HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2020 Planning Commission Meeting Packet City of AGENDA
co PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall-Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,JULY 16,2020
6:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
H. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2020
VL OLD BUSINESS
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 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2020-002)
D. Code Amendment Street Connectivity(MF# CA 2019-013)
VIII. WORKSHOP
A. HB 1923 Update
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Special Meeting
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.
uty0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall -Council Chambers
-Pasco
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY,JUNE 18,2020
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,Anne Jordan,Able Campos, Isaac
Myhrum, Jerry Cochran quorum for declared.
Commissioners Absent: Joseph Campos, and Pam Ransier
Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez, Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb, and Angie Pitman Block Grant Administrator.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Tanya Bowers 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 June 18,2020
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 Cochran moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of
May 21, 2020. Commissioner Campos seconded and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Code Amendment- Waterfront Development District (MF# CA 2019-001)
Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated that there are no further information on the purposed Waterfront
Development District again this is an initiative sponsored by the Port of Pasco and their efforts to
develop Osprey Point to meet the intent of various planning goals and vision efforts that they have
gone through the past decade or so. Staff would recommend approval of the code amendment per the
motion identified in the staff report.
❖ Commissioner Cochran moved that the Planning Commission recommend to Pasco City
Council the creation of the Waterfront Development District~ Commissioner Jordan
seconded and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Block Grant- 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations (MF# BGAP
2020-003)
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator explained a brief summary of the CDBG block grant
program it was enacted in 1974 by title 1 of the Housing and Community Redevelopment Act (aka
the Cranston-Gonzalez Act) and it rolled eight competitive grants for community development into
one formula grant. The purpose of CDBG is to preserve and develop viable urban communities by
expanding economic opportunities, provide decent housing, and create/sustain a suitable living
environment. The grant program requirements are to have an adopted 5-year consolidated plan that
was adopted in November 2019, Annual Action Plan Supplement which is the basis for carrying out
annual goals and objectives each program year, at the end of the year than we prepare a consolidated
annual plan evaluation report (CAPER) which evaluates the Annual Action plan performance, and
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 June 18,2020
during this whole process citizen participation is mandatory and encouraged throughout the process.
For 2020-2024 our goals and objectives are exactly the same as they were the last five years to
increase and preserve affordable housing choices, to encourage community, neighborhood and
economic development, and to provide assistance to homeless interventions and public services. How
we carry out these programs are either in house with City staff or we can select a sub recipient, a
contractor or a community based development organization. Estimated funds for 2021 are a little over
one million and the proposals that we received total up to one million eight hundred thousand.
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director summarized the ongoing applications
for the City of Pasco, under public services Civic Center Recreation Specialists, Martin Luther King
Community Center Recreation Specialists, Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist, Pasco
Recreation Scholarship fund, and code enforcement officer.
Maria Serra, City of Pasco CIP Manager, stated they had submitted an application that was seen
before Pasco Neighborhood Business District Improvements, which is identified in our CIP as the
Lewis Street Corridor project. This project did receive CDBG monies in previous years, purpose of
the project is to revitalize downtown Pasco the Lewis Street corridor and the extent between second
avenue and fifth avenue, we are approaching a phased approach between second avenue and fourth
avenue which will allow to connect two other projects the City has invested in, which are the Lewis
Street overpass project and the peanuts park improvements.
Steve Howland, the funding from CDBG helps to run the facility at the YMCA Martin Luther King
Community Center the program has been running for over 30 plus years, and the funding is an
essential part of our operations. This center gives the kids a safe place to go. The City of Pasco also
has funding for an indoor adult program for this center.
Melissa Hess, the operations director from CAC stated they have been in Benton/Franklin County
since 1955 addressing the causing and conditions of poverty. One way we do that is through our home
weatherization program and that helps us to improve, maintain and increase the stock of affordable
housing in our community. We are asking for funding which will be used for match funds for the
energy match use program through Washington State. The monies will be use to address health and
safety issues, energy conservation, replacing furnaces etc.
Donna Tracey, from the ARC stated they use these funds to provide therapeutic recreation services
to our individuals in the Pasco community. The ARC works a lot with the City of Pasco by using
some of their public facilities at no charge.
Brian Ace, the executive director from the Boys and Girls club stated there were two proposals in
front of you one is for in support of teen services and the second is capital renovation to the main
branch. The main branch has been a partnership between the City and the Boys and Girls club since
the late ninety's.
Gustavo Gutierrez Gomez, Executive Director DPDA, wants to continue managing the Pasco
Specialty Kitchen, which currently has twenty-two clients with only sixteen active clients because of
Covid-19, if we receive these funds we will be able to run PSK next year. We are going to expand
our capacity currently we are only running about 28%capacity. We offer technical assistance on how
to open a business and how to develop a business plan, and marketing. We help them with designing
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 June 18,2020
logos and brochures. The second application is the fagade improvements program and the third
application is culture specific small business/microenterprise grant program.
❖ Rick White, Community and Economic Director explained this public hearing will remain
open until the July meeting where the planning commission will give recommendation for
City Council.
Block Grant- 2021 Home Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2020-004)• Angie Pitman, Block Grant
Administrator stated that Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and
Kennewick in 1996 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. The Agreement was just
renewed through 2023. Each year an annual action plan is required to be prepared and submitted to
HUD for use of estimated funds for the following program year. We are proposing to still be doing
down payment assistance loans and figure we will do about twenty-five for 2021.
❖ Rick White, Community and Economic Director explained this public hearing will remain
open until the July meeting where the planning commission will give recommendation for
City Council.
Comp Plan Amendment- Urban Growth Area (MF# CPA 2020-001)- Jacob Gonzalez, Senior
Planner, stated this is an update to the Urban Growth Area, so staff report provided includes the
background information on the UGA, the responsibility to the Growth Management Act and the
relationship to the ongoing Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the presentation tonight will summarize
a lot of what we have already heard. In order to accommodate that growth, the City identified that an
expansion of the UGA 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 UGA.
We need to pick an UGA that addresses all of the following, urban growth, reduce sprawl,
transportation, housing, economic development, open space & recreation, environment, public
facilities & service, and historic preservation. Staff recommendation is to close the public hearing
and recommend to the Pasco City Council to apply for the expansion of the UGA to Franklin County.
Commissioner Bowers stated that we received serval letters with comments and she is addressing the
one from Halverson/Northwest date June 10, 2020 the 4t'paragraph states the planning commission
and City as a legal matter should not have held hearings on Comprehensive Plan Amendment
alternative#3 until the comment period of the DEIS had expired.
Mark Fickes, stated I am this is sort of the beginning to the end of the process and this is the first
planning commission meeting after alternative three developed. The planning commission and City
Council should not of locked into number three before the DEIS had expired. Olberding property
owns 88 acres the City is recommended that 30 acres be designated commercial. What I would ask
the commission to do is to instruct staff to remove these 30 acres from commercial designation back
to residential.Now speaking to the Collier property and I represent Big Sky Developers in this matter,
this property is under contract, and what we are proposing is to extend sewer and water which then
will be more residential.
Commissioner Cochran asked that Mr. Fickes address the original question where he believes the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 June 18,2020
comment period was violated.
Mark Fickes stated that we should not have had public comment period until the SEPA had expired
and that did not occur.
Rick White stated that we have asked department of ecology for their opinion of this and they were
unsure but it is not staff's opinion that a violation has occurred.
Caleb Stromstad stated that all we are asking planning commission to do is to make reasonable
recommendations and minor revisions to the proposed UGA boundary. We are asking that
adjustments be made by including the Collier property that was taken out.
Commissioner Cochran stated is there any rational of the commercial designation of the Olberding,
wondering what the selection process was to designate that property commercial.
Jacob Gonzales, Senior Planner stated on the commercial designation of the Olberding property the
idea to put commercial in a sea of residential is the exact purpose. Those residents need a place to
live and a place to shop, place to buy groceries and do whatever it is that they need whether be
business or employment opportunities. I understand that Road 68 and eventually Broadmoor will
have additional commercial identified on them.
George Dockstader stated he is here to ask the commissioners to drive around and see what this UGA
boundary is about. Wants the planning commission to go back to alternative two.
Fred Olberding stated he worked with the City of Pasco and is not happy about his property being
designated to commercial. Would offer to take the planning commission around and show them the
property and also where the schools are anytime of any day.
Randy Mullen stated in alternative 2 his family lives north of the Collier property and most of the
property over there is already being developed and it doesn't make any sense why not include that
property in the UGA.
Charles Layard acreage break down from alternative two and alternative three we couldn't see
anywhere on the alternative 3 map where the city gained the eighty acres.
Jacob Gonzalez, he is talking about the tables in the DEIS there is a discrepancy in table two with the
current of the UGA. There will be some corrections prior to the issue of the EIS.
Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner we have received comments from the Washington State Department
of Commerce and stated as the City and County moved forward with the UGA review our core
recommendation is to commit to adopting policies, agreements and regulations on how development
occurs in the unincorporated UGA. Development phasing is a critical tool to prevent a pattern of
sprawling low-density development from occurring or vesting in areas prior to the ability to support
urban densities.
Commissioner Jordan with the UGA land designation does that actually zone that land for those
designations or is this where this is going to happen or how we envision it going, or the land gets
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 June 18,2020
zoned as it is coming into the City. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez stated with the UGA itself tells us
that the land that we have to accommodate the growth to year 2038 it will have a land use supplied
before this the City would annex and zone it appropriately however keep in mind that Washington
state commerce recommends that we do two things one is a phasing mechanism and the second will
be joint development standards with Franklin County. Before any of the UGA is developed at least
in the City the cities purpose we would very much like to have those in place. Commissioner Jordan
asked about the Collier property if the studies that need to be done and land that is being developed
north. Rick White, stated that the property that was left out and property that is being developed at
densities that are not considered urban. It is a large lot residential development if it is two per acre I
would be surprised it is probably more like half a dwelling unit per acre. The pattern results from that
is occurring now was the development pattern that occurred in the very center of town near the river
view area is causing in hind sight now so much development concern and development problems for
using infill in the river view area. It's not planned, it's not based around utility lines or the
comprehensive street grid system and what it does is prevents infill. So no to my knowledge are no
development studies have been accomplished for the Collier property, the property to the south that
is in our current urban boundary that we cannot remove because the City supplies water to it and to
almost those large lot developments, and it does present problems forever.
