Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.05.10 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA City Council Workshop Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, May 10, 2021 GoToWebinar Page 1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - The Pasco City Council Workshops are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/cityofPasco. Call-in information to GoToWebinar for "listen-only" mode is: (562) 247-8422 and use access code 465-398-545. 2. CALL TO ORDER 3. ROLL CALL (a) Pledge of Allegiance 4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 3 - 6 (a) 2021-2022 Biennium Financial Update 7 - 187 (b) Ordinance - PMC Amendment: Street Connectivity (MF# CA2019- 013) 188 - 203 (c) Ordinance - PMC Amendment: Lots without Public Street Frontage (MF# CA2021-005) 204 - 218 (d) Proposed PMC Amendment: Duplex, Triplex and Courtyard Apartments (MF# CA2020-001) 219 - 236 (e) Resolution - Professional Service Agreement (PSA) Amendment No. 3 with Murraysmith for Construction Support Services for Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Phase 1 Page 1 of 281 237 - 275 (f) Resolution - Against Bias Based Hate 6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION (a) To Establish the Sales Price or Lease Amount of Real Estate per RCW 42.30.110 (c) 8. ADJOURNMENT 9. ADDITIONAL NOTES 276 - 281 (a) Adopted 2020-2021 Council Goals (Reference Only) (b) REMINDERS • Thursday, May 13Y, 7:00 PM: Ben Franklin Transit Board Meeting – Virtual Meeting (COUNCILMEMBER RUBEN ALVARADO, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER ZAHRA ROACH, Alt.) • Monday, May 17, 6:00 PM: LEOFF Disability Board – City Hall Conference Room 1, Pasco City Hall (MAYOR SAUL MARTINEZ, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM BLANCHE BARAJAS, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad. (Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability.) Page 2 of 281 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 18, 2021 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 5/10/21 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director Finance SUBJECT: 2021-2022 Biennium Financial Update I. REFERENCE(S): Financial Fund Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: None III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: To further transparency, provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational purposes, the Council is provided monthly financial updates on the City's most critical and prominent fund - the General Fund and quarterly reports on the major funds. Staff is introducing a new report that presents a summarized biennium activity to further communicate the financial status of the City to the Council and its residents. V. DISCUSSION: Cities are required to keep their financial books open till the 24th of January to allow for all transactions from the prior year to be recorded. Furthermore, the State Auditor's Office also sets guidelines on the recording of expenses from the prior year which results in the City's books staying open for sometimes as long as six weeks after the year-end. The City of Pasco's goal is to record all expenses from the prior year by end of January of the new year in order to allow time for the Finance Department to reconcile accounts, correct errors, and prepare the financial statements. The department is still in the process of Page 3 of 281 reconciling accounts and correcting errors. Therefore, the financial report attached to this agenda report could change slightly, but not significantly, by the final year-end closeout. The financial report does not include fund balances that are authorized by Council during each budget year. The exclusion is to present a clear picture of funds being received and expended by the City without reliance on reserves. Staff will provide fund balance trends during the first quarter financial update. The financial report will show that the City was able to meet and slightly exceed its budgeted revenue target, while the expenses were lower than the authorized budget. There are various factors for the expenses being lower than the authorized budget; timing of capital budgets, strategy to delay purchases anticipating COVID-19 impacts, and unpredictability of some of our expenses. Some of the purchases delayed will need to be procured in the next biennium and others could wait, capital project budget needs will be presented to Council for approval as the need arises. Expenses related to Capital projects will be also be presented to Council for approval to be expended in the new biennium. More than 70% of expense variance is related to the timing of capital projects. Staff will be presenting Council with carryover requests for Capital projects in the first week of March. Staff has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the stabilization of the financial system, creation of new reporting tools, and reconfiguration of the system to provide better fiscal control and access. As staff places these newly created tools and processes to action, staff anticipates the future budget vs. actual reports to be even better than the last biennium. Page 4 of 281 March 31st, 2021Elapsed Time: 12%2021-2022 Operating BudgetCommentsTotal Budget Ammendment 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD % Received Total Budget Ammendment 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD% Spent100GENERAL FUND111,449,588 - 6,555,715 10,354,040 6% 105,396,217 - 12,984,640 10,428,255 12%Revenue - Timing of distribution of sales tax and reduction in gaming taxes. No variance expected at this time.110CITY STREET FUND 3,709,555 - 183,455 408,657 5% 4,895,451 - 462,189 545,859 9%Revenue - Timing of distribution of utility tax and motor vehicle fuel taxes. No variance expected at this time.120ARTERIAL STREET FUND 983,294 - 39,303 126,020 4% 18,968 - - 931 0%Revenue - Timing of distribution of motor vehicle fuel taxes. No variance expected at this time. Expense - funds capital projects as needed.125I-182 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC IMPACT FUND 879,000 - 162,036 80,441 18% - - - 1,535 0%Revenue - Number of permits drive the revenue. No variance expected at this time, but increased construction acitivity at this rate will exceed adopted budget. Expense - funds capital projects as needed.130STREET OVERLAY FUND 70,000 - 766 271,623 1% 58,422 - 6,344 1,957 11%Revenue - Revenue was doubled in error during budgeting, staff will bring adjustment to Council during mid-biennium adjustment. No variance expected at this time. Expense - funds capital projects as needed.14xCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUND 2,769,906 - 1,000 50 0% 1,013,320 - 82,460 60,225 8%No variance expected.145M.L. KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 94,702 - 10,399 17,766 11% 281,420 - 28,127 40,814 10%No variance expected.150AMBULANCE SERVICES FUND 16,949,935 - 678,301 1,788,269 4% 18,537,955 - 1,928,626 1,599,362 10%Revenue - Timing of distribution of GEMT revenue. No variance expected at this time. 160CITY VIEW CEMETERY FUND 547,200 - 114,770 63,293 21% 624,664 - 81,532 48,573 13%No variance expected.161BOULEVARD PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE FUND 342,451 - 55,438 48,240 16% 23,426 - - 2,240 0%No variance expected.165ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUND 349,260 - 14,069 34,910 4% 330,447 - 6,466 35,135 2%Timing of sports seasons, no variance expected.166GOLF COURSE3,508,000 - 405,786 209,032 12% 3,660,186 - 273,721 295,973 7%No variance expected.170SENIOR CENTER OPERATING FUND 80,550 - 781 8,360 1% 504,601 - 38,282 58,464 8%No variance expected.180MULTI-MODAL FACILITY FUND 379,240 - 54,291 54,405 14% 196,013 - 8,310 31,509 4%No variance expected.182SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 5,000,000 - 908,100 530,750 18% 4,986,000 - 577,791 1,750 12%No variance expected.185RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAINTENANCE FUND 54,202 - 9,012 17,820 17% 40,112 - 101 692 0%No variance expected.188SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT FUND 475,000 - 13,185 54,107 3% 475,000 - - 19,493 0%No variance expected.189LITTER ABATEMENT FUND 25,400 - 5,945 6,024 23% 30,974 - - 2,016 0%Revenue and expense are not linear in nature. No variance expected at this time.190REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 419,000 - 55,354 29,742 13% 830,300 - 13,179 22,343 2%Revenue and expense are not linear in nature. No variance expected at this time.191TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING FUND 6,002 - 84 1,466 1% 554,022 - (20,000) 70,119 -4%No variance expected at this time. Expense - reversal of an accrual anticipating invoice for services rendered in 2020.192PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND 1,673,400 - 226,560 137,721 14% 36,584 - - 3,090 0%No variance expected at this time. Expense - funds capital projects as needed.193CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (REET) 4,540,000 - 734,204 670,621 16% - - - - 0%Revenue - High home sale and purchase activity drive the revenue. No variance expected at this time, but it is likely that revenue will exceed adopted budget if the current trend continues. Expense - funds capital projects as needed.194ECONOMIC & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND 2,687,620 - 819,831 403,639 31% 1,216,418 - 97,424 90,672 8%No variance expected.195STADIUM / CONVENTION CENTER FUND 67,000 - 112 2,201 0% 373,844 - 157 2,710 0%No variance expected.196HOTEL/MOTEL EXCISE TAX 757,060 - 26,176 105,469 3% 425,200 - 42,086 36,260 10%No variance expected.367GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS - - - - 0% - - - - 0%4XXWATER / SEWER UTILITY FUND 62,463,244 - 5,722,024 5,296,831 9% 46,367,584 386,000 3,801,520 3,660,249 8%No variance expected.510EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE 3,204,437 - 383,427 319,575 12% 3,305,244 - 361,633 313,068 11%No variance expected.511EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE 264,002 - 26,958 24,534 10% 264,002 - 26,958 18,644 10%No variance expected.515EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE 3,605,776 - 520,087 377,151 14% 3,588,051 405,000 353,459 14,635 10%No variance expected.516EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE 1,891,178 - 270,941 167,355 14% 2,546,788 - 11,970 - 0%No variance expected.52XMEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FUND 12,558,640 - 1,729,569 1,249,534 14% 12,295,620 - 1,455,959 1,633,560 12%No variance expected.530CENTRAL STORES FUND 110 - 2 47 2% 1,000 - - - 0%No variance expected.605CITY VIEW CEMETERY ENDOWMENT 52,000 - 11,238 6,979 22% - - - - 0%No variance expected.610OLD FIREMEN'S PENSION TRUST FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%No variance expected.619OLD FIRE MEDICAL (OPEB) - - - - 0% - - - - 0%No variance expected.241,856,752$ -$ 19,738,922$ 22,866,672$ 8.2% 212,877,833$ 791,000$ 22,622,933$ 19,040,134$ 10.6%EXPENDITUREREVENUEPage 5 of 281 2021-2022 CAPITAL BUDGETCommentsTotal Budget Ammendments 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD % Received Total Budget Ammendments 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD % Spent100GENERAL FUND 1,636,290 - 234,192 674,720 14% 11,813,974 - 468,297 171,252 4%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.110CITY STREET FUND 691,020 - 94,117 75,000 14% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.120ARTERIAL STREET FUND - - - - 0% 596,000 - - 17,709 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.125I-182 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC IMPACT FUND - - - - 0% 605,000 - - (3,460) 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.130STREET OVERLAY FUND 2,068,472 - 201,899 - 10% 5,723,000 - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.14xCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUND - - - - 0% 616,000 - - 74,838 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.145M.L. KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 140,000 - 12,501 12,501 9% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.150AMBULANCE SERVICES FUND 840,000 - 105,000 105,000 13% 23,233 - 5,808 - 25%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.160CITY VIEW CEMETERY FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.161BOULEVARD PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE FUND 64,291 - - - 0% 290,000 - 36,249 34,401 12%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.165ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.166GOLF COURSE- - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.170SENIOR CENTER OPERATING FUND 468,232 - 53,529 52,500 11% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.180MULTI-MODAL FACILITY FUND - - - - 0% 175,000 - 43,749 75,000 25%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.182SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.185RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAINTENANCE FUND - - - - 0% 200,000 - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.188SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.189LITTER ABATEMENT FUND 10,000 - 1,251 1,251 13% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.190REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.191TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING FUND 500,000 - 62,499 68,751 12% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.192PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND - - - - 0% 345,000 - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.193CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (REET) - - - - 0% 2,042,735 - - 1,150,307 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.194ECONOMIC & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.195STADIUM / CONVENTION CENTER FUND 255,500 - 32,187 39,999 13% 255,500 - - 265,968 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.196HOTEL/MOTEL EXCISE TAX - - - - 0% 755,500 - 94,686 108,750 13%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.367GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 34,916,047 - - 1,485,503 0% 34,916,047 - 1,926,135 1,873,771 6%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.4XXWATER / SEWER UTILITY FUND 78,519,743 - 485,680 (382,657) 1% 96,665,500 - 1,370,646 2,622,965 1%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.510EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.511EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.515EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE - - - - 0% 451,762 - 112,941 - 25%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.516EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.52XMEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.530CENTRAL STORES FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.605CITY VIEW CEMETERY ENDOWMENT - - - - 0% - - - - 0%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.610OLD FIREMEN'S PENSION TRUST FUND 274,510 - 74 1,518 0% 280,464 - 19,739 34,171 7%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.619OLD FIRE MEDICAL (OPEB) 114,000 - 6 2 0% 328,179 - 21,885 22,620 7%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.120,498,105$ -$ 1,282,935$ 2,134,088$ 1.1% 156,082,894$ -$ 4,100,135$ 6,448,290$ 2.6%REVENUE EXPENDITURE Page 6 of 281 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 5, 2021 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 5/10/21 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Ordinance - PMC Amendment: Street Connectivity (MF# CA2019-013) I. REFERENCE(S): Draft Ordinance Attachment 1 - Supplemental Memorandum to the Pasco Planning Commission Attachment 2 - Staff Report and Minutes from the Pasco Planning Commission (Oct 15, 2021) Attachment 3 - Agency, Public, and Organization Comments Attachment 4 - Correspondence with HBA-TC Attachment 5 - Policy Recommendation Comparison Table Attachment 6 - Exhibits from Pasco Transportation System Master Plan II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: An update to the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) to address street connectivity is the result of long-established City Council goals, Comprehensive Plan policies, and transportation planning best practices. Staff has created a proposal for Council review that addresses the increasing concerns from residents as Pasco continues its rapid growth. The importance of street connectivity has been identified in prior City Public Works/Engineering and Planning studies, including the West Pasco Traffic Analysis Study from 1992 and, the Interstate I-182 Sub-Area Report from 2003. Staff also notes that transportation planning, specifically the development of an Page 7 of 281 integrated transportation network, was included in Cit y Council Goals dating back to 2010. Community & Economic Development Department (CED) staff provided an introduction to transportation planning efforts in progress at the City Council Workshop meeting on March 15, 2021. Background on Street Connectivity and Mobility Connectivity refers to the degree to which the transportation system provides access to destinations. The origin and destination of a trip can vary due to various factors including time of day and mode, the surrounding land uses (residences, commercial areas, etc), and the route itself. Each factor heavily influences each trip made, whether that trip is to work, school, grocery store, or park. In general, when evaluating transportation planning, it is important to understand the following: Accessibility: the quality of travel and takes place at the community and individual level. It focuses on travel time, travel cost, travel options, comfort, and risk while addressing the needs of all within the community. Connectivity: the relative location of an object to the destination centers Mobility: the ability and level of ease of moving goods and services It is also important to emphasize the increasing role of designing multi -modal transportation systems that work for all users of the network. Multi -modal transportation refers to the way people travel by multiple means of transportation, which includes driving, biking, taking a bus, and increasingly on - demand services (Lyft, Uber, etc). A well-connected transportation network reduces the distances travele d 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. The result of a well-connected transportation network may include shooter trip distances and a decrease in automobile trips when coordinated with diverse land uses. The integrated transportation system also provides municipal services, including utilities and emergency response times with the ability to efficiently serve properties due. 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 Page 8 of 281 • Prioritization of multi-modal access to public transportation • Safe and visible bicycle-pedestrian facilities Policy Guide and Plan Guidance The proposed revisions to the PMC implement established plans, goals, and policies of the City, in addition to regional, state, and federal guidelines and are listed below for reference. Resolution No. 3985: Establishment of Primary Council Goals for Years 2020 - 2021 Quality of Life: Promote a high quality of life through quality programs, services, and appropriate investment and re-investment in community infrastructure by: • public effectiveness and efficiency of to efforts Ongoing improve resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities. • Updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re-development to promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design and elements, e.g.: walkability, aesthetics, sustainability, community gathering spaces. Community Safety: Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by: • Working to achieve and maintain target fire response times through operational improvements and long-range strategic planning of facilities and staffing. Community Transportation Network: Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation system through: • Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access. • Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization of its recommendations programs, regulations, and develop to policies, projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency, and safety Community Identity: Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion, and image through: • Continued efforts of community surveying through traditional methods and the application of new technologies. Page 9 of 281 Resolution No. 3998: 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 4-A: Reduce the dependency on vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. Land Use Policy 4-C: Encourage the development of walkable communities by increasing mixed-use (commercial/residential) developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial shopping opportunities. Land 4Policy Use -by land of development orderly Encourage E: the emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network. Land Use Policy 4-F: Support mixed-use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community. Economic Development Policy 1-E: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation economic and development to planning, is vital utility and attracting businesses. Economic Development Policy 1-F: Support and encourage residential/commercial mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods. Economic Development Policy 3-C: Provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes, and parking. Capital Facilities Policy 1-B: Encourage public participation in defining the need for, the proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as par ks, ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and improvements. Transportation Policy 1-A: Participate in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Transportation Policy 1-B: Require transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of this plan. Transportation Policy 1-E: Encourage multi-modal street design with traffic calming and safety in consideration of surrounding land uses. Page 10 of 281 Transportation Policy 1-F: Develop an interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity. Transportation Policy 1-H: Maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level-of-service “C” during the PM peak hour. Transportation Policy 1-I: Require developments to meet the standards of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance. Transportation Policy 2-B: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that inc rease user accessibility during the development process. Transportation Policy 2-D: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes. Transportation Policy 2-G: Collaborate with transit agencies on the design of arterial streets to improve transit access. Implementation Policy 1-A: Maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective. Implementation Policy 2-D: Ensure that all plans and studies shall be consistent with the goals, policies, and proposals of this comprehensive plan. Implementation Policy 4-A: Coordinate with other governmental units in preparing development regulations. The staff proposal is also consistent with the following local plans and/or policies: • 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (Resolution No. 3021) • City of Pasco Complete Streets Policy (Ordinance No. 4389) • Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Resolution No. 3853) The staff proposal is also consistent with the following regional and state guidance from the following: • Ben Franklin Transit • Benton-Franklin Council of Governments • Washington State Department of Transportation • Washington State Growth Management Act A full description of these policies is attached to the report. Benefits Page 11 of 281 A well-connected transportation system is wide-ranging as so much is dependent on the reliability and consistency of accessible routes. A primary benefit being that such a system promotes efficient travel patterns. If local streets are poorly connected, local trips are forced to use the arterial system which is designed transportation promotes connectivity longer trips. for Increased choices for all residents, businesses, and emergency responders within the City by allowing non-motorized (or shorter vehicle trips) to take place along more direct or parallel routes. It inherently increases the opportunity for walking, bicycling, and public transportation usage by linking sidewalks and str eets to destinations such as parks, schools, and neighborhood stores. • Orderly Development for Utilities o Street connectivity promotes orderly development that meets various local, regional, and state policies. This is a benefit for travel circulation and City utilities, such as water and sewer, as locations and placement typically follow street alignments. If there is an awareness of how the future transportation network will develop, forecasting for utility improvements can be more easily identified including the forecasting of future system need when coupled with land-use assumptions. • Community Access o Street connectivity promotes and enhances accessibility within the community by creating a network of routes that allow residents a variety of choices. Accessibility is improved due to the availability of route choices and with appropriate land use plannin g supports walkable, multi-modal communities. Accessibility is improved for all users by any mode including walking, bicycling, vehicle and transit. • Safety o Connected transportation systems also benefit community safety and increase emergency response (police, fire, medical). Often overlooked, 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. o The 2020 Pasco Fire Department Performance Report indicated that significant portions of the residential neighborhoods north of I - 182 of cusp on and the response increased an have time compliance due to the lack of a well-connected transportation system. • Environment o Neighborhoods access with increased transportation and connectivity may also lessen environmental impacts. Increased mode options become more reasonable as routes that are more Page 12 of 281 direct are available. The addition of mode choice lessens dependency on automobile use for e very trip purpose. o Locally, air quality has become an increasing topic of concern and the region is undergoing an Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS). Air quality managers have been evaluating the Tri-Cities area since 2013 after the predictive air quality forecasting models operated by the region that indicated the State Washington University consistently showed elevated ozone. If air quality is not improved, the region may be at risk of being designated as a Non-Attainment by the Environmental Protection Agency, meaning the air quality does not meet national standards. This designation would have a significant impact on the permitting process of each development in the region. • Equity o Transportation planning decisions often have significant equity impacts. Equity refers to the fairness with which benefits and costs are distributed across a community. Examples of transportation equity quality of the include street to relevant connectivity transportation services available facilities, such as public transit frequency and roadway (congestion) conditions; user costs such as vehicle ownership and maintenance; and external factors including environment such as emissions, pollution, and noise. o Transportation options are severely limited when development patterns limit mobility options. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) identified that mobility (mode) options are a critical factor for livable communities. o The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a toolkit in 2017 that encouraged transportation alternatives to support low- income and over-burdened communities. The toolkit presented three approaches to expanding options for communities that included access to public transportation, street design standards, and transit-oriented development. When these three strategies are coordinated and implemented, neighborhoods can result in more accessible amenities and services regardless of income or age. • Costs per Household o The pattern and design of neighborhoods also have an impact on the costs to households. The portion of household expenditure spent on transportation in the United States is often a larger portion than that spent by many throughout the world. Data shows tha t Americans spend 13% of their household expenditure on transportation. This amount is almost 2x higher in Pasco according to the American Community Survey and Census Bureau. Existing System Connectivity Page 13 of 281 In Central and Downtown Pasco, the existing roadway network is largely oriented on the traditional grid layout. Within this area, the functional classification system establishes standard urban arterial and collector streets that distribute traffic to and from neighborhoods, commercial areas, and travel corridors. This differs from traffic distribution in neighborhoods west of US-395, and in residential areas developed north of Interstate I-182, which have limited capability (and feasibility) for developing a proper functional arterial and collector stree t system. The road network is constrained by the development patterns that feature longer block lengths and limited access points. South of I-182, the constraints are due to prior platting practices that have often left streets that end in front of homes o r structures where normally they should continue. Additional barriers include I-182, the Franklin County Irrigation Canal, the Pasco/Tri-Cities Airport, and other geographic/topographic features that prohibit the development of an integrated transportation network for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The lack of connectivity in the areas identified above was confirmed during the existing conditions analysis of the Transportation System Master Plan ("TSMP"). The following data points are intended to provide Council with a high -level overview of existing baseline conditions for street connectivity and accessibility. A full summary of this data can be found in the Supplemental Memorandum. The following indicators compare Pasco with the 20 largest cities in Washington (2019 population estimates). • #3: Pasco residents have the third-highest transportation costs as a percent of household income • #3: Pasco residents have the third-highest combined housing and transportation costs as a percent of household income • #2: Pasco residents have the second -highest vehicle mile traveled, and cost per vehicle mile traveled per household • #2: Pasco residents emit the second-highest greenhouse gas per household • #1: Pasco has the largest block perimeter of the twenty largest cities in Washington • #1: Pasco has the lowest intersection density of the twenty largest cities in Washington In addition, staff notes that many cities, both rural in nature and those with urban settings have smaller block lengths and block perimeter. These include cities such as Ellensburg (660'), Walla Walla (600'), and Bellingham (500'). Currently, the maximum block length in Pasco is 1,320 feet. Planning Commission Recommendation Page 14 of 281 The Street Connectivity proposal was subject to eight Planning Commission meetings, of which six were public hearings allowing comments from the public. Throughout the meetings, staff provided various data summaries, policy guidance, best practices, and updates to the Planning Commission and the public. The proposal before City Council tonight underwent revision, discussion, public agency, stakeholder, and public comments before a final recommendation was made. On October 15, 2020, the Pasco Planning Commission closed the public hearing and recommended that the proposed amendment for Street Connectivity be forwarded to the City Council. V. DISCUSSION: The initiation of the proposed amendments is necessary as current regulations are not aligned or consistent with established Council goals, policies, objectives, and plans. The following section outlines the proposed revisions based on those factors. Policy Recommendations • Connectivity to Abutting Lands o is layout. street the Staff broadly 21.15.010 PMC addresses proposing to strengthen and add clarity to the provisions by including greater specificity about where and how connections are made. • Future Street Plan o PMC 21.15.010 currently states that "sketches of a proposed street system may be required" when the abutting land is under the same ownership. o Staff is proposing to add clarity of how this exercise can be conducted, including identifying if the proposed street layout does not preclude future street connections. • Minimum (off-set) Intersection Distances o The addition of the minimum intersection distance will replace the current off-set intersection spacing requirements of PMC 21.15.020(2). The current minimum of 125’ was identified as a safety concern and Distance will be replaced by the Stopping Sight guidelines developed by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the Policy of Geometric Designs of Highways and Streets. o Staff is proposing to incorporate and replace with the reference table for Intersection Spacing below: Page 15 of 281 Speed (MPH) Minimum Intersection Distance (ft.) 25 155 30 200 35 250 40 305 45 360 50 425 55 495 60 570 65 645 • Cul-de-sac(s) o The existing language in PMC 21.15.070 is intended to limit cul-de- sac(s), but the language is written broadly and lacks clarity for consistent application during the development review process. o Staff is proposing to add language that clearly indicates under what circumstances a cul-de-sac is permitted while clarifying the maximum length (600') • Public Accessways o Staff is recommending the dedication of public accessways when a block length, block perimeter exceeds the maximum length. In addition, the staff is recommending the public accessway (pathway) where a cul-de-sac is within 1/4 mile of public land use or facility (park, school, hospital, public transportation). o The staff proposal adds clarity and clear guidance to replace the existing and Ways) 21.15.100 (Pedestrian in regulations PMC provides access benefits that minimize out-of-direction travel for non- motorized travel. • Block Length/Perimeter o The proposed amendment reduces the maximum block length, from 1,320' to 660' for residential and light-commercial zoning districts. The current maximum of 1,320' (PMC 21.20.010) does not align with Council Policies on multi-modal transportation or best practices. Staff is recommending an increased maximum block length of 1,000' in the "Riverview/West Pasco" area, due to the prior platting practices, transportation connectivity is limited. o Shorter block lengths provide direct routes, help reduce vehicle speeds provide and fire for and additional emergency access response when combined with an integrated (connected) transportation network. o The addition of a block perimeter standard and maximum is also proposed to strengthen the block development pattern. Land Use Maximum Block Length Maximum Block Perimeter Page 16 of 281 Residential 660' 1,880' "Riverview/West Pasco" 1,000 2,800 Light- Commercial (C- 1) 660' 2,800 *The "Riverview/West Pasco" area is defined as the residential lands bound by Interstate I-182 (North), US Highway 395 (East), and the Columbia River (South). Support and Collaboration The community benefits of the street connectivity standard stated wit hin this memorandum range from increased walkability within neighborhoods to increased accessibility for public transportation and resident choice for travel options. The City of Pasco received letters of support from the state, regional and local agencies including community members and importantly from the City of Pasco Fire Department. In addition to the collaboration with the Pasco Fire Department, staff also ensured consistency with the Pasco Public Works Department collaborated closely on this effort, specifically with regards to utilities and infrastructure planning. The following agencies and organizations have provided support for this proposal: • Ben Franklin Transit • Benton-Franklin Council of Governments • Washington State Department of Transportation • Visit Tri-Cities • Bike Tri-Cities • Alliance for a Liable and Sustainable Tri-Cities/Sustainable Tri-Cities This proposal was also recognized in May 2021 in a local paper acknowledging the City of Pasco for our work on street connectivity to promote safe, multi-modal transportation. This is in addition to the numerous calls, letters, and commenters who provided support during the Public Hearings at the Planning Commission, all of which are attached to the agenda report. Concerns and Opposition Staff acknowledges the significant revisions and impacts the proposed amendments have, particularly on those in the residential development community. Staff conducted two meetings (virtually) exclusively with the members of the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities ("HBA-TC") on September 10 and October 12, 2020. These meetings were in addition to the six public hearings held by the Planning Commission between May and September 2020. The HBA-TC highlighted concerns, listed below about the proposal, including: • The increased cost of development, design, and time • Increased affordable housing challenges Page 17 of 281 • Limitation of development potential and flexibility • The difficulty of application of standards • Safety concerns with increased street connectivity • Increased impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff Concerns were also raised about the lack of developer outreach, the significant changes being proposed, and the perceived (staff) urgency of the proposal. Staff Summary Staff from various departments understand the concerns raised and note that the proposed amendments are intended to meet the long -established goals and policies, including numerous plans, studies, and projects as adopted by the City of Pasco. The benefits of the proposed amendments are evident through the amount of support received from public agencies, and members of the general public. In addition, guidance and research from a variety of organizations and research institutions have identified transportation accessibility as a positive impact on the quality of life in our communities. This includes the Urban Land Institute, The National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Home Builders. The Washington Association of Realtors published a community development toolkit that specifically mentions the economic benefit of transportation choices and options of walking, biking, and driving. Presentations to the Pasco Planning Commission have also referenced guidance from a variety of Federal Agencies including the Federal Highway and Transit Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a 2016 Publication from the White House on Housing Affordability that again, specifies accessible tra nsportation as key need within our communities. Lastly, staff would like to emphasize the hundreds of comments received on prior efforts from members of the community stating the need for better transportation planning. As the City expects to grow well above 120,000 people in the coming decades, setting the stage now for coordinated land use and transportation planning is critical. CED staff welcomes comments from the City Council on this proposal. Page 18 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO STREET CONNECTIVITY, AMENDING SECTION 21.10.020 “TERMS DEFINED;” CHAPTER 21.15 “STREETS;” AND SECTION 21.20.010 “BLOCK LENGTH” WITHIN TITLE 21 “PASCO URBAN AREA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS” OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the development of a more complete transportation network can improve pedestrian safety, increase mobility options for residents and visitors and promote improvements in public health; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the reduction and dependency of vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-C of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of walkable communities by increasing mixed-use (commercial/residential) developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial shopping opportunities; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-E of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan supports mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community; and WHEREAS, Economic Development Policy 1-E of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning, is vital to economic development and attracting businesses; and WHEREAS, Economic Development Policy 1-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan supports and encourages residential and commercial mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Economic Development Policy 3-C of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan is to provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel lands and parking; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires participation in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton- Franklin Council of Governments; and Page 19 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 2 WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-B of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires that our transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-E of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the City to provide increased neighborhood travel connections for public safety as well as providing for transportation disbursement; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the development of interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-H of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires that the City maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level-of- service “C” during the PM peak-hour; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-I of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires developments to meet the standards of the Pasco Complete Streets Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy I-J of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to collaborate with appropriate agencies to conduct a review of street design standards; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 2-B of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that increase user accessibility during the development process; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 2-D of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 2-G of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to collaborate with transit agencies on the design of arterial streets to improve transit access; and WHEREAS, Implementation Policy 1-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective; and WHEREAS, Implementation Policy 4-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to coordinate with other governmental units in preparing development regulations; and WHEREAS, the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identified a series of goals and policies to address the growing demands of bicycling and walking as a means of travel and to achieve a more balanced transportation system; and Page 20 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 3 WHEREAS, The Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4389 – Complete Streets Policy on July 2, 2018 indicating that the development of a more complete transportation network can improve pedestrian safety, increase the transportation networks capacity and promote improvements in public health; and WHEREAS, Pasco’s Complete Street Policy states that transportation costs can be reduced when local infrastructure encourages active transportation, which helps families replace car trips with bicycling, walking or taking public transit; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 3853 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions adopted by the Pasco City Council in 2018 endorsed a set a policies and procedures satisfying the Washington State Public Work’s Board requirement and to recognize that the policies will benefit the City of Pasco in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, Policy G-1 of Pasco’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution encourages development patterns that utilize existing infrastructure, reduce the need for new roads, utilizes and enhance non-automobile transportation; and WHEREAS, Policy J-1 of Pasco’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution states the City shall consider transportation projects that will contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles travelled per capita, while maintaining economic vitality and sustainability; and WHEREAS, Policy J-2 of Pasco’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Resolution states the City shall provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists, to, across, and along major transit priority streets; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council recognized the importance of a highly functional, multi-modal transportation network supporting the integration and facilitation of traffic flow, pedestrian, bicycle and non-motorized modes of transportation as a Council Goal in 2018-2019; WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council stated ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities as a Council Goal in 2018-2019; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council adopted Resolution No. 3895 on September 21, 2020, that establish a set of primary Council Goals for years 2020-2021; and WHEREAS, ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities is supportive of Council Goals on Quality of Life; and WHEREAS, updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re-development to promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design elements, including walkability is supportive of Council Goals on Quality of Life; and Page 21 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 4 WHEREAS, working to achieve and maintain target fire response times is supportive of Council Goals on Community Safety; and WHEREAS, continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access is supportive of Council Goals on Community Transportation Network; and WHEREAS, utilization and development of policies, regulations, programs and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency and safety is supportive of Council Goals on Community Transportation Network. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 21.10.020 entitled “Terms Defined” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 21.10.020 Terms defined. “Accessibility” means the quality of travel and takes place at the community and individual level to provide access to various land uses. It focuses on travel time, travel cost, travel options, comfort, and risk while addressing the needs of all within the community. “Alley” means a dedicated narrow service way, not more than 20 feet wide, providing a secondary means of public access to abutting properties. “Binding site plan” means a drawing to scale utilized for the purposes of creating lots for selling, leasing, or otherwise transferring property rights from one person, firm, or corporation to another. A binding site plan: (a) Identifies and shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, parcels, utilities, open spaces, and other information as may be required by this title; (b) Contains inscriptions or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the use of land as specified by this title; and (c) Contains provisions making any development be in conformity with the site plan for all such land. “Block” means a group of lots, tracts, or parcels bound by a public right-of-way including streets, circulation routes intended for public access and within a well-defined and fixed boundary. “Block Length” means the distance as measured along the street centerline intersecting streets. “Block Perimeter” means the distance to travel once completely around the block as measured along the street-centerline encompassing a block. Page 22 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 5 “Boundary line adjustment” means the relocation of the boundaries between two or more lots, which relocation does not result in the creation of any additional lot or lots. “Comprehensive Plan” means the current Comprehensive Plan for the City, adopted by the City Council pursuant to state law. “Connector multi-use path” means a multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists that minimizes travel distances within and between residential areas and commercial centers, major employment areas, transit stops, or within and between nearby neighborhood activity centers such as schools and parks. “Cul-de-sac” means a road closed at one end by a circular area of sufficient size for turning vehicles around. “Dedication” means the deliberate conveyance of land by an owner or owners to the City of Pasco, for any general and public uses, reserving to the owner or owners no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. “Developer, subdivider, platter or owner” means any person, firm or corporation undertaking the subdividing or resubdividing of a lot, tract or parcel of land as, or on behalf of, the owner thereof. “Easement” means a grant by the property owner to the public, corporation, or persons, of the use of a strip of land for a specific purpose and, on or over which, the owner will not erect any permanent improvements which serve to interfere with the free exercise of that right. “Final approval” means that approval given by the City Council, which authorizes the subdivider to record his/her plat. “Final plat” means the plan of a plat, subdivision, or dedication, or any portion thereof, prepared for filing for record by the County Auditor, and containing all elements and requirements set forth for final plats in these regulations. “Hammerhead/T” means a roadway that provides a “T” shaped, three-point turnaround space for emergency equipment. “Improvements” means any required improvements, including streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, landscaping, utilities, pavement markings, signing, and other appropriate improvements. “Intersection Density” means the measure of a street network compactness where the link to node ratio is a measure of network connectivity and calculated as the total number of intersections, including dead-ends in a given area. Page 23 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 6 “Lot” 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. “Mobility” means the ability and level of ease of moving goods and services. “Monument” means a permanent-type survey marker, which conforms to the City of Pasco standard detail for monuments, or an approved substitute. “Pedestrian way” means a right-of-way dedicated to public use which cuts across a block to facilitate pedestrian access to adjacent streets and properties. “Plat or subdivision” means an area of land which has been divided into two or more lots, tracts, parcels or other divisions of land, and shall include a map or maps related thereto for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building developments, including all designations in street lines, alley lines, public area boundaries, lot lines, easements, rights-of-way, pavement widths, curb lines, location and size of utilities, location and size of land areas to be dedicated; those divisions of land for agricultural purposes, where each parcel is five acres or more in area and which do not include any new streets, easements, rights-of-way or other provisions for necessary public areas and facilities; and further provided, that this definition shall not apply to the division by description of a portion of a platted lot. “Preliminary plat” means an approximate drawing of the proposed layout of streets, blocks, lots and other elements of a subdivision or plat from which the City Hearing Examiner gives preliminary approval to the general layout features of the subdivision or plat. “Primary arterial” means a street or road of great continuity which serves or is intended to serve as the principal traffic way between separated areas of the City or region and is designated in the Comprehensive Plan, or otherwise designated, as a limited access highway, major thoroughfare, boulevard, parkway or other equivalent term to identify those streets that comprise the basic structure of the regional traffic plan. “Public right-of-way” means any publicly owned land set aside for surface transportation purposes, including vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, whether improved or not improved. “Secondary arterial” means a street or road which forms part of the arterial street system, the function of which is to collect traffic from the local or residential streets for delivery to the primary arterials. “Short plat” or “short subdivision” means the division or redivision of land into nine or fewer lots for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. “Street, connectivity” means street or road connections or intersections generally achieved through the use of a grid-street pattern with higher intersection density. Page 24 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 7 Street, Dead-End. “Dead-end street” means a street similar to a cul-de-sac, but providing no turnaround at its closed end. Street, Frontage. “Frontage street” means an access street which is generally parallel to and adjacent to arterials, streets, traffic ways, limited access highways or railroad rights-of-way; and which provides access to abutting properties and protection from through traffic. Street, Local Access. “Local access street” means a street intended primarily for access to abutting properties. of limited continuity, which serves or is intended to serve the local needs of the immediate community. Street, Private. “Private street” means a street of limited continuity, which serves or is intended to serve the local needs of the immediate community and which has not been dedicated to the public. Street, Public. “Public street” means a street, whether improved or unimproved, held in public ownership and intended to be open as a matter of right for public vehicular travel and to provide access now or in the future to adjacent properties. Street, Stub. “Street stub” means a temporary street ending; i.e., where the street will be extended through adjacent property in the future, as those properties develop. Not a permanent street-end, dead-end street or cul-de-sac. “Street tree” means a tree planted in the right-of-way adjacent to the street. “Tax parcel segregation” means the separation of lots of record into two or more tax parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership, and which segregation does not result in the creation of more parcels than lots of record. “Urban growth area” means that area designated by the County pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110, identifying the limits of the extension of urban facilities and services. [Ord. 4496 § 2, 2020; Ord. 3736 § 2, 2005; Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 §§ 26.08.010–26.08.290.] Section 2. That Chapter 21.15 entitled “Streets” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 21.15.010 Street connectivity layout. (1) Continuation of Existing Streets. Streets shall normally continue as an extension of existing streets unless good planning dictates a different solution. Street patterns shall take into consideration access needed to develop adjacent properties. Sketches of a proposed street system to serve adjoining properties may be required if it is owned by the subdivider. (1) Connectivity to Abutting Lands. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed to connect to existing, proposed, and planned streets adjacent to the subdivision. Wherever a proposed development abuts unplatted land or a future development phase of an existing development, street stubs shall be provided to allow access to future abutting Page 25 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 8 subdivisions and to extend the street system into the surrounding area. Street ends shall contain turnarounds constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards and shall be designed to facilitate future extension in terms of grading, width, and temporary barricades. (2) Future Street Plan. Subdivision applicants must demonstrate, pursuant to City standards, that the proposed development does not preclude future street connections to adjacent lands. (3) Public Street and Street Connectivity Requirements. Dedicating or deeding property for right-of-way or a portion thereof to the City for public streets within, or along the boundaries of all single-family subdivisions or developments, shall be required as a condition of application approval where the following can be demonstrated: (a) Facts support that such dedication is reasonably necessary as a result of the impact created by the proposed development; (b) Such dedication will result in proportionate mitigation of the impact in the reasonably foreseeable future; (c) Connectivity to the existing or foreseeable future public right-of-way is feasible; and (d) One or more of the following circumstances are met: (i) A city transportation plan indicates the necessity of a new or additional right-of-way or portion thereof for street purposes; (ii) The dedication is necessary to provide additions of right-of-way to existing right-of-way to meet city road standards; (iii) The dedication is necessary to extend or to complete the existing or future neighborhood street pattern; (iv) The dedication is necessary to comply with road standards and city transportation plans; (v) The dedication is necessary to provide a public transportation system that supports future development of abutting property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Pasco Municipal Code. (2 4) Dead-End Streets. Dead-end streets are prohibited; except, where the Comprehensive Plan or preliminary plat indicates a street is to continue past the subdivider’s property, the City may allow the dead end until such time as the street can be built through at a later date. Dead-end streets may be permitted in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts as provided in PMC 21.15.080. Page 26 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 9 (3 5) Half Streets. Half streets shall be prohibited except that the City may permit their inclusion in cases where a normal alignment of a present or future planned street will fall half on an adjoining ownership. (4 6) Street Names. When practical, Streets shall be named to conform with existing streets on the same 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. [Ord. 3736 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.010.] 21.15.020 Street standards. (1) Angle of Intersection. Under normal conditions, streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles, except where topography and other conditions justify variations. The minimum angle of intersection of streets shall be 70 degrees. (2) Intersections on opposite sides of a common street shall either be aligned or be offset a minimum of 125 feet. Intersection spacing shall be based on the minimum distance between intersections in the table below: Speed (MPH) Minimum Intersection Distance (ft) 25 155 30 200 35 250 40 305 45 360 50 425 55 495 (3) Street Grades. Street grades shall be constructed as directed by the City Engineer and shall conform with the local topography to provide good access to the adjacent properties. The maximum street grade shall not exceed 10 percent unless specifically allowed by the City Engineer. (4) Horizontal Sight Distances. A tangent at least 100 feet long shall be introduced between reverse curves on primary and secondary arterials. When tangents along a street deflect from each other by more than 10 degrees, they shall be connected by a curve with a radius adequate to ensure a sight distance of not less than 100 feet for secondary arterials, and of such radius as the City Engineer shall determine for primary arterials and other special cases. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.020.] 21.15.030 Street improvements. Page 27 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 10 (1) Adequate and proper right-of-way improvements shall be required at the time adjoining property is developed and shall be required on all property. As a minimum a three-quarter street standard will be required if the property being developed only fronts on one side of the street. (2) Adequate and proper right-of-way improvements shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination, traffic control devices, drainage control, engineered road bases, asphalt driving and parking lanes, and monumentation. All such improvements shall be approved by the City prior to construction and acceptance. The three-quarter street standard shall include curb, gutter and sidewalk on the developed side and a minimum of two complete traffic lanes. (3) The developer of real property shall be responsible for installing the required improvements within the respective half of right-of-way width abutting the real property being developed, provided such improvements consist of at least two traffic lanes. (4) Minimum sidewalk widths, not including the six-inch curb, shall not be less than the minimum dimension for sidewalks as follows: (a) Residential zones: four and one-half feet; (b) Commercial zones: six and one-half feet. [Ord. 4454A § 3, 2019; Ord. 4454 § 3, 2019; Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.030.] 