HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.02.23 Special Workshop Packet
AGENDA
City Council Workshop Meeting
6:00 PM - Monday, February 23, 2026
Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & Microsoft Teams Webinar
Page
1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - Individuals, who would
like to provide public comment remotely, may continue to do so by filling out
the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment)
to obtain access information to comment. Requests to comment in meetings
must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of this workshop.
The Pasco City Council Workshops are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel
191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at
www.facebook.com/cityofPasco.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call 1-332-249-0718 and use access
code 175 979 286#.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for
assistance.
Servicio de intéprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la
Secretaria Municipal dos dias antes para garantizar la disponiblidad.
(Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request.
Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure
availability.)
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT – the public may comment on each topic scheduled for
discussion, up to 2 minutes per person with a total of 8 minutes per item. If
Page 1 of 339
opposing sides wish to speak, then both sides receive an equal amount of
time to speak or up to 4 minutes each side.
3 - 52 (a) Office of the Attorney General: Open Public Meeting Act & Public
Records Training (90 minute presentation)
Presentation by Melissa Drewry, Local Government Public Records
Consultant
53 - 77 (b) Regional Lift Station and Private Pressurized Systems (15
minute staff presentation)
78 - 82 (c) Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) – Comprehensive Plan Update
Briefing (10 minutes staff presentation)
83 - 203 (d) Water Rights History and Code Clarification (10 minute staff
presentation)
204 - 209 (e) Ordinance - Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment-
School District Capital Facilities Plan Update (5 minute staff
presentation)
210 - 319 (f) Ordinance - Emergency Low Density Residential Land Use
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and R-S-20 Rezone (8 minute
staff presentation)
320 - 337 (g) Resolution - City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
(CSAP) Update and Adoption (10 minute staff presentation)
Presentation by Veronica Sullivan, DKS Associates, Consultant
Project Manager.
6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
9. ADDITIONAL NOTES
338 - 339 (a) Adopted Council Goals (Reference Only)
Page 2 of 339
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 9, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Office of the Attorney General: Open Public Meeting Act & Public
Records Training
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Melissa Drewry, Local Government Public Records Consultant
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
compliance requirements, statutory of review provide will training This a
expectations, and best practices related to open meetings and public records.
Topics include meeting procedures (regular, special, emergency, and remote
meetings), executive session limitations, public comment requirements, public
records searches, response timelines, exemptions, records and potential
penalties for non-compliance.
This Council’s ongoing commitment to transparency, training supports
accountability, and compliance with Washington State law.
Page 3 of 339
Open Government
training & refresher
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
3
3
9
Morgan Damerow (360) 570-3418
Melissa Drewry (360) 570-7412
PRAConsultation@atg.wa.gov
Technical Assistance – Training – Risk Mitigation
Local Government Public Records Consultation Program
Assisting local
governments with
PRA best practices.Pa
g
e
5
o
f
3
3
9
outline
Significance of Open Government & Transparency
The Open Public Meetings Act
The Public Records Act
This presentation is educational only and is not legal advice or a legal opinion. The
OPMA and PRA change over time. Later court decisions, or changes in statutes,
can impact these laws, an agency’s obligations and the expectations on individuals.
DISCLAIMER
3
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
3
3
9
Open
Government
Training
RCW 42.30.205; RCW 42.56.150 4
Training resources, videos, and more information about the Act are available on the Attorney General’s Office Open Government Training Web Page: http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernmentTraining.aspx
OPMA & PRA training required for every member of a
governing body within 90 days of taking their oath or
assuming their duties.
Refresher training no later than every four
years.
Training can be taken online or in personPa
g
e
7
o
f
3
3
9
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
A bit of history on
Transparency Laws
5
Washington’s
Open Public
Meetings Act
Passed in 1971.
Requires meetings to be open to the public,
gavel to gavel.
Washington’s
Public Records
Act
Passed in 1972.
Requires access to non-exempt public
records.
