�a? P th ti: 'b�ffi� '"wI� ;. mul r V " 03 ' I� AL. >�:W g`1° �4�F61� t a a:c m I f It:.""may a `7� fit! UK � W.W Sip as . an Ir. �1 IrArlin w9w4v q1i 7;p > jf"G AA mil OR 1� , IT W- YY[[aa "^`SF A1VEA8 DR- THREE.RWERS OR - .... ... AS an 1Y.1 1N1s franklinwa.mapsifler.nom/defauIIHTMLS.: px?parcel=114330045 111 I EXHIBIT B Future Land Use Map " tlaJ Ih EWJ'JF b•.. ... w C - � FR—KL IN COUNTY yr} tilt! r i1inn•i Y � `wr � YM'W `7 � r� eM i^ f r�« � r�.✓Z� ww-« alb iw_, �- � ✓:i •r• Yi. Y Y j��Ifii7�,a 1�,{ P i! • .12 Land Use Airport Reserve .31 Cor�mbie Rvpr L' t Commercial High Density Residential _Industrial Low Density Residanlial t i,c}�c ± <,- FJY Rennewtcl rid Mixed Residential Open Space&Parks Broadmoor Planning Area y a Mixed Residential&Convnorcial F-7 City Limits Public&Quasi-Public Pasco Urban Growth Boundary ONR-Reserve Pasco Urban Growth Boundary Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary City of Vasco-Future Land Um Map(DRAFT)(Lkiftlad Dc%Dm 2019 ae"rory[ou^.it t 1 Niles r. , EXHIBIT E 816 Second Ave,Suite 200,Seattle,WA 98104 future p. (206)343-0681 f. (206) 709-8218 wise j futurewise.org RECEIVED MAY 19 2020 May 19, 2020 COM6IUNITY 8 ECONO6IIC DEVELOPN1ENT Tanya Bowers, Chair City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N.Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Ms. Bowers: Subject: Comments on Planning Commission Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Urban Growth Area (MF#t CPA 2020-001) Via email:whiter@pasco-wa.gov Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Urban Growth Area (MF#t CPA 2020-001). Futurewise works throughout Washington State on the implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). We work with local communities to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests and water resources. We have members across Washington State including in the City of Pasco. We have been following and commenting on the City of Pasco Urban Growth Area Expansion proposals since 2018. In our letter of August 31, 2018, to the Franklin County Planning Commission, CPA 2018-03, on the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion, we discussed why Washington has Urban Growth Areas: To Save Taxpayers and Ratepayers Money The Growth Management Act (GMA)requires urban growth areas and limits their size for many reasons. One of the most important is that compact Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) save taxpayers and ratepayers money. In a study published in a peer reviewed journal, John Carruthers and Gurminder Ulfarsson analyzed urban areas throughout the United States including Franklin County.'They found that the per capita costs of most public services declined with density and increased where urban areas were large.' Compact urban growth areas save taxpayers and ratepayers money. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson, Urban Sprawl and the Cost of Publie Services 30 ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B: PLANNING AND DESIGN 503, 511 (2003). Enclosed with this letter. 'Id at 518. L1 ll'age To Conserve Water Long term Compact urban growth areas also help conserve water long-term. Large lots and low densities increase water demand, increase leakage from water systems,and increase costs to water system customers.3 So accommodating the same population in a right- sized UGA can reduce future water demands and costs.' To encourage growth In eklsttng titles and towns and to protect farmland Urban growth areas encourage housing growth in cities and protect rural and resource lands. To examine the effect of King County, Washington's urban growth areas on the timing of land development,Cunningham looked at real property data,property sales data, and geographic information systems (GIS) data.These records include 500,000 home sales and 163,000 parcels that had the potential to be developed from 1984 through 2001.5 Cunningham concluded that "[t]his paper presents compelling evidence that the enactment of a growth boundary reduced development in designated rural areas and increased construction in urban areas,which suggests that the Growth Management Act is achieving its intended effect of concentrating housing growth."6 He also concluded that by removing uncertainty as to the highest and best use of the land that it accelerated housing development in King County.'This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. Reducing development in rural areas and natural resource lands can also have significant environmental benefits, such as protecting water quality and working farms and forests. One of the most controversial issues related to urban growth areas is whether the restricted land supply causes increases in housing costs. Carruthers, in another peer reviewed study, examined the evidence for the Portland urban growth area and concluded that it was not increasing housing costs because the city's high-density zoning allowed the construction of an abundant housing supply.$ ' United States Environmental Protection Agency, Growing Toward More Ef ciew Nater Use:Linking Development, Inf,asrn-ucture, and Drinking Water Policies pp.3—5(EPA 230-R-06-001:January 2006).Accessed on Aug. 29,2018 at: titips: ��ww.epa.t o�'Smarttro�+th/�ro�+ink-toy+ard-more-efficient-��atcr-use 'Id. at p. 8. S Christopher R.Cunningham, Growth Controls, Real Options, and Land Development 89 THE REVIEW or ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 343,343 (2007). /d, at 356. Id. at 356—57. a John 1.Carruthers, 77ie Impacts of'State Growth Management Piogi-amnies:A Comparative AnalYsis 39 URBAN STUDIES 1959, 1976 (2002). Carruthers included Washington's GMA in his analysis but concluded that it was too early to tell if it was successful since it had only been in place for seven years in the data he analyzed, but he believed the GMA had promise if"consistently enforced."Id. at 1977. 1 P To F-eep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable Urban growth areas help keep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable. In a peer reviewed study, Dawkins and Nelson found that the city of Yakima's share of the metropolitan housing market increased after adoption of the GMA.9 This and other measures showed that center cities in states with growth management laws attract greater shares of the metropolitan area's housing market than center cities in states without growth management aiding center city revitalization.10 This reduces the tendency to move out of existing center cities such as the City of Pasco. To encourage healthy lifestyles Urban growth areas promote healthy lifestyles.Aytur, Rodriguez, Evenson, and Catellier conducted a statistical analysis of leisure and transportation-related physical activity in 63 large metropolitan statistical areas, including Seattle,Tacoma, and Spokane from 1990 to 2002.11 Their peer reviewed study found a positive association between residents' leisure time physical activity and walking and bicycling to work and "strong" urban containment policies such as those in Washington State.12 Furthermore, in our August 2018 letter, we concurred with Franklin County and the Department of Commerce,that the expansion was oversized.We recommended that the UGA expansion request for 4500 acres be denied because the expansion would lead to the conversion of agricultural lands and adversely impact the operations and potential for expansion of the Tri-Cities Airport, negatively impacting the Tri-Cities economy. Our recommendations were that the gross acreage reflect a reasonable market supply factor, incorporate an estimate of the redevelopable land in the existing UGA, and include the full capacity of the West Pasco/Broadmoor Development Master Plan of over 8,000 housing units in the capacity calculations.13 (Higher densities can improve protection for water cluallty;[TT1J In addition to the reasons for having UGAs explained in our August 2018 letter, we want to point out the connection between water quality and land use. Higher densities help protect water quality.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)modeled the impacts of lower density development covering a larger area compared to higher density development over a smaller area.The study concluded that: Casey J. Dawkins&Arthur C.Nelson,State Growth Management Programs and Cenn•al-City Revitalization,69 Journal of the American Planning Association 381,386(2003). 10 Id. at 392—93(2003). 11 Semra A.Aytur,Daniel A. Rodriguez,Kelly R.Evenson,&Diane J.Catellier. Urban Containment Policies and Physical Activity:A Time—Series Analysis of Metropolitan Areas, 1990-2002 34 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE 320,325(2008). 12 Id. at 330. Snnrrnaty of Request and AnalYsis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p.4 footnote 6 (8/24/2018 version). L1 � I' slitr Higher densities may better protect water quality—especially at the lot and watershed levels.To accommodate the same number of houses, denser developments consume less land than lower density developments. Consuming less land means creating less impervious cover in the watershed. EPA believes that increasing development densities is one strategy communities can use to minimize regional water quality impacts.14IA21 Futurewise obtained a grant earlier this year for a public education program and riparian demonstration site in Pasco. We are coordinating with City staff, local tribes, the Army Corp of Engineers, Washington State Fish and Wildlife, neighboring schools and community organizations to demonstrate the connection between land use and water quality and the impact on water quality, habitat, and cultural resources. Current constraints on gatherings due to the Coronavirus has resulted in delaying local events and habitat restoration projects until 2029. We will keep you updated on this project. Environmental Impact Statement Also attached is a copy of Futurewise's letter of November 8, 2018,to Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director. In this letter, we supported the City of Pasco's Determination of Significance and the development of an environmental impact statement(EIS) to consider the impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area expansion on the built and natural environment. Now that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement materials are available, we look forward to reviewing them and providing more detailed comment in June. When using a combined SEPA and GMA process the Final EIS must be done at the same time as the adoption of the GMA. WAC 197-11-230(5) provides that "[w]hen a draft integration GMA document includes a draft EIS, the final EIS and the adoption of the GMA document may occur together, notwithstanding the requirements of WAC 197-11-460(5)." Accommodating f=uture Growth Futurewise recognizes that Pasco is one of the fastest growing cities, per capita, in the state and we strongly support Pasco's work to explore opportunities to expand development within the existing UGA, including but not limited to, actions eligible for support under HB 1923. As Pasco moves forward with this comprehensive plan update we hope you will consider actions such as: • Allowing more homes in existing neighborhoods through backyard cottages, duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments. • Retrofitting existing neighborhoods to be more walkable and have the densities and mix of zoning to support