HomeMy WebLinkAbout04. Heritage Final Revised Report (Final-Apri22)Prepared for:
Broetje Orchards LLC
Prepared By:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
3611 South Zintel Way
Kennewick, WA 99337
With assistance from:
Land Strategies
The Metts Group
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PASCO’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL
NEW HERITAGE
April 2022
30-19-079/New Heritage i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Vision for the Site ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 3
2 REPORT SCOPE ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3 SUMMARY – APPROVAL CRITERIA ........................................................................... 9
3.1 Pasco Code Requirements ............................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Community Development Requirements .................................................................................. 11
3.3 City Council Goals and Policies ................................................................................................... 15
4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY .............................................................. 19
5 EXISTING CONDITION, EFFECTS, AND MITIGATION ............................................ 36
5.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Population, Housing, and Employment ..................................................................................... 42
5.3 Environmental Health ................................................................................................................... 48
5.4 Parks and Recreation .................................................................................................................... 50
5.5 Public Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 55
5.6 Utilities ............................................................................................................................................ 56
5.7 Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 61
6 ECONOMICS ............................................................................................................... 66
30-19-079/New Heritage ii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 2.1 – Land Use Estimates by Alternative ........................................................................................................ 8
Table 4.1 – Comprehensive Plan Compatibility ..................................................................................................... 19
Table 5.1 – Existing Land Use in Pasco Limits and UGA ....................................................................................... 36
Table 5.2 – Existing Vicinity Land Uses ................................................................................................................... 38
Table 5.3 – Proposed Land Uses in the Amendment Vicinity .............................................................................. 41
Table 5.4 – Average Household size ....................................................................................................................... 46
Table 5.5 – Employment ........................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5.6 – Typical System Description Components ........................................................................................... 51
Table 5.7 – Low Use Projected Sewage Volumes .................................................................................................. 58
Table 5.8 – Low Intensity Alternative Proposed Water Demand with Irrigation ............................................... 58
Table 5.9 – Medium Use Projected Sewage Volumes .......................................................................................... 59
Table 5.10 – Medium Intensity Alternative Proposed Water Demand with Irrigation ..................................... 59
Table 5.11 – High Use Projected Sewage Volumes............................................................................................... 60
Table 5.12 – High Intensity Alternative Proposed Water Demand with Irrigation ............................................ 60
Table 6.13 – Commuting Flows by Geographic Area (2019)................................................................................ 68
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 – Amendment Area ................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2 – Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 5.1 – Pasco Future Land Use Map ............................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.2 – Vicinity Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 5.3 – Park Service Area ................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 5.4 – Pasco Street System ............................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 6.1 – Net Absorption, Industrial Properties in Franklin County ............................................................... 66
Figure 6.2 – Commuter Flows, City of Pasco (2019) .............................................................................................. 68
Figure 6.3 – Pasco Urban Growth Boundary .......................................................................................................... 69
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Transportation
B. Economic Analysis
30-19-079/New Heritage 1
1 OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
An Amendment is being proposed for a 196-acre area, currently designated in Pasco’s
Comprehensive Plan as “Industrial”, to either “Mixed Residential/Commercial” or "Medium Density
Residential." This 196-acre site is a portion of a 239-acre area. The remaining 42-acres, located
south of the existing railroad spur, would remain industrial. (See Figure 1.1). If this application to
amend the Comprehensive Plan is approved, an application for a Rezone and Land Subdivision
under the Pasco Zoning Code will be submitted. This would allow a mix of residential, commercial
and office uses, with residential densities ranging from a minimum of 6.6 Units Per Acre (UPA) to
a maximum 11.5 UPA. The purpose of this report is to: evaluate the effects this amendment would
have on the community and the environment; suggest measures to reduce impacts; and to
provide measures to increase compatibility with the goals and policies of Pasco’s Comprehensive
Plan.
FIGURE 1 .1 – AMENDMENT AREA
The land being evaluated for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is comprised of five parcels in
Pasco:
• 112430012 (16.9 acres)
• 112430021 (140.0 acres)
• 112470014 (35.3 acres)
• 112462078 (2.46 acres)
• 112462096 (1.65 acres)
30-19-079/New Heritage 2
FIGURE 1 .2 – VICINITY MAP
1.2 VISION FOR THE SITE
The site is proposed to be a mixed residential and commercial area, providing much needed
housing to the East Pasco area using the "New Urbanism" concept. This concept would
incorporate walkable blocks and streets, housing, and shopping opportunities in proximity,
accessible public spaces, and school facilities near those being served into the development. New
Heritage would be a mixed-use development that is compact, pedestrian-friendly and where many
of the activities of daily living (shopping, access to green-space, work, schools, etc.) are within
walking or biking distance. It will also serve nearby employment centers and provide job
opportunities to the families living there.
30-19-079/New Heritage 3
Diversity is crucial to New Heritage’s vision and is a hallmark of a healthy community per Broetje
Orchards’ long-established experience and success in community-building. As such, new
development will seek to honor the history and culture unique to the East Pasco area. Further, this
concept of diversity also seeks to provide housing and services that welcome all, attracting low
and high-income residents, the elderly and young families.
In the tradition of Broetje Orchards
vision and values, New Heritage will be
a place that seeks to facilitate
connections between the residents
who live and work there. As such,
gathering places that are work nor
home, where individuals can feel a
sense of safety and belonging are a
core feature of the development and
provide opportunities for relationships
between residents to form. The New
Heritage concept will promote civic
engagement and advancing the well-being of those who are there. This is a goal of Broetje
Orchards’ current and future work (https://broetjefamilytrust.org).
1.3 LAND USE
New Heritage envisions up to five general land use categories:
• Residential
• Commercial/Office
• Schools
• Parks and Open space
• Roads and Utilities
The following describes the character of each of these land uses based on the “Vision” discussed
above:
RESIDENTIAL
New Heritage could develop a range of residential configurations. It could include the typical
single-family residences on a separate lot with access from a public street, where pedestrian, bike
and automobile access are from the public street, or automobile access is from an alley. This
option could have a range of 3 to 8 units per acre. Multi-family uses would range from duplexes
to multi-story apartment buildings ranging from 8 to 24 units per acre.
Source: Skibba Illustration
30-19-079/New Heritage 4
Most of these residential uses would be
located within walking and biking distance
(0.5± mile) to parks, schools, retail shops
(coffee, barber, restaurants, offices, etc.) and
employment centers. Building designs for
these residential uses would vary depending
on the type and location. For instance,
duplexes in or near single-family residential
areas would be designed to be compatible
with single-family houses. Denser, multi-
family apartments would be designed to be compatible with nearby residential and commercial
uses. Pedestrian and bike access would be a combination of trails, street sidewalks and bikeways.
COMMERICAL/OFFICE
New Heritage would also contain a mix of retail uses. The vision would be to have shopping within
walking and biking distance to reduce the reliance on the automobile and to develop a real sense
of community. This category also would include mixed-use commercial and office space on the
ground floor with residential uses above.
This category could include mixed-use commercial and office space, located within a 0.5± mile
walking range, to primally serve the denser single-family and multi-family land uses.
This category may also include stand-alone
commercial, and office uses that are
designed to serve populations outside of the
0.5± mile walking area. This option would
include retail spaces that require more
parking and are designed to serve a wider
market, such as grocery stores and hardware
stores. This type of retail use would generally
be located at major intersections and be
designed to serve both the New Heritage
area and other areas outside of New
Heritage.
SCHOOLS
Because of the potential projected population of the New Heritage site and for the stated need
by the Pasco School District for a school site in this area, it is assumed that an elementary school
may be required to serve the area. Because of this, land has been set aside for this purpose. This
land use would also be served by a combination of walkways, pathways and bikeways and would
be within walking and biking distance from the major residential areas.
Source: Edge 1
Source: VMWP 1
30-19-079/New Heritage 5
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
One of the major elements in this “Vision” is the extent
and location of its Parks and Open Space system. This
includes parks, but also includes dedicated pathways
and bikeways, separated from vehicular traffic, and
sidewalks and dedicated bikeways within roadways. This
open space and pathway system would be the major
element connecting the residential areas to the
neighborhood centers, parks, schools and employment
centers. It is envisioned that this open-space concept
could also serve as the “Heart” of the community;
providing both recreation and meeting spaces. This
category also includes buffers to separate the existing
industries east of the site and along the existing railroad
spur to the South.
ROADS AND UTILITIES
A portion of the site will have to be dedicated to roadways, utility easements, existing easements,
and existing public roadways. All roadways would have sidewalks, space for bicycles and street
trees. Roadways would also have suitable stopping areas for public transportation. The vision also
anticipates that some type of public bus stop/transit center located within walking distance to the
major residential areas.
Source: Can Stock Photo
30-19-079/New Heritage 6
2 REPORT SCOPE
2.1 SCOPE
In order to fully evaluate the potential effects of this Land Use change to Pasco’s Comprehensive
Plan, and to the community, the following major issues are addressed:
• Land Use – Including Impacts to and from Industry
• Population, Housing, and Employment
• Parks and Recreation
• Transportation
• Public Services and Utilities
• Economics
This analysis also includes an assessment of the amendment area, including current uses,
topography, access/utilities, and the existing infrastructure (rail, roadways, etc.). It evaluates the
need for residential uses near major employment centers, traffic, noise, pollution, and quality of
life.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
To prepare this report, New Heritage looked at four alternatives. This was done to compare the
potential benefits and impacts of a range of alternatives, as well as showing the similarities and
differences of those impacts to the natural and built environment. New Heritage emphasizes that
no alternative should be considered definitive. This will allow New Heritage and the decision
makers, with input from the public and stakeholders; the opportunity to incorporate the better
features of each alternative into a recommended final overall design. This process also provides a
basis for the development of future mitigation measures and design details. The following
describes each of the alternatives. Table 2.1, below, summarizes the three action alternatives.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
A No-Action alternative is intended to establish a basis for evaluating the three future action
alternatives. Under this alternative, the current Comprehensive Plan designation of “Industrial” for
the entire site would remain industrial and no land use changes would occur. The No-Action
alternative is intended to provide a basis for comparison between the three action alternatives
and the existing planning designation under Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan.
ALTERNATIVE 1, LOW INTENSTIY MIXED USE
Development under this alternative would conform to the “Vision” that New Heritage has outlined
in Section 1, but at the lowest overall intensity when compared to the other alternatives.
30-19-079/New Heritage 7
• Residential – This alternative would contain a mix of single-family and multi-family units
with an average overall density of 6.6 units per acre with a total of 794 residential units.
• Commercial/Office – This alternative would contain approximately 32,670 square feet of
retail and service/office space.
• Park and Trails – This alternative would contain acreage for parks, open space, buffers and
trails. Actual park acreage will be determined during the Land Subdivision Process.
• Schools – Approximately 15 acres has been set aside for an elementary school, if needed.
• Roads/Infrastructure – For this alternative, approximately 29 acres have been allocated for
roads and infrastructure, including easements and rights-of-way.
ALTERNATIVE 2, MEDIUM IN T ENSITY MIXED USE
This alternative would also conform to the “Vision” that New Heritage has proposed in Section 1,
but at a medium intensity when compared to the other two alternatives.
• Residential – This alternative would contain a mix of single-family and multi-family units
with an average overall density of approximately 8.6 units per acre, with a tota l of 1,028
housing units.
• Commercial/Office – This would contain approximately 65,340 square feet of retail and
service/office space, including retail and office space with residential units above.
• Park and Trails – This alternative would contain acreage for parks, open space, buffers and
trails. Actual park acreage will be determined during the Land Subdivision Process.
• Schools – Approximately 15 acres has been set aside for an elementary school.
• Roads/Infrastructure – For this alternative, approximately 29 acres have been allocated for
roads and infrastructure, including easements and rights-of-way.
ALTERNATIVE 3, HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE
This alternative would also conform to the “Vision” that New Heritage has proposed in Section 1,
but at a higher intensity when compared to the other two alternatives.
• Residential – This alternative would contain a mix of single-family and multi-family units
with an average overall density of 11.5 units per acre. Based on this, the total number of
residential units would be 1,354. This includes residential units above the commercial and
office spaces.
• Commercial/Office – This alternative would contain approximately 76,230 square feet of
retail/office space.
• Park and Trails – This alternative would contain acreage for parks, open space, buffers and
trails. Actual park acreage will be determined during the Land Subdivision Process.
• Schools – Approximately 15 acres has been set aside for an elementary school.
30-19-079/New Heritage 8
• Roads/Infrastructure – For this alternative, approximately 29 acres have been allocated for
roads and infrastructure, including easements and rights-of-way.
TABLE 2 .1 – LAND USE ESTIMATES BY ALTERNATIVE
Land Use Alternative 1
Low Intensity
Alternative 2
Medium Intensity
Alternative 3
High Intensity
Commercial/Office Acres FAR Floor
Area Acres FAR Floor
Area Acres FAR Floor
Area
Retail 1 0.25 10,890 2 0.25 21,780 3 0.25 32,670
Service/Office 1 0.50 21,780 2 0.50 43,560 2 0.50 43,560
Subtotal 2 32,670 4 65,340 5 76,230
Other Land Uses Acres Acres Acres
Schools 15 15 15
Parks * * *
Roads & Utilities
@ 15% 29 29 29
Subtotal 73 73 73
Residential Acres UPA Units Acres UPA Units Acres UPA Units
Single-Family 100 5 500 85 5.5 468 69 6 414
Duplex/Tri-Plex 7 6 42 10 8 80 17 12 204
Apartments 14 18 252 24 20 480 32 23 736
Subtotal 121 6.6 794 119 8.6 1,028 118 11.5 1,354
Total Site Acreage 196 196 196
Total Population 3.35 2,660 3.35 3,442 3.35 4,536
Source: Broetje Orchards LLC, JUB, Land Strategies
UPA = Units Per Acre
FAR = Floor Area Ratio
Average Household Size per City’s Comprehensive Plan and US Census for Washington State
Average Household Size x Total Units = Total Population
* Park space to be determined during Land Subdivision Process.
30-19-079/New Heritage 9
3 SUMMARY – APPROVAL CRITERIA
3.1 PASCO CODE REQUIREMENTS
For the proposed amendment to be approved, the Pasco Planning Commission must make the
following specific findings to the Pasco Council:
1. After completion of an open record hearing on a petition for reclassification of property, the
Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the records and conclusions there
of which support its recommendation and find whether:
a. The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be materially detrimental;
c. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole;
d. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts
from the proposal;
e. A concomitant agreement should be entered into between Pasco and the petitioner,
and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
2. The Planning Commission shall render its recommendation to approve, approve with
modifications and/or conditions, or reject the petition based on its findings and conclusions.
The Commission's recommendation, to include its findings and conclusions, shall be
forwarded to the Pasco Council at a regular business meeting thereof. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999;
Code 1970 § 25.88.060.]
The following addresses each of these requirements:
a. Accord with the Goals and Policies of The Comprehensive Plan:
Based on these assumptions, Table 5.3, Goals and Policies Conformance, below,
identifies each Goal and Policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan and discusses
how the Low Intensity, Medium Intensity and High Intensity alternatives conform
to each Goal and Policy. Because the No-Action Alternative does not change the
current designation under the Comprehensive Plan, it is assumed to already be in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan’s Goals and Policies.
b. Effect of the Proposal on the Immediate Vicinity:
Compatibility with uses in the immediate vicinity is discussed in Sections 5.1
through 5.8 and in Appendices A and B. This discussion includes potential effects
on the environment and proposed mitigation measures. In summary, the project
would have a positive impact on adjacent residential uses north of East A Street. It
would not impact adjacent industrial uses, except in the possibility that the
adjacent industries, including the adjacent distribution center, could reduce the
30-19-079/New Heritage 10
viability of residential uses without mitigation. Mitigation measures to reduce this
potential have been proposed by both New Heritage and The Distribution Centers.
c. There is Merit and Value in the Proposal for the Community as a Whole:
The amendment site is adjacent to two major distribution centers containing over
1,200 employees (Business Journal). The proposal would provide needed
affordable residential uses, reducing commute times, traffic congestion and
pollution. (See Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.7 and 5.8). This change would also provide
mitigation measures to reduce any impacts to the community. It would also make
effective use of the infrastructure currently in place (See Section 5.6).
Pasco has continued to grow. The Comprehensive Plan provides that most new
residential development will occur to the northwest, in the Broadmoor area, leaving
the eastern portion of Pasco lacking residential opportunities; particularly given the
significant employment base in the eastern portion of Pasco (See Section 5.8 and
Appendix B).
d. Conditions Should be Posed in Order to Mitigate any Significant Adverse Impacts
from the Proposal:
Mitigation measures have been proposed in Section 5 that could mitigate any
adverse effects from the proposal. As noted in the introduction, it is assumed that
necessary mitigation measures would be identified during the Land Subdivision
Process.
e. A Concomitant Agreement Should be Entered into Between Pasco and Petitioner:
A concomitant agreement should be entered into either at the time of approval of
the amendment, or at the time of approval of the Land Subdivision, or a
combination of both. This report assumes that such approvals would mitigate any
significant impacts from the amendment proposal and assure that the amendment
is not in significant conflict with the above required findings.
In addition to the above requirements, Section 25.215.020, Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
identifies other requirements for the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
25.215.020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
(7) Annual Review of Docket.
(b) All complete applications shall be docketed and reviewed concurrently, on an annual
basis and in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.130.
(ii) City Council Review of Docketed Requests. After the May 1st deadline, City staff
will present the docketed requests to the Planning Commission (Commission) for review
and a recommendation. The Commission’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the
30-19-079/New Heritage 11
City Council (Council) as soon as practical for Council review. The Council shall determine
which specific docketed requests are processed based on the following criteria:
(A) Timing of the requested amendment is appropriate, and Council will have sufficient
information to make an informed decision;
(B) The City will be able to conduct sufficient analysis, develop policy and related
development regulations;
(C) The requested amendment has not been recently rejected by Council;
(D) The amendment will further implement the intent of the City’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan or the Growth Management Act;
(E) The amendment is not better addressed through another planning process.
All the required information needed for Council review is included in this Report, including
Appendices A and B, and in the completed application for the amendment. The information
provided is also sufficient for the development of analysis, policy and development regulations.
This is a new amendment request and has not been previously rejected by Council. As noted in
Section 4, the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. As
noted in this Section, the proposed amendment is also in conformance with the Growth
Management Act. The proposal is needed to meet an urgent requirement to provide affordable
housing to adjacent industries and there is no other planning process that could meet this need
on a timely basis.
3.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The Pasco Community and Economic Development Department has also established the general
criteria for approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan:
• Does the proposed amendment bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment?
This is discussed in Section 5, below and in Appendices A and B. Section 5 and the
Appendices provide information related to the impacts associated with the No-Action
Alternative and the three action alternatives. It also provides mitigation measures to
address these impacts. In summary, this analysis determined that the proposed
amendment would have less impacts to the natural environment and to the public health,
safety and welfare than the current Industrial designation.
• Is the proposed amendment consistent with the requirements of the Washington State
Growth Management Act and to the affected portion(s) of the adopted Pasco Comprehensive
Plan?