U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 1916 - 1939
Pa
g
e
8
o
f
3
3
9
OPEN Government TRAINING
Open public meetings act
Chapter 42.30 RCW
6
Pa
g
e
9
o
f
3
3
9
Core OPMA principles
RCW 42.30.910; Mead School Dist. No 354 v. Mead Ed. Ass’n.; Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA
The OPMA is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose, exceptions
are narrowly confined. It’s intended to guarantee public access to and
participation in the activities of their representative agencies.
7
The people insist on remaining informed and informing the
people’s public servants of their views so that they may retain
control over the instruments they have created.
It is the intent of this chapter that the actions of a
governing body be taken openly and that their deliberations
be conducted openly.
Pa
g
e
1
0
o
f
3
3
9
All MEETINGS of the GOVERNING BODY
of a PUBLIC AGENCY shall be open and public.
All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting
of the governing body of a public agency, except as
otherwise provided in RCW 42.30.
RCW 42.30.030
THE Basics
8
Pa
g
e
1
1
o
f
3
3
9
Meeting
Meeting means gathering, at which the public agency takes “action.”
Physical presence not required – an exchange of e-mail could constitute a meeting, a virtual gathering. (Serial meetings)
Requires a majority of the members (quorum). No meeting if less than a quorum.
Does not need to be titled “meeting” – may be a “retreat,” “workshop,” “study session,” etc.
Simply receiving information without comment is not a meeting.
RCW 42.30.020 9
Pa
g
e
1
2
o
f
3
3
9
10
The transaction of the official business of the public agency
and includes but is not limited to:
Public Testimony All Deliberations Discussions
Considerations Reviews Evaluations
Final Action
See upcoming slide on Final Action.
The requirements of the OPMA are triggered
whether or not “final” action is taken.
Action
RCW 42.30.020; Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County
Pa
g
e
1
3
o
f
3
3
9
Final
Action
“Final action” is a collective positive or
negative decision, or an actual vote, by a
majority of the governing body, or by the
“committee thereof.”
Must be taken in public, even if
deliberations were in executive session.
Secret ballots are not allowed.
RCW 42.30.060; RCW 42.30.020 11
Pa
g
e
1
4
o
f
3
3
9
12
Citizens Alliance v. San Juan County,
184 Wn.2d 428, 359 P.3d 753 (2015).
No OPMA violation because the commissioners were not aware that the communications included a majority, and passive receipt of information is not “action” under the OPMA.
Egan v. City of Seattle,
14 Wn. App.2d 594, 471 P.3d 899 (2020).
OPMA violation found. Over two dozen communications occurred between individual councilmembers, as well as city staff, during a three-day period. Communications included in-person meetings, emails, phone calls, text messages, and distribution of hard copies of a draft press release.
A “Meeting” requires a
Collective Intent to Meet
Pa
g
e
1
5
o
f
3
3
9
REGULAR
Recurring meetings held
in accordance with a
periodic schedule by
ordinance, resolution,
bylaws or other rule.
RCW 42.30.070; RCW 42.30.075; RCW 42.30.080
Meeting TYPES
13
SPECIAL
A “special meeting” is a
meeting that is not a
regular meeting.
Pa
g
e
1
6
o
f
3
3
9
Agenda available online at least 24 hours in advance of the published
start time of the meeting.
Agenda may be modified.
Any otherwise legal action taken at a regular meeting, where agenda
was not posted 24 hours in advance, is not invalidated. Failure to post
agenda is not the basis for attorney fees, mandamus or injunction.
Regular Meeting
procedures
RCW 42.30.077 14
Pa
g
e
1
7
o
f
3
3
9
Special Meetings
procedures
Can be called by presiding officer OR majority of the members.
RCW 42.30.080
Notice of Meeting
Written notice, 24 hours before the meeting of the Time, Place and
Business to be Transacted.
Exception: not required when the notice cannot be posted with reasonable safety.
How Notice is Provided
•To each member of the governing body (unless waived).