local businesses and more frequent transit in order to promote environmental and community health benefits and reduces traffic congestion. United States Environmental Protection Agency,Protecting mater Resources ivirh Higher-Densirt,Development p. 1 (EPA 231-R-06-001 Jan.2006).Accessed on May 18,2020 at: hltps., ++++,+.epa.t ov smartaro++thiprorectim, N atcr-rc,ources-hi•her-densiti-de+eluianent. • Making zoning changes, paired with proper infrastructure like sidewalks, that facilitate opportunities for restaurant and retail uses that are comfortably and safely accessible by walking and biking from nearby homes. • Creating opportunities for townhouse and apartment zoning integrated throughout the city on quiet, slow moving residential streets that are safer for children rather than limiting these uses to the edges of major arterials and the area adjacent to the airport flight path. • Identifying a path to annexation of the existing 'donut hole' of unincorporated areas inside the city boundaries. We would like to offer our support in advocacy with the state to address barriers and costs related to annexing the 'donut hole' communities. These challenges are similar to those faced by unincorporated urban areas across the state. • Reinvesting in historic downtown Pasco. Additionally, we hope you will address our areas of concern such as: • We are concerned about the size of a 3,400-acre UGA expansion but need to review the land capacity analysis to determine if it is still too large like the 2018 proposal. • We are concerned about the loss of agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and if an expansion is needed, the city should consider alternatives expanding onto rural, non-agricultural land. • We are concerned about the UGA expansion at the end of in the airport and under the flight path both because of its impact on airport operations and future expansion capacity and because of the impact on future residents living below the flight path. • If an urban growth expansion is needed, determine how public facilities and services will be provided and funded. Will they be addressed in the updated transportation, capital facility, and utility elements?[TT3] Will taxpayers in existing Pasco neighborhoods end up subsidizing the public facilities and services in these new neighborhoods? We appreciate the opportunity to continue to provide comments and feedback on these important long-term community planning efforts. If you have questions, please contact Alison Cable at, 206-343-0681 x114 or email: alison@futurewise.orp,. Very Truly Yours, T �Z, Alison Cable Tri-Cities Program Manager 816 Second Ave,Suite 200,Seattle,WA 98104 future p, (206)343-0681 wisefuturewise.org August 31, 2018 Mr. Claude Pierret,Chairperson Franklin County Planning Commission 502 W. Boeing Pasco,Washington 99301 Dear Chair Pierret and Planning Commissioners: Subject: Comments on CPA 2018-03, the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion. Sent via email to: planning t1.co.franklin.wa.us, rgille)-kco.franklin.wa.us.nstickne�.ahbl.com Thank you for the opportunity to comment on CPA 2018-03 the proposed City of Pasco urban growth area (UGA) expansion. Futurewise recommends that the proposed City of Pasco UGA expansion be denied for three independent reasons: the expansion is oversized and,perhaps,unneeded, the expansion will lead to the conversion of agricultural lands with adverse impacts on the Franklin County economy, and the expansion will adversely impact the operations and potential for expansion of the Tri-Cities Airport again adversely impacting the county economy. Our concerns are detailed below after we discuss why«'ashington State has UGAs. Futurewise works throughout Washington State to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands, forests, and water resources. Futurewise has supporters throughout Washington State including Franklin County. Why does Washington have Urban Growth Areas? To Save Taxpayers and Ratepayers Money The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires urban growth areas and limits their size for many reasons. One of the most important is that compact urban growth areas (UGAs) save taxpayers and ratepayers money. In a study published in a peer reviewed journal,John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson analyzed urban areas throughout the United States including Franklin County.' They found that the per capita costs of most public services declined with density and increased where urban areas were large.' Compact urban growth areas save taxpayers and ratepayers money. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. John Carruthers and Gudmaundur Ulfarsson, Urban Sprajvl and the Cort of Public Servicer 30 ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING B: PLANNING AND DESIGN 503,511 (2003). Enclosed with this letter. -'Id.at 518. L Franklin Count}y Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31,2018 Page 2 To Conserve Water Long-Term Compact urban growth areas also help conserve water long-term. Large lots and low densities increase water demand,increase leakage from water systems, and increase costs to water system customers.' So accommodating the same population in a right-sized UGA can reduce future water demands and costs.' To encourage growth in existing cities and towns and to protect farmland Urban growth areas encourage housing growth in cities and protect rural and resource lands. To examine the effect of King County,V6'ashington's urban growth areas on the timing of land development, Cunningham looked at real property data, property sales data, and geographic information systems (GIS) data. These records include 500,000 home sales and 163,000 parcels that had the potential to be developed from 1984 through 2001.'Cunningham concluded that"[t]his paper presents compelling evidence that the enactment of a growth boundary reduced development in designated rural areas and increased construction in urban areas,which suggests that the Growth Management Act is achieving its intended effect of concentrating housing growth."'He also concluded that by removing uncertainty as to the highest and best use of the land that it accelerated housing development in King County.'This study was published in a peer reviewed journal. Reducing development in rural areas and natural resource lands can also have significant environmental benefits,such as protecting water quality and working farms and forests. One of the most controversial issues related to urban growth areas is whether the restricted land supply causes increases in housing costs. Carruthers,in another peer reviewed study,examined the evidence for the Portland urban growth area and concluded that it was not increasing housing costs because the city's high-density zoning allowed the construction of an abundant housing supply.' To keep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable Urban growth areas help keep our existing cities and towns vibrant and economically desirable. In a peer reviewed study,Dawkins and Nelson found that the city of Yakima's share of the metropolitan housing market increased after adoption of the GMA.'This and other measures showed that center cities in states with growth management laws attract greater shares of the metropolitan area's housing market 3 United States Environmental Protection.agency,Growing Toward More Effident 117aler Use:Linking Development,Infrastmcture, and Drinkiq 117ater Policies pp.3—5 (EPA 230-R-06-001:January 2006).Accessed on Aug.29,2018 at: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/growing-toward-more-efficient-water-use. a Irl.at p.8. Christopher R. Cunningham,Growth Controls,Real Options,and Land Development 89 Ti IE Rrvm"W OF ECONOMICS AND STATIsTICs 343,343(2007). G Id.at 356. 7 Irl at 356—57. s John I.Carruthers,The Impacts of State Growth Management Programmes:A ComparativeAnabsis 39 URBAN STUDIES 1959, 1976 (2002).Carruthers included Washington's GMA in his analysis but concluded that it was too early to tell if it was successful since it had only been in place for seven years in the data he analyzed,but he believed the GXL-k had promise if"consistently enforced."Id.at 1977. 9 Casey J.Dawkins&Arthur C.Nelson,State Growth Management Pmgrams and Centra!-Cit},RPv1takZatlon,69 Journal of the LAmerican Planning_association 381,386(2003). Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 3 than center cities in states without growth management aiding center city revitalization."'This reduces the tendency to move out of existing center cities such as the City of Pasco. To encourage healthy lifestyles Urban growth areas promote healthy lifestyles.Aytur,Rodriguez, Evenson,and Catellier conducted a statistical analysis of leisure and transportation-related physical activity in 63 large metropolitan statistical areas,including Seattle,Tacoma, and Spokane from 1990 to 2002." Their peer reviewed study found a positive association between residents'leisure time physical activity and walking and bicycling to work and "strong" urban containment policies such as those in Washington State.''- We agree the proposed UGA expansion is oversized and so should be denied The Washington State Supreme Court has held that an "UGA designation cannot exceed the amount of land necessary to accommodate the urban growth projected by the [State of Washington Office of Financial Management] OFM, plus a reasonable land market supply factor.""We agree with County staff that the UGA expansion is oversized.14 We also suggest four modifications to the capacity analysis so that it is consistent with the GMA. First,we suggest the dedications from the gross acreage be limited to a market supply factor. The courts and Growth Management Hearings Board have held that deductions beyond a market factor violate the GMA. As the Growth Management Hearings Board wrote "if the Legislature had wished for cities and counties to utilize such a variety of factors to adjust the available land supply ... it would have amended the GMA accordingly. ... This, the Legislature did not do and, therefore,by the GMA's own terms,a UGA may be adjusted only to reflect a reasonable land market supply factor."'3 In addition to the 20 percent market factor, the capacity estimates use a"[s]pecial 20 percent reduction to the `low density' category ..."16 This deduction in addition to the market factor is inconsistent with the GMA. It is also unneeded since the 20 percent market factor is at the high end of what the available data supports. Market factors are not rewired,but the GXLN allows the county to use a "reasonable" market factor.17 What a market factor does is allow a county to make an urban growth area larger than it needs to be. To determine their market factor, Snohomish County hired The Gilmore Research Group to survey owners with developable land and asked them the relevant'uestion when determining a market factor: if they would develop their land in the next twenty years. This survey found that "[a]bout 21% of all ""Id.at 392—93 (2003). " Semra A..-lytur,Daniel A.Rodriguez,Kelly R.Evenson,&Diane J.Catellier, Urban Containment Policies and PbysicalActivitn,: A Time—Series Anafjsis of Metropolitan Amas, 1990-2002 34_ .P.MRICAN JOURNAL or PREVENTIVE?MEDICINE 320,325(2008). 