Commissioner Bowers stated that it will not serve the City to expand that chunk into the UGA that is
not going to change it's ability to be developed any smarter or have any future in fill. Rick White
stated it still remains in Franklin County and yes it has a land use designation assume it gets include
the land use designation have been developed our population estimate, but no it is not zoned and its
not under the control of the City and the piece that Mr. Gonzalez read from the Department of
Commerce they clearly acknowledge there is a substantial amount of work to do in Franklin County
to prevent exactly what is happening now. Commissioner Bower stated there was some concerns
about the zoning designation on the Olberding property with it being changed from residential to
commercial, what you said earlier was that the designation would have to be approved in stages.
Jacob Gonzalez, Senior planner stated so land use is not the final call in general this is what we expect
to have here and through the annexation process a zoning will be identified for that specific piece of
land.
Commissioner Cochran stated this is a difficult process and there are many people to satisfy and that
I appreciate the staff trying to come up with a compromise alternative that there is pressure from all
sides and to me this appears to be a very valid outcome. I know you cannot please everybody and it
is not going to be perfect but it seems like there a lot of feedback both ways, so I just wanted to thank
staff because I know you have many people to please.
Commissioner Myhrum stated wanted to echo Commissioner Cochran comments as well that I
believe staff is drawing a good compromise and balance between the need to accommodate growth,
and the need for the City to be financially cognitive of what those boundaries are going to look like.
Mark Fickes stated he thinks the planning department has done a great job but they are answering
some of the questions incorrectly. Commissioner Jordan the UGA is simply a boundary map it is
where the City may expand in the next twenty years, may annex it you may never not. The map
circulated by Jacob also which includes a future land use map and you have to designate the property
under the comprehensive plan. The Olderbing property a portion of that is designated commercial,
which means it, can never be residential. The UGA is just a boundary and this is the time to deal with
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 June 18,2020
it now to do the boundary you also have to designate the property and under the Growth Management
Act you can't have a user zoning that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It was also asked
had studies been done the developer can do those studies and those can easily be done. There are no
studies that need to be done to add the Collier property into the UGA. There is a policy decision of
how large the UGA should be and again on the Collier property, I think with sewer and water the
density could be developed at urban level. This is the one time you are doing two things you are
adding to the boundary to the UGA and you are making a designation and the Olberding designation
and it's probably because your expensive consultant recommend commercial property throughout the
area, but Mr. Mullen told you he has commercial property along Road 68 you don't put commercial
property where there are no roads and no infrastructure all your going to do is make sure this property
never develops by the high school, there is no demand for a gas station or office buildings next to a
high school.
Mr. Burns stated he is would like to see more of a straight line and include the Collier and the Mullen
property. On Dent and Broadmoor that is a big area to have commercial when you have all the
commercial property on Road 68.
Commercial Bowers there have been several comments in the public comment period to some slight
variations some not so slight to option three. Mr. Gonzalez stated that staff believes we can address
modifications to the land use throughout the comprehensive plan process this summer obviously that
process is still ongoing. The land use for the comprehensive plan has not been set in stone all though
we do have based on the results of the EIS even though it is a draft and not finalized, we do have
recommendations and comments from a wide variety of state agencies and public comment that have
told us kind of how to develop and the patterns they would like to see, but absolutely we would be
able to take into a count minor modifications to the land use component of the expanded UGA for the
comprehensive plan as we move forward with that effort this summer through June, July end of
August. Tonight's motion is recommendation to City Council to allow staff to apply for an expansion
of the UGA to Franklin County. Franklin County that is where the actual action will take place, the
planning commission has a recommendation, the City Council will have a resolution and Franklin
County has the definitive action, whatever application they get from this process they are the final
decision makers.
Commissioner Myhrum stated if we could go back to the alternative two and three map, the
Broadmoor master plan area in alternative two versus three looks different. I wonder in alternative
two why it would be developed different as far as density. Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner explained
during the develop of alternative two the Broadmoor although had be identified as an area for growth
specific land uses and densities were not allocated or identified even today the Broadmoor master
plan efforts are in progress. What we do know is we can approximate what we can account for with
regards to housing and commercial square footage in the Broadmoor area that is what also allowed
us to decrease the UGA. We are not going to get a lot of in fill on river view but we are going to get
some great development and some valuable property development out in the Broadmoor area. That's
why you see the land use more identified in the Broadmoor area and that's because when alternative
3 was developed more of Broadmoor was developed.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there was any more public comment being there was none the public
hearing was closed. Jacob Gonzalez stated that the motion the was update was to allow staff to
proceed to City Council with an application to Franklin County to expand the Urban Growth Area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 June 18,2020
❖ Commissioner Cochran moved that the Planning Commission proceed to Pasco City
Council with an application to Franklin County to expand the Urban Growth Area.
Commissioner Mendez seconded and the motion carried. Commissioner Jordan voted nay.
Comp Plan Amendment- Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2020-002) Jacob Gonzalez,
Senior Planner stated that this has been before the commission in previous meetings and tonight we
are having a public hearing to receive comments. The Comprehensive Plan is regulated under the
Growth Management Act(RCW 36.70A)the next component is compliance with the Franklin County
wide planning policies and underneath that sits Pasco Comprehensive Plan. Franklin County
Commissioners actually updated their countywide planning policies in October 2019. Our
comprehensive plan complies with Franklin County planning policies. How does the comprehensive
plan work obviously it is a series of statements and goals that lead to policies that lead through the
implantation that leads to regulations, its code amendments,development standards, like the approval
tonight of the Port of Pasco Waterfront district, we have goals we have policies and the next step is
the actual work which is the implantation of said goals and policies. We are going to focus today on
Land use, housing and transportation. 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. All the comments and documents are on
the City of Pasco website. On the land, use element there is a new land use type Medium Density
Residential (formerly Mixed Residential). On the housing element are we building affordable houses
for Pasco residents on the transportation element it needs to ensure the transportation system for the
UGA is preserved and enhanced to meet the needs of our community, and we have to coordinate with
state and regional agencies.
Caleb Stromstad stated he was speaking on behalf of Mark Fickes and Big Sky Developers this is
related to the land use element alternative three was developed with city staff and their consultants
there was no public comments and no input from real estate agents, developers, engineering
consultants, contractors or landowners and so there was no compromise. To speak to land use
commercial land use is one of the highest and best use of land, to speak to the Olberding property we
hope that the planning commission would listen to the comments because we have real input and we
want to be engaged in this process, so we all can get what we want, we want this comp plan updated.
Big Sky Developers that has property standing by that is waiting for this comp plan to be updated.
George Dockstader stated the concept of putting 30 acres of commercial land out in the middle of the
Olberding property and the people that walked to work is fine for Seattle or downtown Portland. I do
not see people walking to work that concept does not work in the Tri-Cities.
Fred Olberding stated talking about this piece of property of mine this piece of property is only 2
miles from the Lowes and a mile from the mini mart. There is all kinds of commercial property on
Road 68.
Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner stated that he wanted to thank everyone for the comments there is
going to be an opportunity for us to refine this that by the time this is a final product, it is a final
product that we all can be proud of and that works for the City of Pasco for the next fifteen, twenty
and twenty-five years. I would like to mention though the idea that the walkable community aspect
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 June 18,2020
doesn't work in the region you will be finding that out in the next presentation why it may not work
however I will add that the Port of Pasco just proposed and was approved a code amendment exactly
just that along the Waterfront. The Port of Kennewick economic development agency as the Port of
Pasco is doing the exact same thing with millions of dollars in Kennewick. We have seen increase in
density, walkable neighborhood development in central Richland and so the idea it does not work in
our region maybe shifting additionally transit ridership isn't dependent on large city or not.
Comprehensive plan should be comprehensive and forward thinking should be the right approach.
❖ Commissioner Bowers stated that the public hearing would be continued until the July 161h
meeting.
_Code Amendment-Street Connectivity (MF# CA 2019-013)- Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner stated
The objective is to meet established goals and policies identified in the City of Pasco. So the existing
Comprehensive Plan, the bike/pedestrian plan approved in 2011, 2018 Complete Streets policy, the
Pasco City Council of goals, currently in progress the Transportation System Master Plan that has
long be identified as an emphasize of the Council which have been identified and in order to meet
those objectives requires updates to the Pasco Municipal Code system typically the streets and lots &
blocks. Our current average block perimeter in Pasco is between 1,640-3,280 and 1312 feet most
commonly cited length for walkable distance standard for transit. We have letters of support from
WSDOT, Benton Franklin Council of Governments, Ben Franklin Transit, Tr!-Cities Washington,
City of Pasco Fire Department, SOMOS PASCO.
Caleb Stromstad stated walkable communities is something that we all want within the City,one thing
I would observe is when people walk predominately in Pasco they aren't walking to a destination,
they are walking to walk and get exercise. Providing additional paths in subdivisions I think is a great
idea I think Sandifur parkway is a good example, if there were more access points to Sandifur to get
to that corner. What I would like to see is walkable community but that doesn't mean block length
reduction like what it was originally proposed because there are unintended consequences when you
start adding development cost to what you are doing and adding additional streets, utilities, lighting,
and crossings they bring their own hosts of problems so I don't think that is a significant factor.
Commissioner Abel Campos stated looking to see how we can fix connectivity especially with more
schools going in.
❖ Commissioner Bowers stated that the public hearing would be continued until the July 161h
meeting.
WORKSHOP
OTHER BUSINESS
2020 AWC Municipal Excellence Award- Rick White, Community and Economic Development
Director stated the City received a 2020 AWC Municipal Excellence Award for the race and equity
category this was initiated through the Community and Economic Development Department from
two grants it was spearheaded by our Planning Commission Chair Tanya Bowers. Tanya spearheaded
the project including the interview portion, conducted the research component and held two open
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 June 18,2020
houses,with the collection of the oral history for the African American experience in Pasco. The City
turned all this into a video, which is on our website. It paints a vivid picture of what it was like to live
in the early years on the wrong side of the tracks in the Hanford era. Therefore, I wanted to recognize
Tanya's efforts and appreciation.
