The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022.03.14 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA City Council Workshop Meeting 7:00 PM - Monday, March 14, 2022 City Council Chambers & 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. To listen to the meeting via phone, call (631) 992-3211 and use access code 613-585-088. 2. CALL TO ORDER 3. ROLL CALL (a) Pledge of Allegiance 4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 4 - 37 (a) Visit Tri-Cities 2021 Annual Report, 2022 Workplan, and Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Fund Request Presentation by Michael Novakavich, President and CEO, Visit Tri- Cities 38 - 54 (b) Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Presentation Presentation by Michell Holt, Executive Director, Benton-Franklin Council of Governments 55 - 70 (c) Technical Rescue Program 71 - 84 (d) Public Records Requests Update City Clerk Debby Barham will Provide an Update Regarding the City of Pasco's Public Records Requests Page 1 of 300 85 - 93 (e) Ordinance - Amending PMC Title 3 Related to Miscellaneous Late Fees 94 - 104 (f) American Rescue Plan Act Projects List and Staff Recommendations 105 - 114 (g) Resolution - Bid Award Riverview East Sewer Lift Station 115 - 265 (h) Ordinance - Amending Pasco Municipal Code Related to Corner Lot Fencing (CA2021-009) 266 - 294 (i) Resolution - Emergency Agreement for Animal Control Services 6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION (a) Council Retreat Topics 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT 9. ADDITIONAL NOTES 295 - 300 (a) Adopted 2020-2021 Council Goals (Reference Only) (b) REMINDERS • Monday, March 14, 11:45 AM: Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership Lunch Meeting – Pasco Red Lion Hotel • Wednesday, March 16, 8:00 AM: Washington Municipal Clerks Association 2022 Conference Breakfast & Opening Ceremony – Pasco Red Lion Hotel (MAYOR BARAJAS) • Thursday, March 17, 12:30 PM: Greater Columbia Accountable Community Health Leadership Council & Board Meeting – Tri-Cities Community Health Board Room, 800 W. Court St. (COUNCILMEMBER ZAHRA ROACH, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER NIKKI TORRES, Alt.) • Thursday, March 17, 4:00 PM: Downtown Pasco Development Authority – DPDA (COUNCILMEMBER NIKKI TORRES, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY. Alt.) • Friday, March 18, 10:00 AM: Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting – Ben-Franklin Transit, 1000 Columbia Park Trail, Richland (COUNCILMEMBER NIKKI TORRES, Rep., COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH CAMPOS, Alt.) Page 2 of 300 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 3 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 8, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Adam Lincoln, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Visit Tri-Cities 2021 Annual Report, 2022 Workplan, and Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Fund Request I. REFERENCE(S): 2021 Annual Report 2022 Work Plan Letter from Visit Tri-Cities dated March 2, 2022 PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Michael Novakavich, President and CEO, Visit Tri-Cities III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Michael Novakovich, President and CEO of Visit Tri-Cities will present an annual report for the prior year, an outline of the current year work plan, as well as a request for approval to spend from the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) Reserve Account. The TPA was formed in late 2004 to generate and administer the proceeds of a "per room night assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri-Cities, imposed by the hotels themselves. The interlocal agreement (between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland) creating the TPA requires the annual budget, and any expenditures from the TPA reserve account, to first be approved by the City Councils. Page 4 of 300 V. DISCUSSION: The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the State which, in turn, distributes it to the City in which it was collected. The City is obligated to pass the funds to the TPA for use, in accordance with the approved budget. The TPA Commission has voted unanimously to request the transfer of an additional $428,800 for special project expenditures for 2022 from the reserve account for the following: • Playeasy Platform - $10,000 • Convention Sales Manager - $80,000 • Olympia Sales Blitz hotel rooms for Hospitality Partners - $3,000 • Meeting Planner FAM - $20,000 • Photo & Video Production - $100,000 • Seattle Out of Home Advertising - $100,000 • Creative Testing Consumer Research - $27,800 • TBEX FAM - $5,000 • TREAD MAP App - $60,000 • Tourism Recovery Education - $18,000 • Security for Visit Tri-Cities Office (Access Control) - $5,000 Council may approve the additional allocations of the reserve account or indicate changes necessary to gain approval. Page 5 of 300 ANNUAL REPORT 2021 A Year in Review VisitTri-Cities.com Page 6 of 300 MICHAEL NOVAKOVICH President & CEO COREY PEARSON Chairman of the Board A Message from the Chairman of the Board and the President and CEO OUR VISION OUR MISSIONInspire wanderlust for a bold yet casual, geeky but cool, magical experience in wide-open spaces. We make the Tri-Cities bigger, bolder, brighter, better and more cool through tourism. Dear Tourism Partners, It seems like an understatement to say the pandemic continued to upset our normal routines and business activities in this past year. This was certainly true of tourism. That said, we more than survived, we made significant investments to position our community well to achieve greater outcomes for years to come. It is with the greatest of appreciation that we report to you the significant accomplishments we achieved thanks to your support and partnership. The following Annual Report showcases the many ways we championed tourism recovery together. To bring back the safe return of tourism while preserving local businesses, jobs, community health and economic vitality, Visit Tri-Cities partnered with Benton and Franklin Counties, the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, West Richland, Prosser, Benton City and the Benton Franklin Health District to provide COVID mitigation communications to our region. In fact, our team was recognized in late 2021 by the Destination Marketing Association of the West with an Outstanding Achievement Best Idea Award for our innovative COVID mitigation communications. As excited as we are about our many accomplishments, 2021 got off to a slow start as our State was still operating under a phased approach, which crippled our ability to host meetings, conventions, and sports. Visit Tri-Cities worked directly with the Governor’s Policy Office, Washington State Department of Health, and Labor & Industries through a small coalition of tourism leaders across the State to safely bring back meetings and conventions business. Our group, the Washington Safe Meetings Coalition, had success in advancing these opportunities that are significant economic drivers. Early spring of 2021 sports teams were unable to compete due to phased restrictions. However, once teams had the ability to hit the fields it was game on! We were excited to host nearly 100 teams for our largest baseball tournament in June and 80 softball teams who competed in late season play in October. These are only two examples of the many sporting events that took place, which also included the Tri-Cities Water Follies and the WIAA State Cross Country Meet. Sports truly were a bright spot. Leisure travel continued to reign supreme as we saw a steady stream of visitors in our community enjoying the Heart of Washington Wine County, outdoor recreation, and our growing food and craft beverage scene. The return of performing arts aided in attracting visitors to our region as did the return of many of our festivals like Art in the Park. Our partners in the leisure and hospitality space have done a dynamite job of safely hosting visitors. Hospitality workforce shortages continue to be an issue for many. To address this, Visit Tri-Cities ran a hospitality workforce recruitment campaign highlighting how these jobs can provide ladder opportunities to managerial positions. To aid these businesses and drive economic recovery, in July of last year we launched our new membership model, which eliminates dues for qualifying tourism-related businesses that attract visitation to Benton and Franklin Counties. This change allows us to better serve our community by showcasing all tourism-related aspects of our region rather than only dues paying members. This gives the Tri-Cities a more competitive position as a visitor destination. It also provides greater opportunity to embrace the diversity of our community in an inclusive manner. Additionally, we launched a suite of digital products to compel visitation, enrich visitors’ experiences, and influence visitor spending. Residents can enjoy these same offerings, which include the new digital passes like our Indoor Adventure Pass. We also launched a virtual tour called SkyNav, which provides 360-degree bird’s eye views of the Tri-Cities as well as tours of various local establishments. We officially launched our new VisitTri-Cities.com website in November that includes an itinerary builder, user generated content and image gallery. Visitors can book a room, find great dining, entertainment, SkyNav, our digital passes, our new Calendar of Events and more. Tourism is big business and a significant economic engine for our region. Even during COVID. In 2020 Visit Tri-Cities helped drive $345 million in visitor spending locally and generated nearly $40 million in state and local tax revenue. We are expecting the outcomes of 2021 to look substantially better when we receive our official visitor impact statement in Q2 of this year. Our Annual Report serves as a reminder that tourism helps small businesses thrive and helps attract new business and supports thousands of local jobs. The nearly $40 million in state and local taxes generated by visitors last year helps lower Tri-Citians’ tax burden by roughly $400 per household. Even better, these taxes help to fund police and fire, schools and teachers, roads, parks and more. In short, the work we do touches every Tri-Citian in a positive way and helps to build a safe, educated, employed and beautiful community filled with many amenities for all to enjoy. The work of Visit Tri-Cities together with you, our partners, enhances quality of life for every Tri-Citian. So, get out there, enjoy our community, share it on your socials and invite your friends and family for a visit. You truly are helping to champion the return of tourism and enhanced quality of life for every single Tri-Citian to enjoy. Page 7 of 300 HOTELSSPENDING BREAKDOWN IMPERATIVE: ADVOCATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE WHY Tourism MATTERS $344.7 million VISITOR SPENDING Creates 4,132 jobs in Benton and Franklin Counties Sales tax revenue generated by tourism reduces each household’s annual tax burden in Benton and Franklin Counties by an average of $391 Visitor Spending represented in this report reflect the economic impact of tourism in the Tri-Cities for the year of 2020. The economic impacts of tourism in our community for 2021 are not yet available. $85.4million FOOD & BEVERAGE $55.1million TRANSPORTATION $90.4million RETAIL $52.0million RECREATION $61.8million HOTELS Kennewick Pasco Richland Totals 2017 $568,745 $323,445 $536,682 $1,428,872 2018 $592,249 $343,642 $598,997 $1,534,888 2019 $592,210 $324,642 $633,862 $1,550,963 2020 $277,886 $151,941 $270,733 $700,560 2021 $502,862 $332,854 $581,566 $1,417,282 3,776 HOTEL GUEST ROOMS AVAILABLE HOTEL MOTEL TAX DISTRIBUTIONS IMPERATIVE: DEMONSTRATE VALUE TO OUR PARTNERS, MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY 25% 15% 26% 16% 18% Page 8 of 300 IMPERATIVE: DEMONSTRATE VALUE TO OUR STAKEHOLDERS, PARTNERS AND COMMUNITIES MARKETING & PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Generating additional cash flow into the region through visitor spending is important for the local economy. Visitor spending improves the business climate and offers opportunities for new endeavors to thrive. Visit Tri-Cities promotes the region as a premier destination for meetings, conventions, sports and leisure travel. Visit Tri-Cities’ Convention Marketing, Sports Marketing and Marketing Department departments all incorporate sales-driven strategies directed at markets with the greatest potential to bring new visitor dollars to the region. While marketing is important, product development is a priority as well. Through the Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council (TREC), Visit Tri-Cities works with local jurisdictions and hospitality partners to ensure that attractions are upgraded or added to the community in order to continue offering fresh experiences for visitors. $1,804,930 (54%) TOURISM PROMOTION AREA CITY CONTRACTS $679,594 (20%) COUNTY AND CITY MARKETING CONTRACTS $326,734 (10%) MEMBERSHIP/ CORPORATE $238,627 (7%) GRANTS $54,444 (2%) PPP FORGIVENESS $245,835 (7%) $3,350,164 Total Revenues Revenue Summary Visit Tri-Cities at a Glance $2,597,644 Total Expenses DESTINATION MARKETING $1,099,785 (42%) CONVENTION/SPORTS SALES & MARKETING $674,968 (26%) ADMINISTRATION $383,245 (15%) COUNTY/COVID COMMUNICATIONS $260,003 (10%) VISITOR CENTER $121,766 (5%) MEMBERSHIP $57,877 (2%) Expense Summary Page 9 of 300 TOURISM DEVELOPMENTVisit Tri-Cities manages tourism-related programs and infastructure within the community to position the Tri-Cities as a desirable and compelling visitor destination. The Visit Tri-Cities’ website was emphasized as a community portal in all advertisements and visitor publications throughout the year. We activily encouraged all visitors to visit our website. IMPERATIVE: ESTABLISH BRAND CLARITY AND INCREASE AWARENESS THROUGH UNIFIED EFFORTS 518,475 PAGEVIEWS 231,359 UNIQUE VISITORS Website Highlights AIRPORT/CONVENTION CENTER KIOSKS 2,735 UNIQUE VISITOR 12,914 PAGE VIEWS #TBEXTriCi t i e s VisitTri-Cities.co m CORPORATE SPONSOR: Washington River Protection Solutions MEDIA OUTREACH26,505 FACEBOOK FOLLOWERS 10,721 INSTAGRAM FOLLOWERS 6,218 TWITTER FOLLOWERS 1,584 LINKEDIN FOLLOWERS CORPORATE SPONSOR: Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) 70 STORIES 1,074,733,123 IMPRESSIONS 10 TRAVEL CONTENT CREATORS HOSTED ADVERTISING& MARKETINGVisit Tri-Cities develops and deploys a robust marketing plan annually, using a variety of effective tactics to raise brand awareness of the Tri-Cities In an effort to reach as many visitors as possible, Visit Tri-Cities maximizes destination exposure through digital, social advertising, broadcast media (TV and radio) and print. This approach reaches a broad and diverse audience. Tourism campaigns deployed in 2021 earned: 33,784,839 IMPRESSIONS AND 83,264 CLICK THROUGHS COVID-19 COMMUNICATIONS Visit Tri-Cities secured CARES ACT grant money from local jurisdictions to develop and execute in-market advertising campaigns to encourage COVID-19 mitigation behaviors and information regarding the vaccine, improve the health of our community and continue economic recovery. 34 creatives developed and deployed through digital, broadcast (TV & radio) and social. The digital and social campaigns earned 3,340,392 impressions and 7,846 click throughs to promoted websites. ENGLISH: 2,252 TV SPOTS 1,604 RADIO SPOTS SPANISH: 1,922 TV SPOTS 1,684 RADIO SPOTS CONVENTIONS& SPORTSThe sales department’s primary focus is to market to convention, sports and group meeting planners through direct sales contacts, advertising in targeted periodicals and attending industry events. These activities mean “heads in beds” that generate significant tax revenues for our community. 77 CONVENTIONS, SPORTS & GROUP ACTIVITIES 68,157 VISITORS ATTRACTED $12,623,485 CONVENTION AND SPORTS SPENDING TO REGION 21 events scheduled to take place in 2021 were canceled due to COVID-19, representing 6,510 visitors and $3,081,830 in visitor spending. 2021 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS 113 FUTURE CONVENTIONS, MEETINGS AND SPORTS EVENTS BOOKED. 2022 & BEYOND 87,895 FUTURE VISITORS $24,273,806 FUTURE VISITOR SPENDING 1 event scheduled to take place in 2022 was canceled due to COVID-19, representing 60 visitors and $66,855 in visitor spending.TRI-CITY REGIONALHOTEL-MOTELCOMMISSIONKENNEWICK Mark Blotz, Clover Island Inn Jerry Beach, A-1 Hospitality Marie Mosley, Ex Officio, City of Kennewick PASCO Monica Hammerberg, Hampton Inn & Suites Pasco / Tri-Cities Vijay Patel, A-1 Hospitality Dave Zabell, Ex Officio, City of Pasco RICHLAND Wendy Higgins, The Lodge at Columbia Point Linda Hendricks, Hampton Inn Richland Jon Amundson, Ex Officio, City of Richland VISIT TRI-CITIES COUNCILS• Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council • Tri-Cities Sports Council • Tri-Cities Wine Tourism Council • Tri-Cities National Park Committee Page 10 of 300 • Board Member and Stakeholder/CEO One-on-One Meetings • Launched Tri-Cities Summer Savings Pass and the Tri-Cities Wine Pass available on VTC website • Launched advertising campaign in San Diego • May 3: Launched Excellence in Service Award Program • May 3-7: National Tourism Week • May 18-20: Sports ETA SportsBIZ XChange II • May 18-19: SkyNAV Presentation and Demo to Tri-Cities Wine Council and Stakeholders • May 20: In partnership with the Washington State Safe Meetings Coalition, Visit Tri-Cities supported efforts to increase meeting occupancies from 400 to 1,000 attendees through the Governor’s Office • May 20: MyTR! All Council Meeting • May 25L: Tri-Cities Presentation to Kiwanis Club • May 25-28: Hosted TBEX (Travel Bloggers Exchange) Site Visit • Launched an outbound campaign titled, “When it’s time for you to travel” • Board Member and Stakeholder/CEO One-on-One Meetings • February 5: Columbia Basin Fund/Snake River Dams Meeting • February 12: Tourism Recovery Strategy Session with Hotel Partners • February 15: Benton and Franklin advanced into Phase 2 of the Washington State Roadmap to Recovery Map • February 15-16: Performing Arts Sector Reopening Plan Meetings • February 16: New Board Member Orientation Meeting • February 26: Wander Washington Tri-Cities Virtual Experience • February 26: Go West Summit Digital Event 2021 A Year in Review JANUARY • Launched weekly Tri-Cities Business Spotlight video series • Launched local vaccination distribution campaign in partnership with the Benton-Franklin Health District and eight jurisdictional partners • Continued to execute an in-market advertising campaign to encourage COVID-19 safety protocols and improve the health of our community to re-open businesses and welcome in visitors. • Actively involved with Washington State Legislation Bills: SB 5114 – Safely Reopening Washington, HB 1069 – Use of Lodging Tax and HB 1018 – Boater Education • January 8: Coffee with Karl – Community Resolutions Guest Speaker • January 13: Testified Opposing State House Bill 1069 – Use of Lodging Tax • January 19: Visit Tri-Cities Staff Strategic Planning Session • January 21: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Presentation on Cultural Resources Protection Program & First Food Program • January 26: U.S. Congressman Dan Newhouse Community Priorities Meeting • January 28: Community Conversations with Fire Departments FEBRUARY MARCH • Presentations of the 2020 Annual Report, 2021 Work Plan and TPA Reserve Requests to Kennewick, Pasco and Richland City Council • Launched an outbound marketing campaign to capitalize on the Return of the Road Trip • VTC Board Member and Stakeholder/CEO One-on-One Meetings • March 3-18: DMA West Tech Summit Digital Sessions • March 5: Coffee with Karl - TRIDEC’s Economic Outlook Life in the Tri Guest Speaker • March 9: Washington State Safe Meetings Coalition Meeting with the Governor’s Office • March 13: Emcee – Mid-Columbia Arts Fundraiser • March 22: Benton and Franklin Counties advanced into Phase 2 of the Washington State Roadmap to Recovery Map • March 25: Tri-Cities Virtual Customer Appreciation Luncheon and Keynote Presentation from Peggy Vasquez, “Harnessing a Positive Mindset” for 43 key meeting professionals • March 30: Provided public comment to the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on the Horse Heaven Wind Farm Project APRIL • Board Member and Stakeholder/CEO One-on-One Meetings • Launched an immersive 360⁰ tour of the Tri-Cities produced by SKYNAV, a marketing platform that creates a dynamic virtual experience with stunning aerial to ground spherical imagery. • Launched Paddle, Pedal and Relax advertising campaign • April 1: TPA Assessment Increases from $2.00 to $3.00 • April 1: Port of Kennewick COVID-19 Economic Impact Study Meeting • April 1: Richland Lodging Tax Advisory Committee • April 2: Columbia Basin College Strategic Planning Community Feedback Session • April 6: Presentation of Visit Tri-Cities 2020 Annual Report to West Richland City Council • April 7: Destinations International (DI) Sales and Services Summit • April l7: American Society of Travel Advisors (ASTA), Eastern Washington Virtual Showcase • April 17-25: Produced videos to highlight Tri-Cities attractions during National Park Week • April 20: Manhattan Project National Historical Park Stakeholder Engagement Meeting • April 20 -22: SkyNAV Presentations and Demo to Hospitality Partners • April 21: Meeting with Governor’s Office and the States Policy Office to create a feasible path forward for Outdoor Special Events • April 22: Visit Tri-Cities in partnership with Benton & Franklin counties and the Benton-Franklin Health District submitted a proposal for Outdoor Special Events guidelines to the Governor’s Office. • April 27: Hanford Communities Community Conversation and presentation of marketing strategies MAY JUNE • Launched weekly “Your Weekend Starts Here” videos • June 9 : Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) Wine Country Destination Development Workshop • June 9: VTC Board Member and Stakeholder/CEO One-on-One Meetings VTC • June 10-11: Washington Society of Association Executives (WSAE) Annual Conference - Co-Chair, Emcee • June 14: Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) Agri-Tourism Meeting • June 15-16: Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) Board of Directors Retreat, Yakima • June 16: Island View to Vista Field Public Advisory Committee • June 24: Micro Mobility Pilot Program Feasibility Meeting • June 30: Benton and Franklin Counties fully opened under the Governor’s Ready Washington Plan JULY • Launched new membership program • Launched Water Follies advertising campaign in the Puget Sound region • July 1: Coffee with Karl, “Tourism & Economic Recovery” Guest Speaker • July 6: MMGY Strategic Planning Kick-off Meeting • July 8: Tri-Cities Presentation to Day Break Columbia Rotary Club • July 8: Tri-Cities Presentation to the Pasco Kiwanis Club • July 12-16: Destinations International (DI) Annual Convention, Baltimore, MD • July 15: Launched Destination Next assessment survey for VTC Strategic Plan • July 29: Visit Tri-Cities Staff Retreat Page 11 of 300 AUGUST • MMGY Consultants conducted meetings with community leaders and key stakeholders to assist in developing VTC Strategic Plan • August 10: City of Pasco Business Advisory Council Meeting • August 13: COVID-19 Mitigation Press Conference with Benton Franklin Health District • August 16: Value of Tourism and VTC to Sportsman’s Caucus with Legislative Elected Officials • August 20: Launch of Visit Tri-Cities new Website • August 23: Tri-Cities Presentation to Horse Heaven Hill Kiwanis Club • August 25: Pasco Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Meeting SEPTEMBER • September 8: VTC Board of Directors Strategic Planning with MMGY Consultants • September 9: VTC Executive Leadership Team (ELT) Strategic Planning with MMGY Consultants • September 21: PRSA Presentation – “Building Bridges and Collaborating Across Communities” • September 27- 30: TEAMS Conference, Atlantic City, NJ • September 28: Received the Best Idea Program Outstanding Achievement Award by the Destination Marketing Association of the West (DMA West) for our Pandemic Response Campaign • September 28-October 1: DMA West Education Summit, Vancouver, WA OCTOBER • Presentations of the 2022 TPA Budget and Marketing Plan to Kennewick, Pasco and Richland City Councils • October 6: City of Pasco Lewis Street Open House • October 7: CEO/Board Meeting Collaboration Meeting • October 11-13: S.P.O.R.T.S. Relationship Conference, Colorado Springs, CO • October 14: Kennewick Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Meeting • October 15: EWU Edge Program: Powering the Hispanic Workforce • October 15: Tri-Cities Presentation to Kiwanis Club • October 20: Business Group Meeting with King County Officials • October 25-29: Sports ETA Sports Event Symposium, Birmingham, AL • October 27: Horse Heaven Wind Project Driving Tour with Scout Clean Energy NOVEMBER • November 2: City of Pasco Master Plan Advisory Committee • November 4: Visit Tri-Cities Annual Meeting: Champions of Tourism Recovery • November 10: Society of Government Meeting Professionals November Meeting • November 15: Columbia Basin College Performing Arts Center Meeting • November 16: Richland Lodging Tax Advisory Council (LTAC) Meeting • November 18-19: Olympia Sales Trip • November 24: Michael Novakovich, President & CEO of Visit Tri-Cities, guest on DMO Proz Podcast with Bill Geist DECEMBER • Launched Consumer Sentiment In-Depth Interviews • Launched New Tourism Membership Campaign • Tri-Cities Indoor Adventure Pass Launched • Launched Tri-Cities Meeting Planner’s Guide • December 1: Arts Center Task Force Fundraising Breakfast - Emcee • December 2: Benton-Franklin River Heritage Foundation Annual Meeting • December 6-8: US Sports Congress, Frisco, TX • December 9: Visit Tri-Cities Virtual FAM Tour and Lunch for 39 Meeting Professionals Page 12 of 300 RIVERSHORE ENHANCEMENT CORPORATE SPONSOR: BECHTEL NATIONAL INC. 2021 Visitor Inquiries 1,961 Telephone Email & Direct Mail Visit Tri-Cities is the only organization dedicated to promoting the entire Tri-Cities area for leisure and group travel. Visit Tri-Cities offers a U.S. toll-free number for visitor inquiries and responds to requests for relocation, vacations, meetings, sports and community information. Visitor Center staff provide travel information, manage a community-wide events calendar and website, provide information through the Visitor Center, and maintain an informational kiosk at the Tri-Cities Airport and two satellite Visitor Centers. 450 In-person Visitors RIVERSHORE, HERITAGE & ECO-TOURISM The Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council (TREC) is made up of executive leaders from the cities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland and West Richland; Benton and Franklin Counties; the ports of Benton, Kennewick and Pasco; and Visit Tri-Cities; and is sponsored by Bechtel National, Inc. TREC’s mission is to act as a community catalyst for shoreline enhancement to achieve economic diversification and to improve quality of life. The Rivershore Master Plan II outlines overarching themes for improving shoreline areas including: wayfinding signage; art, culture and heritage; viewpoints and user amenities; water oriented activities; birding and wildlife viewing; inland linkages; and organized events. Each of the participating jurisdictions also worked on individual projects along the shoreline and adjacent parks that will add to the overall positive experience of visitors to the region. STEM TOURISM CORPORATE SPONSOR: BATTELLEVisit Tri-Cities’ STEM Tourism focuses on the unique STEM-related aspects of our community. STEM tourism endeavors enhance the livelihoods of residents, recruits and employees through STEM assets and attractions as well as our rich cultural history. STEM TOURISM Page 13 of 300 Visit Tri-Cities Governance 2021 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CHAIR: PAST CHAIR: FIRST VICE CHAIR: VICE CHAIR: VICE CHAIR: VICE CHAIR: TREASURER: LEGAL COUNSEL: CPA: Rob Roxburgh, Central Plateau Cleanup Company Kathy Moore, The Hotel Group Corey Pearson, Three Rivers Campus Vijay Patel, A-1 Hospitality Buck Taft, Tri-Cities Airport/Port of Pasco Staci West, Bechtel National, Inc. Ron Hue John Raschko, Miller Mertens & Comfort, P.L.L.C. Monte Nail, CPA VISIT TRI-CITIES STAFF Michael Novakovich, President & CEO Kim Shugart, Senior Vice President Hector Cruz, Vice President Gretchen Guerrero, Director of Operations Lara Watkins, Director of Convention Sales Karisa Saywers, Director of Marketing Maria Alleman, Convention Sales Manager Natalie Clifton, Sports & Conventions Sales Manager Linda Tedone, Sales Administrative Assistant Chase Wharton, Business Development Manager Austin Wingle, Marketing Manager Amber Maiden, Guest & Group Service Specialist OVERVIEW FOUNDED: STAFF: STRUCTURE: MEMBERS: WEBSITES: 1969 as a non-profit organization 12 full-time employees Governed by a 42-member Board of Directors 315 www.VisitTriCities.com www.VisitTri-Cities.com www.VisitTri-Cities.org www.VisitTri-Cities.travel www.TravelTri-Cities.com www.TravelTriCities.com www.GolfWineCountry.com www.FriendsofOurTrail.com • Deborah Barnard, Barnard Griffin Winery • Commissioner Don Barnes, Port of Kennewick • Jerry Beach, A-1 Hospitality • Troy Berglund, West Richland Chamber of Commerce • Mark Blotz, Clover Island Inn • Washington State Representative Matt Boehnke • Washington State Senator Sharon Brown • Council Member Rich Buel, City of West Richland • Jennifer Cunnington, Movement Mortgage • Karl Dye, TRIDEC • Colleen French, Department of Energy • Shae Frichette, Frichette Winery • Mike Hall, Ice Harbor Brewing • Monica Hammerberg, Hampton Inn + Suites Pasco • Colin Hastings, Pasco Chamber of Commerce • Sandra Haynes, WSU Tri-Cities • Trish Herron, Battelle • Wendy Higgins, The Lodge at Columbia Point • Diahann Howard, Port of Benton • Council Member Phillip Lemley, City of Richland • Brian Lubanski, Townsquare Media • Lori Mattson, Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce • Commissioner Will McKay, Benton County • Brent Miles, Tri-City Dust Devils • Commissioner Rocky Mullen, Franklin County • Maynard Plahuta, B Reactor Museum Association • Gabriel Portugal, Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce • Dara Quinn, Emerald of Siam • Justin Raffa, Mid-Columbia Mastersingers • Council Member Zahra Roach, City of Pasco • Rosanna Sharpe, The REACH Museum • Council Member Chuck Torelli, City of Kennewick • Rebekah Woods, Columbia Basin College 2021 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Page 14 of 300 MembershipECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS City of Kennewick City of Pasco City of Richland Tri-City Regional Hotel Motel Commission DIAMOND Battelle Bechtel National, Inc. Central Plateau Cleanup Company Hanford Mission Integration Solutions Three Rivers Convention Center Toyota Center Washington River Protection Solutions PLATINUM Ben Franklin Transit Benton County Benton PUD City of West Richland Energy Northwest Franklin County Franklin PUD Port of Benton Port of Kennewick Port of Pasco The HAPO Center GOLD Best Western Premier Pasco Inn & Suites Clover Island Inn Comfort Suites Kennewick at Southridge Courtyard by Marriott Richland Columbia Point Hilton Garden Inn Kennewick Holiday Inn Express & Suites Pasco Tri-Cities Holiday Inn Richland on the River Red Lion Hotel & Conference Center Pasco Red Lion Hotel Kennewick Columbia Center Riverfront Hotel, SureStay Collection by Best Western SpringHill Suites by Marriott Kennewick SILVER Baymont Inn & Suites Best Western Kennewick Tri-Cities Center Hotel Best Western Plus Kennewick Inn Comfort Inn Courtyard by Marriott Pasco Tri-Cities Airport Fairfield Inn Hampton Inn & Suites Pasco/Tri-Cities Hampton Inn Kennewick at Southridge Hampton Inn Richland Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites Richland Home2 Suites by Hilton Homewood Suites by Hilton - Richland Kennewick Suites La Quinta Inn & Suites Motel 6/Studio 6 Kennewick My Place Hotel Red Lion Inn & Suites Kennewick Tri-Cities Sleep Inn Pasco Tri-Cities Super 8 Kennewick The Lodge at Columbia Point TownePlace Suites by Marriott Woodspring Suites STANDARD MEMBERSHIP 14 Hands Winery 3 Eyed Fish Kitchen + Wine Bar 3 Rivers Folklife Society A & A Motorcoach AAA Washington Academy of Children’s Theatre Ace Jewelry & Loan Adventures Underground Airfield Estates AJ’s Edible Arts, Inc. Alaska Airlines Alexandria Nicole Cellars Alexandria Nicole Cellars Destiny Ridge Tasting Room Allied Arts Association - Gallery at the Park Anelare Winery Anthology Event Venue by Castle Event Catering Anthony’s at Columbia Point Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts Art on the Columbia Arts Center Task Force Aspen Limo Tours At Michele’s Atomic Ale Brewpub & Eatery Atomic Bowl & Jokers Lounge & Casino AXE KPR Hatchet Range Azteca B Reactor Museum Association (BRMA) Badger Mountain Vineyard/Powers Winery Barnard Griffin Winery Baum’s Bella Italia Restaurant Bergstrom Aircraft, Inc. Bill’s Berry Farm Bingo Boulevard Bite at the Landing Black Heron Spirits, LLC Bob’s Burgers and Brew - Kennewick Bob’s Burgers and Brew - Richland Boiada Brazilian Grill Bombing Range Brewing Company Brews Taphouse & Growler Fills Brick House Pizza Budd’s Broiler by Anthony’s Restaurants Buds and Blossoms too Burger Ranch, Kennewick Burger Ranch - Pasco Canyon Lakes Golf Course Catering to You Cave B Estate Winery Cedars at Pier 1 CG Public House & Catering Chandler Reach Vineyards Chapala Express Chaplaincy Repeat Boutique Cherry Chalet Bed & Breakfast Chuck E. Cheese Chukar Cherries Visit Tri-Cities membership is the foundation of our organization’s programs and our ability to attract visitors to our region. Our members provide unique and inclusive opportunities that are of interest to travelers and help build better quality of life for residents. In turn, Visit Tri-Cities is devoted to promoting and celebrating our memberships through tourism marketing, high quality publications, advertising, educational forums, video content and newsletters. To best serve the tourism community, Visit Tri-Cities implemented the updated membership model by eliminating annual dues to provide complimentary memberships for qualifying tourism-related businesses. In 2021, Visit Tri-Cities’ membership total reached 315. Page 15 of 300 Cigar Savvy Shop, LLC Clover Island Marina Col Solare Winery Columbia Basin BMX Columbia Basin College Columbia Basin Racquet Club Columbia Center Columbia Crest Winery Columbia Park Golf Tri-Plex Columbia Point Golf Course Columbia Sun RV Resort Community Concerts of the Tri-Cities Country Mercantile Country Mercantile - Pasco Coyote Bob’s Roadhouse Casino Coyote Canyon Mammoth Site Coyote Canyon Winery Crazy Moose Casino Cyber Art 509 D-Bat Columbia Basin DermaCare Desert Food Mart (Conoco) Desert Wind Winery Divots Golf DownUnderSportFishing DrewBoy Creative East Benton County Historical Society & Museum Eastern Washington Transportation Emerald of Siam Thai Restaurant & Lounge Encanto Arts Europa Italian & Spanish Cuisine Events at Sunset Experience 46 Degrees Farmhand Winery Fast and Curryous Fat Olives Restaurant & Catering Fidelitas Five Guys Burgers & Fries Franklin County Historical Society & Museum Franklin County RV Park FreshPicks WA Smoothies Frichette Winery Friends of Sacajawea State Park Frost Me Sweet Bakery & Bistro Fujiyama Japanese Steak House & Bar Garden Hot Pot Gesa Carousel of Dreams Glass Studio at Barnard Griffin Winery Going Fishing Guide Service Goose Ridge Estate Vineyard & Winery Gordon Estate Winery GRAZE Great Harvest Bread Company Kennewick Greenies Hamilton Cellars Havana Café Hedges Family Estate Hightower Cellars HoneyBaked Ham Café Hops n Drops Hops n Drops - Kennewick Horn Rapids Golf Course Horn Rapids RV Resort & Mini Mart Hot Tamales, LLC Ice Harbor Brewing Co. Ice Harbor Brewing Company at the Marina IHOP Restaurants Image Fashions InterMountain Alpine Club iplay ExperienceMembership It’s All in the Details J&S Dreamland Express J. Bookwalter Kennewick Inn & Suites Kickstand Tours Kiona Vineyards and Winery Kitzke Cellars Lakeside Gem and Mineral Club Lemon Grass LIGO Hanford Observatory Longship Cellars Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society LU LU Craft Bar + Kitchen Lucky Flowers Magills Restaurant & Catering Market Vineyards Martinez & Martinez Winery Masala Indian Cuisine Master Gardener Foundation of Benton-Franklin County McDonald’s Restaurants Mercer Wine Estates Mid-Columbia Ballet Mid-Columbia Libraries Mid-Columbia Mastersingers Mid-Columbia Musical Theatre Mid-Columbia Symphony Middleton Six Sons Farms Milbrandt Vineyards/Ryan Patrick Wines Miss Tamale Monarcha Winery Moonshot Brewing Northwest Paddleboarding Nouveau Day Spa Octopus’ Garden Pacific Shorz Powersports Pasco Aviation Museum Pasco Golfland Pasco Specialty Kitchen Polka Dot Pottery Porter’s Real BBQ Kennewick Porter’s Real BBQ Pasco Porter’s Real BBQ Richland Power Up Arcade Bar Preszler’s Guide Service, LLC Proof Gastropub Purple Star Wines Ranch & Home Rattlesnake Mountain Harley - Davidson REACH Museum Red Dot Paintball Red Lobster Red Mountain AVA Alliance Red Mountain Event Center Red Mountain Trails Red Mountain Trails Winery Restaurante El Chapala Richland Players RideNow Powersports Tri-Cities Roads2 Travel Company Rollarena Skating Center Rolling Hills Chorus Roxy Theatre Antiques & Gifts RRoyal Rides Runners of the Sage Sacajawea State Park Sage Brewing Company Sageland Center Sandollar Farms & Alpacas Sandy’s Fabrics & Machines Seoul Fusion Korean Restaurant Shade Cafe Sheep’s Clothing Shelby’s Floral & Gifts Simplified Celebrations Skippers Seafood ‘n Chowder Sleep Inn Pasco-Tri-Cities Sleeping Dog Wines Solar Spirits Distillery Spare Time Lanes Spencer Carlson Furniture & Design Sporthaus Sun Willows Golf Course Sundance Aviation SunWest Sportswear SuperMex El Pueblo Market Swadee Thai Cuisine Swampy’s BBQ Sauce & Catering Tagaris Winery Take a Break Tri-Cities Tapteal Greenway TC Black Terra Blanca Winery & Estate Vineyard The Bradley The Crazy Crab Place The Edge Steakhouse & Sports Lounge The Educated Cigar, LLC The Endive Eatery The Garden TriCities The Grain Bin Flower Farm & Inn The Moore Mansion The Olive Garden The Pita Pit The Pub The Rude Mechanicals The Tinte Red Mountain Retreat Thurston Wolfe Winery Tip Pit BBQ Treveri Cellars Tri-Cities Local Events Tri-Cities Newcomers Club Tri-Cities Wine Society Tri-City Americans Hockey Tri-City Dust Devils Tri-City Rage Semi-Pro Football Team Tri-City Tappers Tucannon Cellars Tumbleweeds Mexican Flair Twigs Bistro & Martini Bar Uptown Antique Market US Army Corp of Engineers Vintner’s Lodge Washington State University Tri-Cities Water2Wine Cruises Wautoma Springs West Richland Golf Course Wet Palette Uncork + Create Studio Wheelhouse Community Bike Shop White Bluffs Brewing White Bluffs Quilt Museum Wingstop Pasco Z Place Salon & Spa Zintel Creek Golf Club Page 16 of 300 2021 Chairman’s Circle Members We acknowledge with pride and appreciation the support of our Chairman’s Circle members. It is their extra commitment to Visit Tri-Cities that helps us distribute our message about the Tri-Cities and welcome guests to our area. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS City of Kennewick City of Pasco City of Richland Tri-City Regional Hotel Motel Commission DIAMOND Battelle Bechtel National, Inc. Central Plateau Cleanup Company Hanford Mission Integration Solutions Three Rivers Convention Center Toyota Center Washington River Protection Solutions PLATINUM Ben Franklin Transit Benton County Benton PUD City of West Richland Energy Northwest Franklin County Franklin PUD Port of Benton Port of Kennewick Port of Pasco The HAPO Center GOLD Best Western Premier Pasco Inn & Suites Clover Island Inn Comfort Suites Kennewick at Southridge Courtyard by Marriott Richland Columbia Point Hilton Garden Inn Kennewick Holiday Inn Express & Suites Pasco Tri-Cities Holiday Inn Richland on the River Red Lion Hotel & Conference Center Pasco Red Lion Hotel Kennewick Columbia Center Riverfront Hotel, SureStay Collection by Best Western SpringHill Suites by Marriott Kennewick 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd., Ste. B Kennewick, WA 99336 (509) 735-8486 I (800) 254-5824 www.VisitTri-Cities.com Page 17 of 300 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF VISIT TRI-CITIES ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT TOURISM. MEDIA OUTREACH • Host qualified wine, travel, lifestyle and food writers for familiarization tours, escorting each on a scheduled set of appointments specific to their story needs. • Direct the efforts of public relations firm to create interest and a positive image for the Tri-Cities. • Conduct face-to-face meetings with writers representing key publications/programs to promote story ideas about the Tri-Cities region. • Work with Tourism Officials in primary destination/gateway cities (Seattle/Portland) to create cooperative opportunities targeting national and international travelers. • Attend media conferences to promote the Tri-Cities region to travel writers. • Host TBEX North America and attract more than 200 travel media attendees to create travel content about the Tri-Cities and Washington State. • Coordinate with State of Washington Tourism to amplify efforts in promoting the state to domestic and international travelers. VISIT TRI-CITIES SPORTS COUNCIL • Research and attract new sporting events that fit the profile of the existing venues. • Manage the cooperative efforts of the Tri-Cities Sports Council serving high school athletic directors, municipal recreation departments, local sports clubs and sports officials. • Work with the athletic directors and sports venue directors to create attractive proposals for high school athletic district and state-wide championships. • Coordinate venue costs and accommodation pricing for tournament directors. • Secure volunteers for events taking place in the Tri-Cities. • Attend national trade shows and secure one-on-one appointments with decision makers to promote the Tri-Cities as a premier Northwest destination, including TEAMS, National Association of Sports Commissions, Connect Sports Marketplace and ESports Travel Summit. • Secure hotel room blocks and complimentary rooms as needed by tournament directors. • Provide direction and guidance for recommendations outlined in the Sports Facilities Market analysis and Feasibility Study. TRI-CITIES WINE TOURISM COUNCIL • Manage the cooperative efforts of the Wine Tourism Council serving wineries, wine-related venues, hotels, restaurants and transportation providers in Benton and Franklin counties. • Distribute a wine map highlighting Mid-Columbia wineries. • Coordinate the development of wine tourism packages with hotels, restaurants, transportation and cultural events. • Promote and market wine-related events to increase visitation. • Work with food and wine writers to secure positive stories about the region’s wineries and vineyards. • Coordinate and promote the Tri-Cities Region Wine Trail Pass. ADMINISTRATIVE & OTHER SERVICES • Promote STEM Tourism to drive economic impact while educating families about educational and career opportunities in the Tri-Cities. • Coordinate the efforts of the Tri-Cities National Park Committee. • Organize and manage the efforts of the Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council. • Provide direction and guidance for recommendations outlined in the Rivershore Master Plan II. • Participate and provide leadership in tourism industry organizations such as Washington State Destination Marketing Organizations (WSDMO), State of Washington Tourism, Destination Marketing Association (DMA) West and Destination International (DI). • Manage the proceeds of tourism promotion assessments as directed by the Commissioners of the Tri-City Hotel-Motel Commission and city councils. • Promote and manage the Tri-Cities “Excellence in Service” program to stimulate customer service region-wide. VISITOR SERVICES • Manage and operate the Tri-Cities Visitor Center, providing a place for visitors and residents to gather information on local attractions, services and tourism-related businesses. • Produce and distribute the official Tri-Cities Visitor Guide, a publication highlighting the community, attractions and activities to promote the Tri-Cities as a preferred travel destination. • Fulfill the estimated 10,000 written and telephone requests for information on the Tri-Cities. • Produce the Tri-Cities Calendar of Events. • Act as a resource and provide materials to local companies for their recruitment and employee relocation efforts. • Offer a “Hot Dates” program to assist visitors in finding accommodations during high demand dates. • Stock the Satellite Visitor Centers with visitor information and brochures. • Provide visitor services and maintain the interactive Tri-Cities kiosk at the Tri-Cities Airport and Three Rivers Convention Center. CONVENTION AND GROUP SALES • Generate 175 sales leads (Request for Proposals) to industry partners. • Secure conventions, meetings and sporting events that will attract 38,000 future overnight stays. • Host familiarization tours for meeting planners and tournament directors, escorting each on a scheduled set of appointments specific to their event needs. • Attend 5 industry events and trade shows (some virtual) such as Meeting Planners International, Washington Society of Association Executives, Pacific Northwest Chapter of Society of Government Meeting Professionals, National Tour Association, etc., to meet with decision makers and promote the Tri-Cities as a destination of choice for conventions. • Coordinate Spring Customer Appreciation Luncheon for up to 50 Washington State Association meeting planners. • Coordinate Fall Sales Blitz, featuring customer events and appointments with meeting planners. • Host a Familiarization (FAM) Tour in the Tri-Cities for up to 15 qualified meeting planners in September. • Support local tourism-related businesses by hosting monthly Director of Sales meetings. MARKETING • Place Tri-Cities television advertisements in the Puget Sound region and other key markets, including large metropolitan areas with direct flights. • Generate 30 million impressions through targeted digital campaigns. • Manage and promote VisitTri-Cities.com, an optimized and mobile-friendly website including virtual tours and user generated content. • Strategically direct $705,000 in advertising, promoting the Tri-Cities as a destination of choice. • Promote the Tri-Cities through effective social media campaigns on Facebook (more than 26,000 followers), Twitter (more than 6,000 followers) and Instagram (more than 10,000 followers) to drive user generated content. • Create and distribute the official Visitor Guide and complementary materials featuring local amenities. • Distribute monthly consumer newsletters, focusing on wine, outdoor recreation and STEM. • Execute Tourism Week events and promotions. • Develop multiple mobile passes to promote tourism-related businesses in the Tri-Cities. MEMBER SERVICES • Promote local businesses through Visit Tri-Cities website, which receives more than 331,000 visitors annually. • Develop and distribute Tri-Cities Small Business Spotlights. • Report on the state of the Tourism Industry at the 2022 Annual Meeting. • Apprise members on industry events through monthly newsletters. • Promote local businesses to out-of-town visitors through the “Show Your Badge” program. • Create programs to support tourism employment and workforce development. • Work with Federal and State legislators on tourism related priorities. VisitTri-Cities.com Work Plan 2022 Page 18 of 300 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite B Kennewick, WA 99336 509-735-8486 1-800-254-5824 www.VisitTRI-CITIES.com info@VisitTRI-CITIES.com March 2, 2022 Mr. Dave Zabell City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Zabell: Thank you for the opportunity to present the Visit Tri-Cities 2021 Annual Report, 2022 Work Plan and to make a request to utilize Tourism Promotion Area reserve funds to the Pasco City Council on Monday, March 14, 2022. On behalf of the Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission, Visit Tri-Cities would like to request the transfer of $428,800 from Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Account to be used for supplemental tourism related projects. We prepare the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) budget in July of each year for the following calendar year. As is the case with most every budget process, there are always more worthy projects to be considered than funds to support them. We manage our resources carefully to ensure our expenses never exceed our projected income and we budget conservatively. As a result, the TPA Commissioners have identified $575,665 in funds available for reinvestment in tourism related projects. The funds available for project investment are in addition to the minimum reserve requirement of $500,000, the amount set based on the recommendation of the City Managers who participate in at Commission meetings as Ex- Officios. It is the Commission’s position that once the reserve account reaches this level, that any additional funds should actively be used to promote the Tri Cities as a destination; creating increased visitor spending in the community. In addition to this capital investments are often included in reserve requests. The projects under consideration accomplish these goals. Given that the balance of the Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Account exceeds the level of $500,000; the Commissioners of the Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission have voted in favor of re-investing the surplus revenues, in the amount of $428,800 that will help tourism related projects including digital advertising campaigns, online platforms, staffing and promotions to increase leisure travel stays and secure new conventions and sports tournaments, high-end photo and video production, destination brand research, tourism education and control security. A summary of the projects and the associated expenditures is attached for your review. Again, thank you for your consideration and support of the tourism industry. I am available for any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, Michael Novakovich, CDME President and CEO Enclosure Page 19 of 300 2022 Proposed TPA Reserve Reinvestments Playeasy Platform $10,000 Playeasy is a networking and lead generation platform with the largest online network of sports destinations and athletic facilities in the United States. This tool enables event organizers, sports facilities and destinations to create profiles and streamline the ability to search, find, communicate, post events and connect through one seamless platform. The platform would provide access to approximately 400 event holders within the RFP Marketplace to support our on-going sports development efforts. Advertising opportunities are available within the platform. Convention Sales Manager $80,000 Adding an additional Sales Manager will amplify our efforts to increase group room nights for the community. The Convention Sales Manager will be the primary contact for the Government and Corporate Group Market Segment. The individual will also be responsible for researching and pursuing new market opportunities for the Tri-Cities as well as reviving the Show Your Badge program. We are forecasting an additional 7,000 group room nights and fifty leads to be generated in the first twelve months of employment. We expect the individual to have a start date of May 1st. This request covers employee costs for the twelve-month period (salary, benefits, etc.,). Olympia Sales Blitz hotel rooms for Hospitality Partners $3,000 To help ease travel budget concerns caused by the pandemic, Visit Tri-Cities will cover the cost of two night’s lodging for one representative from each participating hotel property or meeting venue to attend the 2022 Spring Sales Blitz in Olympia. All other costs including travel to and from Olympia and meals will be the responsibility of each participant. The requested amount will cover costs for up to ten partners. Meeting Planner FAM $20,000 The Convention Department will host an in-person Familiarization (FAM) Tour in the Tri-Cities for up to fifteen qualified meeting planners in September. Qualified planners will be invited to apply. Selections will be made based on the following criteria: 1) New Business i.e., events that are new to the Tri-Cities or have not taken place for more than five years; 2) Business taking place in shoulder season; and/or 3) Business large enough to impact multiple lodging facilities. Photo & Video Production $100,000 Engage with a high-end photo and video production company to create compelling visual content for creative storytelling rivaling tier one global destination content. Deliverables would include cinema quality longform videos (2+ minutes); :30 and :15 distribution ready commercials; a gallery of photos for promotional purposes and made available for stakeholder and media usage. The casting and experiences featured will be diverse and inclusive. The products will supplement the robust video content VTC staff is currently producing in-house on a weekly basis. Page 20 of 300 Seattle Out of Home Advertising $100,000 For this campaign, Visit Tri-Cities will focus advertising efforts on our primary drive-in markets, particularly Seattle, to attract visitors to the Tri-Cities through multiple and repeated touchpoints. In addition to broadcast, streaming, digital, social and print tactics already in place for the year, the supplemental budget will support out of home advertising tactics in the Seattle, including but not limited to, billboards, transportation and wallscapes. Creative Testing Consumer Research $27,800 Visit Tri-Cities would contract with Destination Analysts to provide follow-up to the Consumer Sentiment Study recently completed for Visit Tri-Cities. Creative Testing Research would be conducted twice a year on our ongoing marketing campaigns. This would include measuring favorability, engagement of creative and desire to take action, as well as awareness and understanding of the Tri-Cities through in-depth interviews. TBEX FAM $5,000 The Tri-Cities will be hosting TBEX North America, April 18-21, where nearly 300 travel content creators will spend four days exploring the region. Above and beyond the conference program, Visit Tri-Cities will host a FAM tour of up to five travel writers, specifically selected by VTC, to enjoy an immersive experience of our rivers, restaurants, wine and other attractions to develop storytelling content. The FAM will include an exploration of Downtown Kennewick and the Public Market at Columbia Warehouse, a horse drawn wagon ride and luxury picnic on Red Mountain, a progressive experience in Richland gathering places The Parkway and Uptown Shopping Center, a mini taco crawl in Downtown Pasco, a welcome amenity featuring VTC logo’d travel item (e.g. crossbody bag or backpack) featuring local items and more. TREAD MAP App $60,000 Outdoor recreation has been a key asset bringing about the return of the tourism economy. Recognizing the multi-faceted value of outdoor recreation, the State of Washington Tourism in partnership with Dharma Maps created TREAD Map. The expense to develop TREAD is $30,000 each per county for Benton and Franklin counties. The State of Washington Tourism is offering $30,000 match per county to aid in the development of a statewide tool used to draw visitors to our community while engaging sustainable tourism and stewardship of our open spaces. TREAD Map is a hyper-local trail mapping app built by trail enthusiasts who understand what users want to know: •Plan outings •Access and provide real-time trail conditions •Post-trip reports, photos, and videos •Share local experiences •Connect with other trail enthusiasts •Engage in two-way communication with land managers •Learn more about local events, fundraisers, work parties and advocacy groups •Get exclusive deals from sponsors Page 21 of 300 Tourism Recovery Education $18,000 Destinations International, DMA West and other industry associations are hosting several in- person summits, conferences and events that focus on tourism recovery education and initiatives. These events target two key segments of our business: group business (meetings, conventions, and sports) and leisure travel. Funding of tourism recovery education provides additional opportunities for the Visit Tri-Cities senior staff to learn new tactics, strategies, and best practices from presenters as well as in-valuable peer-to-peer exchanges with the intent of driving an expedited return of our local tourism economy. Security for Visit Tri-Cities Office (Access Control) $5,000 A controlled access and security system for Visit Tri-Cities office is a vital component to further protect the organization’s significant investments in technology and equipment and enhance the level of security and safety for employees. Such a system will grant people access for specific days and times based upon their job requirements. It provides added security measures and tracks who enters the office. The need to re-key locks after turnover or lost keys will be eliminated resulting in cost savings in the future. Additional cost savings may be recognized through an associated reduction in insurance premiums. Total All Requests: $428,800 Page 22 of 300 ANNUALREPOR T\/isi'I-“'.'."TR!-C‘l"l'|ES 2021 WASHINGTON AYearin Review CITY OF PASCO |MARCH 14,2022Page 23 of 300 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 0 Asia»;2?. ‘U‘@u,umm':JmrjguS5"1‘,E"j ':‘\.-_r §\\;j‘r/F‘J0‘L"‘\a£/@[FE~”$.E ‘:33P ('="~W."r«\ .‘-§;§>@D“w"'k§‘u‘\Page 24 of 300 WHY TOURISM MATTERS We makethe Tri-Citiesbigger,bolder,brighter,better and more coolthroughtourism.Thanksto over $340 millionin visitor TaX revenue generated spendingannually,tourism helpsbuilda safe community,through VISItO|'spending educated community,employedcommunity,and a community can help fund 2020 ?lled Withmanyamenitiesfor all Tri-(itians to enjoy. $344.7 @ o -2°2°CREATESm||||on STAT1FA§IE.:CAL @ I131] JOBS IN BENTON & FRANKLIN COUNTIESPage 25 of 300 TRI-CITIES GUEST ROOMS SOLD +141’-323(+67-8%) (Kennewick 234,121 rooms 341,612 rooms +107,491+45.9%) 168,952 rooms 200,105 rooms +31,153 (+18.4%) Tri-Cities 611,632 rooms 891,599 rooms +279,967(+45.8%) Source:December 2021 STR ReportPage 26 of 300 IMPERATIVE:ADVOCATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE 3,776 HOTELGUESTROOMSAVAILABLE HOTEL MOTEL TAX COLLECTIONS Page 27 of 300 CONVENTION &SPORTS -Hosted77 conventions&sportingevents in 2021 -$12.6 millionin visitorspending -113 new events securedfor 2022 and beyond -$24.3 millionestimatedfuture visitorspendingPage 28 of 300 MEDIA OUTREACH &ADVERTISING -70 Tri-Citiestravel related stories -10 travel writers and bloggershosted -1,074,733,123total mediaimpressions Tourismcampaignsdeployedin 2021earned: 33,784,839impressionsand 83,264 clickthroughsPage 29 of 300 DIGITAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING SOCIALMEDIA 6 26,505 Facebookfollowers WEBSITEHIGHLIGHTS 513,475 pageviews 10,721 lnstagramfollowers 231,359 UniqueVisitors 0 6,213 1-wmerfonowers m 1,584 LinkedlnfollowersPage 30 of 300 $94 TR!'CIT|ES WASHINGTON VISIT TRI-CITIES A N N U A L M E E T ING NEW DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES -Newwebsite °SkyNav -Kuula -Datafy -Bandwango -TrueOmniPage 31 of 300 -OfficialTri-CitiesVisitorGuide °ShopMap -MeetingP|anner’s Guide -Go|f&Wine Brochure -DineMap -AnnualReport -TourismNews -WineMap -Mid-YearReport Page 32 of 300 ‘M/om“Flam2022 W51?