21.15.040 Arterials. Arrangement of arterial streets in a subdivision shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the City. (1) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way widths for all arterials shall be as follows: (a) Arterial, primary with landscaped median: 100 feet; (b) Arterial, primary without landscaped median: 80 feet; (c) Arterial, secondary: 80 feet. (2) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all arterials, measured from the face of curb to the face of curb, shall be as per the standard specifications as prepared by the City Engineer. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.040.] 21.15.050 Collector streets. When possible, collector streets shall be planned to conveniently channel traffic from access streets onto the primary and secondary arterials. (1) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way widths for all collector streets shall not be less than 60 feet. Page 28 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 11 (2) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all collector streets shall not be less than 38 feet. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.050.] 21.15.060 Local access streets. When possible, access streets shall be planned so as to discourage through traffic to short cut onto collector streets and primary and secondary arterials. local access streets shall be planned to provide direct access within neighborhoods to adjacent properties and uses. (1) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way widths for all local access streets shall not be less than 60 feet. (2) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all local access streets shall not be less than the following dimensions: (a) Thirty-eight feet from the face of curb to the face of curb on residential access streets; (b) Thirty-six feet width of asphalt pavement for streets in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones without curbs. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.060.] 21.15.070 Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs will be permitted where topography or other conditions justify their use. A cul-de-sac shall only be permitted when the applicant demonstrates that natural features or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or other applicable City code does not require a street extension and through circulation. Where the Director of Community & Economic Development determines that a cul-de-sac is allowed, all of the following standards shall be met: (1) Cul-de-sacs should normally be less than 300 feet, but will be permitted up to 600 feet in length. (1) The cul-de-sac shall not exceed a length of 600 feet, except where the Director of Community & Economic Development determines that topographic or other physical constraints of the site require a longer cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. (2) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way widths for all cul-de-sacs shall not be less than 60 feet with a 110-foot diameter turnaround. (2) Compliance with the most updated version of the Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. (3) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all cul-de-sacs shall not be not less than: Page 29 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 12 (3) The cul-de-sac shall provide, when within 1,320’ of any site of an existing or planned public facility or land use shall not preclude the opportunity to later install, a pedestrian and bicycle accessway connecting to adjacent developments, or adjacent developable lands. Such accessways shall conform to the latest City Design and Construction Standards and Specifications (a) Thirty-six feet from the face of curb to the face of curb, with an 90-foot turnaround; (b) Thirty-six feet of the pavement width pavement, with a 80-foot turnaround in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones without curbs. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.070.] 21.15.080 Hammerhead/T. Hammerhead/Ts are only permitted in R-S-20 and R-S-12 zoning districts where property was platted in the county prior to annexation and existing development precludes the expectation that a standard cul-de-sac can be developed. (1) Dead-end streets with hammerheads should normally be less than 300 feet, but will be permitted up to 450 feet in length. (2) Streets with hammerheads shall not serve more than eight lots. (3) Right-of-Way Widths for Streets Intersecting Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths for all dead-end streets with hammerheads serving no more than eight lots shall not be less than 40 feet, with no on-street parking. (4) Right-of-Way Widths for Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths for hammerheads shall not be less than 30 feet, with no on-street parking. (5) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all dead-end streets with hammerheads shall not be less than the following dimensions: (a) Thirty-two feet from the face of curb to the face of curb; (b) Thirty feet of pavement width where there is no curb and gutter; (c) Twenty-eight feet of pavement for hammerheads; (6) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Figure 21.15.080.01 or 21.15.080.02. [Ord. 3736 § 3, 2005; Code 1970 § 26.12.075.] 21.15.090 Alleys. The developer may provide alleys in a development, subject to the following standards: (1) Dead-end alleys shall be prohibited unless there is provided a turnaround with an asphalt diameter of 80 feet and a right-of-way diameter of 100 feet. Page 30 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 13 (2) Sharp changes in direction of alleys shall be avoided. Where such changes cannot be avoided, there shall be a corner cut-off with a minimum inside radius of 50 feet. (3) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way width of all alleys shall not be less than 20 feet. (4) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all alleys shall not be less than 16 feet. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.080.] 21.15.100 Pedestrian ways. Pedestrian ways may be required by the City to allow cross access for pedestrians in areas of exceptionally long blocks or for access to recreational facilities or schools. Where required at approved cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, or along blocks approved at more than the maximum block length standard, pedestrian and bicycle accessways must be constructed between lots to minimize travel distance between subdivisions, parks, schools, and collector or arterial streets. Accessways shall be located to provide a reasonably direct connection between likely pedestrian destinations and shall be consistent with the Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, Transportation System Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan where applicable. A reasonably direct connection is a route that minimizes out of direction travel for people likely to use the connection considering terrain, safety and likely destination. Required accessways shall conform to the most updated version of the Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. (1) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way widths for all pedestrian ways shall not be less than 10 feet. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.090.] Section 3. That Section 21.20.010 entitled “Block length” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 21.20.010 Block length. Street connectivity and formation of blocks. In general, intersecting streets shall be provided at such intervals as to serve cross traffic adequately and to meet existing streets or customary subdivision practices in the vicinity. Blocks shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Blocks for business use shall normally not be less than 600 feet in length. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.16.010.] In order to promote efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the city, an interconnected street network shall serve subdivisions. (1) Block lengths and perimeters in all zones except the Heavy Commercial and Industrial zones shall not exceed the following standards as measured from centerline to centerline of through intersecting streets. Exceptions may be permitted pursuant to subsection (2) below. (a) Block length shall not exceed 660 feet. Page 31 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 14 (b) Block perimeter shall not exceed 1,880 feet. (2) Block length and perimeters may be exceeded feet if an applicant demonstrates the existence of one or more of the following conditions: (a) Physical conditions preclude a block length of 660 feet or less. These conditions may include topography or the existence of physical features, including, but not limited to wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by State or Federal law; (b) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots/parcels that physically preclude a block length of 660 feet or less, considering the potential for redevelopment; (c) Where the extension of a public street into the proposed development would create a block length exceeding 660 feet, the total block length shall be as close to 660 feet as possible. (d) Multi-family dwellings of 20 or more units on a single lot; (e) Lands zoned for Government, Quasi-Public or civic use including medical facilities; (f) Blocks zoned for light or medium commercial districts shall not exceed perimeters more than 2,800 feet. (g) Residential Lands bound by Interstate I-182 (North), US 395 (East) and the Columbia River (West, South) shall have maximum block lengths of 1,000 feet. No block perimeter maximum is required; (3) When block length or perimeter exceeds the established maximums due to one of the conditions listed in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(g), a mid-block pedestrian and bicycle accessway connection shall be provided. Section 4. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this _____ day of ____________, 2021. Saul Martinez Mayor Page 32 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” - 15 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: _________________________ Page 33 of 281 Community Development Department PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499 1 | Page MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 2020 To: Pasco Planning Commission Contact: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner Subject: Street Connectivity – Supplemental Memorandum for CA2019-013 This memorandum is intended to provide supplementary information and analysis to accompany the proposed Code Amendment (CA2019-013) for Street Connectivity. The memorandum summarizes the prior information shared before the Pasco Planning Commission. The memorandum is for use by the City of Pasco and contains information relevant to the local setting, research and best practices. The memorandum includes seven sections: 1.Introduction 2.Relationship to Adopted Plans, Goals and Policies 3.Connectivity Benefits 4.Existing Conditions 5.Local Examples 6.Community Input 7.Policy Recommendations & Implementation 1. INTRODUCTION Connectivity refers to the degree in which the transportation system provides access to destinations. The origin (start) and destination (end) of a trip can vary due to various factors including time of day and mode. The surrounding land-uses (residences, commercial areas, etc) and the routes available influence every single trip made, whether that trip is to work, school, grocery store or park. Rapid population growth across the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area has increased concerns on traffic and congestion, environment and accessibility. The Kennewick-Pasco-Richland MSA ATTACHMENT 1 Page 34 of 281 2 | Page increased by 55% from 2000 through 20191. Pasco has been one of the state’s fastest growing cities for almost two decades. Its population has increased by 30% from 2010 through 2019, and estimates from the Washington State Office of Financial Management and Franklin County indicate that Pasco will be home to over 121,000 residents by the year 2038 2. That represents an additional 48,000 people from 2018. Pasco, similar to many other cities across the United States began to favor a land development pattern that maximized the number of buildable lots for homes. This trend, beginning in the 1960’s has created large subdivisions with a street hierarchal network with limited connectivity, with numerous dead ends roads (cul-de-sacs) that connect to limited arterials. While this pattern may offer initial benefits by limiting the amount of vehicles on local access streets, the consequences are compounding. Congestion increases at intersections of arterials as they reach capacity. With streets being so infrequently connected, local trips to school or the store are forced on the arterial street. This in turn affects the regional system by adding short vehicular trips to main arteries designed for longer trips. As arterial streets become congested, a domino effect begins. Congestion on collector and local streets increase as residents seek to find routes around the congestion and choices become limited, as no viable alternative routes exist. Figure 1 below demonstrates two examples of transportation networks that prohibit connectivity and encourage it. The example on the left, the homeowner has limited choices to reach the shopping center while on the right; the homeowner has additional options to select to reach the same destination. Figure 1 – Connectivity Differences (Image: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Digital Media Productions) Due to the lack of connectivity, residents and businesses in Pasco have limited options for travel as the city has grown. As Pasco continues is rapid growth, the development of solutions that meet the best interests of our diverse community and established policies will increase accessibility for the future. 1 Population - https://www.tridec.org/population/ 2 Growth Management Act Population Projections For Counties - Washington State Office of Financial Management, Growth Management Act population projections for counties: 2010 to 2040 Page 35 of 281 3 | Page 2. RELATIONSHIP TO ADOPTED PLANS, GOALS AND POLICIES As the City looks towards the future and accommodating future growth, revisions are necessary to the Pasco Municipal Code to implement established plans, goals, and policies of the City, in additional to regional, state and federal guidance. 2008 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan The 2008 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #3866) provides goals and policies that drive the long-range planning for the city. The plan serves as a reference document that provides guidance for the development and implementation related to the needs of the community. A brief list of goals and policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan is below. Land-Use • Goal LU-1: Take deliberate, consistent and continuous actions to improve the community’s quality of life and achieve the vision. o Policy LU-1: Maintain and apply current design standards for major public investments, particularly streets. Transportation • Goal TR-1: Provide for and maintain an efficient transportation system centered on a convenient and integrated street network • Policy TR-1-A: Participate in the transportation related activities of the Benton- Franklin Council of Governments • Policy TR-1-C: Make transportation decisions consistent with the land use objectives of this plan • Policy TR-1-F: Provide inter-neighborhood travel connections for public safety as well as providing for transportation disbursement • Policy TR-1-G: Develop an interconnected network of streets, trails and public ways while preserving neighborhood identity • Policy TR-1-I: Maintain a level of service (LOS) “D” on all urban arterials • Goal TR-2: Encourage efficient, alternate and multi-modal transportation systems • Policy TR-2-D: Encourage greater use of bicycles and walking by providing safe and purposeful bicycle routes and pedestrian routes Page 36 of 281 4 | Page • Policy TR-3-A: Promote the safe and efficient movement of freight throughout the city Capital Facilities • Goal CF-3: Provide adequate lands for public facilities • Policy CF-3-A: Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or other mitigation for impacts on parks, schools, pedestrian and bicycle trails 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Bicycling and walking as means of recreation and transportation have been growing in popularity as many communities work to create more balanced transportation systems by giving bicyclists and pedestrians a greater share in use of the roadway networks. The purpose of this plan was to address the opportunities, challenges and conditions for non-motorized travel. Goals and Policies of the Plan included: • Policy 1: Connectivity/Access: Bicyclists should have safe access to City destinations accessible by motorized vehicles, where practical • Objective a) Encourage bicycle lanes, paths or trails and bicycle access points in new development design • Objective b) Design bike paths for the more direct routes possible • Objective d) Provide for bike path continuity • Policy 2: Comfort/Convenience: Bikeways shall be designed to encourage non-motorized travel citywide The 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was the follow up effort to Resolution 3021, adopted by the Pasco City Council in May 2007, which identified a series of goals and policies to create and maintain a high-quality bikeway network that is safe, direct, and comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing, which encourages non-motorized over automobile travel. Ordinance #4389 – City of Pasco Complete Streets Policy On July 2, 2018, the Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance #4389 establishing a Complete Streets Policy. This policy indicated the following: • The promotion of pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel as an alternate to automobiles reduces negative environmental impacts, promotes healthy living, and is less costly to commuters. • The development of a more complete transportation network can improve pedestrian safety, increase the transportation networks capacity and promote improvements in public health. Page 37 of 281 5 | Page • Transportation costs can be reduced when local infrastructure encourages active transportation, which helps families replace car trips with bicycling, walking or taking public transit. • When roads are designed and maintained to attract pedestrians, the local economy improves and diversified from increased buyers, creating job growth and increased investment in the area including surrounding property values. The Complete Streets Policy was a follow up ordinance to Resolution #3725 passed by the Pasco City Council in September 2016. This resolution required that all street projects shall include Complete Streets elements in order to create an interconnected, integrated network of inclusive facilities. Resolution #3853 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction In 2018, the Pasco City Council passed Resolution #3853 endorsing and adopting Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Policies. The resolution was an effort to create a set of policies and procedures satisfying the Washington State Public Work’s Board requirement and to recognize that the policies will benefit the City of Pasco in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The resolution included ten categories, of which two are applicable for street connectivity: Land Use Policy G1: Encourage development patterns that utilize existing infrastructure; reduce the need for new roads, utilizes and other public works in new growth areas; and enhance non-automobile transportation. Policy G2: Whenever possible, urban development should occur only where urban public facilities and services exist or can be reasonably made available. Policy G3: Protect and enhance the environment and public health and safety when providing services and facilities. Transportation Policy J1: Consider transportation projects that will contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles travelled per capita, while maintaining economic vitality and sustainability. Policy J2: Provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists to, across, and along major transit priority streets. 2018-2019 Pasco City Council Goals Every 2 years, the City Council establishes specific goals designed to guide the work of the City. Following community forums, community surveys and ongoing formal and informal input from the public and governmental partners, the Council held a goal-setting retreat in May 2018. The goals which grew out of the retreat were adopted by the Council on July 2, 2018. Page 38 of 281 6 | Page Relevant goals applicable to street connectivity are below: Quality of Life • Ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities. Community Safety • Working to achieve/maintain target fire response times through operational improvements and long-range planning of facilities and staffing. Community Transportation Network • Promote a highly functional multi-modal transportation network. • Continued collaboration with Ben-Franklin Transit to enhance mobility. • Undertaking a comprehensive and inclusive transportation planning and analysis process to include facilitation of traffic flow in major corridors, support integration of pedestrian, bicycle and other non-vehicular means of transportation. 2018-2038 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Major Update) Washington State’s Growth Management Act requires each city and county planning under the GMA to conduct a thorough review of its comprehensive plans every eight years according to RCW 36.70A.130. Pasco’s current comprehensive plan was adopted in 2008, and a major effort to update to the plan has taken place since 2017. As such, a variety of updates and revisions are identified, the following Goals and Policies from the Draft Comprehensive Plan are provided below applicable to the proposed code amendment. Land-Use • Goal LU-4: Increase community accessibility through proper land use planning o Policy LU-4-A: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. o Policy LU-4-E: Encourage the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network. o Policy LU-4-F: Support mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community. Economic Development • Goal ED-1: Maintain economic development as an important and ongoing city initiative o Policy ED-1-E: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning, is vital to economic development and attracting businesses. Page 39 of 281 7 | Page Capital Facilities • Goal CF-3: Maintain adequate lands for public facilities o Policy CF-3-A: Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or other mitigation measures to address impacts on traffic, parks, recreational facilities, schools, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. Transportation • Goal TR-1: Provide for and maintain a safe, integrated and effective transportation system that promotes connectivity o Policy TR-1-A: Participate in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. o Policy TR1-B: Require transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of this plan. o Policy TR-1-E: Provide increased neighborhood travel connections for public safety as well as providing for transportation disbursement. o Policy TR-1-F: Develop an interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity. o Policy TR-1-H: Maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level- of- service “C” during the PM peak-hour. o Policy TR-1-I: TR1-I Policy: Require developments to meet the intent of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance. • Goal TR-2: Encourage efficient, alternative and multi-modal transportation systems o Policy TR-2-B: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that increase user accessibility during the development process. o Policy TR-2-D: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes. • Goal TR-3: Improve operating efficiency of the transportation system • Goal TR-5: Maintain a freight route system to provide access to commercial and industrial lands o Policy TR-5-A: Promote the safe and efficient movement of freight through the city. The update of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes a shift in mobility practices requiring compatible land uses that decrease the dependency of vehicles by promoting more walkable and accessible neighborhoods. The Pasco City Council is expected to determine the approval of the Comprehensive Plan, still in draft, for adoption in the fall of 2020. City of Pasco Transportation System Master Plan (In Progress) The City of Pasco is conducting its first Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP). The TSMP is a guide for future transportation investments to ensure that they align with the community’s goals, values, and vision for the future. The TSMP will be a key resource for implementing Page 40 of 281 8 | Page transportation system improvements that address current deficiencies and that serve expected local and regional growth. Transportation planning in Washington is required under the Growth Management Act, which governs each city’s transportation element of a comprehensive plan. Although the plan is still in progress (estimated completion: Spring 2021), policies and constraints have been identified and will be referenced or included in the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and upcoming studies and or plans as needed. Regional/State References In addition to local plans, goals and polices, the City of Pasco collaborates with regional and state agencies which all have vested interests in creating and maintain a connected and accessible transportation system. Brief references are included below. Ben Franklin Transit Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) provides public transportation services for Benton and Franklin Counties. BFT operates a series of programs including fixed route, dial-a-ride and vanpool services covering over 618 square miles. In the 2019-2024 Transit Development Plan3, BFT identified tasks necessary to serve the rapidly growing population, including advocating for roadway connectivity, pedestrian and bicycle pathway continuity supporting form-based design. All of these tasks would benefit from proposed revisions to the Pasco Municipal Code for street connectivity. Benton-Franklin Council of Governments The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments serves as the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of the Tri-Cities region. Goals in their Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan (M/RTP), Transition20404 relevant for the proposed code amendment(s) include: Goal #3 - Mobility & Accessibility: To improve the predictable movement of and access to goods and people throughout the region, and improve quality of life. Goal #5 – Community & Environmental Sustainability: To make transportation decisions that protect the environment, promote sustainable development, and coordinate regional/ community stakeholders 3 Ben Franklin Transit 2019-2024 Transit Development Plan - https://www.bft.org/assets/1/6/final-2019-2024- transit-development-plan-approved_06-28-19.pdf 4 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan, Transition2040 - https://bfcog.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BookFinalAmendment.compressed.pdf Page 41 of 281 9 | Page Washington State Department of Transportation The 2017-2040 Washington Transportation Plan (Phase 2)5 provides a series of strategic plans and goals in order to achieve the department’s vision, mission and values. Of note are the following: Goal #1 – Strategic Investments: Effectively manage system assets and multimodal investments on corridors to enhance economic vitality. Goal #2 – Modal Integration: Optimize existing system capacity through better interconnectivity of all transportation modes. Specific focus areas were identified and included the following: “Promote transportation efficient communities by coordinating and providing state agency technical assistance to emphasize the link between land use and transportation at all levels of government, the private sector, and other organizations 6.” The Washington State Department of Transportation, along with the Washington State Department of Commerce, Ecology and Health created an implementation plan for Transportation Efficient Communities7 that specified the policies addressing street connectivity, circulation patterns and emergency access were necessary to increase efficiency of local transportation systems. Washington State Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (GMA) is a series of state statutes, first adopted in 1990, that requires fast-growing cities and counties to develop a comprehensive plan to manage their population growth. Under RCW 36.70A.020, the GMA establishes a series of 13 goals that should act as the basis of all comprehensive plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3): Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. Other Plans In addition, the importance of street connectivity were included in prior city engineering and planning studies. These include the West Pasco Traffic Analysis Study from 1992, the I-182 Sub- Area Report from 2003 and the Draft Feasibility Traffic Study for Interchanges completed in 2016. 5 Washington Transportation Plan - https://washtransplan.com/ 6 Washington Transportation Plan, Table ES-1: Vision, Focus Areas, and Action Items - https://washtransplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/WTPPhase2-2017-web- VisionFocusAreasActionItems.pdf 7 What is a Transportation Efficient Community - http://www.transportationefficient.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/07/Brief_PlanForStreetNetworkConnectivity.pdf Page 42 of 281 10 | Page The list from local, regional and state agencies are intended to provide a high-level review of relevant goals, policies and strategies for transportation connectivity. The premise of the code amendment is adopt local policies that are aligned with above stated references to meet the demands and growing needs of the City of Pasco. 3. CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS The major benefit of street connectivity is that it attempts to redistribute traffic across an entire street network. If local streets are poorly connected, local trips are forced to use the arterial system, which is designed to handle longer trips. The combination of short and long trips using the same streets creates congestion problems. Connected local streets help keep local trips off arterial streets and reduce the need for the widening and construction of improvements on collector or arterial streets. Increased connectivity promotes transportation choices for residents within our subdivisions and neighborhoods. It allows for alternative modes of travel besides the automobile. Street connectivity offers the potential to increase trips by walking, bicycling or using transit because shorter travel distances can be created by linking sidewalks or streets to destinations such as parks, schools, and neighborhood stores. Additionally, highly connected transportation networks can be less expensive to build and maintain making them more economical by: • Getting better value out of every street • Reducing need to widen roads and intersections • Limiting points (nodes or intersections) of congestion The City of Pasco and its residents would benefit from encouraging a more efficient local street network by decreasing the gaps in the transportation system. Figure 5 (below) demonstrates an example of this. Figure 2 - Benefits of Connectivity Page 43 of 281 11 | Page The benefits of street connectivity are wide ranging from promoting orderly development and walkable communities to community safety for emergency response. Orderly Development for Utilities Street connectivity promotes orderly development that meets various local, regional and state policies. Street connectivity does not mean a strict grid pattern but it does mean streets existing streets will continue rather than dead-end. This is a benefit for travel circulation but also for city utilities for water, sewer and irrigation as locations and placement typically follow street alignments. If there is an awareness of how the future transportation network will develop, forecasting for utility improvements can be more easily identified including the forecasting of future system need when coupled with land-use assumptions. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recently stated that more efficient patterns and connectivity of streets allows for more frequent internal looping of water infrastructure systems that helps to better balance water pressure, reduce line sizing and construction phasing. Planning for efficiency can also help to reduce the cost of water infrastructure in developments.8 Community Accessibility Street connectivity promotes and enhances accessibility within our community by creating a network of routes that allow residents a variety of choices. Accessibility is improved due to the availability of route choices and with appropriate land use planning supports walkable, multi- modal communities. Accessibility is improved for all users by any mode including walking, bicycling, vehicle and transit. For public transportation, street connectivity improves the efficiency and effectiveness of bus transit. Indirect trips because of a network consisting of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs add travel time and expense (cost of fuel and vehicle maintenance) to each trip. Transit service often does not access suburban neighborhoods due to the street design. Instead, services are forced to rely on limited arterials adjacent to the neighborhood, with the responsibility for accessing the bus left to the rider. Increased connectivity across the entire transportation system provides more opportunities for transit services. Research 9 has indicated that the most common walking distance for all situations is ¼ mile, or 1,320 feet. Although that is the common standard, there should be considerations for actual travel (walking or biking) distance from an origin to a bus stop location which in most cases far exceeds the distance threshold. 8 Total hydrology planning: Using water to drive community design. (2020, August 18). NAHB Now | The News Blog of the National Association of Home Builders. https://nahbnow.com/2020/08/total-hydrology-planning-using- water-to-drive-community-design/ 9 Walker, Jarrett, Human Transit, Island Press (2011) Page 44 of 281 12 | Page Economic Neighborhoods and communities that are walkable have a positive effect on economic development. A 2016 study by RedFin that walkability can increase the price of a home by an average of $3,250. Across fourteen metropolitan areas studied, homes located in more walkable neighborhoods were valued higher 10. A University of Arizona study 11 from 2010 indicated that greater walkability led to higher office, retail and housing values based on data from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries. A 2016 study 12 from the Center for Real Estate and Urban Analysis at The George Washington University found that office space, retail and rental properties have a 74% rental premium in walkable areas over suburban, non-walkable areas in thirty of the largest metropolitan areas from 2000-2015. Safety Connected transportation systems also benefit community safety and increase emergency response (police, fire, medical). 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 2017 Pasco Fire Department Performance Report indicated that maintaining and improving response times were priorities. Ordinance 2938 13, 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 Medicine 14 concluded that sprawling development patterns are associated with increased 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 Streets15, 10 How Much is a Point of Walk Score Worth? (Bokhari) - https://www.redfin.com/blog/how-much-is-a-point-of- walk-score-worth/ 11 Pivo,G., Fisher, J., The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Walkability%20Paper%20February%2010.pdf 12Foot Traffic Ahead - https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/foot-traffic-ahead-2016.pdf 13 City of Pasco Ordinance 2938 - https://egov-pasco.com/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=252820&dbid=0&cr=1 14 (n.d.). Congress for the New Urbanism. https://archive.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/UVA_sprawl&EMS_11.2009.pdf 15 National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Best- Practices-Emergency-Access-in-Healthy-Streets.pdf Page 45 of 281 13 | Page which described street design, specifically shorter blocks and connected street networks decrease travel times, and reduce response times for fire response. Environment Neighborhoods with increased transportation access and connectivity may also lessen environmental impacts. Increased mode options become more reasonable as routes that are more direct are available. The addition of mode choice lessens dependency on automobile use for every trip purpose. As such, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) concluded that street networks heavy on disconnected designs increased travel demand on arterial streets by 75% and on collector streets by 80% compared to a 43% lower vehicle miles travelled (VMT) with a connected street pattern. The Healthy Community Design Imitative 16, a program funded through the Center of Disease Control (CDC) identified that emissions from vehicles continue to cause undesirable respiratory and cardiovascular health. The CDC recommended policies that reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and creating alternative to vehicle dependency through the improvement of multi-modal transportation options (transit, non-motorized). A 2013 study17 on the spatial distribution of household carbon footprints (HCF) revealed that cities with less auto-dependent development patterns exhibit lower levels of carbon footprint per household than cities with suburban patterns. The study, published in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology, used local census and weather data to examine the average household carbon footprint of more than 31,000 U.S. zip codes. While population density contributes to relatively low HCF in the central cities of large metropolitan areas, the more extensive suburbanization in these regions contributes to an overall net increase in HCF compared to smaller metropolitan areas. Suburbs alone account for 50% of total U.S. HCF. Locally, air quality has become an increasing topic of concerns and the region is undergoing an Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS)18. Air quality managers have been evaluating the Tri-Cities area since 2013 after the predictive air quality forecasting models operated by the Washington State University indicated that the region consistently showed elevated ozone. If air quality is not improved, the region may be at risk of being designated as a Non-Attainment19 by the Environmental Protection Agency, meaning the air quality does not meet national standards. This designation would have a significant impact on the permitting process of each development in our region. 16 CDC - Healthy places - Transportation HIA toolkit - Strategies: Reduce vehicle miles traveled. (2011, October 19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/transportation/vmt_strategy.htm 17 Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory. https://rael.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Jones- Kammen-EST_proof-NationalCarbonMap.pdf 18 The Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS) Final Report. (2017). Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Washington State University. https://bfcog.us/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/T-COPS-Final-Report-12-2017.pdf 19 Attainment SIPs - Washington State Department of ecology. (n.d.). Washington State Department of Ecology. https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Plans-policies/State-implementation-plans/Attainment-SIPs Page 46 of 281 14 | Page Equity Transportation planning decisions often have significant equity impacts. Equity refers to the fairness with which benefits and costs are distributed across a community. Examples of transportation equity relevant to street connectivity include the quality of transportation services available facilities, such as public transit frequency and roadway (congestion) conditions; user costs such as vehicle ownership and maintenance; and external factors including environment such as emissions, pollution and noise. When neighborhoods are designed solely for automobile use, we decrease and severely limit alternative transportation options for our residents. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) identified that mobility (mode) options are a critical factor for livable communities20. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a toolkit 21 in 2017 that encouraged transportation alternatives to support low-income and over-burdened communities. The toolkit presented three approaches to expanding options for communities that included access to public transportation, street design standards and transit-oriented development. When these three strategies are coordinated and implemented, neighborhoods can result in more accessible amenities and services regardless of income or age. Providing safe, reliable and integrated transportation options for mobility also improves access to key destinations and critical services that children, caregivers and families need on a daily basis. The ability to navigate the local transportation environment is critical to children maturing, developing independent mobility per the National Association of City Transportation Officials and the Global Designing Cities Initiative in their 2020 publication Designing Streets for Kids 22. Household Costs The pattern and design of our neighborhoods also has an impact on the costs to households. The portion of household expenditure spent on transportation in United States is often a larger portion than that spent by many throughout the world. Data shows that Americans spend 13% of their household expenditure on transportation23. On average, Americans own 2.28 cars, meaning that many households in the United States have three or more vehicles. Thirty-five percent of American households own three or more cars. Personal vehicles accounted for the largest amount of transportation expenditures in 2017 – a total of $1.1 trillion, almost 90% of total transportation expenditures. In 2017, transportation costs made up the fourth largest expenditure among American households, which spent an average of $9,737 each on transportation costs. Two primary factors for this are the single-use 20 Moving forward: Mobility options are key element of livable communities. (2018, July 31). Blogs. https://blog.aarp.org/where-we-stand/moving-forward-mobility-options-are-key-element-of-livable- communities 21 Creating equitable, healthy, and sustainable communities. (2018, May 1). https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/creating-equitable-healthy-and-sustainable-communities 22 Designing streets for kids guide. (2020, July 28). Global Designing Cities Initiative. https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/designing-streets-for-kids/ 23 Consumer expenditures--2018. (n.d.). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm Page 47 of 281 15 | Page zoning laws that force residential neighborhoods to be separated from commercial and business areas and roads that are designed to be car dependent which limit alternative transportation options such as transit, walking or bicycling 24. Summary The above summary of benefits do not capture all possibilities and impacts. While street connectivity measures are supported overwhelmingly by professional best practices, it should be noted that there are also potential disadvantages. Connectivity policies may not always align with historic or existing market forces in the housing market. Homebuyers may seek the privacy that are provided by limited access streets. In the development process, builders will need to account for the potential increased costs as a result of the frequency of street placements and connections. This may also decrease the number of developable lots that may be created (and sold) as more land will be required for streets and less for housing impacting profit. 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS Section four of the memorandum provides various data sets; comparisons and visuals comparing Pasco’s existing municipal code requirements for street connectivity with other jurisdictions and reporting summaries of relevant transportation and community data. Current Requirements Title 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations” provides standard practices for the division of land. Section 21.15 “Streets” contains information on street layouts and types whereas Section 21.20 “Lots and Blocks” defines characteristics such as the length, width and dimension. The combination of these sections is responsible for much of the way our city has developed. Policy recommendations for proposed revisions are in section five of the memorandum, however background information on requirements are provided as a reference guide to better understand the data comparisons. Block length and block perimeter are two of the most important factors in determining street connectivity for communities. The block length is the distance measured between two intersecting streets. Block perimeter is the total measured distance around one block. See figure 3 below for an example of block length and perimeter in Pasco. 24 The Geography of Transport Systems FIFTH EDITION Jean-Paul Rodriguez (2020), New York: Routledge, 456 pages. ISBN 978-0-367-36463-2 Page 48 of 281 16 | Page Figure 3 - Example of Block Length & Block Perimeter A reference to the requirements of the Pasco Municipal Code for street patterns and lengths are below. PMC 21.20.010 Block Length: In general, intersecting streets shall be provided at such intervals as to serve cross traffic adequately and to meet existing streets or customary subdivision practices in the vicinity. Blocks shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Blocks for business use shall normally not be less than 600 feet in length. PMC 21.20.020 Block Width: The width of the block under normal conditions shall be sufficient to allow for two tiers of lots with easements. One tier of lots shall be provided between a local access street and an arterial. Blocks intended for business or industrial use should be of suitable width for the proposed use, taking due consideration for providing off-street parking and truck loading. Per the Pasco Municipal Code, the maximum block length is 1,320 feet. There are no standard for block perimeter while block widths are required to have two tiers of lots. Figure 3 above meets both PMC requirements as the block length is well below the 1,320’ maximum and two tiers of lots are provided for. The remaining portion of section four will focus on comparisons of existing and relevant street connectivity measures. Each measure identified is an important component for measuring the ability to support accessible community neighborhoods. Length: 805’ Perimeter: 2,120’ Page 49 of 281 17 | Page Block Length Comparisons Block length maximums are defined in most jurisdictional development codes. Figure 4 below shows the maximum block lengths in 13 Washington Cities, including Pasco. As shown, Pasco’s maximum of 1,320 feet is one of the highest, with the City of Richland the longest at 1,500 feet. The average block length is 916 feet for the cities below. Eight of the cities below have maximum block lengths below 900 feet, including the City of Kennewick. Figure 4 - Maximum Block Length Comparisons for Jurisdictions per Municipal Code(s) Block Perimeter Comparisons Figure 5 displays the average block perimeter for 17 Washington Cities. The cities are diverse in population, form, pattern and age but provide a general idea of where Pasco’s block formations (perimeter) compares. Of these cities, the average block perimeter is 4,477 feet, Pasco’s block are an average of 5,443 and similar to block length is one of the longest. The data below is for all city blocks therefore it includes residential, commercial and industrial land uses. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH (FT) Page 50 of 281 18 | Page Figure 5 - Average Block Perimeter (Center for Neighborhood Technology; Housing & Transportation Index) Map 1 displays the average block perimeter for Census Blocks. There are obvious outliers as can been seen along the eastern fringes of the city, however smaller block perimeters are notably located in Central and Downtown Pasco. Block perimeters in this area of the city are lower than 2,000 feet. The city experienced rapid growth over the past 20 years towards the west and as that growth occurred, block perimeters expanded substantially. The smallest block average west of US 395 is about 2,400 feet while the majority of Census Blocks have blocks averaging 3,600 feet. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 AVERAGE BLOCK PERIMETER (FT) Page 51 of 281 19 | Page Map 1 - Average Block Perimeter (Acres) be Census Block Block Size While Figure 4 displays the average block perimeter for city blocks, Figure 5 displays the area for city blocks and households. Figure 5 is a more accurate representation of residential and block size comparison as it includes the percent of households within each block size category. Of the 16 cities shown, the highest average households are within block areas between 9 – 17.5 acres. The City of Spokane has the highest percentage of households within blocks below 5.25 acres (57.8%), West Richland has zero percent and Pasco has 8.90%. The majority of households in Pasco (71.6%) are within blocks between 5.25 – 17.5 acres. This is the same for the Cities of Kennewick and Richland where an average of 72% of their households are within these block sizes of 5.25 – 17.5 acres. The Tri-Cities differs from other cities in Eastern Washington such as Spokane, Wenatchee and Ellensburg where the majority of their residents reside in blocks below 9 acres. Page 52 of 281 20 | Page Figure 6 - Households per Block Area (Center for Neighborhood Technology; Housing & Transportation Index) 0%20%40%60%80%100%120% Bellingham Ellensburg Everett Kennewick Marysville Olympia Pasco Renton Richland Spokane Spokane Valley Tacoma Vancouver Wentachee West Richland Yakima % of Total HouseholdsJurisdictionHOUSEHOLDS PER BLOCK SIZE (ACRES) < 5.25 5.25 - 9 9 - 17.5 17.5 - 60 60 + Page 53 of 281 21 | Page Walkability Walkability can be measured using the WalkScore 25, which measures the walkability of any address using a patented system. For each address, WalkScore analyzes hundreds of walking routes to nearby amenities. Walk Score also measures pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. Data sources include Google, Factual, Great Schools, Open Street Map, the U.S. Census, and publicly entered data. Figure 8 below compares the WalkScore of each school within the Pasco School District. Note that the national WalkScore average is 48, while the City of Pasco and the Tri-Cities score 36. In the Pasco School District, almost 55% of students attend schools with scores below 25 (auto- dependent) which require vehicles. Sixty-five percent of students in the district attend schools below a score of 50. Only four schools (Longfellow Elementary, Rowena Chess Elementary, Stevens Middle School and Captain Grey Elementary) are within areas deemed walkable. Generally, schools with higher schools are located in neighborhoods of the city that designed with a more connected development pattern. The map displays public schools on top of the National Walkability Index. The index characterizes every block group (Census) based on its relative walkability. Figure 7 - Pasco School District WalkScore 25 (2020, July). Walk Score. https://www.walkscore.com/ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT WALKSCORES Page 54 of 281 22 | Page Map 2 – Walkability Index & Public Schools Map 3 below displays the amount of households within a 15-minute walk. As to be expected, Central Pasco, between Highway 395 and 4th Avenue exhibit a fair amount of households accessible within 15 minutes compared to developments east of Downtown Pasco and west of Road 68. Density has a critical role in this measurement however, the development and street patterns are also a factor in whether there is accessibility or not. On page 22, Map 4 shows public parks accessible within a 15-minute walk. Parks are located more frequently and spatially within the city of Pasco than dwelling unit density. Looking at park accessibility shows another perspective on walkability in the city. Page 55 of 281 23 | Page Map 3 - Households within 15 Minutes (Walk) Figure 4 - Parks within 15 Minutes (Walk) Page 56 of 281 24 | Page Transit Accessibility Transit accessibility is a key basis in explaining transit use and promoting transit policies. The improvement of transit access conditions are deemed to improve the overall quality of the transit service, the user experience, and ultimately, the transit ridership. Across the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area, transit ridership remains lower than other larger metropolitan areas. Map 5 displays the households within Pasco that are accessible to transit services (bus stops) within 15 minutes. Transit accessibility is much higher in Central Pasco than other areas of the City. For the city as a whole, almost 10% of households are within 15 minutes of transit where as 40% are within 30 minutes. Map 5 - Households & Transit Accessibility Page 57 of 281 25 | Page Household Costs As mentioned in Section 3, transportation costs make up a significant portion of total households costs. The transportation costs per household in the City of Pasco are $14,528, almost $4,800 more than the national average in 2017 of $9,737. These costs make up 24% of all household expenditures for residents in Pasco. Of the 17 cities shown in Figure 8, Pasco has the third highest cost per household for transportation expenditures. This is an amount slightly higher than our neighboring cities (Kennewick and Richland) and significantly higher than the cities of Seattle and Spokane. Figure 8 - Annual Transportation Costs per Household (Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing & Transportation Index) At the household level, 90% allocate more than $13,000 for transportation, with 10% spending $11,000 - $13,000 annually. Map 6, on page 24 illustrates the distribution of transportation costs across the City of Pasco. Neighborhoods within Central Pasco are dedicating less of their incomes towards transportation costs whereas residents in neighborhoods that are less connected have higher associated costs for transportation. $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD Page 58 of 281 26 | Page Map 6 - Transportation (Annual) Costs per Household Environmental Transportation is one of the largest contributors to U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Transportation accounted for the largest portion (28%) of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2018. Light duty vehicles and medium-heavy trucks comprise 82% of all transportation GHG emissions while aircraft, buses, rail and ships make up the remaining (18%) percent. Map 5 displays the greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicle use per household. When compared with Map #2 (Walkability Index), Map #3 (Households within 15 Minutes Walking), Map #5 (Households and Transit Accessibility) a trend emerges signifying that the higher rates of walkability, transit accessibility and compact – connected street patterns have a lower amount of average household costs and GHG vehicle emissions. The greenhouse gas emissions (average) per households are in Figure 10 on page 26. Of the 17 Washington Cities shown, Pasco has the second highest, behind West Richland. The cities represent a diverse range from major urban areas in the Puget Sound to rural in Central Washington. Note that the Tri-Cities area has higher GHG emission per household than rural cities (Ellensburg) and larger cities (Everett, Tacoma). Page 59 of 281 27 | Page Map 7 - Passenger GHG Vehicle Emissions per Household Figure 9 - Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions per Household (American Community Survey) 10.27 9.96 9.76 8.90 8.55 8.45 8.12 8.12 8.03 7.82 7.71 7.65 7.53 7.41 6.97 6.60 5.93 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 ANNUAL GHG PER HOUSEHOLD Page 60 of 281 28 | Page Map 8 - Residential Vehicle Miles Travelled per Household Map 8 displays the annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per household. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) calculated using vehicle trip counts and estimated trip lengths for home-based-work and home-based-other trips. The map shows higher amounts of VMT are experienced in West Pasco south of W Court Street along the Columbia River, east of Road 68 between W Court Street and Argent Road and north of I-182 between Road 68 and Road 36. Central Pasco has less VMT rates although higher rates are seen east of Oregon Avenue. Intersection densities are shown for the city in Map 9, which measures the number of roadway intersections per a given area. This measurement determines the walkability of an area or development but is sensitive to adjacent land uses and road type. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that the intersection density as objective method of assessing the built environment of a community, and the density of walkable intersections affects walkability 26. Map 10 overlays cul-de-sac nodes on top of the intersection density map to provide additional recognition on the affect different nodes (intersections) have on travel behavior. 26 References (2020). https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/Estimatedintersectiondensityof walkableroads.pdf Page 61 of 281 29 | Page Map 9 - Intersection Density Figure 10 - Cul-de-sac nodes relative to Intersection Density Page 62 of 281 30 | Page 5. LOCAL EXAMPLES Section 5 of the memorandum aims to provide examples of where the lack of adequate standards and requirements for street connectivity have created barriers and challenges for connectivity within our community. Preliminary analysis conducted through the Transportation System Master Plan indicated the following segments with poor accessibility for multi-modal connectivity: • Court Street (Road 44 to Road 108) • Wernett Road (Road 48 to Road 76) • Argent Road (Road 48 to Road 100) • Chapel Hill Boulevard (Road 68 to Road 100) • Burden Boulevard (Road 36 to Road 60) • Sandifur Parkway (Porto Lane to Road 90) • Road 44 (Laredo Drive to Porto Lane) • Burns Road (Road 68 to Road 100; Dent Road to Kohler Road) • Clark Road (Road 36 to Lentz Road/Janet Street) • Road 100/I-182 overpass • Road 68/I-182 overpass Map 8 below displays where in the city constraints have been identified. The Central and Downtown Pasco are well served by the traditional grid pattern whereas the neighborhoods south of Interstate I-182 and west of US 395 experience mixed connection opportunities, likely due to prior platting (development) practices where streets were not extended. North of I-182, neighborhoods suffer from long blocks, limited access to arterials and disjointed street connections. Map 8 - Street System Connectivity Constraints (Draft Transportation System Master Plan) Page 63 of 281 31 | Page The following set of examples identify barriers to transportation connectivity in Pasco. Example 1: • Block length more than 3,300 feet separating large residential neighborhoods from the south from the site of two public schools set to open in 2020 and 2021 • Limited access to future principle arterial limiting efficiency and accessibility. Page 64 of 281 32 | Page Example 2 (previous page): • Homes located adjacent to elementary school require 0.5 + miles to safely access facility • Public parks with only one public street limit access for nearby residents • Lack of pedestrian and non-motorized considerations for travel limit public transit operations for users Example 3: • Cul-de-sac construction that blocks connection to the existing transportation network; Limits travel options to nearby public elementary school • Cul-de-sac construction limits accessibility between neighborhoods and creates barriers for emergency service response due to the disconnected street network Page 65 of 281 33 | Page Example 4 • Block length exceeding 1,600 feet limits neighborhood access from north and south; Restricts travel options to nearby elementary school Page 66 of 281 34 | Page Example 5: • Disconnected street patterns limit crossing opportunities between major arterials Example 6: • Disconnected street patterns limiting crossing opportunities between major arterials Page 67 of 281 35 | Page Example 7: • Cul-de-sac construction limits accessibility between neighborhoods and creates barriers for emergency service response due to the disconnected street network 6. COMMUNITY INPUT Input from the community is an important (and required) component for city planning. It is imperative that staff reference best practices and modern approaches to design while taking into account the needs and interests of our community members. Numerous surveys, national, statewide, regional and local have been conducted over the years that are useful for the street- connectivity proposal. Section 6 of the memorandum provides a brief summary of those results. National According to a survey from the National Association of Realtors, 53% of Americans would prefer to live in communities with walkability characteristics rather than living in areas where they are forced to drive to all amenities. In the 2017 Community and Transportation Preferences Survey27, 82% of participants were somewhat to very satisfied with their communities when they were more walkable. Figure 10 displays the interest in walkable communities indicated in the survey. Access to sidewalks, neighborhoods with easy commutes and accessible to amenities had increased interest from 2015 to 2017. 