HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.20 PC Meeting PacketAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
Please silence your cell phones. Thank you.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE
III. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• Meeting Minutes from September 18, 2025, meeting
VI. OLD BUSINESS
None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
VIII. WORKSHOP
• CPA2025-001 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Pasco School District #1 Capital
Facilities Plan Adoption
• CPA2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
• Director Items
X. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 3
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Dana Crutchfield, and
Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Rosa Torres, Rachel Teel, Jay Hendler
Staff Present: C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick
DECLARATIONS
Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
No declarations were heard.
Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any
of the items on the agenda.
No declarations were heard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Lehrman motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 21,
2025. Commissioner Waites seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
WORSHOP
• Comprehensive Plan Climate Element Overview Presentation by Cascadia Consulting Group
Key points of the presentation:
• Introduction to the Regional Effort
The Tri-Cities region is collaborating on a climate strategy to reduce emissions and address
natural hazards, with support from the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and input
from a community-based Climate Policy Advisory Team.
• State Requirements for Climate Planning
Under HB 1181, jurisdictions must add a climate element to their comprehensive plans,
including resilience and greenhouse gas reduction components. The Tri-Cities Regional
Climate Element will meet GMA and HB 1181 requirements, be data- and community-
informed, align with other plans, and provide a clear, feasible path for implementation
supported by staff and the community.
Page 2 of 3
• Climate Element – Key Components
Cities must include emissions reduction and resilience components in their plans—one to cut
greenhouse gases and vehicle miles, and another to address climate impacts like flooding, heat,
smoke, and wildfires.
• High-level Key Findings
Extreme heat, wildfire and smoke; extreme precipitation, and drought.
• Snapshot of the Draft Goals & Policies
The overarching goal supports both resilience and emissions reduction by strengthening staff
capacity, aligning with state tracking requirements, and basing implementation on sound
science. Resilience goals are addressed by wildfire mitigation, water conservation, ecosystem
protection, low-emission economic growth, and public health preparedness. Emissions
reduction goals focus on improving building efficiency, promoting mixed-use and active
transportation, and expanding regional waste reduction efforts.
• Next Steps
August-October: Council and Commission presentation
September 23 & 29: Public Meetings
September: CPAT Meeting final draft policies
September-October: Public review period
October31: Final Regional Climate Element
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commission Crutchfield expressing concern about how promoting higher-density, mixed-use, and
multimodal development will impact congestion and whether it will meaningfully reduce climate impacts.
She noted the importance of addressing fire risks, appreciated the city’s expansion of bike trails, and
emphasized maintaining some regulatory boundaries to help manage related challenges.
Commissioner Jones asked about funding for this project to be completed within the city. Craig Raymond
answered that staff will continue monitoring potential funding sources and creatively explore opportunities
that align with the various goals, policies, and projects outlined in the plan. His next comment was made
expressing concern about the frequent mention of natural gas in the plan, noting its political sensitivity and
suggesting caution to avoid any perception of political bias or motive. Lastly, regarding the need to
strengthen waste reduction, reuse, and recycling efforts. He noted that Pasco has only one waste collection
provider and suggested exploring ways to motivate the company to go beyond minimum requirements to
better support sustainability goals.
Commissioner Lehrman highlighting the importance of considering both water quantity and quality in local
planning. With a background in agriculture, she noted issues such as toxic algae blooms and invasive species
affecting regional waterways and suggested using the term “water availability” instead of “drought” to better
capture these broader concerns. She also asked if the local school districts were contacted for feedback.
Chair Cochran expressed strong concern about the length and regulatory nature of the proposed policies. He
noted that many of the policies appear duplicative of existing ones and cautioned that additional regulations
could place significant burdens on taxpayers and developers. He also expressed skepticism that Pasco’s
voters or City Council would support such measures, suggesting that Franklin County’s more limited
approach may be more appropriate.
Commissioner Crawford expressed concern that many of the proposed development and land use policies
Page 3 of 3
could increase costs for builders, developers, and homebuyers. He stressed that housing affordability is one
of Pasco’s biggest challenges and cautioned that aligning too closely with policies modeled after western
Washington could further strain affordability and conflict with local priorities.
Commissioner Waites noted that air quality has worsened in recent years and urged the plan to address local
factors beyond wildfire smoke and vehicle emissions, reflecting the region’s rural travel patterns and unique
conditions.
OTHER BUSINESS
CED Director Haylie Miller inquired whether members are interested in receiving meeting materials
electronically via iPad rather than in paper format. The goal is to transition to paper-free operations for
convenience and reduce printing. The plan is to begin with a small group (four members) and expand
gradually as budget allows. Funding availability will be reviewed since the current budget was adopted prior
to the idea being introduced.
She also announced a new comprehensive plan outreach strategy led by consultants, featuring a simple
“show-to-go” box with easy-to-understand materials about Pasco’s 20-year vision. The approach focuses on
engaging community leaders (e.g., churches, Rotary, HOAs, neighborhood leaders—including recent
annexation opponents) to reach groups that don’t typically attend public meetings. Plan: hold a leaders’
meeting, send attendees back to their groups with the box and a short questionnaire (e.g., what residents
want/don’t want in their neighborhoods, views on nearby corner stores), and compile the feedback. Staff are
available to visit groups at various times. Council/committee members are asked to email Carmen by next
week with names of community leaders—or to volunteer themselves—to be added to the outreach list.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner
Lehrman, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFKxX_TOIw&t=20s
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Raymond, Deputy Director, CED
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment (CPA 2025-001) – Pasco School
District Capital Facilities Plan Adoption
File Number: CPA 2025-001
Applicant: Pasco School District No. 1 (PSD)
Description: Adoption of Capital Facilities Plan
Environmental
Determination Determination of Non-Significance, issued March 11, 2025
Background
Pasco School District No. 1 (PSD) recently adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan that is
intended to accomplish a number of things. The plan identifies District Capital Facility
accomplishments, student enrollment trends, community growth projections and financial needs
for future capital projects. Until March of 2025, the most recent adoption of an amended plan
was in 2022.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan must remain consistent with the capital planning efforts of local
service providers, including the Pasco School District. The Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan is required to be maintained and periodically updated to ensure alignment
with the City’s adopted budget and to accurately reflect planned improvements for public
facilities, including schools
Discussion
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, comprehensive plans and their implementing development
regulations must be reviewed and, if necessary, amended to maintain internal consistency and
alignment with capital facility planning and financing. Similarly, PMC 25.215 establishes the
procedures and criteria for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including provisions for
emergency amendments necessary to ensure consistency with adopted capital facility programs
and ordinances. Identifying school facilities as necessary to support development is a prerequisite
for the City’s continued imposition of school impact fees as a funding mechanism for the Pasco
School District. Without this identification, the City cannot legally collect these fees. Through
Ordinance No. 4774, adopted on June 16, 2025, the City previously updated school impact fees
2
to reflect the PSD’s most recent Capital Facilities Plan. This amendment ensures that the Capital
Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan remains consistent with both state law and the
City’s adopted ordinances.
General Approval Criteria
Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(8)(c), The City may approve Comprehensive Plan
amendments if it finds that:
(i) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
(ii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A
RCW and with the portion of the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the
amendment;
(iii) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
(iv) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
In addition, per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(9) The City must also consider the following
factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments:
(a) The effect upon the physical environment;
(b) The effect on open space and natural features including, but not limited to,
topography, streams, rivers, and lakes;
(c) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
(d) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public
transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
(e) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density
and the demand for such land;
(f) The current and projected project density in the area; and
(g) The effect, if any, upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is an analysis of these criteria:
1. Does the proposed amendment bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment?
The PSD Capital Facilities Plan is intended to directly support the health, safety and welfare
of the community through building the necessary infrastructure necessary to support the
District’s standard of service.
2. 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?
Yes. The adoption of the emergency amendment is intended to maintain timely updates that
reflect emerging trends and maintaining consistency across various PSD and City plans and
goals.
3
3. Does the proposed amendment correct a mapping error?
The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error.
4. Does the proposed amendment address a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed amendment is intended to address new PSD Capital Facility needs and
financing requirements and to ensure that City Ordinances are supported by the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. What are the effects on the physical environment, including open space and natural
features?
This is a non-projection proposal. Effects will be determined on a project specific basis
if/when plans are brought forward for necessary permits and approvals.
6. What is the compatibility and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods?
This is a non-projection proposal. Effects will be determined on a project specific basis
if/when plans are brought forward for necessary permits and approvals.
7. What are the impacts on public facilities, and utilities, transportation system, parks,
recreation, and public schools?
PSD Capital Facilities Plan is intended to identify “the District’s standard of service, an
inventory of facilities, capacity by grade span, a six year enrollment forecast, facility needs
and costs, a finance plan and calculation of the school impact fees.”
8. What is the effect on other components of the adopted Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed amendment will not adversely impact utility or public service plans.
Public and Agency Comment
The Pasco School District No. 1 acted as lead agency on the SEPA Determination on Non-
Significance which was issued on March 11, 2025.
Recommendation
Staff welcomes discussion from the Planning Commission and recommends approval of the
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Issued with a 14-day comment period
Description of Proposal:
This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following
actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single course of action:
1. The adoption of the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 by the
Pasco School District No. 1 for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District; and
2. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Pasco to include the Pasco
School District’s Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each city’s
Comprehensive Plan. The potential amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of Franklin County to include
the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of
the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Proponent: Pasco School District No. 1
Location of the Proposal:
The Pasco School District includes an area of approximately 303.07 square miles. The City of
Pasco and a portion of Franklin County falls within the District's boundaries.
Lead Agency: Pasco School District No. 1
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS)
is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after a review of the completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available
to the public upon request.
This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) and PSD
Policy 92080. The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue.
Comments must be received by the District no later than by 4:00 p.m. on March 25, 2025. The
responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if
significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the
expiration of the comment deadline. There are no administrative appeals.
Responsible Official: Michelle Whitney, Superintendent
Pasco School District No. 1
Telephone: (509) 543-6700
Address: Pasco School District
1215 W. Lewis Street
Pasco, WA 99301
Date of Issue: March 11, 2025
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 1 of 26
March 2025
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Amanda Brown, President
Steve Simmons, Vice President
John Kennedy, Member
Steve Norberg, Member
Amy Phillips, Member
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
2025 UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SUPERINTENDENT
Michelle Whitney
Proposed CFP Scheduled for Review by the Pasco School Board
on February 11, 2025
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 2 of 26
March 2025
Section 6 Financing Plan ........................................ 14
Section 7 School Impact or Mitigation Fees .......... 15
Appendices
Appendix A—Charts & Supporting Data… ....... 17
Building Capacity ................................... 18
Building Condition Scores… .................. 20
Projected Enrollments ............................ 21
Needed Capacity ..................................... 22
Necessary Improvements & Costs… .... 23
Capital Facilities Financing Plan ............ 24
Appendix B—Impact Fee Calculations ............. 25
2025 Impact Fee… .................................. 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction ............................................... 3
Section 2 Program Standards ................................... 6
Section 3 Capital Facilities Inventory ....................... 8
Section 4 Enrollment Projections & Capacity ........ 11
Section 5 Capital Facilities Needs…………………..13
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 3 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the 2025 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan
The Pasco School District (the “District”) in 2011 first adopted a Capital Facilities Plan (the
“2011 CFP”) in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter
36.70A RCW (the “GMA”), and City of Pasco Ordinance 4046 (the “School Impact Fee
Ordinance”). The City of Pasco adopted the 2011 CFP on April 16, 2012, and adopted updates
to the CFP in 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2022.