Commissioner Tanya Bowers stated I remember I feel like it was four years ago and told you it sounds
like a really great story here, and we were trying to look at what the capacity was of staff and the
historic preservation commission, we applied and were successful and also for the state grant and I
have to say all this happened because of a community organization AACCES this was their story they
began documenting the contributions and the experiences of African Americans who lived on the east
side of town. So I would like to thank you for the acknowledgement and the appreciation but I also
want to appreciate these individuals and others in the larger community who shared their stories with
us and their experiences. Give a shout out to Lori Larson who volunteered her services and in filming
the video that we put together.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to bring before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
9:51 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Webb, Administrative Assistant II
Community& Economic Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 June 18,2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 10, 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 Can
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. Current requests
for public services total$201,500.The maximum available for public service activities in 2021 is$105,000.
Staff recommends no more than$89,000 be awarded for public services.
Planning&Administration Can
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 for HOME grant administration and project delivery.
Recommendation
At the June 18, 2020 Public Hearing, the Commission heard from the 2021 applicants and had the
opportunity to ask questions. After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities
set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in
carrying out the objectives for the City in 2021. Your review and consideration for recommendation to the
City Council would be appreciated. The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning
Commission for your time and assistance.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission close the public hearing on the use of funds for the
2017 Community Development Block Grant Program.
I further move that Planning Commission forward recommendations as presented (or as amended)
to City Council Workshop for consideration.
Attachments: 1 2021 CDBG Fund Summary
2 2021 CDBG Proposal Summary
3 2021 CDBG Projects and Proposal Requested
C � N
L o ¢ m Q v a v a a
U
9 a`
Q
I
Y
� � M l`7 fo M (o t0 to to t0 CD 10 s} O M
S
A
n 0 Q
O
O
O
C
v
E
E
O
d
o:
U
a U U
0 3
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
A
E
E O OCD O O O O O O O O N O O O O Q O
O O O O O O I� O o 0 0 0 o v .n ui m ori o w o vi
N O N N N N EA EA �O N N n D7 O p
U N N N 1A EA fA fA N M N O
y w w
N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N ,0 0 0 0 o O o 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in o 0 0
r U jp O 10 N N O O O O O O N O n O O O 1�
n y O n n n G O p O) O N O O) O O aD
M M M M N 10 O N N O S O N
10 o a °Q
0
o 0 0 0 0 0 o n
N « V m o 0 0O 0 g oo on o e eep g apOq
�P ao O O pa CD NNN
No= tum, 10
�q
M1
r
N co m
m y r Z
C
E C d O L
E E cm
E 042
m
O N a.
O m` m 2 t
-0E �' y E
C O 0 E a o >
li V N w m E $ rn '5 m c
10 p e ° c}i co c r " d t
Baa p E LL o ° W
E c °' c E m
ra m m
> c 4 o m Y t OU aci ig w EmE E u K
d E2 Lo
U c a@i m m aS y N LL b a W
E a Q co
c y o V K Y v 0 S U D
w c E
o d S a m m n N a O o Zq Z
Q O Lp
U c o Q 52 S° $ -21".fn
m rX F
co U cX
v Q ( L° a s w $ s y
cc
w -`
c ui
E E C
O 0 0 ma O o a IL
N f/1 fA (A Y m O eO
0
E E E E 0 0 0 r c > Z
Y L O L
w 0 O O O O N Q Q C .� 0 ttasEll LL
a O U U U U ll �p W LL O lL O d .�
LLI 4)
a co
a a o a n a 3 o ep t eC m E E' y
: U J
E E 'QE�Q 'pE qEq is� a E a E m E E E Cr E. p$ '. w 9°>' v E V a Lu
s
U Q Q ¢ Q O ~ N VUl N C O O d V V E ppppl d v LL U LL
O U m R m m 4 U U V V V S S d w m W O
IL
u v Ji t w W
m m m m U' �° § LL f7 10 m m $ • m g q W a > m 7 Te C7 m
a a a a v $ o c a a a A $ 3 3 O a y J N J Z y
10 Q S aj € o 5 '8 0 E -° -° '-° a w a a F o
m E S' D ::3 C
u L) Q n v r8 � 8 S o a8 S v v 0 w < < < < rc a a m as L)LL
N M a N 10 n n O m 7
U G p
U N N N N N N O O N
J V
O N N N N N N N M M C7 O 0 0 n o0
IL
IL
CITY OF PASCO
2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY—JULY 16, 2020
1 CDBG Program Administration—Requested: $140,000
Recommended: $140,000
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.
2 Civic Center Recreation Specialist—Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
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.
Reporting area benefit. Maximum 15% cap on all public services applies.
3 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist—Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
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.
Reporting area benefit. Maximum 15% cap on all public services applies.
4 Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist—Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
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.
Reporting seniors assisted, income eligibility presumed benefit. Maximum 15% cap on all
public services applies.
1
CITY OF PASCO
2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY—JULY 16, 2020
5 YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Program—Requested:
$20,000 Recommended: $20,000
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.
Reporting area benefit. Maximum 15% cap on all public services applies.
6 Pasco Recreation Scholarship Fund—Requested: $10,000
Recommended: $ 4,000
CDBG funds provide funds to help low-income youth participate in recreation programs.
Reporting income eligibilible (low-mod) youth assisted. Maximum 15% cap on all public
services applies.
7 Boys & Girls Club - COVIDI9 Teen Program, Main Branch facility—Requested:
$50,000 Recommended: "Contingent Project subject to PS Caps of funding source
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.
New program, reporting teens assisted by nature of services provided and location (area)
served. Maximum 15% cap on all public services applies.
15 Are Theraputic Recreation Scholarship Fund—Requested: $ 9,000
Recommended: $ 5,000
CDBG funds provide funds to help disabled adults participate in recreation programs.
Reporting disabled adults assisted, presumed benefit. Maximum 15% cap on all public
services applies.
2
CITY OF PASCO
2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY—JULY 16, 2020
8 Pasco Specialty Kitchen Technical Assistance—Requested: $140,000
Recommended: $55,000 +Plus Program Income Retained
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.
Economic Development Activity- Moderate complexity: Generates Program Income,
Program Income Re-use Plan (Sources/Uses), Calculate Program income (gross less
incidental costs to produce income), Report PI and Request Reimbursment on CDBG ED
Voucher form. Reports full time equivalent jobs created.
9 Culture Specific Small Business/Microenterprise Grant Progam—Requested: $165,000
Recommended: "Contingent Proiect
CDBG funds provide support to downtown businesses short term, low interest, loans for up to
25 to low-mod business owners.
Economic Development Activity- Moderate complexity, Financial Management, Generates
Program Income, Program Income Re-use Plan (Sources/Uses), Calculation less incidental
costs to produce income, Report PI and Request Reimbursment on CDBG ED Voucher form.
Reports full time equivalent jobs created. Maintains Loan Portfolio, records liens, payoffs,
reconveyances.
10 Downtown Pasco Facade Improvement Program (Service Area)—Requested: $172,500
Recommended: $28,750
CDBG funds support downtown businesses with up to four(4) facade improvements to
increase business flow and area appearance. (Census Tract 202).
Rehabilitation Activity: Moderate complexity, Procurement, Construction Management, labor
compliance, Design Review Committee, downtown revitalization plan standards.
11 Energy Efficient Home Program (15 households) —Requested: $50,000
Recommended: $25,000 + program Income from Rehab Loans Repaid
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).
Rehabilitation Activity: Moderate complexity, Procurement, Construction Management, labor
compliance, HQS Inspection standards.
3
CITY OF PASCO
2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY—JULY 16, 2020
12 Boys & Girls Club - Improvements /Removal of Architectural Barriers—Requested:
$259,750 Recommended: **Contingent Project
CDBG funds are requested for facility and safety improvements at the Boys & Girls Club
Main Branch. hnprovements 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.
Public Facility Improvement: Procurement, construction management, labor compliance.
13 Code Enforcement Officer—Requested: $100,000
Recommended: $70,000
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).
Reporting inspections made and properties brought into compliance
14 Pasco Neighborhood Business District Improvements—Requested: $400,000
Recommended: $398,064
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.
Public Facility Improvement: Procurement, construction management, labor compliance.
16 SECTION 108 - DEBT REPAYMENT—Requested: $200,000
Recommended: $200,000
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 Farmer's Market Pavilion, construction includes replacement of existing curb, gutter,
sidewalk, accessibility improvements, and replacement of aging water/sewer lines.
4
a
V p V O o 0
� o � p
oLfi tb
69
64 rn
0
O o O o 0 0 O 0
w c o
E Q.