27 References (2020). https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/Estimatedintersectiondensityof walkableroads.pdf (2017). https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2017%20Topline%20Results.pdf Page 68 of 281 36 | Page Figure 11 - Results from 2017 Community & Transportation Survey (National Association of Realtors) A national poll of 3,000 adults from the fifty largest metropolitan areas found that millennials and Gen Xers prefer alternative modes of transportation than another generations did. Excerpts from the study28, conducted by Portland State University and the National Association of Realtors are below. 28 (2015). https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/reports/2015/nar-psu-2015-poll-topline.pdf Page 69 of 281 37 | Page Figure 12 - Attitude towards Travel Modes (NAR & Portland State University: 2015 Community and Transportation Preferences Survey) Important thigs when deciding where to live Important (Very or Somewhat) Very Important Sidewalks and places to take walks 85% 55% Easy access to the highway 82% 42% Being within an easy walk of other places and things in the community 79% 42% Being within short commute to work 76% 44% Having public transit nearby 64% 37% Bike lanes and paths nearby 57% 24% Table 1 - Transportation Choices (NAR & Portland State University: 2015 Community and Transportation Preferences Survey) Regional The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Tri-Cities. For the development of their long-range Metropolitan/Regional Page 70 of 281 38 | Page Transportation Plan, Transition204029 a community survey was performed to understand regional interests in transportation. Figure 11 below is a snapshot of the results that indicated an interest in multi-modal transportation options such as public transportation, pedestrian accessibility and bike lanes should be invested in. The survey also identified regional concerns for pedestrian safety, lack of sidewalks and urban sprawl. Figure 13 - Transition2040 - Community Input Survey (Benton-Franklin Council of Governments) MyTri2030 is an effort of the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce to create a regional visioning strategy. The effort, still in progress aims to have broad-based community support and includes a variety of organizations, agencies and stakeholders on the project team. The effort began with a survey 30 of over 4,500 participants to understand the regions strengths, challenges and areas for improvement. Survey participants shared an interest in improved transportation planning, reduced congestion and more access to existing public amenities while urban sprawl and uncontrolled growth are as barriers to future visioning. On the question “What do you see other regions doing that interest you?” respondents stated more walkable, mixed-use developments that included amenities within walking distance that offered pedestrian friendly with public transit options as a key theme. Local 29 Transition2040. (2017). Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. https://bfcog.us/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/M-RTP-Survey-Report.pdf 30 About. (2018). myTRI 2030. https://www.mytri2030.com/about/ Page 71 of 281 39 | Page At the local level, the City of Pasco has conducted a National Community Survey every two years since 2005. The purpose of the survey is to report on the livability of Pasco as a place that is desirable. Below are a few excerpts from the latest survey completed in 2019 31 with trends from prior results. Figure 14 - National Citizen Survey 2019 Survey responses on transportation quality highlighted a focus on mobility and alternative modes of transportation. Respondents were more likely to have carpooled, walked or biked instead of driving, and used public transportation in 2019 compared to 2017. Overall quality of the transportation system saw a significant decrease in 2019 (57% - 2019; 77% - 2017). Quality of new development increased to a 62% positive rating with an average of 53% since 2013. The other metrics on city design, land use and zoning, traffic flow and ease of walking had positive ratings that fluctuated from below to slightly above 50% positive ratings. 31 City of Pasco. (2020). National Citizen Survey. https://www.pasco-wa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62090/NCS- Trends-Over-Time-Report-Pasco-2020 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Transportation System Quality Traffic Flow Ease of Walking Land Use Planning & Zoning Design/Layout of the City Quality of New Development POSITIVE RATINGS ON MOBILITY & PLANNING 2019 2017 2015 2013 Page 72 of 281 40 | Page In October of 2017, the SOMOS Pasco Summary Report was published32. The effort is a coordinated approach from the City of Pasco, Port of Pasco and Franklin County to create a Greater Pasco Economic Strategic Vision. The Vision also had support and input from the Tri- Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Pasco Chamber of Commerce, Columbia Basin College and the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Nearly 2,000 community members responded to a survey for the Vision identified that increasing the walkability and bikeability of the city was a priority project. Linking trails and existing pathways to amenities, the waterfront and future planned developments. In addition to the survey, the SOMOS Pasco effort defined a set of core values for the community that included “livable” and “connected”. As part of the ongoing Transportation System Master Plan effort, an online public survey occurred throughout the spring and early summer of 2020. There were 224 responses on the survey that was created to understand general community thoughts on the existing transportation system. Figure 15 - Preliminary Community Input from Transportation System Master Plan Survey 32 Connecting there with here. (2020). Port of Pasco. https://www.portofpasco.org/business-with-us/economic- development/somos-pasco Page 73 of 281 41 | Page Preliminary results from the survey indicate that responders do not agree that they can easily walk to most destinations in their neighborhoods, and identified, marked crosswalks are not provided in areas where they want to cross the street. Figure 16- Sidewalk Constraints from Community Input Figure 17 - Crossing Constraints from Community Input Sidewalk Constraints Crossing Constraints Page 74 of 281 42 | Page Figures 15 and 16 show input from the community on where they see constraints to the sidewalk system and street crossings. The overwhelming responses are located in recent growth areas of the city including the Sandifur Parkway, Burden Blvd, Road 100, Broadmoor Blvd and Road 68 corridors. Note that there are also crossing and sidewalk constraints identified along A Street, West Court Street and Lewis N Fourth Avenue. The results from the surveys provided in Section 6 are meant to provide a consensus on how community members across the national, regional and local levels feel on issues related to street connectivity. State, Regional and Local Support The community benefits of a street connectivity standard stated within this memorandum. From increased walkability and home values within neighborhoods to increased accessibility to public transportation and resident choice for travel options. The City of Pasco received letters of support from state, regional and local agencies including community members and Pasco’s own Fire Department. The Washington State Department stated their support for staff’s effort to update the Pasco Municipal Code to implement long established goals and policies for a connected transportation system that would establish reasonable use of other modes for transport, increased route choice, compliance with local, regional, state and federal multi-modal policies. The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments indicated that staff efforts to require a more integrated and connected development pattern would benefit the region. The agency (BFCG) supports proposed changes that integrate the relationship of land-use and transportation and notes the benefits available to Pasco are long-term and may increase quality of life including safety. Ben Franklin Transit provided support stating that the street connectivity measures would offer significant improvements toward creating a more walkable and transit-accessible city. Visit Tri- Cities, the regions tourism agency specified that creating a more walkable, bikeable and safe environment is a critical element in creating and sustaining a high quality of live and long-term economic vitality in the greater Tri-Cities region. Page 75 of 281 43 | Page In a letter of support from the Pasco Fire Department, there is an expectation that our streets are connected where walking can be easily accommodated and where a diverse range of users from emergency responders to solid waste collected and delivery trucks have a safe and efficient access to perform their duties. 7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLEMENTATION The growing trend in cities to update or adopt new street connectivity requirements is reflective of several trends and forces concerning land development, environmental conservation, transportation and equitable economic development. Street connectivity ordinances must be designed to increase accessibility for all users within our neighborhoods and along routes serving activity centers for commerce and industrial needs. The result of the effort should support a network that provides multiple route choices for residents to and from destinations that is convenient, safe and reasonable for those choosing to travel by foot, bike, bus or vehicle. City staff worked with the consulting team 33 conducting the Transportation System Master Plan to identify where improvements to the existing regulations are necessary and how to implement updated standards that meet the intents of adopted plans, polices and goals. In preparation of the proposed changes, refinements and updates to the existing code in Table 2 (following page) are provided. Note: Policy changes may have been revised since publication of Table 2 below after correspondence with stakeholder groups, professionals and staff input. 33 DKS Associates, Angelo Planning Group (APG) Page 76 of 281 44 | Page Page 77 of 281 45 | Page Pasco Municipal Code Proposed Code Comments CHAPTER 21.15 STREETS 21.15.010 Street Layout (1) Continuation of Existing Streets. Streets shall normally continue as an extension of existing streets unless good planning dictates a different solution. Street patterns shall take into consideration access needed to develop adjacent properties. Sketches of a proposed street system to serve adjoining properties may be required if it is owned by the subdivider. (2) Dead-End Streets. Dead-end streets are prohibited; except, where the Comprehensive Plan or preliminary plat indicates a street is to continue past the subdivider’ s property, the City may allow the dead end until such time as the street can be built through at a later date. Dead- end streets may be permitted in the R-S-20 and R-S- 12 districts as provided in PMC 21.15.080. Connectivity to Abutting Lands. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed to connect to existing, proposed, and planned streets adjacent to the subdivision. Wherever a proposed development abuts unplatted land or a future development phase of an existing development, street stubs shall be provided to allow access to future abutting subdivisions and to extend the street system into the surrounding area. Street ends shall contain turnarounds constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards, and shall be designed to facilitate future extension in terms of grading, width, and temporary barricades. Future Street Plan. The applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision shall file where a subdivision is proposed adjacent to other developable land, a future street plan in order to facilitate orderly development of the street system. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other divisible parcels within [600] feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed subdivision. The plan must demonstrate, pursuant to City standards, that the proposed development does not preclude future street connections to adjacent development land. The PMC currently includes requirements to connect to existing adjacent streets and developable properties. The proposed sample code is intended to strengthen Pasco’s requirements by including greater specificity about where and how connections must be provided. The PMC states that “sketches of a proposed street system … may be required” when the abutting land is under the same ownership. The proposed code includes a future street plan requirement, but further requires an applicant to demonstrate how future streets could be laid out, regardless of who owns the abutting developable land. This is intended to ensure that the proposed subdivision does not preclude future street connections. 21.15.020 Street Standards (2) Intersections on opposite sides of a common street shall either be aligned or be offset a minimum of 125 feet. Minimum Distance – Intersecting Blocks Intersections on opposite sides of a common street shall either be aligned or be offset a minimum of 200 feet. Increasing the minimum opposing block distance from 125’ to 200’ will mitigate unorderly development and increase safety as opposing blocks allow conflicts within roadway turning movements. 21.15.070 Cul-de-sacs Cul-de-sacs will be permitted where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall only be permitted when the applicant demonstrates that natural features or topographical The current PMC language is intended to limit cul-de-sacs, but is broad and lacks consistency. The proposed language Page 78 of 281 46 | Page 1) Cul-de-sacs should normally be less than 300 feet, but will be permitted up to 600 feet in length. 2) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of- way widths for all cul-de-sacs shall not be less than 60 feet with a 110-foot diameter turnaround. 3) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all cul-de-sacs shall not be not less than: a. Thirty-six feet from the face of curb to the face of curb, with an 90-foot turnaround; b. Thirty-six feet of the pavement width pavement, with a 80-foot turnaround in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones without curbs. constraints, existing development patterns, or compliance with other applicable City requirements preclude a street extension and through circulation. Where the Director of Community & Economic Development determines that a cul-de-sac is allowed, all of the following standards shall be met: 1) The cul-de-sac shall not exceed a length of 400 feet, except where the Director of Community & Economic Development determines that topographic or other physical constraints of the site require a longer cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul- de-sac. 2) Compliance with the most updated version of the City Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. 3) The cul-de-sac shall provide, or not preclude the opportunity to later install, a pedestrian and bicycle accessway connecting to adjacent developments, or adjacent developable lands. Such accessways shall conform to the City Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. prohibits cul-de-sacs unless they cannot be avoided due to a limited set of conditions that must be demonstrated by the applicant. In cases where a cul- de-sac cannot be avoided, the sample code limits them to 400 feet and ensures connectivity for pedestrians and bikes by requiring construction of bicycle or pedestrian access way. 21.15.100 Pedestrian Ways Pedestrian ways may be required by the City to allow cross access for pedestrians in areas of exceptionally long blocks or for access to recreational facilities or schools. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accessways. Where required at approved cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, or along blocks approved at more than the maximum block length standard, pedestrian and bicycle accessways must be constructed between lots to minimize travel distance between subdivisions, parks, schools, and collector or arterial streets. Accessways shall be located to provide a reasonably direct connection between likely pedestrian destinations, and shall be consistent with the Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, Transportation System Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan where applicable. The proposed language is intended to enhance existing requirements for pedestrian ways. This section of the code states what is required for accessways and mentions when they are required. These accessways are proposed to be included with the cul-de- sac and block length standards themselves. Page 79 of 281 47 | Page A reasonably direct connection is a route that minimizes out of direction travel for people likely to use the connection considering terrain, safety and likely destination. Required accessways shall conform to the most updated version of the Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. CHAPTER 21.20 LOTS AND BLOCKS 21.20.010 Block length. In general, intersecting streets shall be provided at such intervals as to serve cross traffic adequately and to meet existing streets or customary subdivision practices in the vicinity. Blocks shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Blocks for business use shall normally not be less than 600 feet in length. 21.20.020 Block width. The width of the block under normal conditions shall be sufficient to allow for two tiers of lots with easements. One tier of lots shall be provided between a local access street and an arterial. Blocks intended for business or industrial use should be of suitable width for the proposed use, taking due consideration for providing off-street parking and truck loading. Street Connectivity and Formation of Blocks. In order to promote efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the city, an interconnected street network shall serve subdivisions. 1) Block lengths and perimeters in all zones except the Heavy Commercial and Industrial zones shall not exceed the following standards as measured from centerline to centerline of through intersecting streets. Exceptions may be permitted pursuant to subsection (2) below. a. Block length shall not exceed 660 feet. b. Block perimeter shall not exceed 1,760 feet. 2) Block length may exceed 660 feet if an applicant demonstrates the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a. Physical conditions preclude a block length of 660 feet or less. These conditions may include topography or the existence of physical features, including, but not limited to: wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by State or Federal law; b. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots/parcels that physically preclude a block length 600 The proposed code establishes much stricter standards for block length than the existing PMC (660 feet versus 1,320 feet). Block lengths of six hundred feet are a common block length standard in Washington and Oregon. The addition of a block perimeter standard would promote multimodal connectivity. The proposed code also strengthens the block length standard by establishing specific conditions under which exceptions to the maximum block length may be permitted. In those cases, the sample code requires mid-block pedestrian and bicycle accessways to ensure connectivity for non-motorized users Page 80 of 281 48 | Page feet or less, considering the potential for redevelopment; or c. Where the extension of a public street into the proposed development would create a block length exceeding 660 feet, the total block length shall be as close to 660 feet as possible. 3) When a block length exceeds 660 feet due to one of the conditions listed in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(c), a mid-block pedestrian and bicycle accessway connection shall be provided Page 81 of 281 49 | Page Page 82 of 281 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2020 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: MF # CA2019-013 – Street Connectivity Background In an effort to align city regulations and standards with adopted goals and plans, staff has proposed an amendment to Title 21 “Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations.” The proposed amendment(s) are intended to provide a significant benefit that would be applicable to all future planning projects, specifically the development patterns within the Pasco Urban Growth Area. The changes address transportation efforts that support multi-modal planning, non- motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) travel, emergency access, safety, preservation and maintenance. Staff introduced proposed changes to address street connectivity beginning in December 2019. To date, The Planning Commission has held seven meetings including four public hearings on the item. A supplemental memorandum also accompanies the staff report that summarizes the prior information shared before the Pasco Planning Commission contains information relevant to the local setting, research, best practices and policy guidance and references. The Planning Commission has received significant input both in favor of, and in opposition to the proposed amendments. At the September 17, 2020 meeting of the Planning Commission, staff was directed to review input from the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities, make considerations for further revisions and to clearly specific components of the code (i.e., off-set intersections requirements). The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission summarizes the proposed amendments to Pasco Municipal Code Title 21 (Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations) Chapters 21.15 (Streets) and 21.20 (Lots and Blocks). Revisions Staff has made minor modifications and additions to the proposed code amendment. Those changes have been identified below: •Minimum Intersection Distance ATTACHMENT 2 Page 83 of 281 2 The addition of the minimum intersection distance will replace the current off-set intersection spacing requirements of PMC 21.15.020(2). The current minimum of 125’ was identified as a safety concern and will be replaced by the Stopping Sight Distance guidelines developed by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the Policy of Geometric Designs of Highways and Streets. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and AASHTO state that “stopping sight distance is the roadway distance required for a driver to perceive and react to an object in the roadway and to brake to a complete stop before reaching that object. Designers should provide sufficient stopping sight distance to road users throughout the intersection and on each entering and exiting approach.” Table 1 below will be incorporated in the proposed code amendment: Table 1: Minimum Intersection Distance and Spacing Speed (MPH) Minimum Intersection Distance (ft.) 25 155 30 200 35 250 40 305 45 360 50 425 55 495 60 570 65 645 Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration 1 specifies the need for adequate sight distance at intersections within the “Green Book” (Policy of Geometric Designs of Highways and Streets) with the following statement: "The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection should have an unobstructed view of the entire intersection, including any traffic-control devices, and sufficient lengths along the intersecting highway to permit the driver to anticipate and avoid potential collisions" Pasco’s Local Road Safety Plan2 indicated that there were 3,984 collisions between the years of 2014-2018. Of the most common collision types that resulted in fatal or serious injury, 42% involved collisions due to angle and/or left-turns. This is 11% higher than the average of cities east of the Cascade Mountains. Including the table allows any applicant to refer to specific guidance from transportation officials when designing their subdivisions. It should be noted that the City of Pasco will likely not require some of the lengthier distances as they are correlated with higher speed limits not typically found within the Urban Growth Area and specifically on municipal access ways. 1 Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population 2 2020 Local Road Safety Plan for the City of Pasco, February 26, 2020 Page 84 of 281 3 • Maximum Block Perimeter Staff has increased the allowable (maximum) block perimeter to 1,880’ for residential and 2,800 for light to medium commercial uses. The revisions represent increases of 120’ and 160’ from the prior proposal. The increases accommodate the necessary accommodation of right-of-way area required for any development. Staff believes that the increase to block perimeter maintains the integrity and benefit of the amendment and also providing relief for private development. The application of a block perimeter further promotes and guarantees that new development patterns will not prohibit choices for residents to travel in and out of the neighborhoods. When aligned with appropriate land use planning, benefits may include the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled. It is also supportive of the multi-modal planning efforts and goals (policies and plans) as adopted by the Pasco City Council, Ben Franklin Transit, Benton- Franklin Council of Governments and the Washington State Department of Transportation. • Public Accessways Staff has removed the requirement that would require the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle accessway in each cul-de-sac. In its place, staff has limited this requirement only to those cul- se-sacs within 1,320’ of any current or planned public facility or amenity such as parks, schools, hospitals, Ben Franklin Transit Facility, trail as determined by the Director of Community & Economic Development. Similar to the benefits of block perimeters, accessways reduce obstacles and travel time for those who travel by bike or foot to reach their destinations more easily. Figures 1 and 2 show the average size of blocks and time within ½ mile of a transit facility. Figure 1: Average Block Size (Acres) within ½ mile of Transit 0 5 10 15 20 25 Average Block Size (Acres) Page 85 of 281 4 Figure 2: Average Walking Time (Minutes) within ½ mile of Transit The results of figures 1 and 2 indicate that of the cities shown above, Pasco ranks in the mid- range of both average block size and average walk time near transit. Pasco has larger blocks near transit that the cities of Ellensburg, Kennewick and Marysville. It also takes longer to walk around the blocks in Pasco near transit than it does in the cities of Yakima, Wenatchee, and Walla Walla. Staff is also aware of the idea that the proposed amendments would increase the right-of-way requirements and area necessary for new developments. While the proposed amendments would increase the right-of-way, lot sizes are determined by the zoning requirements and development regulations specificity in Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code. Staff is underway on several amendments to Title 25 that would increase development flexibility and developable lots via House Bill 1923 enacted by the Legislature in 2019. Updated Policy Guidance The initiation of the proposed amendments are based on the current regulations not aligning and/or meeting established Council goals, policies, objectives and plans. Since the staff presentation at the September 17, 2020 Planning Commission, two significant resolutions were adopted by the Pasco City Council. On September 21, 2020, Council adopted an updated set of Council Goals for calendar years 2020-2021. On October 5, 2020, the Council adopted the 2018- 2038 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. Related goals, policies and objectives from each are provided below. 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 Average Time (Minutes) Page 86 of 281 5 Resolution No 3985: Establishment of Primary Council Goals for Years 2020-2021 Quality of Life: Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re-investment in community infrastructure by: o Ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities. o Updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re- development to promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design elements, e.g.: walkability, aesthetics, sustainability and community gathering spaces. Community Safety: Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by: o Working to achieve and maintain target fire response times through operational improvements and long-range strategic planning of facilities and staffing. Community Transportation Network: Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation system through: o Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access. o Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization of its recommendations to develop policies, regulations, programs and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency and safety Community Identity: Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion and image through: o Continued efforts of community surveying through traditional methods and the application of new technologies. Resolution No. 3998: 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 4-A: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. Land Use Policy 4-C: Encourage the development of walkable communities by increasing mixed-use (commercial/residential) developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial shopping opportunities. Land Use Policy 4-E: Encourage the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network. Land Use Policy 4-F: Support mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community. Page 87 of 281 6 Economic Development Policy 1-E: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning, is vital to economic development and attracting businesses. Economic Development Policy 1-F: Support and encourage residential/commercial mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods. Economic Development Policy 3-C: Provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes and parking. Capital Facilities Policy 1-B: Encourage public participation in defining the need for, the proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as parks, ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and improvements. Transportation Policy 1-A: Participate in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. Transportation Policy 1-B: Require transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of this plan. Transportation Policy 1-E: Encourage multi-modal street design with traffic calming and safety in consideration of surrounding land uses. Transportation Policy 1-F: Develop an interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity. Transportation Policy 1-H: Maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level-of- service “C” during the PM peak-hour. Transportation Policy 1-I: Require developments to meet the standards of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance. Transportation Policy 2-B: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that increase user accessibility during the development process. Transportation Policy 2-D: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes. Transportation Policy 2-G: Collaborate with transit agencies on the design of arterial streets to improve transit access. Page 88 of 281 7 Implementation Policy 1-A: Maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective. Implementation Policy 2-D: Ensure that all plans and studies shall be consistent with the goals, policies, and proposals of this comprehensive plan. Implementation Policy 4-A: Coordinate with other governmental units in preparing development regulations. Draft Recommendations Staff has updated and prepared a series of revisions to PMC Title 21 and are provided in Exhibit “A.” The Supplemental Memorandum on Street Connectivity is attached as Exhibit “B” and letters of support and opposition are attached as Exhibit “C.” RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing on the proposed code amendment CA2019-013 and recommend to the Pasco City Council the adoption of the proposed code amendment for Street Connectivity as contained in the October 15, 2020 Planning Commission staff report. Page 89 of 281 Page 90 of 281 Page 91 of 281 Page 92 of 281 Page 93 of 281 Page 94 of 281 Page 95 of 281 Page 96 of 281 Page 97 of 281 Page 98 of 281 Page 99 of 281 Page 100 of 281 Page 101 of 281 Page 102 of 281 Page 103 of 281 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 104 of 281 Page 105 of 281 Page 106 of 281 Page 107 of 281 Page 108 of 281 Page 109 of 281 Page 110 of 281 RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT External Email \\'arning! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not click links or open attach ments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Pasco Planning Commission, I work at Kadlec hospital and until fairly recently lived in West Pasco. I regularly commuted by bike or by bus from my home near Argent Road and Road 68 to Kadlec in Richland. However, getting to a grocery store or shopping are or even to a friend's home within West Pasco was often quite difficult due to the lack of street connectivity. I remember trying to bike to the home of a family member at the subdivision near Road 100, south of the freeway. That neighborhood is almost completely sunounded by privacy fencing and has few entry points so I could not reach the home in a direct manner and had to travel a long circuitous route on a sweltering summer day. A connected street grid would have made this trip much more efficient. I encourage you to please consider designing any future neighborhoods in traditional street grids with shorter block lengths so that people are not discouraged from traveling by bike, transit or on foot within the city of Pasco. I struggled with this as a resident of West Pasco and it was ultimately a main factor in my decision to move away. Sincerely, Maricela Sanchez From: Maricela Sanchez <maricela.sgr@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:36 PM To: Kristin Webb <webbk@pasco-wa.gov> Subject: Street Connectivity Page 111 of 281 I-�;\1i; _; ••, • '� ' • • l : • ' • IA I ··,:-:·:' '�,-�... -,:,, � Jacob Gonzalez Senior Planner Community and Economic Development Department City of Pasco 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 RECEIVED AUo 1 9 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RE: Comments Regarding MF# CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity, August 20, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Mr. Gonzalez: On behalf of Big Sky Developers LLC, we have reviewed the proposed street connectivity code amendments and determined there are significant (potentially unintended) negative consequences that need more vetting by the development community and City staff before the public comment period is closed on this item. We ask that the proposed motion to close the public hearing be removed and replaced with a recommendation to continue the public hearing to the September 17, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting. We agree that continual review and improvements of development standards is necessary. Specifically, we agree improvements to vehicle and pedestrian connectivity can and should be made. For these improvements to be made successfully, input from all stakeholders needs to be sought. A substantial amount of information has been provided in support of the street connectivity amen dments, but no information was found discussing the inherent negative tradeoffs. As the attached exhibit shows, input from the development community is crucial to providing well thought out improvements to the code in order to achieve the desired end state of increased connectivity. The current proposal will decrease density, drive up the cost of new housing, and limit the development potential of undeveloped property. These three items are significant and can be properly mitigated. We hope you and City staff will consider our request reasonable and recommend the Planning Commission continue the public hearing. We also encourage you to schedule a virtual meeting with local developers and other members of our development community in order to get input and come up with alternative connectivity solutions that work for everyone. Collectively we can provide the residents of the City of Pasco a better comm unity to live in. Sincerely, Caleb Stromstad, PE Principal Engineer Aqtera Engineering Enclosures: Exhibit A -Proposed Street Connectivity Impacts Cc: Dave Greeno, Big Sky Developers, LLC 2705 St. Andrews Loop, Suite C I Pasco, WA 99301 I 509.845.0208 , ,�,. 1, I info@aqtera.com .r 1: I AQTERA.COM 8/19/20 Page 112 of 281 Page 113 of 281 Page 114 of 281 Jacob Gonzalez Senior Planner Home Builders Ass�ciation of Tri-Cities Building the Tri-Cities since 1958 Community and Economic Development Department City of Pasco 525 N. 3rd Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Subject: Public Hearing Submittal -Street Connectivity (MF# CA 2019-013) August 20, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting August 20, 2020 RECEIVED AUu 2 0 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (HBA), a non-profit trade association representing nearly 600 members who employ over 6000 people in the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla areas, I would like to submit our concern over the proposed street connectivity changes. We ask that the proposed motion to close the public hearing be removed and replaced with a recommendation to continue the public hearing to the September 17 1\ 2020 Planning Commission Meeting. The HBA would like to host a Zoom meeting offering members the opportunity to have input on the proposed changes. In the past we have worked with the City of Pasco on many difficult decisions regarding development changes. We understand the need for change in trying to accommodate one of the fastest growing counties in the state. As the HBA will be one of the most affected stakeholders by this proposed change it seems appropriate to have a meeting where we can invite the developers to make comments to be sure it is properly vetted. In the wake of what has been a very difficult year for the construction industry which is seeing further shortages of labor and supply chain disruptions, adding more regulations now will make housing even more un-affordable. The discussion we continue to hear is there isn't enough affordable housing available, yet the proposed changes will only exacerbate a statewide problem by increasing lot prices to every home buyer. This seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to help the housing crisis. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, .... -·---�-$--� Jeffery Losey Executive Director Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities, WA 10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick, WA 99336 (509) 735-2745 or (877) 842-8453 I Fax: (509) 735-8470 I www.hbatc.com Page 115 of 281 11111 r■:1 ENGINEERINGl!a IIIIPLLC From: 4;:::::::-John Fetterolf I r To: City of Pasco Planning/ Planning Commission RE: Proposed Street Connectivity code revision nCl,tlVCU AUG 2 7 2020 Date: August 27, 2020 As a private development engineer that has worked on projects in the City of Pasco for the past 18 years, I felt it important to provide feedback to the proposed revision to the PMC regarding Street Connectivity. Block lengths being required at a maximum of 660'. In brief, I am opposed to this revision. 1 . A block length of 660' obviously results in additional intersections. Each intersection has an associated risk to the traveling public in the form of collisions with other vehicles and creates additional points of vehicle/ pedestrian conflict and potential injury. This is a life-safety issue, contrary to Pasco's Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-2. 2.Each additional cross street also results in additional impervious surfaces which increases stormwater runoff and increases the heat mounding effect to the urban area. Both items are a negative to our shared environment. This is contrary to Pasco's Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-3. 3.Each additional cross street results in reduced net usable area for homes. The Tri­ Cities is in a housing crisis with a shortage of SFR lots. This proposed code revision does nothing to assist to resolve that issue and does little to improve the quality of life of it's residences. 4.Intersections with collector and arterial roadways should be limited. To facilitate an efficient transportation system, intersections to major thoroughfares must be restricted. Multiple intersections along these routes create significant risk to the traveling public and length travel times due to traffic slowing to turn in / out of the system. Should increasing pedestrian mobility/flexibility be the goal, as an alternative I would suggest intra-block pedestrian pathways. Future Street Plan -In brief, I am opposed to this revision. There are so many problems with this requirement, I hardly know where to start. To try and require one development to prepare a layout on adjacent parcel or parcels "within 600 feet" of their boundary is well intentioned but completely pointless, costly to implement, and unduly burdensome on the applicant. In my 27-year history of working on private development, I have never run into an instance where a property could not develop due to conflict with a previous development layout. 7500 W Clearwater, Ste A • Kennewick, WA • 509.551.8174 • John@JFEngineering.pro l!:llli Page 116 of 281 Page 117 of 281 Page 118 of 281 Page 119 of 281 Page 120 of 281 Page 121 of 281 Page 122 of 281 Page 123 of 281 Page 124 of 281 Page 125 of 281 Washington State Department of Transportation October 15, 2020 RECEIVED Lil-·,· l 5 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Commissioners South Central Region 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903-1648 509-577-1600 I FN< 509-577-1603TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Bowers, Campos, Mendez, Jennings, Campos, Myhrum, Teel, Hendler, and Cochran City of Pasco 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 9930 I Re: Code Amendment (CA2019-013) Street Connectivity Dear Commissioners; Bowers, Campos, Mendez, Jennings, Campos, Myhrum, Teel, Hendler, and Cochran, The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) commends the City of Pasco for your efforts to update the Pasco Municipal Code to integrate clear street connectivity requirements. The changes will advance state policy goals (including those outlined in RCW 36.?0A.020 and RCW 47.04.280) as well as implementing long-established local goals and policies as reflected in Pasco's Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan and the upcoming Transportation System Master Plan. The proposed ordinance is exactly the type of regulation that a growing number of cities have already adopted and is considered a model of smart development regulations. WSDOT's South Central Region has previously provided written comments in support of Pasco's street connectivity ordinance and Transportation System Master Plan. This letter adds to our previous letter to address the significance of these actions from a statewide perspective. The state legislature has established duties for WSDOT, including developing strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita, promoting integrated multimodal planning, considering efficiency tools, balancing system safety and convenience for all users of the transpo1tation system, and designing environmentally sustainable, context-sensitive transportation systems. The critical importance of network connectivity is well-established nationally and internationally. This is reflected in guidance such as the US Department of Transportation's Promoting Connectivity efforts, Federal Highway Administration's Guidebook for Measuring Multimodal Connectivity, the National Association of City Transportation Official's Global Street Design Guide, and numerous articles and guidance from the Urban Land Institute. A connected street network is a smart investment in the financial future of Pasco and its people. For most people, housing plus transportation are the two largest household expenses. Connected networks lower transportation expenses by making more trips feasible by walking, bicycling, and transit; sho11ening travel distances by car (reducing gas consumption and vehicle wear and tear); and by giving household members who can't drive (or don't have access to a car) greater mobility independence. By enabling more physical activity, connected street networks can further reduce burdens on families by contributing to better health and lower medical costs. Page 126 of 281 Page 127 of 281 RECEIVED Dear Pasco Planning Commissioner's, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I am a resident of Richland, but I understand that how neighborhoods in Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland are designed effects the entire Tri-Cities community as a whole. I live in Central Richland because it's a great place to walk and bicycle. I fully support the changes to city code that your planning department has proposed. I would hope that Richland would do the same. Central Richland was designed in the 1940s with small block sizes on a grid with pedestrian and bicycle access paths, neighborhood parks, neighborhood commercial hubs, and many duplexes mixed alongside single family homes within medium density neighborhoods. This makes central Richland a fairly safe and pleasant place to walk and bicycle as a form of transportation and recreation and a desirable place to live. I'm a mother and I know many other parents who prioritized walkability and bikeability when buying their homes. Children need to be able to walk and bicycle safely to school, to the 711, and to the park. Parents enjoy walking and bicycling to work. Lollipop suburban sprawl is not desirable to young people. The alternative is not high density urban living. The alternative is medium density neighborhoods that are accessible to people walking and bicycling, to transit, and to emergency vehicles. Of course local developers want to keep building lollipop suburban sprawl because it's cheaper for them. But it's more expensive for our cities in the long run and unsustainable .. Residents have a right to walk and bicycle to schools, transit, grocery, pharmacies, community centers, parks, and medical clinics. It is irresponsible of our cities to allow neighborhoods where driving is mandated to be built. 1/3 or the population cannot drive. Driving vehicles is not an equitable form of transportation. Our population is aging. It's important that we are well prepared for the baby boomer generation to age in place, which means that they will need transportation options besides driving. Growing up in Richland, I've come to know it's people. I know Dora, the 84yr old lady with dementia who walks 3hrs a day around town with her walker. I know Robin, who is probably schizophrenic, and walks Richland's streets talking and yelling to himself. I knew aunt Margaret, who did as well, until she was killed by a car driver. These people grew up in Richland too and are a part of our community. We have a responsibility to design neighborhoods to be safe and practical for all residents regardless of age or ability. Our current codes and zoning laws our outdated, relics of the autocentric 20th century. Pasco is fortunate to have dedicated city planners cleaning up the mess and moving the city into the 21st century and sustainable and equitable growth. Sincerely, Laila Krowiak Richland Page 128 of 281 RECEIVED . Ut.. I 1 5 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONO MIC DEVELOPMEN T Good evening Planning Commission and interested parties, My name is Margaret Vincent, I am a resident of Kennewick. I come to you as a League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor who volunteers in the Pasco School District. The program I co-lead with an educator is an afterschool bicycling program at the middle school level. This program includes learning bicycle and traffic safety, learning to ride alone and in a group, and basic mechanics. During the 3 years I have worked with this program teaching route planning and assisting the participants with determining the safest routes to walk or ride to their intended destinations it has become clear to me that active transportation (walk, bike, etc.) is a challenge for our community. When participants in the program are handed the area wide bicycle map and asked to circle places they would like to get to on their bike they consistently circle the Pasco Library, the Rec Center (swimming pool), McDonalds, Fiesta Foods, the fishing pond in Columbia Park, and the river trails. All places we like our youth to visit. I encourage you to put on your walker/bicyclist hat, grab that map, and find a route to any one of these locations from your home or school safely and comfortably. Unlike me many Pasco residents do not use active transportation by choice. Many are unable to get a license to drive or are unable to afford a car. Having safe connecting routes provides them with opportunities for transportation independence that are currently lacking. This in turn allows them lifestyle and economic opportunities currently closed to them. Examples might include a job, the library, the swimming pool, the senior center, a visit to family. This is the reason I am writing you. Those who do not or cannot use a car to get to places must move along very busy and heavily traveled streets. They must make crossings at confusing busy intersections sometimes not marked and frequently out of the most direct route, often as far as¼ mile. The routes may not have sidewalks even on those busy roads. The physical barriers to getting to the locations identified by the bicycle club participants are many. As a user and teacher of active transportation skills, I will affirm to you, the least expensive, safest, and most desirable active transportation routes are through neighborhoods. The speeds are slower, the number of vehicles is lower, drivers are more aware, and the path is frequently just as direct. The proposal before begins to make an incremental difference for our youth, and others who do not qualify for a driver license. Intentional traffic connectivity encourages people to use alternative transportation via safe routes through neighborhoods to desirable locations. Being out of our cars provides opportunities to engage with our neighbors and fosters a deeper sense of community. As we continue to plan our quickly expanding communities, let us work in support of more connectivity for active transportation and livability equity for all. I ask you to please approve these code changes and get the sneakers walking and bikes rolling as transportation for all our community members. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Triangle Corner Consulting & Training Page 129 of 281 Home Builders Ass:,ciation or Tri-Cities RECEIVED Ul. I l 5 2020 Building the Tri-Cities since 1958 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Jacob Gonzalez Senior Planner Community and Economic Development Department City of Pasco 525 N. 3 rd Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Subject: Public Hearing Submittal -Street Connectivity (MF# CA 2019-013) October 15, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (HBA), a non-profit trade association representing nearly 600 members who employ over 6000 people in the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla areas, I would like to submit our continued concern over the proposed street connectivity changes. The proposed Street Connectivity Code Amendment has many negative consequences and some, not all, are listed below: •Increased Development Costs -Development costs will increase 10% to 20% due to the proposed code amendments. •Decreased Density -Additional streets caused by the reduced block length will decrease achievable lot density by over 10%. •Increased Legal Liability for City -Case law has proven that stubbing streets to adjacent properties without proper justification places the jurisdictional authority in a vulnerable position for a lawsuit. The City of Kennewick does not require stubbed streets for this very reason. •Increase of Intersection Conflict Points -Intersections are by nature points of conflict. Increasing the number of intersections by reducing block lengths increases the risk for pedestrian-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts. These are significant safety consideration that need to be properly vetted. We appreciate the time you have spent on putting this code amendment together and we would like to help get it over the finish line. Our committee has submitted proposed changes as of the last meeting. Some of those concerns have been addressed and others go unanswered or un-addressed. We have had one meeting to offer alternatives year to date. The last meeting was a presentation not a working meeting as we just discussed what was being presented at tonight's meeting. We are asking that this proposed code amendment be rejected in its entirety by the Planning Commission, with the recommendation to work with the Development Community in coming up with a street connectivity change that is prepared collaboratively. Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities, WA 10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick, WA 99336 (509)735-2745 or (877) 842-8453 I Fax: (509) 735-8470 I www.hbatc.com Page 130 of 281 Page 131 of 281 Land Property Size in Acres 16 16 Site Improvements Lots 64 56 Hard and Soft Costs Lots 64 56 Total Land Costs Lots 64 56 Cost Impact to consumer Lots 64 56 Additional cost impacts Increased lumber cost Wasington Engery Code Dev Cost increases $ per Ac $ 75,000 $ 75,000 LF Steets 2,320 2,880 Land $ 18,750 $ 21,429 Cost per lot $ 48,000 $ 59,786 $ 16,000 $ 10,000 $ 11,786 Total cost for land $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 Cost per LF $ 600 $ 600 Site Imp. $ 21,750 $ 30,857 1500 SF RECEIVED Ul. I 1 5 2020 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Lot Yield Cost per lot 64 $ 18,750 56 $ 21,429 Additional Cost per Lot $ 2,679 Total cost 1,392,000 1,728,000 Additional Cost per Lot H&S cost $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Additional Cost per Lot Addit ional Cost per Sale Cost per lot $ 21,750 $ 30,857 $ 9,107 Cost per lot $ $ 7,500 7,500 Cost per lot $ 48,000 $ 59,786 $ 11,786 ASP $ 275,000 $ 311,000 $ 36,000 $ 48,000 $ 30,000 $ 36,000 Grand Total cost passed to consumer $ 114,000 Page 132 of 281 Page 133 of 281 From: Sarah Dallosto <sarah_dallosto@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:01 PM To: Jacob Gonzalez <gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov> Subject: Support the Pasco Connectivity Ordinance External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jacob Gonzalez, Dear Mr. Gonzalez, I'm writing today to ask you to support street connectivity in Pasco and support ordinance Street Connectivity MF# CA 2019-013. This street connectivity ordinance will support a safe and equitable multi-modal transportation system. There is a large disparity in access to safe, efficient transportation options in our community. US Census Bureau data (2012-2016) indicates that in some places in Pasco, over 18% of households do not own a vehicle, higher than the national average of 8.6% of households without a vehicle. Street connectivity will improve safety, access to employment and amenities, and help our most vulnerable road users: children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Pedestrians—in particular those with mobility issues and children walking unaccompanied to school—require direct routes that do not expose them to fast moving, high volume traffic. Connectivity will help remove barriers to active transportation and will encourage an active lifestyle and improve the health of our community. Additionally, connectivity will have a net economic value. People living and visiting places with safe, pleasant biking and walking options consider these places more “livable” and are more likely to frequent local businesses. Finally, encouraging active transportation is good for the environment; motor vehicles, roads and parking facilities are a major source of air and water pollution. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Sarah Dallosto Tukwila, WA 98188 Page 134 of 281 People Place Prosperity Posterity 3555 Strawberry Lane, Richland, WA 99352 March 1, 2020 To: City of Pasco City Council Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director Jacob Gonzales, Senior Planner From: Executive Board of Sustainable Tri-Cities Re: Comments on the City of Pasco Street Connectivity MF# CA 2019-013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sustainable Tri-Cities works throughout the Tri-Cities to promote and advocate for livable and sustainable principles and practices, bringing stakeholders together to create and maintain a community-wide collaborative effort, improving quality of life for all residents, and building resilience in the Tri-Cities region. We strive for mobility equity, safety measures for vulnerable road users and an infrastructure encouraging active transportation. We support the City of Pasco street connectivity amendments with revisions to the minimum intersection distance, maximum block perimeter, and public accessways. We appreciate the City’s efforts to develop a safe, healthy, and equitable transportation system. We support an effective multi-modal transportation system for a variety of reasons. There is a large disparity in access to safe, efficient transportation options and we encourage the cities to address the inequities while addressing transportation needs. Access to a safe network of trails and bike paths encourages an active lifestyle and improves the health of our community. People out walking and bicycling are also more likely to frequent local businesses and often spend more money locally than those who drive. Furthermore, street connectivity will help our most vulnerable road users: children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Pedestrians—in particular those with mobility issues and children walking unaccompanied to school—require direct routes that do not expose them to vehicles traveling in excess of 20 mph or to high volumes of vehicles. We encourage local governments to prioritize pedestrian accessibility, safety, and comfort by designing infrastructure that supports active transportation on trips less than 2 miles from home. Desire lines between neighborhoods, transit stops, and amenities (stores, parks, libraries, medical centers and places of employment) should be the shortest and safest route alternative. Identifying and removing barriers along these routes is critical as well. We would like to thank the City of Pasco for the opportunity to comment on Street Connectivity MF# CA 2019-013 and recommend the Council approve the ordinance. This street connectivity ordinance will support a safe and equitable multi-modal transportation system. Sincerely, James Wise President Page 135 of 281 PilSco October 27, 2020 Jeff Losey, Executive Officer Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities 10001 W. Clearwater Avenue Kennewick, Washington 99336 RE: CA2019-013 Street Connectivity Jeff: Community & Economic Development Department PO Box 293, 525 N 3 rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499 At the October 15, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission recommended to the Pasco City Council the adoption of the proposed Street Connectivity Code Amendment (CA2019- 013). As you are aware, the proposed amendment contains changes to the existing regulations with additional considerations to ensure the mobility needs of our community are met. The proposed amendment was shared with the Pasco Planning Commission beginning in December 2019 and included eight meetings, of which six were public hearings. Although the specific changes to the Pasco Municipal Code may be considered new by some, the interest of the public and fundamental need to make these course corrections as soon as possible have been well documented. References to policy guidance and professional "best-practices" were identified in each staff report and reiterated during each presentation to the Planning Commission. Additionally, Resolution No 3985 (September 21, 2020) and Resolution No 3998 (October 5, 2020) established Council Goals for years 2020-2021 and adoption of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan. In both, substantial references to transportation efficiency, safety, accessibility and mobility were emphasized. In an effort to continue the dialogue with the members of the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities, staff has provided a description of the proposed changes that includes why they have been incorporated and their application. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 136 of 281 Page 137 of 281 Page 138 of 281 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington Relating to Street Connectivity Requirements and Amending the Pasco Municipal Code WHEREAS, the development of a more complete transportation network can improve pedestrian safety, increase mobility options for residents and visitors and promote improvements in public health; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the reduction and dependency of vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-C of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of walkable communities by increasing mixed-use (commercial/residential) developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial shopping opportunities; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network; and WHEREAS, Land Use Policy 4-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan supports mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community; and WHEREAS, Economic Development Policy 1-E of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan recognizes that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning, is vital to economic development and attracting businesses; and WHEREAS, Economic Development Policy 1-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan supports and encourages residential and commercial mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Economic Development Policy 3-C of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires appropriate mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires participation in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton- Franklin Council of Governments; and EXHIBIT A Page 139 of 281 WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-B of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires that our transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-E of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages multi-modal street design with traffic calming and safety in consideration of surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-F of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the development of interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-H of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires that the City maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level-of- service “C” during the PM peak-hour; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 1-I of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires developments to meet the standards of the Pasco Complete Streets Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 2-B of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that increase user accessibility during the development process; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 2-D of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes; and WHEREAS, Transportation Policy 2-G of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to collaborate with transit agencies on the design of arterial streets to improve transit access; and WHEREAS, Implementation Policy 1-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective; and WHEREAS, Implementation Policy 4-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan requires the City to coordinate with other governmental units in preparing development regulations; and WHEREAS, the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identified a series of goals and policies to address the growing demands of bicycling and walking as a means of travel and to achieve a more balanced transportation system; and WHEREAS, The Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance #4389 – Complete Streets Policy on July 2, 2018 indicating that the development of a more complete transportation network can improve pedestrian safety, increase the transportation networks capacity and promote improvements in public health; and Page 140 of 281 WHEREAS, Pasco’s Complete Street Policy states that transportation costs can be reduced when local infrastructure encourages active transportation, which helps families replace car trips with bicycling, walking or taking public transit; and WHEREAS, Pasco’s Complete Streets Policy states that when roads are designed and maintained to attract pedestrians, the local economy improves and is diversified from increased buyers, creating job growth and increased investment in the area including surrounding property values; and WHEREAS, Resolution #3853 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions adopted by the Pasco City Council in 2018 endorsed a set a policies and procedures satisfying the Washington State Public Work’s Board requirement and to recognize that the policies will benefit the City of Pasco in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, Policy G-1 of Pasco’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution encourages development patterns that utilize existing infrastructure, reduce the need for new roads, utilizes and enhance non-automobile transportation; and WHEREAS, Policy J-1 of Pasco’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution states the City shall consider transportation projects that will contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles travelled per capita, while maintaining economic vitality and sustainability; and WHEREAS, Policy J-2 of Pasco’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Resolution states the City shall provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and bicyclists, to, across, and along major transit priority streets; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council recognized the importance of a highly-functional, multi-modal transportation network supporting the integration and facilitation of traffic flow, pedestrian, bicycle and non-motorized modes of transportation as a Council Goal in 2018-2019; WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council stated ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities as a Council Goal in 2018-2019; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council adopted Resolution 3895 on September 21, 2020, that establish a set of primary Council Goals for years 2020-2021; and WHEREAS, ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities is supportive of Council Goals on Quality of Life; and WHEREAS, updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re- development to promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design elements, including walkability is supportive of Council Goals on Quality of Life; and Page 141 of 281 WHEREAS, working to achieve and maintain target fire response times is supportive of Council Goals on Community Safety; and WHEREAS, continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access is supportive of Council Goals on Community Transportation Network; and WHEREAS, utilization and development of policies, regulations, programs and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency and safety is supportive of Council Goals on Community Transportation Network. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 21.10.20 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to remove the stricken language and updated with the following: 21.10.020 Terms Defined “Block” means a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within a well defined fixed boundary “Block” means a group of lots, tracts or parcels bound by public right-of-way including streets, pedestrian access ways, and other circulation routes intended for public access “Block Length” means the distance as measured along the street centerline intersecting streets “Block Perimeter” means the distance as measured along the street-centerline encompassing a block. Section 2. That Section 21.15 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to remove the stricken language and updated with the following: 21.15.010 Street layout. 21.15.010 Street Connectivity 21.15.010(1) Continuation of Existing Streets. Streets shall normally continue as an extension of existing streets unless good planning dictates a different solution. Street patterns shall take into consideration access needed to develop adjacent properties. Sketches of a proposed street system to serve adjoining properties may be required if it is owned by the subdivider. Page 142 of 281 21.15.010(1) Connectivity to Abutting Lands. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed to connect to existing, proposed, and planned streets adjacent to the subdivision. Wherever a proposed development abuts unplatted land or a future development phase of an existing development, street stubs shall be provided to allow access to future abutting subdivisions and to extend the street system into the surrounding area. Street ends shall contain turnarounds constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards, and shall be designed to facilitate future extension in terms of grading, width, and temporary barricades. 21.15.010(2) Dead-End Streets. Dead-end streets are prohibited; except, where the Comprehensive Plan or preliminary plat indicates a street is to continue past the subdivider’ s property, the City may allow the dead end until such time as the street can be built through at a later date. Dead-end streets may be permitted in the R-S-20 and R-S- 12 districts as provided in PMC 21.15.080. 21.15.010(2) Future Street Plan. The applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision shall file where a subdivision is proposed must demonstrate, pursuant to City standards, that the proposed development does not preclude future street connections to adjacent lands. 21.15.020(2) Intersections on opposite sides of a common street shall either be aligned or be offset a minimum of 125 feet. 21.15.020(2) Offset intersections are not permitted. Intersection spacing shall be based on the minimum distance between intersections in the table below: Speed (MPH) Minimum Intersection Distance (ft) 25 155 30 200 35 250 40 305 45 360 50 425 55 495 21.16.060 Local access streets. When possible, access streets shall be planned so as to discourage through traffic to short cut onto collector streets and primary and secondary arterials. When possible, local access streets shall be planned to safely channel traffic within neighborhoods to surrounding neighborhoods. 21.15.070 Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs will be permitted where topography or other conditions justify their use. Page 143 of 281 (1) Cul-de-sacs should normally be less than 300 feet, but will be permitted up to 600 feet in length. (2) Right-of-Way Widths. Minimum right-of-way widths for all cul-de-sacs shall not be less than 60 feet with a 110-foot diameter turnaround. (3) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all cul-de-sacs shall not be not less than: (a) Thirty-six feet from the face of curb to the face of curb, with an 90-foot turnaround; (b) Thirty-six feet of the pavement width pavement, with a 80-foot turnaround in the RS- 12 and RS-20 zones without curbs. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.12.070.] 21.15.070 Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall only be permitted when the applicant demonstrates that natural features or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or compliance with other applicable City requirements preclude a street extension and through circulation. Where the Director of Community & Economic Development determines that a cul-de- sac is allowed, all of the following standards shall be met: 1) The cul-de-sac shall not exceed a length of 600 feet, except where the Director of Community & Economic Development determines that topographic or other physical constraints of the site require a longer cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the cul-de-sac. 2) Compliance with the most updated version of the Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. 3) The cul-de-sac shall provide, when within 1,320’ of any site (lot) of an existing or planned public facility shall not preclude the opportunity to later install, a pedestrian and bicycle accessway connecting to adjacent developments, or adjacent developable lands. Such accessways shall conform to the latest City Design and Construction Standards and Specifications 21.15.100 Pedestrian Ways. Pedestrian ways may be required by the City to allow cross access for pedestrians in areas of exceptionally long blocks or for access to recreational facilities or schools. 21.15.100 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accessways. Where required at approved cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, or along blocks approved at more than the maximum block length standard, pedestrian and bicycle accessways must be constructed between lots to minimize travel distance between subdivisions, parks, schools, and collector or arterial streets. Accessways shall be located to provide a reasonably direct connection between likely pedestrian destinations, and shall be consistent with the Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, Transportation System Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan where applicable. Page 144 of 281 A reasonably direct connection is a route that minimizes out of direction travel for people likely to use the connection considering terrain, safety and likely destination. Required accessways shall conform to the most updated version of the Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. Section 3. That Section 21.20 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to remove the stricken language and updated with the following: 21.20.010 Block Length In general, intersecting streets shall be provided at such intervals as to serve cross traffic adequately and to meet existing streets or customary subdivision practices in the vicinity. Blocks shall not exceed 1,320 feet. Blocks for business use shall normally not be less than 600 feet in length. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.16.010.] 21.20.010 Street Connectivity and Formation of Blocks In order to promote efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the city, an interconnected street network shall serve subdivisions. 1) Block lengths and perimeters in all zones except the Heavy Commercial and Industrial zones shall not exceed the following standards as measured from centerline to centerline of through intersecting streets. Exceptions may be permitted pursuant to subsection (2) below. a. Block length shall not exceed 660 feet. b. Block perimeter shall not exceed 1,880 feet. 2) Block length and perimeters may be exceeded feet if an applicant demonstrates the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a. Physical conditions preclude a block length of 660 feet or less. These conditions may include topography or the existence of physical features, including, but not limited to: wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by State or Federal law; b. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots/parcels that physically preclude a block length of 660 feet or less, considering the potential for redevelopment; c. Where the extension of a public street into the proposed development would create a block length exceeding 660 feet, the total block length shall be as close to 660 feet as possible. d. Multi-family dwellings of 20 or more units on a single lot; Page 145 of 281 e. Lands zoned for Government, Quasi-Public or civic use including medical facilities; f. Blocks zoned for light or medium commercial districts shall not exceed perimeters more than 2,800 feet. g. Residential Lands bound by Interstate I-182 (North), US 395 (East) and the Columbia River (West, South) shall have maximum block lengths of 1,000 feet. No block perimeter maximum is required; 3) When block length or perimeter exceeds the established maximums due to one of the conditions listed in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(g), a mid-block pedestrian and bicycle accessway connection shall be provided. Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by the law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, and approved as provided by law this ________ day of __ [INSERT DATE] _____________________________ Saul Martinez, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ __________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Page 146 of 281 Street Connect ivity Meeting -September 10 , 2020@ 1 :00 pm In Attendance : Rick White, Jacob Gonzalez, Kristin Webb , Dan Ford , Steve Worley, Derek Alexander, Stephen Bauman , Brian Thoreson , Caleb Stromstad , Kyle , Jeff Losey , Christine Bateyola , Miguel Rodriquez, Nathan Machiela , Paul Harmsen , Paul Laverent iev , Duane LaPierre , Jonathan Jones , John Fettero lf , Chris Ammann Jacob Gonzalez-Sen ior Planner started the meeting off by stating the objective of the Street Connectivity was to meet establ ished goals and policies to include : 2008 Comprehensive Plan 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Complete Streets Policy 2018-2019 Pasco City Council Goals 2018 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction In Progress : 2038 Comprehensive Plan In Progress : Transportat ion System Master Plan Ben Franklin Transit Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) This is what initiated th is code amendment. The next slide is what we have presented to the plann ing comm ission. The first recommendation that is greyed out is what was recommended to us by our Transportation Master Plan . In scenario number two , which is staff's recommendation you can see we slightly altered it and changed the Max Block Perimeter. But the bas is of this is to require maximum block length , maximum block perimeter , and addit ional connectiv ity standards that guarantee future residents of the City of Pasco and anyone that uses our transportation network , a system that for any user by any mode and provide as many options as we can . We noticed there has been sign ificant barriers to transportation mobility in our commun ity specifically in those developments that have occurred in the last twenty to thirty years , of what we had in some of the older parts of the City. This isn 't just the City of Pasco , I think anybody without these standards experience the same kind of trend across the country that Pasco has experienced , however with the City continuing to grow another forty to fifty thousand residents that just by the year 2040 increase congestion and limited arterial , concerns for safety , mobility , and also the input from members of the community from the survey 's. We all believe what you see in front of us on the screen best meets the goals established by council and the interest show to us by members of the community. It was asked if anyone has any questions about what Jacob Gonzalez has talked about already . Caleb Stromstad stated he just sent out an email out a table that he feels would be helpful it shows proposed changes because really we are talking about nine different Page 147 of 281 changes. Jacob Gonzalez put up the email that Caleb sent to him which is included in these minutes. Caleb Stromstad stated he didn 't have code references as he just threw this together this morning , all it is a table pretty self-explanatory first column Pasco Current standards , the what is proposed , and then what Kennew ick , Richland , and West Richland standards are as a reference point. Block length is be ing cut in half by more than 50%, the new block perimeter is being proposed I'm not familiar with any other agency having one of those , there is a requirement to connecting to sub street adjacent land , the ex ist ing requirement if there is an existing street you have to extend it the new requirement is any undeveloped land you have to sub a street too . The interesting one is future street plan on adjacent property the current plan or the proposal is if your developing a piece of property and there is undeveloped property near you , you have to go 600 ' into that property and develop a street plan and show how your streets are going to effect that property. The Cu l-de-sacs the max length is be ing reduced by 200 ' there is also a requirement that if there is a cul-de-sac is allowed you have to account for pedestrian access through the end of the cul-de-sac . Mid-block crossing anything over 660 ' so if you go over the new minimum block length there are certain conditions you have to put a m id-b lock crossing. The last one is intersection offsets you can see everybody is 125 ' across the board and the City of Pasco is proposing increase to 200 ' the biggest problem I see with that one is infill development. Hopefully we can come up with come consensus recommendations , this is going to go in front of the planning commission next week and the plann ing commission is going to pass this recommendat ion or close the public hearing at the last planning commission meeting then meet in September to finalize and send it to City Council , we asked that they extend the public hearing one more month to allow the development commun ity to speak on th is at the pla n ning comm iss ion meet ing next week , but planning commission is set on making a recommendation to council and clos ing the public hearing at least that is what they said at the August meeting. Stephen Bauman stated one of the things is to take the intersection offset from 125 ' and extended it to 200 ' appears to be trying to fix a problem that doesn 't exist and a few of these things appear to be that way. Right off in the beginning , I am very disappointed that the City of Pasco did not reach out to the development community in a way that they did to other agencies such as Washington State Department of Transportation and other utilities there was a very organized and coordinated effort it appeared to reach out to other outside government agencies but not to the development community . That seems to be a pattern that the City of Pasco has had in this and a few other issues that they tried to get before and I do understand and appreciate that there is a bit of a challenge with the Covid right now that has hampered that to some extent but I don 't th ink that changes the need for the reach out to those of us that have an interest in how this is developed . I would second everything else that Caleb Stromstad said. Jacob Gonzalez stated that this is being recorded and notes are being taken and will be provided to the planning commission as well as be made part of the record . Jeff Losey stated I just wanted to share thank you for allowing us to hold this meeting , I did share with you and wanted to share with the rest of those that are on this call that Page 148 of 281 this being an odd year we have been hamstrung as an association and in the beginning of the summer we were focused on just trying to build , and we did not catch this as it came through and you all were having discussions about it. It was actually something that we missed and we appreciate the opportunity to stretch this out and hopefully some of the things we do discuss today and one of my concerns that I did share in my letter for the planning commission to consider it, and so in going through the packet somewhere in there must be discussion about mixed use development because as I look at if you 're going to have 600 ' lengths come in and were decreasing those road blocks to allow more people to be mobile by bicycle and walking there has to be some place for them to go. I know during your presentation it was all about how many people walk to school but as development continues where is the goal in this to create those mixed used developments for them to walk to , are there incentives out there for developers to include that as part of their plan and also when I was reading it, it talks about builders will need to account for potential increase cost as the frequency of street replacement and connectors. I don 't see anywhere where it's going to be less as that goes on and there will be less lots and you do mention the fact that it will require obviously more roads and less housing . In the words of this pamphlet, that you have that housing will impact profit. And I just want to make it clear for the planning commission members to that whatever the cost of this that is the end result of where we are trying to get to in mobility the end user is always going to be the one to pay for it, and so we shrink the number potential purchasers based on the cost of acquisition. So the builders, developers this is all a pass along to the final end user which means there are going to less folks that can afford properties that are coming in . Jacob Gonzalez stated that you mention two topics one you mentioned mixed use and incentives, on the mixed use I think you are talking about the land use planning. Jeff Losey said that is correct. Jacob Gonzalez that is good timing because hopefully we are moving forward with a new Comprehensive plan. That does emphasize more variety of land use that is more compatible with mobile transportation opportunity here. So that is an increase in commercial and residential uses near each other also includes increase density in and near around each other, obviously there is not much we can do with what has been developed already but this is mainly and with this item as well this item won 't really impact much of the existing City limits or the Urban Growth area much of it has already been developed. It will have a significant impact on the future Urban Growth area and it is one of the reasons why we believe we have some favor from state agencies including the Department of Commerce another stakeholder group about and hopeful approval of the Urban Growth area expansion we are interested in and the development of the Comprehensive plan without these provisions in place those state agencies will be worried that Pasco has stated we are going to have alternative development patterns yet nothing in our municipal code requires that change to occur. The Comprehensive plan does have a heavy emphasis on a land use shift that promotes more mixed use projects now that doesn 't have to be units on top of a retail building that's more of a market that maybe we aren 't ready for yet obviously we want to be ready for it if it's an option here we do see some interests in that within the Port , Port of Benton , Port of Kennewick and Port of Pasco obviously moving forward with those kinds of development. I guess as far as incentives that would be something that we Page 149 of 281 could have more dialogue with your group and others with economic development I guess from the Pasco side were not sure what incentives are available yet, to the developers to the development community that may encourage different types of land development in the City , I do think it's area that our Council would probably have staff research and take a look at and with your help I don 't see any issue with that at all. I do know over the past year and a half that the City has made slight changes to the development standards in turns of reducing the lot size for a few of the residential zones , there were changes made to the setbacks and frontages, significant changes to the plan unit development ordinance. We now permit private streets with the shared tree frontage ordinance , which we hope will help with infill development in West Pasco. Derek Alexander stated one municipality that I am familiar with is West Richland the main concern that I am hearing from commission in West Richland is density. The push from the state from what I understand trying to maximize density because West Richland does have quite a bit of ground that's very central to the City now and there are multiple acre lots that are right there kind of central of West Richland and development is happening adjacent to it. Density in the cities I think are going to be pushed more and more to make better use of the land that they have, and this street idea reducing the blocks seems to force more expansion to get that to keep that density down . Second comment it 's also counter product to the City to expand Urban Growth boundary when Futurewise sees your reducing density and putting more streets down I think they will have an issue with that , trying to justify that your growing bigger putting in more streets and forcing density down . Lastly , you comment on public comment people wanting more connectivity street wise I would like to know where the connectivity is that people desire , because the top of the list that I hear from people all over the City of Pasco is Road 68 needs some real help , I don 't know that people want more streets in their neighborhood for the kids to be playing in and more traffic and multiple locations to their house. I would think most of that public comment is to fix the main arterials , and get the traffic numbers down. John Fetterolf stated with block length from what I hear City staff might be hearing about connect issues and the people are not happy with what we do . From a pedestrian standpoint, I think the community would be better served with pathways instead of full streets. Pathways allow people to take shorter routes if that is what the goal is or if they are trying to get from A to B to get to the 7-11 . I think that if we are going to say there needs to be connectivity then there should be some consideration for topography in situations where we cannot make a pathway between lots and with ADA requirements , we may have to climb 1 0 ' to get out to a roadway or stubbing off the end of a cul-de- sac . There is no reason to put in the pathway if you cannot make it work. I would encourage you if there has to be come pedestrian connectivity that there is some leeway for geographic consideration. The planning on the adjacent parcels I can understand the City goal there to make sure the adjacent parcels are considered when a new plat comes in for the layout. The 125' for intersection spacing as far as I am aware has been working again we are talking about neighborhood streets. I would question the 200 ' spacing that seems like an overkill. How to plan for the adjacent properties will be a problem . Page 150 of 281 Jacob Gonzalez stated that back to the future street plan we do not believe that we are asking you to design the plat within 600 ' of your site what we are asking that your plan will demonstrate that your development does not preclude future street connection to the adjacent development. We are not asking you to go further than that. If we need to change , some of the language around we can do that. Stephen Bauman stated is there something in the current standards that has been a problem that we cannot develop to the standards , as they exist today . Is there something that you are trying to fix by adding that language. Senior Planner, Jacob Gonzalez stated with regards to future street plans, yes the number one being our current code really only offers one specific requirement and that is the maximum of 1320' there are a few other metrics that are in place in reality we in the planning department try to apply connectivity or multi mobile planning standards we have no specific numbers to refer to , it 's a grey area for both us and the developer because we don 't have the actual numbers to work with. What we do know is that in general what we propose the narrative of smaller block length , smaller block perimeter, and not only just for pedestrian and bicycle movement but obviously 98% of travel here in this region occurs by single occupant veh icles . Also for the efficient circulation of travel , smaller block perimeters and block length are the overwhelming consensus from a variety if not numerous engineering and planning agencies and organizations. In order to reach multi mobile access for a community that looking at block length and block perimeter is the solution. As I showed on the first screen Council has adopted numerous plans and policies that all point to multi mobile connectivity and the draft comprehensive plan efficiencies that. Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner stated we would like to hear from all on the phone was the proposal might be whether it is different numbers or what not. Caleb Stromstad stated why don't we just go down the chart one item at a time and get the consensus from everyone . Max Block Length Steve Bauman-the 1320 ' is acceptable and having a paved pathway for bicycle or foot traffic. Brian Thoreson-agrees with Steve Bauman or if I had to propose something 1000' with a pedestrian pathway . Caleb Stromstad-reduction in the block length would be appropriate in the middle ground not less than a 1000' and some sort of mid-block crossing threshold if you exceed 800 ' put in a block crossing/pedestrian crossing. John Fetterolf-1320 ' and require pedestrian paths Paul -1320' and pedestrian connectivity Christin Bateyola-exceptions for infill development Jeff Losey-middle of 900 '-1500 ' pedestrian/bike path to get connectivity Derek Alexander-1320' interpose pedestrian pathway Page 151 of 281 Max Block Length- Caleb Stromstad -eliminate that one completely Steve Bauman-eliminate that one Brian Thoreson-strike that one Christine Bateyola-strike that one John Fetterolf-strike it no benefit Derek Alexander-strike it Jeff Losey-would not want to see that as part of this Connectivity of Abutting Lands Caleb Stromstad-leave code as is-check with legal council John Fetterolf-echo what Caleb said leave code as is Nathan Machiela-has to be taken on a case by case -leave code as is Steve Bauman-leave code as is Derek Alexander-leave code as is Brian Thoreson-leave code as is Cul-de-sacs Max Length Caleb Stromstad-leave it at 600 ' Steve Bauman-600 ' Christine Bateyola -keep at 600 ' Derek Alexander-600 ' Brian Thoreson-600 ' Jeff Losey-follow along with the engineers Future street plan on adjacent property Derek Alexander-none Steve Bauman-none Christine Bateyola-none Jeff Losey-none Brian Thoreson-none Pedestrian access required through end of cul-de-sac Caleb Stromstad-None Steve Bauman-None and unnecessary Brian Thoreson-None-remove that code amendment John Fetterolf-None Christine Bateyola-should not d ictate where it goes Derek Alexander-none Page 152 of 281 Jeff Losey-none not require it Paul-too specific for the location Mid -block Pedestrian Crossing/Acess Caleb Stromstad-agree with 1320' over 800 ' do pedestrian crossing Derek Alexander-I support Caleb proposa l Steve Bauman-concur with Caleb Nathan Machiela-does sound reasonable Brian Thoreson-I agree Christine Bateyola-reasonable Paul-reasonable John Fetterolf-agree Jeff Losey-agree Intersection offsets Caleb Stromstad-125 ' works and allow infill exception Steve Bauman-concur Christine Bateyola-I agree don 't know that we are gaining anything Derek Alexander-125 ' and give flexibility Brian Thoreson-leave the 125 ' Jeff Losey-support leaving it Paul-I agree John Fetterolf-the 125 ' should stay Jacob Gonzalez stated that we would make a series of recommendations based on your input and the input of the staff. Caleb Stromstad said when he is looking at the proposed code amendment connectivity to abutting lands , future street plan on adjacent property , those are only found in the definitions , so if someone is going through the code that would be an easy one to miss if they didn 't read the specific terms . If you disagree with us and go to new code amendments do not hide something that sign ificant in the definitions. Jacob Gonza lez stated whatever goes forward to the council will be , the whole code amendment in it is entirely . Steve Bauman-I am sure some of the people have done some calculations with what these impacts would be if we went forward with what was proposed and as I read in the comprehensive plan and regularly from officials it states housing affordability , development could be up 20%, loss of density, increase storm system sizing , some of these things need to be looked at more carefully and I would propose we postpone like it was recommended earlier. Steve Worley stated I just wanted to add to the City 's perspective and from a publ ic works stand point , and emergency response side of this connectivity issue . Obviously , the c ity understands the impact something like this has on deve lopment and we Page 153 of 281 certainly want to do what we can and help development occur in the best way possible. One of the things to keep in mind and I have seen this in other jurisdictions and that the impact in how that development occurs is critical on emergency responses, traffic mobility . I think Jacob mentioned the pedestrian access and that kind of stuff, but Fire Chief Gear was to be on this call as well to listen in and his big thing with this issue is the connectivity of future development is critical in being able to keep the fire bureau rating status that the City of Pasco currently has. The fire district and polices ability to be able to respond to emergencies quickly by having a connected road , transportation system is important. There has to be a balance between making sure that we provide the ability for everybody to develop his or her property accordingly but we also have to look at the entire City and the impacts of those developments as a whole and how they all fit together. So , that is where the challenge is for the planners, engineers , the emergency responders and the developer comes in. I have been in cities where we have taken over county areas that have been developed very similarity to the donut hole areas and yes those are the expectations to the rules based on previous development patterns, but I think the overall point of this is that when we can it is important that we focus on the ability to make connectivity in the street system a priority for all future development. Does it mean it can be done on every single one , no , but if we have that as the overall premise then at least all future development can do a better job of providing an overall improved system for more than just the development of property , but also for traffic , emergency response , utilities and everything else. It's important that we keep this in mind, we are the ones that have to end of dealing with all the develops connected together and so we are just trying to find a balance . Jeff Losey stated all circle around with Caleb Stromstad and make sure that we confide what we believe we got from the development community today and so you have that for your meeting and that it matches what you have as well. Can you tell me based on what Steve Worley just said how did you come up with 660 '. Jacob Gonzalez stated 660 ' you take you corner section and you keep dividing. 660 is the traditional pattern that we have seen multiple jurisdictions not only in the country but obviously here in the northwest. Obviously it 's a lot lower than we have today in the neighboring jurisdictions , but as mentioned in prior planning commission meetings Pasco 's requirement use to be maximum block length was 400 ' and one point it was much shorter. Now majority of the City has been developed but with these extremely long block lengths and block perimeter and what we have are no specifics criteria for cul-de-sacs and so when one cul-de-sacs gets placed in a development the only opportunity for the adjacent property gets to utilize the cul-de-sac because there is no opportunity for a connection to be made . Obviously from what Mr. Worley stated this is seen quite a bit in Riverview, kind of the unincorporated area of the city but it also happens next to some of our brand new schools, and brand new fire stations, so we have brand new neighborhoods that were developed at densure levels but with similar patterns as the unincorporated areas . The increase density does not help when we do not have a pattern facilitates mobility for all users. Jacob Gonzales stated he would forward the series of staff recommendations and the staff report to those that have commented and if you could distribute to those on the Page 154 of 281 phone I may not have all the email addresses. Caleb Stromstad said that he listened to Ch ief Gear at the last planning commission meeting and what we are trying to get away from is making significant changes based on subjective criteria . We are talking about response time and street connectivity is the answer. Someone argued adding some intersection would decrease response time and more conflict points to have additional access . We have three other neighboring jurisd ictions that have similar codes to what we have are the ir response times hindered , or are they the same maybe we can learn from them . Maybe adding additional streets is not the answer. All the input has to be included. Based on all the information we just threw at you does not seem responsible so my recommendation would be that City staff recommend postponing this to the October meeting . Page 155 of 281 Develop_ment Communit~ Item Pasco Current Pasco Prop_osed Kennewick Richland West Richland Recommendations Max Block Length 1,320' 660' 900' 1,500' 1,500' Max Block Perimeter None 1,760' None None None Extend a street to all Connectivity of abutting lands Extend existing streets adjacent properties None None known None known Provide street plan 600' into adjacent Future street plan on adjacent property None properties. None None None Cul-de-sacs Max length 600' 400' 600' 400' 400' Pedestrian access required through end of cul-de-sac None Required None None None Required when block Required when block Required when block Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing/ Access None length> than 660' length> than 600' length > 1,000' None Intersection Offsets 125' 200' 125' 125' 125' Caleb Stromstad presented at the meeting Page 156 of 281 Table 1: Summary of Proposed Amendments (CA2019-013) Item Current Recommendation #1 (TSMP) Recommendation #2 Recommendation #3 Recommendation #3 Proposal Recommended by Planning Commission (October 2020) Description HBA-TC Proposal (as of 09/17/2020) Block Length 1,320’ PMC 21.20.010 660’ 660’ 720’ 800’ 660’ Riverview: 1,000’ Distance of a block measured along the street centerline of intersecting streets 1,320 (No Change) Block Perimeter None 1,400’ 1,760’ 1,880’ 2,000’ Residential: 1,880’ Commercial: 2,800’ Industrial: Not Applicable Distance as measured along the street centerline encompassing a block Remove Connectivity to Abutting Lands Yes PMC 21.15.010(1) Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Requires a development to provide connections to existing, proposed and planned streets to adjacent lands Remove Future Street Plan Yes PMC 21.15.010(1) Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Requires a development to demonstrate that the proposed site does not preclude future connections to adjacent lands Remove Accessways Yes PMC 21.15.100 Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Proposed amendment clarifies requirement Where required, accessways shall be located to provide a reasonably direct connection between likely destinations (Required when max block length/perimeter exceed standards or where cul-de-sacs are within 1,320’ of public land use facility/amenity) Required when Block Length exceeds 800’ Minimum Intersection Distance 125’ PMC 21.15.020(2) None None None None Variable Distance Specifies minimum distance of intersections as determined by the roadway speed/MPH per AASHTO/FHWA and Street Classification 125’ (No Change) ATTACHMENT 5 Page 157 of 281 PASCO’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM – TODAY AND IN 2040 The City of Pasco is developing its first transportation system master plan (TSMP). The Plan will be used to identify challenges and guide future improvements for Pasco’s transportation system. It focuses on arterial and collector roadways within Pasco’s Urban Growth Area (UGA). The first step is to establish a baseline (the current conditions) against which changes can be measured. The current conditions include high levels of congestion during peak travel hours, higher than expected crash rates, and barriers to safe and convenient travel for all users. These conditions are summarized on a map (Figure 1), and detailed findings for each type of travel are also summarized. Then, by combining the current conditions with predicted growth in Pasco’s households and employment, we identified locations in the City of Pasco impacted by this growth and to understand challenges for Pasco’s transportation system in 2040. BASELINE: EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE We analyzed travel modes, including walking, biking, public transit, and driving, and identified a number of issues with each. Figure 1 (below) shows a composite of the system performance findings which will be considered during the TSMP development. FIGURE 1. PASCO’S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHALLENGES ATTACHMENT 6 Page 158 of 281 2 Below are issues we identified for each mode of travel: CURRENT CONDITIONS: PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ● Limited system connectivity; key barriers include: ○ Highway crossings without pedestrian or bicycle facilities (e.g. Road 100, Road 68) ○ Long blocks (up to 2,000 feet) without any pedestrian connections ○ Limited sidewalks and bike facilities, including along arterial and collector roadways ○ Rural roadway designs which do not include sidewalks or bike lanes ● Corridors without adequate pedestrian or bicyclist connections include: ○ Court Street (Road 44 to Road 108) ○ Wernett Road (Road 48 to Road 76) ○ Argent Road (Road 48 to Road 100) ○ Chapel Hill Boulevard (Road 68 to Road 100) ○ Burden Boulevard (Road 36 to Road 60) ○ Sandifur Parkway (Porto Lane to Road 90) ○ Road 44 (Laredo Drive to Porto Lane) ○ Burns Road (Road 68 to Road 100; Dent Road to Kohler Road) ○ Clark Road (Road 36 to Lentz Road/Janet Street) ● Limited crossing opportunities on high-speed roadways, outside of existing signals ● High crash risk ○ Over two hit-and-run crashes annually involve pedestrians ○ Nearly half of pedestrian crashes occurred at marked crosswalks ○ Over 60% of bicyclist crashes were caused by drivers failing to yield the right of way when turning or crossing CURRENT CONDITIONS: PUBLIC TRANSIT ● Basic transit service ● Limited stop amenities ● Limited access from new residential developments to transit ● Limited safe crossing opportunities near stops ● Limited existing park and ride locations CURRENT CONDITIONS: VEHICLES ● Limited system connectivity; key barriers include: ○ Long blocks (up to 2,000 feet) without any local street connections ○ Limited arterial or collector roadway access points for large residential developments ○ I-182 ○ Pasco Rail Yard ● Peak period intersection congestion near ramp terminals and at critical intersections in Pasco, including at: ○ Road 100/I-182 Interchange Page 159 of 281 3 ○ Road 68/I-182 Interchange ○ Road 68/Burden Boulevard ○ Road 68/Court Street ○ Madison Avenue/Burden Boulevard ○ Road 36/Argent Road ○ Road 44/Argent Road ○ 20th Avenue/ Court Street ○ 4th Avenue/I-182 WB ramp terminal ○ US 12/A Street ○ US 395 SB ramp terminal/Rainier Avenue/Kartchner Street ○ US 395/Foster Wells Road ● AM peak period congestion on Road 100 between the I-182 interchange and Argent Road from Chiawana High School traffic ● Existing at-grade intersections on national highways, including US 12/A Street and US 395/Foster Wells Road ● High access density without a center, two-way left turn lane on Court Street and Sylvester Street ● Vehicle speeding ● Existing, wide street connections without striping to denote travel lanes FUTURE SYSTEM NEEDS: PASCO IN 2040 Overall, Pasco households are predicted to grow by 76% from 2015 (the model base year) to 2040, while employment is predicted to grow by about 71% during the same time period.* • Most of the housing growth is expected to occur north of Court Street and west of Road 36 (with an exception of some growth near A Street east of Oregon Avenue). • Employment growth is planned in the Broadmoor area, Road 68 Corridor, 4th Avenue industrial area, and industrial areas east of US 12. The predicted future land use allowed us to identify the locations impacted by the housing and employment growth in 2040. Using specialized modeling software, we determined that high traffic growth will occur in the following locations: • Broadmoor area • Road 68 corridor • East-west corridors north of Sandifur • Chapel Hill Boulevard • I-182 east of Road 100 • US 12 • US 395 north of I-182 • Oregon Avenue • A Street east of Oregon Avenue • Court Street west of US 395 • 4th Ave north of I-182 Page 160 of 281 4 We used the predicted growth in travel demand and the existing traffic volumes to project future travel volumes, identifying locations with significant degradations or changes in traffic operations compared to today. These locations, along with high traffic growth areas for the City of Pasco, are summarized below in Figure 2. FIGURE 2. PASCO’S EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CHALLENGES * Future travel demand for the City of Pasco was coordinated with the Benton- Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) and the Pasco Comprehensive Plan to identify projected land use growth through 2040. These land use assumptions are the basis for the forecasted growth and changes of traffic patterns within the City of Pasco. Page 161 of 281 Transportation System Master Plan | Public Survey #1 – Summary of Comments (May – June 2020) Question 1) What effects travel in your neighborhood? 1.68 TRAFFIC IS A PROBLEM 2.Accidents at Rd 68 & Court happen too often. People are too quick to pull out in front of other cars, stop past the stop line when driving south on Rd 68 making turning from Court to 68 N difficult and some fail to yield. 3.All cars and trucks on Broadmoor Blvd speed. The speed limit needs to be lowered to 25 mph near residential housing on Broadmoor Blvd. Also, with the two schools opening this fall on Burns Road, crosswalks need to be installed at the corner of Broadmoor Blvd and Burns Rd. 4.Alleys are good to cut-through but not inviting 5.Back road on Burns isn’t completely done , a lot of gravel , GPS took me down that road , burns and road 68 6.Bicycle lanes cannot be 'improved' when there are no bicycle lanes. Anywhere. 7.Bicycle/walking on streets with reduced speed limits (e.g., less than 20mph for cars). 8.Bikes are not safe 9.Burden and Rd 44 is a four way stop that is very busy. I think a roundabout would help with the flow of traffic 10.Burns road does not go through to rd 68. Huge problem! Also burns road, cars race and drive way too fast.road 68 too much traffic . 11.Busy road with no shoulder. Burns road off of road 100 12.Cars not obeying speed limit signs, no speed limit signs posted or speed limit/stop signs are faded/hard to read. 13.Cars speeding through neighborhoods. Would love to see some speed bumps to get cars going 40-50 mph to slow down to the 25 mph speed limit. 14.Congestion on Rd 68 and unsafe walking conditions rd 100. No signal for safe turning on Rd 76 and Sandifur. 15.Construction, poor access to the freeway without many roundabout ways. 16.County boundary not considered city 17.Crossing Road 68 is difficult. I need to cross it to go to my health club (daily); a ped/bike bridge would be wonderful!! 18.dangerous intersection at RD 68/Court 19.Dangerously narrow shoulder for bikers and pedestrians. Not very well marked streets and no street lights. 20.Dedicated trails for just bikes. 21.Drivers speeding, County officials not following urban planning and growth forecasts when allowing new construction and overloading insufficient roads 22.excessive speed on bike path 23.Fast drivers. Thoughtless drivers. Rough pavement. Potholes. Poor visibility. 24.Getting across the Columbia River. It would be great if there was another bridge available to cross at or near Road 68 25.Homelessness, vagabonds, open sewer ally, 26.I don't think we need bus stops in our area. WE in the community won't use them. We have had some graffiti issues, I think bus stops would only increase that opportunity. 27.I have brought up this issue before. There is currently no sidewalk in this area or path for people from the Lakeview to get to the nearest bus stop or Tierra Vida where they attend some activities. There are approximately 360 school aged kids that have no safe walking path to A Street from their mobile home. There also isn't much lighting. In the winter months it makes it difficult for residents to walk, bike, jog, etc. because of the lack of path or lighting. I had brought this issue up a couple years ago because a teenager was shaken up speaking to me about how she almost was hit by a vehicle traveling on Road 40 East. She told me how dangerous it was to her and the residents. A path or sidewalk would literally connect Lakeview to the City. The transit says they would never be able to place a bus stop in the community because there is no sidewalks and it currently doesn't meet state standards for transit. 28.I live & work in Richland, but travel to Pasco several times a week for soccer or to cycle through. I would cycle to Pasco more if the roads had slower vehicle speeds and/or buffered bike lanes. EXHIBIT #G Page 162 of 281 29. "I live at 530 s cedar ave. Behind my home there is an alley and lots of kids doing criminal activities hang out in this alley. I would like the city to get rid of these alleys as this will help with reducing crime in my neighborhood. I will also feel safer with walking my kids to school. I currently avoid walking my kids to school or walking later in the evenings. 30. Please help our neighborhood by eliminating these alleys to reduce criminal activity in our area. 31. Thank you!" 32. I live in W Pasco off rd. 60/Burden, but work in Richland. Rd.68 & Burden is still an issue. I usually take Sandifur to Rd. 100 which can be better but with all the houses going up in W Pasco the traffic is about to be a much bigger problem. 33. Incomplete sidewalks. The only way to get to sandifur on a sidewalk from my house is to walk out to broadmoor Blvd. there are spots along sandifur that don’t have sidewalk so you have to walk through weedy terrain. 34. Increase traffic on rd 68... terrible terrible !! 35. Lack of coherent bike lanes and lock up areas for bicycles. 36. Lack of sidewalks. Lack of street lights. 37. Limited connections to adjacent neighborhoods 38. My husband and I moved her in early April. We absolutely love the area. One of the things we’ve both discussed is the improvements necessary for access and commuting using bicycles. I’d love to assist in additional ways. In addition to this comment/open house, a more thorough discussion where we can highlight multiple areas for improvement would be appreciated. 39. "Need traffic light on Burden & Rd 44 40. Sandifur widened between Franklin to McClintock with Sidewalks on both sides, 41. The crosswalk at Burden and Rd 60 badly needs to be lit up, you can barely see people crossing Burden when it’s dark, especially if a car is sitting on Burden in the left turn lane... half your vision is lost coming up on that crosswalk already " 42. Need bicycle paths for children to ride their bikes safely to school and work and to friends houses. 43. New construction 44. "No sidewalks between 90 and 92+ on Sandifur's North side. 45. Speeding on Rd 90 and Sandifur. 46. No bike paths on any roads." 47. No sidewalks no streetlights no bus service 48. no sidewalks on rd 68 at Argent. Perilous for kids who have to walk. 49. No sidewalks, no bus service and no street lights very unsafe 50. Obstacles: the river, freeways, railroads, the lack of safe street crossings, the lack of safe and comfortable routes for walking and cycling. 51. On the weekends there is sooo much traffic coming out of the baseball stadium, soccer fields, business and HAPO center that it is hard to get out of our neighborhood. 52. Pasco really isn’t very walkable and needs to develop improved corridors for both this and public transit. 53. Pave the west side of the road 54. People blow through all the stop signs, even during school. 55. People on court street passing road 100 drive too fast. There also needs to be more cross walks on rd 68 and on rd 100 56. Road 68 and Burden is horrid. Need another on ramp to get on I182 57. Road 68 enfrente de la gasolinera Maverik hay un crucero que al manejar con direccion al sur y volteas a la derecha necesita UNA LINEA MAS LARGA, pues los carros algunas veces se salen del camino para continuar y voltear a la derecha 58. "Road 68 is too congested. 59. Road 68 needs separate turning lanes for exiting to the highway. 60. Stop sign at road 36 and Argent can be highly congested. Would prefer a roundabout. 61. Power line road could be better as a through street." Page 163 of 281 62. "Road 68 is way too congested. 63. Road 100 is well on its way to be just as bad as Rd 68. Please do not over build Pasco. 64. Also you could reduce congestion on rd 68 by putting on and off ramps on i182 west of cbc of argent. There is an on ramp but only going westbound. This needs to be reworked to allow neighborhood traffic to get to their houses from this part of the freeway alleviating the use of 68." 65. Robert Wayne Dr is too slim to fit cars through safely with the meat market one block in from burden. They do not have enough parking for their customers and they often park on the street making it difficult to drive through that portion of the street if they have more than a couple of customers. It is a busy street and I’m hopeful the city can do something to widen that street or find a way for them to park more cars in their lot. 66. Roundabouts need to be created at Road 36 and Road 44 and Argent Road 67. Sandifur Parkway is really busy and it is difficult to get out onto Sandifur from Road 90. Would really like to see a stop light or a round a bout put in. This would also help people / kids cross the street to get to school or other business 68. Several intersections in out neighborhood (between Rd 84 and Rd 96, and between Court and Argent) are hard to see around on a bike or in a car because the residents in the area have large shrubs and trees near the corner. 69. Snow and ice removal is horrible and I can’t access the roads during winter. 70. Snow season 71. so where I live there are always stray dogs disrupting traffic as I live on a main Street on Sylvester Street next to 7-Eleven. I find it difficult to cross the street at a nurse actions due to crumbling infrastructure of the sidewalks my Walker gets stuck and nearly causes me to fall on 14th and Sylvester by 7-Eleven. 72. Some sidewalks are incomplete along Sandifur and Burns Road. There is not proper sidewalks or bike lanes for pedistrians along Broadmoor BLVD on the overpass. Burden Blvd needs a lighted crosswalk by the GESA Stadium. Cars come too fast. Cars are going way too fast on Argent since the construction of Chiawana High School. There is a speed zone from the county into the city limits on Broadmoor BLVD. Cars have to play chicken with oncoming trucks/vehicles on the highway when they exit east from A street onto the highway 12 going west. 73. speed limit is not enforced on Sandifur or Burns. This makes it difficult to access these two streets from side streets. 74. "Speeding 75. No side walks 76. No bike path" 77. Speeding. Cars traveling at a higher rate of speed than the posted speed limit will illegally pass (Sandifur between Road 52 and Road 60). Turning from Road 36 onto Argent is a safety risk. When vehicles turning up Road 36 from Argent, the vehicle behind will often pass in the oncoming lane. 78. "Stop signs covered by trees, bushes, etc 79. More implementation for city to cut down bushes to see intersection. " 80. Streets are very broad with fast moving traffic speeds. This makes for an unpleasant and unsafe walk or bike ride. 81. The entire area is car-dominant. Even neighborhood streets, where vehicle speeds are 25 MPH, are dangerous for kids riding bicycles. To make the city more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly, Pasco must either separate pedestrian/cycle traffic with buffered travel areas, or design roads to encourage all use through slower speeds, speed humps, signage, and shorter straightaways among other options. 82. The intersection at west minster and Sandifur can be difficult at busy times of the day. 83. The intersection of Road 68 and Burden slows everything down as does the exit off Highway 182. Burden Blvd also gets backed up when there are events at the TRAC and the Gesa stadium.. 84. "The jerks racing up and down Cordero Drive all hours of the day/night. I had to run to avoid being hit by a car at 3 in the afternoon! 85. I won’t let my grandkids play outside without me present because of the cars. (Oh, and the cars are so loud with really loud bass.)" 86. The need for crosswalks on the main roads. 87. The RD 100/Broadmoor exit heading South from the 182 East is unsafe. There is too much traffic for the current design and it is only getting worse as residential building has expanded nearby. 88. The traffic on Sandifur and lack of bike paths 89. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood. There are also no streetlights. Page 164 of 281 90. There are too many entrances/exits to Road 68. The extruded curbing between the lanes of travel are helpful, but there is still too much traffic entering on Road 68. A driver can sit waiting for the light to turn only to miss it because new traffic enters. For example, at McDonalds or Porter's gas station, Southbound Road 68. 