Section 3.133.025 of the School Impact Fee Ordinance describes the elements that must be
addressed in the CFP. They include “the District’s standard of service, an inventory of facilities,
capacity by grade span, a six year enrollment forecast, facility needs and costs, a finance plan
and calculation of the school impact fees.” Once the CFP with these elements is adopted, the
Ordinance says “[t]he District shall file an update to its capital facility plan at least once every
two years.” And, “[a]t least once every two years, commencing on April 15, 2014, the City
Council shall review and consider the District submitted capital facilities plan update.” Following
the 2016 CFP, the District adopted an updated CFP in April 2018 and forwarded the 2018 CFP
update to the City of Pasco and Franklin County shortly thereafter. The City Council reviewed
but did not act on that update. The District subsequently submitted in 2019 and 2022 updated
CFPs to the City and the County, with the City subsequently adopting the 2019 and 2022 CFP.
Franklin County has yet to adopt a version of the District’s Capital Facilities Plan. The District
intends for this 2025 CFP update to replace the 2022 CFP for all purposes, including the
District’s compliance with the above requirements in the School Impact Fee Ordinance. The
2025 CFP update supplements and updates the core information in the 2011 CFP. The 2025
update also includes an updated calculation for the District’s school impact fees.
B. Changes in the Pasco School District
The District now serves approximately 18,523 students (Chart 3 herein – October 2024 reported
enrollment), an increase of approximately 200 students since 2022. Steady residential development
within the District’s boundaries continues. The latest demographics study prepared by the District
(Chart 3) projects that enrollment growth will continue at all grade levels over the six-year planning
period and beyond. Since 2021, the City of Pasco approved the construction of more than 1,000 new
single family units and approximately 35 multi-family units. There is also continuing plat activity in
the District’s boundaries within unincorporated Franklin County. The District continues to review
new residential development applications in Franklin County subject to SEPA review. Additional
SEPA-exempt residential development activity may also exist in Franklin County.
Over the past 12 years, the District has engaged in community-driven capital planning
activities intended to construct all the improvements that are required to serve existing
needs (including those from recent residential growth) and forecasted growth. These
activities include:
November 2013 bond: This bond was developed with several strategies to significantly reduce
the cost of the bond projects after the previous bond failed with a 48% yes vote in April 2011.
The Board engaged a community task force to provide recommendations regarding strategies
for handling enrollment growth. The task force considered multi-track/year-round options, and
recommended constructing additional elementary school capacity (vs. a middle school, which
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 4 of 26
March 2025
would have been a more expensive project) and that the District use the additional elementary
capacity to house 6th grade students at the elementary level instead of the middle level.
• The three elementary schools approved in the 2013 bond opened in the 2014-2015
school year (one school) and the 2015-2016 school year (two schools). The added
capacity allowed the District to complete the plan to transition to a K-6 and 7-8
grade configuration in 2015-2016.
November 2017 bond: The District’s voters in November 2017 approved a $99.5 million
bond measure with a 60.07% yes vote (approval of a bond requires 60% yes votes) to fund
two new elementary schools, a new Middle School #4, and the replacement and expansion
of Stevens Middle School. The District’s Community Builders Group recommended these
projects for the bond, with the understanding that the additional middle level capacity would
cause the district to transition 6th grade back to the middle school. These projects are now
complete and the District has moved back to a K-5 and 6-8 grade model.
February 2023 bond: In February 2023, the voters approved a $195.5 million bond
measure with yes votes of 60.91% to fund a new comprehensive high school (Sageview
High School), a smaller innovative high school (Orion High School), athletic field and facility
improvements, enhanced and modernized career and technical education spaces at
Chiawana and Pasco High Schools, and the purchase of land for additional schools.
Sageview and Orion High Schools are on track to open in the fall of 2025.
The District has continued to engage in cost-saving measures in facilities planning, and will
continue to use cost-reduction strategies and District construction standards to save taxpayer
dollars. Pasco School District’s construction costs have normally been lower than other school
construction costs around the State of Washington. Examples of cost-reduction strategies
includes the following:
• Use property already owned by the district for school sites;
• Use the updated Pasco design that has been built multiple times for Pasco schools,
thereby saving A/E, construction and maintenance costs;
• Curie and Whittier Elementary Schools share one playground, reducing the amount
of land to be purchased;
• Build larger elementary schools to reduce the total number needed and create
efficiencies in operations;
• Build schools to serve at least 50 years; and
• Maintain school buildings well to ensure they last several decades;
• Seek alternative sources of facilities funding such as grants or private donations;
• Relocate portable classrooms to locations where enrollment is growing in lieu of
purchasing additional portable classrooms, wherever possible.
The voters of Washington State passed Initiative 1351 in 2014. The initiative imposes class
size values as recommended by the Legislature’s Quality Education Council (QEC). The class
size requirements have been implemented in part and delayed in part. Under the Supreme
Court’s McCleary decision, the Legislature is under court order to fully fund basic K-12
education, including the K-3 class size reductions. Initiative 1351 class sizes are reflected in
Chart 1 and position the District for full legislative implementation.
The District implemented All-Day Kindergarten (ADK) in every elementary school in the 2015-
2016 school year. The District added portable classrooms to meet this requirement.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 5 of 26
March 2025
In Chart 2 in the Appendix, State scoring matrices show that Pasco School District is
effectively maintaining its schools as a community investment and asset, according to a third
party review. The schools’ adjusted maintenance score is significantly above its expected
score for the facility’s age, demonstrating effective maintenance by the district. These data
mean that they will last longer and be able to serve more students before needing to be
replaced.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 6 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
The District’s core and special program needs, which are used to define the standard of service,
are addressed in the 2011 Capital Facilities Plan. The District has implemented K-3 class size
reduction and All Day Kindergarten and is positioned to implement I-1351’s targets for grades 4-
12. Below is the District’s adopted educational program standards (or standard of service).
A. Elementary Educational Program Standards
The state is required to provide funding for a student-to-teacher ratio of 17-1 in grades K-3 (15-1
for high poverty schools), consistent with QEC recommendations, Initiative 1351, and McCleary.
The class size of 15-17 impacts all elementary schools.
Elementary Class Size Requirements-Initiative 1351
Grades K-3 Enacted by the Legislature
Grades 4-12 Implementation Delayed
Grade
Levels
Initiative 1351
Class Sizes
District Contract
Class Sizes
High-Poverty Schools Non-High Poverty Schools
K-1 15 17 21
2-3 15 17 24
4-5 25 26
4 22
5 23
Capt. Gray
Whittier
Robinson Livingston
Longfellow
Chess
Emerson
Frost
Twain
Curie
Franklin
McGee
Three Rivers
McClintock
Markham
Angelou
Columbia River
B. Middle and High School Program Standards
Secondary (Middle and High) school class size standards also are projected to be reduced to
levels set by Initiative 1351 with recommendations to be mandated under McCleary as noted
below.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 7 of 26
March 2025
Secondary Class Size Requirements-Initiative 1351
Grades K-3 Enacted by the Legislature
Grades 4-12 Implementation Delayed
Grade
Levels
Initiative 1351
Class Size
District Contract
Class Size
High-Poverty Schools Non-High Poverty Schools
6-8 23 25 30/145
per day
9-12 23 25 30/120
per day
Stevens MS
Ochoa MS
McLoughlin MS
Reynolds MS
Pasco HS
Chiawana HS
New Horizons HS
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 8 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
As described in the 2011 CFP, the District’s facilities inventory establishes a baseline for
determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at
acceptable levels of service. While the District has not added new permanent capacity since
the 2022 CFP, this 2025 CFP anticipates new high school permanent capacity opening in the
fall of 2025 at Sageview and Orion High Schools. The District will also move portables
between schools and grade levels as additional capacity is needed.
A. Capacity Calculation and Standard of Service
The District’s Board of Directors directed staff to conduct a comprehensive review of school
building capacity in 2017. The purpose of the review was to ensure consistent, reasonable
measures were being used to determine the capacity of each school building, and to provide a
safe and equitable standard of service for students throughout the school system.
Student safety has been a critical consideration for the District in determining this standard of
service. In 2014 and again in 2018, the District conducted a comprehensive safety review of
schools, including brick and mortar buildings and portable classrooms. It is the District’s goal to
house students in permanent facilities with controlled points of access, which can be best
accomplished by housing students in one contained brick and mortar building. Portable
classrooms will continue to be used as a temporary solution to provide student housing.
However, to achieve the desired standard of service to enhance student and staff safety,
portable classrooms should not be counted in the District’s permanent classroom inventory.
The state does not count portable classrooms when calculating a school district’s classroom
inventory for purposes of eligibility for state assistance for construction. In the 2011 CFP, the
District counted some portables into the permanent capacity calculation after consultation with
the City of Pasco. However, since 2017, the District’s CFP has not included portable
classrooms in calculating permanent capacity but still recognizes the capacity purpose. The
2025 CFP update carries forward the 2017 CFP methodology.
B. Elementary Schools
The District currently has seventeen (17) elementary schools serving grades K-5 and providing
capacity to serve 8,900 students in permanent capacity. As of October 1, 2024, there were
8,026 FTE elementary students enrolled.
Two new elementary schools, Columbia River Elementary School and Three Rivers
Elementary School, providing additional capacity for 1,288 elementary students, were
constructed and opened in the 2019 and 2020 school years, respectively.
As of the 2024-25 school year, there are 103 portable classrooms at the elementary schools
providing additional capacity to house 2,538 students.
The District purchased the former Pasco Senior Center and an adjacent vacant lot from the City
in 2016 for the purpose of the converting the building into an early learning facility. The District
pursued, and was granted, two capital appropriations from the state totaling $1.3 million dollars
to help offset the costs. The Early Learning Center opened in January 2018, with designated
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 9 of 26
March 2025
programs transitioned to the Center by September 2018. In addition, the District used ESSER
funds and impact fees to add capacity K-12 by purchasing and renovating 4403 W. Court
Street. These projects have allowed the District to provide additional capacity for K-5 students
in elementary buildings by relocating early learning classes from the elementary buildings to the
new facilities and adding capacity for online programs K-12.
C. Middle Schools
The District has four middle schools serving grades 6-8. The middle schools provide permanent
capacity to serve approximately 4,134 students. As of October 1, 2024, there were 4,255 FTE
students enrolled in those schools.
Reynolds Middle School and the replacement and expansion of Stevens Middle School added
permanent capacity for approximately 1,377 students in 2020 and 2021, respectively.
As of the 2024-25 school year, there are 48 portable classrooms at the middle schools
providing additional capacity to house 1,094 students. Since 2011, the District added eighteen
(18) new portable classrooms as temporary capacity at the middle school level. The District
plans to add portable capacity at the middle school level during the six years of this CFP
(either newly purchased or relocated from the elementary grade level).
D. High Schools
There are currently two traditional high schools serving grades 9-12. There is permanent
capacity in those schools to serve 4,156 students. As of October 1, 2024 there were 6,119 FTE
students enrolled in the high school program. Pasco High School has additional capacity to
serve students in 29 portable classrooms and Chiawana High School has additional capacity to
serves students in 32 portable classrooms.