12 Id.at 330. I'Thurston Qy.v. li'estern 117asbington GrmvtbManagement Hea?zngs Bd, 164 V!n.2d 329,351 —52, 190 P.3d 38,48—49(2008).See RCW 36.70A.1 10 and RCW 36.70A.115 which limit the size of UG_-1s. "Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p. 16(8/24/2018 version). "Petme Y. 11"hatcou Como,,Western Washington Growth:Management Hearings Board (\W\WGMHB) Case No.08-2-0021 c, Final Decision and Order(Oct. 13,2008),at 30 of 78,2008 WL 4949257,at*18. 16 Summary of Request and Anafysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p.4 (8/24/2018 version). LThurston County P. If estenr li''ashinrgton Growth Management Heanings Bd., 164 VWn?d 329,351—52,190 P.3d 38,48—49 (2008). 20 23 2• 22 21 Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31,2018 Page 5 Futurewise's fourth recommended revision is to include the full capacity of the West Pasco/Broadmoor Development Master Plan of over 8,000 housing units in the capacity calculations.''-'The development master plan process is well along, the scoping for the environmental impact statement has been completed.26 The increased housing capacity in West Pasco/Broadmoor is certainly more probable than an oversized UGA expansion that requires the conversion of agricultural land of long-term commercial significance. The UGA should not be expanded onto agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance Agricultural land of long-term commercial significance cannot be included in a UGA unless it retains its designation and zoning and the county or city has adopted a transfer of development rights program for the land.27 If the City of Pasco wishes to convert the agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance to urban development, then the city must conduct a regional or areawide study showing the land no longer qualifies as agricultural land of long-term commercial significance. %X'AC 365-190-050(1) requires that in"designating agricultural resource lands, counties must approach the effort as a county-wide or area-wide process."WAC 365-190-040(10)(b) also requires "a county-wide or regional process"when amending designations of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. These%VACS are part of the "minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions" and are to guide the designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance.''-"When\VAC 365-190-050 uses mandatory language,local governments are required to use that provision.29 Based on these requirements, the Growth Management Hearings Board reversed a county de-designation of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance to put the land in an urban growth area."The Board wrote: The Board considers Benton County's de-designation of agricultural lands for this small section of land,in isolation from a much larger County or area-wide study to be inappropriate and,by de-designating lands that qualify as agricultural lands of long term commercial significance, the County violated WAC 365-190-050 and corresponding GNIA sections RC\X'36.70A.030,RC\X'36.70A.050,and RC\X' 36.70A.170.i7 ''Summary of Request and Analysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p.4 footnote 6(8/24/2018 version). 'o City of Pasco Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Scope of EIS for West Pasco/Broadmoor Development\Master Plan accessed on Aug.30,2018 at: https://w%v-,v.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=i&q=&esrc=s&source=wel)&cd=1&ved=2ah UKEwi8xs--- ZXd_-�hN'16Z8KHdl(.2C:kIcUFi-,keg0l,\B_kC&url=https%3--�%2F%2Ffortress.wa.gov%2Fec7%2Fsepar%2F:\fain%2FSEP A°%I—FDocument%2FDocument( 12enHandler.ashx%3FDocumentId%3D7222&usg=Ao vN,aw068HppT-H If HgiBgF57v 27 RCS\'36.70A.060(1);RCV'36.70.A.060(4). 'R RCW 36.70..x.050(3). -9 Clark Cy% Veuhinglon P. [F` lk'ashinglon Growth Mgml. Hearings Review Bd., 161 Wn.App.204,232—33,254 P.3d 862,875 (2011). 30 Fullmwise P.Benlon Count-, E\X'GkMHB Case No. 14-1-0003,Final Decision and Order(Oct. 15,2014),at 37 of 38,2014 XWL 7505300,at*23—24. L31 Id at 35 of 38,2014 VT 7505300,at*22. Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31, 2018 Page 6 So,before the lands currently designated Agriculture in the Franklin Counts'Comprehensive Plan can be included in a UGA for residential and other urban uses, a regional or areawide dedesignation analysis must be prepared. We have reviewed every page of the City of Pasco's UGA expansion materials and a regional or areawide dedesignation analysis is not included. In our professional opinion we are skeptical that an objective a regional or areawide dedesignation analysis would support the dedesignation of these lands. If a complete land capacity analysis shows there is a need for a UGA expansion and given the omissions in the existing data documented above that is far from certain,we think the Stttnmag of Request and_4nalysit s recommendation to focus on rural designations and to consider increasing residential densities are smart recommendations.32 As it is now, the City of Pasco UGA expansion fails the requirements for dedesignating agricultural land and must be denied.33 The UGA should not be expanded into airport safety zones or in areas that limit future expansion of the Tri-Cities Airport RC\X'36.70A.510 and RC\X'36.70.547 require that"[e]very county,city,and town in which there is located a general aviation airport that is operated for the benefit of the general public,whether publicly owned or privately owned public use,shall,through its comprehensive plan and development regulations, discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport." The Tri-Cities Airport in Pasco is amajor economic asset for Franklin County.3+\�'e agree with the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division that "that the proposed expansion,if approved in its current form, would allow incompatible development adjacent to the Airport and would impeded future development and extension of Runway 12/30."33 So the proposed Cita' of Pasco UGA expansion is inconsistent with RC\W 36.70A.510 and RC\W 36.70.547 and must be denied. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information,please contact Alison Cable at telephone (206) 343 0681 Ext. 114 and email: alison a.futurewise.org or Tim Trohimovich at telephone (206) 343-0681 Ext. 102 and email: tim2futurewise.org Very Truly Yours, A-t4. ( i/ Alison Cable Tri-Cities Program Manager 32Sunnna9-of Request and Anaysis on CPA 2018-03 the proposed Pasco UGA expansion p.9 (8/24/2018 version). 33 Futurewise u.Benton Couno,E\WGMHB Case No. 14-1-0003,Final Decision and Order(Oct. 15,2014),at 35 of 38,2014 WL 7505300,at*22. 34 Washington State Department of Transportation aviation Division Letter to City of Pasco Community and Economic Development Department RE:Pasco's Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB) 160 acres North Nest of the Tri-Cities airport p. 1 (May 10,2018)accessed on Aug.30,2018 at: httns://www.ezview.wa.gov/site/alias 1967/uga al2plications/37285/uga applications.aspx in the file"CPA 2018- 03_B_PASC(.)_UG_ —AN'IATION_CONSULT.pdf' L 35Id Franklin County Planning Commission Subject: Comments on the proposed CPA 2018-03 (Pasco UGA expansion) August 31,2018 Page 7 (S� I Tim Trohimovich,AICP Enclosures cc: Rick White,City of Pasco Community& Economic Development Director r � 816 Second Ave,Suite 200,Seattle,WA 98104 future p• (206)343-0681 f. (206)709-8218 wise i futurewise.org November 8, 2018 Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director Community and Economic Development Department City of Pasco 525 N.Third Ave. Pasco,WA 99301 Dear Mr. White: Subject: Comments on the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice for Plan/EIS for City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Update Via email: Email:whiter@pasco-wa.gov Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice for the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Expansion. Futurewise works throughout Washington State on the implementation of the Growth Management Act (GMA). We work with local communities to support land-use policies that encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities, and that protect our most valuable farmlands,forests and water resources. We have members across Washington State including the City of Pasco. We support the City of Pasco Determination of Significance and the development of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to consider the impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area expansion on the built and natural environment. We support Alternative 3 in the City of Pasco Scoping Notice: "Compact Growth Target:This alternative would allow for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20- year population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and to capitalize on other development opportunities. In addition, alternative 3 will consider a growth pattern of higher density. It includes considering land use and policy changes to gain an increase in development capacity within the undeveloped and infill areas of the City. Under this alternative,the Urban Growth Area would be modified to the north of the City at a higher density/smaller area compared to Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth. It will consider land use and policy changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and to accommodate growth." We believe the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)will show that this alternative will accommodate projected population growth and result in the least adverse impacts on the built and natural environment.We offer our recommendations for topics to consider in the EIS. L image The EIS should analyze impacts on affordable housing Housing is an element is an element of the environment.' Different alternatives may have different impacts on the affordable housing. For example, different alternatives may displace existing affordable housing which maybe a significant adverse impact that should be analyzed in the EIS. The EIS should analyze the impacts on fire services and fire safety measures Residential growth in the City of Pasco has increased the exposure of residents on the Wildland Urban Interface to wildfires.z Expanding the city onto agricultural and rural lands will increase this expose. Fire services are an element of the environment.3 The impacts of the alternatives and UGA expansion on community fire safety must be analyzed in the Draft EIS and mitigation measures identified such as: directing growth away from areas with a moderate to high wildfire threat leve 1.4 Another potential mitigating measure would be to require new developments to meet Firewise Communities Program standards or the equivalent. The changing climate will also increase wildfires in the West including the City of Pasco. A recent peer- reviewed study showed that human caused global warming has made wildfire fuels drier and caused an increase in the area burnt by wildfires between 1984 and 2015.5 Global warming's drying of wildfire fuels is projected to increasingly promote wildfire potential across the western US.'The area of this increase in drying fuels includes the City of Pasco.' The EIS should analyze the impacts on transportation Transportation systems,vehicular traffic,the movement and circulation of people or goods, and traffic hazards are elements of the environment.