91. There is no bus transportation that comes to the trailer park 92. "This isn’t specific to one place. I am often annoyed when there is an empty lot for a house that has not been built and I have to cross the street to continue on my walk. Im not sure why they don’t just build the sidewalk all at once but they seem to only build the sidewalk in front of the house when the house is purchased. Can they not just continue the sidewalk? I’m only using a stroller on most occasions but if I were in a wheelchair it would be quite the inconvenience to have to cross the rd every 5 minutes. It seems small but crossing the road multiple times for one walk puts kids and individuals with disabilities at a higher risk of a pedestrian/vehicular accident. 93. Additionally, I think the city needs to do a better job of ticketing cars that are parked on the sidewalk. I have to travel around cars all the time on walks. What scares me most is seeing kids have to walk/bike/skateboard into the road because someone was too lazy to park against the curb. I know it’s against the law but people do it all the time and don’t seem to even realize it’s a problem. 94. I feel like maybe we need speed bumps or something similar on Sante Fe. I’m in a community Facebook group and every day someone is complaining about cars speeding on that road when there are so many kids around. The speed limit is appropriate but the cars still speed and often blow through stop signs. There wouldn’t be a need for Stop signs but maybe speed bumps would force cars to slow down while taking some work away from police officers who feel the need to patrol the area for school zone speed violations. " 95. Tons of traffic 96. Too many people speed up and down Rd 44. Most drivers do not yield to pedestrians while crossing Rd 44. 97. Traffic at burden/rd 68 98. Traffic at peak hours and school zones that back up traffic, though I believe these are important. 99. Traffic is starting to get really bad on road 100 due to all the new housing I think there should be a traffic light on Argent and Road 100 because when school is in you can hardly ever get out of the intersection 100. Traffic is very congested when school gets out. 101. Trees or overgrown bushes blocking view on turns 102. We really need three east-west bike corridors and at least four north-south. The overpasses are dangerous for bikes and walkers alike. 103. Weather Question 2) Outside of where you work live, what types of issues are most important to address in this plan (Transportation System Master Plan)? 1. the speeding of the cars 2. A long term plan for turn lanes and longer merge lanes where traffic is anticipated to be heavy. Turning onto Burns Road - left hand turners back up Road 68 (northbound). The parking lane on Road 68 next to the apartments is awful. You can't see if turning out of the apartment. It is also hard to turn from Burns onto Road 68. The on street parking makes for a cluttered and obstructed view for drivers. 3. Congestion on Road 68 and Burden Blvd. 4. Safe routes for children going to school.. 5. Access to park trail along the river" 6. Access to the blue bridge southbound from Argent without having to go around CBC. 7. Any non-token protected bicycle infrastructure at all anywhere in West Pasco would be a (small) start. 8. Area wide Transportatin planning 9. Being new to the area, I have yet to uncover some type of map that indicates walking/biking trails in the city. What I've learned, I've learned by word of mouth but other information could be helpful if published (restrooms, parking hours, etc.). Page 165 of 281 10. Bike Lanes on Streets 11. Bike path or lane issues on Rd 68 and Rd 100. North south routes do not exist or roads are not safe due to limited lanes and traffic speed. 12. "Bike paths 13. Bike routes. Merging the existing routes. Clearly separating walk from biking. 14. City needs street signage so motorists understand State Law of Safe Passing Distance of three feet for bicyclists. Law went into effect Jan 1, 2020. 15. Congestion and traffic bottlenecks 16. Connect neighborhoods with trails. Connect the south side of the freeway to the north side. There are very few trails to go north or south. 17. "Connectivity across the river, because we are in one region. 18. Neighborhood design, in general, because new neighborhoods aren't designed for pedestrian access or safety. 19. Access to destinations at the neighborhood scale; we design everything to be within a 15 minute drive, but nothing ends up being less than a 15 minute drive away; impossible to walk, impossible to bike, and impossible to take the bus." 20. Connectivity for bicycles/pedestrians between the cities. Presently, it's very poor, and one must be an experienced cyclist to go from Pasco to Kennewick or Richland. 21. Connectivity for non-vehicle and public transportation. 22. Connectivity of sidewalks with new developments will determine if improvements within each development (sidewalks, lighting, crosswalks) will result in a wide-spread pedestrian/bicycle accessible City. 23. Creating a coherent and aggressive plan for creating bike lanes and parking for said bikes. Working on ways to provide sidewalks to areas where there are none. 24. Decrease congestion on rd 68. Design Rd 100 better to avoid the same problem. 25. Easy transitions and connections. When you’re moving to an area with a trail to a bike lane, does it make sense and will the users be able to connect that they’re making a transition? Where can they find information about the different trails and even areas that may not be as ‘bike friendly’ as other areas? How are you communicating bike routes and trails to users? 26. Encourage carpooling, smaller cars, remote work, so traffic isn't crowded during commutes. 27. "Enhanced parks. Island Park could use an improvement. 28. More bike trails. " 29. Ensuring safe pedestrian travel, both walking and biking. Many of the previous County areas have no sidewalks and no street lights. 30. Equity, perception of safety, economic vitality from enhanced community-active transportation connections, secure bike parking. 31. Evaluating what transportation East Pasco would need most for it's citizens and those working in the area and improving upon that. 32. Farmers market plan in downtown pasco. Safer streets on 4th Ave. 33. Fill in missing links and connectivity problems within the Bike/Ped infrastructure, so citizens of all abilities are able to safely and conveniently access all parts of the City via walking or bicycle or connecting to transit. 34. "Food deserts in East pasco and the socio economic inequities between west pasco and central/East pasco. 35. There are no grocery stores for residents in East pasco. There are no yoga studios. There is no access to health and wellness due to the residential segregation. " 36. For Bike/Peds, continue filling in missing links in Bike/Ped infrastructure system so all areas of the City are connected, to safely and conveniently allow citizens of all abilities to ride and walk to desired and essential destinations. Elevate "active Transportation" issues and projects to a highly visibly and essential part of the total comprehensive transportation plan. 37. Freeway access on Rd 100 towards I-182 eastbound needs to have right lane access. It is always backed up with a 3 light cycle wait during the morning commute around 7:30-8:00 am. 38. fuel supply due to lack of transportation of it into our city 39. High growth in north west Pasco Page 166 of 281 40. I come from work from the Columbia center area. I 82- road 100 exit huge back ups. Rd 68 huge back ups . Normally with ease a 18 minute commute . Many nights it’s a 45 - 1 hour with wrecks around 100-68 41. "I think the Lakeview community could use more service. I work with many families in that area and transportation is always a barrier to accessing service. 42. I also work in traffic safety myself....and I see intersection/crosswalk related issues in several areas. People just don't know how crosswalks function. I think a big piece of making changes is letting everyone know and working with (me) those in traffic safety to make sure information is getting out to the community on why we are making changes and how they can help increase safety, especially for youth and pedestrians." 43. I was hoping there would be a park in my neighborhood (Chapel Hill & Emerald Downs). Also, city and county wide, we need reserved spaces or carefully zoned areas to accommodate wildflowers, wildlife, and the general desert ecology. So much I used to take for granted has disappeared since I moved here in 1976. 44. Improve areas on east end of Pasco specifically areas with railroad crossing areas. Receive complaints regarding Road 64 between W Court St and W Wernett Rd not having any speed limit/stop signs posted more frequently to deter people from speeding up/down the road. Lots of kids walk on the roadway due to no sidewalks and many people in that area have expressed concerns. 45. Improved crosswalks. Cars don’t slow down or stop for pedestrians. 46. Improved public transit access. 47. Incorporate bike lanes into roads, as Richland and Kennewick have begun to do. Road 68 needs MAJOR restriping done asap, and a sidewalk added. Compete joke that is currently acceptable from Chapel Hill to Burden. Make that from Argent to Burden. 48. La contigencia de salud Corona Virus 49. limit home building. It's overrunning our schools and our land. 50. Look into the fact that lower income populations have less focus on up keep versus newer housing developments have a real focus on keeping and maintaining the up keep of environment, as its more of a living status standard for higher income populations. Low income populations don't have the resources to have that focus their focus is more on the day to day survival, but since that isn't a concern to the lower income population as much emphasis isn't addressed as a higher income zoning areas would. There for the lower income population never brings up those concerns. 51. Maintained sidewalks or safer places for kids to ride 52. making sure 53. Making sure that roads are de-iced and plowed as much as possible during snowy and icy weather. 54. More “main” streets so that the current streets aren’t so congested. My travel largely involves the highway, off ramps, and a handful of main roads. It’s nice to get everywhere easily, but these areas get very congested. 55. More bike paths and better maintained bike paths. 56. More bike paths. Use Speed bumps and roundabouts. Rd 76, Island Park Neighborhood, Rd 68 Pl, Sandifur are terrible for speeding, traffic, and people that don't care about pedestrians, bikers, or children. 57. More busing thru the east side. 58. More local services near residences, particularly grocery stores and eateries. 59. My neighborhood has great walking and biking ability, but the further you move towards E Pasco and the older neighborhoods I would think those residents would benefit from sidewalks...if they want them. There is a huge disparity just from a curb appeal between new and old developments. Use city dollars to upgrade them....again if they want them. 60. Newer traffic signals make the cars move more efficiently at the intersections but can be a challenge to someone trying to guess if they can get across on what appears to be a red light. Right on red has made for several close calls. 61. none 62. Overall the Tri-cities is a great place to bike and walk. The most challenging issues are cross I-182 and the railroad tracks. To cross the railroad tracks, there is no reasonable place between Selph Landing and A St. 63. Pedestrian access, and connectivity issues for transit riders. Creating an infrastructure that is friendly towards all pedestrians, and something more friendly to other modes of transportation. Page 167 of 281 64. Plan for a robust enough transportation system that will have the ability to accept anticipated growth. 65. Planning for more housing growth in the Rd 68 area. 66. Planning neighborhoods in such a way that allows for safe multi-modal transportation and safe access to retail and services. The Chapel Hill blvd extension was an example of progress! Every time I drive by, I see people walking that trail. 67. Promote development. 68. provision of future integrated transportation network 69. "Recreation opportunities OUTSIDE, not in gyms. Too many houses so close together are being built. People are not going to have anywhere to play, stretch, exercise, relax. That will only increase crime, frustration. Look at what we need during Corvid crisis. 70. Provide more trails for mountain biking (or just biking off pavement), more birding trails (reducing invasive species) and marking routes. Provide a dog park like near Badger Mtn Park near Yokes on Keene. Provide safe routes for the elderly so they don't get spooked or hurt by rollar bladers, bikes, etc." 71. Reduced speeds in Rd 100/Broadmoor Blvd area, South of the freeway 72. Reducing speeding within the city limits for pedestrian safety, school children, disabled people, and bicyclists. Also proper lighting of crosswalks so that those that are crossing in the dark, in bad weather, or at peak traffic times are safe. 73. Restaurants and retail seem to be targeted for installation in and around Road 68, which is a travesty of traffic control. 74. Road 40 East is the biggest concern I have. 75. Road 100 corridor. Rapid growth will need a realistic plan so we do not repeat the road 68 mess. 76. "Road 68 & Burns needs a turn lane. 77. North side of court street & 4th needs concrete barriers so no one can fo across traffic from gas station on west side to drive north on 4th. 78. Need more access to I182 between rd 48 & rd 68 or 68 & 100." 79. "Road 68 congestion 80. Making sure road 100 doesn’t turn into road 68" 81. Road 68 is a mess! Attempts to "fix" it have only resulted in further the issues. Road 76 to Sandifur has no light and turning is treacherous. Road 100 is not an alternative as the bridge is narrow and kids from Delta frequently walk across that bridge with no pedestrian footpath. It is extremely dangerous! City appears to have given up. 82. Road 68 traffic 83. Safe bicycle access. 84. Safe walking & biking for children to get to school 85. Safety and protection for ones self and children. Making sure the community is safe. 86. Safety, sidewalks near schools that need to improve. 87. Sidewalks available walking paths and sidewalk lines in high foot traffic 88. Sidewalks definitely be fixed in Central in downtown Pasco also road 68 needs better infrastructure as traffic is getting out of control and has been some already for a while now. 89. "Sidewalks needed on Rd 68 for apartments north of shopping center. 90. The surface of the rivershore bikepath would improve with regular asphalt instead of rubbery substance. " 91. Spread business out a bit so Road 68 isn't such a cluster****. It would be nice to have a little more diversity on Road 100, especially with Gordon's Wine bar closed. 92. The biggest transportation challenge, as most know, is the intersection of Burden Boulevard and Road 68. Although this intersection isn't horrible, it does take some time in the morning and evening rush hours. I have surprisingly liked having the traffic cameras at this intersection as I feel it has cut back on the number of people running the light, making me feel a bit safer at this intersection. 93. "The burden to rd 68 stoplight is always backed up going West towards the freeway. There are two lanes but people only want to be in the right lane as they need to get on the freeway. I am often at this light for 10 minutes when I am hitting morning traffic. Page 168 of 281 94. Additionally there should be lights going onto Argent from rd 36 and rd 44. I live close to where I work but have to take my kids to pre-school. I take these Rds onto Argent every day and it’s always backed up. When I need to turn right or left it’s always a scary speedy pullout to get in front of the car. 95. " 96. The intersection of Broadmoor and Powerline will continue to get worse and worse. Especially with two new schools going in down the road that area needs to be addressed. Also the traffic around the new schools on Powerline will be a huge disaster like Mac and Chiawana if there is only one entrance to turn from Powerline into the schools. Traffic will be backed up in both directions. 97. The intersection of Burden and Rd 68 it’s always a nightmare 98. "There is a lack of bike paths in the city and connections between those paths. The city seems to count on the Sacagawea Heritage Trail (SHT) to serve as its main bike transportation path. 99. Court street is shown as designated bike path (really). There are no bike paths on Court Street east of 395. 100. There are are very few north/south bike paths to get to the SHT. There is a any alternatives going east/west other than SHT. 101. As a bike commuter, I find Pasco behind Richland and Kennewick in bike friendly streets. 102. It is possible to ride some streets such as Sylvester early as there is little traffic, but later in the day it is difficult. 103. There are some bike lanes in the area of Road 68 that are nice. The path in the area of the Soccer fields is narrow and in terrible shape making it difficult to ride on if there are others on the path. 104. The only bike path I'm aware of east of 395 is on 4th Avenue. It runs about 400 yards from Ainsworth north then just stops. " 105. There needs to be 106. Traffic congestion on major roads such as 68 & Burden. 107. Traffic congestion on road 68 108. Traffic congestion on road 68 109. Traffic congestion. 110. "Traffic flow around the HAPO Center/GESA Stadium back to I-182. 111. On Saturday mornings around soccer traffic, one can’t even go that direction down Burden towards Road 68. It can take 20-25 minutes to get from GESA Stadium to making a left turn onto Rd 68 to turn right into the freeway. It’s awful. " 112. TRAFFIC FLOW, RD 68 IS TERRIBLE. 113. Traffic flow. 114. "Traffic getting on/off the freeway. 115. Traffic light needed near new schools at rd 100/burns" 116. Two intersections first intersection Road 44 and W argent Rd. This intersection is really dangerous since both roads are really busy on vehicle traffic, I have seen the car line about 1000 ft. on Road 440. I have witness close call, since some people get desperate waiting 20 minutes to get onto W argent Rd. Second intersection, Road 36 and W argent Rd. on this intersection I have seen car line on road 36, the car line about 1500 ft. long. I have seen a lot of close calls. 117. underserved neighborhoods 118. Unsafe for biking on arterials. 119. We avoid Rd 68 because traffic is always so bad which means we take our dollars elsewhere. The Rd 68/ Burden intersection is the worst. 120. We need more access to bicycle paths that are wide enough. It's dangerous to ride on the street with too many close calls with motorists on their phones. 121. We need more outdoor recreational areas in West Pasco. Central celebrating places like John Dam plaza. 122. When you build roads - pave the whole damn thing, don’t half ass it until later Page 169 of 281 Question 3) Do you have any specific suggestions to address those issues? 1. A good idea would be to utilize Sylvester St. as a multimodal east-west connection for Downtown and West Pasco. An idea for some areas of Sylvester St., would be to remove one of the car lanes to use as a bike lane for each direction, with said bike lane located between parked car and curb. When it comes to implementing this idea or other bike oriented projects, utilizing certain concepts like Tactical Urbanism might be helpful in quickly and cheaply getting bike infrastructure off the ground. Build out sidewalks more quickly by using methods like a five-foot asphalt extension, with a raised concrete divider to provide extra protection from moving traffic (project costs are 10 percent of a traditional sidewalk). 2. Covered bike parking. Signage. We have a lot of potential and it just needs a bit more to tie.it all together. The overpasses are a huge issue. 3. Add another interchange to I-182. 4. complete sidewalks/bike lanes 5. Safe access points to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail from ALL neighborhoods. 6. Access to the blue bridge southbound from Argent without having to go around CBC. 7. ADD ANOTHER FREE WAY ACCESS BETWEEN 68 AND 100. ADD OVER PASS FOR 76 OVER THE HIGHWAY. 8. Add in signals so cars will stop for pedestrians. 9. "Additional signage would be helpful at minimum. Of course, designated bike paths would be better. 10. Intersections with stop lights need to be triggered by bicycles. For the life of me I don't know how to trigger the light on my bike at 4th and ""A"" street. Sometimes it will change, but just as often it doesn't turn green for a bicycle. 11. I've been a cyclist for many years and I'm usually comfortable riding around traffic. Rather than relying on multi-use path I often prefer to ride on streets so I can avoid meander walkers or those people strung across the path. I'd prefer a direct path rather then adding miles to my ride to get to the only path. 12. Allow for mixed uses in neighborhoods. 13. Better bus stops that aren’t just the gravel shoulder. 14. Better land use planning. Better transportation planning and design. 15. Better maintenance of those areas as well as expanding field of view or creating stop light. Specifically at the tunnel area at W Lewis and N 1st Ave. Also, add more stop signs/speed limit signs on Road 64. 16. Bike racks outside businesses or close to businesses on RD 68 17. Bring economic development to East pasco. At least put a grocery store so families and children have access to fresh food. 18. Build an exit off the backside of the GESA property onto the freeway as an “exit only,” so all the traffic does not spill into Burden, which is an absolute nightmare. 19. Car stopping on road 100 stop light and speeding down Court Street 20. "Change the Burden Blvd layout & remove the turn lane from E Burden at Clementine. This would allow more vehicles to enter the turn lanes to freeway access heading W on Burden. The far left turn lane is usually half empty because vehicles can't get to it do to the median curbing. 21. Change N 68 stop lights to stop for a longer interval while West bound traffic exits off the 182 to Rd 68 so those turners are not fighting with other drivers to merge to far left lanes at rush hour." 22. "Clean up, figure out Road 68. It's a nightmare with so many trying to criss-cross to the complete other side of traffic when traveling northbound between highway exit and Burden Blvd. Some cars trying to get all the way over to the Right to turn R on Burden or into HAPO Center. Some cars trying to get from freeway exit all the way to the L to turn L on Burden Blvd. 23. Also, think that southbound Road 68 (after Chapel Hill Blvd) going down to Argent should be two lanes. With traffic turning off new CHB (between Rd 68 and 84), can get congested going South between CHP and Argent. Not very much room for merging before turns to 1 lane." 24. Create some type of publication or GIS system. 25. Ensure that zoning is aligned with road capacity. Require developers to make necessary improvements to roads and infrastructure. This means directly, not by paying the city or the county to do it. 26. FCID canal, make it a trail. Page 170 of 281 27. Fuel storage tanks with fuel trucks that you use to supply city vehicles so it never goes bad with controlling the usage of it. 28. Generally good. 29. Have a patrol or something going around the neighborhood making sure that nothing bad is happening. 30. Hire great traffic engineers/ planners and listen to them! 31. I believe that this survey is accomplishing what I would value as most important to address in the plan. 32. I think the best way to solve the problem is. Making W Argent Rd. from Morasch Ln. to Road 44 4 line street. On each of the two intersections already mention build a round about. Since the round about low maintenance structure as low they use dry landscaping. This will be better option the loosing any live by car accident on any of those two intersections. 33. Large turning lanes, possibly a few stoplights if necessary. 34. logical/effective arterial layout for undeveloped areas 35. Make bike paths on all the major streets in Pasco. So you can easily connect to work and school and shopping. 36. Make sure it's wide with plenty of lanes. 37. Make sure that roads are de-iced and plowed as much as possible during snowy and icy weather. 38. More marked bike lanes on streets. 39. More on and off ramps, some more streets with businesses, and possibly some bypass routes. 40. My suggestion to you would be more along the lines of, since the lower income population doesn't necessarily see the importance and the crucial role they play in their surrounding environment as their attention goes more towards day to day survival. Maybe designating a group of your team to develop a plan on how those areas can be better maintained automatically. Since those areas are prone to more wear and tear due to lack of transportation or life circumstances such as homeless. 41. No 42. "North Pasco-Richland bridge 43. Not at this time. 44. Not sure how this can be remediated since I'm not an engineer. But perhaps more lanes, if it were possible, that turn onto Road 68 from Burden Boulevard that will lead to Highway I-182 since that seems to be why Burden Boulevard gets backed up. 45. Pave the whole thing 46. Please work on bringing in other restaurants and retail away from Road 68, either closer to downtown or out at Road 100. 47. Possibly look at adding bicycle/pedestrian features to paving/striping/maintenance projects moving forward if possible. It seems that funding may be a barrier to wide-spread development of pedestrian-friendly features. 48. Posting on social media in both English and Spanish, making diagrams about how things are supposed to function and having that available for those of us doing traffic safety outreach to share with the community. Love to partner! 49. Provide a walking shopping area for essentials like bread, daily, fruit, vegetables. Look at Boulder, CO. Don't pave the sagebrush, then build another gym for exercise. 50. Provide alternative routes. Don’t funnel all traffic through limited corridors. 51. Reasonable mitigation. 52. Reduce speed limits across the city. Include bicycle lanes. Add lights to crosswalks. Complete sidewalks. Add street lights. 53. Right lane freeway entrance rather than a left hand turn. 54. Roundabout? 55. Safe to school programs or expanded transit to provide east Pasco kids good access to Pasco High, Chiawana High and CBC. 56. The whole Road 68 commercial area appears to have been pro-actively designed to be deliberately bicycle-hostile." 57. Sidewalks!! How on earth as a City you can't build sidewalks on Rd 76 or 68 Pl is beyond me. How you can't widen Rd 76 between Burden and Wrigley is crazy and put in a center turning lane. Why this wasn't done 15 years ago is nuts! No one can cross the street without almost being hit. I have seen so many Page 171 of 281 have to dart across RD 76 to get to Walmart or any other shopping. The need to slow drivers down on RD 76 and through Island Park Neighbor is a huge need!! The neighborhood speed is around 35. Stop signs are suggestions. There are a lot of kids in this large neighborhood! 58. Sidewalks, multi use lanes 59. Specific suggestions for my neighborhood is just to repair the sidewalks so people with mobility devices do not get tripped over. 60. Stop allowing every field to be turned into a housing development. 61. Stop filling all the space with houses and leave room for parks. 62. Take a look at areas of transitions. Does it put the user in increased danger? Does a bike lane stop and is it expected the user enter a trail - clear on road marking communication. In addition, a city supported app with a map. A city supported app the seeks constant communication on issues - 311 app? 63. The next step is connectivity. Pedestrian underpasses at 68 and 100 are critical for people to cross extremely busy roads and would incentivize much more path usage. 64. There needs to be a freeway ramp to go towards Kennewick off of Argent to allow people to use Argent instead of the 68 interchange 65. There needs to be a off ramp to rd 44 if u are coming from Richland. Also a bridge across the columbia river from N Richland to NW Pasco would be a dream. Alleviate some of that traffic that has to go through Rd. 68. 66. Traffic light at rd 100/burns rd 67. "Two lane turn lane into the freeway from rd 68 going West. If there were two lanes going into the freeway then people would be more willing to use that additional lane from Burden to Rd 68. You also have a lane on that on ramp for oncoming traffic to turn into but it’s unnecessary since there is an on ramp for oncoming traffic. I have also gotten into two accidents at that on ramp from cars turning left onto the ramp. 68. Also traffic lights for argent! ;) 69. We are looking at moving due to the amount of traffic but also dealing with people speeding. 70. We need a sidewalk on road 100. Kids walking to summart from delta are in danger. And a bike lane on road 100 would be great. 71. What about beat cops, like a walking patrol. Bicycle police. 72. When roads are built or improved they should be built with the future in mind not as with Rd 68. Modified and "improved" at least 4 times in the last decade instead of built right the first time. 73. Widen roads and add a bike lane that is marked 74. Widen to allow for proper turn lanes. Look at congestion areas and provide overpass of some sort. Somehow GW Way, Clearwater, Columbia Center Blvd, and Gage all work, so refer to their layouts and plans for ideas as well. 75. Wider curb-tight sidewalks, further collaboration with other agencies that use the road and serve the community to see what their needs/wants are (e.g. transit) which can feed into your needs/wants. 76. With all the camera technology - couldn't the signal be smart enough to detect a person waiting to cross and be more responsive to THEIR needs the way it does to cars stacking up? If suggestion #1 doesn't work how about all way stop and allow a diagonal crossing. 77. Work with Franklin County Irrigation District to build a pathway on their canal right of way. Provide safer crossings of I-182. Set a goal of meeting the requirements to help the Tri-Cities become an official "Bicycle Friendly Community". 78. Work with the Franklin County Irrigation District to convert their canal right of way into a multi-use, non-motorized pathway across West Pasco. 79. "Yes, Connect Cable bridge to Oregon Ave via the Lewis St overpass, as Oregon Avenue is becoming more and more constrained due to increasing rail traffic. 80. Yes, I have given them throughout the survey. 81. Zone out some restaurant areas so not everything on Sandifur is lawyers and dentists. Question 4) What other suggestions do you have for us? 1. put a Crossing a crosswalk in front of the bike path as people come up from the park there is no crosswalk in the area 2. A better “downtown”. Than the actual downtown. There is no nightlife 3. Access to the blue bridge southbound from Argent without having to go around CBC. Page 172 of 281 4. Add a crosswalk at Rd 60 & Burden 5. Additionally, I know studies have been done in the past about adding alternative on-ramps and off-ramps around the Road 68 area - please find these and start implementation. 6. Another suggestion, would be to work towards drafting a bike parking ordinance mandating the installation of bike parking. An example from the City of Boise's Development and Design Standards Ch. 11-07 Subsection 2 (3) "Bicycle Parking Required- All developments shall provide bike racks in a prominent location at a ratio of one space per 5,000 square feet of gross building area." 7. Consider addressing and disrupting inequities. How can we promote socio economic diversity? 8. Crossing the freeway on road 100 for pedestrians is not as safe as it could be. I see students walking in the dark to Delta, lighting is poor and crosswalk at freeway entrance is ignored by drivers 9. Don’t make development pay for the sins of the past. 10. East on Columbia St and West on Clark St making Lewis St low speed two way. 11. Every major intersection should have 4 marked crosswalks - this having only 3 is dumb! 12. Gracias por la oportunidad de participar 13. Hanford rush hour traffic headed east from Richland and north from Kennewick is really congested and bottlenecked upon entering the highway to cross over onto the bridge towards west Pasco. Road 100 exit off-ramp should be considerably longer to take traffic off the highway. Perhaps, a new exit prior to road 100 which would lead to 100? 14. Hire a Qualified traffic engineer. Re-evaluate TIF’s and other growth mitigation compensation from developers. 15. Hold country commissioners accountable to the people rather than their business partners when planning 16. "I am glad for the addition of the light cameras. There are certainly areas that can be improved. However, a lot of the angst caused in driving is drivers that are rude and ignore the rules of driving. To me, enforcement of driving ...ticketing poor drivers goes hand in hand with the transportation plan. 17. One example, turning from Burden onto Road 68. Every day, I have people turn with me that do not plan ahead for their next turn. Then, they drive aggressively and force their way into the most right hand lane to take the cloverleaf onto 182 Eastbound. " 18. I know West Pasco is growing quickly, but sidewalks, bike paths, Crossing areas, Roundabouts, more lights (street, signal, and pedestrian), and police presence! 19. "I think this says it all! Go to https://www.pascochamber.org/bike-trails.html. 20. When you go to the Pasco Chamber of Commerce and find information about ""bike trails"" you find a map that shows the many paths in Richland." 21. I wish there was another freeway entrance between CBC and rd 68. That would be awesome! Maybe where Argent goes under the highway? That would take away a lot of traffic from the rd 68 area as residential commuters would be able to get to the freeway at another location. Also, you can’t go East on the freeway from West Pasco unless you go down Argent to 20th or to Rd 68. Would save commuters a lot of time to have an entrance for both directions in that location and would ease up a lot of traffic on rd 68. 22. If an intersection in our city is so dangerous that police officers can’t enforce traffic laws at that location then redesign the intersection or reroute traffic. Do not put in a red light camera and call that a solution. It is not. 23. If one has not been created yet I would suggest creating a database for the community, not just City employees, to express concerns regarding traffic issues for speed limit/lights etc so more people can add suggestions. 24. If we could get our promised park in our subdivision would be nice so we don't and our children don't have to cross main busy roads to go to a park. 25. If widening Sandifur or adding additional roads North of Sandifur occur, then something must be done about the access to these areas. The congestion and danger to the drivers and pedestrians in these areas is appalling. To expand while leaving a narrow bridge on Road 100 and the mess of Rd 68 is to build a building with straw for foundation - it may hold for a bit, but eventually, the whole infrastructure just crumbles. 26. Improve sidewalks that are lifting due to tree roots. Increase accessibility on sidewalks. 27. Just for you to listen and notice the amount of traffic that is on the west side of pasco 28. Keep up the communication in order to improve the city and how the community can safely move around the Tri-Cities. Page 173 of 281 29. Make additional investments to the good intent and positive work currently being demonstrated to make Pasco easier and safer to navigate without a motorized vehicle. 30. Open trails for just bikes. Maybe make one side of the street for bikes and the other side for pedestrians. 31. "Over pass on Road 76 that will go above high way 182 and connect on the intersection of Road 76 and Burden Blvd. Do not need to on or off ramp to the highway. This will reduce traffic on intersection Road 68 and Burden Blvd. 32. Another suggestion will be building a bridge from Road 76 Pasco, WA. to N Edison St. Kennewick, WA. This bridge will decrees the traffic on Freeway 395 bridge, More over this will create road 76 on a arterial witch will reduce the traffic on Road 68. Now how can we pay for the bridge? The City of Pasco can apply for a grand from the state, but the most important is going to be charge the people who want to use the bridge. If the bridge is going to be use for 7000 cars a day if we charge 2 dollars per car for 20 years equals to $10220000.00 dollars. This should be able to pay able to pay the bridge and the maintenance. Do not forget the 2 dollars could e flexible depending on the economy of the Tri-Cities. The cost could go up but not go down. A waiver to Tri- cities Fire department and Police departments. " 33. Pasco needs a bike shop, preferably a cooperative like Wheelhouse Community Bike shop, but located in East Pasco! 34. Please make it safer for pedestrians to cross the overpass at Road 68 and Broadmoor Blvd. Please continue to work with the BFT to continue to put up proper signage at stops, increase amounts of stops, service hours, add awnings for those waiting in rain/snow. 35. Please put a traffic light or 4-way stop at Sandifur and Convention Dr!!! It is so dangerous trying to turn in that area during high traffic hours. 36. "Public Pool between Rd 68 and Rd 100 would be great. 37. Ease the housing development between Rd 68 and Rd 100. 38. Re-engineer Road 68 (from the freeway to Sandifur) as well as Burden Blvd (from Road 76 to Road 60, at least) to more efficiently move traffic. Build another freeway entrance/exit to help alleviate some of the Road 68 traffic. Make sure that the same problems we have on Road 68 are not replicated on Road 100 as that area develops. 39. road 68 desperately needs repaved from Court to Argent, it was never designed to be the major road it has become. 40. Set a goal of Pasco meeting the requirements to help the Tri-Cities attain official "Bicycle Friendly Community". 41. "Side walks 42. Stop having sprinkles going in the street 43. Control speeding 44. Bring more buisness, neighbor coffee shop, grocery store, rite aid west pasco. Gas station by 92 sandifur." 45. Stop allowing hundreds and hundreds of new houses to always be built right around all the new schools. 46. Thanks for doing this survey. With some improvements Pasco could move from a good place to bicycle to a great place to bike. 47. The City has to plan for cars. The TriCities is not an urban area where ppl live and work within a 10 block radius. Everyone has cars and we drive to our destinations. Pasco needs to plan for the growth responsibility in a traffic sense where more cars are going to create congestion 48. The intersection by the water towers, could there be a light or roundabout there? 49. "The stoplight left turn off Burden at Road 68 is HORRIBLE. The engineer design is greatly flawed. 50. Add another turn lane that merges onto I-182 towards Richland. The left lane sits empty half the time because most cars need to turn right, so they won’t use the left lane. This causes huge backups on Burden. 51. IDEA: the set-up on GW Way and Colombia Point Drive In Richland is IDEAL and exactly what we need (number of lanes when turning Left from CPD onto GW Way is PERFECT). " 52. Transit and walking access to the airport. 53. Update your map. Its out of date...lots more development than what it shows. Have AAA update their TriCities map. Their latest is 2011. Provide city wide wifi like Australia does. Make all new development, especially commercial like big stores, use solar panels. 54. Utilize partnerships! We all want to be safe =) I also work with safe kids coalition, they would love to share info and I work with the traffic safety task force and will share this survey with them as well. Thank you for the opportunity to share! 55. Waking path across I-182 either in rd 100 or rd 68 Page 174 of 281 56. We need a light at road 90 especially with the new schools opening 57. Would love similar river walk in Pasco like Richland has. Little park and restaurants. 58. you need to make a plan for being somewhat self sufficient without relying on too many other companies to keep our day to day operation. The following response correspond to the maps depicting point/specific locations identified within the survey. Question 5) How can sidewalks be improved at this specific location? If other, please specify. 1. All sides need improvement 2. Also, there are sand dunes off BURNS rd. People easily access these and cause debris into our neighborhoods. ALSO, huge speeding area around there and loads of pedestrians crossing on a 50+mph rd, cause cars to swerve, or slow down to 25. People are trespassing there, because it's easily accessed. ALSO, the sand causes these HUGE drifts into the main road and your crews just scoop it and put it back, but do no change to the dunes themselves, making this happen repeatedly throughout the year. It's windy here and that is not a solution, it's a money suck. 3. Bumps 4. By placing sidewalks in this location. You have crosswalks that lead people to other side of the road by no sidewalks to walk on. 5. City needs to build trail along south side of Burns Road. They also need to plant street trees and replace the fencing to a common block wall. The cost of these improvements can be partially paid for by the adjacent property owners through an LID 6. Connection to library 7. Crosswalk lines 8. Dangerous area for cars and pedestrians 9. Entire Argent Street corridor needs ADA/Sidewalk improvements 10. For bicyclists and pedestrian should have a much better to go from one side of I-182 to the other. This underpass needs improvement. 11. I'm guessing that this property owner has been grandfathered in, so he doesn't have to put a sidewalk along Road 84 like the other homeowners have had to. The City should put a sidewalk here to connect it to the sidewalks on each side of this property. 12. Improve area for walking, running and biking 13. It is very difficult to cross Burden Blvd at any point between Road 44 and Convention. High speed of traffic (40 MPH), the narrowing of the road at Road 60, and lack of signage are all barriers to crossing. 14. Long, lonely, walled-off shared use paths are intimidating for women. 15. map does not show new schools, sidewalks needed up and down Burns 16. missing sidewalk 17. need sidewalks 18. Needs crosswalk 19. Needs crosswalk 20. Needs crosswalk for kids walking home 21. needs sidewalks 22. Needs sidewalks 23. No side walk 24. No sidewalks 25. No sidewalks 26. No sidewalks at all Page 175 of 281 27. No sidewalks on the south side of burns. No connectivity from schools to road 68 28. No sidewalks. Many people use this to access sandifur. 29. Not as bad as Road 68 overpass, but should be improved. 30. Physical barrier between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists 31. Physical separation between pedestrian/cyclist and vehicles. 32. Please don't let apartment buildings be constructed beyond the existing sidewalk. Have them put in a sidewalk that connects to their frontage with a latecomer's agreement to repay them. People walk in the street from the apartments into town. 33. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit 34. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit 35. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit 36. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit 37. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit 38. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit (connect curb and sidewalk along Lewis) 39. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit (connect curb and sidewalk along Lewis) 40. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit (connect curb and sidewalk along Sandifur, create safer crossing for pedestrians) 41. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit along Argent (wide curb-tight sidewalks for pedestrian and transit use) 42. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit along Argent (wide curb-tight sidewalks) 43. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit along Burden 44. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit along Chapel Hill (curb-tight) 45. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit along Court (wide curb-tight sidewalks for all pedestrians) 46. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit along Rd 44 (connect curb and sidewalk) 47. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross 48. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along A St 49. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Chapel Hill (connect curb and sidewalk) 50. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Heritage 51. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD68 52. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD84 (curb-tight) 53. Road and sidewalks can be widened/added 54. Safer stops & turns 55. sidewalk does not exist, plenty of room, lots of cement trucks and fast vehicles, route to overpass on bridge and farm and bike trail 56. sidewalks do not exist on 90 or 92. These are the roads we use to access sandifur. 57. Terrible underpass for bicyclists. 58. The neighboorhood is in urgent need for a sidewalk where they can continue their daily routines. We do not have a transit that goes into the route which makes individuals walk or bike to the nearest transit station. There needs to be security, comfort, and safety when we are walking to our destination around the community. 59. The Road 68 overpass is very dangerous to bicycle across. It is not pleasant to walk across. The shoulder accumulates significant debride and it would be helpful if street cleaners would clean it more often. 60. The sidewalk stops and doesn't go all the way to Massey Drive. The sidewalk should be extended to fill in the gap. 61. Very dangerous area to walk, run or bike 62. Very dangerous needs to be improved 63. We have no sidewalks, I realize this is county but there are hundreds of citizens in this area and many people try to walk, run, or ride bikes and it is very dangerous to do so. Page 176 of 281 64. Wider sidewalks on Court Street 65. With a middle school and an elementary school being built on Burns Road, the entire south side of the road needs a wide asphalt path immediately. Otherwise, the hundreds of students traveling to school will be doing so on the road. Question 6) How can safety be improved at this location? If other, please specify. 1. 3-way stop sign to slow down traffic on Paddington. It has become a racetrack. 2. 4 way stop - everyone speeds and nobody stops at the two directions that do have stop signs 3. 45mph was probably fine at one time but seems a little excessive due to exponential growth in this area 4. 4-way stop 5. 90 degree turn at the bottom of a steep grade. Engineers don't do this for cars, why do it for bicycles? 6. Animal control. There have been dog attacks by loose or poorly controlled animals. Make sure city trees and bushes do not impede the visual field of cars turning from Road 84 onto Sandifur Parkway. Currently there are trees in the way when looking East from that intersection. It contributed to a traffic accident during icy weather due to a speeding car on Sandifur and lack of visual field from Road 84 to the East (onto Sandifur). Also, Road 76 (behind Walmart and behind the library) needs to be finished. If you are driving from Burden Blvd to Sandifur (via Rd 76), the lanes are not clearly delineated. 7. Before and after school, the high schoolers RACE down Sterling Road, so that they can avoid the stop light at the corner of Rd 84 and Argent. Sterling Road is their short cut and has become very dangerous because the teenagers drive way too fast. Speeds need to be reduced and posted. A "local traffic only" sign would be great. The kids racing through the neighborhood don't live there. They just drive through VERY quickly. A solar powered sign that shows the driver's speed (beneath a sign with the posted speed limit) would be great 8. Bicycle lanes, pedestrian sidewalk, better off and on ramps for safety. This bridge is a deathtrap for bicyclers and pedestrians! 9. Bicycle lanes. 10. bike lane. Bikers bike to Candy Mtn and Badger Mtn. Road narrow, no decent shoulders 11. Bike lanes/sidewalks for crossing Rd 68 overpass. 12. Bike path and/or sidewalk 13. bike trail to connect river trail with Burbank/Refuge 14. Burden Blvd travel is too fast, lower MPH 15. Camera at the street light. Too many speeders 16. Cars drive too fast 17. Cars drive too fast even though the speed limit indicates 25 18. Convert street from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction with a center turn lane and bike lanes. 19. crosswalks & sidewalk 20. Dangerous lane layout for bicyclists. Speeding drivers. 21. Differ the flow or additional lane and sidewalk off The free way to gas station 22. Enforce speed limits. There is too many semi-trucks going 50 mph here. 23. everyone speeds here where many, many families walk with young children, and people race through this intersection nightly - peeling out and turning donuts constantly 24. Extend merge lane to Chapel Hill Blvd 25. Fill in the gap where lane off of I-182 ends and right lane begins again right before Chappell Hill 26. Flashing warning light needed for students crossing in the crosswalk. Traffic goes too fast and NEVER stops for pedestrians. This is a VERY dangerous intersection andany kids have to cross there before and after school 27. High speed travel on Argent, hard to take left turns Page 177 of 281 28. High speed travel on Argent, hard/dangerous left turns, backs ups during CBC travel 29. I saw someone almost get hit by a left-turning vehicle here. Protected pedestrian phase needed! 30. I wish they would paint the crossing lines where people are coming up from the bike path..... Years ago when the bike path was painted they had them and currently no crossing lines of maybe a lighted one because people are always stop at the stop sign on rd 100 and speed down court st. Someone is going to get hit as more people move into the neg 31. Illogical pedestrian flow 32. Larger pedestrian pathways across overpass 33. Lighted crosswalk 34. Major redesign - route traffic elsewhere or change/coordinate lights with DOT signals to improve flow 35. Many cement trucks, they are polite but too many, some at same time in both directions 36. More egress opportunities 37. Need a street light and you can’t see to the left because of the bushes 38. Need bike and pedestrian crossing 39. Need stop light 40. Need to separate pedestrian and bike traffic 41. No crosswalk 42. No sidewalk at all! Needs physical separation between pedestrian/cyclist and vehicles. 43. No sidewalk at all! Needs physical separation between pedestrian/cyclist and vehicles. 44. No sidewalk to get to A street 45. No space for safe crossings at freeways; no sidewalks, no bike lanes, high-speed ramps onto local roads. Death traps for active users, and no continuity of trail infrastructure. 46. Now that Sterling Road is completed and goes through from Road 84 to Road 88, many high schoolers use Sterling Road as a shortcut before school and after school so that they don't have to wait at the stop light at Argent and Road 84. Sterling Road has become a RACEWAY both before and after school. The teenagers who speed through the neighborhood have made it unsafe for the students who are walking along this road. I have three suggestions to attempt to slow down the teenage speeders: 1) a "local traffic only" sign (since none of the high schoolers who speed down this road live in this neighborhood. They just drive through it.), 2) a sign on the east end of Sterling Road with the posted speed, and 3) in addition to the speed limit sign, a solar powered sign that shows the driver's actual speed. 47. Pave & connect to Chappell Hill 48. Pedestrian crossing beacon, safer side walks 49. pedestrian crossing beacon, traffic signal 50. People always run the red light. 51. Protected bike lane please! 45 mph is way too fast and people go even faster! 52. Protected pedestrian phase 53. Red Light cameras 54. Red light runners. 55. Redesign of traffic lanes, red light cameras 56. Reduce car traffic lanes to three and put bike lanes in both directions, with car parking utilized to protect the cyclist. 57. Reduce congestion 58. Restrict left turns to St Thomas Dr from Broadmoor Blvd 59. Revision of travel lanes, red light cameras 60. safer sidewalks, bike lane 61. safer sidewalks/ bike lane Page 178 of 281 62. sidewalks 63. sidewalks 64. Sidewalks 65. Sidewalks 66. Sidewalks 67. sidewalks and bike lanes 68. sidewalks and bike lanes 69. Sidewalks and bike lanes 70. sidewalks and bike lanes 71. sidewalks, lots of speeding cars. 72. Small roads/busy no side to go off on when cars come 73. Speed bumps in this neighborhood are a must. Cars go through this neighborhood to bypass Rd 76 & Sandifur intersection 74. Speed Bumps Necessary 75. Speed bumps necessary 76. Speed Bumps Necessary 77. Speed Bumps Necessary 78. Speed check, cars drive too fast even during lunch picks up one car had to slam breaks even with a crosswalk duty 79. Stop signs, gesa trash blocks line of sight 80. Terrible street lighting. Turns off almost all the time. 81. The crossing needs separation for non vehicle traffic 82. The parking lot is awful. No stop signs and you have to be in the middle of the road to see in both directions. 83. The under path a lot of times has individuals going through it on bikes. Suggest maybe making a two way bike lane for them. 84. There are alot of accidents at this intersection which makes it nerve-racking when driving or walking/biking even when properly using the crosswalks. 85. There is a blind spot because of fences 86. There is no bike path in front of the new school on dent road 87. This crosswalk is very unsafe. Cars do not see or stop for pedestrians. MANY times over the past several years I have seen people almost hit in this crosswalk. It needs some lights or warnings that there is a crosswalk there. I will no longer stop for pedestrians at this crosswalk if they are waiting on the sidewalk because it is not safe. Cars go around others when they have not merged in that area or on coming traffic does not stop. 88. To busy 89. Traffic signal or Roundabout to make corrior enterance easier 90. Two lanes merge into one then within a short distance a turn-pocket is initiated. Some people seem to treat the small portion of 1-lane road as a 2-lane road in this area. 91. Very difficult to turn onto Sandifur here. 92. Walking bridge over rd 68 to connect the bike/walk path so you don’t have to cross at the light 93. Widen the road, include bike lanes. 94. Widen the road, include bike lanes. 95. Wider/less blind corner Question 7) how can crosswalks be improved at this location? If other, please specify. 1. A traffic light needs to be put at the corner of first and Lewist by the underpass Page 179 of 281 2. Add cross walk markings 3. Give pedestrians priority! 4. Like to have a stop light in that cross area 5. Lots of people, many kids, cross here to get to 7-11. 6. Many students have to cross here before and after school. This is a VERY dangerous intersection. Traffic goes too fast and NEVER stops for pedestrians. Need flashing lights like the ones on the corner of Rd 84 and Sterling Road 7. MANY students use this crosswalk to go to McLoughlin. The cars on Argent drive WAY TOO FAST, and they HARDLY EVER stop for pedestrians at this crosswalk. The city should put in push-button flashing pedestrian lights like one recently installed at the corner of Sterling Road and Road 84 (by Chiawana High School). This crosswalk by McLoughlin is just as busy, and the cars are traveling just as fast! Now that 6th graders will be attending McLoughlin (instead of elementary school), the pedestrians walking to McLoughlin will be younger. They need lights for safe crossings. 8. No connection N-S to existing sidewalk. No sidewalks on N side of Sandifur 9. Please add a crosswalk. 10. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross 11. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross 12. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Argent 13. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Argent 14. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Burden 15. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Chapel Hil 16. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Chapel Hill 17. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Court 18. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Heritage 19. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Lewis 20. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Rd100/Broadmoor 21. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD44 22. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD68 23. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD68 24. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD76 25. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD84 26. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Sandifur 27. River entrance there so lots of people cross at this intersection to get to river path. 28. speed has already been reduced on this road, BUT all bus stops are cross the street and people don't slow down or stop occasionally for a slowing bus. WITH a new school just a couple miles away, more of us would like to be able to walk the kids down the street or to school or ride bikes and CANT, it's just not safe. I would suggest crosswalks on all the road entries there, but couldn't move the map. Our bus stops go all the way on DENT. 29. The striping on road 68 south of freeway is horrible. Needs completely redone, sidewalk added, bike lanes added, cross walks added. 30. There are very few crosswalks on Burden. We need to make this one safer! IT IS VERY DANGEROUS 31. There is no crosswalk here 32. This is a very busy street cats do not slow down for crossers 33. your map is way out of date, people crossing 68 here, dangerous Page 180 of 281 Question 8) How can bicycle paths be improved at this location? If other, please specify. 1. A lot of tack weeds on the bike path along the river during the summer between about Rd 92 and 76. Also the re-paving of the bike/walking path near Ivy Glades made the path worse, not better. 2. And here is where it fails. 3. And here is where it fails. 4. And the trail basically dies here. 5. Better trail continuity... why does every bike/ped facility design take a back seat to roads, especially in areas where cars clearly should not have the priority (e.g. parking lots in parks). 6. cracks are not pleasent to ride on. So I avoid these path most of the time. 7. from Delta High School to the bridge, including Court Street, needs a bike trail BADLY 8. Gravel path?? 9. Horrible expansion joint designed for car tires, not bike tires. 10. light doesn't change for bikes. 11. Lower vehicle speeds 12. Lower vehicle speeds 13. Lower vehicle speeds 14. More of these... it's how people can get to the trail system. 15. More of these... this is the last trail connection for some distance. 16. More paved room - no sidewalk or parking 17. Nasty metal grate covering half the bike lane... sagging, jagged metal. 18. Need bike route between Keene Road bike route and trailhead for Candy Mtn. Dallas Road is scary to ride. Only shoulder is sloping pebbles and dirt. 19. No bike path 20. parking vehicles push bikes into traffic or onto the sidewalks 21. Pathway was repaired but not quality work. Too rough. 22. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along A St 23. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Argent 24. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Argent 25. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Court 26. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along RD100/Broadmoor 27. Provide better infrastructure for transit and public's access to transit as well as safe areas to cross along Sandifur 28. Put a bicycle lane in! 29. Remove above ground posts. Not required. If needed, place posts in holes in ground. Safety hazzard especially at night. 30. roots and broken sidewalk 31. Sante fe is a busy rd for bikes and kids going to school at McGee and Franklin. Kids are either riding their bikes on sidewalks or on the rd. It would probably be safer if there were bike lanes 32. See previous comments. 33. See previous comments. 34. Sharrows and/or signage that cyclists may take the lane 35. Something very basic would be nice. 36. The bike lane across the suspension bridge is ok, but the connection to this bike lane from other areas needs improvement. I commute via bike from Kennewick (Southridge) to Burbank. This is definitely a spot of concern for me. Page 181 of 281 37. the cracks in the walkway/ bike path make it unpleasent. I rather ride in the street. 38. The ride one side / walk the other side approach is very poor (striping) design and inconsistent with WSDOT standards. 39. The section that was paved in the last few years is horrible. Please, redo the work. 40. The striping at this trail intersection is just weird. 41. There are no marked bike paths in our neighborhood or arterials. 