a
O O O 7
OO �' O E 3 "Q O E O L E O N
vo E O o @ 0 3 ty
O v) v)
p CT N 0) N -0 p N �+
'ti 0) 69 U .@ 00 OCi u> n 64 a) Y 60 = tYn
yg p)a � m a) U
C C L w O
•y E o 'O c_ _N
O .>
O U C m o t =
w U O ) ~ C
N
c vi E coo C y
.� 0 N ) p)C U N
0 0 O 0 O m N O L
o '0@ v o o c a c G c c
Cij Cry N.N o O co m 'ITo c ° c' c >`p opo c
qr n v-0 0. c E N c U v c o c
Q c _ m _o 42 g vi
N _ N
N C a) @ O E m m LL _U
.LO. 2 a T Oa a � a F O a Z
a O Y a a > ' ° O p w a E ti
U) a) U 0 N - _ 1. c N N c ` O
N O O E w O w N O U O N o O 0-
U O m U 0 a N U a O) CL
w U a a 3
Q a L C Q y = Q 0 C U 0 O V)
C a m a? m C a L m O p
G t6 O V m O G m 0 (0 O U
m E cu c U c� Z m o c m
O Q .S m p O Q o L Q o > Q o m a
Eocai> 3 G LU co Z ui v `� � a e' k
c-0
m GLLJ a) m m m m o @ O m
W D d T N 0
O= .T
N 'V V) U,0 V) •ID V C
E .-. v) 7 a Z, V) 7 a a) (n 7 a Z
C m m U 'O y v V 'O cn 10 v U M to N
O o E > o a) ° o z �'- o 0 C) Zp a E
N -0Z6•ti N V! C fo N (n C m a N U) C fo @
O Q O y � O a) 'O U O > C 2 O 6 a) -0 2 m
�� LO N (n E �� LO r w N u7 E m @ LO r N N O`
O
YOoU UN 0-oc�° oc C° L0 oo °a0
LLa)
SN]e a o a o 0
0
V) wQ0N LaN m Q L N m ()O N < N y N
mN C O C cnc
_l N CD
L0 @ U2Z L mLoE Eo Em
'p c e
O m 3 o co a
• "C" O c~ C N m `
m d m U) N - m 0
C o a a) m o o a a) m 2 o a `m m
V) O N O tU 0 N O a) N '0 O a)
O C
v.. CD
LO
O m'� .}� C cn O N N O O O E ti O c
„j U a) C (n m
y '@ N m O C N CO 'L••' p N G V p N c
0 O O c
.�S C Q v) m •� a) C N aci c 'C c N ac) c C p ca Q CD c r �_
G G - o 2 0) o rT o-ani o Z 0) °o. m o Z m a Z
CL
Q � 0 U 0 _ D E — a) U _ a) 7
Z: o m 0 N o o m U) '0 Q • to U o c
v1 m m m 20
V 0) E a m c V o E a m E a•@ No a) E n p o
2 -b 'ND N ami '� @ O w 'UO L N O w > DO C n o .L0.. O
Q
c O 2 2cu (D-Fu
•� E w n� Z o .2 0 me U o �� o U U o 12 E
O Qr E cT p n m to U e Ymm m U' Qr Ca to C7@
m c C7
O _ m m > W O m .` `yU(n O mU m Oto O CO m
O f` 2 in 0 U N O O «. w«c O 0 '0 N C O 0 0 N
d y Q LL U p 00 N m LL U m •� o co LL U c o ch LL U a o
cE � p � a
N p �� V G > a .Q v m O ami ,per v v aUi •o v Ci �?
O Q UQ O A �; Q UU) O A �; �U � O q cnw O A e
�
ti
C O a
c
0 o a o U
0 004 o Q r- e
0 C C o V c y
C v 04 p Lr)
to
00 o acv o �O o
00 o LN o p o >
o m o �w oo rn oo @ o
C
E `fl aa)i m evj LO api r m
Q E (D s� y `� U)Cl'"- m
O Y
O 3 y L) >,41
c N m — N
>
co L C I E3 d
in mo a) CD
°
N Q N N "'' O Vj m O L
'O C..) 'O 'O 3 L-� _0 a) N 7
ami ami ai >;o a°)i � Zt cm •C
c >- c c m c C) mam
Ln -p a) O -0 O -p o O -p L y Q) (N
C :s c O c L O N c C y a)
CA m L m M m U CA m R N NL.
N c c c O m c Y Q
0 3 0 o NAL O 0. mNnv
m CD m is mm hoc
75 w c c Co
—
a 16
- a a ° 0 U N N
>` 0 E O _T O O O T a)� N
'J w a - a Cl) N a .-'' F-- .O Co C
N O U O N O +L-'L O N f0 U a)
U a N'p a U a N a U a L a
om > Q m Eo T a)Q �O00E
w `o o o L = o 0 0
- E o c E _ E aNi c a E _ y aO c
ao m n Z2 m C a o � c '
c6 O N 'O O f6 ° a) co 'O +: c0 U O
> c _Y U c c c a' N f6
Q m m Q m Q °) N m Q m Q @ Cm o
c m m c c N C c
m0 .NE
LU N N O W N fA W to L N 'y •� a N C
J a) L 0 J N E J I- c J N .a O O O O O
U a N m m U) U) c E LL
0)
W N � C. w C) U O 'O N m0 d
N L) N N ULO N a N aN 00)j
N 7 c N 7 m N 3 N > N N 7 O v C O N E
N
to v �-> m v a lb ° a v a @ c9 ) E �L
co Z o m °° Z ' a° 2 =0 c c °O a° Z � 4) °° N 'c > r
N N CL... U N N C C ON N •C m m U N N •C N •,A N C U N 3
O > C J L O > c a) O > c y o o O > c c O E m °
ON a lI') Q y Q lI') O N O N l0 O N N Z, l0 O O C.O c
a :2 Co e 0. 'O U a � m O m O. -0 m O E C aL m Lo
Q °n L U cu n L r U a L E y m U n r +. o a`� o L &
N N �L.o N w N U)i @ mo w N N 3 0 a•`n.0
J c 7 _ J 7 w J 7 O)02 J c 7 m J > w T 9 (0
L m ' L O L LL N L N "O O N m >
CF a) N c O T C N c m O c a) j U
N m a) o N
° E m m0 E m0 E m� L ° E o E a � L a
O m m w o y F� N ° mo c o 'U E °
C > C c C N E L > C a) C L O c O)Y .LO.� C
O a N a s O a Q> O a N w O C O a N m w O C c oCD
N -0 3 c0 N -O 3 3 N 'O 3 'C E m N 3 N @ C>
O '� O C O c ap -0 O C w O 'O E N O
y r- m w a r- m �.- a o a) n m w a ti h O a`) -0 U y Q
LO N O @ LO N O LO N O 3 o U Ln N O LO O a c c L a)
c N U c N L c N N M O c N L a)
O '0 2 O O 'O o 'O M -0 O 'O w 0
c am) N c N O .0 N $ . 0 .0 N O 'L +i.� L •`.O E
N a) c Q m c N a) c 'O m m -
Ln Z m U c°) iA Z rn c iA Z °) m >,c Lo Z °) c ar r° 'a) aa)) E
O a) c O a) c w O m c a)L m O a) C Q c +_ E N Lo
c > o c > a) c > Qm c > ° Q w c ° C m
m a) @ 0 3 a)cn p o @ o c o CO m @ o ti c N Eo a) ° m
a) a n. m a m a m a) a) -0 a a) E m E
Z- c
Y EO N N O L N EO ) N N EO w N O a) .Vj
t E = w c = c o w = c Op p = c p c U
@ c a) C: -0 c w LLL _ c OM CT a)� c V Y m L N N
eco) o oc o ° o � c o
Jm ° N Ua m N C7 U (D N U E)) ULL � C7 W @'N 0 CSLoa)
CTLL o Dm � a U co cHcLi U D ° � ° O o M °Q C � .w_ o � N
c o U•- o o a•- o m
'C O co LL U U a)N co LL U (� 0 M LL U O CO N N M LL U O a@ N (n U Y U N
CID CO 0
< E O N ceS D m L LO O ? O c O�
O aa)) Qz v V m 0 4z 4t v p O .m �� V, V � U O � V v � 0
rU � O A �; a-U) O A �; co5 O A Q � O q %) Q CL O q
c
0 0 po V o Z
o
C o o
A
O
04 Lr)
64 � to
O O O 2) N
O
O N N L N
00 N O C U O
cli `p" ' 69 E m 3
sN�q > N OCi 0 @
o o
E a
> C N
C
Uti' aci vf0i � Q N v
U .L.. O a) a7
U Z'f a) o U O
c > O
L V C E V U) 2) Vp W C Q)
N vi a@i C a) c Vj O o 3 -°
W n C ai C (D ° U
C @ y - O y ] cu
c U
O @ R N .0 0.' N C O a
N ° N
N p O O L C N
a)
C c �O U >� N y N U
cu
3 aCi
t a) 2W
_0 -O y O o 'O
r E aT+ y U U N E C U
UC
a) N
cu
N �0 N >. .` la N m
n) C
N N �' L a) $ j E C C
U) Q (7 O O Q CL O Q C f6 a) O
7 CE p C
O 0O O 2 O N .C� W a) 2 2 N
W N W N N O o :y w O UJ a N .0 Q
-O (0 _0 C O N
O OE Q U N °
O a) O > N £ o6 ° ,~
O 0 E LO
_ a CL > L o 0
c 3 u c E m ° o as m m °a
a) c
p a) o p o ? o U) 0. y o c ° m
E ? o04 m
Y
U E ULr) Lo t� V O L •V O EO N o m
•C -0 - a) m
E o E O aa)) m -° O E E N
o N < 0 0 0 _ o r .� < 0 3 > �c
Q o o Q o o °
J > a) J > �O -1 U L 7 J > c Q C'.-
-o U N N d c L 'O d
E 2 U) E Z 3 0 ° E E ww�
m
c N .n C N N L .'k N 0 m O > C y t co C
L O c O a) .� a) a)'° C " v O N
U T U �a) Z N C � O)O 3 C. U m 'C O
N od N C N off$ N c r+� N 0 N�p O C fes\ N 06 'y y� 0
U) O a) 'a U) o a) L \v � m O p) N R v � O C •U @
0 -EC SF N O N N O w-O N
o .> O .� ?� y Z c :O a) y O p N
a o r .° o ° +. m = -o o f o :° m
rn n. 0. W 0) n c GO Ct Q m ° n > C p rn U N O
M is o a o• o) o o r C) a) y c
m wCL
-tc :Sa) E V Qum Z3o
N N O N a �►�j N @ o p N -2 O 75 E O O)�
— a E c ° cf)i,E E c N ^ m o o a� � � V 'o E ° a) -
CD
°coi
E o N m m o N -No y E L U E -No �, E o E -No ° .°
c U ° c W a) U = c G 2 0 c o N C N o'c U o C M C
m 00 r 2 o co >1 °� m -o ` � �
" ° c� A
E °- m m °m °- m yL f° " m e R N coo `C° COY N
a� rn 0 � aa)) � 0 0 �! V � m �E h o@ a 0 � cUi H
� No N (n U 3aEi � N (n U 00 W E tAc Ua) 00 �, FEZ N w Uoca N
° ya o > UO ? >,2 O a ot3 > a) a
> mn. a).C� V p .per . ci v c o .C� Ci V p a E
Umm E
c� O q ° �`� O A Q Wa O A Q Q O A
LZ w w 14
,o
c
� �oQ cQ c
V V C� V
a
� y
O V O Cz O o
fy o pq O CQ o �i d
A o A C A 4
O N o N
j N M j
bq
O O O 3 O O L O O N O
O O 7 O Op 'O E
O o c@ `o O y O O o L O
w a) U
6q Ei ca a m N u
am O
> E m ^n o N
i o u'a yq > y4 c O
p_ o 8
O E 5 L C C as c Sg
N 0 E
r o O
a
U CL O C N O E
C1 >' O21 V) 2
CD
Q1
Vj O o c `O $ Con °' c
C ao c C c
� m N
o a c c o 0 a
C C @ C m U 7 U
a) E �p p C LL o
a) `O'O L N y a3
w0
Q-
Co
C _ —
C. N y E U N
N
O L` T W Z y 'O 'O N
p U U U N 0 7
O! — O L O O) a N N a N O
+T+ E m +TJ 3 a)
m .2 CL
w m a t m N 3 @ Z co m
E= C > Y C "� >
- N
O U p . O a 3 o O a Y LL X
p c a) O V N
LU C a) � W O W N N O
O _
O U a)C O O a C O a o
@ a) m C E
Q C O)M N E
W a) ,C O N a) U @ U
> @
_ 'CN O N _ 2 O`
O '0 0 nj N CL d N N
a ULO �. O E
CL C N C @ O) N
N
@ N W � N O� 00 � f0 7
Y0 E w
V 04 CL 0
o v0 c E C> Or m a V j .N
� N o o N Z, � C '� .T' E '� U) C -p @'o
O � a o � N O E @o O E cv a2
a L) N a o -co U a o
`A. O y C 7 w N w C N N
2 O . C
U a) C T U N a) C m p >.O
m _0 O.