$Air traffic is also an element of the environment.9 The comprehensive plan and the urban growth area expansion has the potential to increase vehicle miles traveled and to increase traffic hazards. In addition,the urban growth area expansion will adversely impact the operations and expansion potential of the Tri-Cities Airport.The EIS should analyze the adverse impacts on the transportation system, including motor vehicles, air transportation,transit,walking, bicycling, and transportation safety. As required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(iii), impacts on the state highway system should also be analyzed. The EIS should analyze the impacts on historic, cultural, and archaeological resources Historic and cultural preservation are elements of the environment.10 The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has developed an archaeological predictive model that can predict where archaeological resources, a type of cultural resource, are likely to be located and where the department recommends archaeological surveys should be completed before earth disturbing activities and other uses and activities that can damage archaeological sites are undertaken."The predictive model shows that Pasco and WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(ii). Franklin County, Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plait pp.48—51 (Approved by the Franklin County Commissioners 2014)accessed on Feb.26,2018 at: https://www.dnr.wa.p_ov/publications/rp bum cwpp franklin co.pdf 3 WAC 197-11-444(2)(d)(i). 'See the Franklin County, Washington Coninnmity Wildfire Protection Plait pp.45—46(Approved by the Franklin County Commissioners 2014)for the threat level map. 5 John T.Abatzogloua and A.Park Williams,Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests 113 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(PNAS) 11770p. 11773 (Oct. 18, 2016) accessed on Nov. 15,2017 at: http://www.pnas.orp/content/113/42/11770 6 Id. 'Id. at p. 11771. 8 WAC 197-11-444(2)(c). 9 WAC 197-11-444(2)(c)(iii). 10 WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(iv). '' Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation WISAARD webpage accessed on Nov. 7,2018 at:https://daht).wa.gov/historic-preservation/find-a-historic-place L 2 1 P a g e the urbanY high expansion ansion area has a "high risk" and "ver hi h risk" of cultural resources in these areas." g p Land development can adverse impact these resources and the EIS should analyze the impacts of development authorized by the comprehensive plan and the UGA expansion on historic and cultural resources. The EIS should analyze the impact on water resources Water including surface water movement,quantity and quality, runoff and absorption,groundwater movement, quantity, and quality, and public water supplies are all elements of the environment.13 Water conservation and focusing growth into existing cities and towns can stretch water supplies and accommodate growth and it is important to reserve water for agriculture and value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing to maintain and enhance the county economy.14 The development authorized by the comprehensive plan and the urban growth area expansions can adversely affect water and increase water use and runoff.This is a probable adverse impact on the elements of the environment s and should be analyzed in the EIS. The EIS should analyze the impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Air quality is an element of the environment.15 Elevated ozone level averages in the Tri-Cities for 2015 through 2017 exceeded the federal regulatory limit which could trigger sanctions from the Environmental Protection Agency.As a result, a joint study was conducted with the Department of Ecology, Washington State University, and Benton Air Authority,the Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study(T-COPS).The study found that elevated ozone levels are not caused by one source and that traffic emissions are a major source of air pollutants in the Tri- Cities16. Particulate matter from vehicle emissions,fires, and blowing dust contribute to unhealthy air quality that increase symptoms of asthma and heart disease.Weather,topography and wind directions contribute to high-levels of ozone in the Tri-Cities. Expanding the urban growth boundary will likely increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions. Development will increase dust. These are all probable adverse impacts on elements of the environment and should be analyzed in the EIS. Climate is also an element of the environment.''Washington State enacted limits on greenhouse gas emissions and a statewide goal to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled for light-duty vehicles. Comprehensive planning is one way to address both the reduction of greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled.Almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in our state result from the transportation sector. Land use and transportation strategies that promote compact and mixed-use development and infill reduce the need to drive, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions."Expanding the urban growth boundary will likely increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions.These are all probable adverse impacts on climate,an element of the environment, and should be analyzed in the EIS. Additionally,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)found that state and local governments can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land and materials management practices such as materials efficiency, industrial ecology,green design, land revitalization, sustainable consumption, smart 12 Id. 13 WAC 197-11-444(1)(c). 14 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Growing Toward More Efficient Water Use:Linking Development, Infrastructure, and Drinking Water-Policies pp.3—5,p.8(EPA 230-R-06-001:January 2006)accessed on Nov. 7,2018 at:https://www.el2a.rov/smartgrowth/growing-toward-more-efficient-water-use. 15 WAC 197-11-444(1)(b)(i). '6 Department of Ecology website,Air Quality Studies, "Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study(T-COPS)" https://ecolojzy.wa.gov/Asset-Collections/Doc-Assets/Air-quality/Research-Data/20171212TriCities0zonePrecur dy, last visited November 6,2018. 17 WAC 197-11-444(1)(b)(iii). 18 Climate Change-Washington State Department of Commerce htti2s://www.commerce.wa.p-ov/serving- communities/growth-management/Q,rowth-management-topics/climate-chanQ,e_/last visited November 5,2018. L3 1 P a g e growth, pollution prevention and designed for environment.19 Land use planning that encourages the use of transit,walking and cycling, and the creation of mixed-use urban centers can improve air quality by reducing automobile trips and congestion. The EIS should analyze the impacts on agricultural and rural land The relationship to existing land use plans is an element of the environment.20 The area proposed to be included in the urban growth area includes designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance and rural lands. Converting these lands to urban development will be significant adverse impacts that should be analyzed in the EIS. The EIS should analyze the impacts on priority habitats and species The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife lists priority species and habitats and provides technical assistance on the designation and protection of these habitats. Plants and animals, habitats for and numbers or diversity of species of plants,fish,or other wildlife, unique species, and fish or wildlife migration routes are all elements of the environment.21 The conversion of agricultural and rural land to urban development will adversely impact these habitats. The expansion of impervious surfaces will also harm aquatic habitats. These adverse impacts on these elements of the environment should be analyzed in the EIS. The designation and conservation of priority habitats and species are important to residents who hunt,fish, and view wildlife. Outdoor recreation is estimated to contribute$81,959,000 to the Franklin County economy, generating 1,114 jobs and paying$5,942,000 in state and local taxes.22 Protecting fish and wildlife habitats and rivers and streams will help maintain the economic benefits of outdoor recreation for Franklin County. The EIS must analyze the impacts on native plants Native plants of the Columbia Basin have ecological,aesthetic,and historical value. The Benton-Franklin Conservation District Heritage Gardens of the Columbia Basin and Washington Native Plant Society educate the public on the value of native plants and help prevent the conversion and degradation of these local resources and wildlife habitat. "Unconverted areas are threatened by a negative feedback loop that combines disturbance, invasion of noxious weeds and more frequent fires. When fragile soils are disturbed and cryptobiotic soil crusts are removed,annual invasive species such as cheatgrass become established."2'The communities of native plants and wildlife that make up the iconic Columbia Basin shrubsteppe have been severely diminished. Today, less than 50%of Washington's historic shrubsteppe remains, and much of it is degraded,fragmented,and/or isolated from other similar habitats24. For these reasons,we support the protection of Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas designated in the Department of Natural Resources Washington Natural Heritage Program for endangered,threatened, and sensitive plant species." 19 US Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,2009"Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through materials and land use management practices," https://www.epa.2ov/sites/production/fi les/documents/eha-land-materials-mana2ement.odf 21 WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(i). 21 WAC 197-11-444(1)(d). 22 Tania Briceno&Greg Schundler, Economic Analysis qf Outdoor Recreatiar in Washingtar State p. 83 (Earth Economics: 2015)accessed on April 5,2018 at: https://www.rco.wa.y-ov/documents/ORTF/EconomicAnalysisOutdoorRec.ndf 21 Washington Native Plant Society, https://www.wnps.orWecosystems/shrub-steppe last visited on October 23,2018. 21 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation or Species and Ecosystems Science, https://wdfw.wa.eov/conservation/research/projects/shrubstepi)e/last visited November 2,2018. 25 Washington State department of Natural Resources relevant data set on Rare Plants and High Quality Ecosystems: http://datawadnr.opendata.arcpis.com/datasets'?group ids=266fDb3bdc014f5ab2a96ad4ea358a28 L41Payc Plants and habitats for and numbers or diversity of species of plants and unique species are all elements of the environment,"The conversion of agricultural and rural land to urban development will adversely impact these habitats.These adverse impacts on these elements of the environment should be analyzed in the EIS. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information, please contact Alison Cable at telephone 206-343-0681 x114 and email: alison@futurewise.org or Tim Trohimovich at telephone (206) 343- 0681 Ext. 118 and email: tim@futurewise.org Very Truly Yours, Alison Cable Tri-Cities Program Manager (SSI Tim Trohimovich, AICP Director of Planning & Law 26 WAC 197-11-444(1)(d). L51Page EXHIBIT F HALVERSON NORTHWEST Re ymond G.Alan Campbell+r LAW GROUP J JeyCaaoN Paul C.Dempcay" James S.Elio" RECEIVED Ywrift Equlhu Robert N.Faber F.Joe Falk,Jr+ Mark E,Flckes MAY 2 0 2020 eerier L.Field+ Frederick N.Halverson- Lawrence E.Martin' May 20, 2020 COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Terry elx4 y Linddes A.A SSeellers Michael F.Shim Stephen R.Wnfree4 'Also OR Bei Member Also State Bar of CA Member 401 Counsel City of Pasco City of Pasco City Council -Honorary/R44Relld /EkvCl Community Development Department P.O. Box 293 P.O. Box 293 525 N, Third Ave. 