The Washington State Growth Management Act provides thirteen goals to guide the
development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The
following discusses this proposed amendment conformance to these goals:
30-19-079/New Heritage 12
1. Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
The site has adequate public facilities (See Section 5 and Appendices A and B).
2. Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development.
The proposal reduces sprawl by converting existing undeveloped industrial
land into residential uses, within the current Urban Growth Area (UGA).
3. Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
plans.
The proposal would provide for public transportation as well as other forms of
transportation (See Sections 1, 2 and 5).
4. Housing. Plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all economic
segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
The proposal would meet an identified need for affordable housing required
by adjacent industrial and business land uses (See Section 1 and Appendix B).
5. Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state
that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic
opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for
disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing
businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences
impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas
experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's
natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
This site is a portion of the original 400+ Heritage industrial site. The major
portion of this site is currently being developed for two major distribution
centers. There are currently insufficient affordable residences to serve the
employees of these two developments as well as other existing and planned
industrial developments in the immediate area. (See Appendix B). The lack of
affordable housing can have an adverse impact on the ability for industry to
attract employees (See Appendix B).
The Pasco UGA has over 7,000 acres of industrial land. While a large portion of
this land is in rights-of-ways or is owned by public agencies, there is still
significant acreage remaining available for industrial uses (See Appendix B).
30-19-079/New Heritage 13
6. Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
Not applicable.
7. Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be
processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
Not applicable.
8. Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based
industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries.
Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural
lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
Not applicable.
9. Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.
The proposed amendment will require park and open space (See Sections 1, 2
and 5). Actual acreage to be determined during the Land Subdivision Process.
10. Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
Mitigation measures are identified in Section 5 and Appendices A and B. In
general, the proposed conversion to residential and retail/office uses would
have less impact on the natural environment than industrial uses.
11. Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in
the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and
jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
The City's Amendment process will provide adequate public review and
comment. In addition, the Rezone and Land Subdivision also provides
opportunity for public comment (See Section 4).
12. Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at
the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
There are adequate public facilities immediately available to serve the site.
13. Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
Not Applicable.
30-19-079/New Heritage 14
Conformance to the Pasco Comprehensive Plan is discussed in detail in Section 4. This includes
conformance to the projected 20-year population projections and conformance to the economic
policies. It also addresses the impact lack of affordable housing will have on keeping and attracting
new firms. ("The shortage of affordable housing undermines not only a swift economic recovery but
also the economic competitiveness and productivity of metropolitan areas, as high housing costs
affect regional economies’ ability to attract new firms and businesses and to expand existing ones -
Center for American Progress, 2012).
• Does the proposed amendment correct a mapping error or address a deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error, but it does correct a
deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan that does not provide affordable housing close to
one of the primary industrial centers in the region. This is primarily due to the significant
number of nearby industries that do not require highly skilled labor (See Appendix B).
• What are the effects on the physical environment, including open space and natural
features?
The proposed amendment would have less effect on the physical environment than the
current industrial classification, particularly given the current Medium Intensity Industrial
zoning of the site (See Section 5).
• What is the compatibility and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods?
In general, residential uses would have significantly less impact on adjacent residential
neighborhoods than industrial uses. Impact to adjacent industrial uses would be mitigated
(See Section 5).
• What are the impacts on public facilities, and utilities, transportation system, parks,
recreation, and public schools?
Impacts to public facilities are addressed in Section 5, and in Appendices A and B. An
elementary school site is available and park space will be provided. Impacts to other public
facilities (police, fire, etc.) is also discussed in Section 5.
• What is the effect on other components of the adopted Comprehensive Plan?
There are two primary issues related to the proposed amendment: The economic impact
related to changing 196 acres from Industrial to Mixed Use Residential/Commercial or
Medium Density Residential; and the impact the additional population will have on the 20-
year population projections in the Comprehensive Plan and approved by the County and
Washington State.
o The impacts related to the conversion of 196 acres of industrial land to a primary
residential use is discussed in Section 5 and in Appendix B. In summary, it finds
that the lack of affordable housing for unskilled employees can have a significant
30-19-079/New Heritage 15
impact on existing and prospective industries (See Appendix B). Even industries
that require skilled employees have difficulty attracting and keeping employees if
affordable housing is not available. Because the high cost of housing reduces a
family’s ability to spend, it also impacts other businesses such as restaurants,
groceries, health services, etc.
o The impacts related to the projected increase in population is also discussed in
Section 5. In summary, the City Comprehensive Plan provided for a 20% market
factor in justifying the expansion of the UGA boundary. The purpose of this market
factor was to maintain affordability in property acquisition and housing
development. If this market factor was reduced to allow for the proposed
additional housing units, the proposed amendment would not increase total
projected population. It is also possible that this amendment will slightly reduce
the projected density in the expanded UGA expansion area, or could reduce the
overall average household size in Pasco, which would also limit any projected
population increase. This issue is discussed in Section 5.
3.3 C ITY C OUNCIL G OALS AND P OLICIES
Every 2 years, the City Council establishes specific goals designed to guide the work of the City.
The following identifies how the proposed amendment is in conformance with these 2020-2021
goals.
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.
30-19-079/New Heritage 16
• 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.
RESPONSE: The amendment would provide community park facilities and would promote
walkability, aesthetics, sustainability and community gathering spaces. This development will also
compliment the planned City’s A Street Sport Complex. (See Section 1)
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Enhance the long-term 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.
RESPONSE: New Heritage provides a number of community services to assist residents and
coordinates these activities with appropriate public agencies.
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 ope rational
improvements and long-range strategic planning of facilities and staffing.
30-19-079/New Heritage 17
• 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.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment and future Land Subdivision Permit would be a
continuation of the existing Tierra Vida development to the north. Historical police call data
confirms that police calls were 50% lower in the Tierra Vida neighborhood than the City’s average
across all neighborhoods. The New Heritage development will have a positive impact on Pasco’s
overall behavioral health. Lack of affordable housing is a large contributor to poor behavioral
health outcomes. Further, through its non-profit organizations Broetje Orchards provides service
to its communities that contribute to the growth and well-being of those living there, such as
community support, social services, neighbor mediation, etc. This reduces family crisis and services
of police and fire. Fire response time would be maintained (See Section 5).
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation system 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, accessibility, efficiency and safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment, through creation of a walkable community, would
improve transportation (See Sections 1 and 5, and Appendices A and B). The goal is to create a
"New Urbanism" community that emphasizes walking and biking. It will also help and ease
commuting to adjacent and nearby industrial centers for all economic levels through a range of
affordable housing.
ECONOMI C 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
30-19-079/New Heritage 18
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.
• 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.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would provide needed affordable housing within easy
commute distance to existing employment centers. This has been critical in attracting certain
businesses and industries where access to labor is critical (See Section 5 and Appendix B). It would
enhance implementation through the development of a Contract Agreement and Rezone, with a
future Land Subdivision to assure that the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan are met,
and the project vision identified in Section 1 is implemented.
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.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would create a unique community identity with a range
of affordable housing, an emphasis on pedestrian access, bikeways, community centers and
programs that emphasis community interaction (See Section 1). As a calling card of Broetje
Orchards’ community development work, community participation and engagement is a core
focus. Please see https://broetjefamilytrust.org for more information.
30-19-079/New Heritage 19
4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY
The Pasco Zoning Code requires that any amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan be in
conformance to the Plan's Goals and Policies. Table 4.1, below discusses each of the
Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Policies and this amendment's conformance:
TABLE 4 .1 – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
LAND USE
LU-1. GOAL: TAKE DELIBERATE, CONSISTENT,
AND CONTINUOUS ACTIONS TO IMPROVE
THE COMMUNITY’S QUALITY OF LIFE
LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design
standards for major public investments,
particularly streets.
LU-1-B Policy: Enhance the physical appearance
of development within the community through
land use regulations, design guidelines, and
performance and maintenance standards
including landscaping, screening, building
facades, color, signs, and parking lot design and
appearance.
LU-1-C Policy: Encourage conservation design
with cluster commercial development and
discourage strip commercial development.
LU-1-D Policy: Land uses should be permitted
subject to adopted standards designed to
mitigate land use impacts on adjacent, less
intensive uses, while preserving constitutionally
protected forms of expression.
Implementation of the project "Vision" and the
requirements of the Pasco Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations will allow all proposed alternatives to
meet this Goal and Policies. This proposed
amendment will create a mixed use
residential/commercial area: including, parks/trails,
school, and road infrastructure. Current Pasco
design standards will be applied to all major public
investments (see Section 5) and all future
development will be reviewed and approved
through Pasco’s Land Subdivision process.
The proposed amendment, for all alternatives,
would have less impact on adjacent land uses than
the current industrial uses (see Section 5.3).
Adjacent industrial land uses can be mitigated, and
all alternatives will be connected to Pasco services.
Residential densities would exceed minimum Pasco
requirements (see Section 5.6).
30-19-079/New Heritage 20
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
LU-2. GOAL: PLAN FOR A VARIETY OF
COMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN THE UGA
LU-2-A Policy: Maintain sufficient land
designated to accommodate residential,
commercial, industrial, educational, public
facility, and open-space uses proximate to
appropriate transportation and utility
infrastructure.
LU-2-B Policy: Facilitate planned growth within
Pasco limits and UGA and promote infill
developments in Pasco limits.
LU-2-C Policy: Ensure that adequate public
services are provided in a reasonable time frame
for new developments.
LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or
transition zones between non-compatible land
uses.
LU-2-E Policy: Discourage the siting of
incompatible uses adjacent to Pasco (Tri-Cities)
Airport and other essential public facilities.
LU-2-F Policy: Discourage developments
dependent on septic system, and at a density
below the minimum, to sustain an urban level of
services.
The proposed amendment could provide a mix of
commercial, residential and supportive land uses
under all the alternatives. The UGA will retain
enough land to accommodate all land uses and
adequate public services would be provided (see
Section 5). Buffers and setbacks would be provided
between non-compatible land uses. In addition,
public services are currently available to the site
(see Section 5.5, Appendix A).
LU-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN ESTABLISHED
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENSURE NEW
NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAFE AND
ENJOYABLE PLACES TO LIVE
LU-3-A Policy: Design major streets, schools,
parks, and other public facilities that will
encourage the individual identities of
neighborhoods.
LU-3-B Policy: Support existing and design future
recreational, educational, and cultural facilities
and services through the Capital Facilities Plan;
dedication of land through the concurrency
management process; and coordination with
service providers.
LU-3-C Policy: Ensure all developments include
appropriate landscaping and screening, as
required by adopted regulations and guidelines.
LU-3-D Policy: Encourage the use of irrigation
(non-potable) water for landscape maintenance.
The new urbanism concept (see Section 1) provides
that neighborhoods are walkable to services, work,
play, school and parks. Gathering places are
provided to ensure an enjoyable place to live. The
concept incorporates a high level of design
consistency and will establish a unique identity to
this neighborhood (see Section 1 and 5).
Under the proposed amendment, space will be
provided for schools, recreation, and cultural
facilities and services (see Sections 1 and 5.4). All
alternatives provide landscaping and screening and
will meet or exceed adopted regulations and
guidelines. The proposal could also provide
recreation and community gathering spaces for the
existing neighboring developments.
30-19-079/New Heritage 21
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
LU-4. GOAL: INCREASE COMMUNITY
ACCESSIBILITY THROUGH PROPER LAND USE
PLANNING
LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle
travel and encourage pedestrian and multi-
modal options by providing compatible land-
uses in and around residential neighborhoods.
LU-4-B Policy: Encourage infill and higher density
uses within proximity to major travel corridors
and public transportation service areas.
LU-4-C Policy: Encourage the development of
walkable communities by increasing mixed-use
(commercial/residential) developments that
provide households with neighborhood and
commercial shopping opportunities.
LU-4-D Policy: Designate areas for higher density
residential developments where utilities and
transportation facilities enable efficient use of
capital resources.
LU-4-E Policy: Encourage the orderly
development of land by emphasizing
connectivity and efficiency of the transportation
network.
LU-4-F Policy: Support mixed use, smart growth,
infill, and compact developments with transit and
pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy
community.
The new urbanism concept will create a walkable
community. The Vision (see Sections 1, 5.1 and 5.2)
will provide pedestrian and multi-modal options
with parks, recreation and shopping within walking
and biking distances.
The amendment could provide a mix of densities
from 5 UPA to 12 UPA within proximity to major
travel corridors and public transportation (see
Section 5.5). The densities of the proposed
alternatives are higher than Pasco average and
would have utilities and transportation facilities
available (See Section 5.5 and 5.6).
LU-5. GOAL: MAINTAIN A BROAD RANGE OF
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO
ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF LIFESTYLES
AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
LU-5-A Policy: Allow a variety of residential
densities throughout the UGA
LU-5-B Policy: Encourage higher residential
densities within and adjacent to major travel
corridors, Downtown (Central Business District),
and Broadmoor.
All alternatives provide for a mix of residential land
use designations and densities to accommodate a
variety of lifestyles (see Section 1 and 2). The
proposed amendment would expand the
residential densities to the east of the downtown
with transit and bike access to the Central Business
District.
30-19-079/New Heritage 22
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
LU-6 GOAL: ENCOURAGE DISTINCTIVE
QUALITY COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENTS THAT SUPPORT PASCO’S
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT GOALS
LU-6-A Policy: Encourage commercial and
higher-density residential uses along major
corridors and leverage infrastructure availability.
LU-6-B Policy: Promote efficient and functional
neighborhood level and major commercial
centers to meet community demand.
LU-6-C Policy: Ensure attractive hubs for activity
by maintaining and applying design standards
and guidelines that will enhance the built
environment of each community.
Implementation of the project "Vision" (See Section
1) would allow the amendment to meet this Goal.
Planned Business and Office Park uses would also
support Pasco’s overall development goals.
Higher density residential and commercial uses
would be within or adjacent to major travel
corridors to leverage infrastructure availability (see
Sections 5.8 and 8.7).
The proposed site would contain both
neighborhood retail and office/service uses.
Specific design standards and guidelines would be
established as part of the Land Subdivision and
Development approval process (see Sections 1 and
2).
LU-7 GOAL: SAFEGUARD AND PROTECT
SHORELANDS AND CRITICAL LANDS WITHIN
THE URBAN AREA
LU-7-A Policy: Maintain regulatory processes to
preserve wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other
critical lands within the urban growth area.
LU-7-B Policy: Conform to the adopted goals and
policies of the Shoreline Master Program as part
of this Comprehensive Plan.
LU7-C Policy: Ensure the implementation of the
requirements of the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58)
Not Applicable. Development does not occur in the
shore lands/critical area.
LU-8. GOAL: ENHANCE THE PROTECTION
AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC
BUILDINGS, SITES and NEIGHBORHOODS
LU-8-A Policy: Allow adaptive re-uses in historic
structures.
LU-8-B Policy: Increase public awareness and
partnerships to increase historic New Heritage
tourism with the Franklin County Museum.
LU-8-C Policy: Monitor and update the Historic
Preservation Plan as guided by the Historic
Preservation Committee.
Not Applicable. Proposed development area has no
historic structures.
30-19-079/New Heritage 23
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
HOUSING
H-1. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR ALL
ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF PASCO’S
POPULATION CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL
AND REGIONAL MARKET
H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing
including single family homes, townhouses,
condominiums, apartments, and manufactured
housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line,
planned unit developments etc.
H-1-B Policy: Higher intensity housing should be
located near arterials and neighborhood or
community shopping facilities and employment
areas.
H-1-C Policy: Support the availability of special
needs housing throughout the community.
H-1-D Policy: Support or advance programs that
encourage access to safe and affordable housing.
The Vision would encourage housing for all
economic segments with a wide range of housing
options provided from multi-family, single-family,
duplex, triplex, and housing above commercial (see
Sections 1 and 2). It would also serve the housing
needs of adjacent industrial uses. The Vision would
place residential areas within walking/biking
distances to shopping, employment, recreation and
schools. Housing affordability is a key element in
this proposal and is intended to meet the needs of
nearby employees.
H-2. GOAL: PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK FOR PRESENT
AND FUTURE RESIDENTS
H-2-A Policy: Use the Residential Rental Program
as a method to ensure that all rental housing in
Pasco comply with minimum housing code
standards.
H-2-B Policy: Assist low-income households with
needed housing improvements.
H-2-C Policy: Support organization s and or
programs involved in affordable housing
development, repair and rehabilitation.
There is no housing currently on the amendment
area. Affordable housing organizations have been
and would continue to be supported.
H-3. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION THAT ENSURES LONG
TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE
H-3-A Policy: Encourage innovative techniques in
the design of residential neighborhoods and
mixed- use areas to provide character and variety
in the community.
H-3-B Policy: Maintain development regulations
and standards that control the scale and density
of residential housing to ensure compatibility
with surrounding uses.
H-3-C Policy: Utilize design and landscaping
standards to ensure all residential development
exhibits a consistent level of access, quality, and
appearance.
The Vision will allow for a wide range of housing
designs and allows for a wide range of mixed-use
areas (see Section 1). Detailed design and land use
issues will be addressed under the Land
Subdivision and Development approval process
and Concomitant Agreement. The proposal would
be a continuation of existing Tierra Vida
development to the north, under the "New
Urbanism" concept, providing a combination of
high quality housing with affordability.
30-19-079/New Heritage 24
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
H-4. GOAL: SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMUNITY
H-4-A Policy: Collaborate with local, state and
federal agencies, and private organizations to
assist lower income residents rehabilitate and/or
maintain their homes.
H-4-B Policy: Work with public and private sector
developers to ensure that lower income and
affordable housing is available.
H-4-C Policy: Increase housing supply and
diversity through appropriate and flexible
development standards.
The Vision Statement provides for a wide range of
affordability (see Section 1). The New Heritage
Foundation has as its founding purpose the need
to assure affordable housing. This will be even
more critical as additional employment is
generated within nearby industrial areas.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ED-1. GOAL: MAINTAIN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AS AN IMPORTANT AND
ONGOING PASCO INITIATIVE
ED-1-A Policy: Promote an environment, which
supports the development and expansion of
business opportunities.
ED-1-B Policy: Continue efforts to attract and
recruit new employers to the community with
promotional efforts in cooperation with other Tri -
Cities partners.
ED-1-C Policy: Support the promotion of Pasco’s
urban area as a good business environment by
enhancing the infrastructure of the community.
ED-1-D Policy: promote tourism and recreational
opportunities.
ED-1-E Policy: Recognize that infrastructure,
including transportation and utility planning, is
vital to economic development and attracting
businesses.
ED-1-F Policy: Support and encourage
residential/commercial mixed-use developments
that provide neighborhood shopping and
services and promote walkable neighborhoods.
There is substantial demand for additional
residential uses to reduce commute times to the
adjacent industrial centers (see Section 5.2).
By providing adjacent affordable housing, the
project could encourage more potential employees
to the community and nearby remaining industrial
area (See Section 5.7).
The project will cooperate with others and will
provide promotional efforts to attract industrial
uses to the area (see Section 5.7).
Underutilized infrastructure is currently available to
the site (see Sections 5.5 and 5.6.).
Under all alternatives, the project is a mixed-use
development and provides neighborhood
shopping and services and promotes walkable
neighborhoods.