New Horizons High School moved into a leased brick and mortar building on the Columbia
Basin College campus in 2017. The building capacity is 248. With New Horizons the
District has a total of 4,404 permanent capacity seats at the 9-12 level. The District
shares capacity at Delta, a STEM based high school with Kennewick and Richland School
Districts.
The opening of Sageview High School, with a capacity of 2,091, and Orion High School, with a
capacity of 594, will address existing capacity needs and provide capacity for future growth
needs.
E. Support Facilities
Bus parking has been expanded into the District’s maintenance lay-down yard at the Port of
Pasco property (Building 210). The District leased additional space from the Port to replace the
lost lay-down yard capacity, and is also leasing additional warehouse space. The November
2017 bond provided funding for expansion of transportation and maintenance facilities, which
is expected to be complete in December 2022.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 10 of 26
March 2025
F. Land Inventory
The District currently owns nine unimproved parcels, totaling approximately ±188 acres.
Site Name Tax Parcel(s) # Location/Cross Streets Acreage Status
Undeveloped A 115-180-042 Rd 108 & Burns Rd 70.18 Undeveloped
Undeveloped B 115-170-072 Burns Rd & Rd 90 13 Undeveloped
Undeveloped C 114-330-059
Burns/Powerline Rd & Rd
60 (N of Sageview HS) 14.32 In Progress
Undeveloped D
114-330-058, 114-
330-055 Clark & Rd 52 81.2 Undeveloped
Undeveloped F 119-121-307 Rd 44 & Court St 0.56 Undeveloped
Undeveloped G 112-152-300 7th Ave & Brown St 0.59 Undeveloped
Undeveloped H 113-501-070 Salt Lake & Utah 3.49 Undeveloped
Undeveloped I 123-200-133 4171 Elm Rd 5.1 Undeveloped
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 11 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
AND CAPACITY BY GRADE SPAN
A. Projected Student Enrollment
Since 2016, the District received and reviewed five enrollment forecasts. For purposes of the
2025 CFP Update, the District is relying on the comprehensive forecast prepared internally by
the District. The forecast considers recent trends, including enrollment anomalies occurring
during the Covid-19 pandemic, previous data provided by MGT of America and demographer
Paul Dennis, updated information provided by JUB Engineering, and information related to
known residential development data throughout the District’s boundaries. See Appendix, Chart
3.
In October 2011, there were 15,707 students enrolled in grades K-12. In October 2024, there
were 18,523 headcount students enrolled, which is an increase of 2,816 students. While the
global pandemic impacted enrollment in the fall of 2020 and for a short time thereafter, the
District’s enrollment has stabilized and steadily increased since 2022. By 2030, the forecast
predicts there will be 19,943 students enrolled in grades K-12, which is an additional 1,420
students over 2024. The District plans to watch enrollment closely and will update the CFP
accordingly. The District’s new high school capacity, opening in the fall of 2025, will help
address growth needs over the planning period of this CFP, and the District will need to add
permanent and temporary capacity at the elementary and middle school levels in order to serve
expected growth.
B. Capacity by Grade Span
Current enrollment at each grade level is identified in Chart 1, which provides the actual
FTE enrollment in District facilities as of October 1, 2024. Projected available student
capacity was derived by subtracting projected student 2030 enrollment (Chart 31) from total
existing October 2024 school capacity (Chart 1).
Enrollment in grades K-5 is expected to grow by approximately 755 students by 2030. Growth
at the K-5 level is expected to continue beyond the six year planning period. The recent
construction of Columbia River Elementary School and Three Rivers Elementary School
helped to provide needed capacity at the elementary school level for existing and growth
projected over the six-year planning period. The District plans over the six year planning
period to address continued elementary needs with a new-in-lieu Markham Elementary School
and converting that school to a K-8 program (and adding capacity at the elementary and
middle school level), and replacing and expanding Captain Gray, Livingston, and McGee
Elementary Schools.
Enrollment at the 6-8 level is projected to grow over the six year planning period and beyond,
with approximately 217 middle school students added by 2030. The construction of Reynolds
Middle School and the replacement/expansion of Stevens Middle School, along with grade
reconfiguration in 2015, helped to provide needed capacity to serve recent growth at the 6-8
level. However, growth at the middle school grade level has continued in recent years,
creating additional needs. The District will need to add capacity at the middle school level to
serve, existing student needs, growth expected by 2030, and growth expected beyond 2030.
In addition to the conversion to a K-8 and expansion of Markham Elementary School (as
1 Chart 3 uses headcount enrollment vs. full-time equivalent figures (used in Chart 1).
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 12 of 26
March 2025
discussed above), the District is planning to replace and expand McLoughlin Middle School
and build a new Middle School No. 5.
Enrollment in grades 9-12 is also forecasted for continued growth, adding nearly 448 students
by 2030. The new Sageview High School and Orion High School, planned to open in fall of
2025, will provide capacity to serve existing, recent, and future growth needs at the high school
level.
The current capacity in the existing schools and the capacity that is needed to serve forecast
growth through 2030 is shown on Chart 4 in the Appendix. Chart 4 does not consider
capacity additions planned through 2030 (including the planned 2025 opening of Orion and
Sageview High Schools) and beyond.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 13 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 5
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
To determine future facility needs, existing school program capacity was compared to
projected enrollment throughout the six-year forecast period. See Section 4.
In November 2017, the District’s voters passed a $99.5 million bond measure to help fund
the construction of two new elementary schools (Columbia River Elementary School and
Three Rivers Elementary School), a new middle school (Reynolds Middle School), the
expansion and replacement of Stevens Middle School, safety and health improvements at
various schools, and improvements to the District’s transportation and maintenance
facilities. In February 2023, the voters approved a $95.5 million bond measure funding the
construction of Sageview High School and Orion High School, both expected to open in
2025, athletic field and facility improvements at Pasco High School, enhanced and
modernized CTE spaces at Chiawana and Pasco High Schools, and the purchase of land
for additional schools. See Chart 5, Appendix. The 2023 bond projects are ongoing.
The opening of Sageview and Orion High Schools will address existing capacity needs as well
as providing available capacity to serve growth at the 9-12 level through the six-year planning
period. The District is now in the planning stage for adding elementary and middle school
capacity needed to serve existing and anticipated growth. Those projects are expected to
include the following: planning for a new Middle School No. 5, replacing and expanding
capacity at McLoughlin Middle School, replacing Markham Elementary School with expanded
capacity and converting that school to a K-8 program, and replacing and expanding Captain
Gray, Livingston, and McGee Elementary Schools. The District will also continue to seek to
acquire land for future school projects.
Portable classrooms will be used to provide temporary facilities while funding is secured to
construct brick and mortar facilities and while construction occurs over time. The new schools
and portable classrooms will provide the needed capacity identified in Section 4 above.
In addition to building schools that add capacity for growth, the District will make other
improvements to serve students. The improvements will be constructed in phases and cannot
occur until bonds are approved by the voters. The District will continue with long term facilities
planning efforts using community recommendations to identify which projects should be
prioritized.
The District will continue to plan for needs beyond 2030. Chart 5 includes estimated permanent
improvements and capacity conditioned on future funding. Future updates to this CFP will
provide more specific information as to the District’s updated planning.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 14 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent upon
the passage of bond elections at a 60% supermajority and receipt of State Construction
Assistance Program (SCAP) funds, also known as “state match” funds. Costs for improvements
that add capacity to serve projected new growth are used to calculate school impact fees.
School impact fees, or SEPA mitigation fees collected from some new development projects in
unincorporated Franklin County, will be used to pay for a portion of the improvements that add
growth-related capacity. The majority of the costs to construct the capacity improvements will
be paid for with bonds and state match funds. See Section 6 of the 2011 CFP for a complete
discussion regarding the framework for financing planned improvements.
To serve growth needs identified in this CFP, the District plans to construct new schools and
new school capacity consistent with the funding identified in this CFP. Charts 5 and 6 have
detailed information on the 2023 Bond projects and planned future bond projects,
with the Sageview High School, Orion High School, and CTE program improvements at PHS
and CHS funded by the 2023 Bond and the planned middle school capacity additions (including
the new Middle School No. 5 and the additional middle school capacity resulting from the
replacement/expansion of McLoughlin Middle School and replacement/expansion/K-8
conversion at Markham Elementary School) all being growth-related projects. The District may
also add portables to serve interim growth needs.
In addition to construction of facilities to add capacity, the District also needs to acquire school
sites for future construction, and must make a variety of improvements that are needed at
existing facilities.
The Capital Facilities Financing Plan in Chart 6 demonstrates how the District intends to fund
new construction and improvements to school facilities during the six-year planning period
(and also includes financing information related to the 2023 projects in process).
The District continues to use a variety of strategies to plan, reduce costs, and mitigate the
effects of student enrollment growth. Receipt of impact fees remains critical to ensuring the
District can manage growth by providing sufficient student facilities. The forecast of steady
enrollment growth over the next six years underscores the need to use a variety of financing
measures, including the passage of bonds, expenditure from the General Fund, and impact
fees/SEPA mitigation fees to meet the needs of the community.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 15 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES
The District’s ability to fund the improvements that are needed to serve forecast growth depends
on new development contributing to the cost to build the schools that will serve the students that
live in new housing. The District is collecting school impact fees from development in the City
and will continue to seek mitigation fees from developers in Franklin County (and continue to
request that Franklin County adopt a GMA-based school impact fee ordinance). The District’s
desire and intent is that school mitigation is collected from all residential development within the
District in an equitable and comprehensive manner. The District files annual reports with the
City regarding the use of the school impact fees.
The District has calculated school impact fees using a standard school impact fee formula,
adopted by the City of Pasco and many other Washington cities and counties, that complies
with the Growth Management Act. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per
dwelling unit to construct schools needed to serve new development. A student factor (or
student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the
average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi-
family dwellings). The District hires a consultant to update the student factor methodology
based upon the last six years of residential development data within the District, as required
by the City of Pasco School Impact Fee Ordinance. In this year’s CFP, the District’s student
generation rates are based on an analysis performed by JUB Engineering considering
Franklin County and City of Pasco residential development data from 2018 through the
first quarter of 2024 . As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account
for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected
future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not add
capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, impact fees will not be
used to address existing deficiencies.
The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:
• New Middle School No. 5
Please see Chart 6.