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Saul Martinez, Mayor Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez white Basco-wa.mv; Franklin County Planning Commission gonzalezlb cD,Qasco-wa.gov 502 W. Boeing St. Pasco, WA 99301 City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Claude Pierret, Chairperson P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Franklin County Planning Department Pasco, WA 99301 502 W. Boeing St. Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson Pasco, WA 99301 I Attn: Derrick Braaten t City of Pasco Executive Department dbraaten(cDco.franklin.wa.us P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Franklin County Commissioners Pasco, WA 99301 1016 N. 4th Avenue Attn: Dave Zabell, City Manager Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Robert Koch, Chairman RE: Comments on CPA 2020-01, the Proposed (Modified) City of Pasco UGA Expansion Our Clients: Property Owner: Debra Kohler Purchaser/Developer: Big Sky Developers, LLC Dear Sirs/Madam: Introduction and Background Our office represents Big Sky Developers, LLC that currently has under contract for purchase and residential development approximately 100 acres of prime residential development property owned by Ms. Debra Kohler overlooking the Columbia River. Attached to this letter halversonNW.com HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C. Yakima Office:4o5 E.Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 22.550 1 Yakima,WA 98907 1 P)509.248.6030 1 0 509.453.688o Sunnyside Office:910 Franklin Avenue,Suite i I PO Box 2to I Sunnyside,WA 98944 1 P)509.837.5302 10 509.837.2465 May 20, 2020 Page 2 as Exhibit A is a Franklin County parcel map showing the property at issue (the "Property"). The Property originally was slated for inclusion in Pasco's proposed UGA expansion currently being considered by the City of Pasco ("City" or Pasco")and its Planning Commission as part of its required periodic review of its Comprehensive Plan. The City's original application that included the Kohler Property within its UGA was submitted to Franklin County and its Planning Commission under CPA 2018-03. Following limited public comment, the City apparently withdrew or modified its original UGA expansion application and has scoped three alternative proposals in a draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS) recently issued for its proposed UGA expansion; (1) "Alternative #1, a no-action alternative where the City's UGA remains the same; (2)"Alternative#2" based on OFM population growth estimates, which proposed a UGA expansion of 4,700 acres and would include the Kohler Property; and (3) "Alternative #3" which proposes a smaller UGA expansion of only 3,300 acres and would not include the Kohler Property. Our client strongly supports Alternative #2 or a modified Alternative #3 that would include the Kohler Property within the City's proposed UGA, The City's Alternative #3 which significantly reduced its original proposed UGA expansion is shown In a draft (updated) Future Land Use Map dated October 2019 attached as Exhibit B. Alternative #3 was developed without specific notice to our client and without the input of affected property owners, and without substantial input from the Pasco development community. Our client specifically requests that the Kohler Property be included in the City's proposed UGA expansion and that the Property be accepted by the County as part of the City's UGA for the reasons set forth in this letter. Inclusion of the Kohler Property into Pasco's UGA is consistent with the goals of the state's Growth Management Act, the City's stated Comprehensive Planning goals relating to housing and the as-built environment and available infrastructure. The Property's highest and best use is no longer commercial agriculture, and with our client's proposed City water and sewer extensions would allow urban level residential development needed by the City both on the Kohler Property itself and infill development in the surrounding area, and would allow such development to occur in a way that is protective of the environment. Please consider this letter a specific and continuing request for special notice of all maps, recommendations, hearings and meetings relating to the City's UGA expansion requests, including those directly relating the Kohler Property and the City's evaluation of the three UGA alternatives set forth in its EIS issued in draft form on May 15, 2020. The Kohler Property Should be Included in Pasco's UGA and Should be Designated Low Density Residential Under its Comprehensive Plan. A. Notice of the new proposed mag change and draft EIS has not been properly given. The proposed draft, October 2019 Future Land Use Map proposed by the City (which provided the basis for "Alternative #3" in the draft EIS) was not properly published and circulated to affected property owners as required by applicable law. In fact, the proposal appears to have been developed by the City or its Planning Staff without any input from affected property owners or the development community in a way to ensure that property proposed for inclusion in its UGA is actually able to be developed for urban level growth. May 20, 2020 Page 3 Washington law is clear that county or city actions to change an amendment to a comprehensive plan triggers a statutory mandate for SEPA compliance, for public review and comment and robust public participation. RCW 36.70A.035. While apparently on prior Planning Commission meeting agendas, our client did not receive notice of the change in the City's proposed UGA which excluded the Kohler Property, and it was not allowed to provide any input on what the City now refers to as Alternative#3 in the draft EIS. Our client's position is that prior Planning Commission meetings, including the one that occurred on March 19, did not meet the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act and SEPA as applied to the development of Alternative#3 and any material modifications to the City's Future Land Use Map. If the City is starting over with the SEPA process (which legally must be completed before any formal government action), our client believes Alternative #2 is consistent with GMA goals and mandates and/or that minor modifications to Alternative #3 to include the Kohler Property would be appropriate. Please consider this letter and the attachments as our client's additional comments to be made part of the record on the City's proposed UGA expansion application and/or alternatives in its draft EIS, without in any way waiving or limiting its right to supplement the record with additional written materials or in-person testimony at future Planning Commission or Council meetings. B. The Kohler Property should be included within the City's proposed expanded UGA. The Property owner Debra Kohler and the developer, Big Sky both strongly support the inclusion of the Property within the City's new UGA. The Property is located immediately adjacent to the City's existing UGA overlooking the Columbia River, is designated primarily Rural Shoreline Development under the County's Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RC-1 and AP-20. Urban level residential development already exists north and south of the proposed Property. Under the County's zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the Property can be residentially developed at 1-acre densities with onsite wells and sewage systems. The owner no longer believes use of the Property for agricultural purposes is warranted. With our client's proposed City water and sewer extensions consistent with the maps attached as Exhibit C, urban level residential development at slightly increased densities protective of the environment would be allowed. As the City recognized when originally submitting its UGA expansion application (now Alternative #2), an expanded UGA of up to 4,700 acres was warranted by OFM population growth projections. Inclusion of this Property (whether in Alternative #2 or a modified Alternative#3) is strongly supported by both GMA and the City's own Comprehensive Plan planning goals. Washington's GMA generally recognizes that urban growth areas and urban growth should encompass areas first already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facilities and service capacities, and second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by existing and additional public facilities and services. RCW 36.70A.110(3). In this case, the Kohler Property would be ideal to be included within the City's UGA because urban growth already exists Immediately south of the Property and all local access and urban collector roads are in place or would be available to be extended to the Property. Most importantly,our client's proposed sewer and water extensions would allow additional infill development and the Property itself to be developed in an environmentally responsible way (without onsite septic systems near the Columbia River and significantly reducing the need to use onsite wells and groundwater). i May 20, 2020 Page 4 Most of the Property is not designated or suitable as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, and the Property owner is in the process of terminating all agricultural operations due to economic conditions. The Property contains view lots overlooking the Columbia River which would support a significant continuing demand for high- quality residential development in the area. Unlike many other properties the City proposes to include within its UGA, the Kohler Property is ready to be developed now. Inclusion of the Kohler Property into the City's UGA also is consistent with multiple state GMA planning goals including but not limited to the following: (1) It encourages development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. RCW 36.70A.020(1). (2) It encourages efficient transportation systems coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3). (3) It encourages economic developments consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans and encourages growth in areas already experiencing economic growth where public services and facilities can be provided. RCW 36.70A.020(5). (4) It protects the property rights of landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. RCW 36.70A.020(6). (5) It would help protect and preserve open space and the environment by limiting groundwater use in hydraulic continuity with the Columbia River and limiting onsite sewage disposal systems. RCW 36.70A.020(9) and (10). t i (6) It ensures public facilities and services necessary to support development will be adequate. RCW 36.70A.020(12). The Kohler Property simply should not be a casualty of any new City-proposed UGA reduction or modification. It consists of property the owner and developer are ready to develop now. It does not contain enough sustainable agricultural lands and is likely to get developed at urban levels whether inside the City's UGA or outside of it in the County. UGA inclusion increases the likelihood that it will be done with City water and sewer which is more protective of the environment and which would allow infill development to occur. Inclusion of the Kohler Property also is entirely consistent with many specific goals and policies of the Land Use elements of the City's draft Comprehensive Plan (02-24-2020), especially those in its housing element. Specifically, it meets the proposed land use goal to plan for a variety of compatible land uses within the City's urban growth area which includes a specific policy to ensure that adequate public services are provided within a reasonable time frame. LU-2-C. Our client's proposed sewer and water extension as well as the extension of nearby access roads would allow the Kohler Property as well as properties already in the UGA to be responsibly developed. In addition, proposed policy LU-2-17 discourages developments dependent on septic systems and at densities below minimums to sustain urban level services. LU-2-F. Including the Kohler Property within the City's UGA coupled with our client's proposed sewer and water extensions shown on the enclosed maps May 20, 2020 Page 5 Exhibit C. 100- 20 Conclusion. #2 20 Halverson I Northwest Law Group P.C. ,- - ra in « < > » Distance Area Edit Last Clear t �r i + �Ciilf 1� isi.rarf C Examples: rtttivox,.