30-19-079/New Heritage 25
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
ED-2. GOAL: ASSURE APPROPRIATE
LOCATION AND DESIGN OF COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
ED-2-A Policy: Maintain a strong working
relationship with the Port of Pasco and regional
Economic development agencies to further
economic opportunities.
ED-2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide
range of commercial and industrial uses
strategically located to support local and regional
needs.
ED-2-C Policy: Continue the pursuit and
preservation of industrial sites for development
that may be serviced by existing utilities.
ED-2-D Policy: Ensure that lands with large-scale
agricultural uses are converted to an appropriate
scale of urban agriculture or other related uses to
fit community needs.
The proposal would convert 196.3 acres from
“Industrial” to “Mixed-Use Residential Commercial
or Residential” (see Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4).
Sections 5.2 and 5.7 discusses the location of
commercial and industrial uses. Specifically, there is
an urgent need to locate housing within easy
commute distance to employment. This is
particularly important for low and moderate-
income employees where commute costs can
impact lifestyle. The proposal is intended to
provide uses to support local and regional needs.
New Heritage would maintain a working
relationship with the Port of Pasco and Tri-City
Development Council (TRIDEC) and other regional
economic development agencies to promote
industrial and business park uses adjacent to the
amendment area to further economic
opportunities.
ED-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO
ENSURE THAT COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOOD
NEIGHBORS
ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of
commercial and industrial development with
residential and mixed-use neighborhoods with
appropriate landscaping, screening, building and
design standards,
ED-3-B Policy: Ensure outdoor illumination and
signage of businesses have a positive impact and
are compatible with neighborhood standards.
ED-3-C Policy: Provide appropriate access
through a combination of pathways, sidewalks,
non-motorized travel lanes and parking.
ED-3-D Policy: Require businesses and buildings
in and adjacent to the Central Business District to
conform to established development standards.
Under the Mixed Commercial/Residential Land Use
concept, landscape screening, fencing, land use
location, and design (building, sign, and lighting)
would ensure the proposal remains a good
neighbor (See Sections 1, 2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4).
This includes a planned network of pathways,
sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes and parking
to encourage pedestrian access (see Sections 1 and
2).
30-19-079/New Heritage 26
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
ED-4. GOAL: POSITION THE COMMUNITY FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPERITY
ED-4-A Policy: Leverage the Tri-Cities Airport as
an appealing gateway to attract visitors and new
industry to the airport district and the greater
Pasco region.
ED-4-B Policy: Collaborate with public/private
partners to create a master plan vision of the
waterfront, Broadmoor area, and other
neighborhoods as necessary.
ED-4-C Policy: Pursue the ongoing revitalization
of Downtown Pasco including incentivizing
development in the Central Business District.
Currently there is limited residential and supportive
land uses serving this area. A mixed-use area,
developed under the New Urbanism concept
outlined in Section 1, would provide easy commute
distances to existing and future employment
centers and the Tri-Cities Airport. Some of these
future employment centers could be within walking
and bike distances. In addition, the downtown
would also remain within biking distance to the site.
CAPITAL FACILITIES
CF-1. GOAL: USE THE SIX YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROCESS AS THE SHORT-
TERM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 20-YEAR
CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CF-1-A Policy: Systematically guide capital
improvements consistent with the vision and
plan of the community.
CF-1-B Policy: Encourage public participation in
defining the need for, the proposed location of,
and the design of public facilities such as parks,
ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and
street and utility extensions and improvements.
The capital facility improvements required would
be provided by the development under the Land
Subdivision process (see Sections 5.5, 5.6, and
Appendix A). Public participation would occur
during the Rezone, Land Subdivision and Plan
Amendment Processes.
30-19-079/New Heritage 27
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
CF-2. GOAL: ENSURE CONCURRENCY OF
UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS AND ACTIONS WITHIN
CAPITAL BUDGET CAPABILITIES
CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic
areas where services and utilities can be
extended in an orderly, progressive, and efficient
manner.
CB-2-B Policy: Deficiencies in existing public
facilities should be addressed during the capital
facilities budgeting process.
CF-2-C Policy: Periodically review capital facilities
needs and the associated fiscal impacts on the
community in light of changing regional and
local economic trends. The appropriate interval
for such a review is ten years during the
mandated GMA update cycle, except for the
annual 6-Year Budget review.
Public facilities are addressed under Sections 5.5,
5.6, and Appendix A. All required public facilities
and services would be required under the Land
Subdivision process and concomitant agreement
process.
CF-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN ADEQUATE LANDS
FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
CF-3-A Policy: Assure land development
proposals provide land and/or facilities or other
mitigation measures to address impacts on
traffic, parks, recreational facilities, schools, and
pedestrian and bicycle trails.
Land has been set aside for schools, roadways,
utilities, parks, trails and open spaces. Mitigation
measures are identified in this report that address
impacts on traffic, parks, recreation facilities,
schools and pedestrian and bicycle paths (see
section 5 and Appendix A).
CF-4. GOAL: ACQUIRE ADEQUATE WATER
RIGHTS FOR FUTURE NEEDS
CF-4-A Policy: Ensure the acquisition of water
rights commensurate with Pasco’s planned
development and need for water in residential,
commercial, industrial, and other urban uses.
CF-4-B Policy: Ensure that new developments,
utilizing Pasco water, transfer to Pasco any
existing water rights associated with the
properties being developed. In absence of any
existing water rights, developments should pay
water rights acquisition fees to Pasco.
The amendment area is currently within the City of
Pasco water service area.
30-19-079/New Heritage 28
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
CF-5. GOAL: IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
COUNTY, PROVIDE PARKS, GREENWAYS,
TRAILS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES
THROUGHOUT THE UGA
CF-5-A Policy: Implement the adopted parks and
recreation plan as a part of this comprehensive
plan
CF-5-B Policy: Encourage use of existing natural
features, open spaces, and appropriate excess
right-of-way as an integral part of the
community-wide park system.
CF-5-C Policy: Maintain a cooperative agreement
with Pasco school district regarding the
development, use, and operation of
neighborhood parks.
The proposal provides an extensive system of
parks, greenways, trails and recreation facilities. The
Goals, Policies and Standards of Pasco’s Park,
Recreation and Forestry Management Plan are
addressed in Section 5.4. Where feasible, rights-of-
way will be used as part of the open-space system
and school property would be integrated into the
park and trail system.
CF-6. GOAL: FOSTER ADEQUATE PROVISION
FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
THROUGHOUT THE UGA
CF-6-A Policy: Work with the school district to
coordinate facility plans with this comprehensive
plan and encourage appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community.
CF-6-B Policy: Work with Columbia Basin College
to coordinate campus development plans
including access and traffic circulation needs.
Coordination with the School District has begun,
the proposal has allocated 15-acres for an
elementary school. It is intended that the school
site would have access to the trail system to
encourage pedestrian access. In addition, planned
park and recreation facilities could be located
adjacent to better utilize both facilities (see
Sections 2 and 5.4).
CF-7. GOAL: MAINTAIN, WITHIN PASCO, A
LEVEL OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE THAT IS
EFFICIENT AND COST-EFFECTIVE.
ENCOURAGE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE
IN THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE
UGA
CF-7-A Policy: Strive to provide a sufficient
number of fire stations in appropriate locations
throughout the community.
CF-7-B Policy: Maintain a cooperative policy with
the county fire district.
An existing fire station is located about a mile from
the site and would be able to serve the proposed
amendment area (See Section 5.5).
30-19-079/New Heritage 29
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
CF-8. GOAL: LOCATE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
FACILITIES TO OPTIMIZE ACCESS AND
EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE ECONOMIC
BENEFIT/BURDENS THROUGHOUT THE
REGION AND COUNTY
CF-8-A Policy: Review all reasonable alternatives
for the location of essential public facilities prior
to granting necessary permits.
CF-8-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental
impacts are considered for each essential public
facility including the cumulative impacts of
multiple facilities.
CF-8-C Policy: Ensure essential public facilities
contribute to necessary concurrency
requirements for transportation and utilities.
CF-8-D Policy: Adopt mitigating measures during
the special permit review process to address
potential land use compatibility issues with
surrounding uses.
No essential public facilities have been identified at
this location. Depending on the essential public
facilities required, space could be provided, and
compatibility could be achieved. This action would
require additional analysis by Pasco or a regional
agency requesting the action.
UTILITIES
UT-1. GOAL: PROVIDE ADEQUATE UTILITY
SERVICES TO THE UGA TO ASSURE THAT THE
ANTICIPATED 20-YEAR GROWTH IS
ACCOMMODATED
UT-1-A Policy: Ensure that public water and
sewer services are available concurrently with
development in the urban growth area.
UT-1-B Policy: Prioritize investments in public
water and sewer system improvements to
support planned development within the urban
growth area.
UT-1-C Policy: Coordinate utility providers’
functional plans and Pasco’s land use and utility
comprehensive plans to ensure long term service
availability.
UT-1-D Policy: Leverage irrigation water in new
developments to ease the use of potable water
for maintenance of landscaping.
Mitigation measures have been proposed to
address the impacts on population growth (see
Sections 5.2 and 5.6). Public sewer and water
service are currently available at the site (see
Section 5.5).
30-19-079/New Heritage 30
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
UT-2. GOAL: ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE
PLACEMENT OF UTILITY FACILITIES IS
ADDRESSED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS
UT-2-A Policy: coordinate private utility
providers’ plans for energy and communication
utilities with Pasco land use plans and
development permit applications.
UT-2-B Policy: locate and design utility
substations consistent with adopted codes and
standards to be compatible with the aesthetic
standards of affected neighborhoods.
Sections 5.6 discuss the adequacy of the utilities
serving the site and proposed mitigation measures.
Coordination with private utility providers would
occur at the time of approval for development as
part of the Land Subdivision process.
UT-3. GOAL: ASSURE THE PROVISION OF
ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
UT-3-A Policy: Require adequate provision of
storm water facilities with all new land
development.
UT-3-B Policy: Include adequate storm water
management facilities to serve new or existing
streets.
Section 5.5 discuss all utilities, including
stormwater management. The proposed project
would be required to comply with current storm
water management requirements.
30-19-079/New Heritage 31
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
TRANSPORTATION
TR-1. GOAL: PROVIDE FOR AND MAINTAIN A
SAFE, INTEGRATED AND EFFECTIVE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT
PROMOTES CONNECTIVITY
TR-1-A Policy: Participate in the metropolitan and
regional transportation planning efforts of the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
TR-1-B Policy: Require transportation and land
use planning efforts and policy that meet the
needs of the community and the objectives of
this plan.
TR-1-C Policy: Minimize traffic conflicts on the
arterial street system by implementing access
and corridor management best practices.
TR-1-D Policy: Encourage multi-modal street
design with traffic calming and safety in
consideration of surrounding land uses.
TR-1-E Policy: Provide increased neighborhood
travel connections for public safety as well as
providing for transportation disbursement.
TR-1-F Policy: develop an interconnected
network of streets, trails, and other public ways
during the development process while
preserving neighborhood identity.
TR-1-G Policy: adopt and maintain a functional
street classification system consistent with
regional and state guidance.
TR-1-H Policy: Maintain level-of-service “D” on all
arterials and collectors and level-of- service “C”
during the PM peak-hour.
TR1-I Policy: Require developments to meet the
intent of Pasco Complete Street Ordinance.
Section 5.5 and Appendix A discuss the
transportation impacts of each alternative and how
those impacts would differ from those that would
occur under the No-Action alternative. Measures
required to mitigate those impacts identified are
also addressed.
With the new-urbanism concepts identified under
Section 1, the proposal would emphasize
walkability to schools, parks, retail and nearby
employment centers.
The site would also provide for public
transportation and space for bike and pedestrian
access to public roadways. The intent is to provide
an interconnecting system of streets, trails and
public ways to enhance the quality of life.
All Pasco standards, ordnances and guidelines
would be met under the approval processes of
Pasco.
30-19-079/New Heritage 32
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
TR-2. GOAL: ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT,
ALTERNATE, AND MULTI-MODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
TR-2-A Policy: Maintain the multi-model
passenger terminal.
TR-2-B Policy: Collaborate with Ben Franklin
Transit in programming transit routes, transit
stops, and supporting facilities that increase user
accessibility during the development process.
TR-2-C Policy: Encourage the use of public
transportation including ridesharing, and Ben
Franklin Transit’s Van Pool program.
TR-2-D Policy: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian
travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle
and pedestrian routes.
TR-2-E Policy: Encourage park-and-ride lots for
bicycles and/or automobiles.
TR-2-F Policy: Support rail services for
passengers, industries, and commerce within the
area.
There would be space for a central transit station
and transit stops throughout the site (see Section
5.5). Van Pooling would be included in the concept.
Bikeways and pathways are provided to
interconnect residential, schools, parks, services
and nearby employment centers.
TR-3 GOAL: IMPROVE OPERATING
EFFICIENCY OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
TR-3-A Policy: Evaluate, plan, and install traffic
control devices and intersection designs to
improve travel safety and efficiency.
TR-3-B Policy: ensure adequate maintenance of
the existing facilities.
The existing railroad spur could still serve adjacent
industries.
Transportation and traffic are discussed under
Sections 5.5 and Appendix A. All required safety
and design standards would be met at the time of
approval of a specific plan under the Land
Subdivision and Development approval process.
TR-4 GOAL: BEAUTIFY THE MAJOR STREETS OF
PASCO
TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate design and
streetscape into all major arterial and collector
streets as they are constructed.
TR-4-B Policy: Encourage retrofit projects that
include beautification on major arterial streets.
A detailed street tree planting plan will be
submitted during the Land Subdivision and
Development approval process (see Section 5.4).
TR-5 GOAL: MAINTAIN A FREIGHT ROUTE
SYSTEM TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS
TR-5-A Policy: Promote the safe and efficient
movement of freight through Pasco.
TR-5-A Policy: Support the development of
facilities that are critical components of the
movement of freight.
Existing railroad spur will be retained to serve
abutting industry (see Sections 2, 5.5, and
Appendix A). Site is adjacent to major local and
state freight corridors to allow access to the site.
30-19-079/New Heritage 33
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
IM-1. GOAL: ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND
CERTAINTY IN LAND USE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
IM-1-A Policy: Maintain codes, standards, and
guidelines, which are clear, concise, and
objective.
IM-1-B Policy: Strive for consistency and certainty
through a predictable schedule of assessment
and amendments on an annual basis, rather than
sporadically.
IM-1-C Policy: Create and enforce a common set
of development standards for both the
incorporated and unincorporated lands of the
UGA, in cooperation with Franklin County.
IM-1-D Policy: Maintain a general land use map
that clearly designates various land uses and
densities consistent with the goals and policies of
this plan.
IM-1-E Policy: Establish development project
permit approval procedures that are well defined
and consistent with regulatory criteria and
standards.
IM-1-F Policy: Ensure appropriate timelines for
action on applications.
Consistency would be established during the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. This
process, and the subsequent Land Development
process, ensures that the proposal will be
consistent with Pasco development standards, land
uses, densities, regulatory criteria and standards,
timelines, and the Goals and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
IM-2. GOAL: ADVANCE PASCO’S
INFORMATION AND DECISION-MAKING
CAPACITY
IM-2-A Policy: Utilize innovative planning level
data and analysis to determine progress of the
Comprehensive Plan through annual updates,
metrics and tracking.
IM-2-B Policy: Analyze development patterns of
the UGA and identify revisions, amendments, and
changes to the goals, policies, objectives.
IM-2-C Policy: Conduct an annual review of the
Comprehensive Plan.
IM-2-D Policy: Ensure that all plans and studies
shall be consistent with the goals, policies, and
proposals of this comprehensive plan.
IM-2-E Policy: Lead and collaborate on efforts for
database, Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
and other data related programming and
projects with local, regional, and state agencies.
The purpose of this report is to provide the public,
stakeholders, Pasco and other public agencies data
necessary to analyze the consistency of the
proposal with the Goals and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and its conformance with the
basic standards and guidelines of Pasco. It also
provides a non-Project level analysis of the
potential effects of the proposal on the natural and
man-made environment.
30-19-079/New Heritage 34
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
IM-3 GOAL: ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A
MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING EFFORTS OF
PASCO
IM-3-A Policy: Ensure the appropriate
notification of plans, projects, and studies are
provided to all impacted residents of Pasco.
IM-3-B Policy: Encourage and facilitate expanded
public participation by designing user-friendly
processes and documents.
IM-3-C Policy: Consider the interests of the entire
community and the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan prior to making land use
and planning decisions.
IM-4-D Policy: Use a range of public forums and
media outreach to collect, obtain, and facilitate
public engagement.
IM-4-E Policy: Provide equitable access to all
Pasco programming, services, and events,
including accommodations for disabilities and
community members with limited English-
speaking ability.
IM-4-F Policy: Ensure that all public engagement
is culturally relevant and provides residents with
an opportunity to engage and provide feedback
to Pasco.
IM-4-G: Collaborate with the Inclusivity, Diversity
and Equity Commission.
The development of this report is intended to
provide Pasco, public, other decision makers, and
stakeholders, the Vision, intent, alternatives,
potential effects of the proposal and mitigation
measures to ensure consistency with the Goals,
Policies and procedures of Pasco’s Comprehensive
Plan. Subsequent planning processes, including the
procedures to amend the Comprehensive Plan and
the Land Development process, will include public
participation.
30-19-079/New Heritage 35
GOALS AND POLICIES COMPATIBILITY
IM-4 GOAL: WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
VARIOUS GOVERNMENT ENTITIES
IM-4-A Policy: Coordinate with other
governmental units in preparing development
regulations.
IM-4-B Policy: Work with BFCG’s Growth
Management Committee to develop consistency
among the various jurisdictions that are planning.
IM-4-C Policy: Work with other state agencies
such as the Department of Natural Resources and
the Department of Fish and Wildlife when
developing regulations, which would impact
those agencies.
IM-4-D Policy: Work with the Office of Financial
Management in siting essential public facilities of
regional and statewide importance
IM-4-E Policy: Participate with communities
within the County in developing regulations that
are consistent with each other and provide a
smooth transition between rural areas and urban
cities.
Development will be in collaboration with Pasco of
Pasco, Franklin County and appropriate State,
regional, local agencies, and impacted utility
agencies. Development will be consistent with all
agency requirements adopted by Pasco and/or
required for construction.
30-19-079/New Heritage 36
5 EXISTING CONDITION, EFFECTS, AND MITIGATION
5.1 LAND U SE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), provide information on
the existing uses of land in Pasco.
“Pasco includes a variety of land uses from residential, commercial, industrial to open
space. Pasco’s land use designations and acreages are identified in the 2018
Comprehensive Plan. Residential land is the predominant use in Pasco, containing
over 44% of Pasco’s total land. Residential land use is followed by industrial land
use, which consists of 24% of the total land use within Pasco. Commercial lands are
distributed along the major corridors, Pasco Center and along the Interstate -182.
Open space land use is distributed throughout Pasco in the form of parks and
natural open spaces. The shoreline areas consist of several parks, trails, and natural
open space. See Table 9 (Table 5.1) for a summary of land use types in Pasco.”