The calculated impact fee amounts (reduced by 25%), in Appendix B, are $0 for each single
family residence and $2,595. The primary reason for the significant decline in the impact fee
calculated in the 2022 Capital Facilities Plan is the removal from the formula of the elementary
capacity projects (Columbia River and Three Rivers Elementary Schools, completed in 2019a
and 2020, but continuing to provide available capacity for new growth) and the soon to be
completed high school capacity projects. While the fee formula includes this year a new middle
school, using current student generation rates, the middle school project alone does not
generate a single family cost per dwelling unit that exceeds the single family tax credit in the
formula. As such, the tax credit nullifies any unfunded impact per single family unit. In both
cases, the District’s voters front-funded capacity that remains available for the benefit of new
development. The District is requesting the City collect school impact fees in the following
amounts:
Single Family: $0
Multi Family: $2,595
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 16 of 26
March 2025
The District began receiving impact fees from the City in 2012. Through December 2024, the District
has received approximately $26.9 million in impact fee and mitigation fee revenue. Of that amount,
$1,250,000 was used to reduce the principal of the 2013 bond, $5,374,972 has been used for portable
classrooms (new and relocated), $14.3 million has helped fund property acquisitions, and $2,000,000
was used to reduce the principal of the 2017 bond. The District plans to use remaining revenue for
growth-related projects including portables, land acquisition, and reducing the cost of current and
future bond projects. The District will use future impact fees and mitigation fees as allowed by law for
growth-related impacts identified in the CFP.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 17 of 26
February 2025
APPENDIX A
Charts with Supporting Data
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 18 of 26
February 2025
Chart 1
Building Capacity
October 2024
Elementary Schools
88% Scheduling Factor Applied Building Capacity
Oct 1, 2024
Enrollment
Over/Under
Capacity
Angelou 594 554 40
Capt. Gray 487 408 79
Chess 495 404 91
Columbia River 644 621 23
Curie 771 376 395
Emerson 474 447 27
Franklin 617 543 74
Frost 474 464 10
Livingston 423 543 120
Longfellow 405 309 96
Markham 255 209 46
McClintock 575 568 7
McGee 438 499 61
Robinson 604 474 130
Three Rivers 644 655 11
Twain 526 573 47
Whittier 474 379 95
Elementary Totals 8,900 8,026 874
Middle Schools
76% Scheduling Factor Applied Building Capacity
Oct 1, 2024
Enrollment
Over/Under
Capacity
McLoughlin 1,011 1,172 161
Reynolds 1,131 1,294 163
Ochoa 1,006 832 174
Stevens 986 957 29
Middle School Totals 4,134 4,255 121
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 19 of 26
February 2025
High Schools
75% Scheduling Factor Applied Building Capacity
Oct 1, 2024
Enrollment
Over/Under
Capacity
Chiawana 2,348 3,153 805
Pasco 1,808 2,616 808
New Horizons 248 350 102
Delta* 173
High School Totals 4,577 6,119 1,931
Academy of Learning 52
Innovative Experiences/E-Learning 71
Pasco Digital Learning Totals 0 123
Grand Totals 17,611 18,523 1,178
* Delta total capacity is 518 to be shared between PSD, KSD and RSD ** iPAL high
school students are enrolled in the iPAL program and their home school
Capacity Calculation Methodology
Elementary – Capacity calculated by School Design, K-3 Class Size Reduction, Grades 4-5 Collective
Bargaining Agreement, Grades K-5 Weighted Average and 88% Scheduling Factor
Middle School – Capacity calculated by School Design, Collective Bargaining Agreement and 76%
Scheduling Factor
High School - Capacity calculated by School Design, Collective Bargaining Agreement and 75%
Scheduling Factor
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 20 of 26
March 2025
Chart 2
Pasco School District Asset Preservation Program
2024 Building Condition Scores
OSPI 2022 2023 2024
Building
Age in
Years
Current
Draft Score
by Age
Adjusted
B.C.E.
Adjusted
B.C.E.
Adjusted
B.C.E.
Emerson 27 78 82.25 79.20 79.20
Frost 27 82 81.56 81.40 82.56
Franklin 11 97 97.34 97.34 97.34
McClintock 10 96 96.21 95.57 95.57
Curie 11 97 98.04 96.4 96.4
Chiawana High School 16 86 92.05 86.73 86.78
Delta High School 11 95 N/R 96.10 95.78
Three Rivers 6 100 N/R 100 100
Columbia River 5 100 N/R 100 100
Ray Reynolds Middle School 5 100 N/R 100 100
Stevens Middle School 5 100 N/R 100 100
“B.C.E.” is the Building Condition Evaluation score given by OSPI for those facilities in which
State School Construction Assistance Program (state match) dollars were used. The
Current Draft Score” is OSPI’s expected score for the age of the facility, given average use
and maintenance. Buildings were not reviewed (N/R) in 2019 due to COVID.
Pasco High School is no longer assigned a B.C.E. score for purposes of state reporting
because of the age of the facility. However, the district continues to monitor and score Pasco
High School for internal monitoring purposes.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 20 of 26
March 2025
Chart 3
Projected Enrollment
Pasco School District Projected Enrollment
Grade 24-25* 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31
K 1,227.00 1,245.41 1,264.09 1,283.05 1,302.29 1,321.83 1,341.65
1 1,316.00 1,335.74 1,355.78 1,376.11 1,396.75 1,417.71 1,438.97
2 1,389.00 1,409.84 1,430.98 1,452.45 1,474.23 1,496.35 1,518.79
3 1,414.00 1,435.21 1,456.74 1,478.59 1,500.77 1,523.28 1,546.13
4 1,338.00 1,358.07 1,378.44 1,399.12 1,420.10 1,441.41 1,463.03
5 1,391.00 1,411.87 1,433.04 1,454.54 1,476.36 1,498.50 1,520.98
8,075.00 8,196.13 8,319.07 8,443.85 8,570.51 8,699.07 8,829.55
6 1,425.00 1,428.56 1,432.13 1,435.71 1,439.30 1,442.90 1,446.51
7 1,461.00 1,464.65 1,468.31 1,471.98 1,475.66 1,479.35 1,483.05
8 1,443.00 1,446.61 1,479.16 1,512.44 1,546.47 1,581.26 1,616.84
4,329.00 4,339.82 4,379.60 4,420.14 4,461.44 4,503.52 4,546.40
9 1,460.00 1,478.25 1,496.73 1,515.44 1,534.38 1,553.56 1,572.98
10 1,529.00 1,548.11 1,567.46 1,587.06 1,606.90 1,626.98 1,647.32
11 1,531.00 1,550.14 1,569.51 1,589.13 1,609.00 1,629.11 1,649.47
12 1,599.00 1,614.99 1,631.14 1,647.45 1,663.93 1,680.57 1,697.37
6,119.00 6,191.49 6,264.85 6,339.08 6,414.20 6,490.22 6,567.14
18,523.00 18,727.44 18,963.52 19,203.07 19,446.14 19,692.80 19,943.10
*October 2024 reported enrollment (OSPI Report 1251H)
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 22 of 26
March 2025
Chart 4
2030 Student Capacity and Future Need
Building
Capacity
2024
Total Capacity
(Permanent/Portable)
2024
Oct 24
Enrollment
Forecast
Enrollment
2030
Needed
Capacity
(Permanent)
2030
Elementary
(K-5)
8,900
11,438 8,075 8,830 (70)
Middle (6-8) 4,134 5,229 4,329 4,546 412
High (9-
12) 4,404 5,775 6,119 6,567 2,163
“Building Capacity” is the number of classrooms multiplied by the weighted average I-1351
class size for non-high poverty schools, multiplied by a utilization factor to allow for planning
time and other uses. See Chart 1.
“Forecast Enrollment 2030” is based on Chart 3.
“Needed Capacity” includes total (permanent/portable) capacity but does not include new
capacity planned for completion through 2030 (including the opening of Sageview High
School and Orion High School), portable additions/relocations, or grade reconfiguration.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 23 of 26
March 2025
Chart 5
Necessary Facility Improvements, Added Capacity and Costs
2025 Update
2023 BOND PROJECTS
Sageview High School 2,091 $185,363,000
Orion High School 594 $37,500,000
CTE PHS/CHS 75 $12,000,000
Athletic Fields N/A $2,000,000
Land Acquisition N/A $10,000,000
Total 2023
Bond Projects
2,760 $246,863,000
ESTIMATED PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS & ADDED/NEW CAPACITY
CONDITIONED ON FUTURE BOND AND STATE ASSISTANCE
Livingston Replacement 300 $57,825,949
Middle School #5 1,250 $90,577,498
Markham Replacement 300 $43,659,000
Land Acquisition (80 acres) N/A $12,000,000
McGee Replacement 220 $57,825,949
Captain Gray Replacement 300 $57,825,949
McLoughlin MS Replacement 250 $90,557,498
Total Permanent Capacity 2,620 $410,271,843
TEMPORARY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000
Total 460 $3,250,000
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix B, Page 24 of 26
March 2025
Chart 6
Capital Facilities Financing Plan
Project Estimates
2023 Bond Projects and
Future Planning for Anticipated 2028 Bond
Project
New/
Added
Capacity
Est.
Cost
Source of Funding
Bonds State
Match
Impact/
Mitigation Fees
General
Fund
February 2023 Bond Projects and Other Improvements
High School #3 2,091 $185,000,000 $195,500,00 $67,514,530 Portion TBD
Innovative High School 594 $37,500,000 $37,500,000 $0 Portion TBD
CTE CHS/PHS 75 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $0
Portion TBD
Athletic Fields $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Land Acquisition $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Portion TBD
Future Bond Projects (Subject to Future Planning & Board Approval)
Livingston Replacement 200 $57,825,949 $44,740,767 $13,085,184 Portion TBD
Middle School #5 900 $90,577,498 $90,577,498 $0 Portion TBD
Markham Replacement 600 $57,825,949 $57,825,949 $0 Portion TBD
Land Acquisition (80 acres) $12,000,000 N/A N/A Portion TBD
McGee Replacement 220 $57,825,949 $44,866,849 $12,959,460 Portion TBD
McLoughlin MS Replacement 0 $90,557,498 $57,509,658 $33,047,840 Portion TBD
Gray Replacement 0 $13,476,263 $0 $13,476,263 Remodel
Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $0 Portion TBD
Livingston Replacement 850 $57,825,949
Middle School #5 1,250 $90,577,498
Markham Replacement 450 $43,659,000
Land Acquisition (80 acres) N/A $12,000,000
McGee Replacement 850 $57,825,949
Captain Gray Replacement 850 $57,825,949
McLoughlin MS Replacement 1,250 $90,557,498
Total Permanent Capacity 5,500 $410,271,843
“State Match” refers to funds allocated by the State of Washington through the School
Construction Assistance Program administered by OSPI. This number is an estimate of state
matching funds and is subject to verification by OSPI.