•To each local newspaper of general circulation, radio, and TV station which has a notice
request on file.
•Posted on the agency’s website [with certain exceptions in RCW 42.30.080(2)(b)].
•Prominently displayed at the main entrance of the agency’s principal location and the
meeting site (if not at the same location, or not remote).
15
Pa
g
e
1
8
o
f
3
3
9
Emergency Special Meetings
Notice is not required for a special meeting called to deal with an emergency.
RCW 42.30.080(4)
Time requirements of such notice
would make notice impractical and
increase the likelihood of such injury
or damage.
The required notice cannot be posted or
displayed with reasonable safety,
including but not limited to declared
emergencies in which travel to physically
post notice is barred or advised against.
OR
16
Emergency means circumstances involving injury or damage to persons or
property or the likelihood of such injury or damage.
Pa
g
e
1
9
o
f
3
3
9
Remote emergency Meetings
Requirements for an emergency remote meeting:
•Declared emergency at the local, state or federal level AND the agency determines it cannot hold a meeting in person with reasonable safety where members or public are in attendance.
•Public must be able to listen, if not, meeting prohibited - except executive session.
•Notice of meeting must include remote participation instructions and otherwise comply with the OPMA notice requirements.
Structure of an emergency remote meeting:
•Option 1: Hold an all-remote meeting without a physical location.
•Option 2: Hold a meeting with governing body present but some or all of the public excluded.
RCW 42.56.230 17
Members of a governing body may participate in a meeting remotely, with no declared emergency,
if otherwise permitted by agency policy or practice.
Pa
g
e
2
0
o
f
3
3
9
INCLUDES
What is a Governing Body?
Multimember boards, commissions, councils, or other policy or rule-making bodies of a public agency.
– Committees and Subcommittees –
Acting on behalf of governing body, taking testimony
or public comment, or conducting hearings.
– Advisory Bodies –
If the body’s advice is necessary for the
governing body to act, and the body was created
by the legislative body.
RCW 42.30.020 18
Pa
g
e
2
1
o
f
3
3
9
Multi-member public state and local agencies, such as boards and commissions:
•Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature.
•Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of Washington.
•Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies.
•Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.
“Public Agencies subject to the OPMA.
RCW 42.30.020 19
Pa
g
e
2
2
o
f
3
3
9
RCW 42.30.020; RCW 42.30.140
The OPMA does not apply to
These activities:
•Licensing/permitting for businesses, occupations or professions or their disciplinary proceedings (or proceedings to receive a license for a sports activity, or to operate a mechanical device or motor vehicle).
•Quasi-judicial matters.
•Matters governed by the Washington Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05.
•Collective bargaining.
These entities:
•Courts
•Legislature
•Agencies not defined as “public agency” in OPMA, such as agencies governed by a single individual.
•Private organizations, i.e., HOA’s, Youth Sports Clubs.
20
Pa
g
e
2
3
o
f
3
3
9
Public
Attendance
RCW 42.30.040; Zink v. City of Mesa, AGO Opinion 1998 No. 15.
A public agency can’t place conditions on public
to attend meetings subject to OPMA.
Reasonable rules of conduct can be set.
Governing body may adopt generally applicable
conditions determined to be reasonably
necessary to protect public health or safety, or to
protect against interruptions.
Agencies encouraged to provide remote access
that does not require an additional cost to access
the meeting.
Cameras and tape recorders are permitted unless
disruptive.
21
Pa
g
e
2
4
o
f
3
3
9
Remote Observation
and Participation
RCW 42.30.220 22
Agencies are encouraged to:
•Provide remote access that does not require an
additional cost to access the meeting.
•Provide an online streaming option for all regular
meetings.
•Make audio or video recordings and make
recordings available online for a minimum of six
months.
Pa
g
e
2
5
o
f
3
3
9
Public Comment
Oral Comment
• The governing body shall, when reasonable,
provide people with a disability, limited
mobility or any other reason that makes
physical attendance difficult, the opportunity
to make oral comment.