42. There needs to be a better way to bike through here. 43. Very poor surfacing on repair of water-damaged asphalt 44. Wait... how far out of the way do you have to go to ride a straight-line path on the trail? 45. When the resurfaced this bike/walking path they made it much worse. 46. Why should a bike have to stop for cars accessing a parking lot? Question 9) How can business access be improved for this location? If other, please specify. 1. Lakeview community is distant from downtown local stores, many of the individuals in this neighborhood dont have access to transportation and do walking to get their groceries. We do not have a close transit because it was a hazard issue not having sidewalks. If we were to have sidewalks we could possibly gain transit access as well. 2. Need a rite aid or whole foods, 3. Poorly designed access through residential neighborhood. Too much single use zoning and also tall fencing limiting access to services. 4. Putting in bike lanes on 4 th avenue from Court St. to Old Navel Base Question 10) What type of issue(s) do you experience here? 1. Road 76 (behind Walmart and behind the library) needs to be finished. If you are driving from Burden Blvd to Sandifur (via Rd 76), the lanes are not clearly delineated. 2. A hazard. No safety when walking, jogging, or biking. There is no light posts, which makes it hard to see when driving and have to turn on my high beams in order to be able to drive and see properly. It is not a problem turning on high beams, but I should not have to do that at 8pm in a neighborhood where there are individuals walking or jogging at those hours. Some individuals/students walk around those times home because there are no transportation from their jobs, school, or outside of school activities. 3. A lot of traffic and parties at 7711 Cordero Drive. 4. Additional bike trail/lanes along 12 or to access 12. 5. Big walls orce long walks to get into the neighborhood then long walks back to where I am going - all in the unshaded heat. 6. Busy four way stop. 7. Cars speeding make it hard to cross either as pedestrian or turning. 8. Congested 9. Congested area for merging traffic. 10. Congested area for merging traffic. 11. Congested area for merging traffic. 12. Dangerous road with no walking or bike access. 13. Empty and boarded businesses, for decades. Disrepair and lack of preventive maintenance particularly at Peanuts Park and Farmer's Market. 14. Failure to yield, impatient drivers at stop signs Page 182 of 281 15. Heavy congested traffic 16. Intersection is getting busier and busier and that makes it harder not only to cross Court (north to south, or south to north) by car, but also by bicycle. 17. It is all street travel. 18. It's almost impossible to turn on Sandifur when school gets out. 19. Lack of sidewalks or bike lanes. 20. Left lane on burden is blocked by traffic in right lane due to high traffic congestion. 21. Long lines forming on Southbound Rd 36 trying to make a left on Argent at busy times of the day. 22. Main thoroughfares do not seem to have timed signals so that the primary direction of travel flow can move quickly through the City. 23. Mentioned on previous page 24. Narrow road 25. No sidewalk or bike path 26. No sidewalks, no streetlights no bus service 27. No sidewalks. No street lights. 28. Not safe for families to travel down Road 40 East. No lighting and sidewalks or paths. Land is currently owned by a farmer. 29. Only half the road is paved 30. Only half the road is paved 31. Pave and connect Chappell Hill and Road 108 32. people need more access here. An off ramp from eastbound i182 33. People speeding down Sandifur Parkway and don't consider people walking or riding bikes are safe. 34. Poor visibility due to trees and shrubs. 35. Speeders 36. Speeding cars through the neighborhood. 37. Students, kids have to walk all the way to A street to catch a bus and it’s unsafe 38. tack weeds in late summer early fall / rubbery asphalt is bad stuff. 39. Terrible line on Southbound Rd 44 trying to make a left on Argent at busy times of the day. Accidents will be happening. 40. The street is too narrow here for cars to pass through smoothly and customers and employees to park on the street in front of the market. I’ve been nearly hit weekly since I moved to my current home about a year ago. People are constantly crossing the street to get to the market. It’s very dangerous. 41. The striping in the middle of the street denotes no turning. However, people stop to turn left and back up the road. 42. There is no light posts and makes it difficult when driving, walking, or jogging. 43. There is too much traffic for the current design, especially heading South. Traffic often backs up all the way across the 182 bridge. 44. This large acreage would be wonderful as a walking, biking, birding, sledding, snowshoeing, XC skiing (last 3 when it snows obviously) and also motorcycle and ATV area (although I only added those last two to be fair to all sports although I prefer they not go there). Instead you are going to "pave paradise and put up a parking lot", with lots more traffic and noise and useless stripmalls. 45. This parking lot needs a stop sign desperately! People are always almost running into each other as they enter from Sandifer. 46. Traffic Congestion due to poor traffic lighting systems to address the growth. 47. Traffic jam during morning/evening commutes and special events from The Hapo center. 48. Traffic speeding. 49. TRAFFIC!!! So hard to turn out of my neighborhood, we need another light on Sandifer to help combat the traffic. The light at Midland is useless, we get so many cars from rd68 and rd 100 it’s needs to get broken up somewhere in between 50. Vehicles traveling north on road 68 block right turn to exit to highway 51. Very dangerous crossing both biking and walking. 52. Very heavy traffic Page 183 of 281 53. We need to be a able to have more safe crossings for bikes/pedestrians on main roads to access trails along the river. Families cannot cross the street safely with kids. 54. We need to be a able to have more safe crossings for bikes/pedestrians on main roads to access trails along the river. Families cannot cross the street safely with kids. 55. We need to be a able to have more safe crossings for bikes/pedestrians on main roads to access trails along the river. Families cannot cross the street safely with kids. Question 11) Do you have any suggestions to address this issue? 1. A crosswalk light would be very helpful. 2. Add speed bumps to force cars to slow down. 3. Adding sidewalk in Rd.40 and adding a bus route this way. Also street lights! 4. Another light on Sandifer Parkway, at rd 90 or Westminster. 5. Assign more traffic patrols down Burns Rd. before it becomes a school zone and kids start getting hit by cars doing 100mph+ down the road. 6. Configure the traffic lighting system to address the issues of the traffic during peak hours. 7. Crosswalks with beacons. 8. Crosswalks with beacons. 9. Dedicated turning lane to exit road 68 to head East on highway 10. Expand lanes heading South to Road 100. 11. Grocery store or rite aid 12. Hard to fix. Perhaps some bypass routes around this bottleneck. 13. Have residents remove trees and shrubs 14. Is there a chance the farmer would donate that part of land for a sidewalk or path so the residents can travel safely to A Street? As far as lighting, I realize that is another beast on it's own. I was told the poles are too far apart from one another to reach standards. 15. Lower the speed limit to 25 mph through residential areas on Broadmoor Blvd. Enforce the speed limits. A stop light at the corner of Broadmoor Blvd. and Burns Rd would also be helpful to slow traffic down to let drivers see pedestrians in a crosswalk and prevent accidents. 16. Make it safe for Lakeview adults and children by providing lite sidewalks and bus service 17. More police in the area, please. 18. More streets or more exits 19. No. 20. off ramps and on ramps so that not everyone is using rd68. 21. Paint in lane markers, especially bridging the area where the road is really wide (behind Walmart), and where it narrows (behind the library). 22. Pave and open the road 23. Pave the East side of the road 24. Pedestrian Crossing lights like on Sanifur for Maya Angelou 25. Place light posts. There enough space for that to happen. Also, if its too difficult to place light posts, there is also posts already, placing a lights on those posts would help the community extremely. 26. Please finish installing Road 76 at its full width. 27. Port of pasco to install sidewalks or bike lanes to bergstrom airport 28. Put in a roundabout 29. Put in a signal and a lighted crosswalk. Page 184 of 281 30. Repave it 31. Roundabout 32. Safe crossings with beacons. 33. Shorter blocks, walking paths every 10-20 houses or so. 34. Sidewalks and street lights. 35. Sidewalks would be nice! 36. Some overpass or tunnel that would be for bicyclist and pedestrians only somewhere between Argent and Boardmoor. 37. Stop sign! 38. There is a portion of a sidewalk on 1505 S. rd. 40 E. that has been started already. It would be reasonable and beneficial for the sidewalk to continue until the trailer park. There is enough space for the sidewalk to be constructed, it would benefit the field workers who are working in that area and the community as well. When the community has a sidewalk, it would make it less difficult for them to access transportation. Across the street, there is also enough room for lights posts to be put up. 39. This spot (northbound) would be another to install the extruded curb - or put in a left hand turn lane. 40. Traffic light needed controlled by camera, so during non busy times those traveling on Argent don't have to needlessly wait a long time. 41. Traffic signal. 42. We need a bridge over 182 west of Walmart. 43. West Pasco needs another traffic interchange besides road 68 and road 100. It’s only going to get worse. 44. Where I came from (Seattle Area) timed signals had been widely implemented and substantially decreased travel times. During heavy congestion times drivers could pass along major arterials in the prodominant direction of travel without stopping for the most part, and cross-streets got to go every 2-3 minutes. 45. Widen the street or ask them to find a way to park cars in their lot 46. "Yes 47. " 48. YES! I love this part. I’d prefer to have a discussion with a number of ppl to contribute to an overall solution. From what I see a trail connecting Pasco out to recreational areas along the snake, outdoor parks, etc need to be upgraded. The Sacajawea park/trail that is there does not appear to connect to a bike lane/trail into the city. In addition, how are they maintained? Depending on the type of bike the user is riding, a ‘rough’ trail may not provide access for all. 49. Yes, make it a large multi-use park as above, with a treed wetland (already exists - there are birds of prey, fish, waterfowl, etc.) but needs some rehab work. Clean up the dumped stuff). Plant more trees and shrubs to attract more wildlife . This could be a mecca for open space recreation for all the houses you are building all around the area, and for all the new schools popping up close by. Question 12) What do you live about this place/location? 1. Along the river - very pleasant place to walk and bike and there is room for everyone. 2. argent access from 36 is bad, 3. Beautiful river, bridges, some wildlife. 4. Birdlife, greenery, trees, safe bike path (the dot may not be on the right location; I like Chiawana Park) 5. BREWS! It's amazing. Amazing selection of beers, friendly environment, trivia, but just a little pricey and it's gotten much more expensive over the years. 6. CBC access on 20th and argent need help. 7. Church :) 8. Coffee and food 😂😂 9. Delicious smoothies. 10. Downtown Pasco Page 185 of 281 11. Easy access and lots of scenery. We should restore the unused areas back to habitat. 12. Great customer service!! 13. Has what our family needs for groceries 14. I dont, traffic management is terrible. 15. I like that once here, I can ride a bike or walk long distances safely with my family. I can even head towards downtown Pasco safely on the trail. However, once I arrive near downtown the road is not safe to travel there. The roads are not safe, due to lack of crossings/bike lanes, and heavy car traffic. 16. I love that this building is an all-in-one pet care center (daycare, vet, grooming, supplies). 17. I walk and ride my bike on the path along the river from Rd 100 to Sacajawea Park 18. Open parks, excellent safe trails to walk and ride on, access to downtown pasco, boat ramps, etc. 19. Road 68 businesses. 20. Sacagawea Trail at Osprey Pointe is a beautiful segment of the trail, but underutilized due to access. 21. Short walk from our home. Walk here regularly. See ducks and geese. Use swinging bench next to river. Need more of those by river's edge and not just along walking path. 22. The bike/walking path throughout Pasco/Kennewick/Richland 23. There are no cars. 24. There is great amount of space for me to walk, jog, or bike. Beautiful view as well. 25. Wade Park has one of the best river walks in the Tri Cities! Question 13) What issues do you face accessing this location/area? 1. A promised park from for years ago. That's why most of us live in this area. They promised us a park and we haven't received anything. 2. additional access to Rd 68 from south side of 182 3. After shopping at Yokes, IHOP, Taco Bell (or any other businesses in that area), I can't turn left (southbound) onto Road 68. The way the traffic is engineered, southbound traffic is prohibited from those locations. You have to first drive northbound, then find a place to turn around. For this reason, I often stop for lunch in Kennewick instead and limit my shopping at Yokes due to the traffic hassle. 4. Clutter and bad traffic timing. 5. Congestion, lack of bicycle parking, safety 6. Crossing on Road 68 overpass. 7. Developments are being added (not all with sidewalks), and oppertunities may be missed to set up the required features for pedestrian/bicycle access. 8. "From Convention and Wrigley, I have to pass through a field. Once I walk through it, there is no sidewalk except for near the retail on Road 68 and Burden. This is not safe for families with children. 9. From the point of leaving the Suspension bridge the route/trails/bike lanes are difficult to access. 10. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood . Riding a bike is very DANGEROUS on these roads. No designated bike lanes and/or sidewalks, especially south of the freeway along Road 68. 11. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood . Riding a bike is very DANGEROUS on these roads. No designated bike lanes and/or sidewalks. 12. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood coming from the Sacagawea Heritage Trail. Riding a bike is very DANGEROUS. 13. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood which is nearby. Riding on Argent is very DANGEROUS. Bike lanes and sidewalks are needed. 14. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood which is very nearby. Crossing Court Street and/or Sylvester is very DANGEROUS. Page 186 of 281 15. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood which is very nearby. Crossing Court Street and/or Sylvester is very DANGEROUS. No designated bike lanes and/or sidewalks 16. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood which is very nearby. Crossing Court Street is very DANGEROUS. 17. I cannot access this point safely on bike with my family (young children) from my neighborhood which is very nearby. Crossing Court Street is very DANGEROUS. 18. It is hard to cross unless there is a crossing guard out. Cars drive too fast down Sandifur and don’t see pedestrians waiting to cross. 19. Lack of safe access to the area via bicycle. This goes for any access to the river corridor from the north side of I-182 20. Long, slow drive lane from Rd 88 to the parking lot 21. More walking paths 22. Same as previously stated 23. there should be more things to do in East pasco 24. This design was a transportation nightmare. I get lost every time I drive through there. 25. Too dangerous to bicycle anywhere near Road 68 commercial area. 26. Traffic on Road 100 is dangerous for bicycle from NW section of city to Chiawana Park. Page 187 of 281 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 5, 2021 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 5/10/21 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Ordinance - PMC Amendment: Lots without Public Street Frontage (MF# CA2021-005) I. REFERENCE(S): Draft Ordinance Staff Report to the Pasco Planning Commission Dated: 04/15/2021 Meeting Dated: (w/Decision) Planning Commission from Minutes Pasco 03/18/2021 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On July 1, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4444 creating a new option that would allow for residential construction on lots (parcels) without public street frontage. The City has seen an interest in the use of the Lots without Public Frontage regulations, as it allows for development on lots with irregular shapes, sizes, and surroundings. As of April 2021, the City has had two completed applications with developments in progress that have allowed nine additional homes for construction. City Council had asked staff to provide an update on the new regulation to demonstrate how the new provision was being utilized and to make refinement, if necessary. Staff considers the added option a success and has proposed minor refinements to the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) to ensure it is used as intended and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and City Council Goals. Page 188 of 281 The Pasco Planning Commission hosted a workshop in March and a public hearing in April of this year. The Planning Commission recommended the proposed amendments to the City Council at their April 15, 2021 meeting. V. DISCUSSION: City Planning staff has consulted with the Pasco Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Building/Engineering Divisions for the revisions below. Staff has identified language that may provide added clarity for applicants. Pavement and Easement Width Minimums Staff is proposing to increase and combine the pavement/easement requirements to 20 feet. The increase ensures that the shared access has enough area for fire and emergency response. Staff notes that the two sites using the shared frontage requirement so far have exceeded the minimums established in the PMC. This revision would mitigate potential conflicts for future proposals. Public Frontage Width Staff proposes to remove the reference to minimum frontage as this is addressed through the underlying residential zoning district development standards. The current language is not necessary, and the proposal will eliminate future conflicts. Pavement Sections The current regulations require pavement sections of the shared frontage access to be approved by the Pasco Public Works and Fire Departments. This is not needed, as all improvements within the public right -of-way or for private development are specified in the City Design and Constructions Standards and Specifications, which were adopted by the City Council on October 7, 2019. Applicable Residential Zoning Districts When the Ordinance No. 4444 was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and adopted by City Council, the intent was made that this option was to be used to maximize land use efficiency and densities and only applicable where lots had existing topographic, geographic, or challenging surroundings. To ensure consistency with the original intent of that ordinance, and alignment with Comprehensive Plan and Council Goals, the staff is proposing that the RS- 20 residential zoning district be removed as an option. Application Requirements The current language includes references to characteristics, restrictions, and standards. Staff is proposing to more clearly identify how applicants can apply for and provide justification for this option. Page 189 of 281 Also included are references to the Comprehensive Plan (2018-2038) Goals and Policies. Land Use Policy LU-2-F Discourage developments dependent on septic systems and at a density below the minimum, to sustain urban levels of service Land Use Policy LU-4-E Encourage the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network Housing Policy H-4-C Increase housing supply and diversity through appropriate and flexible development standards Utilities Policy UT-1-A Ensure that public water and sewer services are available concurrently with development in the urban growth area Capital Facilities Policy CF-2-A Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly, progressive, and efficient manner Implementation Policy IM-1-A Maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective Page 190 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21.20.060 - 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 21.20.060 “LOTS WITHOUT PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE.” WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to PMC 21.05.020 has identified the benefits in regulating the division of land within the Pasco Urban Growth Area to promote the health, safety, convenience, comfort, urban infill, prosperity and general welfare of the present and future residents of the Pasco Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, the City has existing isolated residential lots where the width and depth exceed the lot dimension standards of PMC 21.20.040; and WHEREAS, the dedication of public street frontage on said lots can encourage sprawl by preventing denser infill development of housing and the efficient use of land; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that providing a tool for development using flexible design and development standards may assist in meeting the demand and need for housing for all members of the community; and WHEREAS, Housing Goal 4-C of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan states the city shall increase housing supply and diversity through appropriate and flexible development standards; and WHEREAS, Implementation Policy 1-A of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan states the city shall maintain city codes, standards and guidelines which are clear, concise and objective. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 21.20.060 entitled “Lots without public street frontage” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 21.20.060 Lots without public street frontage. (1) Characteristics. Flag lot developments may be approved on a lot without full public street frontage in which access is provided by an approved private driveway/access strip. Purpose. These regulations are intended to implement comprehensive plan goals and policies encouraging infill development, more efficient use of the remaining developable land, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and creating opportunities for more affordable housing. (2) Restrictions and Standards. The City’s preferred standard for lot configuration is defined in PMC 21.20.050. Creation of residential lots without public street frontage may be approved only by meeting the criteria identified in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(n) of this section: Page 191 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21.20.060 - 2 Applicability. All applications proposing residential lots without public street frontage may be approved only when each of the requirements identified below have been met. These conditions are supplemental to any other requirements found in PMC Title 21. In the event of any conflict, the conditions in this section shall apply. (a) Allowed in residential zones where construction of a public street would prevent the achievement of the minimum residential density of the underlying zone designation;All applications shall include a site map depicting proposed lot layout, including the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels, if any; (b) Permitted only where, due to geometric, topographic, or other physical features in proportion to the size of the development, it would be impractical to extend or build a publicly dedicated street; (c) Must be approved through subdivision process identified in this title;Lots without public street frontage shall not be permitted within the RS-20 zoning district; (d) There shall be no more than three adjoining lots created without public street frontage; (e) Emergency Access. When the furthest point of a proposed structure is greater than 150 feet in distance from the public right-of-way, as measured along an accessible route, an approved fire vehicle turnaround with a minimum inside turning radius of 30’ is required as defined by the International Fire Code; (f) All corners shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30’; (gf) Parking. No parking is permitted along the access (shared driveway) portion of the lot. The installation of no parking signage may shall be required as a condition of approval; (hg) Utilities and Improvements. Fire hydrants shall be located to meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. Extension of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water or other utility lines that result from the creation of lot(s) will be at the expense of the property owners and subject to approval by the City Public Works, Building and Fire Departments;All impacted and new utilities and improvements shall be constructed to the standards identified in the Pasco Design and Construction Standards and Specifications; (ih) Drainage and storm water shall meet the requirements of PMC 16.10.050; (jg) Signage with addresses shall be posted on the public street side for all properties that are adjacent to any private shared driveway or access. Signage shall comply with the requirements of PMC Title 17. All addresses shall be displayed on the same pedestal unless otherwise authorized. (kj) Structural setbacks on lots without public street frontage shall conform to the requirements of the applicable zone; Page 192 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21.20.060 - 3 (lk) The shared access must be located no closer than five feet to any existing structure; (mk) Access, maintenance and utility easements necessary to accommodate and maintain proposed driveway/shared access improvements and utilities shall be approved through the subdivision process in this title and included on the face of the final plat; (l) Pavement sections for nonpublic street frontage driveway improvements are subject to approval by the Pasco Public Works and Fire Departments. Gravel lots will not be permitted; (nm) The shared driveway/access must be maintained by the homeowner’s association or by the adjoining property owners. A maintenance agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and signage on the plat and must include provisions for snow removal, garbage pickup and any other necessary provisions as determined by the City; and (on) Access shared/common driveways for lots without public street frontage shall abide by the minimum frontage, pavement and easement widths shown in the table below: The shared driveway/access shall have a minimum paved width of 20’. Lot Configuration Minimum Lot Frontage (Flag Width) Minimum Pavement Width Minimum Easement Width Single-Family Detached; One Dwelling Unit per Lot 1 lot 12 10 14 2 lots with adjacent flags 8 (per lot) 15 19 3 lots with adjacent flags 8 (per lot) 20 24 Multiple Dwellings Duplex on 1 lot (2 units on 1 lot) 12 (per unit) 15 20 [Ord. 4444 § 2, 2019.] Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this 10th day of May, 2021. _____________________________ Saul Martinez Mayor Page 193 of 281 Ordinance – Amending PMC – 21.20.060 - 4 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: _________________________ Page 194 of 281 CA2021-005 –Lot’s without Public Street Frontage Proposed Revisions Necessary to comply with Council Goals and Comprehensive Plan Policies for growth management Changes •Pavement Width: Increase to 20’ minimum •RS-20 Zoning removed as an option •Refers directly to the City of Pasco Design and Construction Standards and Specifications •Clarifies application requirements History •Adopted July 2019 (Ordinance No 4444) •Created to allow residential infill and the development of lots with odd shapes, topography or special circumstances •Allows residential lots to have legal access via a private/shared frontage (accessway/driveway) •Council requested staff update after one yearPage 195 of 281 CA2021-005 –Lot’s without Public Street Frontage Examples •Two preliminary plats approved by the Pasco Hearing Examiner •Habitat Cedar Avenue •S Cedar Ave & W Lewis Street •11 Lots •Joel’s Addition •Road 56 & W Sylvester •18 Lots Habitat Cedar AvenueJoel’s AdditionPage 196 of 281 CA2021-005 –Lot’s without Public Street Frontage Cedar Avenue Page 197 of 281 CA2021-005 –Lot’s without Public Street Frontage Road 56 Image Courtesy: Dream Home Video Tours & Real Estate PhotographyPage 198 of 281 CA2021-005 –Lot’s without Public Street Frontage QuestionsPage 199 of 281 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: MF# CA 2021-005 Lots without Public Street Frontage Background A public hearing was held at the March 18, 2021 Planning Commission to review a proposed come amendment to Pasco’s Lots without Public Street Frontage ordinance. The ordinance (Ordinance No 4444), codified as Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 21.20.060 was adopted by the Pasco City Council on July 1, 2019. City Council requested staff provide an update on the regulation after one year in place to demonstrate how the new provision was being utilized and to make refinement, if necessary. At the public hearing, city staff provided a summary of the proposed amendments to ensure consistency in application, clarity during the development review process and alignment with Council Goals and the Comprehensive Plan. The Pasco Planning Commission closed the public hearing on March 18, 2021. No comments were received on the proposed amendments summarized below. Summary of Updates and Revisions City Planning staff has consulted with the Pasco Fire Department, Public Works and Building/Engineering Divisions for the revisions below. Staff has also identified language that may provide for added clarity for applicants. Pavement and Easement Width Minimums The current minimum requirement for pavement and easement widths are 12’ and 14’ for one dwelling (lot) and increase when additional dwellings are proposed. Staff is proposing to increase and combine the pavement/easement requirements to 20’. The increase ensures that the shared access has enough area for fire and emergency response. Staff notes that the two sites using the shared frontage ordinance so far have exceeded the minimums established in the PMC. This revision would mitigate potential conflicts for future proposals. Public Frontage Width Staff proposes to remove the reference to minimum frontage as this is addressed through the underlying residential zoning district development standards. The current language is not necessary, and the proposal will eliminate future conflicts. Pavement Sections Page 200 of 281 2 The PMC currently requires pavement sections of the shared frontage access to be approved by the Pasco Public Works and Fire Departments. This is not needed, as all improvements within the public right-of-way or for private development are specified in the City Design and Constructions Standards and Specifications, which were adopted by the Pasco City Council on October 7, 2019. Applicable Residential Zoning Districts When the Ordinance was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and adopted by City Council, the intent was made that this option was to be used to maximize land use efficiency and densities and only applicable where lots had existing topographic, geographic or challenging surroundings. To ensure consistency with the original intent of the ordinance, and alignment with Comprehensive Plan and Council Goals, staff is proposing that the RS-20 residential zoning district be removed as an option. Application Requirements The current language includes references to characteristics, restrictions and standards. Staff is proposing to more clearly identify how applicants can apply for and provide justification for this option. Additional Revisions Staff has included all proposed changes and revisions in Exhibit #A of the Planning Commission staff report. Policy Guidance • Land Use Policy LU-2-F o Discourage developments dependent on septic systems and at a density below the minimum, to sustain urban levels of service • Land Use Policy LU-4-E o Encourage the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network • Housing Policy H-4-C o Increase housing supply and diversity through appropriate and flexible development standards • Utilities Policy UT-1-A o Ensure that public water and sewer services are available concurrently with development in the urban growth area • Capital Facilities Policy CF-2-A o Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly, progressive and efficient manner • Implementation Policy IM-1-A Page 201 of 281 3 o Maintain codes, standards and guidelines, which are clear, concise and objective Environmental Determination and Public Notice The City (Lead Agency) issued the Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance on March 03, 2021 indicating that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Public notice was distributed and published in the Tri-City Herald on Sunday, March 7, 2021. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the Lots without Public Street Frontage ordinance as contained in the April 16, 2021 Planning Commission staff report. Page 202 of 281 Code Amendment- Lots without Public Street Frontage- (MF# CA2021-005) Jacob Gonzalez stated you may remember this item actually from 2019 it was adopted by the Pasco City Council in July of 2013 through Ordinance 4444. And the idea was to allow for some infill opportunities, specifically with regards to residential infill, with challenging terrain, topography, odd shaped lots, frontage challenges, et cetera, to allow for residential development to occur. It essentially allowed residential lots to have legal access via a private or shared frontage on the public roadway. So this frontage requirements that every lot must have but in some cases those lots don't have that. They don't meet the minimum. So in certain circumstances, this ordinance would allow you to do that. Council during the adoption had staff to come back after a year to provide an update. And obviously it's a little bit later than that. But in an effort to update the planning commission and council staff has also taken a chance to refine the code and clean it up a bit as we've had a few lessons learned, potential mitigating future challenges with the code as it exists today. We've actually had two approvals using this option, one off a road 56 And Sylvester in The RS-12 zoning district and one of Cedar Avenue in A. Street was a habitat project for about 11 lots. I think in total, the lots without public frontage option allowed a total of an additional nine dwelling units. So obviously not a lot. But when we need fifteen thousand units, everyone counts. So with the combination of both, they were able to utilize some this option to get some extra units installed. With that said, there are some revisions that staff is recommending after discussions and consultation with our fire department and public works and engineering staff. And those primarily include the pavement with right now, there's a very width requirement, depending on the number of units, that's 10. That's caused to be a little confusing, not only for the implementation, but also for the applicants. So staff as opposed to just increase it to a minimum 20 feet, which also mitigates any potential concerns with access for fire and emergency response. Fire trucks are long and large, so the turn around, et cetera. So that would mitigate that challenge. We are also proposing to remove RS-20 as an option for this as well. Now, you may remember that the whole intent was to allow for infill and increasing densities. However, we don't necessarily want to encourage septic densities to occur throughout the city. So that would remove that. It also refers there's a lot of strikeouts from the proposal. It refers directly to the city of Pasco's design and construction standards and specifications, which is our engineering manual kind of partner to the municipal code that goes more into the specifics of design and engineering elements of a project such as street pavement, how it's constructed, et cetera. Our code had included some general information on that, which has also been lacked clarity. So this just refers everything back to the document we should be referring them to and also clarify the application requirements for any proposals as well. We've been fielding quite a bit of calls on this when it can be used, when it can't be used, how to justify it through the application process, et cetera. Staff has also tried to clean up the code to make that more visible and easier to comprehend for folks. So some pretty minor changes, but I think we'll have, again, a great benefit, I think staff to consider this effort a success, although we've only seen two applications of it. Again, it's allowed for nine additional units to be built. And as growth continues to occur in the city, along with some of the other amendments that planning commission and council has taken action on, including the large size average, the missing middle adoption that took place earlier today, this may be more widely used in the future.  Commissioner Hendler stated I move to close the public hearing on the proposed code amendment and set April 15, 2021 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the city council. Commissioner Lehrman seconded the motion and the motion carried. Page 203 of 281 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 5, 2021 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 5/10/21 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Proposed PMC Amendment: Duplex, Triplex and Courtyard Apartments (MF# CA2020-001) I. REFERENCE(S): ATTACHMENT 1 - Staff Report and Meeting Minutes from the Planning Commission (April 18, 2021) ATTACHMENT 2 - City of Pasco House Bill 1923 Authorization Letter ATTACHMENT 3 - Washington State Department of Commerce Award Letter ATTACHMENT 4 - Washington State Department of Commerce Letter of Support II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV . HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: September 2019, City Council authorized the Community & Economic Development Department (CED) to explore actions that would increase residential building capacities as approved through Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1923 (“HB 1923”). Staff was notified in November 2019 that CED's pursuit of three actions related to HB 1923 was awarded grant funding by the Washington State Department of Commerce. The purpose of this agenda report is to summarize staff efforts on the following item: Action 1: Authorize allow at least one duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment on each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single -family residences Page 204 of 281 unless a city documents a specific infrastructure or physical constraint that would make this requirement unfeasible for a particular parcel Pasco, as well as many other communities across the state and the country are identifying ways to increase housing affordability. Across Washington State, and locally, housing affordability challenges are intensified by the shortage and cost of buildable lands and over the past year, the increasing cost of materials. The purpose of this amendment is to increase housing choices and affordability by re- allowing residential uses that appear and function similarly to single -detached residential developments. This has been referred to as “missing middle housing.” Missing Middle Housing is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units— compatible in scale and form with existing detached single -family homes. These building types, such as duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and courtyard dwellings provide diverse housing options and support locally -serving retail and public transportation options. They are called “Missing” because they have typically been illegal to build since the mid-1940s and “Middle” because they sit in the middle of a spectrum between detached single -family homes and mid-rise to high-rise apartment buildings, in terms of form and scale, as well as a number of units and affordability. This type of development provides communities with variety and character, each of which meets the desires of many of today’s users. Examples of this housing typology are present and working well in many existing new and older neighborhoods in Pasco. Existing Housing Profile and Gap Analysis CED from collected data housing the recently utilized staff completed Comprehensive Plan and performed a housing gap analysis to determine to what extent, under existing regulations, could the City realize its forecasted housing growth target within the Urban Growth Area Boundary. The 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map, adopted by the City Council in September 2020 (Resolution No. 3998), provides for a variety of land uses necessary to meet the demands of the growing population per the Growth Management Act. Note that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use provides for a range of intended densities, whereas the zoning designation is more rigid due to lot size minimums, lot coverage regulations, height, and the number and type of home allowed on each residential parcel. The justification for relying on Land Use rather than the zoning designation is due to the possibility for rezones to occur. Changes to the land use map must be amended Section through the Comprehensive Amendment process (PMC 25.215.020), which is limited to once per year. Applications for rezones can occur throughout the year and since 2018 there have been 30 rezone applications submitted to the City. Every residential rezone application submitted to the City since 2018 was for an up zone or rezone to a higher density as designated by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Page 205 of 281 Staff performed data estimations for three scenarios, as indicated below: • Scenario 1 o Existing residential densities for each land use were kept constant and applied to vacant lands for the preferred Urban Growth Area • Scenario 2 o Densities from the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan used densities closer to the mid-higher allowances only for the Medium, High, and Mixed-Residential Commercial lands • Scenario 3 o Density was increased to reflect the maximum allowed for the Low- Density Residential (5), and estimates reflected in the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan The table below provides the results for each scenario tested: Scenario Estimated Dwellings Scenario 1: Densities Constant 10,139 Scenario 2: Densities from 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan 16,504 Scenario 3: Densities with CA2020-001 17,004 The results identified that Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 offer the best opportunity for the City to meet its stated housing targets from the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan. The City is expected to add at least 15,217 additional dwelling units before 2038. It should also be mentioned that while staff accommodated for right -of-way, environmental, and market factors, there will also be a need for additi onal public facilities in residential areas. This includes facilities and amenities such as parks, schools, fire, etc. The available lands may be less than what was used in the calculations above. Community and Stakeholder Input The City has continually reached out to the community and stakeholders for input and interests related to housing. The following are taken from the 2020 Housing Choices Survey (stakeholders) and the 2020 National Citizen Survey for Pasco. 57% - Housing prices are forcing members to seek housing outside of Pasco 95% - More housing options are needed in Pasco 77% - Support or Strongly support allowing more duplexes 64% - Support or Strongly Support allowing more triplexes 74% - Support affordable housing incentives 65% - Support zoning changes to increase housing supply 61% - Support letting the “market” decide Page 206 of 281 The proposed PMC amendment for Council's review is consistent with and addresses community and stakeholder input received on creating more housing opportunities in Pasco. Conformance with Council Goals, Policies, and Plans The staff proposal is consistent with the adopted plans, goals, and policies of the Pasco City Council. The following list is intended to provide a general overview of the variety of policies, goals, and objectives that have been adopted by the State of Washington, regional and local agencies that are addressed with the proposal. City of Pasco – Council Goals 2020-2021 (Resolution No. 3985) The City of Pasco develops a set of goals every two years based on input from members of the community. The input was collected over a series of dates and forums including Community Forums (February 26 and March 4, 2020), and the 2019 National Citizen Survey. The goals provided below are part of a larger set of strategies adopted by the Pasco City Council on September 21, 2020. • Teaming with local and regional partners to develop a Housing Action Plan with a focus on strategies that emphasize affordable housing. • Updating policies relating to the urbanization of the unincorporated islands to assure consistency with long-range planning, community safety, and fiscal sustainability. • Collaborating with regional and community partners to evaluable and implement strategies to reduce the incidences of homelessness 2020-2024 Tri-Cities Consortium Consolidated Plan (Resolution No. 3919) The 2020-2024 Tri-Cities Consortium Consolidated Plan represents a continuing collaboration of the cities of Kennewick, Richland, and Pa sco in developing common goals and directions to meet affordable housing, infrastructure, community development, and public service needs. The strategic plan identified priority needs for the five-year time period: • The need for affordable housing creation, preservation, access, and choice • The need for community, neighborhood, and economic development • The need for homeless intervention and prevention, and supportive public services 2018-2038 Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Resolution No. 3998) The City Council adopted Resolution No. 3998 on October 5, 2020, adopting the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes a variety of updated goals, policies, and implementation strategies. • Housing Policy 1-A: Allow for a full range of housing including single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line and planned unit developments, etc. Page 207 of 281 • Housing Policy 1-D: Support or advance programs that encourage access to safe and affordable housing. • Housing Goal 2: Preserve and maintain the existing housing stock for present and future residents • Housing Goal 4: Support efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of the community Environmental Determination A SEPA checklist and Notice of Application were announced for review in November 2019. The City received two comments on the SEPA checklist, from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Franklin PUD indicating no comments or concerns with the proposal. A Determination of Non- Significance was issued on December 21, 2020, stating that the Lead Agency (City of Pasco) has not identified any probable or significant adverse impacts on the environment on the proposed amendment. Planning Commission Recommendation This proposal was subject to seven total meetings, including five public workshops before the Planning Commission beginning in the fall of 2020. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on March 18, 2021, and recommended that the proposed code amendment be forwarded at the April 16, 2021 meeting. V. DISCUSSION: The rapid increase in housing costs is a challenge most communities across the country are facing, particularly those, such as Pasco which has had consistent population growth since 2000. There are many factors that have played a role in housing shortages. Many of these components are outside of local control, such as the cost of materials, labor. According to the National Association of Home Builders ("NAHB"), prices went up by 30% between Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and January 2018. More recently, the NAHB has shared that since mid-April of 2020, lumber prices have risen by 130%, and those increased costs have increased the cost of single-family homes more than $16,000 on average. This is in addition to the newly adopted Washington State Energy code which may increase the cost of housing by up to $20,000 per home according to the Building Industry Association of Washington. Therefore, it was important to identify what existing regulations that are in local control, such as zoning and development standard requirements may be revised to mitigate or eliminate barriers to housing without risking the safety, health, and welfare of our community members. The following are highlights from the zoning designations in place during the development of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan: Page 208 of 281 • 43% of the city is allocated for residential housing/zoning • 84% of residentially zoned land is reserved for Low Density • 71% of all housing in Pasco is detached, single-family homes • 84% of all residentially zoned land prohibits multi-family homes Of the seven residential zoning districts, multi-family homes, such as a duplexes, triplexes, or courtyard apartments are not options. Staff is proposing, per the guidelines of HB 1923 that the city lifts the barriers that prevent modest home choices to increase the opportunity for additional housing options in the City. Staff Proposal - Permitted Housing Options by Residential Zoning District Zoning District Duplex Triplex Courtyard Apt RS-20 Permitted with Sewer Permitted (with sewer) on corner lots within ¼ mile of public land Not Permitted RS-12 Permitted Permitted on corner lots within ¼ mile of public land use or facility Not Permitted RS-1 Permitted Permitted Permitted on corner lots within ¼ mile of public or use land facility R-1 Permitted Permitted Permitted R-2 Already Permitted Already Permitted Already Permitted R-3 Already Permitted Already Permitted Already Permitted R-4 Already Permitted Already Permitted Already Permitted Staff Proposal - Development Standards by Residential Zoning District Zoning District Max Building Height Max Lot Coverage RS-20 35' (No Change) 40% (No Change) RS-12 35' (No Change) 40% (No Change) RS-1 *Riverview/West Pasco: 25' (No Change); Citywide: 35' 40% R-1 *Riverview/West Pasco: 25' (No Change); Citywide: 35' 40% Page 209 of 281 R-2 25' 35' SF: 40% (No Change); MF: Determined by parking and setbacks R-3 SF: 40' (No Change) ; MF: 45' SF: 60%; MF: Determined by parking and setbacks R-4 45' (No Change) SF: 60%; MF: Determined by parking and setbacks *The Riverview/West Pasco area is defined as the residential lands bound by Interstate I-River Columbia the and (East), (North), Highway US 182 395 (South/West). By allowing several unique housing products, developers have the opportunity to provide communities with a variety of housing to ch oose from – each with private entrances and private driveways. Lifting the restrictions via this proposal helps to solve the mismatch between the limited housing supply and the growing demand for walkability, safety, green space, independence/privacy, and other similar qualities of life. Staff would like to emphasize that while the proposal allows for additional development flexibility, the overall density (number of dwellings/homes per acre) is still regulated by the Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council. All residential applications are still required to comply with the densities prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal offers numerous benefits however careful consideration was given to identify any impacts from a utility and capacity perspective, specifically sewer and transportation that would limit where additional dwelling types could be accommodated. After consultation with the Department of Public Works, planning staff is confident that the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the existing or planned long-range plans or capital investments for Public Works The proposals above, and as recommended by the Pasco Planning Commission represent modest and meaningful revisions to the Pasco Municipal Code that begin to address the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies and City Council Goals. The Housing Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan to begin this summer will further evaluate and refine regulatory options administered by the City of Pasco and identify options the City may employ to move forward to addressing the affordable housing challenges facing our community and region. Page 210 of 281 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Remote THURSDAY, April 15, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner Subject: Code Amendment: Duplex, Triplex and Courtyard Apartments (CA 2020-001) Background The Department of Community and Economic Development was authorized in September 2019 by the Pasco City Council to explore actions that would increase residential building capacities as approved through Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1923 (“HB 1923”). Staff was notified in November 2019 that our pursuit of three actions related to HB 1923 were awarded grant funding by the Washington State Department of Commerce. The purpose of this staff report is to summarize staff efforts on the following item: Action 1: Authorize allow 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 or physical constraint that would make this requirement unfeasible for a particular parcel To date, this item has been shared with the Planning Commission at six prior meetings, including five public hearings. The Pasco Planning Commission closed the public hearing at the March 18, 2021 meeting. Prior discussions and presentations included information on Pasco’s existing housing supply, housing constraints and density gaps. The proposed amendment before the Planning Commission addresses the need for more housing opportunities and options, along with meeting the growth demands as identified in the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commissioners provided input and feedback, including questions on the proposed scenarios presented by staff. These included the how other jurisdictions are complying with HB 1923, the benefits and barriers of allowing units “by-right” vs requiring a special permit and the implications of lot coverage flexibilities for multi-family units. Staff has conducted a high-level review of jurisdictions responses and methods to implement HB 1923 and has provided them for your review below. Staff Proposal ATTACHMENT 1 Page 211 of 281 2 Table 1 – Permitting Dwellings by Residential Zoning District Zoning District Duplex Triplex Courtyard Apartment RS-20 Permitted with Sewer Permitted (with sewer) on corner lots within ¼ mile of public land Not Permitted RS-12 Permitted Permitted on corner lots within ¼ mile of public land use or facility Not Permitted RS-1 Permitted Permitted Permitted on corner lots within ¼ mile of public land use or facility R-1 Permitted Permitted Permitted R-2 Already Permitted Already Permitted Already Permitted R-3 Already Permitted Already Permitted Already Permitted R-4 Already Permitted Already Permitted Already Permitted Table 2 – Development Standards by Residential Zoning District Zoning District Maximum Building Height Maximum Lot Coverage RS-20 35’ 40% RS-12 35’ 40% RS-1 “Riverview” / West Pasco: 25’ Citywide: 35’ 40% R-1 “Riverview”/ West Pasco: 25’ Citywide: 35’ 40% R-2 25’ 35’ SF: 40% MF: Dictated by parking and setbacks R-3 SF: 40’ MF: 45’ SF: 60% MF: Dictated by parking and setbacks R-4 45’ SF: 60% MF: Dictated by parking and setbacks *The “Riverview”/West Pasco area is defined as the residential lands bound by Interstate I-182 (North), US Highway 395 (East) and the Columbia River (South). The proposed amendments for your review represent modest yet meaningful revisions to the Pasco Page 212 of 281 3 Municipal Code that directly address the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, City Council Goals and can be implemented by staff. The Housing Action/Assessment Plan to begin this year will likely take this effort and further evaluate how the City of Pasco can move forward with the affordable housing challenges facing the region. Environmental Determination and Public Notice The City (Lead Agency) issued the Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance on December 21, 2020 indicating that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Public notice was distributed and published in the Tri-City Herald as required by Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 25.210.040). Staff received one phone call in opposition to the proposal. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the Pasco Municipal Code addressing affordable housing and increasing residential building capacities as contained in the April 16, 2021 Planning Commission staff report. Page 213 of 281 Code Amendment- House Bill 1923- Duplex, Triplex, and Courtyard Apartments (MF# CA2021-001)- Jacob Gonzalez stated the public hearing was closed at the March 2021 Planning Commission meeting, a few slides summarizing some of the information we've shared with in the past regarding the intent of House Bill 1923 in the authorization by the state legislature in 2018. Pasco's award from the Department of Commerce for the grant funding program, a part of the House bill 1923 and again, action one. Tonight's item which staff is recommending to the Planning Commission for approval. It is likely, I think, summarize the intent of this effort here. It's likely, based on our analysis and forecasting, that without changes to the municipal code specifically title 25 we will not meet the intended target within our anticipated urban growth area. Staff would like to also emphasize that tonight's proposal are not requirements. Rather, they offer an array of options to property owners, developers, real estate stakeholders and those in need of more housing with an array of options available to them. So this is simply an optional effort, an option for folks here.  Commissioner Campos stated I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed amendment to the Pasco Municipal Code addressing affordable housing and increasing residential building capacities as contained in the April 15, 2021 Planning Commission staff report. Page 214 of 281 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR• (509) 545-3404 • FAX (509) 545-3403 P.O. Box 293 • 525 North 3 rd Ave.