� IC Pamel:112012027 Address:1016 n 4th Owner:Jackson rn s! Section:T11R28S30 L X 1z err, 12615001t ►y �►� 126150015 126230062 '26?30064 r�'•:x' 1 a .mac.ry 44 T . I Gz 04 N(p About Print Zoom >,0 li EXHIBIT A Future Land Use Mab Department of Community Map Economic Development w - � rwNRiw come i 40 k.; Land Use _ ) r _Cwr,mwoai .t � MV Wm[Y RotitlmUl YY r la DcncM RtWtntiti ,ryr• tir„ /> NtrrMr,Cl W�td RYsCenliai M y r r wN.0 Ar.0 CD.+M7 ONR-R__ P-0 Ult.,GM.M&o Oary Propott4 Urpw 6ruwlNNtaBwM■y GpdPrw-i�Ytlrvlht llpiDW�FT1tUaum.0a 4+2D:f Nmin EXHIBIT B ^� ..v. FIGURE 10-FUTURE WATER FACILITIES aaaeNO •sat•f.ofr.n � ••a•oaeo w.,e•v nr�o•ro.•e reap+o.san r4• t ," ► � l M.r.1� e "tom Rs..� ..... Ftp. t.•. —� .4 ••�r•vv R•�C•,.i •t •.�Iv.K q, ••• nrf•.—,•rr a•rrr �f'pf`e fAirs t..l '�• saR•"�� im n,Nw r•wuvf••• ' ...0 D Ir0e 0 2.000 fy00 Far Proem AP-09 ars S-004 are no:stern on sue Frprrre -'r. �b Flpure 7-1 CompreMosive Water System Plan Update i•_, Ca Dllal Improvement City or Pasco �1 Program O murrayaterfh 'fWF�� N O N N CO EXHIBIT C T � 07 CA � a May 20, 2020 Page 9 PROPOSED UGA EXPANSION&WATER AND SEWER EXTENSION r BIG SKY DEVELOPERS ► y e 1 f'; 111rt v'ej;I Al r I RNA(IVE,3 UGA SOUNii t BIC SKY PROPOSED UGA BOUNDARY•IPI ACNES - )AREAINCL U1)1-f1 W1fII 20t8 PROPOSED UGA) I e'w war• 9" � �'` ' ' ,a` `:''� 3. `�3w:: t$ r= � -AM /T'Zt •+�L.1•! - 9, r r Vk(WOSEU WAIEH XIFNSION(2.W0Lf-) �1►�y '. II1t.� k;fo711 t�,Af� ,. .. .,r►r,r r aa- ` PROPOSED SEWER �>E -- --. , all,L ? EXTENSION(6.100 Lr) k.,.-._` : J.2 'I In Fes.. ` 8• .. - it rI . • � L� �al • rt '' IIP• � ♦��.f •�� R�P ,t M' + ; � Jft e•tr.1R � '.:� (t}!R'.T 'ice.. CONNEC I ION TO C f BRDADGIMM UD SFV*P EXHIBIT C /{� v W+1 1«• - I NM"- , ., f tYOckJ 4.le6R � GYUF IIA it Y 4r A6 DRAFTIilClll.iRtl��'l y 1 1 City Limits 'o Current Urban Growth Area C 0 7 YFf Proposed Urban Growt>,Area j I- y---; N Car of l'a,co-UGA Cumpi4on Wp I UD&drd Um..num 2019,. .u...c.....a.s ,.1w1. .....:s.. CIL, r ' f. O N c EXHIBIT C N 0) (0 � 1i EXHIBIT G THANKSGIVING LIMITED PARNTERSHIP P.O. BOX 3027 PASCO WA 99302-3027 (509) 545-3355 May 21,2020 RECEIVED MAY 2 12020 Mr.Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco COMMUNITY 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 525 North Third Avenue Pasco WA 99301 Re: Planning Commission Meeting May 21, 2020 Mr.Gonzalez, This letter is on behalf of the Thanksgiving Limited Partnership (TLP). As managing partner I ask again that staff and the planning commission, reconsider the current Urban Growth Boundary to include all or most of the TLP property, as previously approved in Resolution 3845 dated June 18, 2018. In a letter sent to staff dated March 7, 2020,TLP provided a brief history and explanation behind why application was made to include this property in the UGA. Furthermore,the letter emphasized that the City was involved in this effort every step of the way. Lastly,the letter highlighted this property's proximity to utilities installed during the Obama administration using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds that were intended to stimulate economic development. The March 7, 2020, letter was brought up during the March 21,2020 Planning Commission Meeting, but in our opinion not adequately discussed. As a follow up to the March 7, 2020 letter,we would like to present the planning commission with a timeline to show how long TLP has been working with the City on this, and to bring up a second concern. TIMELINE: 2011 The notion of a soccer complex as an industrial buffer was first discussed with the City. TLP submitted a proposal to the City on June 20, 2011. 2012 Per the advice of the City,the notion of a soccer complex as a buffer for future industrial growth heading north was discussed with the neighbors and Rick Terway from the City participated in the discussion. 2013 The City provided TLP an initial design of the soccer complex and how the City intended to manage the complex was discussed with the neighbors. 2014 The City still recognized the soccer complex as a good buffer solution but was trying to figure out how to fund a purchase. Page 1 of 3 2015 The City's interest in acquiring the land was halted but discussion for inclusion in the UGA continued. 2016 The City reignited its interest in the land for a soccer complex and particularly the notion of buying the well and water rights. 2017 In coordination with David McDonald,TLP made application for 120 acres to be included in the UGB that involved a smaller scale soccer complex,and a TLP commitment to the neighbors that the remaining land be zoned C-3 upon annexation. TLP submitted a new proposal to the City on September 7, 2016 to reflect all of this. 2018 In June, inclusion of the 120 TLP acres was approved by resolution. As late as October 16, 2020;TLP met with Stan Strebel,Steve Worley,and Zach Ratikai to discuss grant funding,timing of the sale,water rights and a mechanism for the City to own the well. TLP engaged Dr. Darryl]Olsen,and the City engaged Nancy Aldridge to provide expert opinions on the current status of the water right. 2019 In March TLP was notified with no prior discussion that the UGB had been revised to include only 40 aces of the 120 acres originally approved in Resolution 3845. It is troubling that after all this effort TLP was not informed of the decision to exclude 80 acres of the property. Lastly,the 40 acres of TLP property proposed to be included is half of an 80 acre tax parcel(#113-130- 415). This would require TLP to create and or preserve a long/costly legal access from Capital Avenue through the included 40 acres. It is TLP's opinion that dissecting the tax parcel with a UGA boundary has the potential to complicate how the property can be sold/developed in the future. TLP requests that the City re-consider including the entire 80 acre tax parcel in the UGA for this reason. F UGA BOUNDARY INCLUDEDEXCLUDED PARCEL aps i (40 ac.) (40 ac.) (113-130-415) Page 2 of 3 This letter is to remind the planning commission that TLP has been working in good faith with the City for a long time on this solution. We ask that the planning commission give the above mentioned issues fair consideration during the May 21, 2020 meeting. Sincerely, 05/21/2020 Robert M.Tippett, Managing Partner Date Page 3 of 3 The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation " History/Archaeology Program (509) 634-2693 B�= P.O. Box 150, Nespelem, WA 99155 FAX: (509)634-2694 Honorable Saul Martinez, Mayor EXHIBIT H City of Pasco RECEIVED 524 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 JUN 0 12020 25 May 2020 COMMUNITY 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RE: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Non-Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Honorable Saul Martinez, Mayor of the City of Pasco and Esteemed City Council Members: The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Non-Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed updated Comprehensive Plan for the City of Pasco. As you are aware, the City of Pasco lies within the traditional territories of the Palus Tribe, one of the constituent tribes of the CTCR. Unfortunately, the DEIS does not reflect this fact. We respectfully offer the following proposed language changes to Section 4.11.1, Affected Environment, to better reflect the history of the Palus Tribe and the CTCR in the City of Pasco: • Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 4 (page 54): Please strike the following language: "Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Yakama Nation, a Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people (Walker 1998). Wanapum and Walla Walla people also used the area (Kersher 2008)." We offer the following language as a substitute: "Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Palus tribe, a constituent tribe of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. It is also in the 1855 ceded lands of the Yakama Nation, additionally the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids and the Walla Walla tribe also utilized the area extensively. All are Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people." • Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 8 (page 55): Please strike the following language: "Fourteen tribes and bands signed the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 that established the Yakama Indian Reservation (Yakima Nation Museum [YNM] 2011). The same year, the Walla Walla tribe signed the Treaty of Walla Walla, which established the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon, and many Walla Walla (and some Yakama) tribal members moved to there." Pagel of 2 • Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 10 (page 55): Please amend the following sentence by adding the language in italics: "The general Tri-Cities region as a whole is within territory inhabited traditionally by Native people represented today by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,and the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids. • Recorded Cultural Resources (page 55): Please amend the following sentence by adding the language in italics: Many archaeological sites,Native American traditional places, and historical structures related to the area's cultural history have been recorded in the City." • Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Review, Paragraph 3 (page 56): Please strike the following sentence "The 13 sites within the one-mile radius contain an array of litchis,shell,burials,irrigation pipes,and one was designated as a field camp". We offer the following language as a replacement: "Native American burials are identified within this radius." There are also archaeological shell deposits, irrigation features, and an archaeological camp. We are also providing the attached document, titled Palus in Tri-Cities, for your information and review. While the information provided therein is not for public dissemination, members of City government and their staff will find it helpful in learning the history of the Palus Tribe in Pasco. We thank you for your careful attention to ensuring that this history is accurately represented in all