*The “portion TBD” of impact fee revenue used to fund the growth-related capacity projects will
be determined based upon impact fee revenue received from new development. Impact fee
revenue may be able to offset debt service on the bonds and result in tax savings to the
existing community.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix B, Page 26 of 26
March 2025
APPENDIX B IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 25% reduction
2024 Impact Fee APPENDIX B
Single Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$0.00 $90,500,000.00 $0.00 Facility Cost
620 1400 2000 Additional Capacity
$0.00 $64,642.86 $0.00 Cost per Student (CS)
0.230 0.090 0.100 Student Factor (SF)
$0.00 $5,817.86 $0.00 CS x SF
$0.00 $375.00 $0.00 Boeck Index
90.00 108.00 130.00 OSPI Sq Ft
0.00%0.00%0.00%State Match Eligibility %
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit (SM)
$0.00 $5,817.86 $0.00 CS x SF - SM
$5,817.86 Cost per Single Family Residence
0.0383 Average Interest Rate
0.456225193 Tax Credit Numerator
0.055773425 Tax Credit Denominator
8.179974492 Tax Credit Multiplier (TCM)
$398,005.00 Average Assessed Value (AAV)
3255670.75 TCM x AAV
0.00184 Tax Levy Rate (TLR)
$5,981.64 TCM x AAV x TLR = (TC)
-$163.79 Cost per Single Family Residence - Tax Credit
-$40.95 25% reduction (A)
-$122.84 Calculated Single Family Fee Amount
$0 Recommended Fee Amount
Multi-Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$0.00 $90,500,000.00 $0.00 Facility Cost
620 920 2000 Additional Capacity
$0.00 $64,642.86 $0.00 Cost per Student (CS)
0.180 0.080 0.100 Student Factor (SF)
$0.00 $5,171.43 $0.00 CS x SF
$0.00 $375.00 $0.00 Boeck Index
90.00 108.00 130.00 OSPI Sq Ft
0.00%0.00%0.00%State Match Eligibility %
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit (SM)
$0.00 $5,171.43 $0.00 CS x SF - SM
$5,171.43 Cost per Multi-Family Residence
0.0383 Average Interest Rate
0.456225193 Tax Credit Numerator
0.055773425 Tax Credit Denominator
8.179974492 Tax Credit Multiplier (TCM)
$113,100.00 Average Assessed Value (AAV)
925155.12 TCM x AAV
0.00185 Tax Levy Rate (TLR)
$1,711.54 TCM x AAV x TLR = (TC)
$3,459.89 Cost per Multi-Family Residence - Tax Credit
$864.97 25% reduction (A)
$2,594.92 Calculated Multi- Family Fee Amount
$2,595 Recommended Fee Amount
()()()
()FCATLRAAVii
iSMSFCSSIF -´úú
û
ù
êê
ë
é
÷÷
ø
ö
çç
è
æ ´´+
-+--=10
10
1
11
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Haylie Matson, CED Director
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment (CPA 2025-002) – R-S-20 Zone
& Low-Density Residential Land Use changes
File Number: CPA 2025-002
Applicant: City of Pasco
Description: At the direction of the City Council, staff proposes revising the
City’s Land Use Map (Exhibit 1) to include a new Low-Density
Designation, called Low Density Residential-Riverview, (Exhibit 2)
allowing for 2-5 units per acre to coincide with all properties
currently zoned R-S-20 (Exhibit 3).
Further, the R-S-20 zone will be revised to allow for 2-5 units per
acre resulting in a new minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet and
new zone name of R-9 Low Density Residential District (Exhibit 4).
Environmental
Determination SEPA will be initiated in December 2025.
Exhibits:
1 Existing Land Use Map
2 Proposed Land Use Map (pending completion)
3 Existing Zoning Map
4 Proposed Zoning Map (pending completion)
5 Ordinance 4663
6 PMC 25.30 – R-S-20 Suburban District – Proposed edits
7 Proposed PMC 25.215.015 changes
8 BFHD Table XI
Relationship Between Land Use Designations and Zoning in Pasco
In the City of Pasco, a land use designation is part of the Comprehensive Plan and serves as the
community’s long-range policy direction for how different areas of the city are intended to
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
develop over time. These designations describe the general character of development such as
residential, commercial, or industrial, and identify the planned density or intensity appropriate
for each area. Land use designations guide future decision-making by outlining the City’s vision
and goals for growth, but they do not regulate the specific details of what can be built on
individual parcels.
A zoning designation, by contrast, is a regulatory tool adopted through the Pasco Municipal Code
(Title 25) that provides the specific, enforceable standards governing development on each
property. Zoning districts establish detailed requirements such as minimum lot size, setbacks,
building height, lot coverage, permitted uses, and other development regulations. These
standards determine exactly what can occur on a site and must be followed by property owners,
developers, and staff reviewing development applications.
While the Comprehensive Plan (also referred to as Land Use) provides an overarching vision, the
zoning code is the mechanism that implements that vision on the ground. Zoning must be
consistent with the land use designation assigned to an area, but it may regulate development
more precisely or more restrictively than the broad density ranges allowed by the Comprehensive
Plan. For example, a land use designation allowing 2–5 dwelling units per acre provides a policy
framework for low-density residential development, and a zoning designation such as R-S-20
(which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet) implements that policy by allowing
development at the lower end of that density range. Together, the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning code ensure that development aligns with the City’s long-term goals while providing
clear, predictable standards for property owners.
History
On April 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 (Exhibit 5), amending Pasco
Municipal Code (PMC) 25.215.015 and the associated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density
Table (Table LU-1). This amendment revised the allowable gross density range for areas
designated as Low Density Residential from two to five dwelling units per acre (2–5 du/ac) to
three to six dwelling units per acre (3–6 du/ac). Ordinance No. 4663 also established that the
gross density of any proposed development within a zoning district shall not fall below the
corresponding minimum density identified in PMC 25.215.015 (Exhibit 7).
Background
Since the adoption of Ordinance 4663, the City has received multiple subdivision requests from
property owners within the R-S-20 zoning district. These applications have been denied due to a
conflict created by the ordinance between the Comprehensive Plan’s minimum density
requirements and the zoning code standards codified in PMC 25.215.015. In addition, many
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
parcels within the R-S-20 district are located far from existing City sewer infrastructure, leaving
septic systems as the only feasible method of wastewater disposal. The Benton-Franklin Health
District Table XI, which outlines minimum land area requirements for single-family residences
based on sewage volume and usable land area under Rules and Regulations No. 2, Section
XXXV, requires a minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet (one-half acre) for properties using
septic systems located on Soil Type 1 as defined in WAC 246-272A-0220, which yields a density
of 2 units per acre. This density is prohibited under the current land use designation but would be
permitted under the proposed designation. In response to these issues, the Pasco City Council
directed staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a related zoning code amendment
to restore a land use density range of 2–5 units per acre for all properties currently zoned R-S-20.
Discussion
The current R-S-20 zoning district is designated Low Density Residential under the
Comprehensive Plan’s existing density range of 3–6 units per acre as amended by Ordinance
4663. With a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, a one-acre parcel can accommodate only
two dwelling units, below the minimum density required by the Comprehensive Plan. This has
created an unintended inconsistency between the Plan and the zoning code, effectively
preventing new subdivisions in the R-S-20 zone and resulting in a de facto moratorium on
development. Reverting the land use designation back to the pre-2023 density range of 2–5 units
per acre would restore internal consistency, support parcels reliant on septic systems, and allow
both 8,700-square-foot lots and half-acre lots to coexist within the same land use designation.
Analysis
Under the proposed amendment, the land use designation of 2–5 units per acre would provide the
policy framework for low-density housing, while the zoning code would implement this
direction through parcel-level regulations. To align zoning with the revised land use designation,
staff proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District that
establishes a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change allows the zoning to support the
full density range permitted by the land use designation while still accommodating larger half-
acre parcels where septic systems are an option. The proposed R-9 Low Density Residential
District provides a balanced approach that restores consistency, supports infrastructure realities,
and prepares the City for future statewide housing obligations.
Alternatives
1. No action on this matter would not be recommended as this would create an
inconsistency between the comprehensive plan and municipal code which prevents
development in this area.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
2. Revise the minimum lot size to be larger resulting in a density range of less than 5 units
per acre (not recommended by staff).
3. Revise the Low-Density Residential Riverview designation to 2-6 units per acre.
Note: one acre is 43,560 square feet
Note that septic systems are generally permitted on lots of at least one-half acre in size when said
lot is greater than 200 feet from an accessible sewer system, while lots smaller than one-half acre
must connect to City sewer. Although higher densities may be allowed under zoning,
infrastructure availability (particularly sewer access) remains a determining factor for
development feasibility. In areas located a significant distance from existing sewer infrastructure,
constructing higher-density development may not be practical or achievable.
General Approval Criteria
Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(8)(c), The City may approve Comprehensive Plan
amendments if it finds that:
(i) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
(ii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW
and with the portion of the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the
amendment;
(iii) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
(iv) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
In addition, per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(9) The City must also consider the following
factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments:
(a) The effect upon the physical environment;
(b) The effect on open space and natural features including, but not limited to, topography,
streams, rivers, and lakes;
(c) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
(d) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public
transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
(e) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density
and the demand for such land;
(f) The current and projected project density in the area; and
(g) The effect, if any, upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is an analysis of these criteria:
1. Does the proposed amendment bear a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, welfare, and protection of the environment?
No. This code change would change the R-S-20 zone to allow for 2-5 units per acre. Septic
systems could be permitted on lots a half-acre in size. Anything over 2 units per acre would need
to be connected to city sewer.
2. 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?
Yes. The adoption of the emergency amendment is intended to retain the previous land use
designation of 2–5 units per acre. The proposed zoning change to R-9 will introduce additional
density and allow for smaller lot sizes within the Riverview area and that area southwest of West
Court Street and Harris Road, aligning the zoning more closely with both the Comprehensive
Plan and emerging state requirements.
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), cities are expected to plan for and accommodate
increased housing capacity. Larger minimum lot sizes are generally not considered best practice
in Washington’s urban areas, as they result in inefficient land use patterns, higher infrastructure
costs, and fewer opportunities to meet mandated housing targets. Transitioning to a zoning
district that supports more moderate densities is consistent with these statewide planning
objectives.
Concerns regarding additional density in the area will also become less relevant by the end of
2026. State law (primarily HB 1110 and related legislation) will require Pasco to allow up to six
units per residential lot citywide, regardless of existing zoning. As part of the Comprehensive
Plan update to be completed by 2026, the City will be required to incorporate middle housing,
much of which will be exempt from traditional density limitations under State law.
This proactive zoning adjustment positions Pasco to remain compliant with the GMA while
supporting thoughtfully scaled residential growth in the Riverview area and that area southwest
of West Court Street and Harris Road.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
3. Does the proposed amendment correct a mapping error?
The proposed amendment corrects an error in the Pasco Municipal Code where the R-S-20 zone
(based on the minimum lot size) does not coincide with the land use range currently adopted
which is 3-6 units per acre.
4. Does the proposed amendment address a deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan?
No, the proposed amendment will modify the Comprehensive Plan, assigning a low-density
range of 2-5 units per acre to properties currently located within the R-S-20 zone.
5. What are the effects on the physical environment, including open space and natural
features?
Lot sizes will be a minimum of 8,700 square feet. Any critical areas will be addressed
consistently with the City’s critical areas ordinance outlined in Title 28.
6. What is the compatibility and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods?
Introducing 8,700-square-foot lots into an established neighborhood characterized by half-acre
and one-acre parcels can create noticeable shifts in development pattern and neighborhood
character. Larger lots typically feature wider setbacks, greater separation between homes, and
more private open space, while smaller lots result in homes placed closer together with reduced
yard areas. This change in spacing, combined with differences in building scale, architectural
style, and streetscape improvements such as sidewalks or street lighting, can create a visual
contrast with older large-lot areas. These differences may also influence perceptions of privacy,
traffic activity, and overall neighborhood feel.
However, these compatibility issues are not inherently problematic and can be effectively
addressed through thoughtful planning and design. Landscaping buffers, fencing, and enhanced
setbacks along shared edges can soften transitions between large-lot and smaller-lot
development. Architectural standards, window placement, and streetscape design can further
support compatibility and help new development blend with the existing character. With these
tools, an 8,700-square-foot lot pattern can integrate successfully into older neighborhoods while
still supporting the City’s housing needs and planning objectives.
7. What are the impacts on public facilities, and utilities, transportation system, parks,
recreation, and public schools?
Development at an 8,700-square-foot minimum lot size generally results in moderate impacts on
public facilities and utilities. Compared to larger half-acre or one-acre lots, smaller lots produce
more total dwelling units within the same geographic area, increasing overall demand on water,
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
sewer, and stormwater systems. These impacts are typically manageable because the City’s long-
range planning under the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan anticipates low to
moderate-density residential growth. Transportation impacts also increase modestly, as additional
homes generate more daily vehicle trips; however, these increases occur within the capacity
assumptions typically used in traffic modeling for low-density neighborhoods. Parks and
recreation demand may rise due to a larger population in the area, though impacts remain
consistent with what the City plans for under standard residential densities.