• Pasco, WA 99301 www.pasco-wa.gov October 7, 2019 I, Matt Watkins, Mayor of Pasco, Washington, authorize the city to propose the attached scope of work and budget request for E2SHB 1923 grant funding to increase residential building capacity. The following items are identified as actions the City of Pasco intends to take action on: •Authorize at least one duplex, triplex, or courtyard apartment on each parcel in one or more zoning districts that permit single-family residences. •Authorize cluster zoning or lot size averaging in all zoning districts that permit single- family residences. •Authorize accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on all parcels containing single-family homes. The intended actions represent an opportunity for the City of Pasco to meet Council goals for the revitalization of older neighborhoods, improve the efficiency of public and municipal resources and increase the opportunity for infill development. The expected population growth will be better accommodated by moving forward with innovative strategies identified by the intended actions in HB 1923. The ongoing Comprehensive Plan efforts have included updated goals and policies that align with the intent of HB 1923 while recently adopted code amendments have allowed for more flexibility in housing construction via reduced lot sizes and frontages, height increases and the utilization of shared (private) access ways in hard to develop lots. We agree to adopt the ordinances and/or plans that result from the grant, by April 1, 2021, acknowledging that, at minimum, the actions must meet the requirements of E2SHB 1923. Sincerely, Matt Watkins Mayor ATTACHMENT 2 Page 215 of 281 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE  PO Box 42525  Olympia, Washington 98504-2525  (360) 725-4000 www.commerce.wa.gov November 5, 2019 The Honorable Matt Watkins Mayor of Pasco 525 N 3rd Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 RE: E2SHB 1923 Grant – Increasing Residential Building Capacity Dear Mayor Watkins: I am pleased to inform you that the city of Pasco has been awarded $40,872.00 in grant funds for the 2019-21 Biennium to assist with increasing urban residential building capacity and streamlining regulations. The Washington State Legislature created this new grant program under Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill (E2SHB) 1923 (Chapter 348, Laws of 2019), which provides a number of eligible land use planning activities for cities to consider implementing to increase housing capacity. Your jurisdiction recently submitted a grant application, identifying actions it intends to develop and adopt, as well as its grant funding need to assist with this work. Your scope of work and budget must be consistent with the scope of work and budget included in your grant application. This grant will be administered by the Washington Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services unit. Before we disburse the funds, a contract with an agreed upon scope of work and budget will need to be executed between your organization and the Department of Commerce. Funds may be retroactively applied to project costs related to your grant scope of work, beginning July 28, 2019, the effective date of E2SHB 1923. William Simpson, Senior Planner is available to help you if you have any questions. Please call (509) 280-3602 or will.simpson@commerce.wa.gov for assistance with this contract going forward. Sincerely, Dave Andersen, AICP Managing Director Growth Management Services cc: Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner William Simpson ATTACHMENT 3 Page 216 of 281 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE  PO Box 42525  Olympia, Washington 98504-2525  (360) 725-4000 www.commerce.wa.gov May 4, 2021 Pasco City Council c/o Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Sent Via Electronic Mail RE: Code Amendment for Duplex, Triplex and Courtyard Apartments Dear Pasco City Council: We applaud the City of Pasco’s choice to pursue the HB 1923 grant to expand the range of housing choices, and to encourage the development of market-rate and affordable housing in Pasco. We appreciate the chance to review and comment on proposed amendments to the Pasco Municipal Code as the City considers new development regulations. Expanding options for lot-size averaging, accessory dwelling units, and duplex/triplex/courtyard apartments represent an excellent strategy for strengthening your community. This will provide more affordable housing options to current and future residents, leverage the City’s existing infrastructure investments, expand your tax base, and support local demand for new housing in Pasco. Pasco is one of the fastest growing municipalities in the State. The median sale of housing has dramatically increased over the last decade, and a majority of renters are cost-burdened. As the cost of labor and materials increase, it is important for the City to proactively address price and supply issues through good land use policy. Encouraging and maintaining affordable housing options is critical to the continued economic growth in the Tri-Cities region. We commend your staff’s work to review the housing needs of the City before amending the Pasco Municipal Code. The City’s analysis demonstrates a clear need for more affordable and diverse housing options within Pasco. The proposed duplex, triplex, and courtyard apartment development code amendments, in concert with the other HB 1923 code amendments, will expand your housing supply and help the City meet the housing needs of all economic segments of your population. We strongly encourage you to adopt the proposed amendments, as local housing policies and regulations are one of the most direct means of addressing equity in your community. Adoption will demonstrate the City’s commitment equitable, forward-thinking planning as your community continues to grow and develop. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 217 of 281 Pasco City Council May 4, 2021 Page 2 Within the duplex, triplex, and courtyard code amendment, we particularly like and support:  The introduction of duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments into a wider variety of zones within the City, including the allowance of the higher density housing options in areas that can better support such options. These additions will allow for a wider range of housing options within your residential zones, thereby supporting the housing goals of the Growth Management Act and market demand for unmet housing needs.  The increase in height to the R-2 zone and the elimination of the maximum lot coverage for single-family attached or multifamily dwelling units in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. These changes will allow for more flexibility that will support the addition of duplexes, triplexes, and courtyard apartments while still conserving open space for the housing units with the setback requirements. Congratulations to you and your staff for your work on these amendments. After adoption of all of these code amendments, we encourage you to monitor progress and consider additional options to support housing as you implement your new comprehensive plan. If you have any questions about our comments or any other growth management issues, please contact me at (509) 280-3602. We extend our continued support to the City of Pasco in achieving the goals of growth management and strengthening your community. Sincerely, William Simpson, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Services cc: Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, City of Pasco David Andersen, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services Steve Roberge, Deputy Managing Director, Growth Management Services Ben Serr, AICP, Eastern Region Manager, Growth Management Services Anne Fritzel, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services Laura Hodgson, Associate Housing Planner, Growth Management Services Page 218 of 281 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 26, 2021 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 5/10/21 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution - Professional Service Agreement (PSA) Amendment No. 3 with Murraysmith for Construction Support Services for Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Phase 1 I. REFERENCE(S): Resolution Amendment II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Original Professional Services Agreement (PSA) $ 2,321,567.00 Amendment No. 1: No Change Amendment No. 2: $ 150,000.00 Amendment No. 3: (proposed) $ 714,146.00 New PSA Total: $ 3,185,713.00 This project is funded through the Department of Ecology Water Quality program low interest loans. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City and Murraysmith, entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) on January 10, 2020 to provide engineering services with respect to design of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements Phase 1 Project. Subsequent to the original PSA, two (2) amendments have been approved under the authority provided to the City Manager and the Public Works Director for the project. A short description of the amendments are listed below: Page 219 of 281 • Amendment No. 1: Executed on March 5, 2021, modified their original scope of work for professional engineering services. The Amendment re- allocated unused funds from specific tasks to accommodate additional services required to complete the design, including tracking of comments provided by Ecology, incorporation of independent constructability review comments, development of process control descriptions, issuing a conformed set of drawings, and bid evaluation support. • Amendment No. 2: Executed on April 15, 2021, provided additional professional servicesengineering of time additional and include performance to accommodate the rebid of the project. The scope of work currently under contract includes work through bid -phase support for this project, which is now largely complete. Moving into the bid - evaluation and construction phases additional work from the consultant would be beneficial to the City due to Murraysmith's familiarity with the project. Accordingly, a third amendment is proposed as follows: Proposed Amendment No. 3: This amendment is necessary for the consultant to provide Engineer-of-Record services during the construction phase of this project. Services include support on responses to Requests For Information (RFIs), review and approval of submittals, shop drawings and samples, review and recommend orders change work field and change on ations orders, directives, creation of asset lists and O&M manuals, and preparation of record drawings. These services will complement those of the Construction Management and Administration firm (HDR, Inc.) for this project and are specific to the Engineer of Record (EOR). The construction phase scopes of work for both firms (HDR and all coverage complete ensure of coordinated were Murraysmith) to necessary tasks with no overlap in functions. The characteristics of this wastewater facility upgrade project requires considerably more involvement of the EOR during the construction phase, especially related to the review submittals for equipment, resulting in a higher level of effort of the EOR, than other types of projects. V. DISCUSSION: With the project design pre-bid processes complete and the project transitioning into bidthe -from work additional phases, evaluation and construction Murraysmith would be beneficial to the City due to the consultant's familiarity with the project. Accordingly, a third amendment is proposed as follows: Proposed Amendment No. 3: This amendment is necessary for the consultant to provide Engineer-of-Record services during the construction phase of this Page 220 of 281 project. Services include support on responses to Requests For Information (RFIs), review and approval of submittals, shop drawings and samples, review and recommendations on change orders, field orders and work change directives, creation of asset lists and O&M manuals, and preparation of record drawings. These services will complement those of the Construction Management and Administration firm (HDR, Inc.) for this project and are specific to the Engineer of Record (EOR). The construction phase scopes of work for both firms (HDR and Murraysmith) were coordinated to ensure complete coverage of all necessary tasks with no overlap in functions. The characteristics of this wastewater facility upgrade project requires considerably more involvement of the EOR during the construction phase, especially related to the review submittals for equipment, resulting in a higher level of effort of the EOR, than other types of projects. Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Murraysmith, Inc. in the amount of $714,146.00 for the WWTP Phase 1 Construction Support Services. Page 221 of 281 Resolution – WWTP Phase 1 Murraysmith PSA Amendment No. 3 - 1 RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3 FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) WITH MURRAYSMITH, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 1 PROJECT. WHEREAS, the City and Murraysmith entered into a PSA on January 10, 2020 to provide engineering services for the design and permitting of the WWTP Improvements – Phase 1 project. WHEREAS, the City and Murraysmith, executed two Amendments to the PSA to modify their original scope of work for professional engineering services and to add additional time of performance with respect to the WWTP Improvements - Phase 1 project; and WHEREAS, previous amendments to the agreement were authorized under the authority provided to the City Manager and Public Works Director; and WHEREAS, the additional construction engineering support services are necessary to fulfill the original intent of the PSA with Murraysmith, and its addition, by amendment, to this PSA represents a fair and reasonable agreement as determined by the Public Works Director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: Section 1. That the subject agreement is amended to allow Murraysmith, to provide additional professional engineering services (scope & fee) as described within Exhibit A & B attached hereto and to add additional time of performance. Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to sign and execute said Amendment on behalf of the City of Pasco. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of ___, 2021. _____________________________ Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ _____________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Page 222 of 281 Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement Page 1 Murraysmith WWTP Improvements – Phase 1 AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 to PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WWTP Improvements – Phase 1 Project No. 19072 AGREEMENT NO. 19048 WHEREAS, the City and Murraysmith, entered into a Professional Services Agreement on 1/10/2020 to provide engineering services with respect to the WWTP Improvements – Phase 1 project. WHEREAS, the City and Murraysmith, entered into Amendment No. 1 on 3/5/2021 to modify their original scope of work for professional engineering services with respect to the WWTP Improvements – Phase 1 project. WHEREAS, the City and Murraysmith, entered into Amendment No. 2 on 4/15/2021 to provide additional professional engineering services and add additional time of performance with respect to the WWTP Improvements – Phase 1 project. NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement is amended to allow Murraysmith, to provide additional professional engineering services and construction support services as described in Exhibit A. 1. Scope of Work: See Exhibit A. 2. Fee: The compensation for the additional work is based on a Fixed Fee Basis of $714,146.00 increasing the overall total authorization amount to $3,185,713.00 3. Time of performance: No Change. The services shall now be complete for the project on or before 12/31/2023. DATED THIS _______ DAY OF ________, 2021. CITY OF PASCO: CONSULTANT City of Pasco Murraysmith Dave Zabell, City Manager Craig Anderson, P.E. Page 223 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 1 SCOPE OF WORK WWTP IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 ENGINEER OF RECORD CITY OF PASCO, WA Background The City of Pasco, Washington has been one of the fastest growing cities in the State of Washington and the nation over the last several years. To plan for the impacts of this growth on the municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and ensure it has adequate treatment capacity for the foreseeable future, a Facility Plan was recently completed. This report identified existing and projected future WWTP deficiencies through the year 2040 and developed a plan to address them. The Facility Plan was approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in August of 2019. In 2020 and early 2021, Murraysmith (Consultant) designed the WWTP Phase 1 Improvements Project. The project was bid in early 2021. Also , in early 2021, HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) was selected to lead the Construction Management services. The work program described herein for Phase 1 and the proposed budget both assume that the City of Pasco and HDR as the third-party Construction Manager will lead, manage, and oversee the construction phase. The phrase “The City” will be used hereafter to refer collectively to the City of Pasco and HDR. Consultant will have an active role in assisting The City to oversee and manage the construction of the Phase 1 improvements as described in the following Scope of Services. The following Scope of Services has three (3) different tasks and is for the Engineer of Record services during construction of the Phase 1 improvements only. Scope of Services Task 1 - Project Management The objective of the Project Management task is to manage and monitor the status of the Consultant team’s work. This task includes project invoicing and budget status tracking, the development of and updates to the Project Management Plan, a kick-off meeting, general communications and coordination with the Consultant’s design team and The City, and other general administrative and project management activities. Activities 1.1 Invoices/Progress Reports The project will be managed to maintain the scope, schedule, and budget. At a minimum, updates on project budget will be provided as part of the monthly invoicing process. Monthly invoices will Exhibit A Page 224 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 2 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx include expenditures by task, hours worked by project personnel, and other direct expenses with the associated backup documentation. Monthly progress reports will accompany each invoice and include budget status (percent spent and budget remaining), summary of work accomplished, work anticipated in the next invoice, issues encountered and actions taken for their resolution or that still require project team action, and discussion of identified potential impacts to scope, budget, or schedule. 1.2 Project Management Plan A Project Management Plan (PMP) will be developed to guide the overall execution of the Consultant Team work and will include: a project overview and key understandings; organizational chart summarizing roles/responsibilities and contact information for all team members; project scope of work and schedule with a summary of key deliverables and milestone dates; Project Budget summary broken down by subtask and discipline; Project Safety Plan for Consultant’s staff only; and a Quality Management Plan summarizing QA/QC procedures for all deliverables. 1.3 City and Team Coordination This task includes communications and coordination with The City and Design Engineers during construction not specifically called out in other tasks. This task is estimated on average three (3) hours of effort each week during 112 weeks of construction. As project manager, Mark Cummings as Single Point of Contract (SPOC), will lead and oversee project communications with The City and Consultant’s team throughout the duration of the project, lead meetings and discussions, keep The City up to date on project issues and details and make sure The City’s input is incorporated into the work product. As principal in charge, Craig Anderson will support Mark to ensure that this Scope of Work is completed. He will also act as secondary point of contact due to the scale of the project. Deliverables ▪ Monthly invoice and progress report (PDF electronic format) ▪ Kick-Off Meeting Notes/Action Item Summary (PDF electronic format) Assumptions ▪ Project duration is anticipated to be no more than 30 months; therefore, it is assumed that there will be up to 30 progress payments/status reports. Task 2 – Construction Phase Services Consultant services during construction shall include the following sub-tasks. Page 225 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 3 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx Activities 2.1 Kickoff, Pre-Construction and Weekly Construction Meetings A kick-off meeting will be held at the WWTP to review the project, introduce key Consultant team members to The City, review project goals and objectives, establish communication protocols, and discuss the project scope and schedule. A tour of the WWTP site will be conducted following the kickoff meeting to review the facility and start general discussions on critical elements or risk areas with The City from the design team’s perspective. Attend Preconstruction Conference to answer questions regarding the contract documents by three (3) staff members. Attend weekly construction meetings with The City and the general contractor during active phases of construction and when requested by The City. The City will prepare agenda, make invitations, conduct the meetings, and distribute minutes to all attendees. Budget assumes that Consultant will attend and participate in weekly construction meetings by telephone, unless onsite for other tasks. Up to 112 weekly meetings attended by one (1) staff is assumed. Each meeting is estimated to last 1.5 hours and require an additional 0.5 hours of follow- on work. The budget estimate is reduced by 10 percent to account for potential efficiency of meetings that occur in conjunction with onsite meetings and other tasks. 2.2 Coordination Meetings Prior to the beginning of two (2) major construction periods, prepare for and attend a construction coordination meeting with The City and the Consultant’s design team staff. Up to two (2) onsite meetings attended in person by an average of four (4) staff is estimated for this task. The first meeting is assumed to cover aeration basin 1+4 co nstruction, blower building construction, and outfall pipeline construction. The second meeting is assumed to cover aeration basin 2+3 rehabilitation and blower mechanical modifications. 2.3 Schedules The City shall receive, review, monitor, and determine the acceptability of any and all schedules that Contractor is required to submit, including the Overall Progress Schedule, Schedule of Submittals, and Schedule of Values. Consultant shall assist The City by providing a secondary review of up to: ▪ 26 Overall Progress Schedules ▪ Two (2) Schedules of Submittals ▪ Two (2) Schedules of Values 2.4 Visits to Site and Observation of Construction In connection with observations of Contractor’s work while it is in progress, Consultant will make visits to the site and attend Project status meetings at intervals appropriate to the various stages Page 226 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 4 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx of construction. These visits are anticipated to occur on average at a quarterly frequency. For budgeting purposes, a site visit roughly once every three (3) months on average is assumed for the observation of the progress and quality of Contractor’s executed work by the Consultant. Up 9 site visits attended by one (1) staff is estimated for this task with 12 hours of time spent per visit. Such visits and observations by Consultant are not intended to be exhaustive or to extend to every aspect of Contractor’s work in progress or to involve detailed inspections of Contractor’s work in progress beyond the responsibilities specifically assigned to Consultant in this Scope of Services, but rather are to be limited to spot checking and similar methods of general observation of the work. Review of daily field inspection reports an average of one (1) hour per week during the 112 weeks of the project. 2.5 Request for Information – Clarifications and Interpretations Issue necessary clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents as appropriate to the orderly completion of Contractor’s work. Such clarifications and interpretations will be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents. To ensure design intent is followed, Consultant will review up to 100 Requests for Information (RFIs) that The City responds to with an average of 0.5 hour per review. Consultant will process up to 100 RFIs with average of three (3) hours per RFI that Consultant responds to. 2.6 Change Orders and Change Proposal Requests, Field Orders, and Work Change Directives Review Change Orders, Change Proposal Requests, Field Orders, and Work Change Directives, as appropriate, and prepare Change Orders and Change Proposal Requests as required. Consultant will assist in the processing of up to a total 27 Review Change Orders, Change Proposal Requests, Field Orders, and Work Change Directives before substantial completion and one (1) before final completion. Actual preparation and processing response time may vary depending upon the complexity of the Change Order, Change Proposal Request, Field Order, or Work Change Directive. It is estimated that, on average, it will take eight (8) hours of effort for each. 2.7 Submittals, Shop Drawings and Samples Review and assign and action response in respect to Submittals, Shop Drawings and Samples, and other data which Contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents and compatibility with the design concept of the compl eted Project as a functioning whole as indicated by the Contract Documents. Such reviews and action taken will not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incident thereto. Consultant will process up to 100 initial submittal reviews with up to 40 additional resubmittals with an average of four (4) hours per submittal and two (2) hours per resubmittal. Page 227 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 5 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx 2.8 Substitutes and “or-equal” Consultant will evaluate and determine the acceptability of substitute or “or-equal” materials and equipment proposed by Contractor. Consultant will process up to 10 initial reviews with up to five (5) additional resubmittal reviews with an average of eight (8) hours each for substitute and “or- equal” submittals. 2.9 Contractor’s Completion Documents Consultant shall review and provide comments as appropriate on maintenance and operating instructions, certificates of inspection, tests and approvals, and the annotated reco rd documents. The City shall be responsible for receiving and reviewing schedules, guarantees, bonds, certificates, or other evidence of insurance required by the Contract Documents which are to be assembled by Contractor to obtain final payment. The extent of review by Consultant will be limited as provided in subtask 2.8. Engineer time for this task is estimated at 84 hours. 2.10 Start-Up Assistance Observe and provide technical assistance during the functional testing and startup of the Project. This will include two (2) major WWTP construction elements (AB 1+4, AB 2+3) attended by an average of three (3) staff is estimated for this task. Additional work in the office is assumed to review start-up plans and other WWTP operational considerations. 2.11 Substantial Completion After notice from Contractor that Contractor considers the project ready for partial utilization for its intended use, in company with The City and Contractor, Consultant shall participate in a partial utilization inspection to determine if the work is rea dy for use by the City. Consultant will review and comment on a draft partial utilization checklist, punch list and walkthrough notes prepared by The City. After notice from Contractor that Contractor considers the entire work ready for its intended use, in company with The City and Contractor, Consultant shall participate in a pre-final inspection to determine if the work is substantially complete. Consultant will review and comment on a draft checklist, punch list and walkthrough notes prepared by The City. If, after considering any objections of The City, Consultant considers the work substantially complete, Consultant shall recommend that The City prepare and deliver a Certificate of Substantial Completion to City and Contractor. Consultant will provide one (1) Partial Utilization inspections and one (1) Project Substantial Completion inspection. Page 228 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 6 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx 2.12 Final Notice of Acceptability of the Work In company with The City, Consultant shall conduct a final inspection to determine if the completed work of Contractor is acceptable so that Consultant may recommend, in writing, final payment to Contractor. Accompanying the recommendation for final payment, Consultant shall also provide a Notice of Acceptability of work that the work is acceptable to the best o f Consultant’s knowledge, information, and belief and based on the extent of the services provided by Consultant under this Agreement. The City shall provide necessary certifications to any permitting authority regarding completion of the work in accordance with approved plans and specifications (e.g. – Ecology’s Declaration of Construction Completion). Consultant shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any Contractor, or of any subcontractors, suppliers, or other individuals or entities performing or furnishing any of the work. Consultant shall not be responsible for the failure of any Contractor to perform or furnish the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 2.13 Operation and Maintenance Manual Component operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals and other product literature will be provided by Contractor during submittals prior to component and unit startup. Consultant will prepare a draft partial utilization WWTP O&M manual for use during the remainder of construction prior to substantial completion of the project. This document will be further modified during construction to become the final O&M manual. To further support the start-up and operation of the new facilities, the Consultant will prepare and lead a new facilities operations overview presentation with the WWTP operators prior to the initial startup and partial utilization of modified WWTP (AB 1 & 4). Consultant will augment and modify the City’s existing O&M manual as needed to incorporate the changes made to the facility. No modifications to the format or sections of the existing O&M Manual not modified by this project will be made. Consultant will revise the manual based on one (1) round of comments received from Ecology and City operations staff. The manual modifications will include at a minimum: ▪ Narrative and figures of operations and operating conditions for the WWTP Phase 1 Improvements. ▪ WWTP Phase 1 Improvements equipment maintenance recommendations and requirements. ▪ Manufacturers’ literature identifying installation, operation, maintenance, handling, storage, assembly, and other pertinent equipment information for equipment, systems, subsystems, appliances, materials, finishes, and other material furnished and/or installed on the Project. Page 229 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 7 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx Consultant will provide one (1) hard copy of the Partial Utilization O&M Manual and one (1) hard copy of the final O&M Manual as well as electronic PDF file format copies of each. 2.14 Record Drawings Consultant shall prepare record drawings based on information provided by Contractor and The City. Provide one (1) full size hard copy of the completed record drawings to Washington Department of Ecology. Consultant shall also provide the completed record drawings in digital format on flash drive in both AutoCAD and PDF format. Budget is based on the quality, clarity, and extent of record drawing information from others require no more than 1.5 hours per sheet for modifications. 2.15 Asset List Consultant shall prepare Asset List from Phase 1 Improvements. Consultant shall prepare using City format. Deliverables ▪ Review and Observation Comments (electronic) ▪ Recommendations for issuance of substantial completion certificate ▪ Draft and Final O&M Manuals in hard copy and pdf format per subtask ▪ Record Drawings in pdf, dwg, and hard copy format per subtask ▪ Asset List (in City’s preferred electronic format) Assumptions ▪ The City will provide full time staff for construction management of the General Contractor’s work. The responsibilities of The City for construction management are described below: o The City shall lead, and Consultant shall attend a preconstruction meeting with the Contractor and The City prior to the commencement of construction and prepare and distribute minutes. o The City shall perform the following tasks during the construction phase of the Project: ▪ Act as the liaison between The City, Contractor, and Consultant. ▪ Conduct weekly progress meetings; prepare and distribute minutes including distribution to Consultant for all meetings, regardless of whether Consultant attends said meetings. ▪ Manage, compile, and review daily inspection and documentation reports including distribution to Consultant. Page 230 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 8 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx ▪ Manage, compile, and review special inspection and documentation reports including distribution to Consultant. ▪ Review payment requests. ▪ Coordinate with Consul tant for processing of RFIs, design interpretations, and/or changes. Receive Consultant’s recommendations and prepare documents based on input from Consultant and The City. ▪ Coordinate with Consultant for processing of change requests. Provide Contractor’s cost estimates to Consultant, negotiate with Contractor based on input from Consultant, and prepare final change order documentation based on input from Consultant and the City’s Project Manager. ▪ Lead and manage dispute resolution process seeking advice from Consultant as needed. ▪ Prepare substantial completion notice and final punch list based on coordination and consultation with Consultant. ▪ Prepare and issue final close-out documents based on coordination and consultation with Consultant. ▪ The City shall ensure SRF requirements, Section 00 73 00 SRF Specification Insert, are properly followed and in place. ▪ The City shall ensure that proper coordination efforts are in place between the Consultant, The City’s field staff, the Contractor, and City staff. ▪ The City shall conduct or cause to be conducted all material sampling, laboratory tests, and field and environmental quality assurance tests at each construction site at frequencies as required in the Contract Documents. The material testing and acceptance contractor will be contracted directly with City of Pasco. ▪ The City shall review the Contractor’s proposed baseline and monthly progress schedules for contract compliance and facilitate communication and coordination between Consultant and City. ▪ The City shall prepare daily inspection reports and make such reports available to Consultant on a timely basis. ▪ The City shall prepare monthly reports, and make such reports available to Consultant, on the Project addressing the Contractor's compliance with the project schedule, significant problems encountered or anticipated, a summary of major work completed during the current month and projected for the next month, and pending change orders and/or claims. Page 231 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 9 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx ▪ Consultant shall not, during visits to the site or as a result of the observations of Contractor’s work in progress, supervise, direct, or have control over Contractor’s work, nor shall Consultant have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected or used by Contractor, for security or safety on the site, for safety precautions and programs incident to Contractor’s work, nor for any failure of Contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to Contractor’s furnishing and performing the work. Accordingly, Consultant neither guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor assumes responsibility for any Contractor’s failure to furnish and perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. ▪ The City shall consult with the Consultant regarding disapproval or rejection of work believed to be defective, or that The City believes will not produce a completed Project that conforms to the Contract Documents or that will prejudice the integrity of the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole as indicated by the Contract Documents. ▪ The City shall consult with the Consultant as necessary to authorize minor variations in the work from the requirements of the Contract Documents which do not involve an adjustment in the contract price or the contract times and are compatible with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole as indicated by the Contract Documents. ▪ The City shall consult with Consultant to prepare contract change orders to the Contract Documents for the Contractor and City’s review and approval according to authority protocol agreed upon. ▪ The City will provide existing O&M Manual in an electronic file format (MS Word and 2018 AutoCAD). ▪ Record Drawing information will be collected by The City and Contractor and provided in clearly written hand annotations to Consultant. ▪ Upon City’s request and upon completion of a signed modification to this amendment to cover additional scope and fee, Consultant shall furnish or obtain from others additional services of the types listed below at a fee mutually agreed to by both parties in such modification: o Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by (1) emergencies or acts of God endangering the work, (2) the presence at the Site of any constituent of concern, (3) work damaged by fire or other cause during construction, (4) a significant amount of defective, neglected, or delayed work by Contractor, (5) acceleration of the progress schedule involving services beyond normal working hours, or (6) default by Contractor. Page 232 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 10 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx o Providing assistance in responding to the presence of any constituent of concern at the site, in compliance with current laws and regulations. o Evaluating claims submitted by Contractor or others in connection with the work. o Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for The City in any litigation, arbitration, or other dispute resolution process related to the Project. ▪ Budget includes estimated allowances for printing, lodging, vehicle, and travel “Expenses” in Exhibit B. Task 3 – Additional Unanticipated, Urgent, or Special Services Consultant services during construction shall include the following sub-tasks. Activities 3.1 Overall Project Contingency With any large and complex project, the potential exists for additional effort to be expended that was not foreseen by the City staff or Consultant at the time of scoping. A number of tasks such as public involvement, facility assessments, schedule delays, urgent or critical activities, defective work assessments and additional evaluations required by City staff are potential sources of out- of-scope work. A contingency line item of $25,000 has been identified. This task will only be utilized upon authorization by the City. Deliverables ▪ Specific deliverables will be developed upon authorization of task by the City. Assumptions ▪ Contingency task will not be utilized without prior authorization by the City. ▪ Specific assumptions will be developed upon authorization of task by the City . Budget The work covered under this scope of work will be billed on a time and materials basis at the billing rates for personnel working directly on the project, which will be made at the Consultant’s Hourly Rates plus Direct Expenses incurred as updated annually (See Exhibit A for Consultant’s current rate details). The overall budget estimate for this work is summarized in the table below. A detailed budget breakdown is provided in Exhibit B. Consultant will manage the work identified to the aggregate authorized budget amount, report budget status by task monthly, and not exceed the aggregate budget amount without prior written authorization from the City. Page 233 of 281 City of Pasco MURRAYSMITH WWTP Improvements Phase 1 EOR April 2021 11 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\SOW\Pasco WWTP SOW_Phase 1 EOR_04.19.2021.docx The effort required for each task will be dependent on several factors out of the Consultant’s direct control (number of RFIs, discovery of unforeseen conditions, number of change proposals, quality, and completeness of submittals, etc.). Therefore, the budgets associated with each task and overall will likely vary. Task Amount Task 1 – Project Management $116,690 Task 2 – Construction Phase Services $572,456 Task 3 – Additional Unanticipated, Urgent, or Special Services $25,000 TOTAL $714,146 Project Schedule Consultant will make every effort to complete the work in a timely manner; however, it is agreed that consultant cannot be responsible for delays occasioned by factors beyond its control, nor by factors that could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time this scope was executed. Page 234 of 281 Personnel: Billing Classifications 2021 Rates Billing Classifications 2021 Rates Principal Engineer VI $270 Construction Manager VIII $227 Principal Engineer V $260 Construction Manager VII $219 Principal Engineer IV $250 Construction Manager VI $203 Principal Engineer III $239 Construction Manager V $188 Principal Engineer II $230 Construction Manager IV $178 Principal Engineer I $222 Construction Manager III $162 Professional Engineer IX $212 Construction Manager II $150 Engineering Designer IX $204 Construction Manager I $133 Professional Engineer VIII $202 Inspector VII $188 Engineering Designer VIII $193 Inspector VI $172 Professional Engineer VII $191 Inspector V $156 Engineering Designer VII $184 Inspector IV $145 Professional Engineer VI $182 Inspector III $129 Engineering Designer VI $175 Inspector II $117 Professional Engineer V $171 Inspector I $100 Engineering Designer V $164 Technician IV $155 Professional Engineer IV $161 Technician III $139 Engineering Designer IV $161 Technician II $120 Professional Engineer III $157 Technician I $101 Engineering Designer III $157 Administrative III $110 Engineering Designer II $143 Administrative II $101 Engineering Designer I $132 Administrative I $89 Project Manager V $270 Project Manager IV $250 Project Manager III $225 Project Manager II $200 Project Manager I $164 Project Expenses: CADD Hardware/Software $18.00/hour Modeling and GIS Hardware/Software $10.00/hour Mileage Current IRS Rate Postage and Delivery Services At Cost Printing and Reproduction At Cost Travel, Lodging, and Subsistence At Cost Outside Services: 2021 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES Labor will be invoiced by staff classification at the following hourly rates, which are valid from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. After this period, the rates are subject to adjustment. Expenses incurred that are directly attributable to the project will be invoiced at actual cost. These expenses include the following: Outside technical, professional, and other services will be invoiced at actual cost-plus 10 percent to cover administration and overhead. 2021 OR/SW WA/ID/CO MURRAYSMITH ConfidentialPage 235 of 281 EXHIBIT BLABOR CLASSIFICATION (HOURS)Estimated FeesProfessional Engineer VIIProfessional Engineer IXProfessional Engineer IIIEngineering Designer IProfessional Engineer IXProfessional Engineer IVEngineering Designer VITechnician IIIAdministrative IIAdministrative IHoursLaborIndustrial SystemsArchitects WestRichwineRossoExpensesCADD Units $18/hrTotalAndersonCummingsBrownKirbyOppFoote IILoveBlacketterButterfieldThurstonTikkalaTask 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENTTask 1.1 - Invoices/Progress Reports50 10090 240 41,529$ 1.05 -$ -$ -$ 41,529$ Task 1.2 - Project Management Plan8 168 32 6,154$ 1.05 -$ -$ -$ 6,154$ Task 1.3 - City and Team Coordination56 112 20 64 20272 56,407$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 1.05 12,600$ -$ -$ 69,007$ Task 1 Subtotal1142282064020000890544104,090$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ -$ -$ 12,600$ -$ -$ 116,690$ Task 2 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICESTask 2.01 - Kickoff, Pre-Construction and Weekly Construction Meetings79 146 2 12 2242 53,100$ 1,000$ 100$ 1,000$ 500$ 1.05 2,730$ 830$ -$ 56,660$ Task 2.02 - Coordination Meetings16 16 3 16 354 11,389$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 500$ 1,000$ 1.05 12,075$ 3,780$ -$ 27,244$ Task 2.03 - Schedules8 30 3068 12,963$ 1.05 -$ -$ -$ 12,963$ Task 2.04 - Visits to Site and Observation of Construction16 184 88216 44,206$ 500$ 500$ 500$ 1,000$ 1.05 2,625$ 5,670$ -$ 52,501$ Task 2.05 - Request for Information – Clarifications & Interpretations 24 40 16 64 40 8 8200 36,843$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 500$ 2,500$ 1.05 28,350$ -$ -$ 65,193$ Task 2.06 - Change Orders and Change Proposal Requests 42 42 12 42 812 8166 34,134$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 500$ 1.05 11,025$ -$ -$ 45,159$ Task 2.07 - Submittals, Shop Drawings and Samples36 36 16 160 140 8 88 412 69,390$ 5,000$ 4,000$ 500$ 2,500$ 1.05 12,600$ -$ -$ 81,990$ Task 2.08 - Substitutes and “or-equal”10 20 32 88 78 13,779$ 5,000$ 2,000$ 500$ 500$ 1.05 8,400$ -$ -$ 22,179$ Task 2.09 - Contractor’s Completion Documents8 16 4 24 24 4 484 14,922$ 1.05 -$ -$ -$ 14,922$ Task 2.10 - Start-Up Assistance32 32 8 24 8104 22,356$ 15,000$ 500$ 500$ 1.05 16,800$ 3,780$ -$ 42,936$ Task 2.11 - Substantial Completion 16 24 2 16 8 268 13,625$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 500$ 1.05 2,625$ 630$ -$ 16,880$ Task 2.12 - Final Notice of Acceptability of the Work 8 8 82 26 5,245$ 500$ 500$ 250$ 1.05 1,313$ -$ -$ 6,558$ Task 2.13 - Operation and Maintenance Manual 16 32 8 80 120 8 840 312 49,068$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 1.05 4,200$ 1,000$ -$ 54,268$ Task 2.14 - Record Drawings 8 32 8 8 8 80 80224 39,303$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 2,000$ 1.05 17,850$ 2,500$ 2,880$ 62,533$ Task 2.15 - Asset List2 44046 6,796$ 3,000$ 500$ 1.05 3,675$ -$ -$ 10,471$ Task 2 Subtotal32166287516388713680805802300427,118$ 60,500$ 38,100$ 7,750$ 8,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 124,268$ 18,190$ 2,880$ 572,456$ Task 3 - Additional Unanticipated, Urgent, or Special ServicesTask 3.1 - Overall Project Contingency25,000$ 25,000$ Task 3 Subtotal000000000000-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,000$ -$ 25,000$ TOTAL - ALL TASKS4358901075803889136808066902844531,208$ 65,500$ 43,100$ 9,750$ 8,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 136,868$ 43,190$ 2,880$ 714,146$ Staff NameSubconsultantsPeterson Structural EngineersSub Multiplier(Markup)Sub Total with MarkupPrincipal Engineer VShannon and WilsonCity of PascoApril 2021G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Pasco, City of\WWTP Facility Improvements 8-19\Contracting\Phase 1 Construction Engineering\Fee Estimate\Fee Estimate 2021 Rates - Phase 1 EOR_4.19.2021.xlsxMurraysmithWWTP Improvements Phase 1 - Engineer of RecordPage 1Page 236 of 281 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 28, 2021 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 5/10/21 FROM: Dave Zabell, City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Resolution - Against Bias Based Hate I. REFERENCE(S): Draft Resolution Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism - Report to the Nation: Anit-Asian Prejudice & Hate Crime II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: With an increase in reported hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) at the national level, and concerns expressed by community members about this occurrence, the City Council recently discussed issuing a statement supporting the local AAPI community. Councilmember Roach initiated community conversations, and simultaneously, staff, specifically Area Resource Officers, reached out to AAPI community leaders regarding local conditions. As previously reported to Council, while there have been no recent reports of bias based hate crimes in Pasco, there have been nationally. AAPI community members generally report feeling comfortable with local conditions, however national violence based on bias weighs on the community. Subsequent to the most recent Council discussion, and per Council direction, the topic of bias based crime and aggression, along with the prospect of a City Council resolution was discussed with the Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission (IDEC) for their input. Through this discussion, IDEC expressed support for a statement by the City Council denouncing all hate (racial, religious, Page 237 of 281 orientation, immigration status, or culture) against any segment of the community. Further, similar to what was learned through commun ity outreach efforts, beyond the support of a resolution, that specific action by the City consistent with a denouncement of bias based hate as part of the resolution would be welcomed. The 2019 FBI Hate Crime Report cites hate crime rates at their highe st levels since 2008 in the United States. Although the official FBI hate crime report for 2020 will not be released until November 2021, a recent study released by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University compared data from the first quarter of 2021 to the same time period in 2020 and found that bias-based hate crimes surged by 169 percent, continuing the historic increase reported in 2019. V. DISCUSSION: The proposed resolution is the product of initial community in put, prior Council discussion, public outreach conducted by staff, Councilmember Roach, IDEC and others. The resolution seeks to reaffirm and expand on Council's commitment to helping to promote and perfect Pasco as a welcoming and inclusive community through its support of all segments of the community, to initiate specific action(s) regarding policies and practices that further that ideal, and to encourage all community members to stand for community cohesion by supporting and celebrating or uniqueness and to stand against bias based hate. Staff are seeking City Council discussion on resolution. Page 238 of 281 Resolution - 1 RESOLUTION NO.____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FURTHERING PASCO AS AN INCLUSIVE AND WELCOMING COMMUNITY WHOSE LEADERS AND RESIDENTS WILL STAND UP TO BIAS BASED HATE AND WILL TOGETHER SUPPORT AND INITIATE MEASURES TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY COHESION FOR PASCO COMMUNITY MEMBERS. WHEREAS, from its beginning and throughout is evolution the City of Pasco has been the home to diverse cultures and peoples, which has led to Pasco’s unique and rich character, abundance of opportunities, and has been a source of pride for all who live here; and WHEREAS, today, people descendant of nations from the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, along with the Pacific Islands and other diverse groups of people; live, learn, work, and play in Pasco and together have built and sustained Pasco’s industries, neighborhoods, businesses, education, culture, etc.; and WHEREAS, the many cultures represented within Pasco have, and continue to make, significant contributions in the City’s development through work on the Railroad, local agricultural economy, small business enterprise, building of public infrastructure, public buildings and parks, churches, commerce, etc.; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council recognizes that the diversity of the people of Pasco contributes to a stronger sense of community cohesion and, that we have as a City, committed to inclusion and we continue to affirm: inclusivity through the City operations; diversity recognition through celebrations, proclamations, education; and policies that promote a culture of inclusion and unity; and WHEREAS, racial discrimination and violence represents a pervasive and persisting challenge for society, often rooted deeply at an interpersonal level; and WHEREAS, similar race-based animus in the form of bias, harassment, and hate crimes have and continue to occur across our nation; and WHEREAS, since the outbreak of COVID-19, immigrant and refugee community leaders and civil rights organizations have reported a regional and national increase in bias, harassment, and crimes toward Asian American and Pacific Islanders, and WHEREAS, locally, there exists a history involving discrimination toward Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, and other communities of color that the people and governments of Pasco and the Tri-Cities region continue to work together to correct and overcome; and WHEREAS, combatting racism requires dialog, unity of purpose, and action from all community members beginning with elected leadership; and Page 239 of 281 Resolution - 2 WHEREAS, the City of Pasco reaffirms its commitment to foster an environment where cultural diversity is recognized, respected and celebrated, and its own policies serve to connect community members of all origins and eliminate institutional barriers based on race, religion or orientation; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: Section 1: Declaration of City Council. The City of Pasco does not tolerate and denounces hate, acts of violence, bigotry, harassment, or discrimination based on race, religion, gender, nationality, immigration status, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, or socioeconomic status. Section 2: The City of Pasco reaffirms its commitment as an inclusive community as expressed in Resolutions 3820 and 3968 and further commits to, and urges all community members to, work toward overcoming and to discourage all expressions of hate and bigotry and to support one another in this effort. Section 3: The City of Pasco is committed to the inclusion and equal treatment of all community members through its provision of municipal services, programs, and policies. Section 4: The City of Pasco is committed to engaging in an ongoing dialog with the community including at community forums and events, Chamber events, district meetings, with small business owners, faith-based organizations, non-profits, and public organizations to further the goals, objectives and ideals stated herein. Section 5: The City of Pasco affirms its intent to act proactively as a government, and as an employer providing municipal services, to employ strategies and initiatives designed to enhance cultural competency and community cohesion, including: • Strengthening the cultural competency of its workforce by ongoing anti-bias training to staff and volunteers; conducting recruitment analysis to increase recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce; initiating a strategic equity planning process to continue advancing municipal services; and engaging in community resiliency planning. • Continued emphasis on assuring diversity representation of the community in appointments to the City’s Boards and Commissions. • Support City Boards and Commissions in their efforts to remove barriers to further promote transparency and accessibility to the City of Pasco. • Leverage opportunities to partner on events which promote unity and celebrate diversity through arts and cultural programs. • Promote policies and investments that increase community cohesion through design and opportunities including: o Identify and establish transportation and land-use policies that increase Page 240 of 281 Resolution - 3 accessibility and mobility for all members of the community. o Increase housing opportunities for all by removing exclusionary zoning practices that disproportionately impact people of color and low-income communities. o Promote public participation that addresses disparities in access for different populations and incorporates education for all stakeholders. • Work with the Franklin County Prosecutor in the prosecution of hate motivated crimes based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. • Recognize and appropriately act on opportunities to further unity and community cohesion. • Strive to partner with, endorse, fund, and support organizations and individuals that are also committed to supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion as a component of their own professional cultures. PASSED by the City Council of the city of Pasco, Washington this _____ day of ____, 2021. __________________________ Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ ____________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Page 241 of 281 Report to the Nation: Anti-Asian Prejudice & Hate Crime New 2020‐21 First Quarter Comparison Data Page 242 of 281 Report to the Nation: Anti‐Asian Prejudice & Hate Crime Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism Anti‐Asian Hate Crime Reported to Police in Large U.S. Cities: 2021 & 2020 Anti‐Asian Hate Crimes Increases 164% First Quarter 2021 Over Same Period 2020 Anti-AAPI Hate Crime Data for Select U.S. Cities (First Quarter 2020 and 2021) US City Population % of Population - AAPI Hate Crimes 2020 First Quarter Hate Crimes 2021 First Quarter % Change New York, NY 8,336,817 14.5% 13 42 223% Los Angeles, CA 3,979,537 11.6% 5 9 80% Phoenix, AZ 1,680,988 4.2% 1 1 Unchanged Philadelphia, PA 1,584,064 7.5% 1 0 - San Antonio, TX 1,508,083 3% 0 5 - San Diego, CA 1,423,852 17.2% 0 1 - San Francisco, CA 881,549 35% 5 12 140% Seattle, WA 753,655 17% 4 4 Unchanged Washington, D.C. 705,749 4% 0 6 - Boston, MA 694,295 9.7% 5 8 60% Louisville, KY 615,924 2.7% 0 1 - Miami, FL 478,251 1.1% 0 0 Unchanged Tampa, FL 404,636 4.3% 1 0 - Cleveland, OH 380,989 2.4% 1 0 - St. Paul, MN 310,368 18.7% 0 1 - Harris County, TX 4,779,880 6.9% 0 5 - Totals: NA 36 95 164% Source: Curated Database by CSHE, 2021, Drawn from data by policing agencies Page 243 of 281 Summary: Historic Anti-Asian Hate Crime Spike Continues into 2021 Anti-Asian hate crime reported to police in 16 of America’s largest cities and counties, rose 164%, from 36 to 95, in the first quarter of 2021 in comparison to the first quarter of 2020, according to an analysis of official preliminary data by the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism (CSHE) at California State University, San Bernardino. These 2021 data from jurisdictions that accounted for over 20 % of all FBI reported hate crimes in 2019, cover about 9% of the nation’s population. In North America, larger cities with a higher percentage of Asian residents, hate crime units, victim outreach, and a lengthy history of data collection were those most l ikely show higher numerical and percentage increases. This year’s first quarter increase follows an historic surge in Anti-Asian hate crime that started last year. In 2020, Anti-Asian hate crime increased 146% across 26 of America’s largest jurisdictions t hat comprise over 10% of the nation’s population, according to a newly updated analysis of official preliminary police data by CSHE. Last year’s first spike occurred in March and April amidst a rise in COVID cases, a World Health Organization pandemic declaration and an increase in political and online stigmatizing of Asians. Other times over the last decade where anti-Asian hate crime reported to the police spiked, albeit, at lower levels and of less duration was in February 2014 following a damning report on North Korea’s human rights violations (32) and in July 2018 during a tariff dispute between the United States and China during the last administration. While FBI national hate crime data for 2020 will not be available until mid-November 2021, the nation’s highest reporting cities have been a reliable indicator of overall trends over the last decade. New York, Boston, and Los Angeles alone accounted for 12% of all hate crimes enumerated nationally by the FBI in 2019; and those cities combined matched national trends in nine of the last ten years. The FBI defines a hate crime for police reporting purposes as a criminal act “motivated in whole, or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity.” Victimization Surveys The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which conducts victimization surveys complimentary to FBI data, found that until 2015 most hate crime victims did not report victimizations. While BJS most recent data indicates a slight majority of victims now report, it is likely that there is massive underreporting of hate crime in Asian -American communities. Research by BJS and others found communities with language and cult ural barriers, attenuated relations with law enforcement, along with those who fear retaliation, have far higher levels of underreporting. A multi-lingual online victimization portal run by the consortium STOP AAPI Hate found 3,292 criminal and non- criminal incidents last year and an additional 503 incidents in 2021. Of the 3,795 total from March of 2020 through this year, at least 21.1% constituted actual criminal offenses: Traditional assaults at 11.1 of total; spitting and coughing (also an assault) 7.2%; and vandalisms 2.8%. The STOP AAPI hate sample m ay have enumerated even more crimes for those “verbal harassments” in their dataset that rise to a criminal threat, referred to as “intimidation” by the FBI. If only the traditional assaults in the STOP AAPI sample alone were fully reported to American police last year, those crimes, at 365 cases would eclipse the previous record for FBI reported hate crimes set in the mid-1990s. New York City police reported a probable record in the first quarter of 2021. The United States & Canada In Canada, which uses a more expansive definition of hate crime than the U.S., CSHE found anti-Asian hate crimes in four of that nation’s largest cities rose even more precipitously, registering a 532% increase in 2020. The largest increase (717% from 2019 to 2020) was in Vancouver, British Columbia, the nation’s third largest city. Overall hate crime totals for the multi-city Canadian sample found a 74% increase in hate crimes overall from 2019 to 2020. The U.S. city and county data further indicated that this rise occurred amidst a more stable overall hate crime landscape for 2020. Despite increases in some other types of offenses, hate crime’s statistical stability was likely influenced by a lack of interaction at frequent gathering locations, where the FBI has f ound most hate crimes occur, like in public transit, commercial businesses, schools, events, and houses of worship. Moreover, there was no mass casualty hate attacks last year as was the case in 2019 and prior years. In 26 major U.S. cities and counties, including the 10 largest, hate crimes overall increased by a modest 2 percent. This is the first study of police data for 2020 and 2021 across the U.S. Other charts from different datasets relating to the Asian-American community from the forthcoming final report are also presented herein. The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act and its amendments from the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, passed the U.S. Senate (94-1) on April 22, 2021. They call for the creation of a position within the Department of Justice to expedite reviews of COVID-19 hate crimes. Also, incentives from the Federal government for better collection of hate crime data by policing agencies is included in this legislation. The U.S. House of Representative is currently taking the Senate bill under consideration. Page 244 of 281 Anti-AAPI Hate Crime Data for Select U.S. Cities/U.S. Counties and Major Cities in Canada (2020-2019) US City Population Total Hate Crimes 2019 Total Hate Crimes 2020 % Change for Total Hate Crimes 2019-2020 % of Population - AAPI Change Anti-Asian Hate Crimes 2019 Anti-Asian 2020 Anti-Asian New York City, NY 8,336,817 428 265 -38% 14.5% 833% 3 28 Los Angeles, CA 3,979,537 326 355 9% 11.6% 114% 7 15 Chicago, IL 2,693,959 100 81 -19% 6.9% Unchanged 2 2 Houston, TX 2,316,797 25 47 88% 6.5% - 0 3 Phoenix, AZ 1,680,988 156 204 31% 4.2% 50% 2 3 Philadelphia, PA 1,584,064 35 17 -51% 7.5% 200% 2 6 San Antonio, TX 1,508,083 9 38 322% 2.8% Unchanged 0 0 San Diego, CA 1,423,852 30 25 -17% 17.2% - 0 1 Dallas, TX 1,343,565 31 62 100% 3.4% - 0 6 San Jose, CA 1,021,786 34 89 162% 38.0% 150% 4 10 Columbus, OH 902,073 93 110 18% 5.8% Unchanged 1 1 San Francisco, CA 881,549 64 52 -19% 35.0% 50% 6 9 Seattle, WA 753,655 114 139 22% 16.9% 56% 9 14 Denver, CO 727,211 88 71 -19% 3.7% - 0 3 Washington, DC 705,749 203 132 -35% 4% -83% 6 1 Boston, MA 694,295 170 146 -14% 9.7% 133% 6 14 Portland, OR 653,467 35 49 40% 8.4% -67% 3 1 Louisville, KY 617,630 9 48 433% 2.7% Unchanged 0 0 Sacramento, CA 513,620 11 57 418% 20.1% 700% 1 8 Long Beach, CA 462,645 23 18 -22% 12.3% Unchanged 0 0 Cleveland, OH 380,989 116* NA - 2.4% 200% 2 6 Saint Paul, MN 308,096 11 38 245% 19.4% 100% 1 2 Cincinatti, OH 303,954 41 45 10% 2.3% - 0 1 Bloomington, IN 86,630 2 7 250% 10.0% - 0 1 US County Population Total Hate Crimes 2019 Total Hate Crimes 2020 % Change for Total Hate Crimes 2019-2020 % of Population - AAPI Percent of Change Anti-Asian Hate Crimes 2019 Anti-Asian 2020 Anti-Asian Harris County, TX 4,713,325 19 10 -47% 7.0% Unchanged 0 0 Miami-Dade County, FL 2,716,940 10 5 -50% 1.5% Unchanged 0 0 US City/County TOTALS 2067 2110 2% N/A 146% 55 135 Canada City, Population Total Hate Crimes 2019 Total Hate Crimes 2020 % Change for Total Hate Crimes 2019-2020 % of Asian Canadians Percent of Change Anti-Asian Hate Crimes 2019 Anti-Asian 2020 Anti-Asian Toronto 2,731,571 139 210 51% 32.5% 280% 5 19 Vancouver 631,486 142 280 97% 44.0% 717% 12 98 Montreal 1,704,694 3 22 633% 20.3% 167% 3 8 Ottawa 934,243 116 182 57% 21.6% 600% 2 14 Canada City TOTALS 400 694 74% N/A 532% 22 139 Note: Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Population makes up 6.5% of the U.S. population. Source: CSHE Curated Data Set from U.S. Policing Agencies and Canadian Government Page 245 of 281 Comparison of Anti-Asian Hate Crime in First Quarter of 2020 and 2021 Notes Concerning Data for Anti‐AAPI Hate Crime Data for Select U.S. Cities/U.S. Counties and Major Cities in Canada (2020‐2019) Table: (1) For Louisville data, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro data was used for city population and percentage of population that is AAPI. (2) All demographic data for cities in Canada has been drawn from the StatCanada database and the city designation has been used. The latest data is 2016 and a new census is occurring in 2021. (3) For Toronto data, we are using Chinese, Asian, Sri Lankan and Vietnamese for Asian Canadian hate crime count in 2019. (4) For all Canadian cities demographic data, we have included the following groups as the Asian Canadian category ‐ South Asian ('East Indian,' 'Pakistani,' 'Sri Lankan', etc.), Chinese, Filipino, Southeast Asian ('Vietnamese,' 'Cambodian,' 'Laotian,' 'Thai,' etc.), Korean, and Japanese. Comparison of Anti-Asian Hate Crime in the First Quarter of 2020 and 2021 Source: CSHE Curated Data Set from U.S. Policing Agencies Comparison of Anti-Asian Hate Crime in 2019 and 2021 Source: CSHE Curated Data Set from U.S. Policing Agencies 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 OccurencesYears Anti-Asian Hate Crime Incidents Reported to Police in Select U.S. Cities (First Quarter 2020 & 2021) Hate Crimes 2020 First Quarter Hate Crimes 2021 First Quarter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 OccurrencesYears Anti-Asian Hate Crime Incidents Reported to Police in Select U.S. Cities 2019-2020 2019 2020 Page 246 of 281 Anti-Asian Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco Compared to COVID-Hospitalization Rates in New York City (February 29 to May 31, 2020) Significant Events 2/28/20: Sen. Tom Cotton tweets "Wu---n Virus" 3/7/20: Secretary Pompeo on Fox News Channel Says “Ch--a Virus” 3/8/20: Rep. Gosar Tweets “Wu--n Virus” & 650% rise in retweets with ethnic COVID-19 3/9/20: 800% increase in news articles with ethnic COVID-19 from day before 3/11/20: 3/11/20: WHO labels COVID-19 a “global Pandemic”/POTUS Oval Office Address 3/16/20: POTUS Trump first tweets “Ch--a Virus.” Uses more than 20X through 3/30 POTUS Trump tweets “Ch--a Virus” & repeats at tourism presser WH official says “K--Flu“ to Asian reporter 3/23/20: POTUS Trump tweets tolerance for Asian-American & reiterates at presses DHS warns of attacks by White Supremacists against Asians and others. Page 247 of 281 Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Reported to Police in Major U.S. Cities: 2015-2020 Source: CSHE Curated Data Sets from U.S. Policing Agencies: NYPD, LAPD, Seattle PD, San Jose PD, Boston PD & Dallas PD Page 248 of 281 Anti-Asian Hate Crime Heat Map (by Month and Year, 1992-2018) Page 249 of 281 U.S. Population By Race: 2018 FBI Hate Crime Multi-Year Trends By Bias Motivation For above table Anti-Asian does NOT include Pac. Isl./Alaska Native. Source: FBI Page 250 of 281 Anti‐Asian Hate Crime Incidents FBI Data (1996‐2019) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Years (1996‐2019) FBI Data on Anti-Asian Hate Crime by Year (1996-2019) FBI Hate Crime: Multi-Year Trend by Group Source: FBI/UCR [From 2013-2019 Asian & Haw./Pac. Islander-Alaska Native Combined] Google Search Trends Relating to Stigmatizing Language Google Keyword Search for “Ch—a Virus,” “Ch—k,” “King Flu,” & “G—k” Weekly (March 1, 2020 to February 21, 2021) Source: CSHE/Google Trends Searchable Database (2021) Google Trends Key Word Search: "Ch‐‐a Virus," "Ch‐‐k," "Kung Flu," & "G‐‐k" Weekly (3/1/20 to 2/21/21) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 "ch‐‐a virus": (United States) ch‐‐k: (United States) Weeks kung flu: (United States) g‐‐k: (United States) Number of Searches for Terms Incidents 3/1/2020 3/15/2020 3/29/2020 4/12/2020 4/26/2020 5/10/2020 5/24/2020 6/7/2020 6/21/2020 7/5/2020 7/19/2020 8/2/2020 8/16/2020 8/30/2020 9/13/2020 9/27/2020 10/11/2020 10/25/2020 11/8/2020 11/22/2020 12/6/2020 12/20/2020 1/3/2021 1/17/2021 1/31/2021 2/14/2021 Page 251 of 281 Sinophobic Twitter Trends Relating to Stigmatizing Language: CIS/Max Plank Inst. Source: Schild, Leonard, et al. “‘Go eat a bat, Chang!’: An Early Look on the Emergence of Sinophobic Behavior on Web Communities in the Face of COVID-19.” CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, Boston University, Binghamton University, Max Plank Institute for Informatics. pp 3-4. 