• May put guidelines in place for public
comment i.e., time limits.
Written Comment
• Written testimony must be distributed to
the governing body.
• May have reasonable deadlines for
submission of written testimony.
RCW 42.56.240
Oral or written public comment required at or before every regular meeting at which final action is taken.
23
Pa
g
e
2
6
o
f
3
3
9
• Part of a regular or special meeting that is closed to the public.
• Limited to specific purposes set out in the OPMA, RCW
42.30.110.
• Purpose of the executive session and the time it will end must be
announced by the presiding officer before it begins.
• Time may be extended. Must be announced by presiding officer.
• Purpose of executive session must be entered into the minutes.
Executive Session
RCW 42.30.110 24
Pa
g
e
2
7
o
f
3
3
9
Executive Session
RCW 42.30.110
•To evaluate qualifications of applicant for public employment.
•Consideration of the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. Final action selling or leasing public property must be taken at open meeting.
•Review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs.
•Meet with legal counsel regarding enforcement actions, litigation or potential litigation.
•National Security.
Sample of allowed purposes for an Executive Session.
Examples above may be summaries. Please review the statute’s actual provisions.
Other purposes are identified in RCW 42.30.110(1).25
Pa
g
e
2
8
o
f
3
3
9
Travel and
Gathering
•A majority of the members of a governing body
may travel together or gather for purposes other
than a regular meeting or a special meeting, so
long as no action is taken.
•Discussion or consideration of official business
would be action; action triggers the OPMA’s
requirements.
RCW 42.30.070 26
Pa
g
e
2
9
o
f
3
3
9
Minutes of public meetings must be promptly recorded and open to
public inspection.
Minutes of an executive session are not required.
No format specified in law.
Executive session’s purpose must be recorded in the minutes.
If meeting provides remote option, add relevant information to the
minutes like links & phone numbers.
Minutes
RCW 42.30.035
Pa
g
e
3
0
o
f
3
3
9
•May stop individuals from speaking when not recognized to speak.
•The OPMA provides a procedure for dealing with situations where a meeting is
being interrupted, the orderly conduct of the meeting is unfeasible, and order
cannot be restored by removal of the disruptive persons.
Interruptions and Disruptions
RCW 42.30.050
•OPMA provides hierarchy for restoration of an orderly
meeting, through removal of individuals who are
interrupting the meeting, clearing the meeting room, or
moving the meeting to another location. Final disposition
can occur only on matters appearing on the agenda. More
details set out in the OPMA.
28
Pa
g
e
3
1
o
f
3
3
9
•Penalty may be imposed against individual members of the governing body for knowing violations by the courts.
•$500 fine for the first violation.
•$1,000 for subsequent violation.
•Costs and attorney fees.
•Mandamus or injunctive action to stop violations.
OPMA Penalties
RCW 42.30.120
•Final action at illegal meetings may be declared void.
29
Pa
g
e
3
2
o
f
3
3
9
OPEN Government TRAINING
PUBLIC RECORDS ACTChapter 42.56 RCW
30
Pa
g
e
3
3
o
f
3
3
9
Government Conduct
P.O.U.R.
WritingPublic
Records
Defined
Private Devices
Scope of Employment
Pa
g
e
3
4
o
f
3
3
9
Personal Devices & Accounts
Includes - personal cell phones, text messages, email accounts, and social media accounts.
Bottom Line
Records belong to the agency. They are not personal records.
The public employee must obtain, segregate and produce to the employer those public
records that are responsive to a PRA request from the employee’s personal accounts,
files, and devices.
32
Pa
g
e
3
5
o
f
3
3
9
The Public Records Process
Request Received
5-Day Letter
Search
Review & Redact
Production
Close Request
Installments
33
Pa
g
e
3
6
o
f
3
3
9
The request
Format
Agencies shall honor requests
received in person during an agency's
normal office hours, or by mail or
email, for identifiable public records
unless exempted by provisions of this
chapter. No official format is required
for making a records request;
however, agencies may recommend
that requestors submit requests using
an agency provided form or web
page.