C a) U >�f0 U Ecu C
N
3 O p E C N U T E O
O O^ m O.p O a7 f�D'p O a a) >
O v c m o 0i o O v '.c c m + p o a
' NO @ C t N m L '+C„u o a) .0 L C 'A 00 °' 00 •� O N
N ..0 'N O N p O> 'ai N 06 � N� R Q N atS -E C 1Y a)
•� p a) p a) V •.�.� O 'O N a) v •�'.� O 'O p f0 C
r ` XL w CN. 0�„ \•y.i{ S O
\ wa) O 5 o E { ?
wC C o .03 o C O
aa) . N -0 Dco c�Ep—N
In p W 7C E -j LL a yN N
CL QO aV .O, '� MO 'N N N Z" .� C NLL m
0� m ti c c3 C c S moa
C W N Yc ^O m o C "O N N 'N C
o a) O
E o
L) m ° o °- Z EN
0.wo0Q)
c coo
O U E ` NU 3 '0 o U Nin ` m o N c
bc ui o oo U m °c N y4 W ULc c L c
V m 0c (D 3:
E 0 0m'@ V a° w o CoJ o � a M3U
°D m L � c m o mm
b 2 :0 � .� rnpc o. o0 O W p@o. ti
O U c UU a O �' Z N aEi N U m 00 Oj ZOg N U U CL H
O ? O m C O
V p •�� U G N j CL •'O U •� W W "p 6n Ci
Q U O A Q LLm E O A d
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 10, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman,Block Grant Administrator
SUBJECT: 2021 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME)PROGRAM
ALLOCATION AND ANNUAL WORK PLAN(MF#BGAP2020-004)
Background
Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the
City eligible for Federal HOME funds. The Agreement was renewed through 2023. Each year an annual
action plan is required to be prepared and submitted to HUD for use of estimated funds for the following
program year.
Estimated Funds Available
It is estimated that the 2021 annual entitlement grant to the HOME Consortium will be $490,000. Each
member city is allocated an equal share of the entitlement after 10% Set-Aside for Administration and
15% Set-Aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). Pasco's share of the
entitlement is estimated to be $163,000 when the remaining funds are split equally between the three
cities. HOME Program income estimated in 2021 is $100,000 and may be used for Down Payment
Assistance, Tenant Based Rental Assistance, or an Eligible CHDO Project depending on need. These
estimates are based on the 2020 HOME Allocation.
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
HOME allocation is made by Congressional Resolution and an amendment to the Annual Action Plan
may be necessary. If funding levels are lower than estimated, activity funding may need to be reallocated
accordingly. Any program income received may be allocated for eligible down payment assistance
projects.
Planning&Administration
HUD regulations state that the amount of HOME Funds obligated within a program year to support
planning and administration activities may not exceed 10% of the entitlement. This is awarded to
Richland annually as the Lead Agency of the HOME Consortium to manage all activities. Member cities
are provided funds for planning and administration from 10% of program income received from
completed projects within their jurisdiction.
CHDO Set-Aside
Each year a minimum of 15% of the entitlement grant must be set-aside to help Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDO) add to the permanent affordable housing stock. The CHDO set-
aside funds may be combined with program income for a development project that will be selected
through a competitive RFP process.
Proposed Activities
HOME funds are based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits,
however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding
is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low-moderate income census
tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as
needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low-moderate income families.
2021 Funding Sources Budget
Entitlement&Estimated Program Income $263,000
2021 Proposed Activities
Program Administration $7,000
Down Payment Assistance Program $256,000
$263,000
Recommendations
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that anticipated 2021 HOME entitlement funds
be allocated to the First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program A contingent project for
new construction infill or tenant based rental assistance may also be added if needed to meet timeliness.
The activities set forth above would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in
carrying out the objectives for the City in 2021. If conditions of the housing market make it difficult to
use funds as planned, Pasco may consider joining forces with Kennewick and Richland to allocate unused
funds for acquisition and/or infrastructure or for low-income tenant based rental assistance projects as
permitted in the inter-local agreement. Your review and recommendation to the City Council would be
appreciated. The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time
and assistance.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission close the public hearing on the use of funds for the 2021
Community Development Block Grant Program.
I further move that Planning Commission forward recommendations as presented (or as amended) to City
Council for consideration.
/arp
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
0tV0. ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
411
; Pa.SCO City Hall —525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers
DATE:THURSDAY, JULY 16, 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 framework of
goals, policies and implementation strategies 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.
At the June 18, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, staff shared a presentation that focused on
three elements of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use, Housing and Transportation. The purpose
of this staff report (and presentation) is to cover the following elements and chapters of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan: Capital Facilities and Utilities, Economic Development, Parks and
Open Space and Critical Areas and Shorelines.
The GMA requires that each Comprehensive Plan provide information on elements described
above through RCW 36.70A.070. As a reminder, 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 Draft Comprehensive Plan (Volumes 1 & 2), appendices and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement of the Plan are available online: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan
Capital Facilities & Utilities
The Capital Facilities Element incorporates each city planning and study document and together
they comprise of the Capital Facilities Element. These include:
• Capital Improvement Program
• Transportation Improvement Program
• Comprehensive Water Plan
• Comprehensive Sewer Plan
• Stormwater/ Irrigation Plans
The Capital Facilities Element shall comply with the Growth Management Act's planning goals,
specifically:
1
"Ensure that the public facilities and serves necessary to support to development shall be
adequate to serve the development at the time development is available for occupancy and use,
without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards"
Economic Development
The Economic Development of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide and promote
economic opportunities in the City of Pasco. This element incorporates multiple local and
regional efforts and has an emphasized acknowledgement and support for the strategies and
priorities identified by Somas Pasco.
The Economic Development Element shall comply with the Growth Management Act's planning
goals, specifically:
"Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans;promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for
unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; promote the retention and expansion of existing
businesses and recruitment of new businesses; recognize differences impacting economic
development opportunities; and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic
growth; all within the capacities of the state's natural resources; public services and public
facilities. "
Parks & Open Space
The planning goals of the Growth Management Act encourage communities to retain open
space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to
natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. This element is in
alignment with the City of Pasco's 2016 Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan will help to guide
the future of park acquisition, development and management to meet the needs of community
members.
Critical Areas & Shorelines
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires all cities and counties to adopt
regulations protecting "critical areas" in order to preserve the natural environment, wildlife
habitats, and sources of fresh drinking water. RCW 36.70A.030(5) defines five types of critical
areas:
• Wetlands
• Areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water
• Fish and Wildlife habitat conservation areas
• Frequently flooded areas
• Geologically Hazards Areas
The City uses the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to
protect the functions and values of critical areas and to give special considerations for
conservation and protection.
2
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 August 20th, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
3
o
b
o � ��
�� � o
� � � o
� N
.nw
�"+
6� '�
� �'".
� �
O
U
� r
O
4
•
�I O •
�i
m
z
•,OA
I�A
•�
r 1 a V a a
.'* C Q c o
m
U 2 0 M* s Qo
_ .0 G. 0
u -V W � D. m
v
LL 3 � � �
° o
rt
V
N
a-+
C
d
d
W
C� a
P
_
L E = o
Q a a cn
� v7 0 0- cn
R > ca cn d otS
O o =_
U
� 0 ? LL N OCL N v Q
N O N U V
O Q y= O c F
(Y) M O m w+
J 2 U H w d d z Ix U
caC) o o a o o a o ❖ ❖ ❖ ❖
4�
4� N
_
� o
o
c c �
_ O
= O
ccno0
(� N }. = a'
= o c�a c U L M M C m
co O d (D U LO d m Q. c 7 3N s
L) waaz0waa = cn
'0
^ U F N M -4 ui CG I-� 00 0) r
V ry
C
- cC
a
w
o ..
t
r
CD
N
E
LU
c
E a�
•1�1 W c °' ° _ >
._ > m
-seI co O4-
i■�I O 3 E C
E 4-1 3 3 � Q-
A , � o
V/ m civ � p O coo c=a rQ o
L O U o a ° 3 0 � -
> O 4- w- >> V) N LL m O
.. Ln o O
C O N C C C C:
CA u Q� 0 C N > N N Q ++ E
L � c o E
O E cu c o E E a) �- N a
o a u � o 0 0 0 o u Q
r 1 O U cr Q u- a a U U O
C
a
u
fj
mow.
N
v �
O O Q
tB Q
� J
O O
a--+
Q a-J
i
f0 }' to
•� }' +' v N
LL Ln
v O N
4J }' Q c
+�+ U O Q to
C"L cn Q
V
�
.�
D
� � O
~ U
� � #
L
� # _
/ U
Q u n = ƒ
E E \ ®
CLE �
+ Ln '\ /
u
�
p /
�
0 m / C-6E c
CL « :
#
n
e > o R O `f'
o u m / : &
Ln
Q 7 / g LZ 1:j \ \
_ / . � = o
'V (13
V) � \
� 2\
LL
� \
� \
E } �
o �
�
M
C:
�
0
o
� u
e � g
c
cz � _ ro
> � �
CL LL
� - 0 � %
LL
� . . .