‘k TR!-CITIES WASHINGTON -Tl-IE\7E(:o1'.I'.o,\ivwiG|S‘A'SUMM7¢'RV,ofE,vIs1T'R‘!-.ClT,l'ESA‘cr_tyIti£sfnisuEP'9_Riibjuglsm vlslmn mum um .miouaxnx>nnKIunvIu\mcamu.pmddnv .um.» vlrlyx |v:‘I,v';:dbmr_uaaImmnkmlImannan.-a.m..xcmculnd rm“and dn'mb\nelueu1Vx|-\Yv>Cn«VuInI(I4|dn-pumxalan manngm u.:u..m..ny..m.m...m.:uvm..mmm.. nycm......a....:..m.:.....m. rum munlmuad In.Vw'~v9|unnndlshvhnnl??xl-Ilxierlnluvmluuu m.m¢mou=« Fruduu human >(IIIrudIrnlEv-uh ramlmnrd um.....a.x,..x...‘runvlrialalmeiv my.»my.w..n...,;,.........a...ar.g.;......a....; M-at-"nu a.“...¢4.... gm a.5-H v..:....c...z.m.m m.a1...«..._‘.,.Ird ».;»..... uamumm.xuvkuslnd mnlrnh m vnm-aw-vncxmkbsku mu v..c.m.».m ...aw..n....m.........(mar cnlovnnlorunncncunsnus am...y75 um an-q-....eyp»»~s~«n¢xmra-as-mm 5...........a-......a«g;-a sunning euanuuhmwil -r-«anon Mm .,....mm.<-n. »c..u..a‘.a...a.\.m:...,.m.g mm.-4 my mama. -mmiw ...a......:»..a.:.a ..m.m..m..:.-a...-m.u..‘.mm ....a.. M1-nd many24-!).na..a..n..........m.»..:..,M...mrum...:my..m.v.w.m-cum So<\?ywlAnmunum Exeunwa.mm:umm o....u.ass..-g.y nffuwunnuvtllluirg Wdr?amh u.x v...A.....--M.mu .....mn.a..a.......n......:p.....m..+. mum .a=auumm....;u..m»...-en. (wvdiwlll s..awc.......—Aw-..=Inn um...my-.Snwuhinvwn Svamlgnuzlinumaenlw um.” Epudnnlu M s.mm:«zumamm.evmunnd .y».m.m.mr. nnz??y an....... m _.\mmmwxhled m..««wrm-wmmy Dunn .« ......«g; uullmls Flxuvn-Cm-st-kmmn zdnril-lnnhswnlfn A-ms..nar-m...amuk-y nuIknL<,I\<lu?\i mu ma-mm nnuwwmdxnd mm; Gama!m m\I\‘u1\llu!5;Eunsmrnu?uar§rkdA\wl:IavV|>l\wVs M-n|unn?:vuvnuI:VmITn{rIunem,navmundnnd ...M.4._.1»,...mg ax»-quwy<..:=\svos,ooom.mnmmmm.mmm... Frun?eIheYn(\7zH1ruA§heIz:iu;a:\II ....4‘.umpigman ;...a..x mm Ch-Hmouw.....».xu.an..(...mm.n out HVwI-I)-nd :..nm.n.rmmr...uomcaam:wdvwe ur-voeneuledwnuxx Cndhnnd a n.m..a‘..:r..:-ava.-n.ra..‘a...1 mu-....m.-y......n.:. Ieuum:bu!-wmnu. mmbm.nthiyiw-nIrvnvn\n1-rslwiuiwitzn ».:__m.r mnnuuum svsm ExInnvYauliimWI-lluumszn?p-um“. -nun-um: Fvunnlnlumhuxinunnlcruu?wvmv?bcklawnbxnn m....».............m.nnmm..........n, 9..-s«p.,..aam..».v.aa«..s..‘.:xn..,‘...ss..:mum2 n.,an...».,..¢.o.m....a,...x.a....y...:.=2o2z;n.....m..w.., ;..,w........,...-..a...,=....u.:....g»....-s~»,......x.m. n=m...u:.=.xmmumz.wmwym.mm»-yr.n.< ‘5huwVaul n.a;'»-ag-M. Mznmoumsacn..<,....u.m...1....».e,.,...4.m......«.m....,.«......‘....... ...u.s..;..,m..;»..,n.,g.g.«.m.v.......mp..«.m nxymmm m-,.¢.....a....«_.uw.....;.M.m...=._..m..e,....a....x..w. m»q.«...m_, c.n.au..a......a.(......s~..u.am...a..s -aamnwlry wuk.m.s/.«u.m.wm.u.mu.;...u.m. mam“... w..k.m.v...a....m..‘..;.am.y.1.,a.......:.....v-,a.;.. .:...mw...¢;...e..‘.=.«.~...»m..me..m..».~...n.x ...¢huwuliaulu-vim..Am....1a.[_.«...m=.m........r.m.g,.q,‘.,......v.m.x.....c..m.....;m...w....ng...nv...,am.xa.m....myav....m .—....aa-m.......a....ma‘...n.......u..¢... vusnmmussmmcoum.wanma....m..w...am.m..ua.p~n..«-K.,.m..._ .m.....»..««..«m.m..,scnmm»-9».2........s(.:..<..n,.ma.=.:..(..‘..s....,......-ml‘? wunsdubszndivn?sd?mak »...k...........‘.......4..,...m._....m.‘.. m.‘....aa.p-=-;m.....m.a.91..m..:.1-..;‘....4 mw....mp=.ms :....a-..............a.:..n....4..»mm».:. bvnumnmnuavx 52....m......,..,...n.;..~....n»‘.a......m.a.. m..1..m..am»...Mmuvrmoancnu ..».m.......w.mamnukuxnvrumotnlanm-nlhxuxlvmnkaxurmvnsxa,5.».:.,......m c...n.as...m.1.m.pk....:ESF-zminv-Is.....m Sum roammum bivdulnd wnulwnnen?wmavmu nrudzd uy ..m.........4a.«....s hw\d:dIe<‘lu\nndw>?\(‘Hnrvxwgungndnlxauunlwmd mm: s...:.nrmu‘...m.ykm...>,.;.m r..;4m:.,s...a, mmwsvmsmnsumnu M-I-inf:-LW¢Ir'u|5v~nWI>v\:nlthuVlimVw-4rinm Carma‘!..~:.w w1neH=s.vnnn<|Iud vmua mm .«m.m Ind ranxpmnunma...n....=....4 r...u-.(swims. nmm=.w.m...umenmmMI6~Ca|4mhuwm:u<L (curd =..m..a...:m-.y...:.‘.....w..a..«m.p-mm.»....4.. ram;..u.»...spun.“..‘..amnw.:....u Prenrxtnrndmulelvarnowllad ewnu la Inacnevlxwunm. w..m.m.ma....4 ...:.‘...,-ms manna!Dmmvnslmiesabuunhe "§\an'xvAnunnInd m-y-rm :...um.......4 wunnuh?ri?na n..~mw...n.av.s -unummnnmuawuns pm....swmr..m.».?ivunaznvvnx '.w.n.m ..a.maw inmixazhntledukallumvnd un¢NvD°PIIrIus|nm:Tn(mIx. :..mm.».m..«e.«..«u..mo.s.s Nam-mil>..u......‘..... c-g........¢..‘.;..»...n.»..m..v..au..n...m.. Enhim-I-nICnunn' mm K....agu...w.«.y..<.............‘...m...q mm: r...m..M.s«.m.n u.-m.n....4 um.Luci.-shin‘.n.m.-nu.-ny r-ma...-...smm:Vluhinwmu2...mama.Mummy Umlmnduu <v4;u»a».u..u.....;-.n..,.=....u...=.mm DnsnruuanmumA.m.op..mwuv:.a.,.an..m..m :m..n.s....:¢x>. M.-gm.»-...«..«.m..\..m.....m....m,..swam byIhn{l:mm'Iuw—snl?1-Vrv?ly Huuaaum c.....n...s...Ird my canals p..m.....,..a....—am.c.avx.u.«.s.,.:..-um-w..... puma!.cmmmztxswkl mum.Page 33 of 300 TPA RESERVES AVAILABLE TPAfundsavailable $1,125,487 Previouslyapprovedprojects $549,822 Fundsavailablefor reinvestment:S575,665Page 34 of 300 TPA RESERVE ACCOUNT REQUESTS FUNDSAVAILABLEFORREINVESTMENT$575,665 PlayeasyPlatform $10,000 ConventionSales Manager $80,000 OlympiaSales Blitzhotel rooms for HospitalityPartners $3,000 MeetingPlanner FAM $20,000 Photo &VideoProduction $100,000 Seattle Out of HomeAdvertising $100,000 CreativeTestingConsumerResearch $27,800 TBEXFAM $5,000 TREADMAPApp $60,000 TourismRecoveryEducation $18,000 Securityfor VisitTri-CitiesOffice(AccessControl)$5,000 TotalAllRequests:$428,800Page 35 of 300 $94 TR!'CIT|ES WASHINGTON VISIT TRI-CITIES A N N U A L M E E T INGPage 36 of 300 Wianlogow FOR YOUR SUPPORT \/z.<.: +:§'.'.'4TR!-CITIES WASHINGTONPage 37 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 9, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Dave Zabell, City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Presentation I. REFERENCE(S): Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Presentation Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Value Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Michell Holt, Executive Director, Benton -Franklin Council of Governments III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG) was established as a voluntary association of local government in the two-county region in 1966. The BFCOG is structured under state law as a regional planning commission, a council of governments, and a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO). Planning Metropolitan the designated federally The also is BFCOG the Organization (MPO)/Transportation Management Area (TMA) for the Tri-City Metropolitan Area and the Economic Development District (EDD) for Benton and Franklin Counties. V. DISCUSSION: BFCOG Executive Director Michelle Holt will provide a brief presentation on the programs BFCOG administers and services provided the region. Page 38 of 300 Page 39 of 300 Solutions for Shared Regional Problems Benton-Franklin Council of Governments convenes local governments to collaboratively plan, fund and administer solutions to shared community needs. BFCOG facilitates the flow of state and federal funds into the region for transportation and economic development through planning activities and administration of related programs. Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG) was established by voluntary association of the local units of government in 1966 with the vision of providing a forum for improved communication, multi- jurisdictional decision making, regional planning, and lead agency capacity for provision of multi- jurisdictional programs. The services currently provided to the Member Jurisdictions is outlined by Interlocal Agreement and can evolve with the needs of the Member Jurisdictions. BFCOG currently fulfills the following designations on behalf of the Benton-Franklin region: •Regional Planning Commission (RCW 36.70.60) •Conference of Governments (RCW 36.64.80) •Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RCW 47.80.20) •Metropolitan Planning Organization/Transportation Management Area (Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration) •Economic Development District (US Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration) Summary of Support Provided to: City of Pasco Transportation Planning & Funding: •$7,183,138 in Transportation Project funding since 2017 •Projects include intersection improvements for Columbia Center/Deschutes, Quinault/Columbia Center, and Steptoe/Gage •2022 Walkability/Mobility Institute participant Economic Development: •$50,000 Brownfields planning/assessment project – EPA Brownfields Coalition Assessments Grant •2019 EDA Grant - $3M Food Processing Water Infrastructure Project •15 Water/WW Projects, Peanuts Park Renovation, Broadmoor, and Burns Intersection Improvements, I-182/Broadmoor I/C Improvements, Sylvester Road/SR 395 Pedestrian Overpass, US12 A Street and Tank Farm Road Interchange Projects included in the 2021 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy document to support the acquisition of future project funding. •Facilitation of quarterly Technical Assistance meetings with BFCOG and Congressional Staff. Fiscal Impact to: City of Pasco 2022 Dues Assessment: $44,146 (Federal Matching Only – 16.93% of Assessment Budget) •Total Assessment Investment since 1997: $730,643.52 •5 Year ROI: $56 return for every $1 Invested Just since 2017, federal and state Transportation (FHWA/FTA/WSDOT) and Economic Development (EDA) programs have provided direct project funding to local jurisdictions of $41.9M compared to the combined local assessment invested of just $1.13M. That’s an average of $37 return for every $1 of local funds invested in support of BFCOG! Page 40 of 300 2021 BFCOG Highlights Hired new Executive Director, Michelle Holt to Lead Organization Obligated $7.4M to Local Transportation Projects Secured 3-Year, $600,000 EPA Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant Completed 2021-2025 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) incorporating regional jurisdictional projects and existing economic studies Received $1.14 million in CARES Act Funding for Revolving Loans Distributed $450,000 in New Revolving Loans Received $400,000 in CARES/Covid Relief Funds Supporting Economic Recovery and Resiliency Planning Adopted 2022-2023 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for MPO/RTPO with $2.57M Budget for Planning Programs Actively Updating 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Conducted Regional Social Vulnerability Emphasis Area Analysis Provided over 100 Technical Assistance Services for Regional Jurisdictions Ongoing Facilitation of Bi-monthly Congressional Meetings with Jurisdictions Serving as Record of Information Source for Congressional Information from Senator’s Murray and Cantwell’s Offices Updated Regional Traffic Count Data for 600 + Locations Updated Travel Demand and Land Use Modeling Data Conducted over 35 Modeling and Mapping Services for Jurisdictions and Developers Contracted Support Service to Tri City Regional PFD and Benton County PFD Distributed over 1,500 updated Regional Bike Maps (English and Spanish) SAO Audits Completed with No Findings for FY2019 and FY2020 Page 41 of 300 Ongoing Planning Services, Data Collection and Technical Support provided by BFCOG Metropolitan Planning Organization/Regional Transportation Planning Organization Call for Projects: Approximately $5M in funds provided annually to local jurisdictions for local multi- modal projects through a competitive process in cooperation with WSDOT. Funding is only available to jurisdictions through the local MPO. Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Act Certification: Review of the transportation element of local jurisdiction comp plans to ensure consistency with GMA requirements, then issue required GMA certification. Travel Demand Modeling Data and Land Use Scenarios for developments and comprehensive planning is provided to local jurisdictions and regularly updated on behalf of the region. This service would have to be procured by each individual jurisdiction if not provided by BFCOG. Regional Traffic Count Program collects data from over 630 regional locations identified by Jurisdictions including average daily traffic, vehicle type, peak hour flows, freight data, etc. This information is used by local Jurisdictions for impact assessment for proposed new developments, among other things. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Assistance is provided to local jurisdictions to ensure projects are entered into the WSDOT project software. Projects not entered are not eligible for state or federal pass-through funds. Regional Transportation Priorities is an annually compiled list of collaborative transportation projects for the Tri-Cities region highlighting the highest priority projects as adopted by the BFCOG. This listing is useful to local, state, and federal agencies in accomplishing planning tasks and provides information to support pursuit of projects and funding including grant applications. Active Transportation Planning provides comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian planning for the region. The most recent Regional Active Transportation Plan provided a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) rating for all roads in the region and a best practices toolbox section to help implement multimodal improvements. Federal Functional Classification (FFC) Reclassification requires coordination with local jurisdictions ensuring that desired roadway reclassification meet regional transportation goals. Without BFCOG it would fall to each individual jurisdiction to ensure their roadways do not interfere with other local jurisdictions roadways. Congestion Management Process (CMP) provides a shared vision, goals objectives and strategies for the region to guide future improvements for all forms of transportation. The CMP involves developing objectives and performance measures to support those objectives, data collection and analysis, identification of strategies, and evaluation of effective strategy implementation all for the purpose of planning for effective congestion management. As a migratory region with regular commuting between closely located communities, this is an important regional undertaking. Page 42 of 300 Human Services Transportation Plan (HSTP) ensures coordinated transportation planning between local agencies, WSDOT, MPO and the community at large to improve transportation services for persons with special needs, those who are unable to transport themselves through physical or mental limitations, income, or age. Projects identified in the HSTP are eligible for funding through a statewide selection process known as the Consolidated Grant Program. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is a long range, multi-modal planning document that identifies the mobility needs of the region for 20+ years. It provides a policy framework for the investment of anticipated federal, state, and local funds based on the projected needs, regional goals and objectives. Transportation projects that are not part of the MTP are not eligible for state and federal transportation funding. Title VI/Equity Plan provides important regional data analysis related to equity and transportation. Additional services available upon request by local jurisdictions include Land Use Planning, Land Suitability Analysis, Mapping Services, and Equity Data Support. Economic Development District Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is produced by BFCOG on behalf of the region. The CEDS, which showcases projects and regional economic areas of emphasis, is a requirement of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to support investment of EDA grant funding in the region. Since 2009 more than $12M has been invested by the EDA for projects in this region. Economic Resiliency and Recovery is a new addition to the CEDS. BFCOG coordinates with local jurisdictions and state/federal agencies to evaluate and recommend resiliency and recovery planning to coincide with regional emergency planning. COVID-19 has highlighted nationally how unprepared communities are to effect economic resilience and recovery during and after a disaster. Funding Technical Assistance is provided to local jurisdictions to facilitate the flow of state and federal funding into the region through grants and ongoing programs. EDA has over $3.5B available nationally for community building programs. Each of the programs strongly advocates partnership with the local Economic Development District for consideration. 2021’s federal Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act includes significant funding opportunities, especially in the Transportation sector. Regional Revolving Loan Funds are administered by BFCOG, with over $1M currently available for loan to spur economic growth. Since inception, these loan funds have funded $16.3M in loans for more than 177 small businesses throughout the region. Lead Agency Capability is available for BFCOG to by the applicant and administrator for state or federal programs that allow collaboration and impact to more than one jurisdiction in the region. One such program is the EPA Brownfields Program where BFCOG was awarded a $600K competitive grant for Brownfields Assessments across the region. Regional Brownfields Program is a new initiative to identify and prioritize brownfield sites to facilitate potential redevelopment or reuse through environmental assessment, remediation, and site-specific planning. An environmental consulting firm has been contracted to support these activities and identification of other funding support for related activities. Equity Analysis/Data Support can be provided including data and third-party analysis to support the new expectations of the WA “HEAL” Act and increasing federal funding requirements. Page 43 of 300 Michelle Holt, Executive DirectorPage 44 of 300 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG)was established by voluntary association of the local units of government in 1966 with the vision of providing a forum for improved communication, multi-jurisdictional decision making,regional planning,and lead agency capacity for provision of multi- jurisdictional programs.The services currently provided to the member jurisdictions are outlined by Interlocal Agreement and can evolve with the needs of the region.BFCOG currently fulfills the following designations on behalf of the Benton-Franklin region: •Regional Planning Commission (RCW 36.70.60) •Conference/Council of Governments (RCW 36.64.80) •Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RCW 47.80.20)(WSDOT) •Metropolitan Planning Organization/Transportation Management Area (Federal Highway Administration,Federal Transit Administration) •Economic Development District (US Department of Commerce,Economic Development Administration)Page 45 of 300 What is a Council of Governments? Council of Governments –We exist to study regional and governmental problems of mutual interest and concern, to formulate recommendations for review and action by member jurisdictions legislative bodies. (RCW 36.54.080) Councils of Governments are unique, reflecting the needs of their respective regional needs. Page 46 of 300 Page 47 of 300 Page 48 of 300 Call for Projects Funding Allocation makes available roughly $5M annually to local jurisdictions for local multi-modal projects through a competitive process in cooperation with WSDOT. This funding is only available to jurisdictions through the local MPO. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)is a long range,multi-modal planning document that identifies the mobility needsoftheregionfor20+years.It provides a policy framework fortheinvestmentofanticipatedfederal,state,and local fundsbasedontheanticipatedneedsandregionalgoalsandobjective.Transportation projects that are not part of the MTParenoteligibleforstateandfederaltransportationfunding. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)Assistance isprovidedtolocaljurisdictionstoensureprojectsareenteredintotheWSDOTprojectsoftware.Projects not entered are noteligibleforstateorfederal/state pass through funds. Regional Transportation Priorities is an annually compiled listofcollaborativetransportationprojectsfortheTri-Cities regionhighlightingthehighestpriorityprojectsasadoptedbytheBFCOG.This listing is useful to local,state,and federalagenciesinaccomplishingplanningtasksandprovidesinformationtosupportpursuitofprojectsandfundingincludinggrantapplications. Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Act Certification: Review of the transportation element of local jurisdiction comp plans to ensure consistency with GMA requirements, then issue required GMA certification. Travel Demand Modeling Data and Land Use Scenarios for developments and comprehensive planning is provided to local jurisdictions and regularly updated on behalf of the region. This service would have to be procured by each individual jurisdiction if not provided by BFCOG. Additional services available upon request by local jurisdictions include Land Use Planning, Land Suitability Analysis, Mapping Services, and Equity Data Support. Page 49 of 300 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)is produced by BFCOG on behalf of the region. The CEDS, which showcases projects and regional economic areas of emphasis, is a requirement of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to support investment of EDA grant funding in the region. Since 2009 more than $12.5M has been invested by the EDA for projects in this region. Regional Revolving Loan Funds are administered by BFOCG, with over $1M currently available for loan to spur economic growth. Since inception, these loan funds have funded $16.4M loans through 177 small businesses loans throughout the region. Funding Technical Assistance is provided to local jurisdictions to facility the flow of state and federal funding into the region through grants and ongoing programs. We do this by providing educational and networking with program administrators like EDA –which has over $3.5B available nationally for community building programs. The IIJA is filled with funding opportunities. BFCOG is the Notice of Record resource for Sen. Murray and Cantwell’s offices for dissemination of federal Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFO) to regional jurisdictions. Lead Agency Capability is available for BFCOG to by the applicant and administrator for state or federal programs that allow collaboration and impact to more than one jurisdiction in the region. One such program is the EPA Brownfields Program where BFCOG was awarded a $600K competitive grant for Brownfields Assessments across the region. Regional Brownfields Program is a new initiative to identify and prioritize brownfield sites to facilitate potential redevelopment or reuse through environmental assessment, remediation, and site- specific planning. An environmental consulting firm has been contracted to support these activities and identification of other funding support for related activities.Page 50 of 300 Funding Sources BFCOG receives operating revenues through 5 funding sources. •Consistent Program Funding (Grants/Federal & State Allocations) •Single Opportunity Grants (Direct/Lead Agency) •Contracted Services •Local Funds (Jurisdictional Member Assessments) Consistent Program Funding Federal Transportation Funding –13.5% Local Match Required Federal Highway Administration Planning Program (FHAPL) - $384,000 per year* Federal Transit Administration 5303 Program (FTA5303) -$134,400 per year* Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) -$279,800 per year* *This process allocates roughly $5M annually to local transportation projects in the region through competitive call for projects. WSDOT RTPO Funding (No Local Match Required) -$247,500 per year* (*Annual amounts can vary due to funder allocation changes and carry-over funds) Economic Development Administration Funding –100% Local Match Required Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Planning Grant (CEDS) Renewable 3-Year $225K grant ($75K per year) to produce and update the CEDS, which EDA uses to determine potential economic impact related to EDA grant making within the region. Since 2009 $12.5M in EDA grants have been awarded in our region to the benefit of the cities of West Richland, Pasco & Connell, and all three of the Ports for infrastructure projects.Page 51 of 300 Funding Sources Single Opportunity Grants •Awarded directly to BFCOG for a program that is part of the BFCOG mission or awarded to BFCOG as “Lead Agency” on behalf of one or more local jurisdictions. Direct Grant Award Example –EDA Covid Relief Grant 2020 BFCOG received $400,000 to provide economic and environmental resiliency support and to add economic resiliency planning into the CEDS. These funds were used to hire our Economic Recovery Coordinator Position. This funding expires in June 2021. Lead Agency Grant Award Example –EPA Brownfields Coalition Assessment Grant BFCOG received a 3-Year, $600,000 grant to work with a local coalition made up of cities of Kennewick, Pasco & Richland to identify, rank by potential economic impact, and assess multiple Brownfield properties within the Benton-Franklin region. A ranking and selection criteria will determine sites to be assessed and is open to properties within Benton or Franklin counties. Contracted Services •RCW 39.34.010, BFCOG can enter into a cooperative contracting agreement with any other local government entity for the purpose of mutual advantage to provide services and facilities that accord with factors influencing the needs and development of local communities. Benton County PFD & Tri-City Regional PFD Administration BFCOG provides administrative support for two Public Facilities Districts. This provides only a nominal source of revenue as these two districts require a minimal time on behalf of BFCOG staff. Annually this is less than $2,500 total and minimal net revenue. Page 52 of 300 Funding Sources Local Funds •As part of the BFCOG Interlocal Agreement, member jurisdictions agree to fund the operations of BFCOG. Local funds are required to balance the organizational budget after all other forms of funding have been applied. Federal Transportation Programs –13.5% Local Match WSDOT RTPO Program –No Required Local Match CEDS Planning Grant –100% Local Match ($75K per year*) No other current program funding requires a local match. BFCOG board must approve any grant application that would require local matching dollars on behalf of the jurisdiction members. FY2022 Local Funding Total -$260,774 Important Note About Local Funds BFCOG has limited its annual dues to only those funds required for required program matching for many years. BFCOG has operated with limited operational staff, subsidizing overhead expenses, when necessary, from its reserve funds, which have been nearly depleted. The only source of operational funds beyond what is recouped through indirect rates on our federal programs are local funds.Page 53 of 300 Questions?Page 54 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 9, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Bob Gear, Fire Chief Fire Department SUBJECT: Technical Rescue Program I. REFERENCE(S): Technical Rescue Program Executive Summary Technical Rescue Program PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation and Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Fire the jobs, industrial and population the increased has region As in Departments in the Tri-Cities area require the application of special knowledge, skills, and equipment to safely resolve unique and complex rescue situations. Some complex rescue incidents crews face include; include extricating people trapped as a result of industrial accidents, hiking mishaps, jumpers on one of the area bridges, or a drowning incident in one of the area rivers. Generally, over the past two decades there has been a boom in both industry and outdoor recreation activities such as, boating, hiking, mountain biking, water skiing, and hunting. V. DISCUSSION: Industrial and outdoor recreation have inherent risks and with that risk, accidents occur that require the need fo r specialized rescue. The Fire Departments must be prepared to mitigate mishaps and misadventures when they occur, which may include extricating people trapped in industrial equipment or confined spaces. The rescue operations may include removing people who have fallen off a hiking Page 55 of 300 or mountain bike trail into a ravine or have been involved in a boating or skiing accident. Fire Pasco the rescue technical capabilities, need critical a Seeing for Department implemented a technical rescue program that include s high angle and low angle rope rescue, confined space rescue, structural collapse and trench rescue, vehicle & machinery rescue, and water rescue. The technical rescue capabilities are divided into three (3) specific teams, the land technical rescue team, the vehicle & machinery rescue team and the water rescue team. of technical specific the approach took Department Fire Pasco The the disciplines to ensure that all of its staff are trained to the rescue technician level in accordance with WAC 296-305 and the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1670. Additionally, this approach allows Pasco firefighters to concentrate on a specific rescue discipline and to maintain proficiency in their rescue skills. The land rescue team currently has 18 rescue technicians (6 members on each of the three shifts), the water rescue team 18 rescue technicians (6 members on each of the three shifts), and the vehicle and machinery rescue team has 9 (3 members on each of the three shifts). The team members are required to attend monthly training and are tested annually on their rescue skills. Also, the Pasco Fire Department land technical rescue team train with the Kennewick and Richland Fire Department land technical rescue teams to ensure interoperability and continuity of operations in the event a complex technical rescue incident should occur that requires the resources of all three Fire Departments to mitigate the rescue incident. Page 56 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 57 of 300 Technical Rescue Program •Technical Rescue: Is the use of specialized tools and skills for rescue. Vehicle and Machinery Extrication Confined Space Rescue Rope Rescue Trench Rescue Structural Collapse Rescue Water and Ice Rescue •The Pasco Fire Department has three specific Technical Rescue Teams. Land Rescue Team Water Rescue Team Vehicle and Machinery TeamPage 58 of 300 Technical Rescue Program •The Land Rescue Team is trained to mitigate emergencies that occur in: Confined Spaces/Industrial Environments High and Low Angle Incidents Trench/Excavation Collapse Structural/Building Collapse •“Confined Space” means any place, including any chamber, tank, vat, silo, trench, pipe, sewer, or other similar space, by virtue of its enclosed nature, there is a reasonably foreseeable risk. •“Rope Rescue” is a subset of technical rescue that involves the use of static nylon kernmantle ropes, anchoring and belaying devices and other specialized equipment to reach victims and safely recover them. •“Trench Rescue” is a specialized form of rescue, a subset of confined space rescue. Trench rescue involves shoring up the sides of a trench and digging a trapped worker out of a collapsed ditch. •“Structural Collapse Rescue” refers to the response of a structural failure or component to maintain its structural integrity. Structures that could collapse include buildings and bridges. It is necessary to use shoring to extricate trapped victims. Page 59 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 60 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 61 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 62 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 63 of 300 Technical Rescue Program •The Water Rescue Team is trained to mitigate emergencies that occur in: Flood Water Swift Water –Columbia River Open Water (Rivers, Lakes, and Ponds) ICE Rescue •Water rescue is any incident that involves the removal of victims from any body of water other than a swimming pool. •However, in the Tri-Cites area PFD responds to primarily open water incidents because of the rivers, lakes and ponds in our area. •Our responses include ice rescue incidents because of the limited length of the winter season and victims often misjudge the thickness and stability of the ice.Page 64 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 65 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 66 of 300 Technical Rescue Program •The Vehicle and Machinery Rescue Team is trained to mitigate emergencies that occur in: Industrial Machines Farm Equipment Heavy Equipment (Tractor and Trailers, Heavy Trucks, Buses, and Trains) •Vehicle and Machinery Rescue: is any incident that involves the removal of a victim that is entangled in industrial and farm machinery, and vehicles of any size with an emphasis on large or heavy vehicles. Page 67 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 68 of 300 Technical Rescue Program Page 69 of 300 ANY QUESTIONS?Page 70 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 9, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Public Records Requests Update I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: City Clerk Debby Barham will Provide an Update Regarding the City of Pasco's Public Records Requests III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Processing Public Records Requests has evolved in the past 15 years, do in large part to additional state mandates and a desire by the public for specific information. As a result, additional staff time has been dedicated to receiving, processin g, documenting and responding to public records requests. The implementation of the public records requests software to meet state reporting requirements was implemented, as well as required on-going training of City staff related to records management. These actions have been the bulk of the contributing factors related to the increase costs to the City in processing and reporting on public records requests. Page 71 of 300 V. DISCUSSION: The presentation will focus on public records requests and the associated costs to the City of Pasco by providing highlights from the 2018, 2019 and 2020 Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) Reports. Page 72 of 300 Pasco City Council Meeting March 14, 2022Page 73 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Page 74 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Background 2017 New Washington State Legislature requirements: •Public Records Retention •Management •Disclosure Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, “JLARC” CreatedPage 75 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Background •Prior to the 2017 state mandate •Used Access database, electronic folders and email •Did not meet JLARC Requirements •First JLARC report submitted in June 2018 •2019 –Next Request Implemented •Assists in Managing Data and Reporting •Offers Online Service to the Public Page 76 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Highlights from the 2018-2020 JLARC Reports Baseline Data Page 77 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Highlights from the 2018-2020 JLARC Reports Page 78 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Highlights from the 2018-2020 JLARC Reports Page 79 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Highlights from the 2018-2020 JLARC Reports Page 80 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Highlights from the 2018-2020 JLARC Reports Page 81 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Highlights from the 2018-2020 JLARC Reports Page 82 of 300 Public Records Requests Update Final Comments •2020 COVID-19 Pandemic •2021 JLARC Report •City Clerk’s Office: 1.Refine the public records requests process and reporting 2.Provide quality training 3.Provide excellent customer servicePage 83 of 300 Pasco City Council Meeting March 14, 2022Page 84 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 7, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director Finance SUBJECT: Ordinance - Amending PMC Title 3 Related to Miscellaneous Late Fees I. REFERENCE(S): Draft Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal; it is intended to offset associated labor and any operational costs incurred in processing statements for delinquent accounts. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Depending upon the type of service, the City uses specific billing tools. Bill source and production is often tied to specialized accounting software that includes a methodology for billing and collection. The list of these uniquely handled services are utilities, ambulance transport, code enforcement and, in some cases, permitting and planning fees. Beginning in 2019, the City initiated use of the Miscellaneous Billing module of its financial software package, New World. The existing fee structure outlined in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) for accounts billed as Miscellaneous Accounts Receivables that have been deemed past due is incompatible with processing possibilities in New World. Additionally, staff determined the late fee structure outlined in the PMC, if followed, not only required an inordinate amount of staff time, but also presented a framework that imposes too many fees on customers and negatively delays complete payment by customers. Page 85 of 300 In some cases, a fee structure exists based on a contractual agreement, for example, leases. In these cases, any agreed upon late structure will be followed, when consistent with New World billing capability. Otherwise, the late fee structure outlined in the PMC for miscellaneous accounts receivable will be followed. V. DISCUSSION: The existing PMC outlines the following fees for miscellaneous bills; late payment, phone and collection fee, pre-collection, collection turnover fee, an installment plan origination fee, and an installment plan monthly bill fee. The goal is to have customers successfully pay outstanding bills. As such staff's aim is to establish a billing structure that is simple to understand where late fee assessment is rare and nonpunitive. As complete payment is desired, payment arrangements are also allowed. Upon the agreement of the Council, the order of events and the new miscellaneous billing late fee structure will be as follows: 1. The customer is billed for service. This initial bill allows for thirty (30) days to pay in full or make a payment arrangement. 2. If full payment is not received or no payment arrangement is in effect, a second billing is produced with notice and a $10 late payment fee assessed. This second notice allows for another thirty (30) days. This late fee helps cover the cost of labor for repeat statement production, late fee assessment, posting, and mailing costs. 3. At the end of sixty (60) days since original bill creation, should a balance remain or no payment arrangement be in effect and followed, a third notice that acts as a final billing and pre-collection letter is produced. This final notice allows for another thirty (30) days for payment or payment arrangement. A $10 late fee is assessed. 4. Should an account remain past due with no active and followed payment arrangement at 120 days in arrears, the account information will be prepared with appropriate information for transfer of accounts to the collection agency. A $10 late fee is assessed. The requested, changed process will eliminate the phone and collection fee, the pre-collection fee, the installment plan origination fee, and the installment plan monthly bill fee. Should the new miscellaneous accounts receivable late fee structure be approved, below is an outline of late fees associated with various billing systems maintained by the City. Page 86 of 300 Source/Service Payment Arrangement Late Fee Notes Utilities Available $10 phone fee Partially offset the cost associated with operational cost - labor, services, and supplies Code Enforcement Available None- assessed as part of code board process NA Ambulance Transport Available None NA Miscellaneous: Examples, leases, cemetery, engineering services Available $10 late fee Partially offset the cost associated with operational cost - labor, services, and supplies As a public entity, the City is precluded from gifting public services. This requirement serves to ensure financial stewardship of the processes and services in place for public benefit, as well as to support equitable treatment for customers and citizens that receive those services. The imposition of a late fee is meant only to encourage prompt payment and help offset the cost of processing and overseeing late a ccounts. For these reasons, a change from the existing late fee structure to a simple, easy to process, and understand fee structure is requested. Page 87 of 300 Ordinance – Amending PMC Related to Misc. Late Fees - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, AMENDING PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 3.70 THE “MISCELLANEOUS BILLING MANAGEMENT,” AND SECTION 3.35.100 “MISCELLANEOUS" FEES, RELATED TO LATE FEES. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) provides various services for the benefit of the public, which include associated fees, for those miscellaneous services, that are billed to its customers; and WHEREAS, the City is precluded from gifting public goods and services, which requires payment for such goods and services; and WHEREAS, delinquent payments for the fees incurred detrimentally affects the City’s cash flow and results in a greater effort in labor and supplies to redeem delinquent payments; and WHEREAS, the City’s Finance Department is desirous of updating its Miscellaneous Billing process and Miscellaneous Fee structure as it relates to late fees by making it simple to understand and apply late fees in the event of delinquent payments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the PMC Chapter 3.70 “Miscellaneous Billing Management” is hereby amended and shall read as follows: Chapter 3.70 MISCELLANEOUS BILLING MANAGEMENT Sections: 3.70.010 Definitions. 3.70.020 Failure to receive mail – Change in address or ownership. 3.70.030 Order of payment. 3.70.040 Billing. 3.70.050 Delinquency. 3.70.060 Ambulance insurance coverage. 3.70.070 Cemetery services. 3.70.080 Installment payment plans. 3.70.090 Back bills – Prepayment required. 3.70.100 Hearing and appeal. 3.70.010 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, certain terms or words shall be interpreted or defined as follows. Except as defined in this section all words in this chapter shall Page 88 of 300 Ordinance – Amending PMC Related to Misc. Late Fees - 2 carry the customary meanings. Words used in the present tense include the future and the future includes the present and the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural. This chapter specifically excludes debts and services covered by Chapter 3.65 PMC, Utility Billing Management, or is set out by specific contract (e.g., rents), or is set out by specific ordinance or resolution (e.g., Local Improvement District debt). If contracts are silent as to payment terms or conditions, then this chapter shall apply. “Billing office” means the Finance Division office inside City Hall, which is located at 525 N 3rd Ave. Pasco, WA. It specifically excludes the drop box located at City Hall or any other location. “Director” means the Director of Finance, and his or her designee. “Miscellaneous Billing” means instances of City supplied services that require compensation but are not included in another existing billing software system or process. “Office business hours” means Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. excluding holidays when City offices are closed. “Office nonbusiness hours” means any days and hours not included in office business hours. “Paid” means payment that has been received, processed and posted to the customer’s account. [Code 1970 § 3.300.010.] 3.70.020 Failure to receive mail – Change in address or ownership. Failure to receive mail shall not be recognized as a valid excuse for failure to pay bills when due. Change in ownership of property and change in mailing address must be made in writing to the Finance Department. All bills and notices, including delinquency and collection notices shall be sent to the customer’s billing address provided the City. [Code 1970 § 3.300.020.] 3.70.030 Order of payment. Payments received shall be applied against outstanding charges in the following order: Interest and finance charges, late and penalty fees, collection charges, then charges in the order listed on the invoice. Overpayments may be applied to other invoices for the same customer. If no other outstanding invoices exist, then the overpayment shall be refunded. Refunds will be issued within two weeks of the receipt of the overpayment. [Code 1970 § 3.300.030.] 3.70.040 Billing. All charges shall be due immediately upon billing and become delinquent if not paid in full to the billing office during office hours within 3028 days of the original Page 89 of 300 Ordinance – Amending PMC Related to Misc. Late Fees - 3 bill date. Late fees, and penalty fees and collections fees are considered delinquent when assessed. Bills shall include notice of availability of an installment payment plan when applicable and the process for the customer to request such a payment plan. [Code 1970 § 3.300.040.] 3.70.050 Delinquency. Delinquent bills shall be processed as follows: (1) Invoices that are not paid in full within 3028 days will incur a penalty known as a “late payment penalty” in an amount as set forth in Chapter 3.35 PMC. A delinquent notice indicating the amount of the invoice and penalty will be mailed. The notice shall also include the timeline for the addition of future collection fees as outlined in subsections (2) and (3) of this section (at 38 days and 45 days) as well as the process for the customer to dispute charges or request a payment plan (if applicable). (2) Bills not paid in full within 38 days from the original bill date will incur a collection fee known as “phone and collection fee” in an amount as set forth in Chapter 3.35 PMC. The customer will be called at the phone number provided by the customer to the City Finance Department. If no phone number is provided, the City, at a minimum, will check the local phone book to try and locate a phone number. The collection fee applies irrespective of the phone call outcome. (2)(3) Bills not paid in full within 6045 days of the original bill date will be flagged to turn over to an outside collection agency for followup. A “pre-collect” notice will be sent informing the customer they have 30 days to either pay in full (including penalties and collection charges) or dispute the charges, or their account will be turned over to an outside collection agency, and that an additional collection fee has been added. Customers will also be notified that once the bill (including penalties and collections charges) has been turned over for collection then their right to dispute charges becomes forfeit and the account will not be withdrawn from the outside collection process once it is turned over. A collection fee known as a “pre-collection fee” in an amount as set forth in Chapter 3.35 PMC will be added. (3)(4) Bills (including penalties and collections charges) not paid in full within 12075 days of the original bill date and which are not in dispute and which are not covered by an installment payment plan will be turned over to an outside collection agency. Accounts turned over to an outside collection agency incur an additional latecollection fee by the City known as the “collection turnover fee” at the time of transfer as set forth in Chapter 3.35 PMC and will incur interest charges at the maximum rate allowed by state law starting with the date of transfer. [Code 1970 § 3.300.050.] 3.70.060 Ambulance insurance coverage. The responsibility for payment of ambulance and medical service charges remains with the patient (or patient’s family if a minor). In the case of ambulance charges, if the customer assigns the right to collect payment from an insurance company and provides all information and approvals when requested, the City will bill the Page 90 of 300 Ordinance – Amending PMC Related to Misc. Late Fees - 4 insurance company directly. Once the insurance company has paid, then the remaining amount will be billed to the customer per PMC 3.70.040. If the insurance company has not paid within 60 days, then the full amount will be billed to the customer per PMC 3.70.040. The customer may request an installment payment plan per PMC 3.70.080. If insurance proceeds are later received by the City then the overpayment will be refunded to the customer. [Code 1970 § 3.300.060.] 3.70.070 Cemetery services. All cemetery goods and services must be paid for either at the time of sale, or before burial; provided, however upon acceptance of application for time payment, the account may be paid over time as follows: 50 percent of the invoice must be paid prior to burial; the remaining amount exceeding $1,500 must be paid within 60 days. The last $1,500 must be paid no later than 12 months from the original invoice date. [Code 1970 § 3.300.070.] 3.70.080 Installment payment plans. Per PMC 3.60.040 credit cards are accepted for all billed debts. The City is considered the lender of last resort when there are no savings or other credit avenues available. An installment plan is not authorized merely as a mechanism for customer convenience. All installment payment plans must be in writing in a form prescribed by the City and signed by both the customer and the Director. Installment payment plans are available as follows: (1) For debts owed by individuals only. Installment plans are not available for debts owed by corporations, partnerships, businesses or other entities or associations. (2) For debts as defined in PMC 3.70.010. (3) All installment payment plans must provide for payment in full within no later than 12 months of the original bill date with $100.00 per month as the recommended minimum payment. An applicant may request a financial hardship waiver from the Director who is authorized to set a lower monthly payment. Such lower payment shall be no less than $50.00 per month. (4) There shall be a charge known as the “installment plan origination fee” as well as a flat rate, per installment, processing fee known as the “in stallment processing fee.” Both amounts are set forth in Chapter 3.35 PMC. [Code 1970 § 3.300.080.] 3.70.090 Back bills – Prepayment required. An applicant who is liable to the City for unpaid, past due charges may be required to prepay for future services. Service may be denied to any person or persons who use any deceptive, unlawful, or misleading means or device whatsoever to avoid or minimize the payment for services or other charges owed. [Code 1970 § 3.300.090.] 3.70.100 Hearing and appeal. Any person aggrieved by the assessment of any charge, fee, or penalty, may, within 10 days of receipt of the City’s billing to which they are objecting, in writing upon Page 91 of 300 Ordinance – Amending PMC Related to Misc. Late Fees - 5 a form provided by the City, request an informal administrative hearing before the Director. The Director hearing this dispute shall be authorized to correct any errors to the customer’s billing. The appeal hearing shall be scheduled by the Director at City Hall and conducted during regular business hours within seven business days of receipt of the appeal. A written decision shall be delivered to the customer at the address designated on the appeal within 10 days of the hearing. [Ord. 4161, 2014; Code 1970 § 3.300.100.] Section 2. That the PMC, Section 3.26.100 “Miscellaneous,” under Division II Fees, is hereby amended and shall read as follows: 3.35.100 Miscellaneous. Fee/Charge Reference Photocopy fees – per copy $0.15 Admin. Order 42 Returned payment fee $25.00 3.60.010 Late pay penalty $10.00 3.70.050(1) Phone and collection fee $10.00 3.70.050(2) Precollection fee $10.00 3.70.050(3) Collection turnover fee (charges, penalties and fees) 5% 3.70.050(4) Installment plan origination fee ($10.00 min) 3% 3.70.080(4) Installment plan monthly bill fee $5.00 3.70.070 [Ord. 4338, 2017; Ord. 4161, 2014; Ord. 3926, 2009; Ord. 3713, 2005; Ord. 3553, 2002; Ord. 3543, 2002; Code 1970 § 3.07.090.] Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. Page 92 of 300 Ordinance – Amending PMC Related to Misc. Late Fees - 6 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ____ day of __________ 2022. _____________________________ Blanche Barajas Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: _____________________________ Page 93 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 7, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Angela Pashon, Senior Management Analyst Executive SUBJECT: American Rescue Plan Act Projects List and Staff Recommendations I. REFERENCE(S): ARPA Project Lists Boys & Girls Club Facility Improvements List PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 11, 2021, the President of the United States signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which included $350 billion in federal fiscal recovery aid to state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments. The City of Pasco was allocated $17,400,000 in ARPA funding. Several projects have been approved by City Council, many of which have been completed or will require full expenditure of approved funds (see Approved ARPA Projects attached). These projects include: • Business Assistance • Utility Assistance (garbage, water, and electric) • Community Resource Specialist • Community Vaccination Clinics • City Water Infrastructure Projects (resulted in offsetting utility rate increases) Page 94 of 300 Prompt Council action through these efforts has impacted the lives of all Pasco's residents and businesses to one degree or another. The list above comprises $12.64 million of the City's ARPA allocation. V. DISCUSSION: At present, $4.75 million of the $17.4 million in ARPA funds allocated to the City remain available for programming. The Council has reviewed, but not allocated ARPA funds to a number of other projects, the total of which exceed the remaining ARPA funds. Staff is seeking direction on the pending ARPA projects (list below) to determine Council's allocation priorities. CenterMLK State through $1 secured million City The : successfully appropriation during the 2021 legislative session. Additionally, staff are exploring partnership opportunities to enhance services. This project is estimated to cost up to $6.5 million, staff estimates that approximately $2.5 million will be required to support this critical quality of life project. Regional Mental Health Services: City staff is actively participating in regional planning efforts to provide for such services, however with the relatively recent decisions by the Benton and Franklin County Commissions to enact a 0.1% sales tax, those discussions have only recently started in earnest. The extend to which funding beyond that which will be provided through the 0.1% mental health sales tax is unknown. Staff proposes that the Council consider reserving up to $2 million support a possible city-share of funding regional efforts such as: • The Mobile Outreach Professionals (MOP), a program which provides behavioral with police the tandem to ride professionals health in department, is expiring June 30,2022. Regional fire and police agencies are progressing on a replacement program which is anticipated to be stood up prior to the end of the current MOP program. • Two Rivers Behavioral Health Recovery Center - this project may be determined moot if fully funded by mental health sales tax revenue. Business Improvement - Phase I (Outdoor Dining): This program would further support outdoor dining, a program clearly outlined in the ARPA guidelines, through support to furniture and to required purchased funding fencing downtown eateries. Staff recommends up to $100K. Business Improvement - Phase II (Building Improvements): Previously titled "Life Safety", ARPA guidelines do not provide for the use of ARPA funds to fund improvements such as fire sprinkler systems in privately owned buildings, staff Page 95 of 300 has requested guidance from Department of Treasury on private business improvements. Facility Upgrades - Boys & Girls Club: This City-owned property is used to provide education and childcare services. City staff completed a site evaluation with the tenant (Boys & Girls Club) and identify improvements for safety, security and longevity/expansion of facility and services (see attachment). Staff recommends $500k of funding for this project. HAPO Center Improvements: Franklin County completed a facility assessment to determine improvements for the longevity of the HAPO Center. Phase I improvements were identified as: HVAC controls and electrical renovations for the Expo Center, Atrium & meeting rooms; internal/external lighting upgrades; and roof repair/refurbishment and snow guards. City staff have been approached by Franklin County to request funding consideration of necessary improvements. Staff requests Council discussion and direction on the prioritization of the remaining $4.75 million in ARPA funds. Page 96 of 300 Approved ARPA ProjectsProject Title AgencyCompletion StatusAuthorized amountActual to-dateProjected Program AllocationUnallocatedBusiness Assistance Chamber of Commerce Completed $2,970,000 $1,952,105 $1,952,105 $1,017,895Utility Assistance Franklin PUD/City of Pasco Completed $1,050,000 $1,081,277 $1,081,277 $0Utility Assistance BDI Ongoing $110,000 $30,881 $110,000 $0Community Resource Specialist City of Pasco Ongoing $450,000 $50,000 $450,000 $0Project: Zone 3 Transmission Project City of Pasco Ongoing $3,000,000 $76,245 $3,000,000 $0Project: West Pasco Water Treatment Plant Expansion - Phase 1City of Pasco Ongoing $6,000,000 $875,805 $6,000,000 $0Community Vaccination ClinicsTri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of CommerceCompleted $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0$12,643,382Page 97 of 300 Pending ARPA Projects $5,100,000 $21,600Project Name Project Summary AgencyStaff Recommended ARPA AllocationEstimated Total Project CostActual-to-Date ExpensesMartin Luther King Center ConstructionFunding for the design and reconstruction of community center.City of Pasco $2,500,000 $6,500,000 $0Business Improvement - Phase I (Outdoor Seating)Support outdoor dining with program to supply required fencing, tables/chairs, or other equipment.City of Pasco $100,000 $100,000 $0Business Improvement - Phase II(Building Improvements)In late 2021, City staff contracted with a 3rd party fire safety engineer for a voluntary assessment of downtown businesses. Five businesses opted to complete the assessment process; the final report is pending. Staff is awaiting further direction from Treasury on use of ARPA funds for private business building improvements.City of PascoNeed Treasury guidanceNeed Treasury guidance$21,600Regional Mental HealthFunding to support ongoing regional efforts to improve behavioral health services and facilitiesCity of Pasco/ Regional Partners $2,000,000 TBD $0Boys & Girls Club BuildingThis City property is used to provide education and childcare services. City staff completed a site evaluation with the tenant (Boys & Girls Club) and identify improvements for safety, security and longevity/expansion of facility and services. Boys & Girls Club/City of Pasco $500,000 $1,540,000 $0HAPO Center ImprovementsFranklin County completed a facility assessment to determine improvements for the longevity of the HAPO Center. Phase I improvements were identified as: HVAC controls and electrical renovations for the Expo Center, Atrium & meeting rooms; internal/external lighting upgrades; and roof repair/refurbishment and snow guards.City of Pasco/Franklin County Undetermined $5.6-$7.2 million $0 Page 98 of 300 Project Notes Priority Est. Cost Asphalt Resurfacing Parking Lot, utility access, and Recreation Spaces A $285,000 ADA Accessible Entry Stair resurfacing, ramp installation, sidewalk access A $60,000 Modular Infrastructure Water/Sewer/Electrical (rough ins‐tie in with parking lot resurfacing) A $45,000 Teen Center (Modular) Addition of a 2,000sf modular adjacent to the building to increase capacity A $300,000 $690,000 Fire Sprinkler Install 20,000sf interior coverage with drop ceiling B $200,000 Hallway Refurbishment New Flooring, windows (interior), lighting, and asbestos abatement B $120,000 Bathroom Update Update restrooms to single‐ use and ADA compliance B $200,000 $520,000 Exterior Lighting Installation of energy efficient lighting. Not many lights in parking lot or on sidewalk. Safety upgrade foremost C $50,000 Gymnasium Renovation New Floor, safety wall upgrades, new baskets C $150,000 Kitchen & Cafeteria Renovation to upgrade kitchen and add dedicated space for snacks and meals C $80,000 Control Entry Addition of security measures for a control desk and ability to lockdown building C $50,000 $330,000 Total Ask $1,540,000 Boys & Girls Club Facility Improvements List Page 99 of 300 American Rescue Plan Act Project List March 14, 2022Page 100 of 300 Overview •American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) signed on March 11, 2021 •Intended to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, including public health and economic impacts •Included $350 billion in federal recovery aid to state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments •City of Pasco allocated $17.4 millionPage 101 of 300 Approved Projects •Business Assistance administered through Pasco Chamber of Commerce •$1.95 million •Utility Assistance (garbage,water,and electric) •$1.19 million •Community Resources Specialist •$450k •Community Vaccination Clinics through Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce •$50k •City Water Infrastructure Projects resulting in offsetting utility rate increases •$9 million •Total Allocated = $12.64 millionPage 102 of 300 Pending Projects Unallocated ARPA Funds = $4.75 million Project Name Staff Recommendations Estimated Total Project Cost Martin Luther King Center Construction $2,500,000 $6,500,000 Business Improvement -Phase I (Outdoor Seating)$100,000 $100,000 Business Improvement -Phase II (Building Improvements) Need Treasury Guidance Need Treasury Guidance Regional Mental Health $2,000,000 TBD Boys & Girls Club Building $500,000 $1,540,000 HAPO Center Improvements Undetermined $5.6-$7.2 millionPage 103 of 300 Questions?Page 104 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council February 23, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution - Bid Award Riverview East Sewer Lift Station I. REFERENCE(S): Resolution Bid Tabs Vicinity Map PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Proposed Contract Award: $936,885.68 2021-2022 Adopted Budget: Sewer Fund (450) $1,400,000 Secured 2017 Utility Revenue Bond $ 300,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Riverview East Sewer Lift Station project, originally titled Road 52 & Pearl Lift Station, is intended to support development within the East Riverview area at an appropriate density. The construction of this lift station will make properties within this sub-basin area (as described in the 2020 Sewer Comprehensive Plan Addendum) able to be served with City Sanitary Sewer. The work to be performed includes: • installation of a new packaged sewer lift station (two pumps at 120 GPM each) with associated site improvements Page 105 of 300 • installation of approximately 2,200 linear feet of 4 -inch-diameter force main • installation of approximately 400 linear feet of 12 -inch-diameter gravity sewer main The lift station will have the capacity to reliably serve 267 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). A development with 56 ERUs to be served by this lift station is currently going through the plat process. Similar developments within this basin are anticipated to follow in the near term. This contract provides the Contractor one-hundred and twenty (120) working days to physically complete the work. V. DISCUSSION: The project was advertised for bids on January 28, 2022. On February 17, 2022, bids were publicly opened. A total of six (6) bids were received. The lowest responsible, responsive bidder is Big D's Construction of Pasco, WA in the amount of $936,885.68. The Engineer's Estimate is $1,102,478.96. Based on the bids received, the project is anticipated to be completed within budget and no budget adjustments are necessary at this time. The Engineer of Record and City staff completed the review of the bid submittal and found no exemptions or irregularities. Staff recommends award of the contract to Big D's Construction of Pasco, WA. Page 106 of 300 Resolution – Bid Award for the Riverview East Sewer Lift Station (Road 52 &Pearl) project - 1 RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AWARDING BID NO. 19053 FOR THE RIVERVIEW EAST SEWER LIFT STATION (AKA ROAD 52 & PEARL STREET LIFT STATION) PROJECT TO BIG D’S CONSTRUCTION OF TRI-CITIES, INC. OF PASCO, WASHINGTON AND FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND ALLOWING ALL NECESSARY BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has an identified capital improvement public works project described as the Riverview East Sewer Lift Station (AKA Road 52 & Pearl Street Lift Station), hereinafter “the project”; and WHEREAS, the project includes installation of a new packaged sewer lift station with associated site improvements, installation of approximately 2,200 linear feet of 4 -inch-diameter force main, and installation of approximately 400 linear feet of 12-inch-diameter gravity sewer main; and WHEREAS, the City solicited sealed public bids for the project; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., six (6) bids were received and opened by the City; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsive bidder was Big D’s Construction with a Bid of $936,885.68, the Engineer’s Estimate was $1,102,478.96; and WHEREAS, the bid documentation was reviewed and the bidder was determined to be responsible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: That the City hereby awards the project to Big D’s Construction of Tri-Cities, Inc. of Pasco, Washington in the amount of $936,885.68, including Washington State Sales Tax; and Page 107 of 300 Resolution – Bid Award for the Riverview East Sewer Lift Station (Road 52 &Pearl) project - 2 Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force immediately upon passage by the City Council. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of March, 2022. Blanche Barajas Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Page 108 of 300 Bid Tabulations -Riverview East Sewer lift Station (Rd 52 & Pearl) Project #19053 Bid Date: February 17, 2.022 Item No. Description Quant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mobilization Pothole Existing Utility Clearing and Grubbing Site Work Temporary Shoring for Lift Station Excavation Package Lift Station Electrical and Co1trols PVC 55 Pipe 12-in Diam. PVC 55 Pipe 8-in Diam. DI 55 Pipe 4-in Diam. Manhole 48-in Diam. Type 1 Connect to Existing Manhole Bedding Select Backfill Trench Shoring Pavement Preparation Crushed Surfacing Base Course Crushed Surfacing Top Course Cold Mix Asphalt Temporary Patch Hot Mix Asphalt Trench Patch Adjust Monument Case and Cover Unscheduled Excavation Dewatering and Control of Discharge Water Sediment and Erosion Control Project Temporary Traffic Control Construction Survey Testing and Startup O&M Manuals and On-Site Owner Training Record Drawings Minor Change Fc>rce Account Riverview East Sewer Lift Station Bid Opening 2-1 i'-22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 380 10 2218 1 1 400 500 2608 1 370 430 164 164 1 230 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Contractor: Engineer's Estimate Big D's Construction Unit Unit Price Total Amount Unit Price Total Amount LS $75,300.00 $ 75,300.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 EA $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 LS $6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 LS $48,000.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 LS $52,000.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 LS $254,000.00 $ 254,000.00 $ 165,000.00 $ 165,000.00 LS $172,500.00 $ 172,500.00 $ 175,000.00 $ 175,000.00 LF $134.00 $ 50,920.00 $ 130.00 $ 49,400.00 LF $100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 100.00 s 1,000.00 LF $52.00 $ 115,336.00 $ 22.00 $ 48,796.00 EA $6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 TON $20.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 6,000.00 TON $20.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 7,500.00 LF $1.00 $ 2,608.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,608.00 LS $13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 TON $30.00 $ 11,100.00 $ 20.00 $ 7,400.00 TON $37.00 $ 15,910.00 $ 20.00 $ 8,600.00 TON $110.00 $ 18,040.00 $ 120.00 $ 19,680.00 TON $190.00 $ 31,160.00 $ 140.00 $ 22,960.00 EA $1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 CY $20.00 s 4,600.00 $ 25.00 $ 5,750.00 LS $55,000.00 s 55,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 LS $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 LS $12,000.00 s 12,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 LS $8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 LS $6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 LS $6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 LS $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 LS $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Subtotal: $ 1,015,174.00 862,694.00 Subtotal: $ 1,015,174.00 862,694.00 WA St Sales Tax (8.6%): $ 87,304.96 $ $ $ 74,191.68 GRAND TOTAL: $ 1,102,478.96 $ 936,885.68 Controctor: Contractor: C&E Trenching DW Excavating Unit Price Total Amount Unit Price Total Amount $ 44,400.00 $ 44,400.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 815.00 $ 815.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 s 3,800.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 57,000.00 $ 57,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 202,000.00 $ 202,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 140.00 $ 53,200.00 $ 215.00 $ 81,700.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 218.00 $ 2,180.00 $ 22.00 $ 48,796.00 $ 41.00 $ 90,938.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 29.00 $ 14,500.00 $ 1.00 $ 2,608.00 $ 1.30 $ 3,390.40 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 22.00 $ 8,140.00 $ 37.00 $ 13,690.00 $ 22.00 $ 9,460.00 $ 37.00 $ 15,910.00 $ 135.00 $ 22,140.00 $ 183.00 $ 30,012.00 $ 150.00 $ 24,600.00 $ 152.00 $ 24,928.00 s 2,500.00 s 2,500.00 $ 900.00 $' 900.00 $ 18.00 $ 4,140.00 $ 22.00 $ 5,060.00 s 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 17,700.00 $ 17,700.00 s 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 11,300.00 $ 11,300.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,300.00 $ 7,300.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 986.91 $ 986.91 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 876,084.00 $ 920,810.31 $ 876,084.00 $ 920,810.31 $ 75,343.22 $ 79,189.69 $ 951,427.22 $ 1,000,000.00 Page 1 of2 Page 109 of 300 Page 110 of 300 VICINITY MAP Page 111 of 300 Pasco City Council Workshop Meeting March 14, 2022Page 112 of 300 PWRF Irrigation Pump Station -Before VICINITY MAP Page 113 of 300 PWRF Irrigation Pump Station -In-Progress RIVERVIEW EAST SEWER BASIN AREA Page 114 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 9, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Ordinance - Amending Pasco Municipal Code Related to Corner Lot Fencing (CA2021-009) I. REFERENCE(S): Draft Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting Reports and Minutes from August 2021 to January 2022 Exhibit A - Existing Regulations Exhibit B - Existing Regulations II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: 1. When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Exhibit A. 2. When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Exhibit B. Page 115 of 300 Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. The Pasco Planning Commission has exerted considerable effort on this issue, it was considered at their August 15, 2021 and September 16, 2021 workshops and the Commission held multiple public hearings on October 21, 2021, November 18, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 20, 2022. V. DISCUSSION: Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a corner lot must be set back significantly, further than what would be a safe and uniform distance from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or overly stringent requirements depending on how that lot ultimately develops. The proposed ordinance provides: • When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses; and • When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback 15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street After consideration at six workshops and meetings, the Planning Commission recommended that fence setbacks be revised as described above and contained in the draft ordinance. Page 116 of 300 Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, AMENDING PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.165.100 “RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS” AND 25.180.050 “DESIGN STANDARDS” RELATED TO FENCING DESIGN AND PLACEMENT STANDARDS ON CORNER LOTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained ; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has Subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth and development ; and WHEREAS, fencing design standard s require setbacks from neighboring dwellings; and WHEREAS, residential design standards do not provide provisions for maintaining standard lot accesses; and WHEREAS, without such ordinance, placement of fences on corner lots is problematic and ambiguous when lots are not developed simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to maintain and protect the welfare of the community and provided consistent and reasonable expectations for fence and dwelling placement, it is necessary to amend P MC Section 25.165.100 entitled “Design Standards” and PMC Section 25.180.050 entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges”. NOW, THER EFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT Y OF PASCO, WA SHING TON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section of PMC 25.165.100(1) is hereby amended and shall read as follows: 25.165.100 Residential design standards. (1) Design Standards. Except for multifamily structures, the following design standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings in the RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts: (a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed; (b) When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be addressed or accessed from the shared street ; (c) (b) A minimum of 30 square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the Page 117 of 300 Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 2 dwelling facing the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with a minimum of a four-foot overhang; (d)(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling architecture; (e)(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be permitted to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and except for flat -pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design. (f)(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches; (g)(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted, provided the main roof includes one or more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a pitch of 5/12 or greater; (h)(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted, except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch; (i)(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block; (j)(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington; (k)(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street; (l)(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior-grade wood, or exterior-grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal conditions; (m)(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation one and one -half to two inches. A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation; (n)(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling must be cedar or other City-approved materials that are not subject to deterioration; (o)(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed; (p)(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling; (q)(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport; Page 118 of 300 Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 3 (r)(q) At least one required off -street parking space must be located behind the front building setback line of the dwelling. (2) Exceptions. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.200.080. [Ord. 4358 § 1, 2017; Ord. 4110 § 26, 2013; Ord. 3731 § 23, 2005; Code 1970 § 25.70.085.] Section 2. That Section of PMC 25.180.050 entitled “Design Standards” is hereby amended and shall read as follows: 25.180.050 Design standards. (1) Fences, Walls and Hedges. (a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and street or alley shall be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases where topographical irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between a structure and a common lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot line or top of any structural retaining wall occurring at the common lot line. (b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials used in any principal on-site structures. (c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right -of -way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street; except where the front door of a house faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5 feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street. (d) The height of fences, walls and hedg es within the side and rear yards of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to six feet. A gate or opening with a minimum three foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be provided. (e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi- colored materials, tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial districts, wheel rims and similar or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken wire, horseman wire mesh, v-mesh, field fence, woven field fence, welded utility fence, or any similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in residential or commercial zones. Horseman wire mesh and the other wire fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built Page 119 of 300 Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 4 with valid permits prior to the effective date of this chapter or fences on properties annexed to the City after the effective date of this chapter are exempt from this subsection. (f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns of up to five feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R-S-20 and R -S-12 districts provided said fencing is 85 percent transparent. (g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential district s, in the office district and the central business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. In the C -1 retail business district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top rail or within two inches of the top rail. (h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a secondary means of securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an existing fence or in suburban districts to contain permitted farm animals. (i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple frontage, rails, posts and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public street; except that posts and rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural support may be visible from a public street. (j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of any required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the street frontage. (k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet above curb grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property lines from the intersection of two streets, including the area between such points, or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and an alley; provided, however, that if an alternative fence material is used, such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the fence must be 75 percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a smaller, 75 percent transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall or other structure not exceeding a combined height of six feet may be erected within said area of intersection of street and alley, so long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter. (l) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in public right -of -way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in PMC 25.180.050(1)(j). (m) All residential fencing within the I -182 overlay district, as defined by PMC 25.130.020, adjacent to the I -182 right -of -way shall be constructed of masonry block. Replacement of pre- existing Surewood fences within the district shall use masonry block or cedar material prescribed by the City as Page 120 of 300 Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 5 prestained, knotless cedar 23/32-inch thick, five and one-half inches wide and six feet tall. (n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit from the Building Inspector. (2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it shall be complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as measured from its center, shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, or within five feet of a driveway or a fire hydrant. (3) Commercial and Industrial Districts. (a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an arterial street and the first five feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting a local access street shall be treated with landscaping at the time the property is developed. No less than 65 percent of the landscaped area must be treated with live vegetation at the time of planting. (b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless specified otherwise in Chapter 25.130 PMC, commercially and industrially zoned properties adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts shall have a 10-foot landscape buffer on the side immediately adjacent to the less intense zoning district. The landscaped buffer shall meet the following standards: (i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout the landscape buffer. (ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees. (iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center spacing along each property line, unless planted in groupings of three trees, with groupings spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each property line. (iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of one per eight linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center. (v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts require 100 percent of the landscape buffer to be planted with live vegetation. (c) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within right -of -way and exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress, shall be treated with landscape materials. (4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all residential property, including right -of -way but excluding driveways, shall be treated with live vegetation. Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC 12.12.070; and (5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements shall Page 121 of 300 Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 6 be maintained in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within established landscapes are excluded from this provision in residential districts. Front yard areas not covered by the required 50 percent live vegetation must be covered by mulches or decorative rock. [Ord. 4157 § 1, 2014; Ord. 4110 § 28, 2013; Ord. 3763 §10, 2006; Code 1970 § 25.75.050.] Section 3. 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 _____, 202_. _____________________________ Blanche Barajas Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: _____________________________ Page 122 of 300 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Background Current fencing regulations on corner lots have created situations where property owners have lodged complaints alleging “overreach”. Requests for an analysis into fence standards have been received by Planning staff. Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: (1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of- way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1. (2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2. Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent. Analysis City Planning staff has reviewed the PMC and analyzed recently platted land for potential fencing issues within flanking front yard areas. Through this analysis it was noted that currently many lots do not exist that still have the potential for stringent fence height restrictions in flanking front yards. It was also noted that many of the restricted lots were created within the past 10 years and that further review during platting processes (specifically PMC 21.20) regarding design of Lots and Blocks would be able to mitigate the creation of lots with problematic fence height restrictions. Page 123 of 300 2 Through the analysis three options were drafted for consideration for fencing in flanking front yards, with their associated pros and cons: Option 1: Allow fences up to 6’ in height within the flanking front yard area provided the fence is s setback a minimum of 10’ from the adjacent property line. See Figure 3.  Pros: i. Allows for taller fencing in flanking front yard areas.  Cons: i. Neighboring property would then have a 6’ fence within a portion of their front yard area should the fence be located on the shared property line. ii. If neighboring property has their driveway located near the shared property line with fencing-vision then may be an issue. Reversing out of the driveway adjacent to the 6’ fencing would cause visibility disruption of traffic on the shared frontage. This visibility disruption is also a safety consideration for any pedestrians that may be crossing the driveway area from the fence side. Option 2: Allow fences up to 6’ in height setback to the building line of the dwelling on the subject p parcel. The provision for the setback to the neighbors dwelling line would remain for s I t situations where the dwelling is setback further than the neighboring dwelling.  Pros: i. In situations where the adjacent dwelling is setback further than the minimum setback requirement this would allow 6’ fencing to be uniformly placed with the building line of the dwelling, but also allows for additional space in unique circumstances where the neighboring dwelling has a smaller setback to the shared frontage property line.  Cons: i. Only benefits situations where the adjacent dwelling is located closer to the shared frontage property line than the subject dwelling. Option 3: Maintain current PMC and Standards.  Pros: i. The current fence code allows for proper and standard locations of fencing provided that plats are created and platted such that they meet the PMC in regard to design of lots and blocks. Page 124 of 300 3  Cons: i. Existing lots will still maintain fencing restrictions in flanking front yard areas. Next Steps Staff is seeking initial comments and feedback before moving forward with any proposals or recommendations for an amendment to the PMC. Page 125 of 300 Page 126 of 300 Page 127 of 300 Page 128 of 300 Page 129 of 300 Page 130 of 300 Page 131 of 300 Page 132 of 300 Page 133 of 300 Page 134 of 300 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Background Current fencing regulations on corner lots have created situations where property owners have lodged complaints alleging “overreach”. Requests for an analysis into fence standards have been received by Planning staff. Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: (1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of- way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1. (2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2. Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent. Analysis City Planning staff has reviewed the PMC and analyzed recently platted land for potential fencing issues within flanking front yard areas. Through this analysis it was noted that currently many lots do not exist that still have the potential for stringent fence height restrictions in flanking front yards. It was also noted that many of the restricted lots were created within the past 10 years and that further review during platting processes (specifically PMC 21.20) regarding design of Lots and Blocks would be able to mitigate the creation of lots with problematic fence height restrictions. Page 135 of 300 2 Through the analysis three options were drafted for consideration for fencing in flanking front yards, with their associated pros and cons: Option 1: Allow fences up to 6’ in height within the flanking front yard area provided the fence is s setback a minimum of 10’ from the adjacent property line. See Figure 3.  Pros: i. Allows for taller fencing in flanking front yard areas.  Cons: i. Neighboring property would then have a 6’ fence within a portion of their front yard area should the fence be located on the shared property line. ii. If neighboring property has their driveway located near the shared property line with fencing-vision then may be an issue. Reversing out of the driveway adjacent to the 6’ fencing would cause visibility disruption of traffic on the shared frontage. This visibility disruption is also a safety consideration for any pedestrians that may be crossing the driveway area from the fence side. Option 2: Allow fences up to 6’ in height setback to the building line of the dwelling on the subject p parcel. The provision for the setback to the neighbors dwelling line would remain for s I t situations where the dwelling is setback further than the neighboring dwelling.  Pros: i. In situations where the adjacent dwelling is setback further than the minimum setback requirement this would allow 6’ fencing to be uniformly placed with the building line of the dwelling, but also allows for additional space in unique circumstances where the neighboring dwelling has a smaller setback to the shared frontage property line.  Cons: i. Only benefits situations where the adjacent dwelling is located closer to the shared frontage property line than the subject dwelling. Option 3: Maintain current PMC and Standards.  Pros: i. The current fence code allows for proper and standard locations of fencing provided that plats are created and platted such that they meet the PMC in regard to design of lots and blocks. Page 136 of 300 3  Cons: i. Existing lots will still maintain fencing restrictions in flanking front yard areas. Next Steps Staff is seeking comments and feedback about the most suitable option or direction before moving forward with any proposals or recommendations for an amendment to the PMC. Page 137 of 300 Page 138 of 300 Page 139 of 300 Page 140 of 300 Page 141 of 300 Page 142 of 300 Page 143 of 300 Page 144 of 300 Page 145 of 300 Page 146 of 300 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, October 21, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Background Current fencing regulations on corner lots have created situations where property owners have lodged complaints alleging “overreach”. Requests for an analysis into fence standards have been received by Planning staff. Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: (1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of- way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1. (2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2. Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent. Analysis City Planning staff has reviewed the PMC and analyzed recently platted land for potential fencing issues within flanking front yard areas. Through this analysis it was noted that currently many lots do not exist that still have the potential for stringent fence height restrictions in flanking front yards. It was also noted that many of the restricted lots were created within the past 10 years and that further review during platting processes (specifically PMC 21.20) regarding design of Lots and Blocks would be able to mitigate the creation of lots with problematic fence height restrictions. Page 147 of 300 2 Through the analysis three options were drafted for consideration for fencing in flanking front yards, with their associated pros and cons: Option 1: Allow fences up to 6’ in height within the flanking front yard area provided the fence is s setback a minimum of 10’ from the adjacent property line. See Figure 3.  Pros: i. Allows for taller fencing in flanking front yard areas.  Cons: i. Neighboring property would then have a 6’ fence within a portion of their front yard area should the fence be located on the shared property line. ii. If neighboring property has their driveway located near the shared property line with fencing-vision then may be an issue. Reversing out of the driveway adjacent to the 6’ fencing would cause visibility disruption of traffic on the shared frontage. This visibility disruption is also a safety consideration for any pedestrians that may be crossing the driveway area from the fence side. Option 2: Allow fences up to 6’ in height setback to the building line of the dwelling on the subject p parcel. The provision for the setback to the neighbors dwelling line would remain for s I t situations where the dwelling is setback further than the neighboring dwelling.  Pros: i. In situations where the adjacent dwelling is setback further than the minimum setback requirement this would allow 6’ fencing to be uniformly placed with the building line of the dwelling, but also allows for additional space in unique circumstances where the neighboring dwelling has a smaller setback to the shared frontage property line.  Cons: i. Only benefits situations where the adjacent dwelling is located closer to the shared frontage property line than the subject dwelling. Option 3: During permitting phase for dwellings, ensure that dwellings are addressed and faced off the appropriate street. Existing or unavoidable corner lots with fencing concerns will be allowed to have fencing set either to the building line of the neighboring dwelling or equal to the front yard building setback of the underlying zone.  Pros: i. Ensuring that the home is built so that it is addressed off the appropriate street would allow for corners to be designed to avoid conflicts with fencing, driveways, and visibility. Page 148 of 300 3 ii. Addition to allow fences to be placed a minimum distance equal to front yard building setback would mitigate concerns of having a fence required to be built behind the building line of dwelling. iii. Would still allow for the provision for fences to be built out to the neighbors building when dwellings are setback further than the minimum.  Cons: i. Some existing lots will still maintain fencing restriction in the flanking front yard areas. Option 4: Maintain current PMC and Standards.  Pros: i. The current fence code allows for proper and standard locations of fencing provided that plats are created and platted such that they meet the PMC in regard to design of lots and blocks.  Cons: i. Existing lots will still maintain fencing restrictions in flanking front yard areas. Next Steps Staff is seeking comments and feedback about the most suitable option or direction before moving forward with any proposals or recommendations for an amendment to the PMC. Page 149 of 300 PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES é Pcltyoj City Hall—Council Chambers I 0 525 North Third Avenue Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,AUGUST 19,2021 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present:Tanya Bowers,Jay Hendler,Jerry Cochran Telephone:Isaac Myhrum,Abel Campos and Rachel Teel a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent:Joseph Campos,Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrman Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez,Andrew Hattori Planner 1,Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. She further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community, livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services and the environment. Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for the record. Chair Bowers reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either benefited or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 August I9,2021 Page 150 of 300 She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the of?cial record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision. He encouraged those present to take ?all advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '3'Commissioner Jerry Cochran moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of July 15,2021.Commissioner Hendler seconded,and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Drive-Through F acilig Design Standards §MF#CA 2021-004}Jacob Gonzalez,Senior Planner stated this item is to discuss an update on our proposal to create standards for dry through facilities. Currently,the City Pasco does not have speci?c standards for drive through facilities,so there's no standards with regards to stacking Lane location of the drive through Lane site design,et cetera. This has created some inconsistencies in the development review process and certainly has increased the amount of time and challenges throughout the development review process with prospective applicants here at the city. I'll do my best to answer any questions throughout the presentation.On the next slide,there's a quick overview map.There's approximately 56 drive through facility establishments in the city of Pasco.They range from having stacking lanes as minimal as none all the way to 450ft.And as I mentioned at the prior meeting,there is no consistency between business uses and the length of their stacking lane either.Some fast-food restaurants have an appropriate model space,others do not,and they're not broken down by location either.Currently today that you kind of see the lack of design standards has led to kind of a mix of what we see here at the city today.On the next slide. And so obviously,with the lack of standards,we end up with signi?cant con?ict points both inside the site and off site.So,you can see on the screen here there's two different locations,one that leads to the increase in circus along the pedestrian sidewalk and circus that leaded to entrance and exit Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 151 of 300 ways onto the public right away.That's West Court Street,just east of US 395.And while those con?ict points exist as you enter and exit each business,as we turn onto the middle turn Lane or around,the two lanes are on Court Street,very heavily used corridor that presents additional problems and safety hazards. Additionally,within the site,you can see on the picture on the bottom right that the chewing Lane is interviews with the drive through access.With the parking lot access,you've also got three or four businesses.They're all with separate drive through sites.It creates additional con?ict points within the site.And on that one,there's even some challenges with vehicles that end up on the public right away,and that's on Burden Boulevard,again,just east of Road 68.So,again,another safety challenge for the city. So next,we have some general policy guidance,and I'd like to focus in on speci?cally the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Policy‘one a which is for the city to maintain code standards and guidelines which are clear,concise,and objective.We believe that this proposal currently meets the intent of the goals and policies of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.On the next slide,a few highlights of how we intended to derive the standards that are before you this evening, and that is based on location parking and circulation,vehicle stacking or queue lengths and site planning.On the next slide,a few of the breakdowns of the proposed criteria.The proposal today would limit the location of a drive through facility within 125?of a residential,land use or zone. They would not be permitted within 300ft of a signalized intersection below the level of service C. And that kind of correlates back to our ongoing transportation system master plan with regards to access management.We're trying to align all of our long-range planning efforts as well. Not permitted within the Central District.Currently,the Central Business District or downtown does prohibit auto oriented uses.This would further clarify that as well;the entrances would not be permitted within 175ft from a public shooter intersection.This is to eliminate those circumstances where we have both the interference in the public right away and again,entrances would not be permitted within l50ft of another drive through business.To help with the access management. You will notice in the draft ordinance for you tonight that there are some provisions for if there are businesses that are side by side that they would have reciprocal inside the site versus car needed to travel into the right of way to make a quick left or right turn. With regards to criteria on parking circulation,some basic guidelines here.Primary access shall be on an arterial or a collector street.The minimized attorney movements and con?icts on the public streets.We believe that would be served by that provision,separate queuing,and circulation paths, minimizing curb cuts.And again,that reciprocal access within the adjacent business.So again, some standard guidelines.On the next slide,when we discussed the sacking and queue length process,we would require clear signage and markings.Drive through Lane entrances located Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 August I9,2021 Page 152 of 300 should be located deep within the site.You can see here we've got two adjacent businesses on Court Street,and you can see that the business to the right has their drive through situated all the way to the Northern end of their site,which not only offers additional stacking length,but also try to ensure that those cars are not backing up into the right of way.And we see the business just to the west of that that does not have that option,although they may have during the time of development,but obviously without the standards,we had nothing to rely on.And so again,this is to help with the site planning process of any establishment.And on the next slide,the table that we're referring to quite a bit when we move forward with potentially this process is the speci?c drive through queuing lanes,distance requirements for these establishments.There were some emissions at the prior meeting,so we've added pharmacies and drug stores that is now on there.You can see ?nancial institutions and banks,the copy with indoor seating,espresso stand. This addresses some of our special stands around the community restaurants,self-service car washes,full-service car washes,gasoline stations. It's simply kind of impossible to try to identify every single business that may or may not use a drive through.Our intent would be to require documentation and the review process that justi?es the applicants proposed queuing Lane during the review process on the site planning.We had mentioned when we brought this to the Planning Commission back early in the year or late 2020 that we also wanted to use this as an opportunity to enhance the public realm or the built environment. We've required that,when possible,buildings would be oriented towards the public street,the service Loading areas located away from public right away.And we have other provisions in the code that would require things along that as well.Compliance,obviously with the noise regulations and entrance is again not permitted within the l75?from a public street intersection.So that kind of concludes tonight or this evening's presentation.Happy to answer or address comments from the Planning Commission or public.As a reminder,there was an environmental determination of non- signi?cance issued in March,and there is a staff recommendation for approval to the City Council on this item as well. With that,I'll end the presentation and answer any questions.Thank you. Commissioner Teel stated can you go back to the slide that had the Court Street and the Burden pictures on there,please?Let's look at the one on Burden.How would the new standards ?x what's there? Mr.Gonzalez,we have an espresso stand that does not have clear markings.I don't believe they do. I don't believe they exist.We also got the Queuelanes that are being interfered with the Dairy Queen on that location.The Stacking Lane interferes with the access of the parking lot.It also interferes with access to business immediately to the north.We've also got this interesting.It's not signed,but you got an exit entrance.Exit entrance just north of that site,which can create quite a problem,especially as you're located just north of Burden Boulevard.We had a chance to redo this Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 153 of 300 entire site.These regulations may come in to help mitigate to remove some of these con?ict points outside of the site and potentially within the site as well.I also think kind going back to the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Policy with regards to our codes and standards,the intent is to be as objective and practical as possible.We certainly don't want to be overburdened some,but we want to be careful.My guess is that we'll get a business that needs ten extra feet,although we didn't require it. There's only so much sort of future proo?ng we can do with our regulations.But had we had this in place for both the Burden and Court Street examples,I think both of those sites would look signi?cantly different.Speci?cally,on Court Street.Those businesses.We would have tried to utilize the reciprocal access requirement for those folks to utilize the internal site versus interfering with public right away. Commissioner Bowers asked for the one on Burden,would that meet the distance from the residential area? Jacob Gonzalez stated there is.I'm not sure about the distance from the car wash to the residential lots to the north.The requirement is for 125?,so it may come close,and it's based on where the primary entrance or where a menu board may be.However,if there is an establishment that's l26ft away,they would be required to have the site screening and noise mitigation measures as indicated in the draft ordinance for you. Commissioner Bowers stated and so basically,these two streets would get Grand mothered in. Jacob Gonzalez stated yes,there is a provision that code there's existing businesses.If there's some infrastructure improvements and they might be required to comply with in you code,I'm not sure that‘d be more of I think maybe a building of?cial decision there with regards to Central Pasco, which we've de?ned as the city between 395 Organ Avenue,the Columbia River and US twelve or highway twelve.Our intent is the provision states that the application for businesses within that area shall fully comply the requirements of this potential chapter if we try to.I think the fear is that we would try to require a seven auto oriented use in a location of the city that was not built for that. It might eliminate a lot of businesses from even having the potential to locate in Central Pasco.And that's certainly not our intent either across the city,but we want to be sensitive to the characteristics of the surrounding built environment and development patterns. Commissioner Cochran asked are we the only city right now that's going to have these kinds of standards in the Tri cities or are others doing similar things? Mr.Gonzalez stated there's not clear requirements that I've come across.I'm not sure I've seen Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of l8 August I9,2021 Page 154 of 300 speci?c.I have not come across speci?c drive through regulation standards.They might be adjusted through more detailed site development patterns or requirements,but there are numerous cities that do have speci?c drive through criteria.They range from obviously the big Metropolitan areas down to some smaller cities on the Northeast,Maine and that part of the country,but they all vary.Our intent with this was to sort of provide a decent and appropriate number of regulations, especially since this is our ?rst attempt.But we think these would be very valuable for businesses as they look to locate in the city of Pasco. Commissioner Cochran stated well,you seem to have started a good balance,and it seems like the previous slide where you have the heat map,it would have cleared up a lot of that heat map if these standards would have been in place.Have you had any feedback from the development commercial community on these at all? Mr.Gonzalez stated we have not we've not heard anything.I think this is our second public hearing,but we have not heard anything from any businesses.What we heard prior to this effort was what's the requirement? Commissioner Myhrum stated,just a quick question.So,I'm understanding.The mitigation requirements are required if the setback provision can't be met,is that correct?Or is mitigation like noise and visual mitigation always required?Or can you get around it?If you meet the space requirements. Mr.Gonzalez responded we have our normal noise ordinance that applies to any business.It's speci?cally referenced again in this proposal just to be certain about that impact.We also have site screening standards that apply across the entire city and they're different depending on the corridor. So,the additional provisions in this requirement would be within a certain distance of a residential land user zoning district.And I just wanted to add I was looking for it here on the ordinance on under the Noise section.Number ?ve,it States that a mitigation checklist for noise must be submitted by an applicant when their proposed application is within 300ft of a residential and use. And that checklist simply States that they're compliant with the city's noise ordinance and that they've complied with the screening and noise standard or mitigation noise walls,etc. Commissioner Myhrum stated,in that same paragraph,Mr Gonzales,on noise,I notice number two has language saying that drive through windows is discouraged on certain parts of the building. That term discouraged.Does that come with some ?exibility?How does that get interpreted by an examiner or the city when making those kinds of decisions? Mr.Gonzalez responded there is no other feasible manner for which a business to be located and its menu board or speakers can only exist facing the public right away,I think that might be the only situation in which staff would be okay with interpreting this as discouraged but allowed in this Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 155 of 300 case.Now,we can certainly re strike that and just eliminate that as an option.But again,with the city's first attempt to establish strike through regulations,we don't want to be too restrictive either. A site check will have to be done to identify how many businesses do have a set up where their menu speaker boards facing the public right away. Commissioner Myhrum stated great.Thank you.I appreciate that.And agree with you that having ?exibility there is good.And it sort of allows for extenuating circumstances as sort of a last resort option.Thank you very much. Commissioner Campos had a question regarding counting like a single Lane drive through or was using a double lane that we,see?Does that count too as far as the capacity for amount of feet? Jacob Gonzalez stated it would be both.If there was a ?nancial institution and they had two second lines or three,they would have to have a minimum l60ft capacity.And we've also got a provision that has indicated that it's 20ft per car.I guess we're trying to mitigate that kind of wiggle room where they've got an odd number that wouldn't physically ?t a vehicle.We've got provisions for the length of a vehicle as well in the code in that section.But it could include both.It could be 160 foot one Lane or it could be 280 foot stacking lines. Commissioner Bowers opened to the public hearing to speak on this particular item,please state your name and city for the record. Commissioner Hendler had a question on what impact would just have on the existing facilities now?I'm just curious to know how these things would have changed had this ordinance been in place.Any thought on that? Mr.Gonzalez stated there's a few locations where the sites would have been altered on Court Street.But those businesses have been there for quite a few decades.When the McDonald's on Court Street went through its reconstruction,they signi?cantly expanded their stacking lanes and also improve the site itself.So that's a case where our standards are minimum.You have a business that's gone a little bit above what's necessary,but they understand their market better than we do in the planning.Certainly,there's probably a few locations spread throughout the city,I would think speci?cally on the espresso and coffee locations,like the copy business.Just that was in I think the other side,we were talking about location deep in a lot,depending on the length of their property. We would have required that Queuing Lane to be situated deep into the lot versus so close to the entrance to the public right away.So that would be one that would likely have changed. We probably would have tried to identify if there's some opportunities for reciprocal access. Commissioner Hendler stated so it sounds good.It seems like you've done a lot of work in a lot of research,and it seems like a perfect world here.We should get this thing on the books and get going and monitor how it’s received and be ?exible to the extent that we must.Just so I think it's a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 156 of 300 good idea.Anyway,I thank you again. Commissioner Bowers made a motion to close public hearing.Commissioner Campos recommended to the City Council.The proposed amendment creating a ?ction of the past to mingle code or drive to facility design centers is continued as contained in the August 19,2021,Planning Commission staff report.Second by Hendler.All those opposed,Hearing none,the motion passed unanimously. Mr.Gonzalez stated yes,the ordinance will be aviated by our legal Department and then schedule for a workshop at the City Council this fall. B.Short-Term Residential Rentals §MF#CA 2021-006[-Rick White,Director stated there are two adjustments to the agenda that this item short term residential rentals should be moved to the workshop version of the meeting underneath corner lot sensing and item D.The planned unit development should also be moved to the workshop portion of the agenda. Commissioner Bowers stated thank you so much for letting us know that I believe that means that we are going I'm sorry you said item B and D or move to workshop. Yes,moving on to the next item. C.Car Washes Adjacent Residential Zoning Districts §MF#CA 2021-007 )-Rick White, Director stated the Commission has seen several times now,most recently last month at a workshop session,I will dispense with going through the staff report.It's basically identical to what it was in July and in May,for that matter.We do have the proposed ordinance for your consideration.The changes are shown in red.I would add that the previous item that Mr.Gonzalez discussed in the ordinance under number 14,section C will need to be stricken because that's going to be covered in our drive through regulations.So,the Commission can either delay this item for a month for staff to come back with the ordinance that delete Subsection C,or you can recommend your approval based on the assumption that Subsection C will be deleted.But in whole,I think everything has been included in the ordinance that was discussed.We rely heavily on our existing noise ordinance,for example,as contained in Subsection B.We do have standards for fencing which re?ect some code provisions in other areas of our zoning code.And then we have language related to hours of operation that are limited when they're less than 300?from a residential area, but not when they're greater than 300?from a residential. Commissioner Cochran stated the only thing I was curious,I don't think we've talked about this before is it says the total number base shall be limited to ?ve.Does that mean when it's not a drive through and it's like one of the self-car washes versus eight.Yes,because it doesn't really specify. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 157 of 300 Like because we really don't apply to a Mister car wash kind of thing where you just go through. Rick White,Director stated yes,and we have had quite a discussion.We're not sure that coin operated lashes are being built.I haven't seen any anywhere,in other cities as well. Commissioner Bowers had a question about Liberty car washes,how many feet from the residential neighborhood?That's the one on Convention and Vernon. Rick White,Director stated it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Bowers asked how many square feet is that? Rick White,Director answered maybe 40ft,maybe 50. Commissioner Bowers stated so that would not be allowed under this new ordinance.And the other thing that caught my attention was under number three on page three.In terms of noise.I was just thinking about those vacuums at Liberty.Do we ever get complaints from residents? Rick White,Director stated strangely,no,we get complaints about the gym on Burden,which is almost next door because they toss tires early in the morning for some kind of exercise.But no,not the vacuums. Commissioner Bowers stated I'm so happy I don't live right behind there.But that is good to know. That was.I mean,the vacuums were a question.I'm happy to see we're talking about noise mitigation because I would not want to buy a house and have it be close to a car wash and then have to hear vacuum at any hour of the day. Rick White,Director responded just for the commission’s information,the existing noise ordinance is based out of state law.That not only Pasco,I think every city in Washington state uses pretty much the same thing,but it is extremely sensitive.My voice right now would be exceeding the noise limits past 10:00 p.m.Just so you know,the noise limits are very sensitive to the receiving property,the residential property. Commissioner Teel had a question regarding the effectiveness of this car wash with new ones build in the future? Director Rick White responded it won't affect current car washes,they're grandfathered in.They were developed under applicable regulations because we still have the noise ordinance which precludes noise above certain decibel readings depending on the receiving property and on the time of day or night. Commissioner Handler had a question about complaints from the residential community. Director Rick White responded we haven't.If where any it would be reviewed through our existing noise regulations. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 158 of 300 Commissioner Myhrum asked so there is an applicant who requested that such facilities be allowed within a 300-foot radius.A residential zoning was city code at that time.Was it not as sort of descript in allowing those kinds of activities?And that's why it was requested,or it was just this applicant had a very speci?c project and application and wanted to make an exception just for that zoning district. Director Rick White responded the existing code required a 300-foot distance from residential areas just ?at out.And that was done maybe at ten years ago. Commissioner Bowers opened the public hearing for individuals who wish to speak on this particular item. Resident of West Richland Rick Simon stated he was the individual that ?led the original code amendment to allow car washes in the C-3 zone within 300?.Speaking on behalf of John Ramsay and Broadmoor RV.We just want to go on record as saying we are supportive of the code amendment as dra?ed by staff and we commend them for their good work on that.I believe that it will provide a good opportunity for price of business to construct car washes that are going to be in good locations for both the community and still protective of the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Bowers made a motion to close the public hearing and stated it was moved by Commissioner Cochran and seconded by Commissioner Myhrum.Let the record show that was passed unanimously,and second motion was made by Commissioner Cochran and seconded by Commissioner Handler.Let the record show that was passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers asked for further explanation from staff. Director Rick White stated this will go to City Council for a workshop setting,and then it should proceed to public hearing after that workshop discussion. WORKSHOP Workshop-Short-Term Residential Rentals §MF#CA2021-006}Rick White,Directorstated our existing municipal code has basically no mention of short-term rentals.With the term Airbnb,I guess.And that kind of thing are not permitted in Pasco because it doesn't say they are permitted. But there's no code citation that references their prohibition either.What the proposed code amendment does is clari?es several sections in the municipal code to deal with de?nitions, including.It includes a revision to the de?nition for taxes.In chapter three,talks about the character of the applicant that the police chief investigates in relation to rental units,and then the remainder of the ordinance clari?es de?nitions contained in our zoning code.Essentially,it clears things up and doesn't really provide for any new regulation.But it does help staff,not just planning staff,but the ?nance staff deal with request for license.Business license for short tenn rental units. Kind of a very brief explanation. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 159 of 300 Commissioner Cochran stated there is no clarity,a big concern about ADU is your neighbor builds one and rents it out,people trash it.And seems this will address that issue as it must comply with short term rental code. Commissioner Cochran Stated he noticed some cities some cities like Chelan have short-term rentals by zoning,are we doing the same or are they going to be adaptable and tweakable on per zone basis? Director Rick White stated they can always return to the Commission and Council.On contrary to car washes,this item to generate a lot of complaints.Code enforcement deals with maybe 20 to 30 of these a year,but they're intended for weekends or a week. Commissioner Hendler what is the de?nition of a short-term rental?Is there a time span on that? Director Rick White Stated yes,it re?ects the state de?nition,30 days or less. Commissioner Hendler so you can rent it to a party for 30 days at the end of 30 days are out.Can somebody else come in and run for another 30 days,so you can rent this Airbnb all yearlong. Director Rick White answered yes,they are not de?ned as permitted use.Family dwellings, accessory uses,etc.,short term rentals.But it doesn't say that.It’s set up like a Pyramid,if it's not stated as permitted use,it's prohibited.We can return for a formal recommendation,?rst time seeing this,if you are comfortable,we can move forward,its up to commission. Commissioner Teel asked how does it look in other cities,Richland,or Kennewick? Director Rick White stated he can get back to her with that information. Commissioner Myhrum stated could there be a framework for allowing these sorts of rentals on a long-term basis,assuming they went through a special permitting process?And is that something that to be rolled up into an application process?Are the code enforcement complaints coming from the fact that they're just as no clarity?That's creating complaints because they're not allowed explicitly.That's the complaint not necessarily that they're,you know,partying every weekend,but because there's ambiguity. Director Rick White stated the code enforcement complaint center on the transitory nature of the units.People are not comfortable with someone being there for three days and then someone being there for seven,somebody different being there for seven.Somebody knew being there for four. Commissioner Myhrum complaints come because there is no policy allowing short term rentals of this kind.I guess my concern is that we're kind of taking the hard no approach and not looking at some of the positive bene?ts that could come to this kind of development,which,again,this is not as speci?c.It is an acceptable form of short-term rental in many parts of the country is not all.But is it worthy of having this bigger debate about the use of Airbnb and Pasco?There is interest and people will express it.Broader conversation is needed about this policy. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 1 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 160 of 300 Director Rick White stated again,certainly the Commission is welcome to give staff direction in that regard.I'm just thinking off the top of my head,maybe certain amount of lot size and maybe a special permit.Something along those lines.We could probably come up with some criteria, situational circumstances that would warrant application. Commissioner Myhrum states it just seems like the approach has written in this ordinance basically outlaws any kind of short-term rental in all the residential zone.It's a hard de?ned no.Whereas with this ambiguity,is this an opportunity to review.Maybe we could have a policy that does accommodate this to some extent. Commissioner Cochran like to see a comparison about other cities,maybe having a tailored approach,having a lot density,or zoning density.When you have a big 2-acre lot and having an Airbnb compared to having a 9000 square foot lot and you have an Airbnb on it.A tailored approach helps with property owners that want to do this and allows that kind of economy. Commissioner Bowers what needs to we have for short term rentals,we have enough hotels,and they are converting hotels to be affordable housing.Huge families,visiting Doctors or nurses? Commissioner Hendler stated if it’s a residential use,why do we care?It just seems to me like,I don't know that we're gaining that much by having short term rental restrictions on a residential property. Commissioner Bowers other thoughts for Mr.White to consider?We want a comparison to similar municipalities,around the area and the state. Commissioner Teel is curious about how many are in Pasco available now. Director Rick White answered they do not get licensed;we do not have a way of knowing. Commissioner Cochran stated a special permitting process that allows it for a year or two years. Commissioner Bowers stated not ready to move this to public hearing,need more work. Director White stated 1 capture the ?ve concerns.We'll have some comparisons.We'll look at available processes and criteria,including complaints or lot size and come back to the Commission. WorskshoQ-Corner Lot Fencing Andrew Hattori Planner I stated first time meeting,I do review a lot of building permits,particularly fences.And recently we have had a lot of complaints Lodge regarding overreach of our fencing height restrictions,especially on comer lots.And do this. We've done a lot of analysis into what our code says and how we might be able to maybe modify that or maintain it.The high defenses,walls and hedges shall be limited to three and a half feet within the front yard area of residentially zoned lots,retail business,C one and office zone lots provided.When two contiguous or touching comer lots or two comer lots separated only by an Olli Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 161 of 300 way,our alley ride of way formed the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets. The height of fences,walls and hedges shall be limited to 6ft within the front yard adjacent to the side Except for the front door of a house faces the side street.Offences greater than three and a half feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.I've created a few diagrams to kind of go through to kind of depict what our fencing height requirements for corn oats are.Our ?rst image on the screen shows when two comer lots have the dwellings facing the parallel streets and neither dwelling accesses the shared ?anking street. Six-foot-tall fencing or fence is greater than three and a half feet may extend into the green shaded area,the ?anking front yard area.And so,this is the ideal situation. Six-foot—tallfencing or fence is greater than three and a half feet may extend into the green shaded area,the ?anking front yard area.This is the ideal situation.this is kind of a realistic look of what this looks like around the city of Pasco.You can see the fence extends all the way out to the sidewalk,and neither of those houses have their entries facing the shared ?anking street.Now,the second option or the second scenario that comes from our current code,is where one of the dwelling does access the shared ?anking street. Dwelling or the home on the right accesses the ?anking street or the I apologize the side street.And the fencing for the house on the left cannot extend all the way out into the green area or up to the property line.Our code stipulates that that fence must,at a minimum,be set back to the building line of the neighboring property.The house is on the left.You can only have fencing greater than three and a half feet out to the building line of the neighboring And so this is where a lot of the concerns of overreach come from where in certain situations,yes, you can have your fence out to your property line.But if your neighbor's house now points to the side street,you can no longer do that.And this also works.If the house on the right is set back further than the house on the left,that fence must be set back further than the building line of the house on the left.You could effectively have a fence at your dining room window. That's another major concern that we've seen.What we're looking for right now is some initial comments and feedback.But I do have some optionsthat I prepared,and this is a real-life example of what that code looks like.This house on the corner here,their fence does not extend all the way out to the sidewalk or the property line adjacent to the side street is set back to the neighbor behind them.Building line.Our PMC,that's the furthest that they could go. The ?rst option that we've drafted you can have your fence out all the way to the property line on the ?anking side street.The house on the left would be allowed to have six-foot fencing in every zone except for the blue front yard.And then the house on the right would be allowed to extend their fence all the way out to the property line in the green area as well.There are some concerns with this extending all the way out to the property line and to kind of show that I have an example Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page l3 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 162 of 300 of a property. This is on Cathedral Drive,and if you look at the top right,it goes towards a roundabout.Both these houses have a sidewalk there across from or a park,with only that sidewalk being next to the homes.And you can see that the house on the left there has fencing extended all the way out to the sidewalk and buyer code that normally wouldn't be permitted.And this is what's shown here would be permitted under this option on any corner lot. The left image shows heading to the north.You can see that there's a small gap between the dwelling and the fence there.And you can also tell that there's somewhat of a slope to the road. And if you look at the image to the right and this is a more bene?cial image because you're in the Lane of traf?c heading away from the driveway there,what you can see here is that your visibility from that driveway is incredibly limited.So going if you're a pedestrian or driving or walking, you're not going to see any cars backing out of that driveway until you're essentially at the driveway. If you're the homeowner backing out of your driveway,you're not going to see anybody until your driver's side window is parallel to the sidewalk.And in situations like this,it's concerning top fencing all the way out to the sidewalk or out to the property line just from a visibility and safety standpoint. This option allows for the fencing not to be dependent on your neighbors walling.It would essentially say that you are fencing must be set back to the building line of your dwelling,so your fence wouldn't be allowed to extend out into the green area,but it wouldn't be required to be set back to your neighbors.This would get rid of the possibility of offense having to be set back to, say,a window or porch.Provided if we were to go further down the road with this,we would still leave the provision that if both homes face away from the side street,then the fences would be allowed to extend out to the flanking front yard area. As far as the sites,the other option that we have is that we maintain what we currently have in the PMC.The code works provided we adhere to our Lots and Blocks standards and our Title 21 standards.A lot of the issues that we're seeing today we're created within the last ten years and they're on streets that don't necessarily conform to our code.That should have been more in line with the lots and blocks.And we took a pretty good look into it.We took a good look,and it was determined that if we make sure that during the piling process,we're paying much closer attention and stricter with our Lots and Blocks reviews,and we can mitigate a lot of these comer lot issues and a lot of these fencing problems that we're seeing. Commissioner Bowers thank you Mr.Hattori,What do you need from us right now? Commissioner Hendler stated is there any problem with the de?nition of front yard?Side yard? Other options,is now a side yard and call that my front yard?How do we define front yard inside yard? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 163 of 300 Planner Andrew Hattori stated front yards are determined as any point or the point on the building line perpendicular from there to the right of way.Any portion of your yard between your building and a right of way is considered a front yard space,which is interesting because,you know,we do have triple frontage lot.There is a rear yard then that is be de?ned as a real yard. Commissioner Hendler looking for possible discrepancies,If I list of my advantage,could I,for example,call,call that green area on the le?side.My front yard is that possibility. Planner Andrew Hattori stated by our residential design standards,your entry way is required to be off the street that your addressed.If you were in the process of building the dwelling,you do have the option to choose which street you want to be addressed off,provided you're not addressing off or accessing a collector arterial. Commissioner Teel asked How does it work when the home on the le?is getting built and they get their fence in before the home on the right is even built? Planner Andrew Hattori stated if you're the house on the left and you build your dwelling and you're either on the edge of a new subdivision and the rest has been plotted or that lots just vacant and has been built on.Yet we can't hinder that lot from building their fence out to the property line under the possibility that the neighboring parcel will address off the shared side street.If the lot behind you is not developed,you're allowed to extend your fence into that ?anking front yard area. Commissioner Bowers safety is my biggest concern,I would want whatever solution allows for cars or pedestrians to be able to see someone backing out. Planner Andrew Hattori stated I completely agree.And that's why I think that a lot of the stuff or what our code says today mitigate any possibility that there's obstruction in your visibility backing out or going down the street on a walk. Commissioner Bowers if there are any other concerns? Commissioner Cochran stated the code to date,if you made no changes each option one,option two,but just put more scrutiny on the permitting process,you can mitigate most of the safety issues. Planner Andrew Hattori stated we can mitigate a lot of the current problems that we're having.It wouldn't the perfect solution.I'm not sure if there is one here.We would still run into possibilities where property under think we're overreaching,but in the future,we would not see nearly as much of the items that we're having today. Commissioner Cochran it seems like probably owner should be able to put their fences how they want given without withstanding creating safety issues.Discussions need to be had and maybe public comment too.I don't know that we would get a lot of,like,say,developer feedback on Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 164 of 300 something like this,because it's the homeowners that are putting up the fences,not the developers. In fact,the developers are building the homes and then leavingthe homeowners to build their own fences.It's probably going to be hard to get individual homeowners as much visibility for homeowners.But I agree that safety should be the concern.But do we need a bunch of more code to do that,or should we just be more rigorous in our permitting?Does every fence in the city require a permit? Planner Andrew Hatorri stated yes. Director Rick White having the provision that's dependent on a building line that is maybe from a building that isn't there yet is problematic.And I don't know what the right answer is how to address that,but I think we should take a further look at that at the least,let alone diving into more of the ?anking front yard discussion in general. Commissioner Cochran eliminating the problem where the ?rst gadget build sets the lines because it can really ruin the whole development of the ?rst house. Commissioner Bowers something else that I noticed,we talk about fences or hedges.If it's supposed to be 6ft or three and a half feet,does it then become a question of code enforcement?So just to make sure they keep to whatever the limit is for a hedge because hedges grow. Planner Andrew Hattori stated yes,right.It's upon the responsibilities on the homeowner to ensure that that height does not increase above what is allowed. Commissioner Bowers questions,no questions.Move on to the next workshop. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT jMF#CA 2021-0111Jacob Gonzalez stated this is a brief staff report for you this evening.You may remember that in most of 2019,staff had taken on the effort of revising our planet development regulations.At the time.The primary changes were made to the minimum site area,the amount of open space and cleared up and clari?ed some of the design standard provisions of the plane development regulations.And since that time since its adoption in early 2020,staff has seen a variable interest in the PUD option. But there have been barriers indicated by the development community,home builders and developers about the limits of the existing PUD options for not being used.It is usable,but it's not as it currently is in the code today,not in its best form.There's some con?icting language that remain from the prior PUD ordinance that requires for it to go through the preliminary plat process, although it's not a preliminary plat.What we'd like to do is two things,is re?ne.It’s similar what we did with that front plat public frontage ordinance where we brought it back a year or so after its adoption,cleaned it. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 165 of 300 Now it's ready to go.We'd like to perform that exact same thing with the PUD regulations.And in addition to that,we'd like to take another look at its ?exibility and really make this an option for creative,diverse development.In addition to being strictly residential,we are considering utilizing the PUD regulations to begin to explore mixed use zoning and development,if that's of the interest of the developer or the applicant.In addition to those,we would look at ensuring that it complies with our recently adopted comprehensive plan. That comprehensive plan has several new land use classi?cations that are not yet that we're not a part of this ordinance when it went through.And we would also take a look at permitting the PUD potentially in the C one district,which is our general retail,assuming that there's a portion of it that remains for some sort of business or commercial service.And whether that's a 50 50 split,some communities have it as a 90 ten split,90%residential,10%commercial.It's a little dif?cult to predict the commercial real estate market these days with everything. Staff would appreciate any comments and obviously direction from the Planning Commission on if there's an agreement to move forward with revising and re?ning the code.And then we look forward to bringing this back to you for further discussion.Thank you. Commissioner Cochran we passed it,forwarded to City Council in February.Having had any applications,talked to developers and there’s improvements need to be made.Developers probably never showed up for public hearings.This will allow us to make it more attractive.Open to mix uses,like Richland is doing the big pit. Jacob Gonzalez stated it would be part of this intent of re?ning and amending this regulation.In addition to the mixed-use concept,we would explore both vertical and horizontal mixed use. Certainly,it's everyone's kind of ideal to have your commercial on the bottom and residential on top.But that's extremely costly and risky for a property or a developer when you can't run out or lease the bottom retail space because it's not attractive enough.For whatever reason it maybe it remains vacant in a lot of cases in larger cities,those vacant spaces of the cost to maintain them and getting passed on to the residential users.And rather than requiring a strict mixed-use building in one building,we would explore not only attached but detached mixed use as well. Commissioner Hendler I’ve had the pleasure being involved in many of these and you know what has really dictated the mix,a residential versus commercial is more market than anything else. Developer is not going to put anything out there that he doesn’t,or she doesn't feel it can be a success ?nancially.I'm not so sure I would have a 90 10 or 50 50.I don't think that's really viable is my opinion.And certainly,for one really appreciate the idea of PUD’s and what they bring to an area as far as exciting developments residentially.I'm all in favor of this ordinance and stem by help all I can.I've been involved in many of them. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18 August 19,202] Page 166 of 300 CommissionerBowers I am a fan of diversity and variety,so I can see this being something that could be helpful over Broadmoor.I would love it if you could even bring it over by Road 68 where we are behind the movie theater.I am in favor of this. Commissioner Hendler IV Glade at one time is a PUD and one time had a 20 to 30,000 square foot commercialretail area up in the Northeast corner.This master plan included an interesting pathway down to the river and everything.But when the second phase is sold to the developers out of Portland for economic reasons,they came in and they rezoned it went all residential.But it's kind of interesting that I be glad at one time was a mixed-use development. OTHER BUSINESS Rick White stated starting Monday,the mask command date is back.So even if you're vaccinated, you'll be wearing a mask in indoor settings and my note here says that during a declared emergency by the governor,his directors have the force of loss.So that's what we'll be following the Commission tonight.We did a pretty good job there,I think.Four commissioners attending virtually almost for three.But to the great extent possible,we’ll be trying to resume that.I know it's clumsy at times.And.But anyway,that's what we'll be trying to do.Council,you might have if you've seen any Council meetings lately,they've been following the same queue.If you have a presentation here,for example,with Council,that's complicated,or you really need to be here,then you show up that otherwise you're requested to stay put at your home.You'll be seeing changes to the Chambers because we're going to have to do the six-foot thing again. I just wanted to get that out there.That's the guidance.It's not going to affect us this month,of course.But in September,it will.Our ?re chief,who's very involved in the whole covet effort, seems to indicate that the expected peak of this upswing in cases where experiencing will peak either in October or November. 7:59 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Webb,Administrative Assistant II Community &Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 August 19,2021 Page 167 of 300 PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETING MINUTES&Cltyof City Hall —Council Chambers '525 North Third Avenue Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,SEPTEMBER16,2021 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present:Tanya Bowers Remotely:Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrman,Isaac Myhrum, Rachel Teel,Jerry Cochran a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent:Joseph Campos,Abel Campos,Jay Hendler Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez,Andrew Hattori Planner 1,Administrative Assistant II Maria Fernandez. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. She further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community, livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services,and the environment. Chair Bowers reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Chair Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. She then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone,and state your name and city of address for the record. Chair Bowers reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 168 of 300 She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the of?cial record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision. She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '3'Commissioner Jerry Cochran moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes ofA ugust I 9,2021.Commissioner Myhrum seconded,and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Street Connectivig §MF#CA2019-013[-Mr.Jacob Gonzalez,Senior Planner stated this proposal went through lengthy public hearings throughout most of 201 9 and 2020.This is a brief update from staff recent efforts,and the next steps.The Planning Commission recommended to Council in October of 2020 a proposal to revise Title 21 regarding lots and blocks layout to address transportation in the City of Pasco,speci?cally to meet a variety of comprehensive plan goals and the adoption of council goals in 2020,the completion of a transportation system master plan and the utilization of its recommendations was to develop policies,regulations,programs and projects that provide for greater connectivity,strategic investment,mobility,multilevel systems, accessibility,efficiency and safety. The proposal recommended from the Planning Commission signi?cantly revised the lots and Blocks Chapter of Title 21 with regards to creating a maximum block length and block perimeter with provisions for connection to adjacent lands and non-motorized access ways.There are also some re?nements made to intersections and the cul-de-sac provisions.Following that recommendation from the Planning Commission last October,staff shared and presented to the Pasco City Council on three different occasions March,May,and August of this year.During those presentations,staff again provided to council all the items,the data,the information,and the public comment in favor of and that opposed to the proposal recommendation. At the August 23 meeting,Staff presented two new alternatives for Council to consider.Those Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 169 of 300 alternatives deviate from the original proposal from Planning Commission and even what was recommended out of the initial Transportation System Master Plan.Staff believe these two new alternatives,which were included in the staff report,on page two,still met our objective to create a fully functional transportation system here in the City of Pasco. However,because the two alternatives were not vetted by the Planning Commission,it was identi?ed in everyone’s best interest for this item be reevaluated by the Planning Commission,in addition to furthering collaborative environment with all our stakeholders from the housing and transportation segments of our community.This was a short update,there is no presentation today. However,staff did want to come back to the Planning Commission as this was a signi?cant item that the Planning Commission acted on. It's been eleven months since it's been at the Commission.Because of that time,we wanted to come back with some due diligence and its reevaluation.Our recommendation is to continue the public hearing.However,we are interested in any comments,questions,or concerns that the Planning Commission may have based on tonight’s staff report or since the time of its recommendation last October.This will conclude our brief report and presentation this evening.But certainly,welcome any comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bowers-thank you,Mr.Gonzalez.I know we have had a great deal of discussion and presentation on this item.These are new additions and alternatives that have been presented. We want to make sure we give them our fair attention.Commissioners,do we have any questions or comments for Mr.Gonzalez? Commissioner Cochran stated the two new alternatives were presented based on feedback, research,and analysis,between the time we approved in October and got to council.Is that how this surfaced?It should be brought back so it can be reviewed,is that what happens in a nutshell? What happened,and what were the drivers behind the new alternatives?Was it feedback from housing development and community? Mr.Gonzalez stated,the feedback received was persistent,and we want to acknowledge the comments and concerns raised to staff.To try to collaborate further,we did develop two new proposals or alternatives again,which we believe still aligned with the intent of Council goals and comprehensive plan policies,but it would be important for us to note that they do deviate from what the standard best practice would allude to and because they were not vetted by the Planning Commission at the August 23 meeting,staff,along with Pasco City Manager Dave Zabel, recommended that rather than having an open debate about transportation connectivity standards at the City Council level,that it would be best accommodated at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bowers-any other commissioners?Are you going to discuss or do any sort of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 170 of 300 presentation on the alternative since it's the ?rst time that we're seeing them? Mr.Gonzalez responded not tonight.I can certainly describe them if that would be of interest.The primary intent tonight report was to give an update.It's been about a year,and we have had numerous meetings with the Home Builders Association of the Tri Cities and on Tuesday of this week we also met with the Tri-City Association of Realtors.Those meetings are expected to continue.Staff is working with a few representatives from each group to try to identify some possible solutions.The Staff intent is to bring back to the Planning Commission and eventually council with a proposal that best aligns with transportation planning,best practices,and Council goals. Commissioner Bowers—that’s helpful.I see the recommendation is to move to continue the public hearing. Mr.Gonzalez correct. Commissioner Cochran-since this is a public hearing,are there any folks here to talk about this at this time or nobody came for this? Commissioner Bowers-no one is at the meeting my apologies.I didn't know you couldn't see that. Good point,Commissioner Cochran.No one is in the room;we will continue until the next meeting.Our next agenda item is a workshop,and this is regarding our comer lot fencing.And Mr. Hattori,will you be reading?Will you be sharing about that? Mr.Hattori-yes. WORKSHOP Corner Lot Fencing -Rick White,Director stated Mr.Hattori was here a month ago with this same issue,the presentation tonight is very similar to last month’s presentation.We're hoping from the Commission to get a better sense of possible directions and possible code amendments,that might be affecting how we treat comer lots and fencing.Thank you. Mr.Hattori-good evening,members of the Planning Commission.I do have the presentation for the corner lot fencing.It will be very similar to the one from last month,but it would be good to go over it again given the complexity of some of the issues.We have PMC 25.180.050 (1)(c).This is the provision for fencing.This code says that the height of fences,walls and hedges shall be limited to three and a half feet within the front yard area of residential zone lots,retail business and of?ce zone lots provided when two contiguous comer lots or two comer lots separated only by an alley right of way form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets. The height of fences,walls,and hedges shall be limited to 6?in the front yard adjacent to the side street.Except where the front door of the house faces the side street a fence is greater than three and a half feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.We do have some diagrams to show what this means and what that looks like.This here is a two Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 171 of 300 dwelling face and are contiguous and do not share.One does not access the side street.In this instance,fencing would be allowed to be placed out to the property line in the green area up to 6ft in height.And this can only be accomplished when the two dwellings form the entire frontage between the two streets,and one house does not access that side street.Now,if we go to the next slide,this is what that looks like. In this slide,we can see that both dwellings face the side streets.Neither of the dwelling accesses the shared ?anking street.In this case because there is no concern about one of the houses facing the side street,they are allowed to have that fence set all the way out to the property line,extending all the way down the sidewalk.Now,the second provision of the code,on the next slide.This is the instance where one of the dwelling does access the side street. The way the code is written is such that the fencing greater than three and a half feet would have to be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.In this case,the house facing the street to the left cannot extend their fence out all the way to their property.They would need to have it set back to the building line of their neighbors’property,the house that accesses the shared ?anking street. In other cases,the house on the right can be set back further than the house on the le?,which creates instances where six-foot fencing must be set back to portions of the building,where there may be doors or windows.And this is where a lot of the complaints have been lodged against staff regarding overreach about fencing requirements.And due to this,we've done a lot of analysis into our code and how it affects properties and we've come up with a few options. We can see a real-life example of what this looks like.The house to the bottom,don't form that frontage,their house must be set back to the building line of the house behind it.Their fence would never be allowed to extend to the street to the right. Commissioner Bowers-the brown part is the lawn? Mr.Hattori-yes,the ?rst option we have would be to allow six foot fencing out to the property line regardless of which way the neighboring dwelling faces.This would effectively create instances where there may be some vision concerns for the neighboring dwelling.We can see those concerns in the next slide. This is a real-life example here in Pasco,where one of the houses does access the ?anking side street.We can see on the left image there's a small gap between that dwelling and the fence.That doesn't provide a lot of vision when the homeowner backs out.Also,if you look at the image to the right,this is what someone going down the street would see,it's more of a bene?cial image.You're seeing it from the traffic heading away from the site. If you're on the right and you’re a pedestrian or your car driving down the road,you wouldn't see that car until it's already out in the street.And the homeowner likewise wouldn't see you going down the street until they're already over the sidewalk into the street.Another option we will look Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 172 of 300 into would be to allow six-foot fencing,at least out to the building line of the dwelling.And this would take away the dependency on where the neighbor dwelling is placed. If you look at this diagram,you can see that this fence wouldn't need to be set back to the building line of the dwelling on the right,which would effectively make it so that fence wouldn't have any instances where it would be placed in in front of a window or door. The last option we have would be to not make any code amendments to our current fence provisions.If we can adhere to lots and block standards.Moving forward,we believe that we can mitigate a lot of the issues that we're seeing with corner lot fencing.Currently,a lot of the issues that we're seeing right now were created in the last ten years,and we've made a lot of improvements to our reviews and our lots and blocks code.So what staff is looking for from this point is any recommendations or direction for these options or anything that we can investigate ?.1rther. Commissioner Myhrum stated if staff would illustrate an example of how option three is being used today and how that might work to prevent these sorts of issues down the road,has the review process changed and improved. Mr.Hattori-that is correct,when we're reviewing preliminary plots and proposals for subdivisions, we're taking a better look at the street layouts and making sure it conforms to all our provisions. And we're also taking a better consideration for potential fences and driveways as well.A lot of the lots that we're seeing these issues with are on streets that wind in ways they shouldn't or longer than they should be,and create these instances where houses are required to face a side street when that should not have been an option at all. Commissioner Myhrum-thanks,it sounds like a lot of these things are being headed off already by staff.Is there any drawback that you see to amending the code that might create complications or restrictions to any developments?And maybe it's simpler to keep it in staff and any thoughts on that? Mr.Hattori-I apologize,I did not catch the last part. Commissioner Myhrum-do you have any feeling about whether emitting the code would potentially be restrictive down the road or if this kind of analysis can be done in house with staff oversight. Mr.Hattori stated I don't think amending the code would create more restriction on the lot.I think that if we were to make an amendment,it would be more lenient.But as it currently stands with the current provisions of the code,we wouldn't make it any more difficult for fencing on any future lots. Commissioner Cochran-can you summarize,if you just left the code alone,and then just did better permitting review process.Is six foot tall in the front and side and three and three and a half in the front or is it more complex than that?that's my ?rst part of the question.What is the kind of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 September l6,2021 Page 173 of 300 summary of the current standards? Mr.Hattori—that would be correct. Commissioner Cochran stated unless it’s in the front,you can have a six foot up to the property line,but if it’s a front,it can only be three and a half. Mr.Hattori—that is correct.Fences greater than three and a half feet have to be set back at least to the building line of the home front yard areas. Commissioner Cochran-so can a six-foot fence be in the property line side or front yard,or will it need to be built for. Mr.Hattori—in the ?anking front yard.The front yard is any area between the property line and the dwelling from the right way line and dwelling.In this case,you would have effectively two front yards where most of this issue arises ?om because it is also a side yard.They have two large areas where they can’t have six-foot fencing. Commissioner Cochran stated,that's just because there's a road.And does the road currently apply to public and private drive,like,for example,here in a comer lot.But the corner lot is on one side is a private drive?Does that not apply because it's a private drive?Or how does that work,or does it just have to be worked out in the permitting process? Mr.Hattori—it would be worked out during the permitting process,I haven't had any instances on private drives,but they will have to conform to the standards. Commissioner Cochran-last question,does it typically only happen on new construction?Do we get a lot of permits for existing houses that just want to replace or add a fence?Even if Pasco says you need a permit,it’s easy to just build a fence without a pennit.There is a lot of contractors that will do it. Mr.Hattori stated we do see it mostly on new construction,but there are a lot of properties that say we're annex into the city that have fences that don't conform to this provision and having those permits come in,then we would have to have them comply with the code.So,there are lots on record that do have these issues. Commissioner Cochran asked what the remediation is like,and what if the code gets missed during the permit review process?What if a neighbor comes back and says,I can’t see getting out of my driveway because they built a six—footfence all the way around to the road? Mr.Hattori—that would be a complain to the Code Enforcement,at that point they would require to be comply with the code. Chair Bowers had a question regarding the fifth page in handouts,what was the area with the red circle? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 174 of 300 Mr.Hattori-those houses are laid out,so they don't form the entire frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets.The house to the south wouldn't be allowed to have their fence all the way out to the property line.They would have to set it back to the neighbors building line like it is in this case.I am trying to show they are not able to extend all the way out due to the lot layout. Commissioner Bowers-so this is what we are trying to move towards,so you have my sign off on that. Commissioner Teel-stated I have a question,what if the house on the left were to put a fence in,on the left corner lot,where would their fence line be?Would it be their own house or the other person’s house? Mr.Hattori-with the current standards it would be the building line of the house behind them.So, their neighbors house. Commissioner Bowers-where is the neighbor’s house?Oh,that's the neighbor's house.Okay.It's a little surreal.I can't tell which part is the house and which is the grass.Does that answer your question,Commissioner Teel? Commissioner Teel-yes,thank you. Commissioner Bowers-does that give you the information that you need,or do you need any more direction from us? Mr.Hattori-responded what we are looking for is a recommendation on the options that were proposed,if there's one that is most suitable to the planning commission. Director Rick White stated,Madam Chair,if the Commission is of consensus that there is no need for an amendment that would also be appreciated if there is an option that people favor,we can advertise for a public process and ?ush this out. Commissioner Bowers asked commissioners what they feel about the options that are laid out on page 2 and part of page three? Commissioner Cochran-Madam Chair,have the same challenge you this is hard to visualize.I think you guys did the best you could to help us visualize.This is a really hard thing to visualize for me and becomes a complicated issue.I guess my tendency,based on what I've heard is to try to make sure we have a rigorous permitting and review process to catch these issues.If there are safety issues or people complaining there will also need to be a mitigating process.I would say keep it the same and hopefully mitigate through the permitting process.Is there a sense that the current process is too restrictive or and if the current process is really restrictive,but we make it even more complicated,is it going to be seen as more overreach? Director Rick White stated I’m not so sure that the complaints are driven by the code itself.I think there have been some lots created,as Mr.Hattori said in the last ten years that present some real Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 September 16,202] Page 175 of 300 problems in terms of not just fencing but also driveways.I can think of a subdivision right now that has had to accommodate a diagonally placed major gas line easement in it,and it has created a street system where almost every comer lot is going to be a fencing issue. Would that have been anticipated better by staff?Perhaps,as described as we demand stricter conformance with our existing subdivision codes,this is probably a problem that is going away.I have jotted a note down to explore special conditions relating to fencing on comer lots that may be applicable either through a special use permit process or variance,preferably special use permit. That may be an option for the commission to also consider. Commissioner Cochran-I like that because then you keep the process,try to do a really good job in the in the review,but then you have an option for special use if you have an extenuating circumstance or future condition arises. Commissioner Mendez stated to agree with Commissioner Cochran,about not being sure what the issue is with the current process.The decisions can be worked out with code enforcement.Years back,I built a house on Dessert Plato and had the same situation as presented with the red circle.I had built a six-foot fence in the back,but to not obstruct the neighbors I had to go down to a three feet fence,and all the way to the property line and around to the corner.This worked well,no complaints from neighbors and satis?able code enforcement requirements.I think the decisions should be mitigated and working closely with code enforcement. Commissioner Bowers-so what I think I just heard you say Mr.White,was that this problem is going to go away. Director Rick White that might be an overstatement,but I think it's going to be minimized as time goes on. Commissioner Bowers-given that it's going to be minimized,do we need to go with option three, which maintain the current PMC and standards? Commissioner Myhmm stated I’m just wondering if there might be a bene?t to having some code language in there for enforcement purposes down the road.Again,just what bene?t could provide us that we don't have today.I'm sort of leaning toward option three at this point,but I just wanted to see if there's any direct support for the other two. Commissioner Bowers-there is conferring going on amongst staff,you can’t see it. Mr.Hattori-I certainly think we could investigate that.And I believe maybe next month we can bring something back to the planning Commission for consideration again. Director Rick White stated Madam Chair and commissioners we will work on perhaps some wording that might be applicable through special permit,let's say.And maybe there's something halfway between some of the options that might also work.And in certain circumstances,I'm not sure what those might be right now,but it might provide an option. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 176 of 300 Commissioner Bowers—I'm open to that.I just don't want to see more of those driveways that have the high fences abutting them.So however,you work that out,that sounds good.Any other thoughts we'd like to share with staff? Commissioner Cochran stated I like all the things that have been said and it sounds like good next steps.If we did that and came back,would it be another workshop?because I'm thinking what we want to do is get feedback from development,community or citizens that have views on this.But I think if we came back with some new options that maybe expand on this approach and then public hearing,we might get some good feedback that sway us one way. Commissioner Bowers—heads are nodding,sounds good.We are moving on to another business,I believe this is our update on the Downtown Pasco Master Plan. OTHER BUSINESS MEMO-DOWNTOWN PASCO MASTER PLAN UPDATE §MF#PLAN2021-001) Mr.Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening again,members of the Planning Commission.This is a summary of where we are at with the Downtown Pasco master plan.A few months ago,we provided an update on three of our major planning efforts,transportation,housing and downtown. Tonight's focus is just on our master plan effort downtown.We went through the RFP and consultation selections back in the spring.We selected Framework Consulting.They're based out of Seattle,Washington,and as indicated in the staff report,they've got a wide variety and diverse experience working across specific Northwest and nationwide on quite a few topics that really are going to make be of some value for our downtown area,speci?cally on design standards,zoning, building code,cultural arts,and historic preservation and arts and heritage planning. The selection of Framework was competitive and very happy to be working with them,along with BDS Consulting,who has a speci?c focus on public engagement and Eco Northwest,which has a specific focus on more of the market analysis and feasibility side of things.We hope to comprehensively approach our master planning effort.On the next slide,you see a long list of what the scope of work we’ll intend to move forward with.It's a variety of topics from obviously public investment through community Visioning and goals,the land use and urban design and urban form, so that's more of our built environment,transportation,circulation,and parking. We had a parking study completed about two months ago that will be used for this effort.Covid has had a significant impact on parking,there will be some revisions and updates made to that.The state legislature recently allowed jurisdictions to take advantage of tax increment ?nancing,so our consultant group will look to see how we can take advantage of that downtown.The state also allows cities to utilize the multifamily tax exemption.As we intend to address housing and housing in and near our downtown,that might be another approach. We can also look at corridor incentive,density bonus etc.There's also a market study conducted on Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 September 16,202] Page 177 of 300 what exists downtown along with some comparisons.And then the infrastructure planning will certainly be a big part of this.In fact,the Lewis Street Corridor project,which ranges from Second to Fifth Avenue,which is connected to the Lewis Street overpass intersection improvements or construction.They're all connected obviously have a very signi?cant component with regards to infrastructure.We have a lot of infrastructure and planning work being done in downtown Pasco today,as we speak.It expects to wrap up by springtime of 2022. We've held our kickoff meeting internally with staff and our consulting partners.Currently,we are reviewing our public engagement plan,once that's completed and ready for distribution,we'll send that out and then begin implementing that engagement plan.They will soon begin working on the existing conditions report.That will be followed by a workshop with the public and then a ?nalization of that existing conditions report.And throughout this entire process,Framework and staff is committed to providing both the Planning Commission council and the public with updates along this entire process. You can see that middle section with the draft plan with the open house.And what's very critical is having eyes on the draft document,comments on that draft document and those comments being legitimately addressed in the ?nal document to be adopted by Council later next spring.On the next slide Framework has identi?ed three overarching engagement goals.Engagement should be meaningful and continuous,engagement should capture the diverse cultures and identities of our community and a commitment to downtown Pasco stakeholders,and that's both through language and not just social media and newspaper print,but by walking door to door. The city staff and our consulting team will certainly be busy for the next year working on engaging our community downtown.The three phases of that engagement plan focus on building awareness, planning together,and staying engaged to the entire process,and communicating updates and gaining feedback.Meaningful feedback to drive the ?nal delivery of this master planning effort. Framework and their consulting team has developed a tentative outreach schedule,so you can see right now we're ?nalizing the engagement plan that will be followed. A speci?c branding material was developed to help not only with the planning effort,but as we begin to market downtown to both our local community,and anyone interested in downtown.An online public survey will be developed along with Vision Workshop later this winter and next spring an open house.You can see the ongoing updates to both Council various sports,including the DPA and other community groups downtown and the Planning Commission.This is to provide the Planning Commission with a summary of where these efforts are at. We are excited to keep going forward.I am happy to answer any questions from The Planning Commission.Thank you! Commissioner Bowers stated thank you,Mr.Gonzales.This looks great and I'm excited to get those updates that are listed on that last slide.Anyone else?Any comments?Feedback? No comments or feedback Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 1 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 178 of 300 Meeting Adjourned at 7:19 pm. Respect?xlly submitted, Maria Fernandez,Administrative Assistant II Community &Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 September 16,2021 Page 179 of 300 PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES&of City Hall-Council Chambers I 525 North Third Avenue Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,OCTOBER21,2021 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Jerry Cochran. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present:Jerry Cochran Remotely:Joseph Campos,Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrman, Abel Campos,Isaac Myhrum,Jay Hendler a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent:Tanya Bowers,Rachel Teel. Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Andrew Hattori Planner 1,Administrative Assistant II Maria Fernandez. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jerry Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Cochran explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. He further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendationsto City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community, livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services,and the environment. Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. He stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone,and state your name and city of address for the record. Chair Cochran reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of9 October 21,2021 Page 180 of 300 There were no declarations. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Cochran stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendationsto City Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the of?cial record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision. He encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '3'Commissioner Joseph Campos moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of September 16,2021.Commissioner Kim Lehrman seconded,and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS Corner Lot Fencing -Mr.Andrew Hattori,Planner stated being there to discuss comer lot fencing again.Brie?y touch of presentation will be given and current options as well as new options.PMC 25.180.050 (1)(c)states when you have two comer lots and they form the entire frontage between two parallel and nearly parallel streets,and neither dwelling accesses.The shared street fences are allowed to extend out into the ?anking front yard at a height not to exceed 6ft.When one of those two dwellings accesses that side street fences are limited to three and a half feet.The visual representation shows the situation in which neither house accesses the shared street.Therefor six- foot fences are allowed in every zone shown here except for the blue area.The next slide will show what this looks like.In practice,you can tell that neither house accesses the shared street,so the fences are allowed to extend out to what is presumed to be the property line at a height of 6ft. The other situation is where one of the houses accesses the side street.In this case that's the house on the right.In this case,the six-foot fencing is required to be set back to the building line of the house that accesses the ?anking or shared street.Here's an example.The house on the Comer's fence is required to be set back to the building line of the dwelling behind it because they don't form the shared frontage between two parallel streets. Going back to option one,there will not be restrictions in the ?anking front yards,this would remove the provision that fences in the ?anking front yard can only be three and a half feet when one of the houses accesses the shared street.Six-foot fencing will be allowed in all areas but the blue,no matter the situation.To give an example of what this looks like,this is a property on Cathedral Drive.Looking at the image on the left,you can tell that that house accesses the shared Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 October 21,2021 Page 181 of 300 street and between the side of that house and the fence is a very small space gap.A car driving down the street will not be able to see a pedestrian on the sidewalk or a reversing car until they have crossed the sidewalk.This can be a hazardous situation.Another option will require that six- foot fencing be set back to the building line of the dwelling when one of the houses accesses the side street.This would make fencing requirements no longer based on your neighbor’s building line and gives more independence to a lot.The new option helps resolve the issue like on Cathedral Drive.The addressing situation would be when dwellings come in for permitting,reviewers would have the ability to determine that the house must face the non-shared street side like the Cathedral situation here,the two properties on the corner were plotted under two separate plats. This means when the Northern house was built,the house to the south was a vacant lot,this would be allowed to build that six-foot fence out to the property line on the shared street,and then the house to the south could be built out to the fence.We do not have the ability to say no,you can’t face the house this was because of the fencing.We can create a situation where that driveway is going to be close to a fence that blocks visibility,we would have an additional requirement when a house faces the ?anking side street it would be set back equal to the dwelling required setback.In R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 RS-1 20ft.RS-12 &RS-20 25 ft. Director Rick White-This would mean during the platting review there would be extra care and considerationwhen reviewing the shape and con?guration in these situations on comer lots.Then during the permitting review of homes for those lots,we would probably need to establish a code provision addressing the direction a home face.It is important to use this option,as it provides a solution,and it would also need to be noted in our municipal code. Chair Cochran-In addition to the two previous options we discussed last month,you came up with two more.One was this one you just talked about,and then the other option,obviously is to do nothing.It seems like the main reasons are primarily on one hand safety and visibility,and on the other hand,homeowners that want to have the freedom to build fences without feeling like there's city overreach.I appreciate you looking at all the different options and going back and continuing to look for a good balance. Do commissioners have any questions or comments or feedback?I think what we're looking for tonight from Commission members primarily is staff looking for feedback or questions on the different options and what direction the commissioners would like staff to go on this and then we will continue this in another public hearing and make probably recommendationslater. Commissioner Campos-I’m glad we are going through this issue,as a Pasco citizen.I noticed this is an issue,but it is not just fencing.Shrubbery is also a safety issue,but also anything that can obstruct vision in the pathway.Back to fencing I think establishing a requirement where a driveway can be located.If there was an extra 2ft between the driveway and the fence,this will give enough vision to see a pedestrian.Opposed to restricting someone from setting up a fence all the way up to their property line. Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 October 21,202] Page 182 of 300 Chair Cochran-Commissioner Campos Mr.White mentioned the Permitting for new houses in the new plated area would be which way the house will face.This is already built-in option three. Andrew Hattori—Shrubbery falls within the same classification of this code. Commissioner Lehrrnan stated recalling a situation on Desert Plateau about 18 years ago,at that time when we built our house,the builder said we would be able to rotate our house to which street we wanted to face.It led to a problem with fencing.I would like to see option three.I just think we should take the steps necessary to avoid a hassle and not keep homeowners on a limbo.Mr.White was talking about updating code provisions that will avoid homeowners building a fence and then later having to remove it due to safety issues.We just don’t want citizens in this situation where it is unsafe for drivers and pedestrians. Chair Cochran-Thank you Commissioner Lehrman great comments,any more questions or feedback from the commissioners? I am hearing none,this is a public hearing,so we will go ahead and open it up for public comments. So,if you are here to comment on this form item,please come up to the podium.Come forward. Please state your name and city of address.For the record,thank you for being here. Maria Teresa Valdez-Pasco resident stated she attended this meeting for this speci?c item.I understand that option three gets the permitting aspect for the builders and to kind of be checked.I love that I think that's needed,but we also must keep residents that have been here for years in mind.Their fence requirements don't add up to the new regulations.So,I think with knowing that we need to decide also what that's going to entail.When code enforcement goes around says,hey, that's not supposed to be there,when are those feet’s going to be implemented? As a community,we need to have that into consideration because it can cause a lot of confusion.I also would like to say when someone purchases a property and has their house on there,their intent is to use it as their home.If your neighbor then decides to build a fence 6ft on both sides because the home was not there originally,what is the city plan on doing to relieve that situation?Will you make the homeowner who built that fence ten years before the home was built,incur those costs? My other question is if the fence is 3-ft from your property line,they would still be able to have that six-foot fence?That is the way I read the code is now,correct Rick White? Mr.Rick White—fences generally go to the back of the sidewalk.Although the back of the sidewalk is normally not the property line,it's usually a few feet in,as you've mentioned.And I believe we do not permit fences in the right of way any longer. In the last few years,they’ve been set back a bit a couple of feet,perhaps particularly on the residential lots with 60ft right-of—way.And then your other concern about any fence legally installed now,no matter what happens in the future with code regulations,is going to be what's called grandfathered in.If sone legally and meets the code now and then,it will be ?ne. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of9 October 21,2021 Page 183 of 300 Maria Teresa Valdez-I do appreciate that comment because that was my main concern.I have a lot of houses that have nice center block fences put up.To take down that would cost would be insane. My only thing is if they are already provisions to set that back 3 to 6ft,why would we have to go back in and rewrite the code?I guess that's my question,if you're trying to build a fence line,it can't be on the property line it has to be set back 3 ft.if your homes are not forward facing,why would this be? Andrew Hattori-It's when one of the houses accesses that side street,it's not set back 3ft or so it's set back to the building line of your neighbor's property.That’s going to be 20ft or more.What we're looking to do is try to explore options on how to either leave it alone or be more considerate of how that can impact the homeowner.The situation where a fence would be allowed at the property line,the distance that's about 3ft or so is when neither house has access the side street. Maria Teresa Valdez-In the situation where one home is facing one direction,and one is facing the other?Would that provision eliminate what's going on here now?If we implementedthat to the comer lots if your fence is pushed back 3ft from your property line,plus the sidewalk,plus the extra space in the road for bikers.Wouldn't that be more than enough space? Andrew Hattori-No,especially when driveways are that close to those fences.Most people are going to be reversing out of the driveway and there's a considerableamount of visibility that you would need to have to make sure that when you're leaving,you're not backing into oncoming traf?c or somebody running by. Maria Teresa Valdez-I understand what you're saying,like this house here on the comer lot,this is his driveway,His fence reaches out here and is forward facing the same side,are you talking about this?Because I just see it as a homeowner.I want to be able to utilize my property and have privacy.With homes being built so close to each other,can you imagine the next guy with kids running around?That 3ft fence,you're looking straight through everybody's windows.And I feel like that's a concern that most people are going to have.I don't have that.My home is old.It's built it's grandfathered,and I don't have that issue.But I also want to be considerate of everyone else when they buy their property. Commissioner Cochran-It's a difficult issue.It's trying to balance between that visibility and safety issue and that property rights issue.It seems like with option three,it does provide an option for the city to take that on a case-by-case basis as they're looking at those new homes.And,of course,the people with existing fences are grandfathered in.But I think it seems like the existing code does create in limited situations,potential safety issues.And that's what we're attempting,I think,to mitigate.Is that accurate characterization? Andrew Hattori-yes,that is accurate. Commissioner Cochran-Are there any Commission members that had questions for the applicant? Sorry you sat down,but if I want to make sure if somebody had a question for you,they could ask. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 October 21,2021 Page 184 of 300 Page 185 of 300 Any questions?No more questions or concerns.This is a continuous issue,so we’ll see this next month again.Next category is a memo on the Utility extension of the UGA. WORKSHOP OTHER BUSINESS MEMO-Utilig Extension UGA-Director Rick White stated this item is a lot different than the one you just considered.This involves utility extensions in the urban growth area,and it stems,of course,on a number well,a whole history of growth in the city of Pasco,but particularlyrelative to the 2021 comprehensive plan adoption.As the Commissionknows,we expandedthe urban growth area considerably 3600 acres.Roughly that urban expansion is being appealed right now to the Washington State Growth Hearing Board.But this issue about the policy for utilities extensions still needs to be addressed because it's going to be important moving forward. The major points of the staff report focus on the inef?cient use of public funds,to maintain and develop inef?cient infrastructure.When unplanned growth occurs it's less expensive,but in the long run,it costs everybody in terms of direct ?nancial costs and future considerationsfor loss of land,loss of street connectivity and several inef?cient municipal services. City Council and the Planning Commission have stressed several issues with the comprehensive plan process for the last two years.Of course,the goals to encourage urban development in urban areas where adequate facilities and services can exist or be provided is an important goal.The goal of reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into low sprawling inef?cient low- density development was recognized as a critical goal towards that end.In Pasco.Here we're faced with three unique situations in terms of our urban boundaries. In the last recently incorporated Riverview area,we have an odd mix of low-density development, some of it even without city water,but certainly a lot of it with septic systems.It's noted to be lacking in adequate right of way.Often structures,homes,garages,etc.are directly in line with what would be consideredlogical road extensions.And it's very dif?cult to retro?t those areas with urban services,and we're noticing that more and more every single day when people ask to subdivide their property.The second situation is lands that are generally outside the Riverview area,but we're not included in the most recent urban boundary expansion that northwest of Burns and Broadmoor Boulevard.Those are in our old urban boundaries.Many of them use city water. Those properties are mostly ?lled up with half acre developments and they use septic systems,they have city water.Because the minimum requirement is one half acre lots.The level of exception is generally between one and a third and one and a half acre lots.The other situation we have is our new boundaries,and those are clean slate opportunities. There are no roads,there are no constraints aside,lack of utilities,and they offer the best chance for achieving some of the goals that Council and the Commission have focused on in the comprehensive plan process.What we've proposed in terms of the staff perspective,is separate Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 6 of‘)October 2|,2021 Page 186 of 300 treatment of those three areas.The unincorporatedRiverview area or also including at least the recently incorporatedRiverview area south of 182,will be providedcity potable water when asked in conjunction with building permits for single family homes on existing lots. It's a fair proposition,and prevents any kind of taking,and it allows owners of existing lots to utilize their property,with the intent to use it as a single-familyhome.Any subdivision,of parcels in the unincorporatedand incorporatedRiverview area would require extension of city sanitary sewer in conjunction with extension of city potable water.And then there's a caveat with that that indicates we would strive to develop a procedurefor exceptions when it simply is impractical,and we would rely on engineering analysis to come to that conclusion. Those lands outside Riverview within the old Urban boundariesare recommendedto extend city potable water with building permits for existing single-familyhomes.There not many properties left in the old 2008 urban boundariesthat are in this situation.We would require annexationfor extension of city services.This would result in conformance with city development standards, impact fees,and any other development regulations that would apply to properties already in the city limits. It has a lot of ramifications,staff attempted to address just the essentialsin this memo.We would certainly welcome Commission discussion,and once some feedback is received,we are currently working with our legal team to come up with a series of municipal code amendmentsthat would be needed to be addressedthrough ordinances.With any feedback we hear tonight,we can come back with something for the Commission in November that narrows this down. CommissionerCochran-Thank you Mr.White,you want new homes to leverage the investments the taxpayers have made already,and when they don’t,you want the developers and homeowners to bear that burden because the city has made those investments and those taxpayers have made that investment,I think it seems like a reasonableapproach.One question is,when you use the wording,they require an extension of city sanitary and city water.I assume that means that that's on the developer or homeowner‘sproperty owner's dime?Or is that on the city’s dime. Director Rick White-It would be on the owner or the permitting applicant. Commissioner Cochran-I think that putting the burden on the developers and property owners to bear the burden when they aren't leveraging the investments the city has already made is a reasonablerule,but I will open it up to the other Commission members for comments and feedback.1 think the staff would love your input and guidance,so please feel free to chime in any comments from other commissioners. Commissioner Lehrman-In the old UGA there are four neighbors,and one home is not there yet, does that new homeowner take the full responsibility of connecting the sewer and water? Director Rick White-There are four lots in a row,three of the lots have homes,the last one does not.If a building permit is wanted on that existing lot,they would need to extend city water Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of9 October 21,202] Page 187 of 300 themselves.If they came and approachedstaff with a subdivisionof that last parcel,then they would be expectedto extend not just the water to serve the new subdivision,but also the sanitary sewer. CommissionerCochran-Is it because the lot becomes too small for a septic? Director Rick White-This goes back to the premiseswithin the urban boundaries,we shouldn’tbe using septic systems on existing lots.Generally,people have the property right to develop their home on an existing lot.In those circumstances,there will not be much argument about use of a septic system and meeting the health department regulations.But,if you subdividethose properties into additionallots,within the urban area we would be expectedto provide sewer. CommissionerHendler-When is a project or issue required to come before the Planning Commission? Director Rick White-Sure,when we switchedto hearing examiner,items like specialpermits, preliminary plats,and rezones moved from the Planning Commission’sworkloadto Hearing Examiner workload.Any major planning efforts like the ComprehensivePlan,Code Amendment process,the TransportationsSystem Master Plan,the commissionhas received updates,then there are the administrativeprocesses that do not go to Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission. One of those are the short plats because they are handled at the staff level. CommissionerHendler-Not every project will be seen by the Planning Commissionunless they fall within the perimeters? Director Rick White-yes,that’s correct.This item will come back this year to the Planning Commission,if we can get the ordinances tied up that affect the existing section in the municipal code,we'll be able to advertise for a public hearing. CommissionerCochran-So we will see this in a more formal public hearing item in Novemberor December.Thank you. CommissionerLehrman-Referring to CommissionerHandler’s question,l’m wondering if there's an infographic that could be put up to share with both commissionersand the public of the process that the city uses when deciding to go to the hearing examiner and Planning Commission,to be able to help with communication.Like I said,these formal meetings that we have here and how citizens can be involved in and follow along a little easier. Commissioner Cochran-Something so simple like a ?owchart or diagram can be helpful,thank you for that input commissioner.Hearing no further questions or comments. Meeting Adjourned at 7:16 pm. Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 October 21 2021 Page 188 of 300 Respectfullysubmitted, §K MariaFernandez,AdministrativeAssistant 11 Community &EconomicDevelopment Department October 21,2021 Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 Page 189 of 300 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, November 18, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment Background Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: (1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of- way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1. (2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2. Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent. Analysis & Summary Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a corner lot must be set back significantly further than what would be a safe and uniform distance from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or stringent requirements. Staff proposes two amendments to the code: Residential Design Standards Page 190 of 300 2 When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses. Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard setback of the underlying zoning district. This will remove the setback dependency on neighboring dwellings while providing the necessary vision the drivers or pedestrians need on corners and driveways for safe travel. Staff has included all proposed changes and revisions in Exhibit #A of the Planning Commission staff report. RECOMMENDATION Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the Residential Design Standards and the Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards as contained in the November 18, 2021 Planning Commission staff report. Page 191 of 300 Page 192 of 300 Page 193 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 1 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CORNER LOTS AND CORNER LOT FENCING, AND AMENDING PMC SECTIONS 25.165.100(1) “RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS” AND 25.180.050(1)(C) “DESIGN STANDARDS” WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has Subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth and development; and WHEREAS, fencing design standards require setbacks determined by neighboring dwellings; and, WHEREAS, residential design standards do not provide provisions for maintaining standard lot accesses; and WHEREAS, without such ordinance, placement of fences on corner lots is problematic and ambiguous when lots are not developed simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to maintain and protect the welfare of the community and provided consistent and reasonable expectations for fence and dwelling placement, it is necessary to amend PMC Section 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” and PMC Section 25.180.050(1)(C) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges”; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section of PMC 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.165.100 Residential design standards. (1) Design Standards. Except for multifamily structures, the following design standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings in the RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts: (a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed; (b) When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be addressed or accessed from the shared street. (c)(b) A minimum of 30 square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the dwelling facing the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with a minimum of a four-foot overhang; Page 194 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 2 (d)(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling architecture; (e)(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be permitted to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and except for flat-pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design. (f)(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches; (g)(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted, provided the main roof includes one or more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a pitch of 5/12 or greater; (h)(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted, except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch; (i)(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block; (j)(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington; (k)(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street; (l)(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior-grade wood, or exterior-grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal conditions; (m)(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation one and one-half to two inches. A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation; (n)(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling must be cedar or other City-approved materials that are not subject to deterioration; (o)(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed; (p)(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling; (q)(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport; (r)(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind the front building setback line of the dwelling. (2) Exceptions. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.200.080. Section 2. That Section of PMC 25.180.050(1) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.180.050 Design standards. Page 195 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 3 (1) Fences, Walls and Hedges. (a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and street or alley shall be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases where topographical irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between a structure and a common lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot line or top of any structural retaining wall occurring at the common lot line. (b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials used in any principal on-site structures. (c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street; except where the front door of a house faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5 feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.a distance equal to the front yard setback of the zoning district. (d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to six feet. A gate or opening with a minimum three foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be provided. (e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi-colored materials, tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial districts, wheel rims and similar or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken wire, horseman wire mesh, v-mesh, field fence, woven field fence, welded utility fence, or any similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in residential or commercial zones. Horseman wire mesh and the other wire fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built with valid permits prior to the effective date of this chapter or fences on properties annexed to the City after the effective date of this chapter are exempt from this subsection. (f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns of up to five feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts provided said fencing is 85 percent transparent. (g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential districts, in the office district and the central business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. In the C-1 retail business district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top rail or within two inches of the top rail. (h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a secondary means of securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an existing fence or in suburban districts to contain permitted farm animals. (i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple frontage, rails, posts and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public street; except that posts and Page 196 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 4 rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural support may be visible from a public street. (j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of any required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the street frontage. (k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet above curb grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property lines from the intersection of two streets, including the area between such points, or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and an alley; provided, however, that if an alternative fence material is used, such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the fence must be 75 percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a smaller, 75 percent transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall or other structure not exceeding a combined height of six feet may be erected within said area of intersection of street and alley, so long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter. (l) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in public right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in PMC 25.180.050(1)(j). (m) All residential fencing within the I-182 overlay district, as defined by PMC 25.130.020, adjacent to the I-182 right-of-way shall be constructed of masonry block. Replacement of pre- existing Surewood fences within the district shall use masonry block or cedar material prescribed by the City as prestained, knotless cedar 23/32-inch thick, five and one-half inches wide and six feet tall. (n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit from the Building Inspector. (2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it shall be complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as measured from its center, shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, or within five feet of a driveway or a fire hydrant. (3) Commercial and Industrial Districts. (a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an arterial street and the first five feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting a local access street shall be treated with landscaping at the time the property is developed. No less than 65 percent of the landscaped area must be treated with live vegetation at the time of planting. (b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless specified otherwise in Chapter 25.130 PMC, commercially and industrially zoned properties adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts shall have a 10-foot landscape buffer on the side immediately adjacent to the less intense zoning district. The landscaped buffer shall meet the following standards: (i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout the landscape buffer. (ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees. Page 197 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 5 (iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center spacing along each property line, unless planted in groupings of three trees, with groupings spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each property line. (iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of one per eight linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center. (v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts require 100 percent of the landscape buffer to be planted with live vegetation. (c) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within right-of-way and exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress, shall be treated with landscape materials. (4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all residential property, including right-of-way but excluding driveways, shall be treated with live vegetation. Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC 12.12.070; and (5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements shall be maintained in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within established landscapes are excluded from this provision in residential districts. Front yard areas not covered by the required 50 percent live vegetation must be covered by mulches or decorative rock. Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this ______ day of __________ 2021. Page 198 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 6 Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ____________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: _____________________ Page 199 of 300 alas Ci 0 ‘WPciysco PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES City Hall -Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,November 18,2021 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present:Jerry Cochran Remotely:Joseph Campos,Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrrnan,Isaac Myhrum,Jay Hendler a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent:Abel Campos,Rachel Teel. Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Planner Andrew Hattori. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bowers stated:The Planning Commission is an advisory board of volunteers appointed by City Council and the purpose of the Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long—termgrowth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services, and the environment.Chair Bowers reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month.She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website,which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there.Copies of the agenda were available on the back table and asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.Please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone,and state your name and city of address for the record.Washington State law requires public meetings to not only be fair,but also appear to be fair.Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted or harmed by the Commission’s decision.Any objection to a Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived.Any Commission members who have a current declaration regarding any of the items on the agenda.There were no declarations.Does anyone object to any Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda.There were no declarations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jay Hendler moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of October 21, 2021.Commissioner Jerry Cochran seconded,and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Memo-Utilig Extension UGA Director Rick White stated:This was brought before the planning commission last month.We do not have an ordinance to review.The memo summarizes the importance of planned and smart utility extension policies in the Pasco urban area and identi?es three different scenarios for your consideration.The first is either the unincorporated or formerly unincorporated areas noted as a Riverview area,the lands within the 2008 Urban Growth area expansion and then the lands added that are part of the current Urban Growth Area expansion. Staff suggests the commission to consider three different policies for each area.Each area has unique attributes,and it doesn’t go well to have a one fits all policy for them. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page I of 6 November 18,2021 Page 200 of 300 V A l Chair Bowers stated:Is it possible to see a mapped unincorporated plus the 2008 and the current EGA. Commissioner Cochran stated:Same comment as last month,but the main driver for my perspective was making sure that we incentivize and prioritize developers leveraging the infrastructure that the taxpayers invested in. Mr.Rick White stated:This was referred to the Home Builders Association some time ago.By December we can have a formal public hearing and probably an ordinance from our legal team. Corner Lot Fencing Mr.Hattori stated:We will discuss a proposal for a code amendment regarding corner lot fencing,the current code PMC 25.180.050 (1)(c)the height of fences,walls,and hedges shall be limited to 1511within the front yard area of a residentially zone lots,retail business and of?ce zone lots provided (when two contiguous comer lots or two comer lots separated only by an alley right of way form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets). The height of fences,walls and hedges shall be limited to 6ft within the front yard adjacent to the side street, except where the front door of a house faces the side street.All fences greater than 3.5ft in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.You can see that the fence extends to the sidewalk where the property line is presumed to be.The other scenario is when one of the houses does access the shared street by current code right now,the requirement for six-foot fencing would have to be set back to the building line of the neighbor's property.The fence would not be able to extend out to the property line. Fencing is entirely based on your neighbor's dwelling.After analyzing the code and possible options,there are two code amendments we would like to propose.The first would be a modification to the residential design standards.It would be the addition of verbiage during the planning stage or the permitting stage for dwellings.If the condition were two contiguous laws formed the entire frontage between two parallel and nearly parallel streets,the house would have to be addressed and accessed from the non-shared street.There is a modification I’d like to change in the report.The proposal is written that the shared street would be the primary access.Our code does allow for secondary accesses on comer lots.The second condition is that fences greater than three and a half feet in height,must be set back a distance equal to the front yard setback of the zoning district,and this would be a change to the fences,walls,and hedges design standards,and this would take away that dependency on your neighbor's dwelling.This also takes into consideration when two developments or two phases occur bordering each other.This is a real-life version of that plot we were just looking at.The Southern dwelling accesses,the shared street and the Northern dwelling is slightly behind.I believe the building line of the Southern lot,and because of that,the fence must be set back two or 3ft from the building line of the Southern property,and that puts the fence by the dining room window.If the fence was allowed to extend all the way out to the property line,for example,then that driveway on the Southern property will border a fence creating a visibility hazard. Chair Bowers stated:the setback being by the dining room window is problematic. Mr.Hattori stated:yes,the fence line would put it at the dining room window of the northern dwelling. With the setback requirement,it would ensure that the furthest that setback is going to be is at the building line of the dwelling. Chair Bowers stated:The building line of which property,the Northern property. Mr.Hattori stated:The building line of the Southern property dictates where the fence will be on the Northern property. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 November 18,2021 Page 201 of 300 Commissioner Cochran stated:When you mention the first change and adding a primary access,I think about my driveway being the primary access,and a secondary access would be where you can park a motorhome,or another parking space?That is the kind of scenario you envision for the secondary access not being subject to it,the primary access is.My second question is,where you say it is not allowed to be addressed or accessed,I would assume a new division phase being added and house is being built and you can tell the constructor the house needs to be addressed a certain direction. Mr.Hattori stated:Yes,we hope the modifications to the design standards to existing dwellings will address this. Commissioner Cochran stated:You all have done a great job of going back and forth on a balanced and minimalist approach that addresses the safety issues. Chair Bowers stated:I'm going to open the public hearing.Any individuals who wish to speak on this item now is the time to come forward and speak.All you must do is state your name and city of address for the record. Maria Sandoval &Ruben Sandoval of 5602 WRubvstated:We are on the comer lot.We wanted to start out by saying this is not what we had in mind.We are concerned about safety.So here we have our six-foot fence,and we drop down,and then all the 56 is that three-and-a-half-foot code enforcement.There is already a six-foot-fence on Court Street,my husband and I are proposing to build our six-foot fence and be aligned where that fence starts off. Commissioner Cochran stated:So,what you are asking is to be able to build a 6-foot fence or extend out to the road?Or both? Maria Sandoval stated:I want you to allow me to add the extra height to the fence. Commissioner Cochran stated:It is hard to envision,but the main goal of the three and a half feet is to help with safety issues when others are backing out or accessing the street.If you build the 6-foot fence are their driveways you would block from being able to see the street? Ruben Sandoval stated:They would not mind if we built a 6-foot fence.There is an electrical box right on the comer of the driveway,it would give them space. Mr.Hattori stated:As far as extending the fence out to what I would think is the property line there,it would still require that that'd be three and a half feet. Director Rick White stated:I want to understand,the six-foot fence is the fence abutting Court Street.The estate fence,is that correct? Maria Sandoval stated."We had an architectural committee look at it.We submitted the plan,and nowhere did it say there was going to have to be a three and a half fence on the busiest side of where our house is. Commissioner Cochran stated:Based on what you described;you would be creating a safety issue for yourself. Maria Sandoval stated:No.This is 56 and our house faces the other way. Chair Bowers stated:Commissioners any other questions,for the Sandoval’s?Any others who wish to speak on this matter? David Atkins o[5613 W Ruby Street stated:I am here for one of our neighbors that could not be here Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of6 November 18,2021 Page 202 of 300 ....,N,_._..._.._.,., tonight.The following is a letter he wrote to the council.His name is Miguel.‘To whom it may concern, First off,thank you for your time to hear us about this issue we have regarding the height of our fence facing the streets,it’s a giant concern to my wife and letting our little one’s age three-and eight-years old play outside in the comfort of our own home due to the absolutely no privacy and potential safety to whoever passes by and randomly stops and parks on road 56.I'm not allowed to put up a six-foot fence.We have over a half-acre lot and with just three and a half foot fencing everywhere it is visible by driving by.I've had multiple cars stop on my property,park,and sit there for a few minutes and just wait there and must take her to support this.I have personal items in my backyard that I could replace if they were to get stolen,but I do not feel safe letting my eight-year-old play in the backyard knowing that it's easier for somebody to literally step over a three-and-a-half-foot fence and could take them with ease.I hope this will never happened,but this is one of the biggest concerns I have.Anyone can walk to my house while my kids play in the backyard while I run upstairs for something or anything,in general.I recently put-up security cameras.But when somebody with intentions,that camera simply isn’t going to stop them.Recently the neighborhood got broken into and my house was hit.A few items were taken from one of the vehicles,that can easily be replaced,but not my children.We have worked very hard for many years to get where we are to be able to build a home for our children.It breaks my heart that I must tell them,they are not allowed to play in the backyard unless 100%supervised,due to being a privacy safety issue.I hope you can see our point of view and please allow us to be able to have Privacy that will give us a peace of mind for the safety of our loved ones and especially these little. Commissioner Cochran stated:Where are you wanting to put the fence? David Atkins stated:Here between where the street is. Commissioner Cochran stated:You’re wanting to put up a fence here,and you’d rather build it six feet than three now.Same as the last case? David Atkins stated:Yes. Ashley Atkins also of 5913 W Ruby Street [husband is David Atkins}stated:Being at the opposite comer,at the last meeting in October,there was an inaccurate discussion,provided the pictures that were shown by Mr.Hattori.I understand he was describing the code in its current place.However,the dispute is about size,location and it wasn't comparable to our situation.We have no sidewalks.There needs to be language in the code to interpret important aspects when deciding a fencing permit,including safety,crime, and conformity.Have you considered writing more than one fence code depending on the size of the residential property or replacing a phrase in the current code to have more versatility for situations like this that come up?After speaking with both the city of Richland and the city of Kennewick code enforcement and building,we would have no problem building a six-foot fence on a quarter lot.We feel the city,as Pasco,has overstepped its stringent code and it needs to reflect not what the city desires,but with the taxpayers need. Chair Bowers stated:Your house currently has a three and a half.’ Ashley Atkins stated."Yes. How would the new proposals effect the presentations we had tonight?How our standards compare to the other two cities for fence building? Mr.Hattori stated:we are the only city of Tri-Cities that currently bases fence setbacks and comer lots on neighboring properties.Each city does it differently,but we would be unique in that aspect. I know I've been given some new information tonight.Does the city feel like with some of this new information,you would like to revise your proposal? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of6 November 18,2021 Page 203 of 300 .3 1l il il, :1 .5 Director Rick White stated.‘No,we can provide aerial photographs of this city-wide issue.First,show the existing situations and then possibly show should there be a six-foot fence installed on the ?anking side. And we can try to show the proposal tonight would accomplish.Reports can be shared with residents and commissioners. Chair Bowers stated:I think it will be helpful,it’s wonderful when public comes in to show us other perspectives.This is how we do community-based decision making.We need to go back,put some more perspectives in here,and then we can look at this at the next public hearing. Commissioner Cochran stated:We should get some insight about the changes you're proposing,which are seemingly a good balance of all the proposals we've talked about,how would that impact,help or hurt these situations? Commissioner Myhrum stated:I concur with my colleagues,and I found the public comments compelling, and I'd be in favor of additional perspective so we can continue to look at this. Commissioner J.Camgos stated:I agree.It would be nice to go back and gather more information and talk about it again. Commissioner Hendler stated:I wanted to bring up the issue about looking at the requirements for fences, aesthetically and the creation of our neighborhoods as we go forward.I do not care about the height of the fence if it meets safety standards and provides for the aesthetics of the city. Chair Bowers stated:We are going to move on,and we will continue this at this public hearing at the next meeting. WORKSHOP &OTHER BUSINESS MEMO-AMENDING NONCONFORMING USES Senior Planner Mr.Jacob Gongaleg stated:in the past municipal Code nonconforming regulations referred to uses or structures which were constructed at the time when they were permitted but have since become noncompliant due to changes in legislation such as rezones land uses,etcetera.Our intent is to update the nonconforming chapter to be more ?exible for our community members.We are looking for comments,this is just an introduction more so to get an approval from planning commission to move forward with this effort.After a few months,we’ll come back with updates. Commissioner Myhrum stated:It appears that there is quite a bit of ?exibility,the non-conforming code section essentially allows a non-conforming use to exist so long as it's not added to or expanded upon.Do you foresee adding additional sections to this?Can you maybe give some examples of added ?exibility that isn't currently being addressed‘? M .Jacob Gonzalezstated:One example is a multi-family house located in a residential zone that could be rebuilt in case of a fire.If it was in a commercial zone,it could not.We have a few residential units specifically in central Pasco along 10"‘avenue,Sylvester,and Court Street.There we have multifamily or residential units that were constructed at the time lawfully.However,a new zoning has been applied,so depending on the extent of the construction or repair,they may not be allowed to be repaired or rebuilt per our current code.We would like to look at some of those to make sure we don't have any inconsistencies. There is an application cycle for our comprehensive plan land use opening in the next few weeks.We do think that both refinements and nonconforming regulations,along with the land use amendments,may clear up any of those kinds of inconsistencies.There's also some language and terms that are in the nonconforming regulations,which we do not have defined.We would like to deviate subjective responses and be very specific and clear as we can be with working with members of the community. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of6 November 18,2021 Page 204 of 300 Chair Bowers stated:This will help get the past in line with the present. Director Rick White stated:The downtown master plan is continuing.December 15 is a workshop,and it will be held downtown.We are also in the middle of the initiation process for a housing capacity plan.Mr. Gonzalez has done a great job getting the city represented in a Housing Solution Workshop,a national effort we really bene?ted from in terms of getting data for our housing capacity plan that we otherwise would have had to have paid for a separate consulting team to prepare.1 want to make sure that I also mentioned the Broadmoor master plan,which is continuing that's much like our comprehensive plan.Not only is it a master planning effort for that roughly 1500-acre area,but it's also an environmental impact statement.The brief from Future Wise was received two weeks ago.It is our issue to take care of,however it is a three-part effort with the city's attorney team,the counties,and the Port of Pasco.The briefs in response to Future Wise's complaint are due next Friday.We expect it will go to the Growth Management Hearing board by the beginning of the year.There are huge projects riding on this decision like the Reimann Center Annexation that will house the Dairy Gold project.There are several large-scale residential developments occurring in North Pasco.We're working on forming sewer,local improvements to provide the backbone utility infrastructure in that area as well. Commissioner Cochran stated:Is there also a workshop happening?The workshop for Broadmoor traf?c design.Is that in public works? Director Rick White stated:Yes,it was last night.There will another event on interchange,West eastbound on I-182 on how they go north and south on Broadmoor Boulevard. Chair Bowers stated:I imagine we will be invited to the Visioning workshop on the 15th? Mr.Jacob Gongaleg stated:You are,yes. Commissioner J.Camgos stated:I have looked at the Transportation System Master Plan Jacob put together,and it looks awesome.Mr.White is the Lewis Street overpass back up and running? Director Rick White stated:Yes,some of it is back up,the supports are being poured already.Mr.Gonzalez would probably like to say a few words about the Transportation System Master Plan. Mr.Jacob Gongale;stated:Yes,quick summary.That effort has been going on from mid-2018 to late 2019. DKS has been working hard to identify existing conditions and the future demands that will be placed on the city's entire transportation network.It’s a lot more than just our vehicle traffic,it includes non-motorized users,bicycles,those on foot and our emergency service responses.We expect that to come back to Council in early 2022 for ?nal adoption. Chair Bowers stated:Will we be seeing it before council? Mr.Jacob Gongaleg stated:Yes,we can provide a summary to the planning Commission.Probably in January’s planning commission meeting. Meeting Adjourned at 7:37 pm Iykespectfullysubmitted, Kristin Webb,CDBG Administrator Community &Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of6 November 18,2021 Page 205 of 300 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment Background Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: (1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of- way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Exhibit A. (2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Exhibit B. Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent. The public considered three options at the December 16th Planning Commission Meeting: Option 1: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard setback of the underlying zone, with a modification to the residential design standards to prohibit access to the shared street. Option 2: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas shall be setback a minimum distance of 15’ from the property line. Option 3: On all lots: Fences greater than 6’ in height must be setback 15’ from all property lines adjacent to street right-of-way. Page 206 of 300 2 Analysis & Summary Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a corner lot must be set back significantly further than what would be a safe and uniform distance from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or stringent requirements. Residential Design Standards When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses. Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback 15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street. Staff has included all proposed changes and revisions in Exhibit C of the Planning Commission staff report. Recommendation Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the Residential Design Standards and the Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards as contained in the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission staff report. Page 207 of 300 Page 208 of 300 Page 209 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 1 EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CORNER LOTS AND CORNER LOT FENCING, AND AMENDING PMC SECTIONS 25.165.100(1) “RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS” AND 25.180.050(1)(C) “DESIGN STANDARDS” WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has Subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth and development; and WHEREAS, fencing design standards require setbacks determined by neighboring dwellings; and, WHEREAS, residential design standards do not provide provisions for maintaining standard lot accesses; and WHEREAS, without such ordinance, placement of fences on corner lots is problematic and ambiguous when lots are not developed simultaneously; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to maintain and protect the welfare of the community and provided consistent and reasonable expectations for fence and dwelling placement, it is necessary to amend PMC Section 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” and PMC Section 25.180.050(1)(C) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges”; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section of PMC 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.165.100 Residential design standards. (1)Design Standards. Except for multifamily structures, the following design standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings in the RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts: (a)The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed; (b)When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be addressed or accessed from the shared street. (c)(b) A minimum of 30 square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the dwelling facing the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with a minimum of a four-foot overhang; Page 210 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 2 (d)(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling architecture; (e)(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be permitted to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and except for flat-pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design. (f)(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches; (g)(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted, provided the main roof includes one or more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a pitch of 5/12 or greater; (h)(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted, except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch; (i)(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block; (j)(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington; (k)(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street; (l)(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior-grade wood, or exterior-grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal conditions; (m)(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation one and one-half to two inches. A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation; (n)(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling must be cedar or other City-approved materials that are not subject to deterioration; (o)(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed; (p)(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling; (q)(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport; (r)(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind the front building setback line of the dwelling. (2) Exceptions. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.200.080. Section 2. That Section of PMC 25.180.050(1) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.180.050 Design standards. Page 211 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 3 (1) Fences, Walls and Hedges. (a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and street or alley shall be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases where topographical irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between a structure and a common lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot line or top of any structural retaining wall occurring at the common lot line. (b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials used in any principal on-site structures. (c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street; except where the front door of a house faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5 feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street. (d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to six feet. A gate or opening with a minimum three foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be provided. (e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi-colored materials, tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial districts, wheel rims and similar or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken wire, horseman wire mesh, v-mesh, field fence, woven field fence, welded utility fence, or any similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in residential or commercial zones. Horseman wire mesh and the other wire fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built with valid permits prior to the effective date of this chapter or fences on properties annexed to the City after the effective date of this chapter are exempt from this subsection. (f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns of up to five feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts provided said fencing is 85 percent transparent. (g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential districts, in the office district and the central business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. In the C-1 retail business district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top rail or within two inches of the top rail. (h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a secondary means of securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an existing fence or in suburban districts to contain permitted farm animals. (i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple frontage, rails, posts and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public street; except that posts and Page 212 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 4 rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural support may be visible from a public street. (j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of any required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the street frontage. (k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet above curb grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property lines from the intersection of two streets, including the area between such points, or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and an alley; provided, however, that if an alternative fence material is used, such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the fence must be 75 percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a smaller, 75 percent transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall or other structure not exceeding a combined height of six feet may be erected within said area of intersection of street and alley, so long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter. (l) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in public right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in PMC 25.180.050(1)(j). (m) All residential fencing within the I-182 overlay district, as defined by PMC 25.130.020, adjacent to the I-182 right-of-way shall be constructed of masonry block. Replacement of pre- existing Surewood fences within the district shall use masonry block or cedar material prescribed by the City as prestained, knotless cedar 23/32-inch thick, five and one-half inches wide and six feet tall. (n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit from the Building Inspector. (2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it shall be complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as measured from its center, shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, or within five feet of a driveway or a fire hydrant. (3) Commercial and Industrial Districts. (a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an arterial street and the first five feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting a local access street shall be treated with landscaping at the time the property is developed. No less than 65 percent of the landscaped area must be treated with live vegetation at the time of planting. (b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless specified otherwise in Chapter 25.130 PMC, commercially and industrially zoned properties adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts shall have a 10-foot landscape buffer on the side immediately adjacent to the less intense zoning district. The landscaped buffer shall meet the following standards: (i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout the landscape buffer. (ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees. Page 213 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 5 (iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center spacing along each property line, unless planted in groupings of three trees, with groupings spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each property line. (iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of one per eight linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center. (v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts require 100 percent of the landscape buffer to be planted with live vegetation. (c) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within right-of-way and exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress, shall be treated with landscape materials. (4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all residential property, including right-of-way but excluding driveways, shall be treated with live vegetation. Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC 12.12.070; and (5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements shall be maintained in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within established landscapes are excluded from this provision in residential districts. Front yard areas not covered by the required 50 percent live vegetation must be covered by mulches or decorative rock. Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this day of 2022. Page 214 of 300 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 6 Blanche Barajas Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Published: Page 215 of 300 PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES &Cltyoj City Hall-CouncilChambers 525 North Third AvenueI.Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,DECEMBER16,2021 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commissionmeeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers. ROLL CALL _ CommissionersPresent:Tanya Bowers,Jerry Cochran,Telephone:Rachel Teel,Kim Lehman, and Joe Campos a quorum was declared. CommissionersAbsent:J.Hendler,Isaac Myhrum,Paul Mendez,Abel Campos Staff Present:Community &EconomicDevelopment Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez,AdministrativeAssistant 11Carmen Patrick,and Planner I Andrew Hattori. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CommissionerTanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bowers explainedthe Planning Commissionis an advisory board made up of volunteers appointedby City Council. She further explainedthe purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendationsto City Councilregarding changes to the City’s ComprehensivePlan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocationsand Zoning Code.The Planning Commissionis tasked with considering the long—term growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community, livability,economicopportunity,housing affordability,public services and the environment. Chair Bowers remindedthe audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebookpage and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcastseveral times during the next month. She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMANDlink and make your selectionthere. Chair Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. She then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission, please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for the record. Chair Bowers remindedthe audience and the Planning Commissionthat Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commissionmembers from participatingin discussionsor decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted or harmed by the Planning Commission’sdecision.An objection to any Planning Commissionmember hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 216 of 300 She asked if there were any Planning Commissionmemberswho have a declarationat this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commissionmember hearing any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commissionneededand valued public input explaining it helped the Commissionunderstandthe issues more clearly and allowedfor better recommendationstoCity Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the official recordand City Councilwill use to make the Commission’s decision.She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '3'CommissionerJ.Campos moved to approve the Planning Commissionmeeting Minutes of November 16,2021.CommissionerCochran seconded,and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Code Amendment—CornerLot Fencing Andrew Hattori stated members of the Planning Commission.I'm here tonight to discuss comer lot fencing again.We will start off with just going over today's current design standards.Currently, maximum height of fencing in front yard areas is limited to three and a half feet.In ?anking front yard areas there are two situationspossibleif they are continuous comer lots between two parallel streets.The maximum height is 6ft.Under any other circumstances,it's three and a half feet up until the point it reaches the building line of the neighboring property.From that point on,it can be 6ft.Furthermore,maximum height of fencing in rear side yards is 6ft. To give an example of the situationwhere you have two comer lots that are continuous and form that entire frontage between two parallel streets,you'll notice on this diagram that both houses are addressed,not onto the shared ?anking street.In this situation,6ft.fencing can extend out into the green ?anking front yard area. The next slide shows a real world example.On the left,you'll notice that the fence extends out to the edge of the sidewalk.It's a little hard to see on the overview on the right,but that's where the property line is located.You'll also notice that both of those houses have their primary accesses locatednot on the shared ?anking street.So this is the situation in which you'd be allowed to extend your fence all the way out to the property line. The next slide.This is an example of when you don't meet that circumstance,the house on the right Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 217 of 300 has their primary access and is addressedoff of the shared ?anking street.In this situation,6ft. fencing has to be set back to the building line of the house on the right for the property on the left. A real world example can be seen on the next slide.On the street view image on the left,you'll notice that fence does not extendall the way out to roughly where that sidewalkis.It's set back to the greenhouse or the house behindits building line.And that can be seen in the overview on the right as well. So,we have some new options tonight.Kind of went back to the drawing board and thought about how far could we extend fences out before we bring in the real question of safety?What's that line? Option one is the option that was proposedat the last meeting.When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two streets,neither property shall access the sharedstreet,so we will try our best to avoid those situations.And fences greater than three and a half feet height must be set back a distance equal to the underlying zone. So,in the RS-1 one and higher densities,that's going to be a 20ft.setback in the RS-l2 and RS-20 zoning districts,that's going to be a 25ft.setback.And on the next slide,this is the real world overview of that plot we were just looking at you'll notice that house on the northwest comer I believe in that intersection,their driveway abuts that property line.So having fencing that extends out all the way to the sidewalkwould create a severe visibility concernwhen you're backing out of there,especially when there's two four—way intersections. On the next slide,we'll go over option two.Under this option,fences greater than three and a half feet in height must be set back 15ft.from the property line adjacent to the shared flanking street. You'll notice this l5ft.brought up a lot.After discussionamong the planning staff,building staff, engineering staff,and kind of ?nding out what's that line,where do fences start to become real visibility concerns,15ft.was the measurementthat was determined.It's in line with our clear view standardin the past design and constructionstandards. So,under this situation,it doesn't matter what your underlying zoning is.As long as the fence that's greater than three and a half feet is set back 15ft.from that property line,it would be pennittable. So on the next slide.You'll notice that the fence is nonconforming in this instance,it actually extendsbeyond the property line into the right of way and abuts the driveway of the Brown house. Under current fencing design standards,the white vinyl fence would actually have to be set back about 15ft.into the start of the building line,which would effectively put,for example,that fence at your living room window. That doesn t really make a whole lot of sense.Under option two,you would have a 15-foot setback that effectively puts it at the building line of the dwelling and also provides enough clear view space for the dwelling behind it,the Brown dwelling to safely exit there without having to worry about oncoming traffic or any pedestrianswho might be walking down the road. And option three,our ?nal option,fences greater than three and a half feet in height must be set back l5ft.from all property lines.This creates a standarddistance along all right of way lines.So what that would mean is that we essentially get rid of the concept of the difference of a front yard and a ?anking front yard.If you have a property line that's adjacent to a street or any public right of way,then it would just need to be set back 15ft.from that property line. Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 218 of 300 So,moving forwardat last month's meeting,there was a lot of discussionabout a specific development in this case that's the Haven Court Meadowsdevelopment off of West Court Street. So,I thought it would be a good idea to take some of the lots that have these comer lot fencing concerns,draw out what each option would mean for these lots and kind of do an analysis of that. But before we break into the analysis,I just wanted to bring up a few things about not only the subdivision,but fencing in general,a lot of fencing problems are specific to a subdivisionor the area.This area in particularis in the Riverview area.It's next to what used to be a County doughnut hole. And in these areas is where we ?nd a lot of these issues.You'll notice none of this area has sidewalks.There's no city sewer here,so there's septic tanks,which causes issues even on the fencing materialdesign.I also wanted to bring up that we're not talking about whether or not these lots are fenceable.We're strictly talking about where you can have fences greater than three and a half feet.All of these lots are fenceable.I know a concern that was brought up last meeting was the wall that is adjacent to West Court Street. That's an estate wall.It's entirely different than a residentialfence.In a way,it is a standardthat was required at preliminary plat approvaland is required of the subdivisionplans.So typically these fences go in way before any homes are built and before the land is actually even plottedinto individuallots,those are required against any collector or arterial roads West Court Street falls into that category,and it's why the fence doesn't continue up Road 56 and Road 60. So,the ?rst lot we're going to look at is lot D.You'll notice that there's an access easement behind this lot and that's the sole access point for at least one dwelling to get to Road 60.And this is an example of when we really have to be conservativevisibility because while it's not your traditional driveway,it's a lot that only can use this and they have to have a safe distance,which would be that 15ft.But you'll notice two lines.The blue interior line is where fences greater than three and a half feet would have to be set back under today's design standardsand option one.The red line,which is closer to the property,would be where fences can be under option two and three,and there's a total of 10ft.closer,so that would increase the fenceable area with fences greater than three and a half feet by roughly 10ft.of width. The next lot we're going to look at is E.You'll see it on 58 Court and West Ruby Street.So,this is a lot on the corner of 50th Court and West Ruby Street,similar to the last lot.The blue line shows where under today's standardsin option one,fence is greater than three and a half feet can be in the red line,which is closer to that property line is option two and three again with a gain of 10ft.in width.Now the third lot is the northwest lot on the corner of West Ruby Street and Road 56.And this kind of shows how our current fence design standardscan really vary depending on your neighbor's lot layout. So,the blue line in this instance is where fences would be under option one only,the red line, which is 10ft.closer to Road 56,is actually today's standardoption two and option three,because that lot behind it is actually closer than typically would be to Road 56. The last one we're going to look at is on the southwest comer of that intersectionand similar to the first two.Yeah,G and under this or the blue line,in this case,similar to the ?rst two,is where Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 December l6,2021 Page 219 of 300 current fence design standardsand option one would place the fence and options two and three would be 10ft.closer to Route 56. So,to summarizethis essentially,option One,the one from the last meeting,would not bene?t these lots per se,just by the way,that the lots are laid out where neighbor's property or their layouts are where options two and three are going to give an extra 10ft.of total space.And at this 15ft.,that is the clear view triangle for driveways and alleyways.An additionalconsiderationthat I would mention is that these are large lots.So typically,you're going to see structures like shops and garages,and we do permit secondary accessesunder all of these options one,two,three current design standards. Having a secondary access there,even for the property owners themselves,would still provide clear distance,reversing or entering or exiting that property.And so,we spent some time looking at these larger lots in the Riverview area.This is a property on the transitionbetween Three Rivers Drive and I believe,Road 56.I apologize.This is north of the highway,and something that I would note here again is that the property to the north was plotted and built-in city jurisdiction,whereas the property to the south is actually in the Northern County doughnut hole.So,it's one of those larger lots.The house is setback pretty far and maybe subdividedsomeday.This is an extreme example of how confusing our current fence design standardsare.So,fencing on that corner lot would have to be set back to that building line,which effectively puts that fence at your back door at the middle of the house. So to give a good example of how each option would individually impact this kind of situation,the diagram on the right shows a red line at the middle of the house.That's current standards.The blue line is set back 20 ft.,which is the underlying zoning district's front yard setback,which puts it at the building line.Options two and three the dash line is where it would be in the ?anking front yard,and you'll notice the solid line continues around the front of the house.The line to the right of that,it's the kind of dashed green line.That's where options two and three would place that fence with option three actually continuing up and aroundthe property. So to summarize,give kind of the breakdownof each option on the next slide.Kind of put it in a table view.Option One the one from last month's meeting,maintains fencing outside of neighboring propertiesfront yards.It provides the largest clear area view,and it clari?es fencing code and design standardsand makes it make sense.Option two would allow for extensionsof fencing,it says greater than 6ft.I apologize that should be three and a half feet in height and two neighboringpropertiesfront yards,but it still provides a large area of clear view for traffic on the primary accesses.It's less restrictivethan option one and the current fence design standardsand would provide at a minimum between five and 10?.of yard area for fences that are greater than. Again,I apologize three and a half feet in height.Option three would allow 6ft.fences to be located anywhere outside of a space 15ft.wide adjacent to street right of way.It provides the minimum sufficient view for traffic adjacent to an on-site and is the least restrictive option.And so with that, I think we concludethe presentation. CommissionerCochran added,I think just comments.This is kind of I think the third or fourth time we talked through this and I appreciate all the work you guys have done because it's really complex issue to meet kind of balance everything.But it seems like to me just from a comment.I don't think I have any more questions,but I think we have to arrive at what option we prefer if we're going to Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 220 of 300 recommendto Council.And so,for me,I think options two or three are what I kind of feel good about,because I think they strike a good balance between the safety issue and also allowing homeowners to maximizetheir yard.I think I would be personallybe supportive of either option two or three.I also think that there's a safety issue,but people that are driving cars also have a personalresponsibilityto look before they back out.So you just can't put it all on the homeowners that,hey,my neighbor's stupid and doesn't look when they back out.And so I have to build a different fence.So,there's a shared personalresponsibilitythere.And so that's why I like options two and three,that it feels like a good balance between what the homeowners are asking for.That's why I personallyfavor two or three.I'll just leave it at that. This is CommissionerLehrman,please.Looking at option two and three.I like that it lends to one that safety's address,but also,secondthat the homeowner has more use for their land for their property.And so I think that would be attractiveto many homeowners.I also like how well option three is neatly laid out.The wording on it.I think that would decrease the amount of confusion as property owners are trying to decide out their fencing and how to utilize their land. This is J.Campos.I don't want to knock option one is it looks like it seems to resembleour current requirements fairly closely,and that seems to have maybe not worked for the general public,but at least gotten us by for however long we've had it.And I'm really interestedto see what the public has to weigh in before we as a Commissionhave a third discussionon it.But I like Commissioner Cochran's comments.I think you're right very much as a sharedresponsibility for motorists shouldn'tbe the sole burden of a homeowner to ensure safety.Great comment. CommissionerBowers commented,so I have a question,Andrew.We don't have any pictures of option two or option three because they're not permittedas yet? Andrew Hattori answeredthat's correct.Yes.Just the diagrams that are right. CommissionerBowers asked,and option one is still close to what's currently permitted,but it still gives us a little bit more leeway from that. Andrew Hattori answeredRight.So it's close.It bene?ts lots where say your neighbor has extreme setbacks on their property.It's not going to prohibit you from having a logical fence,for example. CommissionerBowers so with that,if we have no other questions or comments,I'm going to open up the public hearing.So any individualswho wish to speak on this particularitem now is the time to come forward and speak.Please state your name and the city of address for the record. Hello.My name is Ashley Atkins,and I don't know if you could pull up the lot again with the D. CommissionerCochran asked before you switch over,can you tell us which lot you are? Ms.Adkins stated so I am lot D here,over in this corner is our back access that Mr.Hattori talks about.We have ten—footeasement till about right there and it goes to 15 and almost 20 in this back part because of the road coming in.Because of the road kind of it's narrower in here than it is back here.So they do have their access back here.It is over a half an acre lot.Our fence right now is at the three and a half foot as it sets.This gives a little bit better angle that the stop sign is almost Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 December 16,2()2l Page 221 of 300 nearly parallelto where our fence is.So,we have the setbackalready but if we move it back 15ft. and what you suggested,then we would have to rip out all of our fence from here to this point, even though this is set back 15 ft.already. Rick White stated well,Madam Chair,may I interrupt for just a moment,please?This is not a retroactivekind of code amendment.The things that have been permittedare going to be allowed to remain. Andrew HattoricommentedI'd like to add to that that's the three-and—a-half-footportion,so that portion is permittedanywhere on the lot.So,we're strictly talking the 6ft. Ms.Adkins continuedcorrect.We want to add and have more Privacy for our kids and our dog, because right now the kids can just hop over this.I mean,it's as big as you couldjust literally hop over it,so it doesn't benefit us in any way the same thing with this lot.It is not on your list of letters on your exhibit see there,but actually,it's the ?rst built house on Ruby Street closest to ours.Yes so this is that house,and this is their three and a half foot fence.And obviously the stop sign is way up here.So there's visibility in both our lots,actually,in all of our lots for visibility,the only garage accessesis all on Ruby Street.So the other garage accessesare on the opposite side of the street for safety reasons. CommissionerBowers asked so you would like to increase the height of the all of our development? Ms.Adkins statedwe want to increase our fences to 6ft.right now.They're at three and a half feet unless they are in any of the middle lots.Any of the comer lots in our entire development cannot have 6ft.fence regardless of where they're at. CommissionerBowers asked so,Andrew,which would be option one,two,three for them to be able to go? Andrew Hattori stated so I think what you're concernedis increasing the height of the fence that currently exists,the three-and—a-half-footfencethat's along the property line.So in this instance, under all of these options,it would have to be moved back 15ft.from its current location if it's on the property line.And so,the comment would be that this is a unique subdivision.We do have to considerthis code for the entirety of Pasco.The code does not prohibityou from having 6?.fence. It just standardizesthe location that it can be located at. Ms.Adkins stated in regards to both cities,Kennewickand Richland,they do not have the dwelling behind it to give access to where your fence shouldbe.Is there a reason why the city of Pasco has that in their code?Andrew Hattori answeredI'm not sure of the origin of that portion of the code.I am not exactly sure when that code was last amended,but it is in line with the way that Franklin County does their fencing,and we want to step away from that.That's why all of these options would get rid of that provision so that we can not worry about where your neighbor's house is for your fence.Ms.Adkins continuednow just coming here we were talking about the access on Court Street.And you said that has to be put in when the development started.The block fence on Court Street down at the bottom.Andrew Hattori answeredtypically,yes,it's part of the subdivision requirements.Ms.Adkins asked if Andrew knew the easement for that?Andrew Hattori stated Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 December lo,2021 Page 222 of 300 there is no easement for that fence.It's generallyplaced at the property lines of those propertiesthat above West Court Street.Ms.Adkins stated okay,because that actually has less visibility.We have less visibility pulling out than we would on our own lots.Andrew Hattoriansweredright.Those are bound by the City of Pasco designing constructionstandardsand is typically reviewedby engineering staff in regards to visibility. Ms.Adkins asked since both cities do not have that in their code and the City Pasco does,is there reason why we have that in there?What brought it on?That the dwelling behind our houses decides where our fence shouldbe. Rick White stated well,again,Madam Chair,we don't know exactly how this happened.We tried to ?nd how it happenedand probably address some circumstance at some point in time,much like we're doing right now with somebody that had probably an unusual or unique circumstance or situation.As Andrew mentioned,it does re?ect consistency with Franklin County.Many years ago, Franklin County and the City of Pasco coordinatedan effort to try to standardizedevelopment regulations.And for the most part,those have been in here,too,through the last few decades,at least through the growth management years from the 90s and beyond.But again,we recognize that that isn't a very good fix.So,as Andrew again mentioned,all three of the options want to eliminate that quali?er and establishone,two,or three as current standards. CommissionerCochran stated but am I correct in assuming that I think the choice this particular homeowner is given is if we were to go with option two or three,for example,it would give them the ability to build that 6?.fence,but it would require them to rebuild and repermit,not add to their existing is what I'm assuming is the case,right.So,it would really be a trade off,then,for the homeworkbetween the Privacy I want,but then I have to do that in this code I have to lose a little bit in my yard to gain that Privacy.Is that really the essence of what we're talking?Rick White commentedyes,it is. CommissionerBowers asked under option one,what would this homeowner have to do?Andrew Hattori answeredso under option one,the fence that's greater than three and a half feet would have to be 25ft.from the property line.That's essentially what would be required under today's standard. I believe that house that is locatedbehind your property is about 25ft.away.Options two and three would increase how close you can be to the street by 10ft. Ms.Adkins added I just have a few more things.Going up and down Road 68.So,McGill is down here with the Fire Department on Road 68.This house just put a nice new block fence in.And this house right here is basically opposite direction.Obviously,there's an easement here for the canal, but it's the same situation they were allowedto put in their fence.They’re 6ft.block fence.Andrew Hattori stated to comment on that is that Valley View Drive,that's county property,and they don't require permits for that one.So,I'm not sure if they're in compliance with their code or if they I don't believe they permit for those.Ms.Adkins asked so off Road 68 here,this is all county? Andrew Hattori statedjust that Valley View West side area.Ms.Adkins asked okay,so everything on this side is city,correct?Mr.Hattori stated yes. Ms.Adkins continuedokay.And what about having a 6ft.fence behind a school without sidewalks, no sidewalks,but it backs onto the school so their backyard would be facing the school area.For example,this one's on Bayberry Drive right behind it is Ruth Livingston.They also have a 6ft. Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 223 of 300 block fence and the same thing with this house off Bayberry as well.These are new neighborhoods. They also have a 6ft.there with an ease going behind their house to a house,just like in our situation.Andrew Hattori stated right,do you have an overview photo by chance?Ms.Adkins said the overview photo is just like our,because it’s new.Andrew Hattori continuedI believe,and maybe Rick,I know there was a variance for a fence,and I think it was the comer lot on Bayberry, where in the instance,that because the school is there and because of the way the schoolis permitted,they're allowedto have a 6ft.fence if they wanted to out to that distance,they were able to obtain through the hearing examinervariance.I'd have to check our recordsjust to verify.But under that variance standard,typically,dwellings that back up onto the school are allowedto extend their fence out to that property line. Rick White stated and that is exactly what happened.The hearing examinerfound that there were special,unique circumstances not sharedby other propertiesin this vicinity and did in fact,issue a variance for that fence.Ms.Adkins asked now,is it just for one or both because they're both on comer lots?Rick White stated I just rememberone property. Ms.Adkins stated,and I don't know this might be county as well,because this is right down the street from McGill’s.So,this is on Road 68.This is a 6ft.block fence,and then they're facing the opposite direction again.Andrew Hattori stated I apologize.Without the overlay and showing the city and county bounds,it's hard for me to comment on that.CommissionerBowers asked that's on the east side of the street?Ms.Adkins the street is where the ?'uit stand would be a little further down in the summertimeoff Road 68.Rick White stated I'm still a little puzzled,but if I'm not mistaken,I think that is still in FranklinCounty.I really can't put a finger on the location right from that slide anyway.CommissionerCochran added but it's also set pretty far back,even though it's a 6ft.fence,it's pretty far back from the road.Ms.Adkins stated it's about ten.So,our option for going back to lockdown is switching going because we have a 15ft.set back in the back of our lot. We would have to change the front part of our lot to have it jig back into our property line.An extra 5ft.to have a 6ft.fence.Is that what one of the options would be for us. Andrew Hattori commentedyes if I'm understanding correctly.Yes,you would have the ability to just move the fence back at 15ft,and then you could go up to greater than three and a half feet. Essentially,1just want to make sure I'm answering correctly.Is that the question?Ms.Adkins stated well,I'm trying to ?nd out what our options would be.Could we apply for a variance for that extra 5ft?Since we have the 15ft.in the back?What are our options at this point?Andrew Hattori stated you can apply for a variance.And if you'd like,I can get you that application,and it kind of goes over the exact points that need to be met to obtain a variance.Ultimately,that decision will be made by the hearing examiner.So,I can't say whether or not the variance would be approvedor denied.Ms.Adkins commentedokay because we didn't have that option.They said that we couldn't apply for a variance before,so we do have that option to apply.Andrew Hattori answered yes.You always have the option to apply for the variance.We just can't guarantee it meets the requirements to obtain it.Ms.Adkins stated okay.All right.Thank you. CommissionerBowers stated thank you Ms.Adkins.All right,are there any other speakers? My name is Maria Sandoval,and we are lot G.I'm not very good with math,right?I would just recap everything that my neighbor here,Ashley said we're pretty much in the same situation.We have this three-and—a-half-footfence on the side of road 56.So that's a lot there.I did not print off my pictures.This is our three-and—a-half-footfence.As we shared last time.It's not obstructing, Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 224 of 300 necessarily.I know there was talk about maybe having a drone out there,look at different views of it and see if it would really obstruct.I heard somebody say something about a simulationif it were actually the 6ft.So we're not asking to push our fence further onto the property line.What we were just asking is the same thing as our neighbor,Ashley,is to extendit to the 6ft.And so,everything she said,pretty muchwe share the same sentiment.That's what we've been requesting. CommissionerBowers stated,and just to ask Ms.Sandoval,the top part of the picture,what street is that down here?Ms.Sandovalstated yes.There we go,now it looks like the diagram.And so, this is our site and then our neighbor in the front who couldn'tbe here.F. CommissionerCochran statedit seems like you have the same option as your neighbor.If we were to go with something like option two or three,it actually gives you a choice that you don't have now,which is to move the fence back and then get 6ft.The tradeoff1S you have to lose a little bit of your property,right.But that is a tradeoff.If the Privacy is the important piece,the thing we're proposingin option two or three in particulardoes give you more ?exibility than you would have without it.Ms.Sandovalstated the only other piece with it is that by doing that,it would go through our septic.I stated earlier that is a unique development.It's not necessarily all the other good stuff.It has septic system by moving it,and even it would go right through it.So if we're also allowedto do the variance,we would state that in there,that would be the why of not wanting to move any further over if safety is still doable with how it is now.Thank you. CommissionerBowers statedgreat,thank you Ms.Sandoval.So,Andrew,there is no option that currently would allow her to get them to go up to 6ft.Andrew Hattori stated not at the current location of the three and a half foot fencing on all the lots that we've discussedD,E,F and G,they would all have to be brought back under option two and three 5ft.before they can extendto that height.CommissionerBowers stated okay.I just think that's important to clarify,because as we're thinking about these three options,realizing this situation,even though it sounds like it's pretty horrendousfor these homeowners it wouldn't impact these three choices that we're thinking about right now.Andrew Hattori stated correct.These options they standardizethe locations,but option two and three would be certainly the most bene?cialoption for all of these lots.It's going to give that extra 10ft.of space as option one would essentially mirror the current code's applicabilityto these lots. Ms.Adkins added I'm sorry,I just wanted to add one more thing.On all of our lots all of our sceptics are located on the roadside,so the 15-foot going in,it would go off all of our lines so we wouldn't be allowedto put in the fence.Andrew Hattori answeredthat's correct.Specificallyfor block fencing.Rick White commentedyeah,I'm not so sure that that's true.I would caution that we would de?nitely need to check with the health districtbecause a block fence most certainly would not be permittedon top of the drain field.A wood fence I'm not so sure about.Andrew Hattori commentedyeah,I checkedwith our building Department as well,and they said that it's likely they would also have to check with the health Department.But wood and vinyl are typically possibilities.That's where the question of material comes in.Additionally,this isn't so much a Privacy fence,but on these larger lots,we do have an allowance that at these locations,the fences currently are at 3 ft.If you wanted to increase the height to 5ft,you could make it out of block and Rod iron and have it be 85%transparent.Again,that's not necessarily a Privacy fence,but is an option for larger lots. CommissionerBowers stated thank you for that.Okay.I opened the public hearing.I'm calling for Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 225 of 300 public comments going,going,gone.Okay,let's see what our options are now.So ultimately, Andrew,do you want us to vote on one option?Andrew Hattori answeredso in the staff report,I left language on two possibilities.One,if you wanted to have us bring back more information,we would be asking for just a directionthat you would like us to go into in case there was the determinationthat there's a suitable option.I le?some verbiage in there that would ?t that,of course,because there's three options I don't have a draft ordinance,and if you'd like to see that,I can also come back to next month's meeting with the draft ordinance.CommissionerBowers stated okay,so commissioners,do we need to have any more discussion? CommissionerJ.Campos stated I would like to deliberate a little bit between us before we go for sure.Reiterate cause of the conversationwe had in the public hearing it de?nitely sounds like the homeowners have the option to essentially A,do nothing leave their fence as is or B,apply for a specialpermit request to maybe leave their fence where it is or comply with whatever we choose to do.And this kind of goes in with what Mr.Hattori said is that this is a really speci?c development, and I think it's important to considerwhat the public has said,but we're making decisionbased on the entirety of Pasco,not just this development alone.That is my initial comment. CommissionerBowers stated thanks,J.Campos.I have to say I think they're all good options.I actually like two better,because I feel like that's a good balance between one and three. CommissionerCochran stated maybe the question is,do the commissionerspresent feel con?dent in going with one option,or do we want to see the code amendmentsor more deliberation?I guess that's really the core question,because if all the commissionersfeel con?dent that they like one of the options,then we could move forward with a recommendationto Council.But if they don't. Then we should deliberate more. Rick White stated or we can come back with an ordinance.And my guess is that wins out options two and three,unless I hear differently.But it doesn't sound like option one is getting much favor. CommissionerBowers stated yes,unless there are any commissionerswho feel differently,why don't we put this on hold and you will come back to us with that language for options two and three.Great.And I would just ask if it's at all possible to show us not just the overheadview,but even if it's a picture of what two and three would look like from forward facing or side facing,I would appreciate that.Andrew Hattori stated yeah absolutely. CommissionerJ.Campos if the public is interestedin providing more comments.I'd actually ask them to try to submit them to the city prior to so we can get all of their stuff put into the package. It's a lot easier for us to review,as opposedto looking at it on the overhead. WORKSHOP A.CODE AMMENDMENT-PLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENTSMF#CA2021-011 Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening Members of the Planning Commission.You may recall that staff presenteda proposalto revise the recently revised Plan Unit Development Regulations.You may recall actually a lot on this Planning Commission.Most of 201 9 we moved forward with an amendmentto the Plan Unit Development regulations.PUDs in general,are intendedto provide opportunitiesfor innovative and creative with quite a bit of ?exibility in land development,to encourage the use of new techniques,resulting in more creative approachto developing lands here Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page I l of 16 December 16,2021 Page 226 of 300 in the City of Pasco.And in that 2019 effort,the primary focus was on reducingthe minimum site area.The prior minimum site,I believe,was 20 acres.We've reducedthat signi?cantlyto allow for more in?ll opportunities. You'll see that in the third bullet point reducedopen space requirements and also again,the opportunityfor more in?ll and increaseddensities.And so our effort this time is based on two, actually,they're in the applicationreview period,but in this period we've receivedsome feedback from both homebuildersand also discussionswith staff on some additionalre?nements to make. So,with that,the proposalrevisions in this effort are to streamlinethe applicationsubmittaland review process at clarity for the development standardsand added ?exibility for the development itself.And so,we've identi?eda few and this looks a lot smaller than I hope for.But I'll read through these.So,staff has created a few preliminaryproposedrevisions that we would like to garner some initial feedbackfrom the Planning Commissionon.And I'll just go through these one by one.And the ?rst is relatively simple.It's with regards to permitteduses.Currently,the PMC only restricts the combinationof residentialand industriallands.This proposalwould do that. However,we want to add additionalcriteria for the combinationof both residentialand commercial lands and also combinationsof residentialand open space or nationalareas.And you'll see that later on in the proposalrevisions how that may ?t in.So,this technically not changing how it applies,but does add some clarity for those applicants.On the minimum site area.The only change would be that the site be continuous and identi?edwithin the phasing. So again,a lot of the theme from this effort is re?nement and clarity and on the relationship to adjacent areas currently in that subsectionof the code.There's a lot of language with regards to connectivity access,multimodalconnectivity,etc.We would like to keep that language,but de?ne, I'm sorry,create a new subsectionfor transportation and circulationthat addresses all travel modes speci?cally with regards to non motorizedand emergency access.On the next slide with regards to density,our comprehensiveplan was adopted not too long ago,and so the current PUD regulations do not align with our new comprehensiveplan.So we intend on ?xing that.And then along with that,making sure that the densities are compliant with our comprehensiveplan. We would also like to use this as an opportunityto sort of pilot some additional?exibility on the density bonus.So currently the PMC allows for a 20%added density for PUDs that meet the spirit of the code.However,we don't de?ne the spirit of the code,and so we would like to use this again as an opportunity to de?ne speci?cally what that could be.And so after some research across multiple jurisdictions on what they would perceive as not only spirit of the PUD but what they use generally for density bonuses,a few examples could be dedicatedaffordablehousing.Now that would be de?ned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development,so it's based on the area median income.Green or lead certi?ed building so that's more of the sustainabledevelopment types.And one that we've been trying to work on throughout most of our subdivision code and you may recall this from the lot size averaging amendment,which is proximity to transit,schools, parks,the general public land uses that folks in general would need access to. So,the idea is to allow for that 20%or a different thresholdif deemed appropriateby the planning commissionto be appliedfor those subdivisions,I'm sorry,these proposedPUDs.If they fall within these categories or others if the planning commissionhas any suggestions again,that is just a density bonus.It's not a requirement or does have a maximum,but it's certainly not a requirement Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 227 of 300 and up to the proposedapplicant to take advantage or not that opportunity.Again,on lot coverage the PUDs already allow most ?exibility to all of our zoning geometry standardswith regards to a lot.The PUD regulations they require the establishmentof what the lot coverages are.But we don't de?ne what the minimum and maximums are.So similar to what we've done with other codes we'd like to add that clarity,but also use what was done in the Waterfront Development District,which was have the lock coverage determinedby the parking and setbacks. On the next slide off street parking.The proposalfor this would be to add criteria for off street parking requirements for reductionsof off-street parking requirements.Excessiveparking can sometimesor adds to the cost of the housing itself.It also begins to help with our comprehensive plan implementationby aligning our parking standardswith neighborhoodcharacteristicsand surrounding uses.And so similar to the density bonus,we're certainly interestedin hearing from the Planning Commissionabout reducing,and again,this is only an option for those developments that are senior housing,mixed use projects and or projects that have close proximityto transit and or public land uses.And again,the idea is to begin to dedicate more land to housing versus maybe excessive parking.Again,it is again,an option,not a requirement. And also on the guest parking this one is relatively simple.It would be to remove the maximum guest parking requirement.Our initial intent was to not overburdena particularapplicationwith too much requirements for max,I'm sorry for guest parking,but we've gotten feedbackfrom those that are trying to use the PUD,and this actually has been a little bit challenging for them.So our idea is to simply eliminate the max parking requirement,guest parking requirement,and then add criteria for guest parking on the minimum side when it's not providedwith the use of a private street because our private streets in the PUD code don't require off street parking,so it kind of balances that out. So in the next slide,we go into private streets.And again,additionalclarity with regards to the cross sections right now in the regulations.It's a lengthy paragraph,we would like to simplify that. And then we would also like to again utilize street connecting,you may recall this in the street connectivity effort,which is still ongoing,a maximum length without a brake.So I think in the staff report there's an example of 600ft.and that could be broken by either additionalpark space, obviously a dwelling unit or a parking space,but some kind of break because with the setbacksand heights being allowedto either increase or decrease,but we certainly want to avoid narrow kind of canyon like developments.And so the idea of these brakes is not only increase the circulation access,but certainly will add or decrease the feeling of being in a canyon,if that makes sense. And this is a pretty big one on the amenitiesand open space.We would like to add some basic standardsand de?nitions on the criteria for qualifying open space areas to pull the purpose of the PUD itself.So this we would like to create a new subsectionand create standardson the size and location.An example I saw in one municipality was that 50%of the open space must be contiguous with no portion less than 75ft.wide.And what that does is it ensures that we don't have little pocket green areas that technically are green or open space,but not necessarily usable.And with all of the reduced requirements and added ?exibility,we don't want to have the PUD turn out to be a sort of a,I guess,deviating too much from the spirit of not only the PUD code,but certainly our general subdivisionguidelines.So it's to add some basic standardson that. You'll also see something that we're interestedin hearing from the Planning Commission,which is Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 228 of 300 in a PUD,technically,most of the open spaces dedicatedand maintainedby the tenants or the owners of the project.We are interestedin hearing some feedbackwhere if there is a dedicationto the public of that green and open space,that there may be an opportunityfor either reducedor mitigation of park impact fees,which would reduce the cost of each permit as well.So very preliminary,but certainly interestedin hearing your comments on that. And then the last one and one that we're certainly interestedin from a staff side is just streamlining the review and approval process.Right now the rate the code is written,and this wasn't touchedin 2019,is rather lengthy and a lot of duplicate language in this portion of the code,and we would like to streamlinethat process simply so it would take a lot of text and essentially bullet pointedso that the applicant knows exactly what they have to apply with.For example,TIA and kind of the traf?c impact analysis knowledge your upfront informationwhen you apply for a PUD,but also what the review process is like internally for staff and also in the public hearing process for PUD. And on the next slide,just kind of as an example of a variety of actually,these are from a PUD that I actually visited recently in Atlanta,Georgia,so long ways from here,but really innovative designs out there.It's a 40 or 60 acre site,and they've got both.This is a mixed use PUD,which is what we would like to also emphasize as well.But you have a variety of detachedattachedhousing, homeowner housing,rental housing,condo,town home,cottage style,kind of the whole gauntlet, really,but some really great public open space,in fact,that's the part of an amphitheaterin the bottom left,a lot of green space,circulationpatterns and pathways.And I think we would be able to achieve that,at least in theory,in the code,by adding some clear standardsfor what that would mean. On the next slide just some next steps for staff and also from the Planning Commission,which is our intent today is to gather some feedbackfrom the Planning Commission.And then for the January Planning Commissionmeeting,we would prepare a notice for a public hearing.We would distribute our proposedrevisions to the public and to stakeholdersand begin preparing the preparationof the State EnvironmentalPolicy Act Checklist the SEPA,and then again,following feedbackat that public hearing,come back to the February Planning Commissionmeeting,either with a public hearing and recommendationor simply just a public hearing to be continued.So,with that this concludesthis presentationand certainly happy to answer any questions from ?nding Commission. CommissionerBowers stated so commissioners,any comments,feedbackwe'd like to provide?So just a couple of questions.So,you were saying part of this is we're trying to cut the acreage so that we can have more opportunitiesfor these sort of PUDs with in?ll?Jacob Gonzalez stated that actually was already completed. CommissionerCochran stated I just had a more educationalquestion for me.I saw the language you were talking about in the density portion,clarifying minimum maximum densities are de?ned by gross density.1 don't know what you mean by gross density and how that's calculated.Jacob Gonzalez answeredthe gross density would refer to the total area.So,it's a little bit simpler in terms of calculating when you look at the net density,it's the right of way,potentiallypark or space that's not usable by the development itself.CommissionerCochran continuedthe net is when you subtract all the things they can't do.That makes sense.And then the other comment I love is the amenitiesand open space.1 love the idea of providing an incentive that will reduce your permit fee if you dedicate open space to public.My feedback is that's a great thing to always create public Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page l4 of I6 December 16,2021 Page 229 of 300 developer incentives for public bene?t. CommissionerBowers stated Commissioners?Well,I can also say I love the idea of reducing the canyons.And I noticedthe part about the private streets.1just know how problematicthose private streets have endedup being when it comes to snow and maintenance and turning aroundin there. So,I think whatever we can if we have to have them,whatever we can do to try and make sure they can navigate is really important. Jacob Gonzalezstated yes,and right now,private streets are only permittedin PUDs,and that's because the only place they have standardsare in the PUD regulations.Those were added in the 2019 effort.Now,I do know that staff,in general,through the effort on the transportationsystem master plan,has been looking at potentiallydifferent cross sections for local access roads.And I have seen some PUD regulations not too far from here,actually,in the Whatcom County area with much smaller footprint for the cross sections that are public streets but are smallerin terms of the right of way it takes.And one of the bene?ts right now that I think some of the applicants view in the private streets is that it's less space dedicatedfor right away or street and more for the actual development.So,staff can certainly maybe take a stab at looking at coming up with appropriate smaller cross sections for public streets.Currently,private streets are only permittedwhen you cannot achieve the minimum density of a PUD.And although it is expressedin the code,but maybe not as clear as it shouldbe,PUDs cannot prohibitthe extensionof any public roadway. So,if the street is already to your east or ready to the north,that street shall be expectedto continue in that direction.And if you can meet the minimum density with your public streets,and that shall be the expectation.So that's again,more on the refinement and clarity side.But we can also look at different cross sections for public street,but we'll check obviously with our engineering staff to make sure that that would be appropriateand also our Fire Department. CommissionerBowers stated right.And with the required off street parking,I guess it'll be off street parking rather than guest parking,but I just would want to make sure we avoid what we're finding in centralPasco where we don't necessarily have enough parking depending on what the density is within a house.Commissioners,any other comments? CommissionerLehrman stated to add on to what you're talking about,chair Bowers.Also, communitieschange of who lives in the plannedhouses of the past.At one point in time,maybe a large group is using the transit system,and so the parking is not such an issue.Then maybe later on, we have changes in our transit system or just new people move in.And it's not desired for them to use the transit system.And now in a situation where it's not enough parking.So I kind of hesitate about moving to one guest parking for every six homeowners situation. Jacob Gonzalez stated yeah,on that comment Commissioner,that was the one for six with regards to guest parking,not the requiredoff street parking.So on that one,it's removing the maximum guest parking.What happenedwas we had a proposedapplicationthat exceededthat.Now we've allowedit.But we want to remove that constrainton a proposedapplicationbecause the applicant and the developer will know more about their intended use,then we might try to portray in the code's ideas to increase ?exibility for the applicant and the development itself rather than us prescribingperhaps arbitrary number around it. Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 230 of 300 B.MEMO-ANNUALCOMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMMENDMENTS Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening again,membersof the Planning Commission.This is just a memorandumto the Planning Commissionannouncing that the city did open up our applications for ComprehensivePlan Amendmentsfor 2022.That we are permittedonce per year by the State GrowthManagement Act to change the comprehensiveplan and the city has an established process that allows for that to occur.There are two components,and this was a recent adoption by the Planning CommissionCouncilin 2021.The two components are number one is the establishmentof the applications.So applicationsare due in May.And then we take these applicationsto the Planning Commissionto recommendestablishedof these are the applications for amendments.It goes to Council,and then it goes back to component number two,which is the actual evaluation.And so there will be a staff review.And then they'll come back for a public hearing at the Planning Commission,a recommendationon each applicationitself.Keep in mind that these are to happen concurrently,so what happens across the street will impact you,what happens across the neighborhoodmay impact you,that will come into play.Then a ?nal decision by the Pasco City Council. So the next slide,just a timeline of what this looks like.So we opened up the applicationperiod on December 1.Applicationis due in May and then May and throughout the spring.We take these to the Planning Commissionand Council for the establishmentof the docket.And then the evaluationof the applicationshappens in the summer and fall of 2022.And so we just wanted to providethis to the Planning Commission.We do expect a lot of applicationsto come in,not only from both the private side,but certainly from the city as we look to sponsor a few applications ourselves with regards to the Housing Action Plan that is underway,the Downtown Pasco Master Plan,the Broadmoor Master Plan and EnvironmentalImpact Statement.And we're also looking at re?ning some nuances within our zoning and land use that exist in central Pasco and in some of our other corridorsas well to fix.So we're looking at this opportunityto announcethat this is occurring and that will likely have a fairly active amendmentapplicationprocess within the next coming months. OTHER BUSINESS Meeting adjournedat 7:50 pm. Ca en Patrick,AdministrativeAssistant 11 Community &EconomicDevelopment Department Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 December 16,2021 Page 231 of 300 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2021 6:30 PM 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment Background Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the following applies: (1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of- way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Exhibit A. (2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Exhibit B. Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line. An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent. Analysis & Summary Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a corner lot must be set back significantly further than what would be a safe and uniform distance from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or stringent requirements. At the Planning Commission Meeting on 11/18/2021 the Staff proposed the following two amendments to the code: Page 232 of 300 2 Residential Design Standards When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses. Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard setback of the underlying zoning district. This will remove the setback dependency on neighboring dwellings while providing the necessary vision the drivers or pedestrians need on corners and driveways for safe travel. Following discussion of the proposals made by staff it was concluded that further drawings showing how the proposed changes may impact corner lots that do meet the criteria for having fences greater than 3.5’ in height within the flanking front yard. The following Exhibits detail what fencing may look like on the indicated sites: Exhibit C Neighborhood Vicinity Map Exhibit D 5913 W Ruby Street Exhibit E 1517 58th Court Exhibit F 5601 W Ruby Street Exhibit G 5602 W Ruby Street An analysis of the vision impacts for each exhibit was completed as follows: Exhibit D: An access easement for 5809 W Agate Street extends the length of the rear of the property, this easement is the sole access point for the Agate properties. Vision must be considered at this entrance. Exhibit E: The driveway of the property to the east, 5614 W Ruby Street, is situated in the middle of the frontage. A fence extending into the flanking yard would not cause a visual impairment to the neighboring property. However, 5614 W Ruby Street was not developed at the time the fencing was proposed on Exhibit E’s site. It was therefore impossible to tell at the time of fence permitting if a visual impact would occur. Exhibit F: The property to the north, 1704 Road 56, has their driveway access situated to the north. A fence in the flanking front yard would not cause a visual impairment to the neighboring property. Exhibit G: The property to the south, 1502 Road 56, has their driveway access located on the northern portion of their frontage. Their driveway includes an extension that connects to the shared boundary line between Exhibit F. Vision must be considered at this entrance. Previous proposals for a possible code amendment were attempted to align in wording and design to the current regulations, with an increase in tall fencing area. In an effort to create an easy to understand universal code that is not dependent on neighboring properties or home orientation staff analyzed new options. Additionally, visibility is a major consideration when Page 233 of 300 3 looking at fencing height restrictions and locations. The fence code will need to be considered in such a way that under its provisions there is not the possibility of creating unsafe or hazardous conditions. Staff is proposing new options in addition to the proposal from the November 18, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting: Option 1: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard setback of the underlying zone, with a modification to the residential design standards to prohibit access to the shared street. Exhibit H Option 2: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas shall be setback a minimum distance of 15’ from the property line. Exhibit I Option 3: On all lots: Fences greater than 6’ in height must be setback 15’ from all property lines adjacent to street right-of-way. Exhibit J An analysis of each option is as follows: Option 1: • Maintains fencing outside of neighboring properties front yards. • Provides the largest area of view for any vehicular or pedestrian traffic adjacent to or on the site. • While typically less restrictive than the current fence design standards, the most restrictive of the three options. Option 2: • Would allow for extensions of fencing greater than 6’ in height into neighboring properties front yard areas. • Provides large areas of clear view for traffic on primary accesses, and sufficient view from side/front yard areas. • Less restrictive than Option 1 and current fence design standards. Would benefit lots with a minimum additional space of between 5’ and 10’ of yard area that may have fences greater than 6’ in height. Option 3: • Would allow for 6’ fences to be located anywhere outside of a space 15’ wide adjacent to street right-of-way. • Provides sufficient view for traffic adjacent to and on site. • Least restrictive option. • Would create an extreme number of nonconforming fences throughout the Pasco residential areas. Page 234 of 300 4 Next Steps and Recommendation Staff is seeking comments and feedback on the proposed options. Should an option be determined as suitable for recommendation, staff seeks a motion for recommendation to Pasco City Council with the following format: Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the Design Standards under Option _#_ as contained in the December 16, 2021 Planning Commission Report. Page 235 of 300 Page 236 of 300 Page 237 of 300 0 0.04 0.070.02 Miles EXHIBIT C Page 238 of 300 Page 239 of 300 1517 58TH CT B20-0052 SFDU 1/10/2020 Page 240 of 300 5601 W RUBY ST B21-0117 SFDU 1/15/2021 Rev 1 Page 241 of 300 Page 242 of 300 EXHIBIT H Page 243 of 300 EXHIBIT I Page 244 of 300 EXHIBIT J Page 245 of 300 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall -Council Chambers D 525 North Third Avenue Pasco,Washington THURSDAY,JANUARY 20,2021 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Jerry Cochran. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present:Jerry Cochran,Jay Hendler,Telephone:Rachel Teel,Kim Lehrman,Isaac Myhrum,Paul Mendez,Abel Campos and a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent:Tanya Bowers Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez,Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick,and Planner I Andrew Hattori. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jerry Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Cochran explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. He further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community, livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services and the environment. Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. He stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco—wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission, please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for the record. Chair Cochran reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 246 of 300 He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. Commissioner Mendez stated he has a declaration regarding item six on the agenda,and that he owns property in the unincorporated island within the City of Pasco. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda.Hearing none,let the record show there were no declarations on this side. Chair Cochran stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the official record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision.He encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES °3°Commissioner Isaac Myhrum moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes ofDecember 16,2021.Commissioner Hendler seconded,and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS A.Memo-Utilities in UGA Rick White stated this item has been before the Commission before,and it asks the Commission for their input on a policy relating to providing City utilities within our urban growth area (UGA).I think the Commission recognizes the perspective provided in the last two or three meetings that you've had.Essentially,the Pasco UGA has three very different scenarios in terms of development and existing development and potential development. The ?rst would be the Riverview area,which is generally located south of Interstate 182.That's mainly been developed in the county,and it contains a number of challenges related to providing utility services,connectivity with City streets,and a whole host of urban considerations.The second scenario involves the 2008 UGA,which I provided a map that you can tell the difference within terms of colors.There's not much undeveloped land in the old 2008 UGA,with the exception of the Hoorigan Farm property,which is located south of Burns Road and almost to the Columbia River.You can see that on the map as well.And then the third scenario is the recently adopted UGA,which is basically completely void of development considerations.It's almost all farmland right now. Staff has prepared three different scenarios for dealing with the three different situations for the Pasco urban area,the area south of 182 and the Riverview area.Mr.Chair,in this area staff would propose that city water be provided in conjunction with building permits on existing single family lots.It's the light green area on the map.There are a number of existing lots in that area.Candidly, this green area is probably going to be underutilizedin terms of development for many years.But the intent is not to deprive people that own existing lots.The ability to get City water,assuming Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 247 of 300 they can,in fact,get City water.Actually,a number of homes in this area use groundwater wells, but we don't want to preclude a building permit holder to utilize City water,assuming that they can get it. However,if there is a subdivision of property within the Riverview area,then staff recommends a policy of extending City sanitary sewer with any extension of City potable water.Then as an ancillary consideration,staff would recommend that obviously,we're going to have to develop a procedure,because in all cases that's not going to be practical,but it's going to be up to a professional to tell us why,and we would develop an administrative procedure for that to occur. The lands within the 2008 UGA,which are represented by the yellowish orange,you can see the Hoorigan Farm area at the very left or west of the map.The area north of that is all developed with roughly half acre or larger lots.Sanderson Estates.I can't remember the names of the subdivisions now,but that's basically built out.And then there are some properties further east that are not likely,again to consider development proposals in any fashion anytime soon. Staff would recommend that properties within these areas be provided,potable water in conjunction with building permits for single family homes on existing lots.However,subdivisions of parcels within this area will require,again,extension of sewer in conjunction with City water. And as a condition of that extension,we would require that City standard streets and sidewalks be achieved in conjunction with the utility extension agreements.Then the easiest one to consider is the new UGA,in the pink.Again,that's a clean slate.We just recommend that annexation,the condition of extension of utilities and that solves the question.Originally,I provided the Commission with the concept that our legal team would be developing a series of code amendments that would make this happen however due to delays,we decided it would be best to develop the policy first and then come back with the code amendments,because they're going to be varied depending on what City Council ultimately chooses again based on the Planning Commission's recommendation.I provided a motion if the Planning Commission is comfortable with that.If not,any discussion of additional information or questions would be certainly well received at this time. Commissioner Cochran asked if there has been a public hearing on this old business,or would that be future? Rick White stated that we have had a public hearing.For a couple of months now,I've proposed this exact same staff report to the Home Builders Association,and I finally discussed it with their director recently.I think the Tri-City Home Builders Association is neutral on this,they recognize the need for a policy because it provides predictability,and they don't really see this adversely impacting their association. Commission Cochran asked so the process now is we would agree or move to the policy things, and then you'd come back with code amendments,and those code amendments would also have a public hearing?Rick White stated that they would.Commissioner Cochran asked the commissioners if there were question or feedback for the staff on this.Then stated,not hearing any,I have a clarification.When you say some of these policy statements,like “City potable water in conjunction with building permits for single family homes”,does that imply that the cost and the burden are on the city,or is it the developer and the homeowner when they ?le a permit to do those?Because all of these have that activity and I just want to know what the assumption is that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 248 of 300 we're assuming that that's part of the developer expense when they're doing it? Rick White answered,no,that's correct.And stated that's why,if you are familiar with the green Riverview Islands,it's very apparent that whatever water system those properties are using at this time will be there for some while the cost for extending water would be a responsibility of the owner or builder,and the requirements for extension would also be.It may include over sizing but there are some serious development issues in the Riverview area that are going to be very challenging for any future density considerations. Commissioner Cochran stated I'm in the Riverview area,I am not in the Donut,but I have a well. And if my well ever failed,I would expect it would be on me to cover that 500-foot extension,not the City.I think it's also in spirit that the City's invested in this infrastructure and taxpayers have paid for it,so you need to utilize it and cover the cost to get there.So that seems consistent. Rick White went on to say Mr.Chairman,pardon me again,I wanted to also explain that in your situation that there is a tool that the City has in its municipal code that is called the Latecomer Agreement.So,the ability for a water extension or sewer extension to happen on your costs could be contingent upon future property owners connecting to that line that you've extended and for a period of time,then reimburse you for the appropriate and proportional cost that you incurred when you did that extension.And that's a tool that's used by developers all over the place,normally not for just one lot,of course,but for subdivisions in particular.That is for water and sewer and roadways. Commissioner Cochran stated the other thing I noticed is when you do that water sewer extension, in some cases,it also then puts a requirement for proper roads and sidewalks.Is that the case as well,just for the subdivisions,not for the individual?Rick White said it wouldn't be appropriate to piecemeal that for individual lots.That's assuming that the waterline is in the road.So,you would, of course,patch the road to whatever standard is appropriate or applicable.But you would not create a new road segment. Commissioner Myhrum said he had no direct comments to make and stated,I think these guidelines are quite practical,quite responsible,considering the substantial investment that goes into public infrastructure.So,I'm comfortable with these guidelines,and I think they'd be good starting point looking at code sections. Commissioner Teel had a question regarding the potable water lines.How does it work with the irrigation lines and those requirements?Is that looped into the potable water or is that completely separate based on subdivision? Rick White answered yes Commissioner Teel,it is completely separate only in rare circumstances in Riverview is City irrigation even provided.It's mainly wells or the Franklin County Irrigation District and this wouldn't be a consideration for them. Commissioner Teel asked that if someone had a well and it goes bad and they want to hook to the city,they wouldn't have irrigation?Rick White stated in theory they could if the well went bad. There are a number of wells that are only for irrigation.So in theory,if it went bad for potable,it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for irrigation.So that could happen. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 249 of 300 Commissioner Campos stated I agree with Commissioner Myhrum.I'm looking at all three.I think the guidance are great.I think they're really speci?c for each three areas.And so I do want to make the motion.1 move the Planning Commission recommend that the Utility Extension policies for the Pasco UGA be contained in the January 12,2022,memoranda to the Planning Commission be adopted by City Council.Commissioner Mendez seconded,the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Code Amendment-Corner Lot Fencing Andrew Hattori stated good evening members of the Planning Commission I am here tonight to discuss comer lot fencing and to formally propose Option 2 from the December 16,2021 Planning Commission meeting and the amendment to the residential design standards from the November Planning Commission meeting.Before going into detail on those,I'll give a quick background on the current corner lot fencing design standards.As it currently stands,the maximum height of fencing in all front yard areas is three and a half feet.The maximum height of fencing and ?anking front yard area varies between the lot design.So,if you have two comer lots that form the entire frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets and neither home accesses the shared street, fences can be 6ft tall out to the property line.If there's any other condition,or if one of the properties accesses that shared street,then fences taller than three and a half feet must be set back to the building line of the neighboring property.The maximum high defensing in rear or side yards is 6ft as well. To give some details and diagrams on this,this is a condition where both houses form the entire frontage between two streets and neither house accesses that shared street.So,6ft fencing would be allowed all the way out to the property line or anywhere within that green area shown at the top of the diagram.And this is a real-world example of that.You'll notice in the left image that that fence extends out to the sidewalk where the property line is located,and that neither house accesses the shared street and that they form the entire frontage between two streets as well.The other condition in this diagram you'll see that the house on the right accesses the shared street.So, fencing for the house on the left actually has to be set back a distance equal to the building line of the house on the right if the fence is to be greater than three and a half feet.And to give a real- world example of that,you'll notice that on the image on the left,that fence does not extend out to the property line and is set back to the building line of the neighbor behind them. So,I'll start off with a refresher on the proposed amendment to the residential design standards.It was a large point on how we mitigate or prevent situations where we create dangerous access points.So,in this case,the development to the north was plotted and built out first,so that house accesses,not the shared street.And if that house was built and a fence was proposed before the house to the south of it was built,they would be allowed to have that fence all the way out to the property line adjacent the side street.And then when the house to the south came in for building permit,there's nothing that would restrict them from having their driveway all the way up against that fence.That's how we end up with driveways that have not safe visibility. So,the proposal for the proposed amendment to the residential design standards would be that if you have two lots,two corner lots that form the entire frontage between two parallel and nearly Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 250 of 300 parallel streets,neither dwelling will have primary access or be addressed off of the shared street. And this would prevent going forward any instance where we could potentially have dangerous access points. This is Option 2 from the December Planning Commission meeting.It's the fence is greater than three and a half feet,must be set back a distance of 15ft from the property line adjacent to the shared ?anking street,so this gets rid of the dependency on your neighbor's building line.It makes it easier to understand and more logical.To give a real-world example,this is an example that I was able to ?nd showing a fence that is set back 15ft right now under current standards is considered nonconforming,but the proposed amendment would have it be conforming.You can kind of see the fence there on the comer of Ruby and Agate.A note that I would say here is that under current fence design standards,that fence must be set back to the building line of the property just to the north.So that fence would essentially need to be set back behind the house. And that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.And the proposed amendment would not only allow that fence to be in a sensible location but would also provide an additional amount of 6ft tall fencing backyard area.So,if we go to the next slide this kind of shows that that fence does extend beyond the building line of the current fence location,and it is a sensible distance away from the street right of way as well,and we can see a better image of that on the next slide. Looking down the shared street,anybody backing out of that gravel driveway is going to have a good amount of clear view to be able to safely back out of their driveway,not have to worry about oncoming traf?c or pedestrians.And it provides the corner of property a fair amount of backyard space. And with that,those are the two amendments that I'm proposing tonight,the standard 15ft setback and the amendment to the residential design. Commissioner Myhrum stated I just wanted to thank staff for their work on this.There's been a lot of public meetings on this.We have heard from the community about wanting to maintain ?exibility for homeowners that do want taller fences,taller than three and a half feet.I think this provides that ?exibility while putting a premium or I should say,an emphasis on safety.So,thanks for all the work,and I'm supportive of option two as presented. Commissioner Cochran asked any others?Hearing no more questions or comments from the commissioners,this is a public hearing item.If there's anyone here that wishes to speak on this item on the agenda,now is the time we'd ask you to step forward to the microphone and clearly state your name and city of address or anyone on the phone.All right,seeing no public members wishing to provide comment or feedback on this item,I'll open up one last time for Commissioners or any other questions or feedback.And I would also entertain a motion for staff recommendations that's described in your documentation for tonight. This is Commissioner Lehrrnan,I’d like to make a motion.1 moved the Planning Commission recommendto the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the residential design standards and the fences,walls and hedges design standards as contained in the January 20,2022,Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Hendler,I’ll second. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 251 of 300 Commissioner Cochran said thank you both.That was moved by Commissioner Lehrman and seconded by Commissioner Hendler.Let the record show that the motion passed unanimously.I know staff is relieved to be able to move forward on this has been a long slog.As other commissioners express,thanks for all your work and your willingness to listen to the community, and I think we found a good happy medium that does the best we can. WORKSHOP A.Memo-Update Broadmoor Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening,members of the Planning Commission.The presentation this evening will focus on the Broadmoor Master Plan and staff and our consulting efforts to move forward with developing a rather significant and important piece for the City of Pasco and the region.And you can see the outline of the Broadmoor area and context of Pasco and on the bottom right,you can see the context of the Broadmoor area relative to the Tri-Cities area. Here is a high overview of the Master Plan and EIS objectives.Some of this will be very similar to the Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan EIS in terms of the components of it,but in general, in evaluation and analysis,considering the infrastructure and transportation planning necessary to support the signi?cant growth in the Broadmoor area,the land uses to accommodate the projected growth,the city's ability to invest in the infrastructure utilizing grants and capital funding and predictability on the environmental review and mitigation process.There's some signi?cant critical area within the Broadmoor area.Reduced permitting time for individuals is a benefit as a result of the EIS and also the plan to growth with potential higher property values as expected as an outcome,and in general,the plan growth to align with the comprehensive plan that was recently adopted by the Planning Commission and Council not too long ago. An overview on the comprehensive planning goals for Broadmoor.Accommodate future growth at higher densities with mixed use strategies,infrastructure capacity support future growth including housing,retail,employment and recreational opportunities,and strategic alignment of public investments both current and planned to support economic development in the Broadmoor area and their region.Below,a snippet from the Comprehensive Plan speci?c land use goals to accommodate a broad range of residential land uses and to provide and put the community in position to support economic development. This is a summary of our process to date.In the early summer of 2021,staff reissued a SEPA determination,environmental determination of signi?cance for the Broadmoor Master Plan and EIS.The component of that was the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.There was a pause in the development of the Broadmoor effort to allow the Comprehensive Plan to move forward,and throughout the couple of years,development in the Broadmoor area actually moved forward prior to the development of this plan.So,a new scoping of the EIS was conducted so that we could develop alternative land uses to address both the Comprehensive Plan and mitigate the existing growth that has occurred in and near the Broadmoor area. This past fall,the city held numerous meetings with property owners,builders,stakeholders,and agencies that would be affected by the Broadmoor area.This included all property ‘owners, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 252 of 300 including agencies such as Ben Franklin Transit,the Pasco School District,United States Bureau of Reclamation,South Columbia Basin Irrigation District,US Army Corps of Engineers who own signi?cant land along the shoreline,the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife and Transportation,and along with our own Public Facilities District,Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff.Over the past couple of months,staff has been working with our consulting team to develop an alternative land use that could address the comments and input received from all the affected agencies and the property owners within the Broadmoor area.And we're now working on ?nalizing those land uses which will show on the next screen here and moving forward with the plan and the EIS itself. Next you'll see two separate land uses,the alternative one which is no change,this is what was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.And on the right is Alternative 2,which is a Comprehensive Plan Growth Target and the signi?cance of both is on the left is what was adopted.Unfortunately, growth moved forward before the plan could be completed.There is some nonconformance and underdeveloped densities on the left where there's signi?cant low density development that no longer achieves the densities of the Broadmoor plan or division that has been stated by Council and the public.On the right is our effort to address and mitigate that,on the right,on the next slide, you'll see the breakdown of the land use categories.On the left is Alternative 1,from the Comprehensive Plan,and on the right is the proposed Alternative 2 and you'll see that it's a little bit shorter.We've simpli?ed and removed some of the land uses we thought that would work best to accommodate the property owners,the brokers,developers,etc.Next is how the land uses would be implemented utilizing our existing zoning districts and you'll see a few asterisks for Mixed Use Waterfront,Open Space Zoning District and the Open Space Reserve,those will be zoning districts that need to be created and those will be created within the Master Plan and it's our intent to adopt those when the Master Plan comes to the Planning Commission and eventually to Council for adoption as well.So,the Master Plan will require the creation of new zoning districts. Some of the bene?ts of the proposed Alternative 2 land use is that it simpli?es the land uses.It incorporates the existing and approved residential development.It includes the evaluation of open space and critical areas and addresses and integrates input and feedback from property owners and stakeholders.It also implements the comprehensive growth targets and supports stated Council and Community Division for the Broadmoor area. A few examples ?om our consultant that our consultant has put together a generalized version of the design the development standards that will be included with the Master Plan including pedestrian ?lling outdoor spaces,you can see the relationship to the street so walker friendly,non- motorized friendly and various examples here of sidewalks,extended sidewalks along store fronts, etc. You'll notice that in the Alternative 2 land use that there are a few areas where there's mixed use. The land use is attributed to the Broadmoor area,and it is our intent to have the mixed use have speci?c standards which exhibit activity centers,areas we expect to see a lot of businesses and residential opportunities but certainly with mixes of public spaces to facilitate the quality-of-life environment.So,building placements will be important,identi?cation of central gathering spaces and the necessary requirements to accommodateboth vehicles,sidewalks,the places that general people would want to be at in the Broadmoor area. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of I8 January 20,2022 Page 253 of 300 On the Center,Nodes,and Corridor’s concept this is where this will require changes to our development standards within the zoning code and you'll see buildings placed closer to the comer brought closer to the street to enhance the walkability and the public realm environment within the Broadmoor area.One of the components and visions for the Broadmoor area has been a mix of uses to accommodate the facilitation of housing,retail,commercial,shopping opportunities,recreation, etc.And that can be accomplished both with horizontal mixed use,vertical mixed use within the site,on the site,and this is an example of what that could look like in the Broadmoor area.So variant densities heights will have to be addressed and revised within the speci?c zoning codes applicable to here and just general an opportunity for builders to come in with a lot of creativity or developers that come in with some creativity in a mixed use area propose and construct sites that leave themselves to the bene?t of the Broadmoor area. A few notes about accessibility speci?cally on parking.In the mixed use areas it is the intent to place parking behind the building and that's the prior slide is you have the sidewalk,the street,the sidewalk and then the building,the storefronts versus what you have on the bottom left comer which is an exhibit here in west Cord Street where you've got an arterial with small sidewalk and then a signi?cant distance both in travel and also kind of eyesight to get to the actual storefront.It's our intent to use the Broadmoor area to begin to bring some of these storefronts and these buildings closer to the street again to enhance the built enviromnent aspect within this part of the city. And then lastly,a quick overview of where at in the remaining part of the process.So now through early spring staff will work with our consultant to complete and draft the Environmental Impact Statement.There will be a review conducted internally before a draft EIS is issued in early May, and that will include a public comment period if we do plan on being in front of the Planning Commission numerous times over the remaining part of the winter and spring on the Broadmoor plan.This will include a review of comments received both from agencies,Commission,members of the public and in the summer,address those comments with the ?nal preparation of a Master Plan,which includes the vision,the guidelines,the associated development changes,code amendments,the completion and issuance of the ?nal Environmental Impact Statement,and presentations to both the Planning Commission and City Council this May,June and July. So that concludes a brief update on the Broadmoor Master Plan.We do anticipate our consultant being present for a presentation likely in February,certainly by March,to give a little bit more of a detailed update about the speci?cs of the Master Plan in the EIS process. I do want to note that the City is working diligently speci?cally with regards to both transportation and critical area mitigation.We've had signi?cant conversations and coordination with both the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and also the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration with regards to addressing the transportation impacts that are likely to be the result of the development in the Broadmoor area. Most of these were addressed in some form or manner in the Comprehensive Plan,the Transportation System Master Plan that the City is developing and nearing completion is a re?ned version of the Comprehensive Plan Analysis for transportation. The city has entered into an agreement with a consultant to develop a feasibility and analysis on 182 between both 68 and speci?cally on the Broadmoor Boulevard area to again accommodate the growth here.There's a lot of work,a lot of analysis ongoing right now,and that will all be apart and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of l8 January 20,2022 Page 254 of 300 addressed in some form or manner within the Master Plan and certainly the EIS.So with that in this presentation,I'm happy to answer any questions on the Commission.Thank you. Commissioner Hendler stated yes,I have a question.Jacob and Rick,I'm a little confused,so we are still working on developing the Master Plan?The reason I ask is because I hang out a lot daily out at the John L.Scott of?ce,and a couple of the brokers came up to me and said,Jay,what's going on with the Adams property and the Broadmoor Master Plan,and why are we being escorted around the Adams property with brokers from Seattle telling us they're going to start construction by the end of this year?And I didn't have an answer for that.I simply said,hey,they're still working on a Master Plan.I think that's right.I said,I don't understand how they could be selling anything,so I was a little confused by that.And anyway,can you shed a little light on that for me? Is that,in fact,the case?Are they're selling land out there now? Rick White stated,well I don't know that anything is closed,but a portion of the Broadmoor Master Plan area,about 160 acres,is in the city already zoned with C1 zoning,which is the prime retail zoning that's applicable.So there's 160 acres in this area right that's already zoned commercial,and there are utilities available,so there are a number of moving parts,and there's about a dozen balls in the air with all sorts of stuff.There's a proposed wholesaler retailer that you've heard about. There's another developer interested in some kind of food/retail,bigger box kind of operation, along with some satellite retail on the outskirts,which is pretty typical,but those are all pending all of the utility and transportation improvements that Jacob has just described.There's roughly $8 million worth of transportation improvements alone.They're necessary to just accommodatejust the commercialgrowth that we think we know about. Commissioner Hendler stated currently that zoning,and that's probably where all this is taking place,but just curious,wouldn't they be well advised to say,hey,put on the brakes a little bit until this Master Plan is done,so they comply a little bit with what is right on the gateway to the rest? I'm just throwing out some concerns about the process.Having been through this kind of thing before,but maybe saying wait a minute,we got a Master Plan going on,you guys.We're not going to be able to answer any questions until that thing is ?irther developed.Just a thought.Anyway, thank you for the input. Commissioner Myhrum stated sort of along the lines of all the activity that's being consideredin the area.By the time we get to July of this year,through this process,the staff anticipate maybe a need for additional updates or as we move forward,have things become more and more refined and you feel like we've really got our hands around where the plan will be when it's ready to be ?nalized. Jacob Gonzalez stated I think the best way to answer that is there will likely always be room for re?nements to the adopted plan.I would say that the development Alternative 2,part of the reason for some of the significant changes is due to the input and feedback we received directly from the property owners,some of the developers,the realtors,and the brokers.And so that mixed use that you can see that in the light pink,purple color for mixed use is intended to address both a combination of residential and commercial uses,both vertical and horizontal.So,it's a pretty flexible in terms of use.But the development and design standards will be critical.That's what we'll get into the form,the facades,more the built environment,the treatment of the streetscapes,the cross sections,etc.And that are the results and included within the Master Plan.Those I wouldn't Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 255 of 300 believe would need additional updates or else they would deviate from the intended vision that's been presented about the Broadmoor areas of both the public and the Commission and Council. Commissioner Mendez stated it sounds to me like the City,we have been given another opportunity to tweak the Broadmoor Master Plan,and we're coming up with Alternative 2,which will allow us to do that.One of the things that caught my attention was where it says here that it will maximize the growth and density potential of the area.And I guess what I'm asking,does that mean that it will increase residential density and lead to maybe more affordable residential lots? Jacob Gonzalez answered not sure about the affordability or the price point,but one of the intents of Alternative 2 that you see on the screen was that it addresses the existing development that occurred both north of Burns Road and within the Broadmoor area.In the existing and current comprehensive plan future land use map right in the middle you can see maybe 200 or so acres of low density development.In the existing Comprehensive Plan,most of that is a designated of medium density,which is typically 12 or 19 or so unit an acre,but certainly more than two to ?ve, which is what we currently have in place there.So,we've developed the Alternative 2 to incorporate what's going on there and increasing the development potential of their surrounding land uses to again make up for the fact that in a big portion of the Broadmoor area,we will have low density development.So,it likely would yield to additional lots but within the comprehensive time constraints of roughly 7,300 to 8,000 units within a full build out.You're looking at 2040 for the horizon year,but yes,likely the intent is to address and at least make it an option for increased housing options in the Broadmoor area. Commissioner Mendez stated I just wanted to say I think that's a de?nite plus.Affordability is a great concern.I think it's nice to be able to afford a half-acre lot or eight one-acre lot in north for West Pasco.But many of our residents may not be able to afford that.So,whatever we can do to address that would be welcome.Thank you. Commissioner Campos stated I just want to say thank you so much,Mr.Gonzalez and staff for that presentation.I do love Alternative 2,I think the fact that it does accommodate for that denser retail, commercial and residential development is key,and it gives us an option that gives us audible to really change that density for the residential I really love.But I also love the fact that with the street pattern,it's going to give us more ability to have that kind of that well connected portion of it.I think that's going to be very key.I know for being in the 68 area,we are not so much well connected.There's not a lot of outlets,so they have that over there.It's going to be amazing.I really do support Alternative 2 and I really appreciate it. Commissioner Lehrman stated piggybacking on to what Commissioner Campos said about all the designs and positives about it,I really appreciate what the City has put together for us,for sharing out the community and the effort that they're put into trying to make sure to keep the public informed and this very exciting time that we have to plan out the vision of what Pasco looks like. And a lot of the residents are having questions.Thank you for your effort of trying to be able to help answer those questions and being as transparent as possible.I do have a question over there on open spaces along Columbia River right along the bend there.Is that the Army Corps of Engineer land,the wildlife refuge,or is that other kind of park like land use? Jacob Gonzalez answered that is predominantly owned and operated or maintained by the US Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page I l of 18 January 20,2022 Page 256 of 300 Army Corps of Engineers.Probably the first 200 to 300ft or so along the western side of Shoreline Road between Shoreline and the Columbia River.So,there might not be much we can do there in terms of actual physical structures but is our intent to at least preserve the open space component of it. Commissioner Lehrman asked what is that little section going into all that pink?Rick White answered that's also Army Corps of Engineer land. Commissioner Cochran stated for me I'm with the others.I like our Alternative 2,I think it's simpler and I think it allows more options.I didn't like that Option 1 had no low density,and I think there's a good balance of different types.I think like probably everyone else in Pasco,they're just all bracing for this not being Road 68 part two.I think it's interesting to me,does all the things that are going on with transportation planning,are they staying in sync with this or are they evolving separately?Because Jacob,you said something in December around the transportation plan survey,and I was looking at that and they've already got like the stop lights and improvements for the transportation on Broadmoor planned out.And it seems like that's evolving in a vacuum from this or is there a way to make sure?Because that's my big fear.This is all great,but is it just going to be another Road 68?And I think a lot of citizens are worried about same well. Jacob Gonzalez stated in terms of the transportation development in the Broadmoor area, fortunately,we're working with the same consultant group who is wrapping up our Transportation Master Plan,so they know exactly what it is in terms of the context of we're working with in the Broadmoor area.In fact,yesterday we had a discussion with both our consultants,the Federal Highway Administration,the Washington State Department of Transportation,to talk about further detailed analysis that Council had agreed to back this fall with addressing the specific mitigation necessary with the Broadmoor development. So,the Comprehensive Plan is extremely comprehensive citywide,the Transportation Master Plan, a re?ned version of that.The feasibility analysis that we're working on with our consultant is as probably refined as you can get beyond the project level permitting of a specific project.And that is,again,the geographic scope is at Broadmoor Boulevard area or the Broadmoor Boulevard corridor.And then the EIS will have a lengthy transportation evaluation component of it to address the impacts of both Alternative land Alternative 2,and the necessary mitigation to address that. The Master Plan itself will be the document or the plan that's got all the photos and the concepts, the goals and policies,the division that's been expressed up with Council and the community. But the implementation component of that is where we do our best to ensure that the development patterns and the form that takes place in the Broadmoor area is what we've been sharing with the public.So more walkable,the closer proximity of businesses to residences,the higher densities,the open space,the gathering places,both public and private,more of the public realm.The things that we've been sharing with the public we've designed and hope for kind of brought more to be the development standards and the implementationof those codes will come back to you with those code amendments.That is sort of the black and white portion of it that is often overlooked in some of these bigger plans. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 257 of 300 B.Memo-Update Downtown Pasco Master Plan Good evening,members of the Planning Commission.Similar to the last one,this is an update on our efforts with our consulting team Framework to develop a plan for downtown Pasco.There's been a lot of work so far to date on the master planning effort,and we'll summarize that progress in this presentation. I wanted to share the approach that our consulting team of the city has taken for the Master Plan. The intent is to do meaningful and equitable public engagement,highlight the local assets, visualize the potential for positive change in downtown Pasco,support for local businesses, integrating arts and culture and testing new ideas and concepts.I think a big one certainly is a plan that is speci?c to Pasco,not a general plan and blanket approach. You will see two maps that illustrate the scoping context of our downtown.On the left you see a zoomed in version of the predominantly the central business district.You can see that outlined in the boundary,and on the right,you can see a broader context of how the downtown ?ts within the general eastern portion of central Pasco. Next there's a bigger context shown here.This is a quick illustration of the downtown within roughly half mile to a mile radius of it.I think this helps us see exactly how downtown integrates with the rest of the community.You can see it shaded in that blue,but those pink areas represent developments,ongoing or planned surroundings.On the south,across the river in Kennewick,the significant investments they're making with their waterfront and Clover Island,the Cable Bridge,a monument for both the Tri-Cities and certainly here in Pasco and on 20"‘and A Street you can see, actually they already used new apartment multifamily.It's been constructed on 20th and A,on the right,further east by Osprey Point,is the Port of Pasco's Waterfront Development District.In Orange are the existing bicycle and planned bicycle routes.And I think this helps provide a bigger context for what downtown Pasco its role within the community.But it would also be important to share that within a half mile or so of the downtown area,there's roughly 9500 residents and almost 8000 jobs employees within half mile or so,the downtown area Pasco.So there's a lot of activity that takes place. Here is the current status of where we're at.We meet weekly with our consulting team.We met with them this morning.We received a presentation from our consulting team today about existing conditions and the market analysis for downtown Pasco that will be prepared,and a draft will be distributed for us tomorrow.There's been some signi?cant public engagement efforts so far.On the bottom of bullet points,there's a rather successful downtown community survey that had over 100 responses and then in mid-December city staff held a downtown Visioning workshop at Salon Santa Cruz.And that'll be the focus of the rest of this presentation,that Visioning workshop. So,we have an evening workshop roughly 4 hours or so at Salon Santa Cruz.We had approximately 20 to 25 community members in attendance,four current and past Council members and 15 or so city staff.A significant presence by city staff from both Planning Division,Code Enforcement,Building Enforcement,and from our executive and Public Works staff,and Parks and Recreations as well.It was exciting because the event because the beginning portion was broadcast live on local AM radio,and many of our local businesses and community members and city staff were interviewed on live AM radio to share about the planning effort going on downtown Pasco. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 258 of 300 There were some common themes that came out of the workshop.Some of these may be surprising,some may not so much.In general,the comments included more things to do downtown,the activation of the downtown itself with public art,murals,outdoor dining,cultural events,streetscape improvements,both addressing lighting,potential parklets,addressing building facades,parking,homelessness,updates to the City zoning code,support for small businesses, mobility and connectivity,or access,celebration of Pasco's history and heritage,and creating a safe and vibrant downtown. Our consulting team conducted live polling during the event for the public both in person and virtual.This was streamed online through the city's Facebook page.Those who weren't able to attend in person participated virtually.The question here was please list up to three words that describe your vision for downtown Pasco.Vibrant,diverse,culture,historic,entertainment,and active rose to the top.The next question was list three words of what you see as the biggest challenges in downtown Pasco,which were parking and homelessness were at the top,same with art,lighting,garbage,and a few others.These are all being aggregated,and it will be addressed in the Master Plan process. A few photos from the event.There was a lot of activities,boards for community members to post their ideas,share their ideas.Take a look at some of the preliminary maps and analysis that were ready at the time.And on the next slide,a few more,you can see some of the community members who are participating in a successful public engagement event for the city and then the downtown. As far as the timeline,we're roughly a third through the process,that arrows pointing at the ?nal existing conditions report,which we expect to receive tomorrow.The next portion will be the development of the draft downtown plan.Another open house will be held,and then the ?nal downtown plan will be released late this spring.Throughout this will be numerous more updates with both the Planning Commission and Council and then obviously,adoption.This Master Plan and similar to the Broadmoor Plan will likely result in comprehensive plan amendments so that city staff can take the results of these plans and conduct city initiated amendments to the Planning Commissioning Council to change the conference timeline uses. That summarizes the update on the Pasco Downtown Master Plan.Our consulting team will be presenting to City Council on February 14"‘,and any new information that we received between now and then we intend to provide another update to the Planning Commission of February and again in March as well to keep everyone up to date on a pretty signi?cant effort downtown because of the engagement and the input received so far,staff is working with our consultant to identify ways to expand our initial scope.To address in some manner some of the common things that were reoccurring throughout the master plan engagement process.So that ends this presentation. And again,happy to answer or address any questions.Thank you. Commissioner Cochran asked so we're at the blue?You're saying at some point you'll come back to us with another update and even a draft and then ?nally we'll have a public hearing on it.That's kind of the process,good. Jacob Gonzalez answered correct.And certainly,we'll share the existing conditions component of the Master Plan.It's quite valuable to learn about the various components about the downtown. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 259 of 300 With regards to vacancy rate maybe not being as high as it's perceived,we intend to look at the renewal rate of business licenses and a few other components as well with regards to the demographics and population employment types in and around downtown.One of the themes and components of this Master Plan is rethinking what that boundary of our downtown is.We got a few variations of it.There's the C2 zone and the Central Business District,there's also the Downtown Paci?c Development Authority Boundary as well.And our consultant team is working and listening to members of the public and staff with regards to what they believe is what is downtown to them.Where does it begin?What is sort of that gray blending of boundaries of sorts.And we did hear a potential concept this morning with regards to expanding the boundary,which allows for more ?exibility and development in terms of zoning. It also provides an opportunity to have three potential neighborhoods within the downtown, including kind of the Civic area,which we're at today,the Central Business District,which exists where it does today and also a big component is connecting our downtown to the Columbia River and the Sacajawea Heritage Trail,which will connect to all three points.So that's where the corridor in that context begins to be really important for us. Commissioner Hendler added I'm a big proponent of housing,and I know you guys put a lot of working on this Master Plan.Congratulations.Fine job.But a constructive criticism I'd like to input here is I still don't see enough emphasis on downtown housing and all the downtown plans I worked on over the years,the most successful ones,the ones that stood the test of time,are the ones that incorporated a large component of housing so the downtown area doesn't die at 6:00.I just strongly encourage the team to think about incorporating housing in any way they can, renovate old buildings,whatever it is,because when you got people living downtown,they're going to take care of it.So,I just want to encourage a strong look at incorporating a housing component in the Master Plan. This is Commissioner Campos,I just really appreciate getting the City involved in the engagements.I really appreciate that.That and part of the presentation.I do remember just a question.There was also a survey that was sent out.I think the social media different stuff.Do we also hear from that? Jacob Gonzalez stated yes that survey was closed,I think last Monday.I think there was 110 responses,and that'll be shared.The results of that will be ready,likely by the February Planning Commission meeting. This is Commissioner Lehrman stated thank you very much for all the community engagement.It looks like you guys put in a lot of work,and it's quite extensive.So thanks for inviting in our past for residents to share out their voices and help in?uence our future.The question I have is what different languages were offered out to our residents of Pasco,at these community engagement opportunities? Jacob Gonzalez stated we did have interpretation services at the public engagement event.The survey was offered in both English and Spanish,and we've been making sure that all of our materials are translated as they should to ensure that members of the community have a fair opportunity to at least be aware of what we're working on downtown.The notices were all distributed during our normal distribution partners such as the Herald and the Business Journal,but Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 260 of 300 also some of the local Spanish language newspapers as well. Commissioner Lehrman said I guess I know there are other populations that don't speak English or Spanish,and so I was wondering if there are translation services.I'm not sure if translators were prepared for those other populations,but also when surveys go out,how do we invite in those other diverse voices of our community to be able to positively in?uence our decision making. C.Code Amendment -Residential Design Standards Phase I (MF#CA2022-001) Good evening,members of the Planning Commission,this is an introduction to a staff proposal to update our residential design and development standards in a two-phase process.The purpose of this is,along with some of our previous amendments,is to update our zoning and development standards to increase housing density and ?exibility.This proposal follows the likely completion of our House 1923 amendments,which will be before the City Council on Monday,January 24,for adoption,and it aligns with the Housing Action Plan and coordination with housing stakeholders. In fact,we did receive a proposal from the Home Builders Associated of the Tri-Cities in support and with ideas for this proposal as well. Some of the objectives of Phase 1 is to address essential or critical modi?cations necessary to increase ?exibility in housing design and options.There will be a signi?cant emphasis on multifamily development and design standards.Currently,the past few municipal code does not sufficiently address or accommodate multifamily development standards.Most of our design standards are on single family,so there will be a heavy focus and big update to that portion or the creation of that code.Density with designed so not big boxes everywhere,but certainly wants to make sure things are compatible with what we expect to see here in Pasco.Predictability for developers and those in the application process.So that includes an evaluation of our development review process. Phase 2,we expect to move forward during or soon after the adoption of the Housing Action Plan, which will itself include signi?cant recommendationsto address housing in Pasco with regards to incentives or other options that we can do,including increasing housing options downtown.So some of the preliminary revisions that staff has addressed so far,with both our consultant developing the Housing Action Plan and also with the help of the Home Builders Association, include zoning changes to minimum law sizes,setbacks and frontages,and on the multifamily side, a focus on building forms and placement,facades,circulation both internal and outside of the site for both non-motorizedusers and emergency responders,lighting and signage,open space and common area design and parking. We do have a rather aggressive timeline proposed for these changes because we have the help and support of both our consultant with the action plan and the home builders.Some of these changes may be a little bit easier than prior code changes.For the next month or so,we plan on coming back to Planning Commission with a public hearing with initial code amendmentproposal and then later in the April time frame,public hearings within recommendationif deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission,and then April and perhaps May,public hearings before the City Council with adoption.So,with that,that ends this brief presentation.But again,happy to answer or address any comments or questions from the Planning Commission.Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of I 8 January 20,2022 Page 261 of 300 Commissioner Hendler stated I have a question,Jacob.Is housing allowed in the C2 zoning?Is it allowed?Jacob Gonzalez answered it is if it's on the second ?oor of a retail.Commissioner Hendler continued,well,that's something that might be considered there in terms of rede?ning the allowable housing component,C2 zoning,I think that would make a big difference.I know it's not part of the deal,but it's something to consider. Commissioner Cochran stated so the next steps,and we can expect maybe some proposed code amendmentsor language or alternatives in the February meeting and then feedback on those and then maybe coming back with the public hearings in April or March and April. OTHER BUSINESS A.Elections-Election of Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Cochran stated I think we have seven of nine.We have one open position. Commissioner Bowers is not here,and we must replace as the term for chair and vice chair is ending.Commissioner Bowers is the chair,and the vice chair is Joe Campos,who's now a City Council member,so he is no longer a vice chair.And so,we as a Planning Commission body or need to elect our chair and vice chair. One thing we could do is we could defer this to next month when Commissioner Bowers is here or being that we have seven of our eight ?lled positions here,we could vote for it tonight.The problem,if we defer another month,we might be missing somebody other than Commissioner Bowers,so we might potentially always leave someone out.So,I'd love the commissioner’s feedback on how would they like to proceed if there is a strong preference for waiting a month to have Commissioner Bowers present,we can do that,or we can also proceed tonight with elections. The election process is very simple.You can either nominate your peers or yourself and then we vote on it.It's not a complicated procedure.So that's the process we took last time.So,I want to open up for feedback from the commissioners on how you would like to proceed with this This is Commissioner Myhrum,one other idea that's been used in the past successfully is suggesting a slate.So,a chair and vice chair combo,if you think there's a special chemistry between two members of the Commission,feel free to suggest that. Excellent idea,Commissioner Cochran stated,and that sometimes helps expedite things as well. Anybody else have any guidance on how they'd like to proceed.I guess the question I'd ask,is there any objection to proceeding tonight or on the other side of that,isn't everybody speci?cally wants us to wait? I guess I am hearing nothing either way.I guess I would suggest we probably proceed,since I guess my experience,seven of nine is a pretty good turnout for voting.And I think even when we did this last time,when we elected Joe Campos and Commissioner Bowers,we didn't have this many,and so we had to vote with even less numbers.I like the idea that we have seven tonight, even though we will unfortunately be missing Commissioner Bowers.So,with that,I think I would like to go ahead and open up for folks for nominations.Remember,you can nominate yourself or you can nominate one of your peers.And your peers can also decide they don't want to run if you Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page l7 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 262 of 300 nominate them. Two slates were suggested.Slate l was Commissioner Cochran and Commissioner Mendez.Slate 2 was Commissioner Myhrum and Commissioner Campos. Slate 1 carried the vote by one. Commissioner Cochran stated thank you everybody.I think you made a very easy process that can get complicated,so we'll proceed on that.Unfortunately,we would love to have Commissioner Bowers,but I think this is probably expedient to move forward. This is Commissioner Myhrum also.I just want to congratulate the incoming chair and vice chair. They're going to do a great job and I do look forward to also congratulating chair Bowers who served during much of the pandemic during some very trying times.Virtually and I just want to just congratulate the entire Commission on how well we've stuck together even despite the dif?culties and looking forward to working together.Thanks. Commissioner Cochran stated great comments Commissioner Myhrum and I also want to thank CommissionerBowers for her service and perseverance during the pandemic and look forward for the entire Commission to work with everybody.Any other comments before we adjourn or any other questions or feedback for staff before we adjourn? Hearing none,I say we are adjourned for the evening.Thank you,everybody,for your attendance and see you next month. Meeting adjourned at 8:02 pm. Carmen Patrick,Administrative Assistant II Community &Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 January 20,2022 Page 263 of 300 Page 264 of 300 Page 265 of 300 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 1, 2022 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop Meeting: 3/14/22 FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Resolution - Emergency Agreement for Animal Control Services I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution Proposed Agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: $126,072 - Total Per Month, divided in 3 between Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland $42,024 - Monthly Share from City of Pasco IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On November 11, 2021, Benton Franklin Human Society (BFHS) took over the Tri-Cities Animal Shelter including all operations for regional animal control, shelter operations, and personnel management. This was an urgent and emergency action initiated due to law enforcement action against the previous contractor, which prompted their unplanned dismissal. Since that time, BFHS has operated the Tri-Cities Animal Shelter facility in addition to their main facility located in Kennewick to the best of their ability. The attached agreement contains the standard legal language for a Personal Services Agreement as drafted by the City Legal staff. The scope of work included within outlines the details of contracted work for BFHS during this emergency period. Page 266 of 300 V. DISCUSSION: This is a retroactive contract that needed time between the Animal Control Authority (ACA) and BFHS to negotiate and settle on final language, funding, and course of action. BFHS has been in compliance with the tenets of the contract since their take over date. Staff recommends Council ratify this contract through resolution. Page 267 of 300 Resolution – BF Humane Society Emergency Agreement RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE EMERGENCY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BENTON FRANKLIN HUMANE SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTERING SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Cities of Pasco, Richland and Kennewick Washington on December 16, 2016 entered into an Interlocal agreement establishing the Tri-City Animal Control Authority for Animal Control and Sheltering Services; and WHEREAS, said agreement designated the City of Pasco, Washington as the Operating Jurisdiction for the Tri-City Animal Control Authority; and WHEREAS, on November 11, 2021, due to termination of the prior contractor for cause, and on an emergency basis, the Benton-Franklin Humane Society was granted operational control of the facility; and WHEREAS, after operational practices and standard were stabilized, the ACA and BFHS negotiated a temporary Personal Services Agreement to officially ratify the relationship; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, has after due consideration, determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Pasco to enter into an Emergency Services Agreement with Benton Franklin Humane Society; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Pasco approves the terms and conditions of the Emergency Services Agreement with Benton Franklin Humane Society, as attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Pasco. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington and approved as provided by law this _____ day of ________________, 2022. _______________________ Blanch Barajas, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney DRAFTPage 268 of 300 PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES FOR THE ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY OF KENNEWICK, PASCO & RICHLAND Agreement No. _______ THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between The Benton-Franklin Co. Humane Society, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor” and the Tri-City Animal Control Authority, hereinafter referred to “ACA”, an unincorporated association comprised of the cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, political subdivisions of the State of Washington, on this 11th day of November, 2021. ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT 1.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the relationship between the ACA and the Contractor. The Contractor shall provide animal control services in specified areas within Benton and Franklin Counties for the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland as specified herein. In consideration for said services, the ACA shall pay the Contractor in U.S. funds such moneys and in such manner as herein described. ARTICLE 2. WHOLE AGREEMENT 2.1 This is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties relevant to the purpose described above and supersedes all prior agreements or proposals, oral or written, and all other communication between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. No modification of this Agreement will be binding on either party except as a written addendum signed by authorized agents of both parties. ARTICLE 3. WRITTEN NOTICE 3.1 Any notice of change, termination or other communication having a material effect on this Agreement shall be served in one or more of the following manners: a.In-person delivery to the Pasco City Clerk if delivering to the Authority; an authorized officer, employee, agent or other representative if delivering to the Contractor. b.Deposited in the U.S. mails under certified or registered handling, postage prepaid, posted to the address(es) provided herein: City of Pasco Contractor Dave Zabell, City Manager Benton-Franklin Humane Society PO Box 293 ATTN: Executive Director Pasco, WA 99301 1736 E. 7th Ave Telephone: (509) 544-3404 Kennewick, WA 99337 DRAFTPage 269 of 300 c. By e-mail sent to either party. Article 4. GOVERNING LAW/VENUE 4.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any action or suit commenced in connection with this Agreement shall be in the Franklin County Superior Court. 4.1.1 All rights and remedies of either party shall be cumulative and may be exercised successively or concurrently. The foregoing is without limitation to or waiver of any other rights or remedies of either party according to law. It is agreed that fifteen (15) calendar days shall constitute reasonable notice for the exercise of any right in the event that applicable law specifically requires such notice, unless a more specific time frame is required by applicable statute. ARTICLE 5. ATTORNEY FEES 5.1 Attorney’s fees, which are reasonable, and costs including those in appeal, if appeal is taken, shall be allowed to the prevailing party by any court hearing a dispute under this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. JUDICIAL RULINGS 6.1 If any provision of this Agreement, as applied to either party or to any circumstance, shall be adjudged by a court to be void or unenforceable the same shall in no way affect any other provision or the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. ARTICLE 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 7.1 The Contractor shall be an "independent contractor." All persons employed to furnish services hereunder are employees of the Contractor and not of the ACA. Further, the ACA shall not be liable for any of Contractor's acts or omissions performed under this Agreement or other agreements to which Contractor is a party. ARTICLE 8. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS 8.1 The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the ACA and the individual Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold the Contractor and their officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, whether known or unknown, including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection DRAFTPage 270 of 300 with the prior performance, negligence, malfeasance, acts, or omissions of previous contractors of the ACA. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 9. INSURANCE 9.1 The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement. insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum scope of insurance and minimum insurance limits of the types described below shall be maintained by the Contractor. a. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide a per project general aggregate limit using ISO form CG 25 03 05 09 or an equivalent endorsement. The ACA shall be named as an additional insured under the Contractor’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the ACA using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured-Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing at least as broad coverage. The ACA consisting of City of Kennewick, PO Box 6108, Kennewick WA 99336; City of Pasco, PO Box 293, Pasco WA 99301; and City of Richland, 505 Swift Blvd., Richland WA 99352, shall be named as additional insureds under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the ACA. b. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products completed operations aggregate limit. c. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on ISO form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. d. Automobile Liability insurance shall have a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. DRAFTPage 271 of 300 e. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. f. Law Enforcement Professional insurance in the amount of $500,000. 9.2 Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: a. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to this Contract. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the ACA shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. b. The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the ACA. 9.3 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. 9.4 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the ACA with original Certificates of Insurance and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. 9.5 Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insured's under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Contractor. The Contractor shall ensure that the ACA is an additional insured on each and every Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy using an endorsement as least as broad as ISO CG 20 10 10 01 for ongoing operations and CG 20 37 10 01 for completed operations. ARTICLE 10. NONDISCRIMINATION 10.1 The Contractor agrees to abide by all Federal, State and/or local ordinances prohibiting discrimination with regard to employment and client services. If the Contractor subcontracts, said subcontract shall include appropriate safeguards against discrimination in such services and employment binding upon each Contractor or subcontractor. The Contractor shall take such action as may be required to insure full compliance with this DRAFTPage 272 of 300 clause, including sanctions for noncompliance. Any violations of this provision shall be considered a material violation of this Agreement and shall be grounds for cancellation, termination or suspension in whole or in part by the ACA. ARTICLE 11. NONASSIGNMENT 11.1 No portion of nor any interest in this Agreement may be assigned to a third party without the prior written approval of the ACA. ARTICLE 12. USE OF ACA FACILITIES 12.1 By and through this Agreement, Contractor and its employees or agents shall have the right to use such portions of the Animal Shelter, which is leased to the ACA by the City of Pasco. The leased premises shall constitute those areas that are designated by the ACA for Contractor's use and determined to be necessary to perform the required services under this Agreement. Contractor shall have no right of access to any other facilities of the ACA without the prior approval of the ACA Management Committee. The shelter is currently located at 1312 S. 18th Ave. Pasco, Washington. Contractor's use of the premises shall be subject to the following: 12.1.1 Permitted Use: a. The premises shall be used for animal control operations conducted for the cities of Kennewick, Washington, Pasco, Washington, and Richland, Washington pursuant to enforcement of Tri-City Animal Control Authority agency ordinances and for no other purpose without the written consent of the ACA. b. The ACA shall have the right to lease unused areas in the shelter, provided that the ACA and Contractor shall work cooperatively to determine the best utilization of the space in the facility. 1. Restrictions on Use: In connection with the use of the Premises, Contractor shall: A. Conform to all applicable laws and regulations of any public authority affecting the Premises and its use thereof. B. Refrain from any activity (other than those activities within Contractor's normal and customary course of conduct) that would make it impossible to insure the Premises against casualty or that would substantially increase the insurance rate. C. Refrain from any use that creates a nuisance. DRAFTPage 273 of 300 D. Refrain from loading the electrical system or floors beyond the point considered safe by a competent engineer or architect selected by Landlord. E. Not cause or permit any Hazardous Substance to be spilled, leaked, disposed of, or otherwise released on the Premises. F. Not cause or permit litter, garbage or other refuse or debris to accumulate on the Premises except in suitable garbage containers. 2. Repairs and Maintenance: The ACA shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance necessitated by Contractor's reasonable use and occupancy, including, but not limited to the following: A. Repairs of the roof and gutters, exterior walls, bearing walls, structural members, floor slabs and foundation. B. Repair of exterior water, sewage and electrical services up to the point of entry to the Premises. C. Repair of heating and cooling systems. D. Repair of interior walls, ceilings, doors, windows, and related hardware, light fixtures, switches, wiring and plumbing. 3. Alterations: A. Contractor Alterations Prohibited. Contractor shall make no improvements or alterations on the Premises of any kind without first obtaining the ACA's written consent. All alterations shall be made in a good and workman-like manner, and in compliance with plans submitted to and approved by the Landlord and in accordance with applicable laws and building codes. B. Ownership and Removal of Alterations. All improvements and alterations performed on the Premises by Contractor shall be the property of Landlord when installed unless the applicable Landlord's consent specifically provides otherwise. Improvements and alterations installed by Contractor shall, at Landlord's option, be removed by Contractor and the Premises restored, at Contractors expense, unless the applicable Landlord's consent specifically provides otherwise. 4. Property Insurance and Waiver of Subrogation: City of Pasco shall purchase and maintain during the term of the lease all-risk property insurance covering the Building for its full replacement value without any coinsurance provisions. DRAFTPage 274 of 300 Contractor and City of Pasco hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered 100% by property insurance on or in connection with the premises of said building. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered 100% by insurance. City of Pasco will insure personal property of the ACA in the amount equal to the value of the ACA-owned inventory and is under no obligation to insure any of Contractor's personal property located in the Premises. 5. Utilities: ACA shall provide and pay for the following utilities: electric service, gas, water and sewer services. Contractor shall provide telephone and communication services, garbage disposal services, janitorial services, and security services as needed. 6. Damage or Destruction: If the Premises are damaged or destroyed in whole or in part by no fault of Contractor, and Contractor is unable to provide services required by Agreement, the ACA may, at its option, elect to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days’ notice. 7. Surrender: Upon expiration of the Agreement term or earlier termination as provided herein, Contractor shall surrender the Premises in the same condition as at the commencement of its use, reasonable wear and tear expected. ARTICLE 13. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS 13.1 The ACA shall have no responsibility for the loss, theft, mysterious disappearance or damage to all equipment, tools, materials, supplies and other personal property of Contractor or its employees, agents or subcontractors, which may be stored on ACA premises. Contractor shall provide the ACA an inventory of property no later than January 15, each year. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement a walk-through of the premises shall be performed to reconcile the inventory of property. Failure to participate in the post-service walk-through by the Contractor shall constitute a waiver of any claim to ownership of disputed equipment or inventory. ARTICLE 14. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 14.1 This Agreement may be terminated under the following conditions: DRAFTPage 275 of 300 a. By written mutual agreement of both parties. Termination under this provision may be immediate. b. Without cause upon six (6) months written notice by either party to the other of intent to terminate. c. The ACA may in its sole discretion, unilaterally terminate this contract on thirty (30) days written notice for documented performance failures pursuant to this agreement. Contractor maybe allowed 30 days to correct conditions not in compliance with this Agreement. At its sole discretion, the ACA may extend the 30-day cure period based upon the progress of the Contractor to correct conditions in the initial 30-day period or any factors outside the control of the Contractor that prevent correcting the condition within the initial 30 days. i. The ACA may, in its sole discretion, unilaterally terminate this contract, without notice, for emergency law enforcement action such as a criminal investigation, criminal charges or civil complaint against the Contractor, its agents, employees, assigns or subcontractors related to the performance of this agreement. d. Upon thirty (30) days’ notice by the ACA, in the event of property loss of the leased premises, natural disaster preventing performance under this Agreement. e. The Contractor may in its sole discretion, unilaterally terminate this contract on thirty (30) days written notice for documented performance failures pursuant to this agreement. ACA may be allowed 30 days to correct conditions not in compliance with this Agreement. At its sole discretion, the Contractor may extend the 30-day cure period based upon the progress of the ACA to correct conditions in the initial 30-day period or any factors outside the control of the ACA that prevent correcting the condition within the initial 30 days. If this Agreement is terminated by either party, the ACA agrees to pay to the Contractor all costs and expenses associated with services provided to the effective day of termination. Monies due and payable will be pro-rated based on the number of service days performed through the date of termination. Notwithstanding any termination hereunder, all requirements of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect through the date of termination upon written notice. ARTICLE 15. STANDARD OF SERVICES 15.1 Contractor agrees to perform services with the standard of skill and diligence normally provided by a professional organization in the performance of similar services. It is understood that the Contractor must perform the services based in part on information DRAFTPage 276 of 300 furnished by ACA and that Contractor shall be entitled to rely on such information. However, Contractor is given notice that ACA will be relying on the accuracy, level of competence and completeness of Contractor's services in utilizing the results of such services. To further this level of service, the Contractor will develop, within 90 days of the beginning of this Agreement, a set of written operational procedures relating to daily operations, including but not limited to euthanasia procedures. Such procedures shall be subject to the approval of the ACA and the Contractor will be accountable for compliance with such procedures. 15.2 Additional standards of service requirements shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • Maintain good customer service skills. • Animals and residents shall be treated respectfully and courteously at all times. • Encourage community involvement through volunteer opportunities if desired by contractor • Be responsive to city/citizen requests. • Maintain a professional appearance. • Maintain professionalism with the public and public agencies. 15.3 Contractor warrants that the recommendations, guidance, training and performance of any person assigned under this Agreement shall be in accordance with generally-accepted practices for handling and treatment of animals, professional standards and applicable regulatory practices, and requirements of this Agreement. ARTICLE 16. TERM OF AGREEMENT 16.1 This is an emergency contract that shall be effective November 11, 2021 until May 31, 2022, at which time this contract shall terminate and be replaced with a new contract, unless either party elects not to enter into such new contract. ARTICLE 17. SURVIVAL 17.1 The terms, conditions, representations, and all warranties contained in this Agreement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. ARTICLE 18. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR 18.1 See Attachment A – Scope of Work. ARTICLE 19. FEES 19.1 The Contractor agrees to provide animal control services as herein specified and in the manner specified. The ACA shall have no liability for taxes, insurance or other expenses associated with the performance of the Contractor's duties hereunder. The ACA shall compensate the Contractor in monthly installments in an amount according to the DRAFTPage 277 of 300 Compensation Schedule included with Attachment B. The Contractor shall be responsible for collecting appropriate impounding fees and boarding fees and shall be responsible for remittance to the Cities according to the Fee Schedule included with Attachment C. ARTICLE 20. METHOD OF PAYMENT 20.1 Payment shall be made within 10 days upon receipt by ACA of a written invoice to be provided to ACA by Contractor at the end of the month in which services were rendered. ARTICLE 21. PUBLICITY 21.1 Contractor shall not use in its external advertising, marketing programs, or other promotional efforts any data, pictures, or other representations of the ACA except on prior specific written authorization from ACA. ARTICLE 22. SUBCONTRACTING 22.1 The Contractor shall not employ other subcontractors without prior written approval of the ACA nor shall the duties of the Contractor under the contract be delegated without prior written approval of the ACA. Unless otherwise expressly agreed by ACA, the Contractor shall remain responsible for the quality and timeliness of performance notwithstanding any delegation of said required performance. 22.2 The Contractor will assume full responsibility for administering and managing all of its subcontractor(s). All ACA communications concerning any subcontractor will be directed through the Contractor's resident general manager. 22.3 The ACA may enter into agreement with other jurisdictions in the area to provide animal control services. Contractor shall enter into these agreements only upon mutual written agreement between the ACA and Contractor. The Contractor is prohibited from entering into agreements or providing animal control services with other jurisdictions without prior written approval of the ACA. ARTICLE 23. INSPECTIONS AND RECORDS 23.1 The Contractor shall submit to inspections of the premises and records by representatives of the ACA at any time, without prior notice. Such inspections may include, but not limited to, financial audits, records audits, inspection of kennels, or observation of procedures. The Contractor will also submit to inspection and oversight by a professional oversight committee appointed by the ACA. Contractor agrees to maintain all records with respect to services provided under this Agreement for six (6) years and shall maintain such records in such a manner as to preserve those records in case of a public records request. Contractor shall fully comply with ACA and Cities to respond to applicable requests for public records. ARTICLE 24. SIGNATURE PAGE DRAFTPage 278 of 300 24.1 The Contractor and the ACA hereby agree to all provisions of the Agreement. Signed this ______ day of ______________ 2022, Pasco. Washington. CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON CONTRACTOR Dave Zabell, City Manager Cecilia O’Shaughnessy, Board President, Benton-Franklin Humane Society ATTEST: __________________________________ Autumn White, Executive Director Debra Barham, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC, City Attorney DRAFTPage 279 of 300 ATTACHMENT A – SCOPE OF SERVICES DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR Enforcement of Animal Regulatory Laws The Contractor shall be fully responsible for taking animals into custody, transporting animals, administering and enforcing animal control regulations, investigating animal control complaints, as well as enforcing action(s) in accordance with the Cities' respective municipal codes and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Responsibilities of the Contractor shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1. Field Service Calls: The Contractor shall initiate within one business day during normal business hours of the Shelter, an investigation and follow up on all animal control complaints referred to it by the public, appropriate officers, health services or other entities where the complaints constitute violations of Kennewick, Pasco or Richland municipal codes. Records shall be kept on each complaint, to include action(s) taken and disposition(s). Examples of field service calls may include but are not limited to: • Domestic animal at large • Barking dog • Unlicensed dog or cat in participating cities • Dog or cat with no rabies vaccination • Dog threatens person • Dog threatens domestic animal • Dog or cat bite • Injured or sick domestic animal • Assist law enforcement agencies upon request • Abandoned animal • Animal cruelty • Dead on arrival dog or cat • Confined dog or cat • Trapping dog or cat • Dangerous or potentially dangerous dog • Kennel inspections • Dangerous dog inspections • Inherently dangerous mammal or reptile inspections • Special Assistance 2. Apprehension: Apprehend and impound stray dogs and cats. The Contractor shall direct its animal control officer(s) to return the dog or cat to the owner, if known, while the officer is in the field and issue a written warning or civil citation to the owner instead of impounding the animal for a first-time offense. Subsequent offenses shall be impounded. Vicious animals at large must be impounded including first-time offenses. Complete and accurate records of all apprehensions and impounds, including disposition of the animal, shall be maintained. 3. Secure evidence of suspected violators: Evidence shall be recorded, properly identified, and stored in a secure location. DRAFTPage 280 of 300 4. Distressed Animals: Animals in distress, including hardship cases, such as owner arrest or house fires, must be impounded. If a distressed animal cannot be safely impounded, based on the professional opinion of a qualified veterinarian, it must be destroyed immediately. The method used for euthanasia must be approved by the ACA. 5. Hazard Removal: Dead animals whose owners are unknown and which constitutes a traffic hazard on City roadways and Rights-of-Way must be removed. In instances where a hazard exists which is a violation of local ordinance but the animal is alive, the animal shall be impounded. The Contractor shall not be responsible for the collection and disposal of dead animals found on private property. 6. Disposal of Dead Animals: The Contractor shall pick up and remove small or large dead animals from City roadways and Rights-of-Way within six (6) hours of notification during normal business hours. If outside of normal business hours, the dead animals shall be removed within sixteen (16) hours of initial notification. 7. Emergency Response: The Contractor for animal control enforcement shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, on an emergency response basis. Emergency response shall be for any of the following: a. Vicious animals, or animals wild or domestic that may reasonably constitute a hazard to persons or other animals or threaten public safety. b. Animals with life-threatening injuries. c. Hardship cases or law enforcement assistance matters. d. Special Assistance. 8. Court Appearances: The Contractor's personnel may, on occasion, be required to appear in court in support of enforcement action. The Contractor shall not receive additional compensation for these appearances and shall be timely and professional in all such appearances. 9. Special Assistance: From time to time special assistance may be required to respond to unique circumstances and/or animal care needs. Such special assistance or care shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. 10. Citation Authority: Issue civil citations for the violation of animal regulatory ordinances. 11. Reporting: Provide complete and accurate reports, in a format approved by the ACA, to the Cities by the 15th of the following month pertaining to the enforcement activities. 12. Telephone: Provide a telephone call receiving system that can accommodate high call volume and ensure that a message can be left if a person is not available to receive the call. Contractor shall use best efforts to ensure that phone messages are retrieved within 10 minutes. Emergency callers shall be contacted immediately upon receipt of the message. DRAFTPage 281 of 300 After hour emergency calls shall be routed to an on-call employee or answering service. All calls for service shall be logged and a disposition recorded. 13. Enforcement Officers: A minimum of one enforcement officer will have at least three (3) years’ experience in animal control enforcement and will possess current enforcement certification. (These requirements may be temporarily waived by agreement of the Contractor and ACA). All enforcement officers will obtain certification within the minimum time period and will maintain current status of certification. All enforcement officers shall be suitably uniformed to present a clean, respectable image to the public. The Contractor shall be responsible for securing limited enforcement-commissions from each City to enable the officers to enforce the terms of the Cities' animal regulatory ordinances. All enforcement officers will be trained in the issuance of citations, as well as investigation, reports preparation and court procedure, in addition to training in methods of animal control and handling procedures. 14. Cruelty Complaints: Respond to and provide resolution to complaints regarding animal cruelty. Whenever evidence of criminal animal cruelty is discovered, such complaints will be coordinated with the appropriate law enforcement agency for further investigation, along with a written report. 15. Activities Not Covered: The Contractor shall not generally be responsible for the following items: a. Responding to complaints or incidents involving wild animals, except, where it is in the interest of public safety that the Contractor respond or the public safety is impaired by the presence of a wild animal, dead or alive, on a public roadway or within the Right-of-Way. b. Rehabilitating and restoring to health animals that have been injured, neglected or abused beyond the basics of shelter, food and water that is not required by State law. Animal Shelter Facilities The Contractor shall provide animal shelter services at the ACA leased facility for all animals for which impounding or quarantine is authorized or ordered by this Agreement, by the Cities or the Benton-Franklin Health District for animals’ subject to the Cities' jurisdiction. These facilities shall be operated and maintained on a 24-hour per-day basis, in a neat, clean and sanitary condition, in compliance with all applicable governmental statutes. ordinances, rules and regulations and in conformity with established standards for humane animal care. 1. Shelter Hours: The Shelter or shelter representative shall be accessible for contact 24 hours per day, seven days a week on an emergency response basis for the purposes of animal control. The animal shelter facility shall be opened to the public, with qualified staff on the DRAFTPage 282 of 300 premises, on a schedule approved by the ACA. The shelter may be closed on the following Holidays. a. Holiday Schedule i. New Year's Day ii. Memorial Day iii. Independence Day iv. Labor Day v. Veterans Day vi. Thanksgiving Day vii. Christmas Day 2. Delivery of Animals: The Contractor shall provide a procedure whereby animals may be delivered to the shelter on a 24-hour basis. 3. Building: Contractor shall equip and organize the shelter to have an adequate number of dog kennels and cat cages, isolation facilities for sick dogs and cats, quarantine facilities for biters or injured animals which are not necessarily sick, and access to large animal housing. The animal shelter shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and the Contractor will not permit any condition to exist that might constitute a public nuisance. The kennel shall comply with the standards set forth in the Humane Society's Uniform Standards Guidelines (HSUS) for the operation of an animal shelter. The facility site shall be operated in conformance with local zoning regulations and shall comply with all Federal, State and local regulations, 4. Acceptance and Care of Animals: The Contractor shall provide care and treatment to all animals held in custody consistent with industry standards. Adequate housing and food shall be provided, and the shelter shall not be overpopulated. 5. Owner Surrender: The Contractor shall accept “Owner Surrender” of dog(s) and/or cat(s), upon payment of such reasonable cost to be established by the Contractor and reviewed by the ACA, to recover expenses relating to acceptance of such animals. Owner surrenders will be conducted at the main BFHS Facility at 1736 East 7th Avenue Kennewick, WA 6. Reunification: Contractor must make all reasonable attempts to reunite animal with owner before euthanasia or adoption to include accessing current licensing records, using contact information on owner provided tags worn by the animal and scanning all animals to the extent possible to detect implanted computer chips. The owner, if determined, shall be contacted immediately. If contact cannot be established through phone or in person, a written notice shall be sent to the owner’s listed address at least two days prior to a hold being removed. Records of attempts to contact the owner shall be kept. Impounded animals shall be posted on the website and/or any social media outlets utilized within one business day of receipt of the animal. 7. Adoption: The Contractor shall be responsible for making every reasonable effort to prepare and present animals for adoption by the public and to facilitate the same. DRAFTPage 283 of 300 Unclaimed animals will be made available for claim by ACA approved adoption agencies. The adoption process shall take place as determined by the ACA in consultation with the Contractor. Unclaimed animals are hereby allowed to be maintained by the Contractor at the Animal Shelter Facility at the expense of the Contractor, as long as space remains available for incoming stray animals. Any and all adoption fees for animals after the required hold times are to be retained by the Contactor. 8. Inspection of Premises: The ACA, through its authorized representatives, shall have the right to enter upon and inspect the premises during regular business hours for the purpose of inspecting the facilities for the above-mentioned conditions. 9. Disposal of Unclaimed Animals: The Contractor shall provide for the humane disposal of unclaimed animals after holding them for a minimum hold time as required by applicable City Ordinance, unless documented, sickness or injury requires earlier disposal. Under no circumstances shall animals not adopted be sold for purposes of medical research or other activities without the consent of ACA. Animals that are abandoned or surrendered at the shelter will be held for a minimum period of the hold times that are defined as: dogs 72 hours, cats 24 hours; unless age, sickness, and/or injury requires earlier disposal. Animals that are unable to feed on their own are not required to be held. The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining animals beyond the minimum time as may be required for the completion of any judicial process or to the extent required by law. Animals held longer than the minimum hold times required by City Ordinance or otherwise stipulated by terms of this contract are at the expense and responsibility of the Contractor. 10. Euthanasia: Arrange and/or provide for the humane euthanasia and disposal of unwanted animals. This shall be accomplished in a manner approved by Federal or State regulations which shall not subject such animals to any unnecessary pain. Euthanasia will be performed in a non-public area and out of sight of visitors to the kennel. Euthanasia will be performed by licensed veterinarian or certified technicians only as provided by State law. 11. Financial Records: The Contractor shall keep comprehensive records and submit regular detail summary reports to accompany invoices to the ACA by the 15th of the following month. All income and expenditures shall be recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial records may be subject to audit by any governmental agency, or contractor hired by one of the governmental agencies with jurisdiction at the time and place mutually convenient to the parties during the term and for a period of six (6) years thereafter. Contractor understands that certain records may be subject to State-mandated retention and shall be kept for a minimum of six (6) years. 12. Volunteer Program: The Contractor will encourage community involvement through volunteer opportunities if desired by contractor. Volunteer activities could include pet enrichment activities, office help, transportation to vet appointments, donation pick-ups, DRAFTPage 284 of 300 adoption events, and cleaning tasks. Any volunteer program is subject to the policies, processes, and procedures established by the Contractor’s organization. 13. Foster Program: The Contractor will manage a Foster Program to help alleviate overcrowding. The Foster Program will benefit dogs and cats that may have behavior challenges, the elderly, sick or recovering from surgery, and puppies and kittens that need 24/7 care. 14. Education: Provide education to the public. Which can include but not limited to: a. Dog bite prevention program b. Public service announcements c. Community outreach – fair booth, license clinics, special events, etc. 15. Website: Update and maintain all facets of the website. Including: a. Lost & Found Pets b. Adopt a New Pet c. Our Pet List d. Foster Program e. Photo Gallery f. Volunteer Opportunities 16. Telephone Number and Name: The shelter telephone number (509) 545-3740, facsimile number (509) 545-9293 and names, "Tri-City Animal Shelter & Control Services” & "Tri- City Animal Shelter" belong to and are owned by the ACA and will remain the property of the ACA upon termination of this contract. Each Member City of the ACA will list the number along with other City services in Agency directory and/or Agency Website. Additional listings in the yellow pages or other directories are the responsibility of the Contractor. 17. Pound Master: The Contractor shall be the Cities' Pound Master(s). 18. Collect Fees: The Contractor shall be responsible for collecting appropriate impounding and boarding fees, according to the Attachment C Fee Schedule, and submitting such fees to the respective Cities monthly. Failure to collect and submit fees can result in ACA withholding service payment until resolved. 19. Licenses: The Contractor shall ensure that all animals released or adopted are properly licensed and vaccinated for rabies in accordance with City ordinances, and shall remit license fees to the Cities. Equipment 1. The Contractor shall be responsible for and obtain all equipment, tools and supplies used in performing the Contractor's obligations arising under this agreement. All equipment, tools & DRAFTPage 285 of 300 supplies that are donated to the Contractor for use in obligations under this contract, purchased with ACA funds and/or the ACA has furnished or expressly promises to furnish with set-aside funds shall become property of the ACA upon termination of this contract. ACA funds shall include the approved Contractor budget and any set-aside funding. Operating supplies, such as office & cleaning supplies, forms and food are not to be included on the inventory. Contractor shall, upon termination of the contract maintain sufficient and reasonable operating supplies so that an incoming contractor can maintain reasonable service levels without interruption. 2. The Contractor shall have computer chip detection equipment to be able to detect and read computer chips in animals to assist in locating the owner. 3. Animal Transport Equipment: The ACA will provide 3 patrol vehicles under this contract as identified in the vehicle set-aside of the Compensation Schedule. Vehicles purchased with ACA funding will remain the property of the ACA upon termination of this contract. The ACA shall be responsible for licensing and maintaining the ACA patrol vehicles to carry out the enforcement activities of the contract. The patrol vehicles shall have a uniform appearance, be conspicuously marked and identified, equipped with communication equipment and equipped in such a manner as to provide humane treatment for the animals transported. Communication equipment may be provided through handheld radio or cellular phone device upon approval of the ACA. Contractor shall provide documentation of comprehensive, bodily injury, liability and property damage insurance coverage for a minimum limit of $1,000,000 for all vehicles used in performance of this contract. The Contractor will begin the initial term of this contract with the following ACA vehicles: 2014 Ford Transit – VIN# NM0LS6E70E1157980 2015 Ford Transit – VIN# NM0LS6E73F1176699 2007 Ford PU – VIN# 1FTRF12277KC62235 2003 Chevrolet Cargo Van – VIN#1GCHG35U831211943 Other equipment, tools & Supplies that Contractor provides for use in obligations under this agreement that are not purchased with ACA funds shall remain the property of the Contractor. Records and Reports The Contractor shall be required to develop its own record-keeping procedures and to maintain records of all animals it handles in accordance with applicable public records statutes as outlined in the Revised Code of Washington. 1. Reports including but not limited to: a. Number of impounds b. Number of adoptions c. Number of emergency responses d. Disposition of complaints regarding animals DRAFTPage 286 of 300 e. Dangerous or potentially dangerous animals and dog-bit incidents f. All initiated criminal citations issued g. Any additional information that may be required by a City through its regulatory ordinances h. Number of animals destroyed by euthanasia 2. The Reports shall include the following information: a. description of animal; b. reason it was brought in; c. who brought in the animal; d. from what City the animal was brought in; e. time frame, of when animal brought in, how long it stayed, when released, redeemed, adopted, euthanized; f. fees collected. g. record of all adoptions with names and addresses of new owner; h. record of licenses sold with names and addresses. 3. Failure to Submit: Failure to submit records, reports and/or fees as required in this agreement to the ACA can result in ACA withholding service payment until resolved. The above-required information shall be available to ACA on a monthly basis on approved forms as requested and shall be accessible to the ACA during normal business hours. Fees collected and record of licenses sold including names and addresses shall be delivered to the appropriate City on a monthly basis. Financial and other statistical information shall be provided monthly by the 15th of the following month as required by ACA. The appropriate City shall also receive records of all dangerous or potentially dangerous dog-bite incidents, to the best of the Contractor’s ability. DRAFTPage 287 of 300 ATTACHMENT B - COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Pro-Rated Budget Benton Franklin Humane Society Initial Budget Medical/Vet Supplies $77.41 Prescriptions $22,770.04 Lab and Testing Outsourced Vet Fees or In-House Vet Salary $202,801.66 Total $225,649.11 Animal Care Kennel Supplies $88,535.34 Dog and puppy food $16,892.60 cat and kitten food $4,029.87 Litter $10,355.22 Small Animal Supplies and Feed $82.65 Medical Supplies $17,413.04 Rabies Vax $701.20 Dog vax & Bordetella $9,922.18 Cat Vax $6,857.67 Parasiticides $16,141.95 SNAP tests $2,583.15 Microchips $1,664.00 Leashes and Collars $3,751.39 ID Tags $1,432.28 Prescription Drugs $8,142.90 Foster Care Supplies $350.93 Medicated Shampoo $2,583.15 Total $191,439.53 Bldg Maint Repair & Maint (Bldg) $4,133.04 Repair & Maint (Equip) $1,394.90 HVAC Maint $1,549.89 Total $7,077.83 Vehicle Fees Insurance $11,365.86 General Maintenance $7,232.82 Gas $9,299.34 DRAFTPage 288 of 300 Registration $536.27 Total $28,434.29 Property and Business Tax $6,941.33 General Liability Insurance $9,505.99 Professional Fees CPA Firm (audits every 2nd year) $4,596.46 Answering Service $14,465.64 Other Prof. Fees $4,590.91 Payroll Service (timesheets) $1,885.16 Bank Fee $1,037.94 Merchant Processing $251.87 TOTAL $26,827.98 Utilities Electricity Covered by ACA Water/Sewer Covered by ACA Gas Garbage $6,199.56 Business Phone/Internet $8,740.16 Cellular Service $13,949.01 Equipment Rental $82.32 Security System $5,698.53 Hazardous Waste Disposal $545.33 Grounds Maintenance/Lnsc Covered by ACA Total $35,214.92 Direct Mail $0.00 Salaries and Insurance Group Insurance/Benefits $77,494.50 Payroll Tax $57,528.76 Salaries and Wages $ 844,800.00 Total $979,823.26 Special Events and Fundraising $0.00 Administration Shelter Buddy Software $9483.19 Returned Checks $40.00 Volunteer Recognitions $0.00 Office Supplies $2,789.80 Printing $2,789.80 DRAFTPage 289 of 300 Copier $3,325,54 Comp Repairs/Phone Maint $3,099.78 Safety/First Aid Supplies/CPR $3,030.97 Dues and Subscriptions $5,294.55 Travel, Conference, Training, $3,616.41 Meals and Trans $325.48 Uniforms $3,214.24 Janitorial Supplies $2,583.15 Employee Recognition $398.37 Business Cards $332.80 Total $36,998.54 Operating Expense Bank Service Charge $309.98 Merchant Processing $9,299.34 Office Expense $0.00 Total $12,871.88 Grand Total $1,512,865.21 Pro Rated Monthly Fee $126,072.10 Monthly Rate per ACA Member $42,024.03 DRAFTPage 290 of 300 ATTACHMENT C - FEE SCHEDULE Fees/Hold Times/Dangerous Dog Kennewick Pasco Richland Penalty (Citation) First Offense $50.00 $50.00 $30.00 Second Offense $100.00 $100.00 $50.00 Third Offense $200.00 $200.00 $75.00 Four or more $400.00 $400.00 $100.00 Annual License Fees Unaltered Cats and Dogs $0.00 $45.00 $45.00 Altered Cats and Dogs $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 Dangerous or Wild Animal Permit $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 Impound Fee First $10.00 $35.00 $35.00 Second $50.00 $50.00 $35.00 Three or More $100.00 $100.00 $35.00 Hourly time for animals Cats w/o License 24 48 72 Cats w/ License and Dogs 72 72 72 10-day Temporary License Yes Yes Yes DRAFTPage 291 of 300 ATTACHMENT D – ADDITIONAL FEES/COSTS RE EMERGENCY TAKEOVER FEES Emergency Contract Addt’l Fees $1,500 p/week, billable monthly, until contract is terminated or long-term contracted is executed Paid by ACA to BFHS. Cat Kennel Replacement Replacement of dangerous, unhealthy cat kennels in TCAS shelter facility to meet standards of care Paid for by ACA, asset belongs to ACA as part of long-term fixed asset inventory. Quote sent by BFHS for kennels meeting standards of care. Puppy Room Drain Cleaning and Disinfectant Remove animal waste, clean, and disinfect drains in puppy/small dog rooms until safe for human and animal occupancy Work paid for and performed by ACA or their separate 3rd party contractors. Room remains out of operation until this item is complete and may interfere with ability to provide services to community due to limit in space. Building Code Upgrade Bring the facility up to building code with the installation of fire suppression systems and smoke/fire detection systems, rodent control, etc. Work paid for and performed by ACA or their separate 3rd party contractors. IT System Upgrade Bring the IT system up to usable levels so staff can perform work at an acceptable level expected of any business. BFHS is able to provide a quote for this items required. Reimbursement by ACA for labor and items vs payment and services provided by ACA and/or their own staff/3rd party contractor shall be agreed upon prior to contract signing. DRAFTPage 292 of 300 ATTACHMENT E – FULL SHELTER STAFFING LEVEL REQUIREMENTS PER ASV GUIDELINES Position Hourly Wage Current Wage Employer Paid Benefits? Notes ACO Supervisor $ 28.85 $ 60,000.00 Yes Med/Den benefits paid ACO Officer 1 $ 20.67 $ 43,000.00 Yes - Partial Pd $100 towards med/den benefits paid by EE each mo ACO Officer 2 $ 20.19 20.19 $ 42,000.00 Yes - Partial Pd $100 towards med/den benefits paid by EE each mo ACO Officer 3 $ 20.19 $ 42,000.00 Yes - Partial Pd $100 towards med/den benefits paid by EE each mo ACO Officer 4 $ 20.19 $ 42,000.00 Yes - Partial Pd $100 towards med/den benefits paid by EE each mo Executive Director $45.69 $ 47,520.00 Yes Med/Den benefits paid - *1/2 salary as they will coordinate between both programs Executive Assistant $ 21.63 $ 22,500.00 Yes Med/Den benefits paid - *1/2 salary as they will coordinate between both programs Finance Manager/Business Office Manager $ 33.65 $35,000.00 No *1/2 salary as they will coordinate between both programs Shelter Operations Manager $ 22.60 $ 23,500.00 Yes *1/2 salary as they will coordinate between both programs Shelter Operations Team Lead $ 16.25 $ 33,800.00 No Admissions Coordinator $ 16. 75 $ 34,480.00 No Foster Coordinator $ 16.83 $ 17,500.00 No *1/2 salary as they will coordinate between both programs Volunteer Coordinator $ 21.15 $ 22,000.00 No *1/2 salary as they will coordinate between both programs Front Desk - FT $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Front Desk - FT $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Front Desk - FT $ 15.00 $ 22,500.00 No Part-time Staff Member DRAFTPage 293 of 300 Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 22,500.00 No Part-time Staff Member Animal Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 22,500.00 No Part-time Staff Member Shelter Care Aide $ 15.00 $ 31,200.00 No TOTAL $ 844,800.00 DRAFTPage 294 of 300 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 295 of 300 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 296 of 300 • 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 297 of 300 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 298 of 300 • 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 299 of 300 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 300 of 300