City documents. Respectfully, I / Rodney Cawston Chairman, Colville Business Council Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Cc: Dave Zabell, City Manager Page 2 of 2 HALVERSON NORTHWEST Re Alan Campbell++ LAW GROUP J Jay Carroll Paul C.Dempsey" EXHIBIT I James S EBiotl Yuridle Equhue RECEIVED F alk�. Mark E.Fickes J U N 1 U 2020 Frederick N.Ha versm- June 10, 2020 LawrenoeE.Manln' Terry C.Schmalz+ COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Linda A.SelWs Michael F.Shen Stephan R.V Mree, City of Pasco City of Pasco City CouncilA,so S,�e�Rawkf~ Community Development Department P.O. Box 293 +OfCOW_raood P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. +� 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Saul Martinez, Mayor Attn: Rick White and/or Jacob Gonzalez whlter(@pasco-wa.pov,- Franklin County Planning Commission _gonzalezib dCjoasco-wa.aov 502 W. Boeing St. Pasco, WA 99301 City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Claude Pierret, Chairperson P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Franklin County Planning Department Pasco, WA 99301 502 W. Boeing St. Attn: Tanya Bowers, Chairperson Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Derrick Braaten City of Pasco Executive Department dbraaten(cDco.franklin.wa.us P.O. Box 293 525 N. Third Ave. Franklin County Commissioners Pasco, WA 99301 1016 N. 4th Avenue Attn: Dave Zabell, City Manager Pasco, WA 99301 Attn: Robert Koch, Chairman RE: Supplemental Comments on CPA 2020-01 and Non-Project DEIS Our Clients: Property Owner: Fred Olberding Purchaser/Developer: Big Sky Developers, LLC Dear Sirs/Madam: Our office submitted a detailed letter dated May 14, 2020 commenting on the City of Pasco's proposed UGA expansion and Comprehensive Plan Amendments and their impact on the Olberding Property ("Property"). Our letter should already be part of the official record. Please consider this letter additional comments following publication by the City of its non-project DEIS on May 15, 2020. halversonN W.com HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C. Yakima Office:4o5 E.Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 2255o I Yakima,WA 98907 I P)509.248-6030 I f)509,453.6880 Sunnyside Office:9io Franklin Avenue,Suite i i PO Box zio i Sunnyside,WA 98944 1 P)509-837.5302 1 f)509.837.2465 I June 10, 2020 Page 2 From comments made at the last Planning Commission hearing on May 21, 2020 (in which this office and client representatives actively participated), it is clear that City Staff is advocating for the adoption of Alternative#3 summarized in the DEIS without change. Our clients are and continue to be opposed to the suggestion by City Staff and its consultants that there should be a 30-acre commercial development in the middle of a low-density residential area next to a future school site. Our clients continue to request that the entire 80-acre parcel of property within the City's proposed UGA (as shown on the attached Future Land Use Map) remain designated Low Density Residential and not Commercial as proposed by Staff. This could be legally accomplished by a small modification to Alternative #3 in the DEIS, or by recommending Alternative#2. Summary of Planning Commission Testimony At the virtual Planning Commission meeting on May 21, 2020, our client opposed the proposed Commercial designation on a portion of prime residential property north of Burns Road. As an initial matter,this office and our client is concerned about the Planning Commission's practice of limiting public comments on the City's UGA to 3 minutes. We believe this violates the spirit and intent of the GMA which is"early and continuous"public participation in the process. RCW 36.70A.140. While time constraints are at times practically needed based on the amount of persons participating, changes to Pasco's UGA being considered by the Planning Commission is not one of them. Other than Staff, j the last few Planning Commission meetings have had less than 10 persons commenting j on how the City's chosen alternative impacts their properties. The Planning Commission should not be a rubber stamp for the recommendations of Planning Staff and should allow interested parties, property owners and their agents to fully express their concerns. The Planning Commission and City as a legal matter should not have held hearings on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Alternative #3 until the comment period on the DEIS had expired. It is axiomatic under SEPA that governmental action should not be taken or finalized until the impacts of any proposal are complete. Alternative#3, which included a smaller UGA boundary and different designations was not finally developed until the DEIS was published on May 15, 2020. However, it was presented and discussed by City Staff, without specific notice to our client in prior Planning Commission hearings. At the hearing, this office and numerous client representatives credibly testified that (1) + the Property owner or builder/developer associations were not contacted about the significant changes between Alternative #2 and #3, (2) there is no demand or support for a commercial island on 30 acres of our clients' property, (3) the Property could not be economically developed for commercial use, and (4) a Commercial designation is inconsistent with GMA goals. Based on this record, our clients request that the Commercial designation be removed and that its 80-acre parcel continue to be designated as Low Density Residential. i June 10, 2020 Page 3 Notice of the New Commercial Designation Affecting Only the Olberding Property was not Properly Given. On behalf of our client, we reiterate and would like to stress that prior to publishing the DEIS, our clients were not provided the legal notices required by due process and the GMA. Under the GMA, local governments are required to provide both "early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use pans" (RCW 36.70A.140); and the notice provided must be "reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and others affected . . ." (RCW 36.70A,035). Courts have recognized that where governmental actions (which include comprehensive plan amendments) exceptionally affect a single identifiable property or property owner, specific owner notice is needed. In this case, it would be impossible for the City to argue that a 30-acre Commercial designation affecting only Fred Olberding's property in affect precluding residential development, would not have required specific notice to the property owner. See, e.g., Chevron v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 56 Wash.2d 131, 138 (2005). We would hope in light of the notice defect, that both City Staff and Planning Commission (and ultimately the Pasco City Council and County Commissioners) would seriously consider our clients' objections to having a portion of its Property north of Burns Road arbitrarily designated for commercial use. Through these comments on the DEIS, we would hope that the Planning Commission would consider recommending a relatively minor change to Alternative #3 to delete the Commercial designation before its final recommendation is submitted to City Council. The Proposed Commercial Designation is Illegal and Violates GMA Our office could find no factual support for 30 acres of Commercial-designated property in the middle of a residential neighborhood. From comments made by Staff, it appears the additional commercial designation may have been recommended by a consultant and may in part be based on a misplaced attempt to artificially distribute traffic in the City's UGA. Proposing an island of commercial property in the middle of a residential neighborhood to distribute traffic is a classic case of "the tail wagging the dog". Under GMA and sound planning, traffic and capital facilities should be analyzed based on actual and planned future growth, not based on artificial changes to the City's land use designations or maps, Commercial development should occur along commercial roads and corridors. The City shouldn't designate residential property as Commercial, and then hope traffic patterns will change. On our client's property there is only a demand and potential for residential development, not commercial development. The Washington courts have recognized that City attempts to change its UGAs or Land Use Maps without public participation and factual support will not be upheld. See, e.g,, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 188 Wash.App.467, 493 (2015). In the present case, the only testimony of record is that roads in the area of our clients' property would not be sufficient for The Planning Commission, and Other GMA Decision Makers Clearly Have the Power to Modify Alternative #3 "No alternative should be considered definitive. This will allow decision makers, with input from residents, the opportunity to incorporate the better features of each alternative (if appropriate) into a recommended Plan." e,g., Holbrook v. Clark County, Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County, Conclusion June 10, 2020 Page 5 Alternative #3 as set forth in the DEIS, that it does so with a recommendation that the Commercial designation on the Olberding Property be removed. Respectfully submitted, Halverson I Northwest Law Group P.C. Mark E. Fickes MEF/jk t MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION City-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Pasco City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, June 18, 2020 6:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B, Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: MF# CPA 2020-002 — Comprehensive Plan Update Background Comprehensive Plans are the foundation of local planning efforts. They provide a series of goals, policies and implementation strategies that are intended to guide the day-to-day decisions for City staff and elected leaders. One of the primary benefits of long-range, comprehensive planning is that it allows us to manage growth by choice and design, and not by chance. A proactive approach to planning ensures that considerations for the needs of the community, infrastructure, budget and economic development are included. Cities and Counties planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) are required to conduct a review of their Comprehensive Plans every eight years. The GMA also requires that each Comprehensive Plan provide information on the following elements (RCW 36.70A.070): • Land Use • Housing • Utilities • Transportation • Economic Development • Parks and Recreation In addition to the required elements, Pasco's Comprehensive Plan will also include specific chapters (elements) on Capital Facilities, Public Services, Non-City Utilities and Resource Lands and Critical Areas/Shorelines. Pasco adopted its first Comprehensive Plan in 1995, and the last major update occurred in 2008. The major update to the Comprehensive Plan will provide a framework and vision for the City through the year 2038. The Draft Comprehensive Plan (Volumes 1 & 2), appendices and Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Plan are available online: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Staff has prepared a presentation for the Planning Commission. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept public comments on Comprehensive Plan and continue the public hearing to the July 1611, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. 