TABLE 5 .1 – EXISTING LAND USE IN PASCO LIMITS AND UGA
Land Use Designation Acreage* % of Total
Residential Lands 11,167 44%
Low Density
Mixed Density
High Density
Commercial Lands 2,666 11%
Mixed Residential/Commercial
Commercial
Industrial Lands 5,968 24%
Public/Quasi-Public Lands 925 4%
Open Space / Park Lands 1,012 4%
Airport Reserve Lands 2,236 9%
DNR Reserve Lands 1,234 5%
Total 25,208 100%
*The total includes 4,300 acres of street right of way, which is about 17% of the total.
Source: Pasco of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Non-Project Environmental Impact Statement.”
Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan’s Preferred Alternative also included an expansion of the UGA by
3,600 acres along the north edge of Pasco, raising the total UGA acreage to 28,808. In addition,
Pasco’s Land Capacity Analysis assumed a 20% market factor, a 5% environmental factor, and a
20% factor for roadways in justifying the expanded UGA.
Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan Non-Project EIS also discusses the land use categories included in
the Comprehensive Plan (See Figure 5.1):
30-19-079/New Heritage 37
FIGURE 5 .1 – PASCO FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan land use categories and their purposes are discussed below:
• Open Space/Nature – This land use designation applies to areas where development will
be severely restricted. Parklands, trails, and critical areas are examples of different types of
open spaces.
• Low Density Residential – This land use allows residential development at a density
of two to five dwelling units per acre. The land use designation criterion includes sewer
availability or approval from the Benton-Franklin Health District when sewer is not available,
suitability for home sites, and market demand.
• Medium Density Residential – This land use designation includes single-family dwellings,
patio homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling
units per acre. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major
circulation routes, it provides transition between more intense uses, and low density uses.
Availability of sewer services and market demand are also key criteria for this land
use designation.
• High Density Residential – This land use designation includes multi-family dwellings,
apartments, and condominiums at a density of 21 dwelling units or more per acre. This is
designated to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and
employment areas. Availability of sewer services and market demand are also key criteria
for this land use designation.
30-19-079/New Heritage 38
• Mixed Residential Commercial – This land use designation is a mix of residential and
commercial uses. Residential uses include single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses,
apartments, and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre.
Commercial uses include neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service, and office uses. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major
circulation routes and land is suitable for heavy building sites.
• Commercial – This land use is designated for neighborhood, community and regional
shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service, and office uses. This is designated to
areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and land is suitable for
heavy building sites.
• Industrial – This land use is designated for manufacturing, food processing,
storage, and wholesale distribution of equipment and products, hazardous material
storage, and transportation-related facilities
• Public and Quasi Public - This land use is designated for schools, civic buildings, fire
stations and other public uses.
• Airport Reserve - This land use is designated for lands owned or occupied by the Tri-Cities
Airport.
• DNR Reserve - This land use is designated for lands owned by DNR.
Within the immediate vicinity of the proposed amendment area, land uses include Industrial, Low
Density Residential, Mixed Use Residential, Public and Quasi-Public, Open Space/Nature, and
Mixed Residential Commercial. Table 5.2, Existing Land Use within the Vicinity of the Proposal,
summarizes the acreages for each land use category. Figure 5.2, illustrates the immediate vicinity
used as a basis for the below acreages.
TABLE 5 .2 – EXISTING VICINITY LAND USES
Land Use Designation Acreage %
Industrial 1,383 62%
Low Density Residential 539 24%
Mixed Use Residential 117 5%
Public/Quasi-Public 79 4%
Open Space/Nature 53 2%
Mixed
Residential/Commercial 55 2%
Total 2,226 100%
30-19-079/New Heritage 39
FIGURE 5 .2 – VICINITY LAND USE
The 196-acre Amendment area is currently undeveloped except various sewer lines, water lines,
powerlines, other utilities and rights-of-way. There is also an existing railroad spur along the
southern portion of the site and two proposed Distribution Centers directly to the east.
Under the Industrial designation of the Comprehensive Plan, Pasco’s Zoning Code identifies three
separate zoning classifications: Light Industrial (I-1), Medium Industrial (I-2) and Heavy Industrial
(I-3). The amendment area is currently zoned Medium Industrial with approximal 17 acres along
East A road zoned Light Industrial. The area to the immediate south, east and west are also zoned
Light Industrial. The area to the immediate north along East A Street is zoned a mix of Residential,
Commercial, and Mixed Commercial Residential.
Pasco Zoning Code allows the following uses under the Medium Industrial District zoning
classification.
MEDIUM INDUST RIAL DISTRICT
Uses permitted in the I-2 district shall be:
1. All uses not otherwise prohibited by law, but no residential buildings shall be permitted; and
2. Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards, scrap iron, scrap paper, or rag storage, sorting or
bailing shall be permitted, provided:
a. An eight-foot, sight-obscuring fence must be constructed and inspected prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use of the goods. The fence shall be of solid
single neutral color.
30-19-079/New Heritage 40
b. No automobile or parts thereof, junk or salvage materials or parts thereof shall be
visible from any public right-of-way. All materials or parts shall be located within the
fenced area.
c. Fire lanes shall be provided as required in the International Fire Code.
d. A performance bond for $1,000 shall be required prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit, to ensure compliance with provisions of this section. The bond
shall remain in force as long as the use exists.
e. The permit shall be granted for a period not to exceed two years, and at the end of
such period an inspection shall be made of the premises to determine the advisability
of renewing such permit. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 §25.54.020.
Pasco Zoning Code allows the following uses under the Light Industrial District zoning
classification.
The I-1 light industrial district is established to preserve areas for industrial and related uses of such
a nature that they do not create serious problems of compatibility with other kinds of land uses. Uses
permitted in this district should not generate noise levels, light, odor or fumes that would constitute
a nuisance or hazard. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.52.010.]
Uses permitted in the I-1 district shall be:
1. All uses permitted in the C-3 district;
2. Building material storage yard;
3. Trucking, express and storage yards;
4. Contractor’s plant or storage yards;
5. Laboratories, experimental;
7. Automotive assembly and repair;
8. Kennels;
9. Creamery, bottling, ice manufacture and cold storage plant;
10. Blacksmith, welding or other metal shops, excluding punch presses over 20 tons rated
capacity, drop hammers, and the like;
11. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging of cosmetics, pharmacology and
food products, except fish and meat products, and the reducing and refining of fats and oils;
12. Printing plant; and
13. Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-2 district boundary, provided such lots are paved and the
development complies with the landscape and fencing requirements of the C -1 district, as
enumerated in PMC 25.85.020(13). [Ord. 4110 § 23, 2013; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970
§ 25.52.020.]
30-19-079/New Heritage 41
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, the Industrial designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan
would remain. The uses and zoning classifications allowed under that designation could be
constructed. In the amendment area site, uses allowed under the I-1 and I-2 classification would
be allowed. Some of these uses could potentially adversely impact nearby residential land uses
and the natural environment through increased noise, odor, reduction in air quality and runoff
(see Sections 5.3 to 5.7).
Generally, Industrial Zoning has a greater potential for environmental impacts to the natural and
man-made environment than does residentially zoned land. While the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statement does not address this issue in detail, Pasco's existing codes,
policies and requirements could address some or all of these impacts.
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Under all action alternatives, with the approval of a Land Subdivision, future land uses in the
vicinity would change as illustrated in Table 5.3 , below.
TABLE 5 .3 – PROPOSED LAND USES IN THE AMENDMENT VICINITY
Land Use Designation Proposed
Amendment Revised Acreage %
Industrial -196 1,187 53%
Low Density Residential 0 539 24%
Mixed Use Residential +123 240 11%
Public/Quasi-Public +44 123 6%
Open Space/Nature * 82 4%
Mixed Residential/Commercial 0 55 2%
* Park space to be determined during Land Subdivision Process
Under Pasco’s Zoning Ordinance (25.215.015 - Comprehensive Plan land use density table), the
Mixed Residential/Commercial Land Use designation will “allow a combination of mixed-
use residential and commercial in the same development. Single-family dwellings, patio homes,
townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre.
Neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses”. Proposed
zoning classifications R-1 through R-4; C-1 and O; and Waterfront, are allowed under the Mixed
Residential/Commercial Land Use designation with the approval of the Pasco City Council, with
the recommendation by the Pasco Hearing Examiner.
Under all action alternatives, this change could impact the viability of adjacent industrial land uses
within the immediate area without mitigation. It may also increase the pressure on other adjacent
industrial land uses to convert to a similar designation in the future. Without mitigation, this
30-19-079/New Heritage 42
change may also impact adjacent residential uses from runoff, noise, traffic, and reduction in air
quality. These and other potential impacts and mitigation measures resulting from this change
are also discussed Sections 5.2 through 5.7, below.
LOW INTENSIT Y ALTERNATIVE
Under the low intensity alternative, the proposed amendment to Pasco Comprehensive Plan
would convert approximately 196 acres from “Industrial” to “Mixed Residential Commercial” or
"Medium Density Residential". With this change, this alternative would provide approximately 121
acres of residential land with 794 residential units with an average density of 6.6 UPA;
approximately 32,670 square feet of retail/office space; area for open space; 15 acres for an
elementary school and, approximately 29 acres for roadways and utilities (See Table 2.1).
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Because this alternative anticipates that the same amount of land would be changed from
Industrial to Mixed Residential Commercial or Medium Density Residential, the land use impacts
would be similar. With this change, this alternative would provide approximately 116 acres of
residential land with 1,028 residential units with an average density of 8.6 UPA; approximately
65,340 square feet of retail/office space; area for open space; 15 acres for a school and,
approximately 29 acres for roadways and utilities (See Table 2.1).
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
This alternative also anticipates that the same amount of land would be converted from Industrial
to Mixed Residential Commercial or Medium Density Residential, consequently the land use
impacts would also be similar. With this change, this alternative would provide approximately 118
acres of residential land with 1,354 residential units with an average density of 11.5 UPA;
approximately 76,230 square feet of retail/office space; area for open space; 15 acres for an
elementary school and, approximately 29 acres for roadways and utilities (See Table 2.1).
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures related to the proposed amendment are discussed under Sections 5.2
through 5.7 below. This includes specific mitigation measures discussed under 5.2, Population,
Housing and Employment, 5.3, Environmental Health, and 5.7, Industrial/Economic. These
mitigation measures include buffers, setbacks, and land use location developed during site design.
5.2 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
POPULATION
Part of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan Non-Project Environmental Impact Statement (NPEIS) stated:
30-19-079/New Heritage 43
“… population estimates for Pasco in 2018 are 73,590 and in 2019 are 75,290. Based on 2018
numbers, it is estimated that 48,238 people will be added to Pasco’s population in the next
20 years (Oneza & Associates, 2018).
Based on this, without this amendment, the future total population in 2029 is projected to be
123,528. Or a little less than 6,200 new residents per year.
HOUSING
The Comprehensive Plan’s NPEIS stated;
The 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data indicate 21,653 housing units in Pasco.
About 70 percent of the housing units are owner-occupied and 30 percent renter occupied.
Per Pasco of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume II, using the average hous ehold size
of 3.17 persons per unit, added population from the 2018 base population will require 15,217
housing units. Existing vacant buildable land is estimated to provide 9,581 units in a variety
of housing types (e.g., single-family, multi-family, town home, condo); therefore, an
additional 5,636 housing units will be required to meet the demand of future housing (Oneza
& Associates 2018).”
Based on the above, Pasco currently has an average household size of 3.49. Based on Pasco's
Comprehensive Plan, there would be a total of 36,870 housing units projected by 2029 with an
average household size of 3.35.
There is currently no housing located within the amendment area.
EMPLOYMENT
For employment the NPEIS states;
“Pasco’s economy is also tied to the economy of the Tri-Cities metro area. The Tri‐Cities area
is unique in that its employment base is dominated by a select number of large employers.
Roughly one in five of estimated 116,000 jobs in the Benton and Franklin Counties are for
large employment firms or agencies, with the top five ranging in type, including research
and development, health services, engineering and construction, food processing, and
education. The continued employment growth at the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy Northwest and the Office of
River Protection will continue the growth of Pasco’s population. This growth will not only
attract new residents to Pasco, but also provide opportunities for our young population to
remain in Pasco. Employment in the Tri‐Cities region increased from 2006 to 2015 by more
than 22,000 jobs, with an average annual growth rate of 2 percent. There are roughly
116,000 jobs in the region. All industries experienced positive employment growth by the
end of the 10‐year period. However, from 2011 to 2014 employment slightly declined as
spending cuts at the Hanford Site impacted the entire regional economy. In Pasco, the
expansion of its economy led to increasing industrial diversity, and although the economic
downtown in 2008 did have an impact, food manufacturing, agriculture, private and public
educational and healthcare services provided strong stability.”
The 196-acre amendment area is undeveloped except for utilities and a railroad spur to the south.
The areas to the West, South and East are all designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan.
30-19-079/New Heritage 44
The area to the north is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Mixed Residential/Commercial,
Commercial, and low and medium density residential (See Figure 5.2).
Recently, two large distribution centers are in process of being developed to the east of the
amendment area. Total projected employment at these two facilities is approximately 1,800
people. Other industrial developments have also been recently announced which will also increase
employment in the area.
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
POPULATION
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under all action alternatives, an increase in population would impact public services, traffic, noise,
utilities and air quality. It could also impact the population projections in the City's Comprehensive
Plan. These impacts are addressed in other sections of this report and in Housing, below.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, the site would remain industrial, and population would not be
directly impacted. Indirectly, primary employment would increase which would increase housing
demand, and consequently, population (See Employment, below and Appendix B)
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Based on the estimated persons per household shown in Table 5.4, the total population increase
under this alternative would be 2,660, or an increase of approximately 2.2% over the 20-year
planning period.
MEDIUM DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
If the amendment is approved, there would be an estimated population increase of 3,442, or
approximately 2.7%.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
If the amendment is approved, there would be an estimated population increase of 4,536, or
approximately 3.7%.
HOUSING
Pasco has projected that a net of 15,217 new housing units would be required by 2038 (Oneza &
Associates 2018). To provide for this increase, Pasco has expanded the UGA by 3,600 acres (Pasco's
EIS Preferred Alternative). In justifying this expansion, Pasco also used a 20% market factor, a 5%
environmental factor and a 20% factor for roads and utilities.
Based on this, Pasco is projected to have a total of 36,870 housing units by 2029 with a total of
population of 123,528. This results in a household size of 3.35.
30-19-079/New Heritage 45
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
In order to not impact the population projections under the City's Comprehensive Plan, any
increase in housing, from any of the proposed action alternatives, would have to either reduce
the 20% market factor used in justifying the GMA boundary (it is assumed that the 5%
environmental factor and the 20% roads and utilities factor would not be affected), or reduce the
average projected housing density in Pasco (See Table 5.4, below).
NO ACTI ON ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action Alternative would leave the site as industrial. Under this designation, no housing
would be provided.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERATIVE
Under this alterative, 794 housing units would be added on 121 acres with an average density of
6.6 units per acre. In order to be consistent with Pasco's projected housing increase, this would
require that the projected 20% market factor be reduced by about 9%, and/or a change to the
City’s average household size (See Table 5.4).
Without mitigation, an increase in housing could impact noise, surface water runoff, air quality,
utilities, traffic and public services, but would not impact the human and man-made environments
to the extent that the No-Action could.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alterative, 1,028 housing units would be added on 119 acres with an average density
of 8.6 units per acre. In order to be consistent with Pasco's projected housing increase, this would
require that the projected 20% market factor be reduced by about 11%, and/or a change to the
City’s average household size (See Table 5.4).
Without mitigation, an increase in housing could impact noise, surface water runoff, air quality,
utilities, traffic and public services, but would not impact the human and man-made environments
to the extent that the No-Action could.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alterative, 1,354 housing units would be added on 118 acres. In order to be consistent
with Pasco's projected housing increase, this would require that the projected 20% market factor
be reduced by about 14%, and/or a change to the City’s average household size (See Table 5.4).
Without mitigation, an increase in housing could impact noise, surface water runoff, air quality,
utilities, traffic and public services, but would not impact the human and man-made environments
to the extent that the No-Action could.
30-19-079/New Heritage 46
TABLE 5 .4 – AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Item Comprehensive
Plan
Low
Density
Alternative
Medium
Density
Alternative
High
Density
Alternative
Projected Population 123,528 123,528 123,528 123,528
Proposed Increase 0 2,259 2,770 3,506
Total 123,528 125,787 126,298 127,034
Projected Housing
Units 36,870 36,870 36,870 36,870
Proposed Increase 0 778 994 1,296
Total 36,870 37,648 37,864 38,166
Average Household
Size 3.35037 3.34113 3.33557 3.32846
Source: JUB, Land Strategies
EMPLOYMENT
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative the site will remain in a combination of Light Density Industrial
and Medium Density Industrial. The impacts of this designation on population and housing have
been generally discussed in the City's Comprehensive Plan Final EIS (See Existing Conditions,
above).
According to DataUSA, the total employment in Pasco in 2019 was 62,775. This does not include
the approximately 2,400 employees currently projected for planned projects (Tri-Cities Area
Journal of Business). It’s important to point out that the existing Pasco Comprehensive Plan has
projected most of the future population and housing growth in the Broadmoor area, which is on
the west side of Pasco. The primary area for the employment growth outlined above is on the east
side of Pasco. This means that, under the current Comprehensive Plan, many new employees,
particularly those at the two proposed distribution centers, would be required to commute across
town, resulting to impacts to traffic (See Appendix A and B).
Because Medium Density Industrial allow any use not otherwise prohibited by law, it is not
possible to project the employment on the site under the no-action alternative. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers Manual estimates 6 employees per acre for this type of land use, but
this estimate may be low. Based on this estimate the site would contain 1,176 employees.
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Under all action alternatives there would be employment related to the commercial and
service/office land-uses being proposed (See Table 5.5).
For all action alternatives, except employees living on site, employees will have an impact on traffic
and public services, including transit. Businesses and offices will also impact traffic, utilities and
public services.
30-19-079/New Heritage 47
TABLE 5 .5 – EMPLOYMENT
Land Use
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
SF
Emp.
Total
SF
Total
Emp.
SF
Emp. Total
Emp.
SF
Emp.
Total
SF
Total
Emp.
Elementary
School 1,250 205,000 164 1,250 205,000 164 1,25
0 205,001 164
Service/Office
Single Tenant
Office 295 13,780 47 295 26,560 90 295 26,780 91
Medical-Dental 207 8,000 39 207 17,000 82 207 17,000 82
Sub Total 21,780 85 43,560 172 43,780 173
Retail
Restaurants 134 3,490 26 134 8,780 66 134 11,000 82
Neighborhood
Retail 588 7,400 13 588 13,000 22 588 21,000 36
Sub Total 10,890 39 21,780 88 32,000 156
Total 288 424 493
Source: ITE/JUB, Land Strategies
MITIGATION MEASURES
Specific mitigation measures are identified in Sections 5.3 to 5.7, below. Pasco’s Comprehensive
Plan also identifies Goals and Policies that would mitigate potential impacts resulting from the
proposed amendment.