Public school impacts may include a slight increase in student generation as additional homes are
added to the area. These impacts are typically anticipated under adopted school district capital
facilities plans, and districts often plan for growth across a range of residential densities. Overall,
development at this scale does not create significant or unmanageable impacts but may require
coordination with utility providers and the school district to ensure adequate service levels. The
increased efficiency of serving more households per acre can also improve long-term
infrastructure utilization compared to the much lower densities associated with large-lot
development.
8. What is the effect on other components of the adopted Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed density and lot pattern generally remain consistent with the overarching goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those related to efficient land use, housing
supply, and urban growth management. Allowing development at approximately 8,700-square-
foot lots supports a more efficient use of residential land compared to existing half-acre and one-
acre lots, helping the City meet its Growth Management Act (GMA) housing capacity
obligations. This approach aligns with Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage compact,
well-connected residential neighborhoods, more efficient infrastructure utilization, and a
balanced distribution of growth across the community. It also supports broader goals related to
equity, housing variety, and long-term fiscal sustainability by reducing per-unit infrastructure
costs and increasing opportunities for moderately sized homes
Public and Agency Comment
The SEPA will be processed following the introduction meeting to the Planning Commission on
November 20, 2025.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
1. Provide input or ask questions related to the proposed change to assign a land use
designation of 2-5 units per acre for all properties currently proposed to be zoned R-9
Low Density Residential from R-S-20 (Exhibits 4 & 6).
2. Schedule a public hearing for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting
on December 18, 2025.
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
\\
g
s
d
a
t
a
s
t
o
r
e
\
G
I
S
\
G
I
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
D
e
p
t
C
E
D
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
_
F
I
L
E
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
.
a
p
r
x
1:28,000
LAND USE
FILE NAME
1 of 1Scale: 1:28,000
SHEET NUMBERSCALE
kaufmannc
CREATED BY
7/16/2025
PLOT DATE
NOTICE: WARRANTY OF ACCURACY.
The materials provided with this product, including but not limited to,
data, maps, and tables (collectively, 'information'), are presented 'AS IS'
without any warranty, express or implied. The City of Pasco and its staff
do not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the
information and shall not be liable for any inaccuracies or omissions. The
information is subject to change and is intended solely for general
informational purposes. Users should independently verify critical
information and seek professional advice when necessary. Prior to any
digging or excavation, it is essential for safety and compliance with local
regulations that users contact 'Call Before You Dig' services by dialing
811. This ensures the location and safety of underground utilities are
confirmed before any ground is broken. The City of Pasco does not
endorse any specific commercial products or services referenced in the
information. Reliance on this information is at the user's own risk.
NOTES
LEGEND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT
GIS
LAND USE
Land Use
Future Land Use
Airport Reserve
Commercial
Confederated Tribes -
Colville
DNR Reserve
High Density Residential
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density
Residential
Medium High Density
Residential
Mixed Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use Interchange
Office
Open Space Parks
Public Quasi-Public
Reclamation
<all other values>
Boundaries
Pasco City Limits
Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary
Roads
Interstate
Highway
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial Future
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial Future
Collector
Collector Future
Neightborhood Collector
Neightborhood Collector
Future
Local
Other
Rivers
Roads_WWCO
Roads_web_FCO
Streets_KNW
Airport
DBO.CityLimitMask
Rivers
Roads
Interstate
Highway
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial Future
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial Future
Collector
Collector Future
Neightborhood Collector
Neightborhood Collector
Future
Local
Other
Pasco City Limits
Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary
Land Use
Future Land Use
Airport Reserve
Commercial
Confederated Tribes -
Colville
DNR Reserve
High Density Residential
Industrial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density
Residential
Medium High Density
Residential
Mixed Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use Interchange
Office
Open Space Parks
Public Quasi-Public
Reclamation
<all other values>
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles
²
KENNEWICK
RICHLAND
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
\\
g
s
d
a
t
a
s
t
o
r
e
\
G
I
S
\
G
I
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
D
e
p
t
C
E
D
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
_
F
I
L
E
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
.
a
p
r
x
1:28,000
LAND USE
FILE NAME
1 of 1Scale: 1:28,000
SHEET NUMBERSCALE
kaufmannc
CREATED BY
11/17/2025
PLOT DATE
NOTICE: WARRANTY OF ACCURACY.
The materials provided with this product, including but not limited to,
data, maps, and tables (collectively, 'information'), are presented 'AS IS'
without any warranty, express or implied. The City of Pasco and its staff
do not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the
information and shall not be liable for any inaccuracies or omissions. The
information is subject to change and is intended solely for general
informational purposes. Users should independently verify critical
information and seek professional advice when necessary. Prior to any
digging or excavation, it is essential for safety and compliance with local
regulations that users contact 'Call Before You Dig' services by dialing
811. This ensures the location and safety of underground utilities are
confirmed before any ground is broken. The City of Pasco does not
endorse any specific commercial products or services referenced in the
information. Reliance on this information is at the user's own risk.
NOTES
LEGEND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT
GIS
Proposed - LAND USE
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
²
KENNEWICK
RICHLAND
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Land Use
Future Land Use
Airport Reserve
Commercial
Confederated Tribes - Colville
DNR Reserve
High Density Residential
Industrial
Low Density Residential Riverview
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Mixed Residential Commercial
Mixed Use Interchange
Office
Open Space Parks
Public Quasi-Public
Reclamation
Road Centerlines
Interstate
Highway
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Neightborhood Collector
Local
Other
Principal Arterial Future
Major Collector Future
Minor Collector Future
Minor Arterial Future
Neightborhood Collector Future
Other Boundaries
Airport
Pasco City Limits
Pasco Urban Growth Boundary
R-4
R-1
C-1
C-R
RP
R-4
R-1
C-1
I-2
R-1
I-2
R-3
C-1
I-1
C-1
R-S-20
R-S-12
I-1
R-1
R-S-12
RP
C-1
C-3
C-3
RP
C-1
C-R
R-1
C-3
R-4
C-1
C-3
C-3
I-1
R-3
I-3
I-3
R-3
R-1
R-S-1
R-1
R-1
C-3
R-1
R-2
R-4
C-3
R-S-1
I-1
I-1
R-1
C-1
R-T
R-1
C-3
R-1
R-S-20
I-1
I-1
C-1
RP
I-1
I-1
R-S-20
C-3
C-1
I-1
R-T
C-1
I-1
R-1
R-S-20
R-S-20
R-1
R-3
I-1
I-1
MU
C-1
R-3
I-1
R-T
R-1
C-3
R-3
R-S-20
R-S-20
R-S-20
C-1
R-S-12
R-1
R-3
C-1
I-1
R-S-12
R-1
R-T
R-2
R-1R-1
I-2
R-S-20
R-T
R-S-1
R-3
C-1
R-4
C-RR-4
I-2
I-1
I-1
R-S-1
R-3
R-1
R-3
C-1
I-1
I-1
R-S-20 BP
I-1
I-1
R-1
C-R
I-2
I-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
I-1
R-T
R-T
I-1
C-1
R-T
R-S-20
R-S-12
R-3
R-1
I-2
R-S-20
I-1
R-4
R-1
R-1
R-T
C-1
I-1
C-1
R-S-20
C-3
C-1
R-4
I-1
R-1
R-3
R-S-12
R-S-12
R-4
I-1
R-S-20
I-1
C-3
R-T
I-2
I-2
R-1
RP
R-1
R-3
R-3
I-2
C-3
I-2
C-1
R-3
R-S-12
C-1
R-S-1
I-1
I-1
R-1
O
R-4
C-1
C-1
R-4
R-4
C-3
I-1
C-1
R-1
MU
C-1
R-S-1/PUD
R-4
395
395
395
395
395
12
12
12
182
182
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
N 4 T H
A V E
E AINSWORTH AVE
E A ST E A ST E A STW A ST W A ST
PA SCO
K A H L O T US RD
W LE W I S S T
W L E W I S S T
S
2
0
T
H
A
V
E
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
R
O
A
D
6
0
E LE
W
I
S
S
T
S
10TH
AVE
R
O
A
D
4
4
W AINSWORTHAVE
N
2
8
T
H
AV
E
W SYLVESTER ST
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
O
A
D
6
8
R
O
A
D
6
8
W L E W I S S T
N
2
0
T
H
AV
E
N
2
0
T
H
A
V
E
B U R D E N B L V D BURDEN BLVD
W COURT ST W COURT ST W COURT ST W COURT ST
BROADMOOR
BLV
D
N
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
1
S
T
A
V
E
N
O
R
E
G
O
N
A
V
E
N
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
B
R
O
A
D
M
O
O
R
B
L
V
D
E LEWIS STWSYLVESTER
S T W SYLVESTER ST
W CLA
R
K
S
T
S
MAITL
A
N
D
AVE
S
4
T
H
AV
E
W ARGENT RD
W A R G E N T R D
W C O U R T S T
W C O U R T S T
S A N D I F U R P K W Y S A N D I F U R P K W Y
R
O
A
D
1
0
0
N
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
B U R N S R D BURNS RD
R
O
A
D
3
6
R
O
A
D
3
6
E F O S T E R W E L L S R D
S
OREGON
AVE
G
L
A
D
E
N
O
R
T
H
R
D
H A R R I S RD
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
\\
g
s
d
a
t
a
s
t
o
r
e
\
G
I
S
\
G
I
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
D
e
p
t
C
E
D
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
_
F
I
L
E
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
.
a
p
r
x
1:28,000
ZONING
FILE NAME
ZONING
1 of 1
SHEET NUMBERSCALE
kaufmannc
CREATED BY
7/16/2025
PLOT DATE
NOTES
NOTICE: WARRANTY OF ACCURACY.
The materials provided with this product, including but not limited to,
data, maps, and tables (collectively, 'information'), are presented 'AS IS'
without any warranty, express or implied. The City of Pasco and its staff
do not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the
information and shall not be liable for any inaccuracies or omissions. The
information is subject to change and is intended solely for general
informational purposes. Users should independently verify critical
information and seek professional advice when necessary. Prior to any
digging or excavation, it is essential for safety and compliance with local
regulations that users contact 'Call Before You Dig' services by dialing
811. This ensures the location and safety of underground utilities are
confirmed before any ground is broken. The City of Pasco does not
endorse any specific commercial products or services referenced in the
information. Reliance on this information is at the user's own risk.