8 April 2020/Sage Publications Polling on COVID Responsibility: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll Attitudes Concerning Responsibility for COVID-19 by Political Affiliation Source: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll (April 28, 2020) New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll Beliefs about Who is Responsible for the Coronavirus by Political Affiliation April 28, 2020 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Republican (N=215) Political Affiliation Democrat (N=36) Independent (N=35) Percentage of Sample Who Believe the Statement Page 252 of 281 If you were out in public, how concerned would you be about coming close to someone who is of Asian ancestry? Total Republican Democrat Independent Very concerned 7% 7% 7% 10% Somewhat concerned 17% 20% 17% 11% Not very concerned 35% 41% 31% 37% Not at all concerned 41% 33% 46% 42% Attitudes Concerning Physical Proximity to Someone of Asian Ancestry Source: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll (April 28, 2020) Source: New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll (April 28, 2020) STOP AAPI Hate: Hate National Report Source: Stop AAPI Hate (February 9, 2021) https://stopaapihate.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Stop-AAPI-Hate-National-Report-210316.pdf New Center for Public Integrity/Ipsos Poll Beliefs about Proximity to Asians in Public by Political Affiliation April 28, 2020 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned Political Affiliation Republican Democrat Independent Percentage of Sample Who Have a Specific Feeling Page 253 of 281 Source: Stop AAPI Hate (February 9, 2021) https://stopaapihate.org https://stopaapihate.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Stop-AAPI-Hate-National-Report-210316.pdf Source: Stop AAPI Hate (February 9, 2021) https://stopaapihate.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Stop-AAPI-Hate-National-Report-210316.pdf Page 254 of 281 Asian Population by State Source: American Community Survey 2019 Asian-American Population Growth By Decade: PEW/CENSUS Source: Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ft_2021.04.09_asianamericans_02.png?w=640 Page 255 of 281 Source: Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/09/asian-americans-are-the-fastest-growing-racial-or-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s/ft_2021-04- 09_asianamericans_01/ Resources for More on AAPI Prejudice: Asian Americans Advancing Justice ‐ Atlanta — Website, Twitter Asian Americans Advancing Justice ‐ Asian Law Caucus — Website, Twitter Center for Pan Asian Community Services — Website, Twitter National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum ‐ Atlanta — Website, Twitter Page 256 of 281 SOURCES AND COLLECTION INFORMATION FOR REPORT The following is the data or links to the data that was collected by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino and then reported in the “Fact Sheet: Anti-Asian Prejudice March 2021.” All hate crime data from the select cities under study in the report were collected from the policing agencies for those select cities. Data was either collected directly from data analyst who work for those policing agencies or was collected from the publicly available dashboard available online. See below for sourcing for each city’s data for 2020 and 2019. For more information on the data collection, please contact Prof. Brian Levin (blevin8@aol.com), Director or Dr. Kevin Grisham (kgrisham@csusb.edu), Associate Director, of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://data.sandiego.gov/datasets/police-hate-crimes/ CINCINNATI, OHIO Preliminary data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Alan Wedd, Social Science Research Specialist, Office of Criminal Justice Services in Ohio. Data for 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and can be seen below: The data for 2019 was collected in the same manner and can be obtain from CSHE upon request. Due to space limitations, that data is not included in this source list. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Data for reporting on 2020 was provided by H. Aden, Freedom of Information Act Officer, Chicago Police Department per a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on December 31, 2020. Data was sent as an Excel spreadsheet and the excerpts of the Anti- Asian data can be seen below: Page 257 of 281 The data for 2019 was collected in the same manner and can be obtain from CSHE upon request. Due to space limitations, that data is not included in this source list. PHOENIX, ARIZONA Data for reporting in 2019 and 2020 was provided Public Records, Code Enforcement Unit, Phoenix Police Department. Screenshot of the 2020 and 2019 data is provided below: Page 258 of 281 DENVER, COLORADO Data for reporting from 2010 to 2020 was provided by Mike Nichols, Senior Statistical Researcher, Denver Police Department. The data from 2010 to 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and the excerpt for the Anti-Asian data for 2020 can be seen below (no data on Anti-Asian hate crime was reported in 2019): Page 259 of 281 HOUSTON, TEXAS Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://txucr.nibrs.com/Report/HateCrime WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA Data from 2012 to 2020 reporting was collected from an Excel spreadsheet at the following link: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/Hate%20Cr imes%20Open%20Data_4.xlsx PHILADELPHIA, PENNSLYVANIA Data for reporting in 2019 and 2020 was provided by Lieutenant Barry Jacobs, Open Records Officer, Open Records/Right-to-Know Section, Philadelphia Police Department. Data for reporting in 2020 was gathered by Masood Farivar, Writer, Voice of America, who collected it from the Boston Police Department. Screenshot of the 2020 and 2019 data is provided below: Page 260 of 281 Citvwide ar Month # of Incidents Ja.n u al1,' 0 Februal1,' 0 March 1 Avril 2 May 0 June 1 July 2 August 0 September 0 October 0 November 0 December 0 Total 6 Page 261 of 281 CLEVELAND, OHIO Preliminary data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Alan Wedd, Social Science Research Specialist, Office of Criminal Justice Services in Ohio. Data for 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and can be seen below: The data for 2019 was collected in the same manner and can be obtain from CSHE upon request. Note: Due to the high number of overall hate crimes categorized as “Other” and due to a history of Cleveland overall hate crime data being reclassified later that often changes the presentation of the data, CSHE has opted not to report the overall hate crime data as this time in this report. CSHE has decided to provide the Anti-Asian hate crime for this report as we believe it is less likely to be reclassified. DALLAS, TEXAS Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://txucr.nibrs.com/Report/HateCrime Page 262 of 281 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Data for reporting from 2019 to 2020 was provided by Lieutenant R. Andrew Cox, Office in Charge, Risk Management – Legal Division, San Francisco Police Department. The data from 2019 and 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and the excerpt for the Anti- Asian data for 2019 and 2020 can be seen below: Page 263 of 281 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA Data for reporting in 2019 and 2020 was provided Monique Villarreal, Research and Development Unit, San Jose Police Department. Screenshot of the 2019 and 2020 data is provided below: Page 264 of 281 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/bias-crime-unit/bias-crime- dashboard Note: Data presented in CSHE chart is from the category, “Malicious Harassment.” BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS Data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Masood Farivar, Writer, Voice of America, who collected it from the Boston Police Department. Data for 2020 was sent as Excel spreadsheet and can be seen below: The data for 2019 was collected from the following link: https://masscrime.chs.state.ma.us/tops/report/hate-crime_1/boston/2019 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Data was collected from crime data set (2010 to 2019) from Los Angeles Police Department from the following link: https://data.lacity.org/Public-Safety/Crime-Data-from-2010-to-2019/63jg-8b9z Note: Detective Orlando Martinez, Hate Crime Coordinator, Robbery-Homicide Division, Los Angeles Police Department, assisted CSHE is accessing the dataset. Page 265 of 281 NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK Data was collected from crime data set (2019 to 2020) from New York City Police Department from the following link: https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiYjg1NWI3YjgtYzkzOS00Nzc0LTkwMDAtNTgz M2I2M2JmYWE1IiwidCI6IjJiOWY1N2ViLTc4ZDEtNDZmYi1iZTgzLWEyYWZkZDdjNjA0 MyJ9 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS Data for 2020 and 2019 reporting was collected from the following link: https://txucr.nibrs.com/Report/HateCrime LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA Data for reporting in 2020 was provided by Crystal Niebla, Reporter, Long Beach Post, who collected it from the Long Beach Police Department. No 2019 data was available. Page 266 of 281 HATE CRIME LAWS Current Federal Hate Crime Protections Constitutional Protections Relevant Text U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5 Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of c itizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. U.S. Const. amend. XV, § 1 “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Federal Statutes Description 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy against rights Makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free enjoyment of a right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law Makes it unlawful to willfully deprive any person of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured to him or her by the Const itution or laws of the U.S., or to subject a person to different punishments, pains, or penalties because of that person’s alien status, color, or race. Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 245 – Federally protected activities Makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person participating in any one of the following six federally protected activities, on account of his or her race, color, religion, or national origin: 1) enrolling in or attending a public school, 2) participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility or activity administered by any State or local government, 3) applying for or enjoying employment, 4) serving in a State court as a juror, 5) traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce, or 6) enjoying the goods or services of certain public places of accommodation. Damage to Religious Property, Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 247 – Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs Prohibits the intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real property because of the religious nature of that property, or because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property. Also criminalizes the intentional obstruction of a person’s free exercise of religious beliefs by force or threat of force. Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3631 – Violations; penalties Makes it unlawful to use or threaten to use force to interfere with an individual’s housing rights on account of his or her race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. 249 – Hate crime acts The first statute to allow federal criminal prosecution of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity. Makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury to a person on account of his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, or attempt to do so through use of a dangerous weapon. Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice Page 267 of 281 Hate Crime Laws By State: 2020 State Statute Race, religion, ethnicity Gender Gender Identity Age Sexual Orientation Disability Political Affiliation Homelessness First Responder/ Police Interference with religious worship Alabama Ala. Code § 13A‐5‐13 Ala. Code § 13A‐6‐28 Ala. Code § 13A‐11‐12 YES NO NO NO Proposed legislation YES NO NO NO NO Alaska Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(22) Alaska Stat. § 11.76.110 YES YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13‐701 D.13 and D.15 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13‐1707 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13‐1708 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13‐1604 A.1 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41‐1750 A.3 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Arkansas NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES California Cal. Penal Code § 422.55 Cal. Penal Code § 422.6 Cal. Penal Code § 422.7 Cal. Penal Code § 422.75 Cal. Penal Code § 422.76 Cal. Penal Code § 11411 Cal. Penal Code § 11413(b)(2) Cal. Penal Code § 13023 Cal. Penal Code § 13519.6 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18‐9‐121 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18‐9‐113 YES NO YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a‐58 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53‐37a Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‐40a Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‐181j Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‐181k Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‐181l Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29‐7m Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7‐294n YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Delaware 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1304 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1301 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1331 11 Del. Code Ann. § 805 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO District of Columbia D.C. Code § 22‐3701 D.C. Code § 22‐3703 D.C. Code § 22‐3704 D.C. Code § 22‐3312.03 D.C. Code § 22‐3312.02 D.C. Code § 22‐3702 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES Florida Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.085 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.0845 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 876.17 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 876.18 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 806.13 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 877.19 YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES NO YES Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 17‐10‐17 Ga. Code Ann. § 16‐11‐37 Ga. Code Ann. § 16‐7‐26 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO YES Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 706‐ 662 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 846‐ 51 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 711‐ 1107 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 846‐51, 846‐52, 846‐53, 846‐54 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Idaho Idaho Code Ann. § 18‐7901 Idaho Code Ann. § 18‐7902 Idaho Code Ann. § 18‐7903 Idaho Code Ann. § 67‐2915 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Illinois 720 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/12‐7.1 730 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/5‐5‐3.2 720 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/12‐7.6 720 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 5/21‐1.2 20 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. Act 4070 20 Ill. Comp. Laws Ann. 2605/2605‐390 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 10‐13‐3‐1 Ind. Code Ann. § 35‐43‐1‐2 Ind. Code Ann. § 10‐13‐3‐38 YES NO NO NO YES YES NO (“Creed”) NO NO YES Page 268 of 281 State Statute Race, religion, ethnicity Gender Gender Identity Age Sexual Orientation Disability Political Affiliation Homelessness First Responder/ Police Interference with religious worship Iowa Iowa Code § 729A.1 Iowa Code §§ 729A.2 Iowa Code § 729.5 Iowa Code § 716.6A Iowa Code § 692.15 Iowa Code § 80B.11 Iowa Code § 729A.4 YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21‐6815 YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.031 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 525.110 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 525.113 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17.1523 YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES NO Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:107.2 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:225 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1204.4 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2403 H.(1) YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO YES NO Maine 17 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 2931, 2932 5 Me. Rev. Stat. § 4684‐A 17‐A Me. Rev. Stat. § 1151 17‐A Me. Rev. Stat. § 507 25 Me. Rev. Stat. § 1544 25 Me. Rev. Stat. § 2803‐B YES YES NO YES YES YES NO YES NO NO Maryland Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10‐301 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10‐302 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10‐303 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10‐304 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10‐305 Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10‐307 Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety § 2‐307 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES NO YES Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 37 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 39 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 § 127A Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 22C § 33, 34, 35 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6 § 116B YES NO YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws. Serv.§ 750.147b Mich. Comp. Laws. Serv.§ 28.257a YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 609.2231 Minn. Stat. § 609.749 Minn. Stat. § 609.595 Minn. Stat. § 626.5531 Minn. Stat. § 626.8451 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO YES Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. § 99‐19‐ 301 through 99‐19‐307 Miss. Code Ann. § 97‐17‐39 YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. § 557.035 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 574.085 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES Montana Mont. Code Ann. § 45‐5‐ 221 Mont. Code Ann. § 45‐5‐ 222 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28‐ 110 Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28‐ 111 Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28‐ 114 YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193.1675 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 207.185 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 206.125 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651:6(f) YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Page 269 of 281 State Statute Race, religion, ethnicity Gender Gender Identity Age Sexual Orientation Disability Political Affiliation Homelessness First Responder/ Police Interference with religious worship New Jersey N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:16‐1 [declared unconstitutional by State v. Pomianek, 221 N.J. 66 (2015)] N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:33‐9 N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:33‐11 N.J. Rev. Stat. § 52:9DD‐9 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31‐18B‐3 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30‐15‐4 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31‐18B‐4 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31‐18B‐5 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO YES New York N.Y. Penal Law § 485.05 N.Y. Penal Law § 485.10 N.Y. Penal Law § 240.31 N.Y. Penal Law § 240.70 N.Y. Penal Law § 240.71 N.Y. Exec. Law § 837(f)4‐c YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO YES North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‐3 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‐12.14 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‐401.14 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‐49(b1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‐62.2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‐144 YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1‐14‐ 04 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1‐21‐ 01 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1‐21‐ 02 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1‐21‐ 08 YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Ohio Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2927.12 Ohio Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2927 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Oklahoma Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 850 Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 1174 Oklahoma Stat. tit. 21 § 1765 YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.155 Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.165 Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.075 Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.225 Or. Rev. Stat. § 181A.470 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2710 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3307 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5509 71 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 250(i) YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws § 12‐19‐38 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11‐44‐31 R.I. Gen. Laws § 42‐28‐46 R.I. Gen. Laws § 42‐28.2‐8.1 YES YES NO NO YES YES NO YES NO YES South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 16‐5‐10 S.C. Code Ann. § 16‐7‐120 S.C. Code Ann. § 16‐11‐535 S.C. Code Ann. § 16‐11‐110 NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws § 22‐ 19B‐1 S.D. Codified Laws § 22‐ 19B‐2 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 40‐35‐ 114(17) Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‐17‐ 309 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‐17‐ 311 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‐14‐ 301 YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO YES Texas Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.014 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.47 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.04 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.08 Tex. Gov. Code Ann. § 411.046 YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO YES NO Page 270 of 281 State Statute Race, religion, ethnicity Gender Gender Identity Age Sexual Orientation Disability Political Affiliation Homelessness First Responder/ Police Interference with religious worship Utah Utah Code Ann. § 76‐3‐ 203.3 Utah Code Ann. § 76‐3‐ 203.4 Utah Code Ann. § 76‐6‐103 Utah Code Ann. § 76‐6‐101 Utah Code Ann. § 53‐10‐ 202 Utah Code Ann. § 76‐3‐ 203.14 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Vermont 13 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1455 13 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1456 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 18.2‐57 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2‐423 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2‐ 423.01 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2‐423.1 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2‐423.2 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2.127 Va. Code Ann. § 18.2.138 Va. Code Ann. § 52‐8.5 YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES Washington Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.078 *** CHANGE IN 2019 *** (SEE 1732‐S.SL) *** Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.080 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.61.160 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 36.28A.030 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 43.101.290 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES NO NO West Virginia W. Va. Code Ann. § 61‐6‐21 YES YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES Wisconsin Wis. Stat. § 939.645 Wis. Stat. § 943.012 YES NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6‐9‐102 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Key Federal Hate Crime Cases Barclay v. Florida, (1983), the United States Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of a black defendant given by a judge who invoked the defendant’s racial motivation in committing random murder to foment a race war. Dawson v. Delaware, (1992), the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence that was imposed for a murder by a prison escapee, because it was made in part on the basis of his membership in a white supremacist group. Because no connection existed between the defendant Dawson’s racist beliefs and associations, and his opportunistic killing while on the run, the Court held that mere abstract racist ideology was an impermissible basis to impose criminal liability. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, (1992), the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a 1989 municipal "hate speech" ordinance used to prosecute a teenage skinhead for burning a cross in the yard of an African American family, although it split as to why. The invalidated law selectively punished the terroristic use of hate symbols, but only when the symbols expressed certain hatreds, but not others. The Court held it unconstitutional to punish the terroristic use of a symbol on the basis of which underlying prejudiced viewpoint it punishes. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, (1993), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of broadly applicable penalty enhancement laws for hate crime. Penalty enhancement laws increase the punishment for an underlying crime when an additional prohibited element is present, such as the use of a weapon or recidivism. Specifically, the enhancement law at issue in Mitchell punished an offender's discriminatory selection of a victim or property based on the status characteristics of another person, including race, religion, color, national origin, and ancestry. The Supreme Court cited three basic rationales for affirming the law. First, while the government may not punish abstract beliefs, it has wide latitude to sanction motive. Second, the Court also ruled that penalty enhancement laws, unlike the statute at issue in R.A.V., were aimed at discriminatory conduct, and did not prevent or punish merely hateful expression. Third, the Court noted the severity of hate crimes’ harms, stating that they are "thought to be more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harm on their victims and incite community unrest” (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, p. 487‐88, 1993). Apprendi v. New Jersey, (2000), finding hate crime laws are specific intent statutes requiring proof of discriminatory motive in victim selection, the Supreme Court held prosecutors must establish the presence of a bias motive enhancement or any other enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction when its inclusion substantially impacts the defendant's sentence. Page 271 of 281 Virginia v. Black, (2003), the Supreme Court held that laws that criminalize burning a cross on someone’s property to terrorize residents are constitutional, as long as the government does not differentiate which bigoted viewpoint the threat promotes, or automatically punish those consensually burned on private property. U.S. v. Miller, (2014), in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit threw out convictions under the Shepard‐Byrd Act because the victim’s religion was not established as a “but‐for cause” of the attack—meaning that the victim’s status as a member of a protected group was not the offender’s only motivating factor in committing the crime— as opposed to just being a motivating factor. The Miller decision made prosecuting cases under federal hate crime law more difficult, as the victim’s membership in a protected class must be the only motivating factor; if there are any other motivating factors, it is not a hate crime. U.S. v. Hill, (2019), in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled the Shepard‐Byrd Act properly covered a homophobic violent attack in the workplace because the law “easily falls under Congress’s broad [constitutional] authority to regulate interstate commerce.” Recent Federal Laws The Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA), 28 U.S.C. § 534, was signed into law by President Bush in April 1990. The HCSA initially required the Attorney General to collect data voluntarily submitted by the states on crimes motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity, but was subsequently amended in the 1990s to include disability. Gender and gender identity were added in 2013, and other changes were made in 2017 that added various religious and ethnic subcategories. The Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act was enacted in 1994. The statute, a penalty enhancement law, increases the sentence for underlying federal offenses by about one third when the fact finder establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the target is intentionally selected because of the race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of another. The law’s practical limitation is that it is only applicable to a relatively small number of substantive underlying federal offenses (28 U.S.C. 994). The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, became effective in 2010 after being signed by President Obama in October 2009. This new federal law, codified at 18 U.S.C. §249, improved the existing criminal civil rights statute by extending federal group protection to gender, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Federal law previously covered only race, color, religion, and national origin. However, these new categories, like some earlier ones, are only protected in the new law when the bigoted crimes also affect interstate commerce because of federal jurisdictional requirements found in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Shepard Byrd Act punishes violence and attempts involving bodily injury through firearms, fire, explosives, and other dangerous devices. Second, the legislation also expands the mandate of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to cover gender and gender identity. The Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act of 2018, enacted in September 2018, expands existing law protecting houses of worship to include “real property owned or leased by a nonprofit, [or] religiously affiliated organization.” Recent Federal Proposals to Combat Hate In July 2019, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators announced their plan to introduce the “Never Again Education Act.” If enacted, the Act would create a grant program at the U.S. Department of Education to enable teachers across the nation to access resources and training to teach their students about the Holocaust. In July 2019, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D‐CT) and Dick Durbin (D‐IL) introduced the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assaults, and Threats to Equality (NO HATE) Act of 2019, and Representatives Don Beyer (D‐VA) and Pete Olson (R‐TX) introduced its companion bill in the House of Representatives under the name NO HATE Act. The bill is named after two hate crime victims whose murders were prosecuted as hate crimes but not reported in hate crime statistics. If passed, the bill would incentivize state and local jurisdiction to improve their hate crime reporting and data collection systems. There have also been proposals among advocacy groups to close the so‐called but‐for loophole referenced above in U.S. v. Miller, which would change the motivation standard that prosecutors would have to prove under current federal hate crime law, from having to prove a victim’s membership in a protected category as the sole cause of the offender’s crime, to a significant motivating factor. Page 272 of 281 Recent State Reforms on Hate Crime – Legislative and Non‐Legislative UTAH In April 2019 Utah governor Gary Herbert signed a new hate crime bill, SB 103, into law that expanded both the groups and criminal circumstances covered after a brutal anti‐Latino assault was found not to be covered by a weaker previous law, SB 102, which prosecutors deemed ineffectual and did not address felony attacks. NEW YORK Starting with the introduction of a similar bill in 2014, New York’s legislature has approved the passage of a bill that bans the use of the “panic” defense by suspects charged with crimes against gay and transsexual individuals. In support of the bill, Governor Andrew Cuomo tweeted that he would sign it into law once it reached his desk. However, some criminal defense organizations in the state have been outspoken against it, asserting that its passage will limit due process for suspects. INDIANA In Indiana, Senate Bill 198 was signed into law on April 3, 2019. The new law enhances penalties for crimes based on a person’s actual or perceived characteristic, trait, belief, practice, association, or other characteristics. The statute covers color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation, but excludes gender, gender identity, age or sex. OREGON Oregon’s legislature passed Senate Bill 577, which expands the circumstances where the state’s earlier 1981 intimidation statute, which focused on perpetrator group conduct, was deficient, by strengthening penalties and clarifying coverage. The legislation also expanded data collection to include non‐criminal incidents. GEORGIA Georgia enacted a new hate crime law on June 26, 2020 that protects on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, mental disability, or physical disability. In 2004, the state Supreme Court overturned the state’s hate crime law. SOUTH CAROLINA H. 3063, which just passed in the Criminal Law Subcommittee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, would amend pre‐ existing law with an enhancement for crimes motivated by discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, age national origin, sexual orientation or homelessness. So far, 28 state representatives have sponsored the bill. The bill has not yet passed. NORTH CAROLINA This year, a group of Democratic lawmakers tried to strengthen North Carolina's hate crime law. In March, State Senators Jay Chaudhuri of Wake County, Valerie Foushee of Orange County, and Mujtaba Mohammed of Mecklenburg County introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to broaden the existing law to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, and to create a hate crime category of "felonious assault" applicable to crimes of bias involving death, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sexual offenses. It would also require the creation of a hate crime database at the State Bureau of Investigation and mandate hate crime‐related training for law enforcement and prosecutors. NEVADA Joining the ranks of other states, Nevada has succeeded in banning the use of “panic” defenses for suspects charged with crimes against gay and transsexual members of the community. The passage of the bill received a landslide victory in both the State Senate and House before the governor signed it into law. MINNESOTA Keith Ellison, the Attorney General for the state of Minnesota, has begun the process of creating a work group that will empower local law enforcement to more accurately document crimes of hate and bias. Additionally, a grant program that funds security initiatives for places of worship was extended by Minnesota state leadership. NORTH DAKOTA Recently, the North Dakota Advisory Committee held a public meeting focused on listening to concerns expressed by professionals and activists from within the state. However, some participants left the meeting early under the impression that the committee has not done enough to address issues of hate experienced by citizens of North Dakota. Page 273 of 281 MICHIGAN The Michigan State Police has added a hate crimes category for attacks against people based on their gender identity, which brings the state in line with FBI tracking categories. The federal agency started tracking gender identity and sexual orientation hate crimes following the adoption of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. CALIFORNIA Assembly member Richard Bloom of Los Angeles is introducing a bill in January 2021 to create a permanent State of Hate Commission and other states are expected to follow his lead. AB 1052 would require peace officers to undergo comprehensive training on hate crimes. It also requires all in‐service peace officers to take a refresher course on hate crimes every three years that will be developed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. AB 300 would improve accuracy in reporting of hate crimes and incidents by requiring specific reports from law enforcement agencies in California to include a checkbox indicating whether the case is a hate crime or incident. It would also require law enforcement agencies to complete a supplemental report that specifies the type of bias motivation and other relevant information for each hate crime or incident. In June 2019, AB 1985 was signed into law. The bill clarifies that a disability is protected under the law regardless of whether it is temporary, permanent, congenital, or acquired by heredity, accident, injury, advanced age, or illness. The bill also requires any local law enforcement agency that updates an existing hate crime policy or adopts a new hate crime policy to include, among other things, the Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) framework and information regarding bias motivation. Page 274 of 281 Author: Prof. Brian Levin - Director, CSHE Editor and Graphics: Kevin Grisham, Ph.D., Associate Director, CSHE Analytical Charting and Research: Ms. Analisa Venolia, Senior Researcher, Mr. Stephen El-Khatib, ABD, Research Assistant, and Mr. Gabriel Levin, Research Assistant - CSHE Special thanks to the staff in the hate crime reporting units in policing agencies throughout the United States who have assisted us over the years to gain accurate information on hate crime data in U.S. cities. Thanks to the administration, staff, and faculty at CSUSB who continue to support the efforts of CSHE - particularly, Dr. Tomás D. Morales, President of CSUSB, Dr. Shari G. McMahan, Provost of CSUSB, Dean Rafik Mohamed, Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences where CSHE is housed and Dr. Andrea Schoepfer, Department Chair of the Criminal Justice Department. © 2021 Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, California State University - San Bernardino The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this report. Any errors or omissions in this study are solely those of the author and editor. Page 275 of 281 QUALITY OF LIFE Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re- investment in community infrastructure by: • Using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other public and private capital to revitalize older neighborhoods and safe routes to essential services. • Continuing efforts toward designing, siting, programming needs, and site selection for a community center and pursuing acquisition of land for future community park. • Developing Phase I of the A Street Sporting Complex and continue efforts to provide additional soccer and sports fields. • Coordinating with the Pasco Public Facilities District to develop a public education campaign, financial analysis and prepare a ballot measure concerning the development of a regional aquatic facility for consideration by the people. • Completing construction of a new animal control facility. • Ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities. • Collaborating with the Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission and community leaders to enhance engagement efforts and organizational cultural competency. • Updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re-development to promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design elements, e.g.: walkability, aesthetics, sustainability, and community gathering spaces. • Updating Parks and Facilities Comprehensive Plan to include: public facilities inventory, needs assessment, level of service, and centers evaluation. • Teaming with local and regional partners to develop a Housing Action Plan with a focus on strategies that emphasize affordable housing. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Enhance the long-term financial viability, value, and service levels of services and programs, including: • Regular evaluation of services and programs to confirm importance to community, adequacy, and cost-benefit. • Continuation of cost of service and recovery targets in evaluating City services. • Ongoing evaluation of costs, processes and performance associated with delivery of City services including customer feedback and satisfaction, staffing, facilities, and partnership opportunities. • Instilling and promoting an organizational culture of customer service across all business lines. • Updating policies relating to urbanization of the unincorporated islands to assure consistency with long-range planning, community safety, and fiscal sustainability. City Council Goals 2020-2021 Page 276 of 281 COMMUNITY SAFETY Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by: • Developing a Comprehensive Police Strategic Master Plan through a transparent process to evaluate future service levels of the department to assure sustainability, public safety, and crime control over the next 5-10 years. • Collaborating with regional and community partners to evaluate and implement strategies to reduce the incidence of homelessness. • Leveraging and expanding partnerships to maintain and enhance behavioral health services to community members in crisis being assisted by police and fire. • Continuing efforts to improve police and community relations. • Working to achieve and maintain target fire response times through operational improvements and long-range strategic planning of facilities and staffing. • Focusing on the long-term goal of sustaining a Washington State Rating Bureau Class 3 community rating. • Leveraging infrastructure database of sidewalks, streetlights and pavement conditions along with evaluating policies and methods to address needs and inequities. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation network through: • Commencement and completion of construction of the Lewis Street Overpass project. • Continued emphasis on improvements in Road 68/I-182/Burden Blvd. corridor to improve operation and safety. • Data-driven pro-active neighborhood traffic calming efforts. • Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access. • Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization of its recommendations to develop policies, regulations, programs, and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency and safety. ECONOMIC VITALITY Promote and encourage economic vitality by supporting: • Downtown revitalization efforts of Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA), post-COVID restart, and City initiatives such as Downtown Master Plan process and sign code modifications. • The construction of Peanuts Park and Farmers Market and continued efforts to pursue streetscape and gateway upgrades. • The completion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update and Broadmoor Master Plan efforts, adoption of Urban Growth Area expansion alternative, implementation of adopted long-range planning efforts with appropriate analysis and adoption of planning actions including: zoning code changes, phased sign code update, and development regulations and standards. • Increased efforts to promote the community as a desirable place for commercial and industrial development by promoting small business outreach and assistance, predictability in project review, and excellent customer service. • Partnerships and encouragement of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to facilitate development of the remaining state-owned properties at Road 68/I-182. Page 277 of 281 • Continued coordination with the Port of Pasco to complete and implement a waterfront-zoning plan and provide for public infrastructure. • Active partnerships in the planning and development of strategies to promote tourism and deployment of assets to spur economic activity. • In concert with community partners, development of a comprehensive economic development plan. COMMUNITY IDENTITY Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion and image through: • Continued efforts of community surveying through traditional methods and the application of new technologies. • Providing opportunities for community engagement through boards, commissions, volunteer opportunities, social media, forums, and other outlets. • Enhanced inter-agency and constituent coordination developed during the pandemic. • Continued efforts of the community identity/image enhancement campaign to include promotion of community and organizational successes. • Enhanced participation and support of cultural events occurring within the community. • Support of the Arts and Culture Commission in promoting unity and the celebration of diversity through art and culture programs. For more information, visit www.pasco-wa.gov/councilgoals Page 278 of 281 CALIDAD DE VIDA Promover una vida de buena calidad a través de programas de calidad, servicios e inversiones y reinversiones adecuadas en la infraestructura de la comunidad al: • Utilizar una Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (Concesión de Ayuda Federal para el Desarrollo Comunitario) y otro capital público y privado para renovar las vecindades antiguas y las rutas seguras a los servicios esenciales. • Continuar los esfuerzos hacia el diseño, las obras de construcción, las necesidades programáticas, y la elección de dichas obras de construcción, para un centro comunitario y comprar el terreno para un futuro parque comunitario. • Desarrollar la 1era Fase del Sporting Complex (Complejo Deportivo) de la Calle A y continuar los esfuerzos de proporcionar más campos de fútbol y de otros deportes. • Coordinar con el Pasco Public Facilities District (Distrito de las Instalaciones Públicas de Pasco) para desarrollar una campaña de educación pública, un análisis financiero, y preparar una propuesta sobre el desarrollo de una instalación acuática regional para que sea considerada por el público. • Terminar la construcción de una nueva instalación para el control de animales. • Continuar los esfuerzos para mejorar la eficiencia y la eficacia de los recursos públicos en la entrega de servicios municipales, programas, y el mantenimiento y la viabilidad a largo plazo de instalaciones públicas. • Colaborar con la Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission (Comisión de Inclusión, Diversidad, y Equidad) y con los líderes comunitarios para mejorar los esfuerzos de participación y la capacidad cultural organizacional. • Actualizar los estándares de diseño para el desarrollo de nuevas vecindades y el redesarrollo para promover más cohesión de las vecindades a través de elementos de diseño, p. ej.: viabilidad peatonal, evaluación de las necesidades, sustentabilidad, y lugares donde se puedan reunir los miembros de la comunidad. • Actualizar el Parks and Facilities Comprehensive Plan (Plan Comprehensivo de los Parques y las Instalaciones) para que incluya: un inventario de instalaciones públicas, una evaluación de las necesidades, el nivel de servicio, y la evaluación del centro. • Trabajar en equipo con colaboradores regionales para desarrollar un Housing Action Plan (Plan de Acción para Viviendas) con un enfoque en las estrategias que enfatizan viviendas económicas. SUSTENTABILIDAD FINANCIERA Mejorar la sustentabilidad financiera a largo plazo, el valor, y los niveles de servicios y programas, incluyendo: • La evaluación regular de los servicios y de los programas para confirmar la importancia de la comunidad, la capitalización adecuada, y el costo-beneficio. Metas del Concilio de la Ciudad del 2020-2021 Page 279 of 281 • La continuación del costo por el servicio y de las metas de recuperación al evaluar los servicios de la Ciudad. • La evaluación continua de los costos, los procesos y el desempeño relacionado con la entrega de los servicios de la Ciudad incluyendo la retroalimentación y la satisfacción del cliente, el personal, las instalaciones, y las oportunidades colaborativas. • Inculcar y promover una cultura organizacional de servicio al cliente a lo largo de todas las líneas de negocio. • Actualizar las políticas relacionadas con la urbanización de las islas no incorporadas para asegurar consistencia con la planificación a largo plazo, la seguridad comunitaria, y la sustentabilidad fiscal. SEGURIDAD COMUNITARIA Preservar las mejorías anteriores y promover las ganancias futuras al: • Desarrollar un Comprehensive Police Strategic Master Plan (Plan Maestro Estratégico Comprehensivo Policial) a través de un proceso transparente para evaluar los niveles futuros de servicio del departamento para asegurar sustentabilidad, seguridad pública, y control de crímenes durante los siguientes 5-10 años. • Trabajar con colaboradores regionales y comunitarios para evaluar e implementar estrategias para reducir los casos de personas sin techo. • Hacer uso y ampliar las colaboraciones para mantener y mejorar los servicios de salud conductual a los miembros de la comunidad que se encuentran en medio de una crisis, ayudados por la policía y por los bomberos. • Continuar los esfuerzos para mejorar la relación con la policía y con la comunidad. • Trabajar para lograr y mantener el tiempo de reacción de los bomberos a través de mejorías operacionales y la planificación estratégica de instalaciones y personal a largo plazo. • Enfocarse en la meta a largo plazo de mantener una clasificación de la comunidad Clase 3 del Washington State Rating Bureau (Departamento de Clasificación del Estado de Washington). • Utilizar la base de datos de la infraestructura de las banquetas, los faroles, y las condiciones del pavimento, como también evaluar las políticas y los métodos para tratar las necesidades y las injusticias. RED DE TRANSPORTE COMUNITARIO Promover una red de transporte extremadamente funcional y multimodal a través de: • El comienzo y el término de la construcción del proyecto Lewis Street Overpass. • El énfasis continuo en las mejorías de la ruta Road 68/I-182/Burden Blvd. para mejorar la operación y la seguridad. • Los esfuerzos proactivos basados en datos para calmar el tráfico en las vecindades. • La colaboración continua con Ben Franklin Transit para mejorar la movilidad y el acceso. • El término del Transportation System Master Plan (Plan Maestro del Sistema de Transporte) y la utilización de sus recomendaciones para desarrollar políticas, reglas, programas, y proyectos que proporcionan más conectividad, inversiones estratégicas, movilidad, sistemas multimodales, accesibilidad, eficiencia, y seguridad. Page 280 of 281 VITALIDAD ECONOMICA Promover y motivar la vitalidad económica al apoyar: • Los esfuerzos de renovación de la Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) (Autoridad de Desarrollo del Centro de Pasco), el reinicio después de COVID, y las iniciativas de la Ciudad como el proceso del Downtown Master Plan (Plan Maestro del Centro) y las modificaciones de los códigos de anuncios. • La construcción del Peanuts Park and Farmers Market (Parque Peanuts y el Mercado) y los esfuerzos continuos para discutir paisajes urbanos y actualizaciones de entradas. • El término de los esfuerzos de la Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update (Actualización Comprehensiva del Uso de Terrenos) y los esfuerzos del Broadmoor Master Plan (Plan Maestro de Broadmoor), la adopción de la alternativa de la expansión de Urban Growth Area (Área del Crecimiento Urbano), la implementación de los esfuerzos de planificación a largo plazo con los análisis adecuados y la adopción de acciones de planificación incluyendo: los cambios a los códigos de zonas, la actualización de los códigos de los anuncios de las fases, y el desarrollo de las reglas y los estándares. • Más esfuerzos para promover a la comunidad como un lugar atractivo para el desarrollo comercial e industrial al fomentar el alcance y la ayuda a los negocios pequeños, la predictibilidad en la revisión de proyectos, y un excelente servicio al cliente. • Las colaboraciones y la motivación del Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (Departamento de Recursos Naturales) para facilitar el desarrollo de las propiedades restantes del estado en Road 68/I- 182. • La coordinación continua con el Port of Pasco (Puerto de Pasco) para terminar e implementar un plan de zonas costeras y proporcionar una infraestructura pública. • Las colaboraciones activas en la planificación y el desarrollo de estrategias para promover el turismo y la utilización de recursos para estimular actividad económica. • Junto con los colaboradores de la comunidad, crear un plan comprehensivo de desarrollo económico. IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la cohesión, y la imagen a través de: • Los esfuerzos continuos para evaluar a la comunidad a través de los métodos tradicionales y la aplicación de nuevas tecnologías. • Proporcionar oportunidades para la involucración comunitaria a través de mesas directivas, comisiones, oportunidades para voluntarios, medios sociales, foros, y otros medios. • Una mejor coordinación entre las agencias y los constituyentes desarrollada durante la pandémica. • Los esfuerzos continuos de campañas para la mejoría de la identidad/imagen comunitaria que promuevan a la comunidad y a los éxitos organizacionales. • Una mejor participación y apoyo de los eventos culturales llevados a cabo dentro de la comunidad. • El apoyo de la Arts and Culture Commission (Comisión de Artes y Cultura) al promover la unidad y celebrar la diversidad a través de programas de arte y cultura. Para más información, visite www.pasco-wa.gov/councilgoals Page 281 of 281