• H-1. GOAL: Encourage housing for all economic segments of Pasco’s population consistent
with the local and regional market.
• H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses,
condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot
line, planned unit developments etc. in areas as appropriate.
• ED-1-F Policy: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning
are vital to economic development and attracting businesses.
• ED-2 Goal: Assure appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial facilities.
• ED-2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
• ED-3 Goal: Maintain development standards and design guidelines to ensure that
commercial and industrial developments are good neighbors.
• ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with
residential and mixed-use neighborhoods using landscaping, screening, and superior
building design standards and guidelines.
30-19-079/New Heritage 48
Additional mitigation measures include encouraging carpooling and transit to nearby
employment centers and the provision of bike and walking corridors to adjacent employment
centers.
5.3 ENVIRONM ENTAL HEALTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The amendment remains vacant. The areas to the west and southwest are also vacant (except for
a railroad spur to the south). The area directly east is currently under construction for two major
distribution centers and the area to the north contains a mix of residential, and commercial uses.
There is an existing residential mobile home park (Lakeview) located 2/3 of a mile to the southeast
of the project area.
While not currently constructed, the City of Pasco has funding and is schedule to construct Phase
1 of a 28 acre sports complex in the industrial area off East A Street. This sports complex is located
at the southeast corner East A St. and S. Elm Ave. Construction of Phase 1 is scheduled to begin
sometime in 2022; therefore, the sports complex will be an existing feature in late 2022.
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
In the future, industrial uses allowed under the Industrial designation in the Comprehensive Plan,
particularly under the Medium Density classification in Pasco Zoning Ordinance, could pose
environmental health risks to adjacent land uses. These risks include increased exposure to
chemicals or risk of fire, run-off from the storage of hazardous wastes, odor and decreases in air
quality, noise, increased traffic/congestion, and visual blight. These impacts would potentially have
an increased affect to the existing residential areas to the north, northeast and also to the
southeast (See Section 5.7, below). The proximity of existing residential developments to the
north, northeast and southeast of this industrial area has prompted the majority of industrial
developments to occur at existing industrial zoned lands located approximately 4 miles to the
north of this area.
A 28-acre sports complex will be located at the southeast corner East A St. and S. Elm Ave directly
adjacent to the industrial zoned land.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, with approval of a Rezone and Land Subdivision, any uses permitted under
zoning districts R-1 through R-4; C-1 and O; Waterfront as identified in the Pasco Zoning Code
would be allowed. Depending on the size, location and types of uses permitted in the land use
approval, these uses could be exposed to environmental impacts from other industrial areas
through increased exposure to chemicals or risk of fire, run-off from the storage of hazardous
wastes, odor and decreases in air quality, noise and visual blight. Currently the majority of these
nearby industrial areas are Zoned L-1, which limits the types of industrial uses that can be
30-19-079/New Heritage 49
developed and would likely have less impact on the proposed amendment area. Potential
environmental health Impacts from the amendment area include increased runoff, construction
noise, air-quality reduction from increased traffic, and increased traffic congestion.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Increased residential density and the expansion of the retail and office areas could be
proportionally impacted by adjacent industrial uses. In addition, this increased density and
expansion would also proportionally increase runoff, construction noise, reduce air-quality, and
increase traffic congestion.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would have the greatest increase in residential density and office areas. This could
result greater environmental health impacts from adjacent industrial uses. This increased density
would also proportionality increase runoff, construction noise, reduce air-quality, and increase
traffic congestion.
MITIGATION MEASURES
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The impacts to the No-Action Alternative have been addressed under Pasco’s current
Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Potential mitigation measures for all the alternatives depend on the specific uses allowed, their
location and mitigation measures required at the time of approval by Pasco. One potential impact
could result from truck noise from the proposed distribution center. To mitigate this potential
impact, the distribution center has agreed to construct a sound barrier wall along their western
property boundary. In addition, a landscape buffer could be developed to provide additional
buffering.
Impacts from adjacent industrial uses could be mitigated, in part, through adoption of mitigation
measures during construction and operation, and through the adoption of the Goals and Policies
of Pasco Comprehensive Plan, including:
50'+/-15'+/-
3 :1 S lo p e
Drought Tolerant
Landscaping
Masonary Wall 10'-15' High
Property line
Varies
15'
Distribution Center Property
30-19-079/New Heritage 50
• LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or transition zones between non -compatible
land uses.
• LU-3-C Policy: Ensure all developments include appropriate landscaping and screening, as
required by adopted regulations and guidelines.
• ED-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO
ENSURE THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS
• ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with
residential and mixed-use neighborhoods with appropriate landscaping, screening, building
and design standards,
• ED-3-B Policy: Ensure outdoor illumination and signage of businesses have a positive impact
and are compatible with neighborhood standards.
• ED-3-C Policy: Provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks,
non-motorized travel lanes and parking.
• ED-3-D Policy: Require businesses and buildings in and adjacent to the Central Business
District to conform to established development standards.
In addition, Pasco Code provides development standards and requirements that mitigate future
industrial impacts on future residential uses.
If the change to the amendment area is approved, specific mitigation measures would be applied
to reduce run-off, construction noise, traffic congestion and air-quality. As noted in Sections 1
and 2, the intent is to create a walkable community with significant open spaces, parks and trails.
These applied mitigation measures and land use approach would significantly reduce any
potential impacts. In addition, the Vision anticipates the extensive use of buffers and open space
to reduce impacts from adjacent industrial from visual blight, noise, runoff and odor. These buffers
would include the wall identified above and landscaped areas.
5.4 PARKS AND RECREATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Pasco adopted in 2016 a Park and Recreation Plan. This Plan:
“[E]stablishes policies for park and recreation services and urban forestry practice,
and it identifies parks and recreation facility needs for Pasco of Pasco” (Parks,
Recreation and Forestry Plan, Pasco of Pasco).”
The Plan identifies one existing neighborhood park to the north of the amendment site (Kurtzman
Park) that could serve a small portion of the amendment site, and a Regional State Park
(Sacajawea) to the southeast. In addition, the plan identifies the Sacajawea Trail that runs along
the waterfront that intersects with a Pasco defined bike and pedestrian path that abuts the
amendment area. The Plan also establishes standards for future parks based on projected
population. Table 5.6, below, identifies the standard for each park type, based on the projected
population for each alternative.
30-19-079/New Heritage 51
Pasco also budgeted in the CIP to construct a 28-acre soccer complex immediately west of the
site. Construction of Phase 1, which includes 3 soccer/multiuse fields, is scheduled to begin in
2022. The final project will include up to 10 multiuse sports fields.
TABLE 5 .6 – TYPICAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION COMPONENTS
Type
2006 Adopted
Standard
(Pasco Parks
Plan)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Acres Facilities
Required Acres Facilities
Required Acres Facilities
Required
Neighborhood Parks
3-7 Acre Standard
2.00 acres/1,000
population 2.7 1 3.4 1 4.5 1
Community Parks
20+ Acres
2.10 acres/1,000
population 5.6 0 7.2 0 9.5 0
Large Urban Parks 2.99 acres/1,000
population 8 0 10.3 0 13 0
Regional Parks
No Adopted
Standard
8.93 acres/1,000
population n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Linear Park
No Adopted
Standard
1.56 acres/1,000
population n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Softball Fields 1 field per 3,000
population n/a * n/a * n/a *
Youth Baseball 1 field per 2,000
population n/a * n/a * n/a *
Soccer Fields 1 field per 2,000
population n/a * n/a * n/a *
Tennis Courts 1 court per
1,500 population n/a * n/a * n/a *
Trails (8” wide) 0.50 miles per
1,000 population n/a * n/a * n/a *
Source: Pasco Parks, Land Strategies
*Type, size and number of amenities to be determined during Pasco Land Subdivision process.
Pasco’s 2019 Plan and Recreation Plan also describes each park type:
“Neighborhood parks include a playground and park designed primarily for non-supervised, non-
organized recreation activities. In Pasco, they are generally small (3-7 acres) and serve a radius of
approximately one-half mile. At average residential densities, this amounts to about 5,000 to 7,500
residents. Since these parks are located within walking and bicycling distance of most users, the
activities they offer become a daily pastime for neighborhood children. While it is not necessarily the
rule, neighborhood parks sometimes provide space for organized community events. A few examples
include Island Park, Richardson Park, and Centennial Park.
Community Park facilities are generally designed for organized activities and sports, although
individual and family activities are encouraged. Community parks can provide indoor facilities to
30-19-079/New Heritage 52
meet a wider range of recreation interests. A community park can also serve the function of
neighborhood parks, although community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities.
Their service area is about a one-mile radius and will support a population of approximately 12,000
– 15,000 persons depending upon its size and nature of its facilities. They require more support
facilities including parking, rest rooms, and covered play areas. They usually exceed 20 acres in size
and often have sport fields or similar facilities as the central focus of the park. Memorial Park fulfills
the needs of a community park in Pasco.
Large urban parks, like Chiawana Park, are designed to serve the entire community. They are like
a community park but much larger. They provide a wide variety of specialized facilities such as large
picnic areas, water related activities, indoor recreation facilities, and sports fields. They require more
support facilities such as parking, rest rooms, and play areas because of their size and facilities
offered. They usually exceed 50 acres in size and should be designed to accommodate many people.
Regional parks are large recreational areas that serve an entire Pasco or region. They can be large
and often include one specific use or feature. If possible, they should be developed around a unique
or significant resource to emphasize regional recreation interest. These types of park areas are found
nearby and include Sacajawea State Park, Columbia Park (Pasco of Kennewick), and Howard Amon
Park (Pasco of Richland). These parks offer riverfront and boating facilities as well as other passive
recreation opportunities and are within a short travel time for Pasco residents.
Linear parks are land areas that generally follow a drainage corridor, ravine, or some other
elongated feature such as a power line or railroad right-of-way. This type of park area often contains
various levels/types of trail systems and sometimes includes greenbelts.
Pathways and trails are designed to provide walking, bicycling, and other nonmotorized means for
linking various parts of the community and connecting parks to residential areas. Trails provide
recreation-oriented bicycle and walking opportunities utilizing canals, drainage corridors,
easements, and other publicly accessible facilities. The trail system includes unpaved foot trails used
for walking, hiking, mountain bike riding and horseback riding, and paved multi-use bicycle trails
designed for bicycle riding, walking and hiking. The system can consist of both off -street and on-
street trail segments. Many off-street segments already exist along the waterfront and Interstate
182.” (Bolding added for emphasis). The Plan also indicates the ½-mile service areas for each park
in Pasco.
30-19-079/New Heritage 53
FIGURE 5 .3 – PARK SERVICE AREA
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no parks constructed and the site would remain
“Industrial.” Planned parks and recreation facilities would not change.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Low Intensity Alternative projects an additional 2,660 in population. Pasco’s Park and
Recreation Plan Standards would require additional park facilities. The type of park facilities will
be determined during the Pasco Land Subdivision approval. Table 5.6 provides a general list of
park facilities that may be considered.
The Low Intensity Alternative would have parks and
recreation land. In addition, trails and sidewalk would
need to be provided to meet current Park standards.
The types, size and location of park improvements will
be determined as part of Pasco’s Land Subdivision
approval.
Park and recreation facilities that are developed on
the amendment site, may be dedicated to the Park
and Recreation Department of Pasco. If dedicated,
this would impact Pasco’s maintenance requirements.
Source: SVPVPA
30-19-079/New Heritage 54
Not all the facilities described above and in Table 5.6 may be required by the Pasco Zoning Code.
The types, size and location of park improvements will be determined as part of Pasco’s Land
Subdivision approval.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Medium Intensity Alternative projects could add an additional 3,444 in population. Pasco’s
Park and Recreation Plan Standards would require additional park facilities. The type of park
facilities will be determined during the Pasco Land Subdivision approval. Table 5.6 provides a
general list of park facilities that may be considered.
The Medium Intensity Alternative would have parks and
recreation land. In addition, trails and sidewalk would
need to be provided to meet current Park standards.
The types, size and location of park improvements will
be determined as part of Pasco’s Land Subdivision
approval.
Park and recreation facilities that are developed on the
amendment site, may be dedicated to the Park and
Recreation Department of Pasco. If dedicated, this
would impact Pasco’s maintenance requirements.
Not all the facilities described above and in Table 5.6 may be required by the Pasco Zoning Code.
The types, size and location of park improvements will be determined as part of Pasco’s Land
Subdivision approval.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The High Intensity Alternative projects could add an additional 4,536 in population. Pasco’s Park
and Recreation Plan Standards would require additional park facilities. The type of park facilities
will be determined during the Pasco Land Subdivision approval. Table 5.6 provides a general list
of park facilities that may be considered.
The High Intensity Alternative would have parks and
recreation land. In addition, trails and sidewalk would
need to be provided to meet current Park standards.
The types, size and location of park improvements will
be determined as part of Pasco’s Land Subdivision
approval.
Park and recreation facilities that are developed on the
amendment site, may be dedicated to the Park and
Recreation Department of Pasco. If dedicated, this
would impact Pasco’s maintenance requirements.
Source: Skibba Illustration
Star Tribune
30-19-079/New Heritage 55
Not all the facilities described above and in Table 5.6 may be required by the Pasco Zoning Code.
The types, size and location of park improvements will be determined as part of Pasco’s Land
Subdivision approval.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation for all the action alternatives would be similar and include:
• Implement Pasco Park and Recreation Plan Goals and Policies;
• Implement Pasco Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, including:
o LU-2-C Policy: Ensure that adequate public services are provided in a reasonable
time frame for new developments.
o LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or transition zones between non-
compatible land uses.
o LU-3-A Policy: Design major streets, schools, parks, and other public facilities that
will encourage the individual identities of neighborhoods.
o LU-3-C Policy: Ensure all developments include appropriate landscaping and
screening, as required by adopted regulations and guidelines.
o ED-3-C Policy: Provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways,
sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes and parking.
o CF-1-B Policy: Encourage public participation in defining the need for, the
proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as parks, ball fields,
pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and
improvements.
o CF-3-A Policy: Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or
other mitigation measures to address impacts on traffic, parks, recreational
facilities, schools, and pedestrian and bicycle trails.
o CF-5. Goal: in conjunction with the county, provide parks, greenways, trails, and
recreation facilities throughout the UGA.
• Develop a system of interconnected parks, recreation facilities, bike and pedestrian trails,
gathering and meeting spaces, school facilities, retail spaces, and workspaces in order to
facilitate the Vision of a walkable “New Urban” community.
5.5 PUBLIC FACILITI ES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
FIRE
"Pasco Fire Department (PFD) provides fire suppression, advanced life support, emergency
medical services, ambulance transport services, technical rescue services, and hazardous materials
services (through a regional partnership) to its service area community (Pasco Comprehensive
30-19-079/New Heritage 56
Plan EIS). Station 81 is located on Oregon Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles from the site and is
staffed full time.”
POLICE
"Law enforcement services for the City are provided by the City Police Department.
Unincorporated areas of the UGA are served by the County Sheriff. The City and County law
enforcement agencies cooperate readily when the need arises. Pasco currently has 1.03 patrol
officers per 1,000 people" (Pasco Comprehensive Plan EIS).
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
FIRE / POLICE
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The impacts to the No-Action Alternative have been addressed under Pasco’s current
Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Under all of the action alternatives there may be a slight increase in emergency calls over the No
Action Alternative, depending on the specific industry that would occupy the site.
MITIGATION MEASURES
FIRE / POLICE
Implement the Goals and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan:
• CF-7-A Policy: Strive to provide a sufficient number of fire stations in appropriate locations
throughout the community.
• CF-7-B Policy: Maintain a cooperative policy with the county fire district.
5.6 UTILITIES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SANITARY SEWER SERVICES
The project area is currently serviced by the City of Pasco and is accounted for in the
Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP). The existing treatment plan has a capacity of 8.68 million gallons
per day (MGD) and in 2011 the maximum flow was 4.27 MGD. There is an existing 30-inch
diameter sewer trunk main that collects sewer flows from the Road 40 East Interceptor. Flows from
the Road 40 East Interceptor flows through the project site in the existing 30-inch sewer trunk
main. Currently the proposed amendment site is undeveloped and has no sanitary sewer flows.
The calculated pipe capacity of the 30-inch sewer trunk main using the Manning’s Formula for
50% capacity is 3,838,856 Gallons per Day (GPD) and 7,018,514 GPD at 75%.
30-19-079/New Heritage 57
POTABLE WATER SERVICE
The proposed amendment area is served by the City of Pasco and was evaluated in the 2019
Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP) and according to CWSP, the City of Pasco has a total
available water right of 13,645.50 acre-feet per year and 20,149 GPM for instantaneous flow. This
water right converts to a Maximum Day Demand (MDD) of 29 MGD. The CWSP also indicates that
the City of Pasco’s potable water source includes the Butterfield Water Treatment Plant (BWTP)
with a capacity of 26.8 MGD a day and the West Pasco Treatment Plant (WPTP) with a capacity of
6 MGD.
The proposed New Heritage Site is in Pressure Zone 2 which is serviced by the BWTP. Additionally,
there is the Eastside Booster Pump that also supplies pressurized water to Zone 2. Zone 2 is a
closed system and has no current storage capacity but is tied into Zone 3 through a pressure
reducing valve. Zone 3 does provide storage capacity. There is an existing 16-inch water main that
runs through the site that services the project area. The CWSP shows a current Zone 2 storage
deficiency of 3.73 million gallons (MG).
The 2019 CWSP indicates that the City has an existing and future deficiency in storage for Zone 2.
The City has identified the storage need in their 2019 CWSP plan. The planned timeframe for this
storage Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is to be completed sometime between 2020-2023. This
CIP will provide a 5.75 MG reservoir to improve reliability, fire flows and level of service for all of
Zone 2 and the project area. This CIP is required regardless of land uses under the No-Action
Alternative or land uses under the three Action Alternatives. The CWSP also indicates that there is
adequate fire flow capacity to support generally up to 4,000 GPM. Industrial users will tend to
require larger fire flows due to larger building structures and higher occupancy than residential
structures.
The City of Pasco operates an irrigation water delivery system for certain parts of the City, but the
proposed New Heritage Site is not included in the existing irrigation system. Irrigation water for
the project area will have to come from either the domestic water system or from on-site sources.
No irrigation service was included in the CWSP analysis.
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The site is currently undeveloped. What stormwater leaves the site is either infiltrated or is
collected on adjacent streets. Other utilities such a cable and phone are available to the site.
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Sewer and water impacts are generally covered under the City's Comprehensive Plan (Volume 2)
and the Comprehensive Plan EIS. The analysis provided in the Comprehensive Plan and EIS is not
specific enough to make a detailed comparison between the No-Action Alternative and the three
Action Alternatives. Depending on the specific industry occupying the site, which could range
30-19-079/New Heritage 58
from food processing to bulk storage, the No-Action Alternative could either be greater, similar
to or less the three Action Alternatives.
Storm drainage management would depend on the specific industries developed and would have
to be retained to meet City and State standards. Other utilities such as phone and cable would
also have to be extended to meet the demands of the specific industry/s.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Demand volumes for sewer under the Low Intensity Alternative are summarized in Table 5.7.