LEGEND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT
GIS
Scale: 1:28,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles
²
KENNEWICK
RICHLAND
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Zoning
BP, Business Park
District
C-1, Retail Business
District
C-2, Central Business
Overlay District
C-3, General Business
District
C-R, Regional
Commercial District
I-1, Light Industrial
District
I-2, Medium Industrial
District
I-3, Heavy Industrial
District
O, Office District
MU, Mixed Use
R-1, Low-Density
Residential District
R-1-A, Low-Density
Residential Alternative
District
R-1-A2, Low-Density
Residential Alternative
District
R-1/PUD, Low Density
Residential Planned-Unit
Development
R-2, Medium-Density
Residential District
R-3, Medium-Density
Residential District
R-3/PUD, Medium
Density Residential
R-4, High-Density
Residential District
R-S-1, Low-Density
Suburban Residential
District
R-S-1/PUD, Suburban
Panned-Unit
Development
R-S-12, Residential
Suburban District
R-S-20, Residential
Suburban District
R-T, Residential
Transition District
RP, Residential Park
District
Boundaries
Pasco City Limits
Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary
Roads
Interstate
Highway
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial Future
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial Future
Collector
Collector Future
Neightborhood Collector
Neightborhood Collector
Future
Local
Other
C-1
C-1
I-1
I-1
I-2
C-1
C-3
C-R
C-1
R-4
C-1
R-3
I-1
I-1
R-S-20
R-S-12
R-S-12
C-3
R-S-12
I-2
C-3
I-2
I-2
C-3
C-1
R-S-12
R-3
R-S-20
R-3
C-1
R-1
R-S-1
R-S-20
I-1
C-1
R-3
R-S-20
R-1
C-RR-3
R-4
R-2
C-3
R-T
I-1
I-1
I-1
I-1
R-S-20
R-S-12
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
R-4
MU
R-S-20
R-3
C-3
R-3
R-S-1
C-3
R-4
I-2
R-2
C-3
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-S-1/PUD
C-1
C-1
MU
R-S-20
R-S-20
R-S-20
R-1
R-1
I-1
C-1
MU
R-4
R-S-20
I-1
RP
I-1
I-1
I-1
I-2
BP
R-1
R-4
R-S-20
R-T
C-1
R-4
C-R
R-S-12
I-1
I-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-3
R-T
R-3
C-3
C-3
I-1
R-S-20
R-3
R-3
R-T
I-1
I-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
R-1
R-1
C-3
R-3
R-1
R-1
I-1
R-4
R-S-12
C-1
C-1
C-1
R-1
RP
I-1
C-1
R-4
R-S-1
R-1
C-1
R-4
R-1
R-1
C-3
R-S-1
C-R
RP
I-1
C-1
C-1
R-4
C-3
I-2
R-1
OR-1R-S-20
I-2
I-1
I-1
C-3
R-3
R-S-1
R-S-12
R-1
I-1
I-1
R-T
RP
R-1
I-2
R-T
R-T
R-1
I-1
RP
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-1
I-2
R-3
R-2
R-3
I-1
R-T
R-1
R-4
R-S-20
I-2
I-1
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-3
R-TR-T
I-1
I-1
C-R
R-3
I-3
I-3
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
\\
g
s
d
a
t
a
s
t
o
r
e
\
G
I
S
\
G
I
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
D
e
p
t
C
E
D
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
_
F
I
L
E
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
.
a
p
r
x
1:28,000
ZONING
FILE NAME
PROPOSED - ZONING
1 of 1
SHEET NUMBERSCALE
kaufmannc
CREATED BY
11/17/2025
PLOT DATE
NOTES
NOTICE: WARRANTY OF ACCURACY.
The materials provided with this product, including but not limited to,
data, maps, and tables (collectively, 'information'), are presented 'AS IS'
without any warranty, express or implied. The City of Pasco and its staff
do not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the
information and shall not be liable for any inaccuracies or omissions. The
information is subject to change and is intended solely for general
informational purposes. Users should independently verify critical
information and seek professional advice when necessary. Prior to any
digging or excavation, it is essential for safety and compliance with local
regulations that users contact 'Call Before You Dig' services by dialing
811. This ensures the location and safety of underground utilities are
confirmed before any ground is broken. The City of Pasco does not
endorse any specific commercial products or services referenced in the
information. Reliance on this information is at the user's own risk.
LEGEND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT
GIS
Scale: 1:28,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
²
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Zone
BP, Business Park
C-1, Retail Business District
C-2, Central Business Overlay District
C-3, General Business District
C-R, Regional Commercial District
I-1, Light Industrial District
I-2, Medium Industrial District
I-3, Heavy Industrial District
MU, Mixed Use
O, Office District
R-1-A, Low-Density Residential
Alternative District
R-1-A2, Low-Density Residential
Alternative District
R-1/PUD, Low Density Residential
Planned-Unit Development
R-2, Medium-Density Residential
District
R-3, Medium-Density Residential
District
R-3/PUD, Medium Density Residential
R-4, High-Density Residential District
R-9, Low Density Residential District
R-S-1, Low-Density Suburban
Residential District
R-S-1/PUD, Suburban Panned-Unit
Development
R-S-12, Residential Suburban District
R-T, Residential Transition District
RP, Residential Park District
Other Boundaries
City Limits
Urban Growth Areas
Road Centerlines
Interstate
Highway
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Neightborhood Collector
Local
Other
Principal Arterial Future
Major Collector Future
Minor Collector Future
Minor Arterial Future
Neightborhood Collector Future
ORDINANCE NO.4663
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESCRIPTIONS AND THE
PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.215.015 "COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DENSITY TABLE" RELATED TO 2022 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DOCKET AND BROADMOOR MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act authorizes the City to, among other things,
amend the Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted workshops and public hearings
pursuant to legally required notice on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
recommended approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the proposed annual amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Future Land Use Map Descriptions
and Density Table.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that the amendment has met the decision criteria
contained in PMC 25.215.020; and that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the goals and policies of the City.
Section 2. That Section 25.215.015 entitled "Comprehensive Plan land use density
table" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.215.015 Comprehensive Plan land use density table.
Maximum gross density of any proposed development within any zoning district,
expressed as dwelling units per acre, shall be no less than the corresponding
minimum density expressed in this section and no greater than the corresponding
maximum density expressed in this section, except as provided in Chapter 25.161
PMC.
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
Open Space/Parks Land where development All zoning districts
will be severely Development of parks
restricted: park lands, and recreation facilities
trails and critical areas
Ordinance — Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 1
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
requires special permit
review)
Low Density Residential Stele -€ate VarietyfR-S-20; R-S-12; R-S- residential
housinL, 1; R-1; R-1-A; R-1- de,
at a density A2 of —
to 5 3 to E. dwelling units
per acre Medium
Density Single f dwel '„g-s, R-2 through R-4; RP fflilyResidential
heffies, townhoeses, patiod
eendefnifl
Variety of residential
housing, at a density
of 6 to 20 dwelling
units per acre. High
Density Residential Multiple unit a„aftmeig R-4 or-
eendaminium Variety, of
residential housing at a density
21 units per acre or
more Mixed
Allow a eambina4ion of R-1 through R-4; C-1 Residential/
Commercial ffiixed use eside,Aia eeffhffier-
eial in the sam ae,,
oel ...meat Single faiiaily
n r and
O; Waterfront homes,
t f4 e apai4fflef4s-,
effd eendeminiums
Accommodates
a diverse range
of housing, non- residential
uses commercial
uses, neighborhood
retail and office
uses, parks and recreation
areas and civic
uses at
a density of 5 to 29 dwelling
units per acre. and
k oare s, o 0
parks, rs
aREIe. Commercial
Neighborhood, O;
BP; C-1; C-2; C- community and regional
3; CR shopping and specialty
Ordinance — Future Land
Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 2
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
centers, business parks,
service and office uses
Industrial Manufacturing, food I-1;1-2; I-3
processing, storage and
wholesale distribution of
equipment and products,
hazardous material
storage, and
transportation related
facilities
Public and Quasi -Public Schools, civic centers, By special permit in
fire stations and other all districts (except I -
public uses 3 which has various
restrictions)
Airport Reserve Land occupied by the I-1
Tri-Cities Airport
DNR Reserve Transition lands owned I-1
and presently managed
by DNR for natural
resource production.
Characteristics include,
but are not limited to,
proximity to urban -type
development, road and
utility infrastructure, and
market demand.
Medium High Density
Re i,lent'.,1
Bfe,,dRiee,- e, ly; single
te. flhe.,senT
6611deffliflieffis, and
ltif milt'; 4 15
N i.,e,-1 Use 1pAeFel,ange B-e.,.lme 1y; .,long 1 N4U-1r- ai
192 e eefftmutef
eek ele.... sef yieen an
b-Lee , e .n>
e ffiee and retail ttses-
Ordinance - Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 3
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
te..,ff a„sew „kift.,i;1<.
neiglbefkeed
stores, e,e• ell,
neighbefheed seale
ffiees aiidases
T iEe.l Use Deg e,...,1 Br-e.,dmee.. N4U4only; general
retaila e+•ons an
shops, gr-aeefy star -es,
s;,1e.,t;al .,be .er-e
1 /e f ee, . liig
dens t.,
dining, ePAet4aiflffiei4
use
Of4ee Weadffieer-emsy;
1e e o
to
04
Ord. 4575 § 14, 2022.]
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any
other section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Corrections. Upon approval by the city attorney, the city clerk or the code
reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this Ordinance, including scrivener's errors
or clerical mistakes; reference to other local, state, or federal laws, rules, or regulations; or
numbering or referencing of Ordinances or their sections and subsections.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days
after approval, passage and publication as required by law.
Ordinance — Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 4
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this 17th day of April,
2023.
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Barham, CMC
City Clerk
Published:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
e Law, PLLC
City rneys
Ordinance — Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 5
Chapter 25.30 R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT R-9 Low Density Residential District
Sections:
• 25.30.010Purpose.
• 25.30.020Permitted uses.
• 25.30.030Permitted accessory uses.
• 25.30.040Conditional uses.
• 25.30.050Development standards.
25.30.010Purpose.
The R-S-20 suburban district R-9 Low Density Residential District is established to
provide a low-density residential environment permitting a gross density of two to five
dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan land use density table in
PMC 25.215.015. Lands within this district shall, unless specifically allowed herein,
contain suburban residential development with large lots and expansive yards. Structures
in this district are limited to single-family dwellings and customary accessory structures.
Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and
location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment. [Ord. 4575
§ 5, 2022; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.010.]
25.30.020Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R-S-20 suburban district:
(1) Single-family dwellings; and
(2) New factory-assembled homes.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of vacant
property for gardening or fruit raising. [Ord. 4575 § 5, 2022; Ord. 3731 § 3, 2005; Ord. 3354
§ 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.020.]
25.30.030Permitted accessory uses.
The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-20
suburban district:
(1) Detached residential garages as defined in PMC 25.15.090, provided they do not
exceed the height of 18 feet and are no larger than 1,600 square feet in area. For each
additional 20,000 square feet of lot area, the gross floor area of detached shops and
garages can be increased by 400 square feet. A greater height may be approved by special
permit based upon the review criteria listed in PMC 25.200.080 and 25.200.090;
(2) Home occupations as defined in PMC 25.15.100;
(3) Storage buildings cumulatively not exceeding 480 square feet of gross floor area and 15
feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in PMC 25.15.210, shall be
permitted. For each additional 20,000 square feet of lot area, the gross floor area of storage
sheds can be increased by 400 square feet;
(4) Agricultural uses (limited), as defined in PMC 25.15.030 (except that the keeping of
animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of 10,000 square feet over and above an
area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel);
(5) One animal unit (as defined in PMC 25.15.030) shall be allowed for each full 10,000-
square-foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet
set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel, provided all barns, barnyards, chicken
houses, or corrals shall be located not less than 25 feet from a public roadway and not less
than 10 feet from any adjoining property held under separate ownership; and provided, that
said number of chickens, fowl or rabbits does not exceed two animal units;
(6) The keeping of dogs and cats, provided such number of animals does not exceed three
dogs and three cats;
(7) Family day care home in conformance with Chapter 388-73 WAC as now existing and
as amended and Chapter 25.150 PMC;
(8) Accessory dwelling units;
(9) Family home preschool in conformance with Chapter 25.150 PMC; and
(10) For lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet but less than 22,000 square feet the
keeping of dogs, cats, rabbits, and chicken hens, provided such number of animals does
not exceed three dogs and/or three cats, and/or three rabbits and/or three chicken hens,
the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to
roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed. Structures related to rabbits
and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet
from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and
must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Property owners shall not allow such
structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. [Ord. 4575 § 5, 2022; Ord. 4144 § 1,
2014; Ord. 4110 § 8, 2013; Ord. 4036 § 2, 2011; Ord. 3688 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999;
Code 1970 § 25.22.030.]