00
m
0
N
O
N
I �
N
Ql
O
N
00
Nr\j
O
s
M Elmo C)
�, o
Ft
3 N
D O
N
0
O o
m O
5 N
CL O O
O
�■I a
N
O
O
W
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
•• i O W lD N 4
N
LL
W
O
•o
L
c
a
V � E
o
o
LL Ln N a�
E O }' n
1 4a > _0 c
EL w m U
V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn f� w w N N
lD Ql Ql o Ill N M M o 1.4
,-i Ln r, � n w c r-i c-i l0
c-1 N N M Ln T m t/)- V)-
LL
/}w
�U p
fB
LL
N
0
N a LO
O
U O `
i 0
L 4J O
— U
i C
cBQ V) O O 3 f
O v L U (�
l`J I i a d Ln !- L c i
f
N {�
N N p
rQ o o
V V N m0
++ o 4-
NN
O O u
N � (Z
a� Nx � �
> a a� Q = a) 4-1
U O o o
Lan) a� N L .
> a Lam' m o tf -to a � Q
c vi4-
CL
, = -Z,; O c i v 41 E
Q a� v U >- c
UL.L +� M � N cn Q cB
— fB X 0- -+� Q (� m p (� (O U
fB N w w H U aU-+ d O
+, � ca
LL CxA . . . . � . . UO •
IN CLC
(� U :6 — C�
E 5. • • • •
�V lD LL
V
L
a�
C3
N L
°
� N
L.L
i C
7 O
CO LL ++
O Ln
1� cu —I L
o o p
U OYj v1
v
C V) cuf�0
@ Y
3 °
Q
r-I c
C-6 °
v 0
LL °
CLC
C
f0
L
L C
C: Ln '9 `. 3
a
V/ � p
�/� L
V1 3 o a
o �
L °
Ln LL
L
3 m
N N 3
O
C V)
O N
L
L 2f0
L
In
In
Q)
N
J a
a
O k.0 0
0
co coV
v .
O
Qe1 L
V) a
> H 0
j O c
S
CL
ra
° -0
Q
06
Yw . 'u.
L
LL a,
c
v
a-+ p
E.
V
v i
4
r
_ o
i
O
f I W
tik m
r j{a
SN
1
0
V u_
� a Y
. a
u
' a
iy
v �
� � 0 ® Ll0
0
� d
S „
d d
dQ b O O O O O O ,
d
N � N N N N N N N
U r I1
0
w Y` .
O >
_ N
t✓
3 v
lw
rp
f.. o
2
_ y
S
06
t
1 r".
_I ,
t 1 {
m
L.
a 2 c 0
I a 2
-2
N O
d M J
v I I W 100
4
0
o
t De 8Hd
Pao
:n
-_J t Iv t:' 3.
to F o 3 �
t p (�O� IN am d P
�._...�. d
ID �Pie
r ae9° N,SS Pie s s
l ° w
we
V\O\ od Pqe 01 ®i M 44V
nd riV
N ltb P'je C': a�d,,D1
y end tUl L `Q
a o
`0 OAV 4102 H
44K d
amAV 4182.:
9c POOM F 91,PD°M 333rrr
t
+ —V UOfIPDW
.. .7,..n.1()9
PIkc,
g 17
i
1 �
L C S
i � H
L
t y, m
PDOq
CL
�✓ � u a
_ N � _
T
t
t
t
9
the
i f =
N
N �
v
ov
O N Z
v � v
V 4�
o 0
N
L
O
fB 4-0 CN
0 rd, fa Q)
ro
0 0_
a �
U
N O +, N
G C: ro
4
O Q w N
W
J I J
b y=�.h
O
O
N
d-J
QJ N
O U11 U
a 0
N Y
L
W LL
U �
0
•L
O
m
N N
0)
rn
cn
C 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O C O O O C
A T � 0 0000 CD 0 CD �
—1
1� ,-1 r-4
o m in -1
0
z
44O
V � Y
Y
L N
}J 0
0�A Oi U 1 ul
L
E >�
W Q u
4 u
L— �
O
a " o o
V ~
• 3
rl
N O 00 lD N O O .�-1 —4 �
ci —I
O O O m
ON
LJJ 1Jd o
Ln
a�
E
C
L a
� o
� M •�
rl N v
Ln
G v N
O tv co
lD L
u O qA C 4J N o
U
'a O Ln
N C U c LnE
LU 4 U f0 4- o f9 Q w
4--+ � +J f0 N O O °'
N u O Q L
_
41 ++ ,v O C O C
E C c
C: co cv W N o
� aO� ' ltU
o o o c v 3 3
L
O
N
X"
9%,7q
�sdJZa
vo,4a�o
'rd J`�dyd�0
J u
r �a
sA
o
G°�Pa�Jdd y�4/SPA°
GP�Si �`/P Jb
sd P4 G�
Zai �a �y h
d1SP JPJ O
0 J4d�
Jt
141 y/Pd c
�P41
41
o °
G �dJ LL
/ v
Oy
d, u
P
W a �/
dt77;
ry
dA GF,
d/P
s
d/
°�
��r C J
AN
a Go,,J GP�G
'�JSGOJ
U
O Sd
O 0�0 � � � O 00 l0 R ry O ijfP
Z�a�o
W b
o
O CT)
cr) W
0
� o
O
u
N
f0
CL
Y
U Ln
�
a ' O
PizC � � o
O
o
LA
�
O
� M M
C Ln Ln Ln
U 0
0 0 \ o\' U
fu 0
v o c
cu
LU
0-0
Ln Lncu
Q ".
O �
L cuiL m
!00
LU
m (D N
7
o E U
1�1 L m Q O
u
O O 1°
t N
U
N
t
L _
�1
L
O
T
V
C C
Y
c M
C � W
o T
f6 c N
f*� m • 2
7
i i i E
C, o
v
u
MMMML Q
V o 00 0 0 on v
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7
W
Un
C e
O
v
E
_o `../
Cie
W
o
w
V
ui
w
LL
r
�f LL
0
m �C'y z, Gov
cc ?
COJ
� V,
U
•
4-J
O • C
O
LU
LL Ir
W_
O
i—
F—
.� W
z
Z_
H
1 U
�a w
z
4�
�wy
f
• a
�Tvw]
—f
i
i
of •
Oi �
�O
a
a�
�U k
0
0
W
kF
i
i
•
�1
0 •-j
N E
W
Ororo
>
L CL N U N
V) 4--+ N 4J
V U
.. i }'
t1A �4A
O E —
L
(/J to Q U t1A
E O — O
o C6 OZ$ i' N > v -�
o C: C: O -0 N N
w °- v Q ~ a�
-O � p O Ln
. Y LL Q co 1 2 co
x
v m o .
■... O >
V
W C: • •
4
,s
• � ��I � `+ six
e t 9 �iI J
iL
f
i
• L ��
� w
•
•
•
•
■
•
■
•
(
t . . \
� � [
-§ - - - - ( .
F
-
. � ?w��\� /
� /
ƒ< \
. . : .
. . -
�
§ / $
�
\
�
C r00 r14r- � :
� }
ro
: � \
� (
� Q >
Q-
0 /
'i o Q
o (D| (D r (D V)
| aM c o \ ro a
iZ) = e
. E Q o ro
• E / u
& o
Z U � -j Ln
� s
y t
JV
4�
N
Q�
L
4-J p
p N L
CU
un
E U cn
a) O
N Q -0not
a� p
}' O Q +'Ln
O
a > 75 � LZ Lt
�� L • • L • • • • •
CJ U
V
8 F
v, o
0
� xeb t
.... rU u.
n
e .. Af#Y _
Q' v
-
Q)
o +-0 o
v Qj
i 0
N
Q —ro
i d
N
Q) V Q) N ate--+ Q) W
Q N
0 � O U Ln w d
s i u 0 ro
c >
E
V1 c _� O cv Ln
to
A
� Q O c -C
m 4-j v LJ
U O L Q O Q
O +�
Q O oQ > v N O
O o C,
U -
�
.V • • • r
ro
'� Q to a
V
cB
v1
U
fB
Q
C
QJ
� U
• =3
w U
C:
ro O +�
}' N U
N O
O U
W O
L U
bn t10
CL
cn
C-6
U
U � bA hA
CL bn N QJ t
O _
c =3 =3
w a a a
O �
V
V 40.. o N N
N �` L
� O
N N ¢.
�■� m � = '
anom _ to w Q
V Q Q cn
� '
4
2
QD
O
N
00
� O
g� t4gE E _ -J
Yee F
d N nry W
i b�,y upY
d N o Lp5 ;E°ycu
sfi
O 2 4
44
R��Q /�
,V E c+�3 �'°o ,TT
V
a
N L AIL
n LL
oEa
"noG a
U o=
cl � EwA P
BE
,%,
•� �t f� _ w� £ Uc a AMEa o L
d E °
U
m
Q0
4� o
CD
ma
0 � a
0
o N a O
N
Kf Q
� M J
O N 0 co
N
tar
c a cD
EO
� N
c
m
n 4
> a` U
CD a m a (�
8 a v > CL
a E t v
> p a n N CL a
3 U E E E E E m
o
a w (/1 dfE U o� U U� = n
-6C.
a o vas c
a
cl
c p c
E Y.L. i �. ,�n� U a0 �n to a--� ,.;
nmm. v a al eco a) m a 4-1
eU0 -0 c U
t t L a P3 d E d m �' E
Si
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
ri PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Pasco City Hall —525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 16th, 2020
6:00 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MF # CA2019-013 —Street Connectivity
Background
An update to the Pasco Municipal Code to address street connectivity is the result of long
established Pasco City Council goals, Comprehensive Plan policies and adopted plans of the city.
Members of the public have also identified that more connectivity and accessible
neighborhoods are important to them.
Prior staff reports to the Planning Commission have focused on identifying the need, benefits
and general guidance and policy recommendations. This has also included an emphasis on data
collection and an examination of existing conditions that have indicated that the block patterns
are increasingly becoming a challenge for residents to navigate in Pasco.