TABLE 5 .7 – LOW USE PROJECTED SEWAGE VOLUMES
Land Use Acre
(AC) Units Low Use
GPDA
Estimated
Population GPDA Low Use
Total (GPDA)
Open
Space/Roadways 58 - - - - -
Retail 1 - 1,500 - - 1,500
Service/Office 1 - 1,500 - - 1,500
School 15 - - 550 *20 11,000
SF Homes 100 500 - 1,675 **80 134,000
Duplex/Tri-Plex 7 42 - 141 **80 11,280
Apartment 14 252 - 844 **80 67,520
Total 196 - - - - 226,800
*20 GPD/Student
**80 GPCD per 2019 CWSP
Water demand is projected for the Low Intensity Alternative on Table 5.8, below.
TABLE 5 .8 – LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED WATER DEMAND
WITH I R RIGATION
SF Homes,
Duplex and
Apartment
ERU (GPC)
Residence
(GPD)
(# of Units x
ERU)
Retail, Office,
School (GPD)
Proposed Land
Use Volumes
(MGD)
794 *424 336,656 14,000 0.35
*424 ERU per 2019 CWSP GPC = Gallons per Connection
Since industrial sewer and water demands can have a wide range of possible flows it is unknown
if the proposed amendment will have a less, similar or greater impact. The specific impact and/or
potential mitigation measures, if any, will need to be defined during the approval of the Land
Subdivision application process.
The extent and type of storm drainage required would likely be less than under the No-Action
Alternative because of the extensive park and open spaces. Other utilities would also have to be
30-19-079/New Heritage 59
extended by the specific provider. Specific storm drainage requirement would be developed at
the time of project approval.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Demand volumes for sewer under the Medium Intensity Alternative are summarized in Table 5.9,
below.
TABLE 5.9 – MEDIUM USE PROJECTED SEWAGE VOLUMES
Land Use Acre
(AC) Units Low Use
GPDA
Estimated
Population GPDA
Low Use
Total
(GPDA)
Open
Space/Roadways 58 - - - - -
Retail 2 - 2,000 - - 2,000
Service/Office 2 - 2,000 - - 2,000
School 15 - - 550 *20 11,000
SF Homes 85 468 - 1,568 **80 125,440
Duplex/Tri-Plex 10 80 - 268 **80 21,440
Apartment 24 480 - 1,608 **80 128,640
Total 196 - - - - 290,520
*20 GPD/Student
**80 GPCD per 2019 CWSP
Water demand is projected for the Medium Intensity Alternative on Table 5.10, below.
TABLE 5.10 – MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED WATER
DEMAND WITH IRRIGATION
SF Homes,
Duplex and
Apartment
ERU (GPC) Residence (GPD)
(# of Units x ERU)
Retail, Office,
School (GPD)
Proposed Land
Use Volumes
(MGD)
1,028 *424 435,872 15,000 0.45
*424 ERU per 2019 CWSP GPC = Gallons per Connection
Since industrial sewer and water demands can have a wide range of possible flows it is unknown
if the proposed amendment will have a less, similar or greater impact. The specific impact and/or
potential mitigation measures, if any, will need to be defined during the approval of the Land
Subdivision application process. The extent and type of storm drainage require would likely be
less than under the No-Action Alternative because of the extensive park and open spaces. Other
utilities would also have to be extended by the specific provider. Specific storm drainage
requirement would be developed at the time of project approval.
30-19-079/New Heritage 60
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Demand volumes for sewer under the High Intensity Alternative are summarized in Table 5.11,
below.
TABLE 5 .11 – HIGH USE PROJECTED SEWAGE VOLUMES
Land Use Acre
(AC) Units Low Use
GPDA
Estimated
Population GPDA Low Use Total
(GPDA)
Open
Space/Roadways 58 - - - - -
Retail 3 - 2,500 - - 2,500
Service/Office 2 - 2,500 - - 2,500
School 15 - - 550 *20 11,000
SF Homes 69 414 - 1,387 **80 110,960
Duplex/Tri-Plex 17 204 - 684 **80 183,312
Apartment 32 736 - 2,466 **80 197,280
Total 196 - - - - 507.552
*20 GPD/Student
**80 GPCD per 2019 CWSP
Water demand is projected for the High Intensity Alternative on Table 5.12, below.
TABLE 5 .12 – HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED WATER DEMAND
WITH IRRIGATION
SF Homes,
Duplex and
Apartment
ERU (GPC) Residence (GPD)
(# of Units x ERU)
Retail, Office,
School (GPD)
Proposed Land
Use Volumes
(MGD)
1,354 *424 574,096 16,000 0.59
*424 ERU per 2019 CWSP GPC = Gallons per Connection
Since industrial sewer and water demands can have a wide range of possible flows it is unknown
if the proposed amendment will have a less, similar or greater impact. The specific impact and/or
potential mitigation measures, if any, will need to be defined during the approval of the Land
Subdivision application process. The extent and type of storm drainage require would likely be
less than under the No-Action Alternative because of the extensive park and open spaces. Other
utilities would also have to be extended by the specific provider. Specific storm drainage
requirement would be developed at the time of project approval.
MITIGATION MEASURES
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
Mitigation measures for Sanitary Sewer would include:
• Implement the 2014 CSP or most current CSP goals and policies.
30-19-079/New Heritage 61
• Implement the most current City of Pasco Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary
Sewer design.
DOMESTIC WATER FACILITIES
Mitigation measures for Domestic Water Facilities would include:
• Implement the 2019 CWSP or most current CWSP goals and policies.
• Implement the most current City of Pasco Design and Construction Standards for
Domestic Water Facilities design.
• Implement the Water Storage Capacity CIP project for a 5.75 MG water reservoir as noted
in the 2019 CWSP.
• Conduct specific water system analysis once a more defined master plan has been
prepared and prior to the development of any phase of the project.
5.7 TRANSPORTATION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are no existing roadways within the proposed 196-acre New Heritage Site. There is a
network of streets that serve the area around the site as shown in Figure 5.4, which also shows
the location of traffic signals in this portion of the city. Key roadways that will provide primary
access to the site include:
• “A” Street – a minor east-west arterial adjacent to the site along the northern boundary;
• Heritage Blvd – a local north-south roadway between A Street and US 12 which is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a future principal arterial; and,
• US 12/I-182 –An east-west expressway that crosses the Columbia River to the west
connecting with Benton County and Interstate I-82, and crossing the Snake River to the
east connecting to Walla Walla.
30-19-079/New Heritage 62
FIGURE 5 .4 – PASCO STREET SYSTEM
Details related to the roadways within the immediate New Heritage Site, including details on the
traffic operations, is included in Appendix A.
• Transit - Ben Franklin Transit provides fixed route and on demand transit service to the
City of Pasco and the Tri-Cities area. In the vicinity of the New Heritage Site, service is
provided by Routes 64 and 65, each providing service every half hour throughout the day.
Routes 64 and 65 have stops on “A” Street. Both routes provide transfer opportunities at
the 22nd Avenue Transit Center.
• Bike and Pedestrian - The City of Pasco has a network of facilities that serve bicycle and
pedestrian needs. In the vicinity of the proposed New Heritage Site, “A” Street has a
sidewalk on the north side from Wehe Avenue to East 40th Avenue. It also has bike lanes
in each direction and a 9’ wide pathway on the south side from Elm Street to East 40th
Avenue.
• Rail - There is an existing rail spur along the southern boundary of the New Heritage site
that was constructed to promote industrial development at this site as well as on the south
side.
EFFECTS ON THE PROPOSAL
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not specify industrial land uses for the proposed amendment
site. Similar sites within this area and zoning classification have been primarily developed as
warehousing and food processing, although it is possible, under the current zoning, for the
30-19-079/New Heritage 63
property to be developed for a wide range of other uses. In addition, the Traffic Model prepared
by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments and used by the City in preparing its
Comprehensive Plan, did not include any development for this site during the 20-year planning
period. This, and the fact that the site has not been developed for any industrial use in the last
40 years and is not projected to in the future (See Appendix A), means that the potential uses
could range from vacant to any allowable use under the City’s Zoning Code, other than
Residential.
Given this wide range, some reasonable basis for evaluating the traffic impacts resulting from the
proposed amendment, had to be developed. To do this, an assumption was made that, if there
were to be a change in the market, the site could be developed in uses identified in the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual as General Light Industrial. Based on this
assumption, the No-Action Alternative could result in 1,235 peak hour trips with 13% inbound
and 87% outbound, see details in Appendix A. A planning level analysis of these traffic volumes,
similar to the analysis performed for the preparation of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan that resulted in traffic impacts higher than shown in the Comprehensive Plan,
but lower than what could be expected to result from the most traffic impactive land uses allowed
under the Zoning Code.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative a variety of land uses are proposed and have been discussed previously. For
the purposes of this analysis, a mixture of office space, retail in the form of restaurants, grocery
and other neighborhood shopping, were evaluated and estimated to generate approximately 930
external trips with 56% of trips inbound to the site (see tables in Appendix A).
The impacts for this alternative are similar to those of the No-Action Alternative identified under
Appendix A, but may be expected to be slightly lower for three reasons: One, it generates fewer
trips; two, the directional split of inbound and outbound trips is more evenly distributed; and
three, the mixed-use nature of the proposed development allows for more trips to be contained
on-site such as people that live and work within the New Heritage site, or people that are able to
live and shop within the proposed development.
Transit and bicycle/pedestrian features would be offered within the New Heritage site. The existing
rail spur along the southern boundary would not likely be used on its north side but could still be
used on its south side.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative a variety of land uses are also proposed including a mixture of office space,
business park, as retail in the form of restaurants, grocery and other neighborhood shopping were
evaluated and estimated to generate approximately 1,140 external trips with 56% of trips inbound
to the site.
30-19-079/New Heritage 64
A similar evaluation as the No Action Alternative was performed and is discussed in Appendix A.
The analysis showed impacts similar to the results for the Low Intensity Alternative.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The High Intensity Alternative also includes a variety of land uses and are documented in more
detail in Appendix A. For the purposes of this analysis, a mixture of office space, business park,
and retail in the form of restaurants, grocery and other neighborhood shopping were evaluated
and estimated to generate approximately 1,315 external trips with 57% of trips inbound to the
site.
Results are very similar at a planning level, a more detailed evaluation will likely be performed
once a final development proposal is brought forward after the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is approved.
MITIGATION MEASURES
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The Regional Travel Demand Model used for preparation of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan did not include development on the New Heritage site during the planning
period. Nor did the Regional model include traffic associated with the two proposed large
distribution facilities nearby. Because of this, the No Action Alternative, based on the traffic
evaluation included in Appendix A, indicates that any future industrial development of the New
Heritage site under the No-Action Alternative would require additional traffic improvements
beyond the mitigation identified in the Comprehensive Plan. What transportation improvements
would actually be required under the No-Action Alternative depends on what specific
development is being proposed, although it is likely that the requirement would be at least as
much as those required under any of the Action Alternatives for these reasons: one, it generates
more trips; two, the directional split of inbound and outbound trips is highly directional; and three,
the very few trips are absorbed internally to the site because of the lack of complementary land
uses associated with the industrial land uses allowed.
ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Using the planning level methodology that was used in the preparation of the Comprehensive
Plan described in Appendix A, the impacts related to the future development of the site under
all three Action Alternatives are similar to those of the No-Action Alternative. The analysis
described in Appendix A does not account for trips to/from the proposed large distribution
facilities nearby, so it is conservatively high on trips further away from the site. Given that workers
at these facilities will have additional housing nearby the impact on the roadway system may be
less than those identified for the No Action scenario. The planning methodology used here
identifies locations where improvements may be needed. It is logical to expect that when more
detail is provided on a future development proposal, and more detailed traffic operations analysis
is undertaken, that slightly different mitigation would be required for scenarios that add more
30-19-079/New Heritage 65
trips to the roadway network. Specific mitigation measures to assure concurrency would be
identified at the time of approval of the Land Subdivision and Concomitant Agreement.
30-19-079/New Heritage 66
6 ECONOMICS
The major questions related to the impact economics has on the proposed amendment includes:
• What is the economic impact of removing 196 acres from the City's industrial center?
• What are the benefits of adding affordable housing adjacent to the existing industrial area
of Pasco?
IMPACT OF REMOVING INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE:
According to the Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the
City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan, there are currently 7,095 acres of industrial land located within
the City limits and UGA boundary (see Table 9). Of this amount, 4,212 acres, or approximately 45%
of the total land acreage, is exempt and owned by the Port, City, and/or other government entities,
1,827 acres are undeveloped (26%), and 354 acres are underutilized (5%).
The maximum employment identified in Section 5 is 329. This is 651 employees less than the 980
employees estimated using the 5 employees per acre (EPA) previously used by the Port of Pasco.
It would also reduce the total 1,827 undeveloped acreage by approximately 11%. Based on 5 EPA,
the total projected employment for all undeveloped land is 9,135. The 651-employee difference
could reduce this projected employment by about 7%.
Historically, Pasco has not had problem in industrial land availability. Even large land users such
as food processing industries have been able to find suitable land in the past. For instance, in 2017
there was over 500+ acres of industrial land for sale around the Tri-Cities region (this was reduced
due to the recent sale of a portion of the Heritage site). and it appears that roughly 45 acres of
industrial land is absorbed each year, on average. Industry experts claim there is an abundance of
undeveloped industrial land within the region to be absorbed, indicating roughly a 5-7-year
absorption rate (See Figure 6.1).
FIGURE 6 .1 – NET ABSORPTION, INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN FRANKLIN COUNTY
Source: Costar
(60,000)
(40,000)
(20,000)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2020 Q4 QTD2020 Q32020 Q22020 Q12019 Q42019 Q32019 Q22019 Q12018 Q42018 Q32018 Q22018 Q12017 Q42017 Q32017 Q22017 Q12016 Q42016 Q32016 Q22016 Q12015 Q42015 Q32015 Q22015 Q1
30-19-079/New Heritage 67
Based on the above, there is more than enough industrial acreage in Pasco to meet the projected
requirements and any future projected demand.
BENEFITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The lack of affordable housing has resulted in a significant hardship in many communities.
Appendix B discusses the various impacts related to the location of housing in Pasco. The lack of
affordable housing also has economic impact. According to the National Low-Income Housing
Coalition:
Increasing access to affordable housing bolsters economic growth. Research shows that the
shortage of affordable housing costs the American economy about $2 trillion a year in lower
wages and productivity. Without affordable housing, families have constrained opportunities
to increase earnings, causing slower GDP growth. In fact, researchers estimate that the
growth in GDP between 1964 and 2009 would have been 13.5% higher if families had better
access to affordable housing. This would have led to a $1.7 trillion increase in income, or
$8,775 in additional wages per worker. Moreover, each dollar invested in affordable housing
boosts local economies by leveraging public and private resources to generate income—
including resident earnings and additional local tax revenue—and supports job creation and
retention.
This is also listed as an issue by Habitat for Humanities:
Greater tax generation, creation of jobs, opportunities for economic development, increased
job retention and productivity, and the ability to address inequality — all are among the
economic benefits of increased access to quality, affordable housing. a 2004 study [by the
Harvard Kennedy School] showed a harmful link between high housing costs and employee,
productivity and retention, which hurts businesses and a community’s economy. Since then,
the impact of high housing costs in the U.S., both rental and homeownership, has only grown.
Freeing our local, state and national economies from the drag created when housing is
unaffordable helps everyone.
According to Census’ LEHD on the Map program (2019 data is the most recent data available),
three-quarters of Pasco residents commute outside the area for work. Despite this, there is a cross-
haul of workforce — as many are coming into Pasco to work as are leaving (see Figure 6.2).
Roughly 69% of the jobs in Pasco are being filled by people who live outside the city.
However, as the geographic boundary broadens, less residents commute outside the area for work
(Table 6.1). More Franklin County residents commute outside the county for work than Benton
County residents, where the larger concentration of jobs are located (see Figure 6.2). In addition,
32% of housing units in Benton and Franklin counties have zero or only one vehicle (the share is
slightly higher in Benton). This makes it more challenging for residents to get to work.
30-19-079/New Heritage 68
FIGURE 6 .2 – COMMUTER FLOWS, CITY OF PASCO (2019)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
TABLE 6.13 – COMMUTING FLOWS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA (2019)
Geographic Area
Living and
Working in
Area
Living in Area
but Working
Outside
Employed in
Area but Living
outside (% of
jobs)
City of Pasco 24% 76& 69%
Franklin County 32% 68% 62%
Benton County 61% 39% 40%
Kennewick-Richland
MSA 74% 26% 25%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
This disparity between where people live and where they work has a significant impact on the
quality of life in Pasco. The cost of commuting also disproportionately affects low-income workers.
With over half the workers and half the residents in Franklin County earning less than $40,000 per
year, larger commutes put more of a strain on the community as people with lower incomes
typically drive farther to work and spend more out of pocket.
The Pasco Comprehensive Plan has expanded the city's Urban Growth Boundary to the north in
the Broadmoor area (See Figure 6.3). A significant portion of the projected population growth
30-19-079/New Heritage 69
over the next 20 years is projected to locate in this area. This can result in even high commute
costs for the workers in the industrial area of the city to the south.
FIGURE 6 .3 – PASCO URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
Source: Pasco Comprehensive Plan, JUB
In conclusion, rising rental costs with low vacancy rates and high levels of low-income residents,
coupled with high home prices and overall higher cost of living in the tri-cities region is a recipe
for mitigating factors such as job creation in the central business district to reduce overall
commuting costs for low-income and minority residents. (See Appendix B). It can also
significantly increase traffic congestion due to longer commute.
30-19-079/New Heritage
APPENDIX A
30-19-079/New Heritage Appendix A - Traffic Analysis
P a g e | 1
APPENDIX A
NEW HERITAGE SITE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are no existing roadways on the proposed Amendment area site itself. There is a network
of functionally classified streets that serve the area around the site, as shown in Figure A-1 below,
which also shows the location of traffic signals in this portion of the city.
FIGURE A -1 . EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
Note: intersections without a symbol are Two-Way Stop Controlled.
2
Key roadways that provide primary access to the site includes:
• “A” Street - Adjacent to the site along the northern boundary is “A” Street, an east-west
minor arterial that has two lanes west of 20th Avenue, four lanes from 20th Avenue to Elm
Street, five lanes from Elm Street to Heritage Blvd along the northern boundary of the site,
three lanes from Heritage Blvd to East 40th Street and two lanes from 40th Street to US
12. There are three traffic signals on “A” Street where it crosses other principal arterial
roadways at Oregon Ave (SR 397), 4th Avenue and 10th Avenue.
• Heritage Blvd – is a two lane north-south local road with limited access between “A” Street
and US 12 with no stops. It is designated to become a principal arterial in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• US 12/I-182 – US 12 is designated an east-west expressway with two lanes in each direction
as it comes west across the Snake River. West of a grade separated interchange at Lewis
Street it becomes coincident with Interstate 182, continuing west through Pasco and into
Benton County. It widens to three lanes in each direction west of US 395.