1 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1�IPasco City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers p DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 18th, 2020 6:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez,Senior Planner SUBJECT: MF # CA2019-013 —Street Connectivity Background This is an updated report to the Planning Commission on the ongoing staff effort to address transportation accessibility, connectivity and mobility opportunities for the residents and businesses of Pasco. To date, the Planning Commission has held three workshops (December 2019 and March/May 2020). As identified in prior staff reports, the proposed amendments (below) was to implement long established Pasco City Council, Comprehensive Planning and adopted plans/studies of the City. The current development of the Transportation System Master Plan (our first), identified very early on in the existing conditions that street connectivity was a constraint on our transportation system. Existing System Connectivity In Central and Downtown Pasco, the existing roadway network is arranged largely oriented on the traditional grid system which establishes a system of arterial and collector streets. Within this area, the existing functional classification system establishes standard urban arterial and collector streets that distribute traffic to/from neighborhoods,commercial areas and travel corridors. The roadways system in areas outside have more limited opportunities for developing an arterial and collector street system (as mentioned above). The road network is constrained by the development patterns north of Interstate 1-182 due to the due to longer block lengths and limited access points. South of 1-182,the constraints are due to prior platting practices that have often left streets that end in front of homes or structures where normally they should continue. Additionally, barriers are identified in 1-182 and the Franklin County Irrigation Canal, the Pasco/Tri-Cities Airport and other geographic/topographic features that prohibit a facilitated travel route for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Draft Revisions The following draft set of revisions offer options for the Planning Commission to consider prior to a formal recommendation from staff is made. 1 Table 1: Draft Block Length/Perimeter Standards Scenario# Block Length Block Perimeter Comments Most restrictive, creates smaller, most Scenario 1 660' 1,400' compact block development patterns found in traditional neighborhoods Increased block length and perimeter will Scenario 2 660' 1,760' allow for additional lots while maintaining compact growth patterns found in traditional neighborhoods and cities Lengthier block lengths and perimeters Scenario 3 720' 1,880 increase lots within each block but begin to decrease benefit of walkable environments Least restrictive, while this option provides Scenario 4 800' 2,000' a standard for block length and perimeter the lengthy distances will decrease the intended benefit of the code amendment Next Steps: The City has received letters of support from the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and the City of Pasco Fire Department. Staff is seeking preliminary comments from the Planning Commission on the proposed draft revisions. A presentation has been prepared for discussion. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept public comments on the proposed code amendment and continue the public hearing to the July 16th, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. 2 AOL aa�aWashington State South Central Region rNOn Gap, Department of Trms,portation Unpo R Road P,WA 98903-1648 509-577-1600/FAX 509-577 1603 TTY.1-B00-833-6388 www.WSW wa 9ov May 28, 2020 RECEIVED .Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner MAY 2 8 2020 Community& Economic Development Department City of Pasco COMMUNITY g ECONOMIC DEVELOP61ENT 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Addressing Street Connectivity in Pasco Dear Jacob, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) supports the City of Pasco effort to update the Pasco Municipal Code to implement long established goals and policies of Pasco City Council, Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan and the upcoming Transportation System Master Plan. WSDOT agrees that this effort will create a more walkable,bikeable and safe environment for all travelers in the community. WSDOT supports a well-designed and connected transportation system that provide a variety of benefits for the community. They including: • Establishes reasonable use of other modes for transport(walking, biking) • Increased route choices can decrease the need for future roadway widening • In compliance with local, regional, state and federal multi-modal policies • Increased route directness for emergency responders An additional benefit to creating an integrated network of streets, that incorporate shorter blocks, will encourage access to transit and non-motorized modes of travel. With appropriate land uses, this effort will mitigate unnecessary levels of congestion on the local and state transportation systems. Sincerely, Paul Gonseth, P.E. SCR Planning Engineer PJG cc: File all 13A S('() FIRE DEPARTMENT (5091545-3426 Ext-I : F2. 1509):4s-439 To: Jacob Gonzalez,Senior Planner RECEIVED From: Robert Gear, Fire Chief=V---- Re: Proposed street design standards JUN 0 1 2020 Date: June 1, 2020 COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPtIENT Street design, width and connectivity affects the ability of emergency service vehicles to quickly respond to a fire or medical emergency. Emergency service providers and residents alike have an expectation that neighborhood streets provide adequate space and design for emergency vehicles to promptly reach their destination and for firefighters to efficiently setup and use their equipment. Fire equipment is large and fire departments do not have full discretion to simply"downsize"their vehicles. Efforts by some departments to do this have generally not been successful,because these smaller vehicles did not carry adequate supplies for many typical emergency events. The size of fire apparatus is determined in part, by federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration(OSHA)requirements and local service needs. As fire apparatus get larger,the ability to navigate narrow,winding or dead end streets decreases. In the design of residential neighborhoods we must pay more attention to connectivity and the ability to move from arterials to the residences in a timely manner. Regulations require that fire trucks carry considerable equipment and that firefighter's ride completely enclosed in the vehicle. In addition, to save money,fire departments buy multi-purpose vehicles that can respond to an emergency like a heart attack or a traffic accident,as well as a fire. These vehicles typically provide the first response to an emergency. An ambulance will then provide transport to a hospital, if needed. To accommodate the need to move the vehicles,and access equipment on them quickly,the Uniform Fire Code calls for a 20-foot wide clear passage. The risk of liability also raises concerns about response time and the amount of equipment carried on trucks. A successful lawsuit in West Linn, Oregon found that a response time of eight minutes was inadequate. The National Fire Protection Association,which is the national standard-setting body for the fire service,set a maximum four-minute response time for initial crews and eight-minute response for full crews and equipment for 90%of calls. The City of Pasco Council has a goal of 6 minutes of travel time to 90%of our calls. That does not include the call processing time of 1 to 2 minutes and the turnout times(wheels rolling)of 2 to 3 minutes. That puts our total response time in the 8 to 12 minute period. You can see from the map that the city struggles to meet the 6-minute travel goal. Fire departments have also been sued for not having the proper equipment at the scene of an accident. This puts pressure on departments to load all possible equipment onto a vehicle,and increases the need to use larger vehicles. Residential streets are complex places that serve multiple and,at times,competing needs. Residents expect a place that is relatively quiet,that connects rather than divides their neighborhood,where they can walk along and cross the street relatively easily and safely,and where vehicles move slowly. Other street users, including emergency service providers, solid waste collectors, and delivery trucks,expect a place that they can safely and efficiently access and maneuver to perform their jobs. Clearly, balancing the needs of these different users is not an easy task. . F PENTON-FRANKLIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 587 Stevens Dr.& Richland, WA 99352 Ph: (509)543-9185 bfcog.us Fax; (509)943-6756 June 4,2020 RECEIVED Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner JUN D S 1020 City of Pasco 5025 N. 3'Ave. C061611JNITY&ECON01,11C OEVEIOPf lEfi1 Pasco, WA 99301 RE: City of Pasco Proposed Municipal Code Change—Development Patterns Mr. Gonzalez- Thank you for the opportunity to review Pasco's proposed update to the Pasco Municipal Code regarding development patterns. The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG)is responsible for regional transportation planning. BFCG's responsibilities include many tasks which relate to the proposed municipal code changes. For example, BFCG operates a travel demand model which forecast trip generation and distribution and measures metrics such as vehicle miles traveled. BFCG is also involved in transportation demand management as well as active transportation planning. Finally,BFCG is responsible for reviewing the transportation elements of local comprehensive plans to ensure consistency with the Washington State Growth Management Act. With BFCG's responsibilities in mind, BFCG is supportive of Pasco's proposed municipal code modifications. BFCG is very much aware of the relationship between land use and transportation. Changes which seek to encourage improved development patterns often are long-term measures— it takes a long time to see the benefit. However, in the case of the City of Pasco,which is experiencing rapid growth,the incremental benefits could be realized more rapidly than is typically the case.By requiring a more integrated and connected development pattern,the City of Pasco will be able to accrue numerous benefits. BFCG believes that the City of Pasco and the region would benefit from coordination of its plan with the various planning efforts discussed above. Other direct benefits could be related to safety benefits in the community. Additionally,we believe the City of Pasco would be viewed favorably as being proactive during this time of growth by key partners in planning and regulatory processes. Thank you again for the opportunity to review the proposed changes and to provide input. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Patrick Pittenger,M.S., AICP, PTP Transportation Planning Director BFCG hereby gives public notice that it is the agency policy to assure full compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987,Executive Order 12898 on Environmental justice,and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.