The purpose of this staff report is to cover additional components of block patterns, specifically
accessibility and emergency response and safety.
Portions of prior staff reports have been included in the staff report for Planning Commission to
have available during the review (Existing System Connectivity; Draft Revisions).
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.
1
Additionally, barriers created by 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.
Street Connectivity & Accessibility
A well-connected transportation network reduces the distances travelled to reach destinations,
increases the options for travel and can facilitate multi-modal and non-motorized travel. Even
in areas with segregated land-uses, the connectivity of the transportation network offers routes
that are more direct. With an increase in land-use mixes, opportunities for reducing travel
distances and travel times can begin to occur.
The United States Department of Transportation identifies the following strategies to improve
connectivity':
• Short block lengths
• Complete Streets Policy
• Bicycle/Pedestrian outlets for cul-de-sacs and dead ends
• Prioritization of multi-modal access to public transportation
• Safe and visible bicycle pedestrian facilities
Note that the City of Pasco adopted Ordinance 4389, Complete Streets Policy in 2018, while a
comprehensive transportation evaluation covering all users (vehicles, freight, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit) is ongoing through the' Transportation System Master Plan. Policy
recommendations will take into consideration the block lengths; block perimeter and
pedestrian connections through this code amendment.
Emergency Response & Safety
Often over-looked, is the impact of street connectivity (and/or lack of) on emergency access
including evacuation. Single or limited-point access can create challenges and constraints for
first responders. The Environmental Protection Agency, through the Emergency Response and
Street Design Initiative worked with fire department staff to highlight the improvements to
community health and safety with transportation connectivity3:
• Research shows that a highly connected neighborhood network of narrower streets
provides health benefits by increasing pedestrian activity.
• Narrow streets naturally cue drivers to slow down, reducing the severity of injuries and
increasing crash victims' odds of survival.
https•//www transportation gov/mission/health/promoting-connectivity
https://www cnu org/sites/default/files/CNUEmergency%20Response FINAL O.pdf
3 https://www.epa.gov/smartvrowth/smart-growth-streets-and-emergencY-response
2
• Increased street connectivity improves emergency responders' access, offering multiple
route options for answering emergency calls.
• Compared to systems dominated by cul-de-sacs, highly connected street networks
shorten the physical distance emergency responders have to travel.
• As most emergency response, calls are for medical events rather than fires, these access
improvements can significantly enhance the community's overall health and safety.
The 2017 Pasco Fire Department Performance Report indicated that maintaining and improving
response times were priorities. Ordinance 29384, adopted in 2006, created Response Standards
for the Pasco Fire Department. This included the following:
• First Engine Arrival: A response/travel time of six (6) minutes for the arrival of the first
engine company shall be met 85% of the time
• Ambulance Arrival: A response/travel time of six (6) minutes for the arrival of the first
emergency medical unit shall be met 85% of the time
Traffic, weather, overlapping call volumes and roadway infrastructure affect travel times for fire
and emergency response. This means the City can facilitate or foster the meeting of Response
Standards by creating a transportation/roadway infrastructure that does not increase travel
time or distances.
In 2009, the American Journal of Preventive Medicines concluded that sprawling development
pattern is significant associated with increase emergency medical service response times and a
higher probability of delayed ambulance arrival. The results of the study suggested that the
promotion of development patterns that limit sprawl might improve response performance and
reliability. This coincides with a 2015 report on Best Practices for Emergency Access in Healthy
Street S6, which described street design, specifically shorter blocks and connected street
networks decrease travel times, and reduce response times for fire response.
Although not conclusive, additional research is beginning to emerge that suggests street
network characteristics play an important role in road safety (traffic collisions) outcomes. A
2008 study' of 28 California Cities (included rural, small, mid-sized and larger cities) showed
that safety outcomes were associated to street network density (number of nodes/segments)
and to a lesser extent, connectivity. Of note, is that the study specified a higher risk of fatality
or serve crashes correlated with lower intersection density.
Further analysis are necessary to reach any definitive conclusion, particularly at the local level
as travel characteristics and patterns vary by region.
a https ,'/egov-pasco conv'weblit&DocView aspx?id=252820&dbid=0
s http•//archive cnu ori/sites/www.cnu.ory/files/UVA sprawl&EMS 11.2009.0df
6 htti)s://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/201 5/04/Best-Practices-Emergency-Access-in-Healthv-Streets.pdf
7
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43221307 Street Network Types and Road Safety A Study of 24 Ca
lifomia Cities
3
Draft Revisions
The following draft set of revisions offer options for the Planning Commission to consider prior
to a formal recommendation.
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
Additional considerations and recommendations will be made for cul-de-sac length and
placement, minimum intersection distance spacing and pedestrian/non-motorized use
pathways to connect neighborhoods to each other.
Minimum Spacing between intersections are a safety consideration to mitigate and decrease
potential roadway conflicts. The current minimum requirement of 125 feet per PMC
21.15.020(2) is a safety concern and an updated standard would benefit access management
along city travel corridors.
Street Names are regulated through PMC 21.15.010(4) and state: "When practical, streets shall
be named to conform with existing streets on the some or reasonably similar alignment. New
street names shall be reviewed by the Planning Department, the Fire Department and/or the
Emergency 911 Coordinator to ensure that no confusion with existing street names occurs."
The naming of streets can be a sensitive issue during the development process and in an effort
to alleviate future challenges; city staff is proposing to simplify the street naming requirements
within the Pasco Municipal Code. The intent of this is to provide guidance during the
development review for acceptable naming of City public rights-of-ways.
4
An example of what staff may recommend is provided below from the City of Kennewick:
13.08.040: - Streets, Avenues.
All streets running east-west and southeast-northwest, shall be called "avenues."All
streets running north-south and northeast-southwest shall be called "streets."Provided,
however, that the City Council may use the terms "drive," "way,"and "boulevard"for
streets having special significance.
13.08.050: - Street Name Categories.
Street name categories shall be as follows:
1) Streets running north-south, east of Washington Street shall be named alphabetically
after trees; then alphabetically after cities.
2) Streets running north-south, west of Washington Street shall be named alphabetically
after towns, thence alphabetically after old-timers, thence alphabetically after
presidents, thence alphabetically after states, thence alphabetically after native plants.
3) Streets running east-west, south of Kennewick Avenue shall be numerical;
4) Streets running east-west, north of Kennewick Avenue shall be alphabetically named
after rivers;
5) Where an appropriate name is not available within the key provided herein, the City
Council, at its discretion, may deviate from the above sequences.
Next Steps:
The City has received letters of support from the Washington State Department of
Transportation, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Ben Franklin Transit, Visit Tri-
Cities and the City of Pasco Fire Department.
Staff is seeking additional comments from the Planning Commission on the proposed draft
revisions and considerations. 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 August 20, 2020 Planning Commission
meeting.
5
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City0f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
q1t Co
City Hall —525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers
DATE:THURSDAY, July 16, 2020
6:00 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CA2020-001— House Bill 1923 (Duplex, Triplex & Courtyard Apartments) &
CA2020-002— House Bill 1923 (Average Lot Size)
Background
The City of Pasco, along with 51 other communities received funding from the Washington
State Department of Commerce to address housing affordability and supply in their respective
communities. The funding was available through the passage of House Bill 1923, approved by
the Washington State Legislature during the 2018-2019 session.
In September 2019, the Pasco City Council approved staff's recommendation to study the
potential benefits and impacts of three proposed code amendments:
• Authorize at least one duplex, triplex or courtyard apartment on each parcel in one
more residential zoning districts;
• Authorize cluster zoning (lot size averaging) in all zoning districts that permit single-
family residences;
• Authorize attached and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on all parcels
containing single-family homes
Per House Bill legislation, the City will receive a total of$40,872 for reimbursement of staff time
upon adoption of all of the proposed code amendments. Funding amounts will vary (decrease)
if amendments vary from legislation or not approved. The proposed code amendment on
accessory dwelling units will begin in late 2020. As a reminder, per House Bill 1923, all
amendments must be adopted by June 15, 2021.
Staff provided a report and presentation at the March 19, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
That report and presentation focused on local demographics and housing data. This staff report
has three sections:
• Housing Supply Analysis
o Data on current housing, type, variety and restrictions
• Proposed Code Amendments
o Duplex/Triplex/Courtyard Apartments
o Average Lot Size
• Policy Guidance
o References to housing goals, policies and strategies (local/regional/state)
1
Housing Supply Analysis
The Draft 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan contains information on existing land use allocations
and housing supply for the City of Pasco. The data below is from the Land Use and Housing
Elements.
Residential lands make up the largest share of area in the City of Pasco, with approximately 43%
dedicated to housing. Figure 1 (below) displays the Land Use categories for the existing City
Limits.
Figta•e I-Existing Cite Limit Land Use Designations
Dept of Natural
Resources
Airport Reserve 4%
9%
Open Space&Parks
4%
Public/Quasi-Public
4%
Residential
43%
Industrial=
24%
Figure 2, (page 3) shows the breakdown of zoning designations land area for the residential
land use category. Pasco has an extremely significant portion of its residential land-use
dedicated for low-density residential housing. Only two percent of residential land use is
reserve for high-density and 14% for medium density.
2
Figure 2-Existing Residential Zoning
High Density
Medium Density 2%
14%
Low Density
84%
Figure 3-Housing Unit/Dwelling Type
l,tt1�t SFDU-Detached
■ SFDU-Attached
MF-2+
■ MF-3-4
■ MF:S-9
• MF:10+
■ Mobile Home/RV/Boat
SFDU-Detached MF-2+
3
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations indicate the Zoning for each use, and each
zoning identifies specific dwelling types for each zone. Figure 3 (page 3) breaks down the type
of dwellings units and housing types that existing in Pasco. As seen in Figure 3, Pasco has a high
proportion of detached single-family dwelling, making up of 71% of all housing in the City.
Compared to neighboring jurisdictions (Richland, Kennewick and West Richland), Pasco offers
less multi-family living opportunities in the form of apartments, duplexes and/or triplexes than
Benton County.