With respect to existing traffic operations, results from the recently completed Comprehensive
Plan are discussed here. Traffic volumes collected by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments
(BFCOG) in 2018 were reviewed and evaluated at a planning level for both roadway segments and
intersection Levels of Service to identify potential areas of concern that may not meet city
standards. Capacities from the regional model were also used for each roadway. The resulting
roadway network volume to capacity ratios were calculated. Intersection approach volumes were
also examined and evaluated for two conditions. First, whether stop control is adequate when
comparing major street and minor street traffic volumes, comparing to a table included in the
Highway Capacity Manual (Intersection Control Type and Peak-Hour Volumes). Second, for
signalized intersections entering volumes were compared with entering capacity with an
intersection adjustment factor to account for the fact that two roadways must share the pavement
within the intersection.
As reported in the Comprehensive Plan, all functionally classified roads east of the railroad tracks
in Pasco function with good volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and Levels of Service, with only one
roadways having a V/C ratio greater than 0.70. Elsewhere in the City there is congestion over both
of the bridges from Pasco to Kennewick and in the vicinity of the US 395/I-182 interchange. The
Comprehensive Plan Update performed a planning level system wide evaluation of intersections
which identified four intersections in central and east Pasco that are currently unsignalized but
based on entering volumes may need improvements. These intersections include Heritage Blvd
at A Street, two intersections on Lewis Street and one on Oregon Avenue.
Ben Franklin Transit provides fixed route and on demand transit service to the City of Pasco and
the Tri-Cities area. In the vicinity of the Amendment area service is provided by Routes 64 and
3
65, each providing service every half hour throughout the day. Route 65 has stops on “A” Street
between Heritage Blvd and Terra Vida Lane while Route 64 has stops on “A” Street between Wehe
Avenue and Elm Avenue. Both routes provide transfer opportunities at the 22nd Avenue Transit
Center.
The City of Pasco has a network of facilities that serve bicycle and pedestrian needs. In the vicinity
of the proposed Amendment area, “A” Street has a sidewalk on the north side from Wehe Avenue
to East 40th Avenue. It also has bike lanes in each direction and a 9’ wide pathway on the south
side from Elm Street to East 40th Avenue.
There is an existing rail spur along the southern boundary of the New Heritage site that was
constructed to promote industrial development at this site as well as on the south side.
EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSAL
For each of the alternatives discussed below, a planning level analysis was performed using the
same methodology as was used in the preparation of Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan Analysis as described above. The methodology for forecasting future traffic
conditions for the four alternatives (including the No Action) is discussed below.
To assist with identifying future conditions, the BFCOG develops and maintains the regional travel
demand model. The model is a strategic planning tool that includes population and employment
forecasts, identified transportation projects and models future conditions across the region. The
outcome is a regional model that is adopted by the BFCOG Board, of which the City of Pasco is a
member.
The City of Pasco submitted to BFCOG updated population and employment forecasts, by
Transportation Analysis Zones that reflect the expanded Urban Growth Area and land uses
associated with the Comprehensive Plan. An updated traffic volume forecast using the regional
travel demand model was prepared. This effort ensures that the Land Use Element and the
Transportation Element are consistent for the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The results
of the refined regional model provide insights and better understanding as to how the
transportation network will function with the increase in population and employment. Of note
for this current Traffic Analysis for the New Heritage site is that the Regional Travel Demand Model
assumed no additional development on the site during the planning horizon of the
Comprehensive Plan. Nor did the regional travel demand model include any trips associated with
the two large, proposed distribution facilities.
4
A similar analysis to that of existing conditions was performed using the traffic volume forecasts
of the Comprehensive Plan to evaluate both roadway segments and intersections to determine
where capacity needs are anticipated based on the land uses built into the regional model.
Similar to the existing condition roadway volume to capacity ratios (V/Cs) are good, with the only
segment in central and east Pasco with a V/C ratio greater than 0.70 being the westbound on -
ramp from Lewis Street to US 12. The long-range analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, within the
area shown in Figure A-1 above, indicates 11 existing intersections with STOP control that may
likely need improvements to provide acceptable Levels of Service. These improvements could be
in the form of turn lanes or a higher level of traffic control such as a roundabout or traffic signal.
There are also 10 existing signalized intersections and one existing roundabout that are forecast
to be over capacity that may also need improvements in the form of additional lanes. These
results, for the Comprehensive Plan analysis for the area included in the maps at the end of this
appendix.
The trip generation assumptions of each of the four Alternatives are included in tables towards
the back of this appendix. Maps showing the results of the Volume to Capacity analysis as well
as the Intersection Control Analysis follow the tables at the back of this appendix as well.
Appropriate maps were prepared focusing on the area of impact of the New Heritage Site
including central and east Pasco.
The trips generated by each alternative were assigned to the roadway network using the same
trip distribution percentages. The percentages shown below in Table A-1 were estimated using
a cordon line around central and east Pasco and the existing traffic volumes crossing the cordon
line during the PM peak hour. Based on the location of the New Heritage the percentages of trips
using the Blue Bridge (US 395) and the Cable Bridge were adjusted to reflect an easier and less
congested route to Kennewick using the Cable Bridge. An additional 12 large blocks were also
designated in central and east Pasco to assign trips to this area as well, amounting to 23% of the
total trips.
5
TABLE A -1. TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
Cordon Line % In % Out
US 12 East of “A” Street 4 3
Kahlotus Hwy north of US 12 3 1
US 395 North of I-182 2 3
4th Ave North of I-182 2 1
Argent Rd west of 20th Avenue 3 5
I-182 west of US 395 25 24
Court Street west of US 395 6 5
Sylvester Street west of US 395 3 4
US 395 South (Blue Bridge) 5 8
10th Ave South (Cable Bridge) 24 23
Central/East Pasco 23 23
Total 100% 100%
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
To evaluate the effects of the alternatives an evaluation of the No Action Alternative must also be
performed.
To evaluate the New Heritage site under the No Action alternative, the land use changes in the
regional model were examined and it was found that no additional development was assumed on
this site. Thus, to evaluate the No-Action alternative trip generation and distribution needed to
be performed for this scenario as well, assuming the site were to develop as light industrial.
Similarly, the Comprehensive Plan didn’t include trips associated with the two large, proposed
distribution facilities in the heritage vicinity.
Multiple industrial land uses are offered in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual 10th Edition. Many land uses are allowed under the current zoning, including
office, business park, manufacturing and light industrial. For the purposes of this analysis it was
assumed that General Light Industrial zoning for trip generation purposes. The resulting trips
would amount to approximately 1,235 PM peak hour trips with 13% of those inbound to the site
and 87% outbound. These trips were distributed to the roadway network serving the site using
the trip distribution percentages shown in Table A-1. The vast number of trips primarily headed
east-west on “A” Street and north-south on Heritage Blvd to US 12.
The results of the No Action Alternative analysis indicates that the westbound on ramp to US 12
will have a V/C ratio greater than 1.0. The results of the intersection analysis are shown in the
maps at the end of this appendix as well. There would be 13 intersections with STOP control that
would need improvements (2 more than the Comprehensive Plan), two of which are on “A” Street.
6
There are also 13 intersections with traffic signals that would need improvements as well, this
being three more than the Comprehensive Plan, two of which are on Court Street near US 395,
and the other one at “A” Street/ 4th Avenue. Important in all this evaluation is that such a large
percentage of the trips are going away from the Heritage site since the primary activity there is
employment.
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative a variety of land uses are proposed. For the purposes of this analysis, a
mixture of office space, business park, and retail in the form of restaurants, grocery and other
neighborhood shopping were evaluated and estimated to generate approximately 930 trips with
56% of trips inbound to the site. Specifics on the land uses and amount of development assumed
is included in the trip generation tables at the end of this appendix.
A similar evaluation as the No Action Alternative was performed with respect to V/C ratios and
intersection planning level analysis. Although the traffic volumes on the westbound on-ramp to
US 12 from Lewis Street are lower, the V/C would still indicate that this ramp may need to be
expanded. The intersection analysis resulted in the same 13 intersections currently STOP
controlled that would likely require improvements in order to achieve acceptable LOS (10 of which
are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. There are 13 existing traffic signals that would need
improvements, these are also the same 13 as shown in the No Action Scenario, and three more
than the Comprehensive Plan. Although the same intersections are identified as needing potential
improvements as the No Action scenario, it is important to note that the impacts for this
alternative may be less than those of the No-Action alternative for four reasons:
1. It generates fewer trips,
2. The directional split of inbound and outbound trips are more evenly distributed,
3. The mixed-use nature of the proposed development allows for more trips to be contained
on-site such as people that live and work within Heritage, or people that are able to live
and shop within the proposed development.
4. Proximity to the proposed large distribution facilities will be a benefit for both them and
the Heritage residents.
Transit and Bicycle/pedestrian features would be offered within the Heritage site. The existing rail
spur along the southern boundary would not likely be used on its north side but could still be
used on its south side.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative a variety of land uses are also proposed including a mixture of Office space,
business park, as retail in the form of restaurants, grocery and other neighborhood shopping were
7
evaluated. This alternative assumes about 235 more multi-family units as well as more commercial
and office space. The trip generation specifics are included in a table later and estimates that this
alternative would generate approximately 1,140 trips with 56% of trips inbound to the site.
A similar evaluation as the No Action alternative was performed with respect to V/C ratios and
intersection planning level analysis. The analysis was essentially identical to the results for the
Low Intensity alternative, indicating that 13 unsignalized intersections and 13 signalized
intersections would likely need improvements along with the westbound US 12 on-ramp from
Lewis Street.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The High Intensity Alternative also includes a variety of land uses with an additional 325 more
multi-family units as well as single family units and more retail and office space. The specific
assumptions are included in a table following the text of this appendix. This alternative is
estimated to generate approximately 1,315 trips with 57% of trips inbound to the site.
A similar evaluation as the other alternatives was performed with respect to V/C ratios and
intersection planning level analysis. The analysis resulted in the same 13 intersections currently
STOP controlled that would likely require improvements in order to achieve acceptable LOS. There
are 13 existing traffic signals that would need improvements, these are the same as the other
alternatives which also include 10 that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Although the
results are very similar at a planning level it should be noted that specific improvements at
intersections are not identified and that more detailed evaluation would need to be performed as
more detailed proposals are brought forward and more information is available.
MITIGATION MEASURES
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
As mentioned previously, the Regional Travel Demand Model used for preparation of the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan did not include development on the New
Heritage site, nor the site of the two proposed large distribution facilities, during the planning
period. Thus, mitigation for the No Action Alternative would include installation of 13 new traffic
signals or other capacity improvements, including 10 identified in the Comprehensive Plan, it
would also include reconstruction of 13 existing traffic signals to increase capacity, 10 of which
are included in the Comprehensive Plan. One existing roundabout would also need additional
capacity as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as ramp improvements at the Lewis Street
interchange.
8
LOW INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Although this alternative would require mitigation when compared to the existing Comprehensive
Plan, essentially needing three new traffic signals as well as ramp improvements at the Lewis Street
interchange, it is anticipated to require similar mitigation items as the No-Action Alternative.
MEDIUM INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
At a planning level perspective, the mitigation required for this alternative is the same as that for
the Low Intensity Alternative. In practice though, at the level of detail of this analysis, the
implementation of the improvements at the time of the improvement will likely be slightly more.
HIGH INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
At a planning level perspective, the mitigation required for this alternative is the same as that for
the Low Intensity Alternative. In practice though, at the level of detail of this analysis, the
implementation of the improvements at the time of the development will likely be slightly more.
TRIP GENERATION NO ACTION
Description
Land
Use
Codes Units
Rate
Weekday
Daily Traffic
PM
Peak
Period
Rate
% PM
In
% PM
Out
Expected
Units
(independe
nt variable)
Calculated
Daily Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Calculated
PM Trips
Based on
Average
Rate In Out
General Light Industrial 110 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 4.96 0.63 13% 87% 2134 10,587 1,345
175 1170
Source: ITE 10th Edition 2134 10587 1345 175 1170
Internal (8%)1059 134 14 94
Total External 9528 1211 161 1076
acres 196
sq ft 8,537,760
Floor Area Ratio 25%
sq of Industrial 2,134,440
in thousands 2134
TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE 1 - LOW INTENSITY
Description
Land
Use
Codes Units
Rate
Weekday
Daily
Traffic
PM
Peak
Period
Rate
% PM
In
% PM
Out
Expected
Units
(independe
nt variable)
Calculated
Daily Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Calculated
PM Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Passby
Percent
PM Trips
with Origin
or
Destination
outside
Heritage In Out
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 9.44 0.99 63% 37% 542 5,116 537 537
338 199
Multi Family Housing (Low-Rise) 220 Dwelling Units 7.32 0.56 63% 37% 252 1,845 141 141
89 52
Elementary School 520 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 19.52 1.37 45% 55% 205 4,002 281 281
126 154
General Office Building 710 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 9.74 1.15 16% 84% 20 195 23 23
4 19
Medical-Dental Office Building 720 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 34.80 3.46 28% 72% 2 70 7 7
2 5
Office Park 750 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 11.07 1.07 7% 93% 0 0 0 0
0 0
Business Park 770 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 12.44 0.42 46% 54% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shopping Center 820 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 37.75 3.81 48% 52% 0 0 0
34 0 0 0
Supermarket 850 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 106.78 9.24 51% 49% 7 747 65
36 41 21 20
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 112.18 9.77 62% 38% 0 0 43 0 0 0
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window 934 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 470.95 32.67 52% 48% 2 942 65 49 33 17 16
Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 945 Vehicle Fueling Positions 205.36 13.99 51% 49% 4 821 56 66 19 10 9
Source: ITE 10th Edition 1034 13738 1174 1082 607 474
85 66
522 408
Less Internal (14%)
Total Trips In/Out of Heritage
TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE 2 - MEDIUM INTENSITY
Description
Land
Use
Codes Units
Rate
Weekday
Daily
Traffic
PM
Peak
Period
Rate
% PM
In
% PM
Out
Expected
Units
(independe
nt variable)
Calculated
Daily Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Calculated
PM Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Passby
Percent
PM Trips
with Origin
or
Destination
outside
Heritage In Out
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Units 9.44 0.99 63% 37% 548 5,173 543 543
342 201
Multi Family Housing (Low-Rise) 220 Dwelling Units 7.32 0.56 63% 37% 480 3,514 269 269
169 99
Elementary School 520 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 19.52 1.37 45% 55% 205 4,002 281 281
126 154
General Office Building 710 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 9.74 1.15 16% 84% 41 399 47 47
8 40
Medical-Dental Office Building 720 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 34.80 3.46 28% 72% 3 104 10 10
3 7
Office Park 750 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 11.07 1.07 7% 93% 0 0 0 0
0 0
Business Park 770 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 12.44 0.42 46% 54% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shopping Center 820 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 37.75 3.81 48% 52% 0 0
34 0 0 0
Supermarket 850 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 106.78 9.24 51% 49% 15 1,602 139
36 89 45 43
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 112.18 9.77 62% 38% 0 0 43 0 0 0
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window 934 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 470.95 32.67 52% 48% 4 1,884 131 49 67 35 32
Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 945 Vehicle Fueling Positions 205.36 13.99 51% 49% 4 821 56 66 19 10 9
Source: ITE 10th Edition 1300 17499 1475 1324 738 585
103 82
635 503
Less Internal (14%)
Total Trips In/Out of Heritage
TRIP GENERATION ALTERNATIVE 3 - HIGH INTENSITY
Description
Land
Use
Codes Units
Rate
Weekday
Daily
Traffic
PM
Peak
Period
Rate
% PM
In
% PM
Out
Expected
Units
(independe
nt variable)
Calculated
Daily Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Calculated
PM Trips
Based on
Average
Rate
Passby
Percent
PM Trips
with Origin
or
Destination
outside
Heritage In Out
Single-Family Detached Housing 210 DU 9.44 0.99 63% 37% 618 5,834 612 612
385 226
Multi Family Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 7.32 0.56 63% 37% 736 5,388 412 412
260 152
Elementary School 520 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 19.52 1.37 45% 55% 205 4,002 281 281
126 154
General Office Building 710 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 9.74 1.15 16% 84% 42 409 48 48
8 41
Medical-Dental Office Building 720 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 34.80 3.46 28% 72% 2 70 7 7
2 5
Office Park 750 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 11.07 1.07 7% 93% 0 0 0 0
0 0
Business Park 770 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 12.44 0.42 46% 54% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shopping Center 820 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 37.75 3.81 48% 52% 16 604 61
34 40 19 21
Supermarket 850 1,000 sq Ft. GFA 106.78 9.24 51% 49% 11 1,175 102
36 65 33 32
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 112.18 9.77 62% 38% 2 224 20 43 11 7 4
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window 934 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA 470.95 32.67 52% 48% 2 942 65 49 33 17 16
Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market 945 Vehicle Fueling Positions 205.36 13.99 51% 49% 4 821 56 66 19 10 9
Source: ITE 10th Edition Total Trips 1638 19468 1663 1529 867 660
121 92
746 568
Less Internal (14%)
Total Trips In/Out of Heritage
N 3RD
AVE
E A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
EAINSWORTHAVE
N
C
O
MME
R
CI
A
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
0.410.640.470.131
1.01
0.42
0.96 1.050.630.780.57
0.391.251.62 0.24
0.07
0.56
0.12
0.4
0.29
0.480.370.21
0.33
0.32
0.10.16
0.54
0.910.231.020.4900.720.380.70.580.05 0.340.97
1.190.140.55
0.
1
9
0.
3
6
0.750.86
0.7
4
0.730.
1
8
1.440.71
0.3
0.350.890.080.
1
7
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
COMP PLAN
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY RATIO
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Volume to Capacity Ratio (1 Hour) (0.50)
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
N 3RD
AVE
E A STN 24TH AVEW CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS4
TH A V ES 10TH AVEW A ST
EAINSWORTHAVE
N
C
O
MME
R
C
I
A
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage0.850.57
0.01
0.71
0.670.660.490.58
0.15
1.05
1.09
0.7
0.98 1.060.650.81.14
0.612.05
0.44
0.50.56
1.281.7
0.27
0.07
0.18
0.29
1.82
0.240.480.32
0.36 0.03
0.510.26
0.38
0.81
0.780.190.880.69
0.990.93
0.920.250.14
0.91
1.84
0.770.54
1.
0
7
0.39
1.03
0.350.41
0.02
0.060.160.310.370.471.04 0.720
.
9
6
0.42
0.13
0.430.82
0.090.120.590.34 0.530.550.08
0.31.02
1.190.620.460.73
0.
20.680.211.4
3
0.740.2210.05
0.
1
7
1.470.4 0.90.10.52
0.11
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
2040 NO ACTION
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY RATIO
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Volume to Capacity Ratio (1 Hour) (0.50)
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
N 3RD
AVE
E A STN 24TH AVEW CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
EAINSWORTHAVE
N
C
O
MME
R
C
I
A
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage0.850.550.630.01
0.650.480.80.810.170.76
0.58
1.03
0.1
1.09
0.56 0.661.05
0.791.14
0.612.05
0.430.521.320.571.66 0.26
0.08
0.150.920.49
0.3
1.82
0.380.240.410.32
0.29 0.03
0.51
0.35
0.34
0.78
0.19
0.62
0.93
0.251.060.14
0.91
1.84
0.670.54
1.07
0.390.360.070.020.310.720.370.471.04 0.710
.