25.30.040Conditional uses.
In addition to the unclassified uses listed in Chapter 25.200 PMC, the following uses may
be permitted by special permit as provided in Chapter 25.200 PMC:
(1) Churches and similar places of worship;
(2) Public libraries and municipal office buildings;
(3) Public and private schools, public parks and playgrounds;
(4) Fire department station houses;
(5) Day-care centers and preschool centers;
(6) Agricultural use (commercial);
(7) Buildings in conjunction with an agricultural use (limited), provided the parcel contains
at least five acres and the building will not be used for the conduct or support of any
business activity; and
(8) Unclassified uses as listed in PMC 25.200.020. [Ord. 4575 § 5, 2022; Ord. 4110 § 8,
2013; Ord. 3667 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.040.]
25.30.050Development standards.
(1) Minimum lot area: 20,000 8,700 square feet. The density of the project may not exceed
5 units per acre.
(2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in PMC 25.30.030(8).
(3) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent.
(4) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 25 feet.
(b) Side: 10 feet.
(c) Rear. Principal building: 25 feet.
Accessory buildings: Accessory buildings adjacent to an alley may be placed on the alley
line, provided there are no openings in the wall adjacent to the alley. Garages with vehicle
doors adjacent to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley,
the setback shall be 10 feet.
(5) Maximum Building Height.
(a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet.
(6) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC.
(7) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC.
(8) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC.
(9) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4575 § 5, 2022; Ord. 4110
§ 8, 2013; Ord. 3731 § 4, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.050.]
Chapter 25.215 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Sections:
• 25.215.010Adopted.
• 25.215.015Comprehensive Plan land use density table.
• 25.215.020Comprehensive Plan amendment.
25.215.010Adopted.
The Pasco Comprehensive Plan is a statement of goals and policies that outline the
community’s vision for the future. The Plan guides City decisions on how to address rapid
population growth and housing, land-use, transportation, natural and built environment,
economic opportunities and where to make capital investments aimed at improving our
community’s quality of life. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan land use density table is hereby
incorporated herein as adopted in PMC 25.215.015 as the gross density standard for the
development and redevelopment of lands within the City of Pasco Urban Growth
Area. [Ord. 4575 § 14, 2022; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.92.010.]
25.215.015Comprehensive Plan land use density table.
Maximum gross density of any proposed development within any zoning district, expressed
as dwelling units per acre, shall be no less than the corresponding minimum density
expressed in this section and no greater than the corresponding maximum density
expressed in this section, except as provided in Chapter 25.161 PMC.
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
Open Space/Parks Land where development will be
severely restricted: park lands, trails
and critical areas
All zoning districts
(Development of parks
and recreation facilities
requires special permit
review)
Low Density Residential -
Riverview
Variety of residential housing at a
density of 2-5 units per acre.
R-9 Low Density
Residential
Low Density Residential Variety of residential housing at a
density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per
acre
R-S-20; R-S-12; R-S-1;
R-1; R-1-A; R-1-A2
Medium Density Residential Variety of residential housing at a
density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per
acre.
R-2 through R-4; RP
High Density Residential Variety of residential housing at a
density 21 units per acre or more
R-4
Mixed
Residential/Commercial
Accommodates a diverse range of
housing, nonresidential uses,
commercial uses, neighborhood
retail and office uses, parks and
recreation areas, and civic uses at a
density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per
acre
R-1 through R-4; C-1
and O; Waterfront
Commercial Neighborhood, community and
regional shopping and specialty
centers, business parks, service and
office uses
O; BP; C-1; C-2; C-3; CR
Industrial Manufacturing, food processing,
storage and wholesale distribution of
equipment and products, hazardous
material storage, and transportation
related facilities
I-1; I-2; I-3
Public and Quasi-Public Schools, civic centers, fire stations
and other public uses
By special permit in all
districts (except I-3
which has various
restrictions)
Airport Reserve Land occupied by the Tri-Cities
Airport
I-1
DNR Reserve Transition lands owned and presently
managed by DNR for natural resource
production. Characteristics include,
but are not limited to, proximity to
urban-type development, road and
I-1
utility infrastructure, and market
demand.
[Ord. 4663 § 2, 2023; Ord. 4575 § 14, 2022.]
25.215.020Comprehensive Plan amendment.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the criteria and procedures for
reviewing and evaluating proposed amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan
consistent with the requirements of the State Growth Management Act.
(2) The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that comprehensive plans be subject to
continued review and evaluation and that any amendments or revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan conform to the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and that any
changes to development regulations or official controls are consistent with and implement
the Comprehensive Plan (RCW 36.70A.130(2)).
(3) Types of Comprehensive Plan Amendments Defined.
(a) “Periodic Comprehensive Plan amendment” means a modification to the City of
Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, a text amendment, change to
the Comprehensive Plan designations map or urban growth area amendment, and which
occurs during any annual or other periodic review of public and private Comprehensive
Plan amendment proposals.
(b) “Comprehensive Plan element amendment” means a proposed change or revision to
any of the required elements of the Comprehensive Plan such as the land use,
transportation, housing or capital facilities elements.
(c) “Emergency amendment” means any proposed change or revision to the
Comprehensive Plan that arises from a situation that necessitates expeditious action to
preserve the health, safety or welfare of the public, or to support the social, economic or
environmental well-being of the City. Emergency amendments may be reviewed and acted
upon outside the annual amendment review cycle.
(4) Initiation. Comprehensive Plan amendments may be initiated by any of the following:
(a) Property owner(s) or their representatives within the urban growth area;
(b) Any citizen, agency, neighborhood association or other party within the urban growth
area; or
(c) City Council or City staff.
(5) Applications. Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be made on
forms provided by the City.
(6) Application Submittal.
(a) Applicant Initiated. Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be subject to a fully
complete determination pursuant to this chapter. The date upon which the City makes a
fully complete determination shall be the date of registration with the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
(b) Applicants are required to utilize the City’s pre-application meeting process prior to
submitting a Comprehensive Plan amendment application.
(c) Non-Applicant-Initiated. After submittal of a non-applicant-initiated application, the
application shall be placed on the docket.
(d) Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Department of Community and
Economic Development shall establish and maintain a docket of all complete
applications.
(7) Annual Review of Docket.
(a) Sixty days prior to May 1st in each calendar year, the City shall notify the public that the
amendment process has begun. If May 1st falls on a nonbusiness day for the City, the due
date shall be the first business day after May 1st. Notice shall be distributed as follows:
(i) Notice published in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal;
(ii) Notice posted on the City’s website; and
(iii) Notice sent to all agencies, organizations and adjacent jurisdictions with a known
interest.
(b) All complete applications shall be docketed and reviewed concurrently, on an annual
basis and in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.130.
(i) Complete applications received after May 1st of the previous calendar year and before
May 1st of the current calendar year shall be included in the annual review. Those received
after May 1st of the calendar year shall be placed on the docket for review at the following
annual review.
(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 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.
(iii) Statutorily Mandated Periodic Review. Amendment requests will not be docketed for
review the year of and the year prior to the deadline for completion of the periodic review.
The deadline for completion of this review is specified in RCW 36.70A.130.
(iv) Emergency Amendments. The City may review and amend the Comprehensive Plan
when the Council determines that an emergency exists or in other circumstances as
provided for by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a).
(8) Notice of Open Record Hearing. Comprehensive Plan amendments require an open
record hearing before the Commission.
(a) Contents of Notice. A notice of open record hearing shall include the following:
(i) The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a
brief description of that provision;
(ii) A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision;
(iii) A statement of what areas, Comprehensive Plan designations, zones, or locations will
be directly affected or changed by the proposal;
(iv) The date, time, and location of the open record hearing;
(v) A statement of the availability of the official file; and
(vi) A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the Commission
and/or appear at the open record hearing of the Commission to give oral testimony on the
proposal.
(b) Distribution of Notice. The Department shall distribute the notice pursuant to
notification requirements of the Pasco Municipal Code.
(c) Approval Criteria. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments if it finds
that:
(i) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
(ii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW
and with the portion of the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the
amendment;
(iii) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
(iv) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
(9) Additional Factors. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving
Comprehensive Plan amendments:
(a) The effect upon the physical environment;
(b) The effect on open space and natural features including, but not limited to, topography,
streams, rivers, and lakes;
(c) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
(d) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public
transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
(e) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density
and the demand for such land;
(f) The current and projected project density in the area; and
(g) The effect, if any, upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
(10) Planning Commission Recommendation – Procedure. Following the open record
hearing, the Commission shall consider all applications concurrently, and shall prepare
and forward a recommendation of proposed action for all applications to the Council. The
Commission shall take one of the following actions on each application:
(a) If the Commission determines that any proposal should be adopted, it may, by a
majority vote, recommend that the Council adopt the proposal. The Commission may
make modifications to any proposal prior to recommending the proposal to Council for
adoption. If the modification is substantial, the Commission must conduct an open record
hearing on the modified proposal;
(b) If the Commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a
majority vote, recommend that the Council not adopt the proposal; or
(c) If the Commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in
subsection (10)(a) or (10)(b) of this section, the proposal will be sent to Council with the
notation that the Commission makes no recommendation.
(11) City Council Action. Within 60 days of receipt of the Commission’s findings and
recommendations, the Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the
Commission concerning the applications. The Council may hold additional public hearings
as necessary to make a decision. All annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall
be considered concurrently. By a majority vote of its membership, the Council shall take
one of the following actions on each application:
(a) Approve the application;
(b) Deny the application; or
(c) Modify the application. If the modification is substantial, the Council must either
conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or refer the proposal back to the
Commission for further consideration.
(12) Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least 60 days prior to final action being
taken by the Council, the Washington State Department of Commerce shall be provided
with a copy of the proposed amendments in order to initiate the 60-day comment period.
No later than 10 days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be
forwarded to Department of Commerce.
(13) Comprehensive Plan Element Amendments.
(a) Amendments to any of the required elements of the Comprehensive Plan as defined in
RCW 36.70A.070 shall be initiated by resolution approved by a majority vote of the City
Council.
(b) The City Council shall consider the amendments, conduct a public hearing on the
amendments and adopt the element by ordinance.
(14) Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
(a) Emergency amendments, as defined in this chapter, shall be initiated by resolution
approved by a vote of the Council upon a finding that a situation exists that necessitates
expeditious action to preserve the health, safety or welfare of the public; or to support the
social, economic or environmental well-being of the City.
(b) Emergency amendments so initiated shall be forwarded to the Director who shall
immediately begin processing the initiated amendment in the manner set forth for the
processing of annual Comprehensive Plan amendments.
(c) Appropriate public notice and an opportunity for public comment, as determined by
the nature of the emergency, must precede the adoption of emergency amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.