The primary justification for the Legislature's approval of House Bill 1923 was the increasing
affordable housing challenges across the entire state of Washington. Twelve percent of
households in Franklin County are extremely cost-burdened 1 -- which is defined by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development where housing costs are above 50% of
the total household cost. The median sale price of a home in the Tri-Cities was $282,900 in
20192 while Pasco's median household income was $59,9693
Pasco has had a 17% increase in detached, single-family units from 2000 through 2017. This has
corresponded with a 12% decrease in multi-family (duplexes, apartments, and townhomes)
construction during that same period. Locally and across the Tri-Cities, that disparity of housing
diversity can be further analyzed by comparing Cost-Burdened households (30 % +). Similar to
Department of HUD Severe Cost-Burdened, this metric uses the thirty percent threshold (rather
than fifty). Pasco has a higher percentage of cost-burdened homeowners' (19%) when
compared to Kennewick (15%) and Richland (13%).
Map 1 (page 5) shows the dwelling and housing unit type distribution in the City. The map
shows single-family detached, attached and multi-family units. The map is a visual display that
shows the majority of multifamily and attached single-family dwellings are located in Central
Pasco with less housing diversity existing north of Interstate 1-182.
1 Department of Housing&Urban Development; Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data
z www.zillow.com/pasco-wa/home-values
3 2013-2017 American Community Survey(syr Estimates)
4 Department of Housing&Urban Development; Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data
4
Map 1 -Divelling Unit Distribution
Dwelling Unit Distribution Land Use Category
(L3)
Dwelling Unit Type
Single family detached
Single-family attached
rr =1 Multifamily
Q
0 0.50 1 2 A
I'r
URBAN
FOOTPRINT 'i: URBANFOOTPRINT Cd>MAPBOX U OPENSTREETMAP o a o o f
Summary of Housing Supply Analysis:
• 43% of City dedicated for residential housing
• 84% of residentially zoned housing is reserved for Low Density
• 71% of all housing in Pasco are detached, single family dwellings
• 17% increase in detached, single family dwellings (2000-2017)
• Pasco has higher rate of cost-burdened home owners (of Tri-Cities)
The data above provides a general overview of housing supply for Pasco. Additional analysis,
data collection and market force and economic considerations are necessary to identify the
relationship between community needs, zoning, and affordable housing. Additional data and
housing information is available in the following section of the staff report.
5
Proposed Code Amendments
Initial work on the proposed code amendments have begun and the following section of the
staff report will describe the two code amendments that would permit duplexes, triplexes and
courtyard apartments and average lot size. As indicated in the background section, all (three)
proposed code amendments are under the umbrella of House Bill 1923.
CA2020-001 (Duplex/Triplex & Courtyard Apartments)
Per RCW 36.70A.600(c):
"Authorize at least one duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment on each parcel in one or
more zoning districts that permit single-family residences unless a city documents a
specific infrastructure of physical constraint that would make this requirement
unfeasible for a particular parcel"
Definitions:
Duplex: a building designed exclusively for occupancy by two households living
independently of each other and containing two attached dwelling units on the some lot.
Triplex: a building designed exclusively for occupancy by three households living
independently of each other and containing two attached dwelling units on the some lot.
Courtyard Apartment: attached dwelling units oriented around a landscaped courtyard,
which is adjacent to the front public right-of-way
The House Bill 1923 legislation would require that the city allow the construction of any of the
housings types as an option for local builders in all of our residential zoning districts. Currently,
the Pasco Municipal Code only allows for these choices in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, as seen in
Table 1:
Table 1 -Permitting Dwellings by Residential Zoning District
Zoning District Duplex Triplex Courtyard Apartment
RS-20 X X X
RS-12 X X X
RS-1 X X X
R-1 X X X
R-2 Yes Yes Yes
R-3 Yes Yes Yes
R-4 Yes Yes Yes
6
Per the Pasco Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan, multi-family units are prevented in
84% of all residentially zoned land in the city. This unnecessarily burdens the least amount of
land in the city with accommodating the most amount of homes and residences. This has a
compounding affect by limiting the homes local builders and developers can build and the
homes necessary to accommodate the diverse housing needs of our community.
Referring back to Map 1 (Dwelling Unit Distribution), the majority of diverse housing options
are located in Central Pasco. The majority of these units were constructed prior to 1980, and as
seen in Map #2 below, recent housing developments have been limited to primarily single-
family detached units.
Map 2-Residential Units by Decade
Rsdsl MEW
ti
1
Residential Units By Decade < ~
r tNso '
P leso 1BSB ;.��-
1HBo 1see
arcele 1880-1 B88
�N.,Par[ely IBDO IBHe
Pi+c els 1000-1008
_PNcela 2810 a [sD e�«f.+lt. ,e _a..il•. J1.S Pa-:u-Ili•Ir;Aq 1,;".Fa-r<.aFIfY
ICJJ.arp the GIS Vstr�iin un tr
Below, a simple breakdown of single-detached and multifamily dwellings are compared using
total population, housing and city land area.
Table 3-Housing Type Comparisons
Home Type % of Total Population % of Total Dwellings % of City Land Area
Single-Detached 87% 86% 26%
Multi-Family 13% 12% < 1%
Over the past 3-5 years, the City has seen an increase in interest in the construction of
duplexes, and local builders have utilized the zero-lot-line prototype to create added housing.
7
Zero-lot-lines are residential units that come to the very edge of the property line with units
(homes) attached to each other. The exterior wall of one (or more units) sits on the lot line of
the neighboring property. From the street level, zero-lot lines resemble single-family dwelling
units, function like duplexes but differ because they straddle separate lots. The primary
difference between the duplex, triplex, courtyard apartment and the zero-lot-line housing is the
parcel (lot) the unit belongs.
Zero-Lot-Line:Attached Homes on separate lots Duplex: two units on one lot
with shared lot line
Triplex: three units on one lot
Courtyard Apartment(4 plex):Attached units on one lot with shared yard/courtyard
Additional examples of these housing types are below:
Duplex i i
In"11, too 11 In
�t 3
T 4.
-_
_�
�_ .,.
,,�: -,
tea,
-=sE
_� - -�
� - � �
,�.
..
`_1 :`��
�* Y
„�. Y
w
•. 3
_. e,
1- ..
��...
., � ,�� � �
a
h
_, s .�
. ,-,�
�' �- """"—"=rte-—
� _,
-_ _ _,
1
Courtyard Apartment (4 Alex)Example
r
r
Key Considerations
Various considerations of any proposal will require a full evaluation of existing regulations
founds in the Pasco Municipal Code, specifically:
• PMC Title 21: Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
• PMC Title 25: Zoning
Re-allowing a diversity of housing to be available will create additional options for homebuyers,
renters and local builders and contractors in addition to helping the City meet its anticipated
population growth throughout the next 20 + years. Additional considerations and future staff
reports will evaluate the following provisions:
• Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Densities
• Impact to existing Zoning Districts
• Assessment of the following:
o Minimum Lot Size
o Minimum Frontage
o Setback requirements
o Heights
11
CA2020-002 (Cluster Zoning/Lot Size Averaging)
Per RCW 36.70A.600 (d):
"Authorize cluster zoning or lot size averaging in all zoning districts that permit single-
family residences"
Lots are defined in the Pasco Municipal Code as the following in PMC 21.20.020: "means a
portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land, intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or
for development, being of sufficient area and dimensions to meet minimum zoning
requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts or parcels."
Lot size regulate the area of each lot within any established zoning district. Table 4 below shows
the minimum lot size requirements for residential zoning districts in Pasco.
Table 4 - Residential Minimum Lot Size
Zoning District Minimum Lot Size (Square Feet)
RS-20 20,000
RS-12 12,000
RS-1 10,000
R-1 7,200
R-2 5,000 (SF); 4,000 (MF)
R-3 4,500 (SF); 3,000 (MF)
R-4 4,000 (SF); 1,500 (MF)
Minimum lot size requirements are a standard of zoning, and while they offer a standard to
follow, they do create challenges and limitations. The minimum lot size determines the size
(how small) a local homebuilder can subdivide lots within the respective zoning district. When
we factor in the maximum lot coverage (area a structure can cover within a lot), setback
requirements and right-of-way infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks and stormwater, the size
of the lot begins to infringe upon the buildable lands available for actual housing.
Permitting lot size averaging would allow a homebuilder to subdivide lots using an average
rather than a minimum. As an example, a 7.3-acre parcel in the R-1 zoning district currently
requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Accounting for the right-of-way (estimated
25%) that leaves 5.4 net acres available for homes. With the minimum lot size in place (7,200
sqft), approximately 32 homes could be constructed.
Permitting an average lot size would allow the builder to utilize a range of lot sizes, both below
and above the established minimums. Additionally, this tool may help builders meet the
established density of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, which in turns helps the City meet its
housing and population growth target. It is a more efficient use of land rather than a strict
12
minimum put in place without any consideration for market, environmental or other
development factors.
Considerations for the proposed code amendment allowing average lot size should consider the
following:
• Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land use and densities
• Threshold maximums
o Example: Average Lot Size must be no smaller than 20% of the established
minimum lot size
Table 5 provides what a 20% reduction would permit for each zoning district.
Table S - Example Thi-eshold(20%)
Zoning District Average Lot Size (Square Feet) Minimum
RS-20 20,000 16,000
RS-12 12,000 9,600
RS-1 10,000 8,000
R-1 7,200 5,760
R-2 5,000 (SF); 4,000 (MF) 4,000 (SF); 3,200 (MF)
R-3 4,500 (SF); 3,000 (MF) 3,600 (SF); 2,400 (MF)
R-4 4,000 (SF); 1,500 (MF) 3,200 (SF); 1,200 (MF)
Existing Policies & Guidance
Growth Management Act (GMA) Goals (RCW 36.70A.020)
• Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development.
• Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Franklin County County-Wide Planning Policies
• To the extent possible, each plan should promote the construction of affordable
housing, particularly for low and moderate income segments of the population.
• Each community is encouraged to provide its fair share of housing affordable to low and
moderate-income households by promoting a balanced mix of diverse housing types.
• Consideration should be given to implementing innovative regulatory strategies, which
provide incentives for developers to provide housing affordable to low and moderate-
income households in order to avoid socioeconomic segregation.
13