9
6
0.42
0.13
0.82
0.270.090.120.590.440.060.99
1.20.4
0.16
0.
20.680.
4
6
0.84
0.211.1
0.740.2310.05
1.50.75 0.890.110.
1
8
0.5
0.94
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 1
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY RATIO
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Volume to Capacity Ratio (1 Hour) (0.50)
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
N 3RD
AVE
E A STN 24TH AVEW CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
SMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
EAINSWORTHAVE
N
C
O
MME
R
C
I
A
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage0.550.38
0.01
0.69
0.650.480.770.66
0.62
1.03
0.1
1.09
0.58 0.671.05
0.81.14
0.612.05
0.49
0.44
0.450.520.56
1.320.571.67 0.26
0.08
0.15
0.51
0.3
1.82
0.410.240.32
0.29 0.03
0.36
0.35
0.79
0.780.190.920.63
0.93
0.251.060.14
0.91
1.84
0.54
1.07
0.4 0.39
0.02
0.160.310.720.370.471.04 0.710
.
9
6
0.42
0.13
0.82
0.07
0.270.810.090.590.34
0.460.060.99
1.20.430.95
0.
20.680.85
0.211.1
6
0.740.2310.05
0.
1
7
1.50.75 0.890.120.
1
8
0.5
0.11
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 2
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY RATIO
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Volume to Capacity Ratio (1 Hour) (0.50)
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
N 3RD
AVE
E A STN 24TH AVEW CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
EAINSWORTHAVE
N
C
O
MME
R
C
I
A
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage 0.70.01
0.650.480.19
0.77
0.58
0.66
0.62
1.03
0.10.591.09
0.551.060.671.05
0.80.691.14
0.612.05
0.49 0.440.460.520.56
1.340.571.67 0.26
0.09
0.16
0.53
0.3
1.82
0.430.240.32
0.38 0.03
0.36
0.35
0.79
0.780.15
0.930.64
0.990.920.250.14
0.91
1.84
0.750.54
1.07
0.4 0.390.080.020.310.720.370.471.04 0.710
.
9
6
0.42
0.13
0.82
0.07
0.270.810.60.34 0.50.06
1.20.
20.680.85
0.211.1
9
0.740.2310.05
0.
1
7
1.510.76 0.890.120.
1
8
0.51
0.95
0.11
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 3
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY RATIO
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Volume to Capacity Ratio (1 Hour) (0.50)
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
è è è è è è è
è
è
è
è
è
è
èèèè
è
è
èè
è
è
èèè
èè èè
èèèè
è
è è
è è
è
è
èééé é é é é
é
é
é
é
é
é
éééé
é
é
éé
é
é
ééé
éé éé
éééé
é
é é
é é
é
é
éëëëë ë ë ë ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ëë
ë
ë
ëëë
ëë ëë
ëëëë
ë
ë ë
ë ë
ë
ë
ëìììì ì ì ì ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ìììì
ì
ì
ìì
ì
ì
ììì
ìì ìì
ìììì
ì
ì ì
ì ì
ì
ì
ìíííí í í í í
í
í
í
í
í
í
íííí
í
í
íí
í
í
ííí
íí íí
íííí
í
í í
í í
í
í
í
!!
!!!!
!!
!
""
""""
""
"
$$
$$$$
$$
$N 3RD
AVES CEDAR AVEN 24TH AVEE A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS 4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
PASC
O
K
A
HL
O
T
U
S
R
D
E AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
NCO
M
M
E
R
CIA
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
EXISTING
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Existing Intersection Control
!"$All Way Stop
Roundabout
èéëìí Signalized
Street Classification
Interstate
Other Freeway
Principle Arterial
Principal Arterial,Future
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector, Future
Ramps
3/29/2022
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
è è è è è è è
è
è
èèèè
è
è
è
è èè
è èè
èèèè
è
è è
è è
è
èééé é é é é
é
é
éééé
é
é
é
é éé
é éé
éééé
é
é é
é é
é
éëëë ë ë ë ë
ë
ë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë
ë ëë
ë ëë
ëëëë
ë
ë ë
ë ë
ë
ëììì ì ì ì ì
ì
ì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì
ì ìì
ì ìì
ìììì
ì
ì ì
ì ì
ì
ìííí í í í í
í
í
íííí
í
í
í
í íí
í íí
íííí
í
í í
í í
í
í
N 3RD
AVES CEDAR AVEN 24TH AVEE A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS 4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
PASC
O
K
A
HL
O
T
U
S
R
D
E AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
NCO
M
M
E
R
CIA
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
EVALUATION
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service
Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Over Capacity
Street Classification
Interstate
Other Freeway
Principle Arterial
Principal Arterial,Future
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector, Future
Ramps
3/29/2022
è è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
èé é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
éë ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ëì ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ìí í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
íèèè è è è
è
è
èèèè
è
è
è
è èè
è èè
èèèè
è
è
è è
è
é é é é é é
é
é
éééé
é
é
é
é éé
é éé
éééé
é
é
é é
é
ë ë ë ë ë ë
ë
ë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë
ë ëë
ë ëë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë ë
ë
ì ì ì ì ì ì
ì
ì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì
ì ìì
ì ìì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì ì
ì
í í í í í í
í
í
íííí
í
í
í
í íí
í íí
íííí
í
í
í í
í
N 3RD
AVES CEDAR AVEN 24TH AVEE A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS 4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
PASC
O
K
A
HL
O
T
U
S
R
D
E AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
NCO
M
M
E
R
CIA
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
2040 NO ACTION
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
EVALUATION
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service (7)
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed (15)
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service (0)
Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed (1)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service (29)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Over Capacity (13)
Street Classification
Interstate
Other Freeway
Principle Arterial
Principal Arterial,Future
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector, Future
Ramps
3/29/2022
è è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
é é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
éë ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ëì ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ìí í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
íèèè è è è
è
è
èèèè
è
è
è
è èè
è èè
èèèè
è
è
è è
è
é é é é é é
é
é
éééé
é
é
é
é éé
é éé
éééé
é
é
é é
é
ë ë ë ë ë ë
ë
ë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë
ë ëë
ë ëë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë ë
ë
ì ì ì ì ì ì
ì
ì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì
ì ìì
ì ìì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì ì
ì
í í í í í í
í
í
íííí
í
í
í
í íí
í íí
íííí
í
í
í í
í
N 3RD
AVES CEDAR AVEN 24TH AVEE A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS 4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
PASC
O
K
A
HL
O
T
U
S
R
D
E AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
NCO
M
M
E
R
CIA
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 1
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
EVALUATION
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service (7)
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed (15)
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service (0)
Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed (1)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service (29)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Over Capacity (13)
Street Classification
Interstate
Other Freeway
Principle Arterial
Principal Arterial,Future
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector, Future
Ramps
3/29/2022
è
è
è
è
è è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
é é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
éë ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ëì ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ìí í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
íèèè è è è
è
è
èèèè
è
è
è
è èè
è èè
èèèè
è
è
è è
è
é é é é é é
é
é
éééé
é
é
é
é éé
é éé
éééé
é
é
é é
é
ë ë ë ë ë ë
ë
ë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë
ë ëë
ë ëë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë ë
ë
ì ì ì ì ì ì
ì
ì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì
ì ìì
ì ìì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì ì
ì
í í í í í í
í
í
íííí
í
í
í
í íí
í íí
íííí
í
í
í í
í
N 3RD
AVES CEDAR AVEN 24TH AVEE A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS 4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
PASC
O
K
A
HL
O
T
U
S
R
D
E AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
NCO
M
M
E
R
CIA
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 2
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
EVALUATION
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service (7)
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed (15)
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service (0)
Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed (1)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service (29)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Over Capacity (13)
Street Classification
Interstate
Other Freeway
Principle Arterial
Principal Arterial,Future
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector, Future
Ramps
3/29/2022
è è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
è
èé é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
é
éë ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ëì ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
ìí í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
í
íèèè è è è
è
è
èèèè
è
è
è
è èè
è èè
èèèè
è
è
è è
è
é é é é é é
é
é
éééé
é
é
é
é éé
é éé
éééé
é
é
é é
é
ë ë ë ë ë ë
ë
ë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë
ë ëë
ë ëë
ëëëë
ë
ë
ë ë
ë
ì ì ì ì ì ì
ì
ì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì
ì ìì
ì ìì
ìììì
ì
ì
ì ì
ì
í í í í í í
í
í
íííí
í
í
í
í íí
í íí
íííí
í
í
í í
í
N 3RD
AVES CEDAR AVEN 24TH AVEE A ST
W CLAR
K
S
T N 1ST
AVEN OREGON
AVE
W PEARL ST
W COURT ST
E LEWIS ST
S WEHE AVESMAITLANDAVEHERI
TAGEBLVDS 4THAVES 10TH AVEW A ST
PASC
O
K
A
HL
O
T
U
S
R
D
E AI
N
S
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
NCO
M
M
E
R
CIA
L
A
V
E
New
Heritage
182
182
395
395
12
12
12
397
397
COLUMBIA
RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 3
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
EVALUATION
¯
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service (7)
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed (15)
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service (0)
Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed (1)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service (29)
èéëìíSignalized Intersection, Over Capacity (13)
Street Classification
Interstate
Other Freeway
Principle Arterial
Principal Arterial,Future
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector, Future
Ramps
3/29/2022
30-19-079/New Heritage
APPENDIX B
New Heritage
Site
Economic/Industrial Analysis
1
Addendum to New Heritage Site Economic/Industrial Analysis
Purpose
The purpose of this addendum is to provide a high-level understanding of the housing market in Franklin
County and neighboring Benton County as well as the economic implications related to extended
commute times. This analysis is an overview and requires a more in-depth analysis to gain insights into
the significant challenges that face the region. Like most things, housing needs differ depending upon
income levels and overall housing availability. This analysis hopes to provide decision makers a high-
level understanding of housing trends and affordability in the two-county region.
Data & Analysis
New 2020 Census data has become available since the submittal of the New Heritage Site
Economic/Industrial Analysis. According to Census 2020, population in Pasco increased at an annual rate
of 2.6% from 2010 to 2020, adding roughly 17,300 people to the population base during that time. For
comparison, population growth within Franklin County averaged 2.2% annually during the same time
period with Pasco contributing the most to the County’s growth. With 96,749 people, Franklin County is
the 14th most populated county in the State of Washington out of 39 counties (2020 Census).
Figure 1. Population Trends & Annual Growth Rate (2010-2020)
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Annual Population Growth Rate (line graph)Population (bar graph)Benton County (population)Franklin County (population)Benton County
Franklin County Kennewick Pasco
Richland
2
Commuting Patterns
Commuting data show the movement of workers in a given area. We are able to take a deeper
dive to highlight what type of workers are commuting into Franklin County and the type of jobs
residents are seeking elsewhere. These data show the opportunities in the untapped segments
of the labor pool.
According to Census’ LEHD on the Map program (2019 data is the most recent data available),
three-quarters of Pasco residents commute outside the area for work. Despite this, there is a
cross-haul of workforce — as many are coming into Pasco to work as are leaving (see Figure 2).
Roughly 69% of the jobs in Pasco are being filled by people who live outside the city.
Figure 2. Commuter Flows, City of Pasco (2019)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
However, as the geographic boundary broadens, less residents commute outside the area for
work (Table 1). More Franklin County residents commute outside the county for work than
Benton County residents, where the larger concentration of jobs are located (see Figure 3). In
addition, 32% of housing units in Benton and Franklin counties have zero or only one vehicle (the share
is slightly higher in Benton). This makes it more challenging for residents to get to work.
3
Table 1. Commuting Flows by Geographic Area (2019)
Geographic Area Living and
Working in Area
Living in Area
but Working
outside
Employed in Area but
Living outside
(% of jobs)
City of Pasco 24% 76% 69%
Franklin County 32% 68% 62%
Benton County 61% 39% 40%
Kennewick-Richland
MSA 74% 26% 25%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
Figure 3. Where Jobs are Concentrated, Kennewick-Richland MSA (2019)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
4
Figure 4. Where Residents Live, Kennewick-Richland MSA (2019)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
Table 2. Commuting Distances by Geographic Area (2019)
How far are residents commuting?
How far are workers commuting
into the Area?
Pasco
Franklin
County
Benton
County
Kennewick-
Richland
MSA Pasco
Franklin
County
Benton
County
Kennewick-
Richland
MSA
Less than 10
miles 65% 59% 62% 61% 67% 57% 65% 63%
10 to 24
miles 9% 14% 13% 13% 9% 14% 11% 12%
25 to 50
miles 8% 9% 7% 8% 6% 10% 6% 7%
Greater than
50 miles 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 19% 18% 18%
5
Table 3. Place of Residence and Work (2019)
Where
Residents Work
Where Workers
Live
Richland 29% 17%
Kennewick 20% 21%
Pasco 14% 18%
Prosser 2% 1%
West Richland --- 5%
Other 35% 38%
Housing has become less affordable in recent years in Benton & Franklin counties. The housing
affordability index (HAI) has a value of 100 when the median-income family has sufficient income to
purchase a median-priced existing home. A higher index number indicates that more households can
afford to purchase a home. In 3Q 2021, the composite HAI for Franklin County was 114.1, indicating that
the typical household had 114.1 percent of the income necessary to purchase the typical home. This is
down from 139.0 in 3Q 2017, indicating that housing has become less affordable in the region, similar to
many markets across the country.
Figure 5. Housing Affordability Index - All Homebuyers
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2017-Q12017-Q22017-Q32017-Q42018-Q12018-Q22018-Q32018-Q42019-Q12019-Q22019-Q32019-Q42020-Q12020-Q22020-Q32020-Q42021-Q12021-Q22021-Q3Benton & Franklin Counties HAI: All Buyers Franklin County HAI: All Buyers
Washington State HAI: All Buyers
6
It is important to understand the composition of population and the social dynamics that result in for
housing demand. Pasco is a young area with a median age of only 29, compared to nearly 38 across the
state and nation. It also has a heavily concentrated Hispanic population (34%, compared to 13.7%
statewide and 18.7% nationwide) which addresses different housing needs—the need for multi-
generational housing. For example, there are approximately 28,000 households in Franklin County
(22,700 residing in Pasco) with an average household size of 3.3 people per household (in owner-
occupied units), compared to 2.65 statewide. Renter-occupied units is higher at 3.46 people per
household compared to statewide at a lower rate of 2.37.
There are approximately 18,700 (69%) households that own their own homes and 9,500 households
(31%) that rent. The rental vacancy rate has been trending downward in Franklin County reaching as low
as 2.3% in 2019 (EWU). During the same time, the share of renters paying 30% or more of their income
on housing has remained steady at 42.7% (similar to the region and state) and renters paying 50% or
more of their income has trended downward, sitting at 16.2% in Franklin County, compared to 20.5%
statewide.
Figure 6. Overall Rental Vacancy Rate
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
With rents on the rise, the share of renters spending 50% or more on housing costs is trending upward
in the tri-cities area and more than statewide and national trends—see Figure 8. However, there
appears to be a healthy supply of housing below $80,000 which helps alleviate some strain on housing
constraints (Figure 9).
2.3%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States Washington State Benton & Franklin Counties
Benton County Franklin County
7
Figure 7. Monthly Fair Market Rent, Benton & Franklin counties
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
Figure 8. Share of Renters Paying 50%+ of Income on Housing
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Efficiency Rent Fair Market Two-Bedroom Fair Market Three-Bedroom
Fair Market Four-Bedroom Fair Market One-Bedroom
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
United States Washington State Benton & Franklin Counties
Benton County Franklin County Kennewick
Pasco Richland
8
Figure 9. Housing Supply by Price Level, Benton & Franklin counties
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
Limited inventory coupled with increasing median home prices; developers cannot keep up with
demand. The level of building permits—both single-family and multi-family—have been on the rise but
not enough to keep up with demand.
Figure 10. Total Number of Residential Building Permits
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
The disparity between wages and home prices is an increasing problem across the country. The tri-cities
is no different. Although median wages jumped 5.3% in one year (from 2019-2020), home prices jumped
roughly 15%. Wages remain under state and national averages. Until 2020, wages have not kept up with
increases in the cost of living.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
2019-Q12019-Q22019-Q32019-Q42020-Q12020-Q22020-Q32020-Q42021-Q12021-Q22021-Q3Month's Supply Below $80,000 Month's Supply $80,000 to $159,999
Month's Supply $160,000 to $249,999 Month's Supply $250,000 to $500,000
937 781 897 840 798 825 952 848 942 1082 1125
322
346 197
90 144 243
405
263
343
458 220
636
558
374
245 280
396
496
609
616
574
620
127
12
157
130 42
0
34
89
0
27
0
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Benton County - Total Single Family Units Benton County - Total Multi-family Units (2+)
Franklin County - Total Single Family Units Franklin County - Total Multi-family Units (2+)
9
Figure 11. Median Hourly Wages
Source: Washington Employment Security Department
Figure 12. Metro Area Regional Price Parity (Cost of Living Index)
Source: Eastern Washington University, Benton-Franklin Trends
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
$18.00
$20.00
$22.00
$24.00
$26.00
$28.00
$30.00
$32.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
State State excluding King County Benton Franklin
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland MSA Boise MSA Spokane MSA
10
Conclusion
The cost of commuting disproportionately affects low-income workers. With over half the workers and
half the residents in Franklin County earning less than $40,000 per year, larger commutes put more of a
strain on the community as people with lower incomes typically drive farther to work and spend more
out of pocket.
In economics, two basic principles characterize the role of transportation in relation to economic
activity. First, there are special advantages, usually referred to as "economies of agglomeration," to
carrying out economic activities in close proximity. In other words, costs are lower when certain types of
activities locate close to each other. Transportation is, therefore, critical—anything that reduces
transportation costs would allow a higher concentration of production, resulting in larger benefits from
agglomeration.
Second, local wages and housing prices adjust at every location so that households and firms do not
have an incentive to move; that is, wages and land prices should adjust until households and firms are
indifferent between locations. When choosing where to live, individuals consider several factors, such as
job opportunities, housing options, social networks, and commuting costs. Some people might choose to
live far away from jobs, possibly accepting a costlier commute, because they would be compensated, in
effect, by other factors such as lower housing costs.
A very specific trade-off between commuting costs and land prices emerges as a result: At locations near
employment centers, commuting costs are low and land prices are high; at more distant locations,
commuting costs are higher and land prices are lower.
In most MSAs across the country, the suburbs are of higher income status and the central cities are
relatively poor. The reasons are twofold: First, the larger financial costs associated with owning a car
may cause lower-income families to rely on other modes of transportation, such as public transit; and
second, public transit is more accessible in central cities than in suburbs. As a consequence, any shift of
jobs away from central activity hinders labor market prospects for minorities.
Rising rental costs with low vacancy rates and high levels of low-income residents, coupled with high
home prices and overall higher cost of living in the tri-cities region is a recipe for mitigating factors such
as job creation in the central business district to reduce overall commuting costs for low-income and
minority residents.