Submission
Identified Portals
Email
Webpage
Portals
PRO
Informal Options
Everything Else
34
Pa
g
e
3
7
o
f
3
3
9
What does a PRA Request Look Like?
BEST PRACTICE
REFER PERSONS TO PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICER.
IF YOU RECEIVE A COMMUNICATION SUCH AS THOSE ABOVE, GET IT TO PUBLIC
RECORDS OFFICER ASAP.35
Did you receive one? Test: “FAIR NOTICE”
•Says “I am making a public records request for….”
•On the agency’s Public Records Request form
•Says it is a “Public Records Act” or “PRA” request
•Cites PRA -RCW 42.56, “Freedom of Information Act” or “FOIA”
•Says “Attention: Public Records Officer”
Must accept in person requests made during normal office hours.
A request for “information” is not a request for “records” under the PRA.
Pa
g
e
3
8
o
f
3
3
9
Requester
Identity
36
•Treat all requesters the same.
•Does not mean they all get the same records.
City of Fife v. Hicks, 186 Wn . App. 122, 345 P.3d 1 (2015).
•While the default is neutrality, identity of the
requester may matter.
E.g. Student Records, News Media, Commercial
Purpose, Juvenile Justice Records…
Pa
g
e
3
9
o
f
3
3
9
The 5-Day Letter Options
1.Provide the record;
2.Provide an internet address and link on the agency's
website;
3.Acknowledge receipt the request and providing a
reasonable estimate of the time to respond to the request;
4.Acknowledge receipt and request clarification; or
5.Denying the public record request.
37
Pa
g
e
4
0
o
f
3
3
9
“The adequacy of a search is judged
by a standard of reasonableness, that
is, the search must be reasonably
calculated to uncover all relevant
documents.”
Searching
for records
38
Pa
g
e
4
1
o
f
3
3
9
Discussion – How are you currently
documenting your search?
Pa
g
e
4
2
o
f
3
3
9
Pa
g
e
4
3
o
f
3
3
9
41
Plan searches:
•Understand your agency. Who holds what
records. What are the records storage
locations and systems.
•“Easy” vs Complex searches.
•Talk about potential search terms.
•Be aware of acronyms, misspellings, or
alternative spellings.
•Follow the breadcrumbs. Additional
Searches may be needed.
•How do YOU communicate with the public and
staff?
Cast a wide net and document your efforts:
•Search terms used.
•Locations searched.
•Description of records produced & how.
•Description of records not produced.Pa
g
e
4
4
o
f
3
3
9
Exemptions – a foundation
•Records are presumed open.
•An exemption must exist in law (state or federal;
PRA or other laws).
•Exemptions are narrowly construed.
•The individual asserting the exemption bears the
burden of proof.
•An agency must, in writing, cite the exemption for
the requester and provide a brief explanation.
Typically agencies provide an “Exemption Log.”
•No “silent withholding.”
•The majority of exemptions are discretionary.
42
Pa
g
e
4
5
o
f
3
3
9
Privacy as an Exemption
There is no general “privacy” exemption.
If privacy is an express element of another exemption, privacy is invaded only if
disclosure would be:
Highly offensive to the reasonable person, and
Not of legitimate concern to the public.
If information does not satisfy both factors, it cannot be withheld as “private”
information under other statutes. RCW 42.56.050
Example: RCW 42.56.230(3)
Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected
officials of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to
privacy (information regarding misconduct is not exempt).
43
Pa
g
e
4
6
o
f
3
3
9
The “Draft” Exemption - RCW 42.56.280
44
There is no “Draft” exemption.
There is a deliberative process
exemption.
Temporarily provides an exemption to allow a full and robust discussion of a policy level issue.
Protects discussion of decision makes and communication from other staff.
Does not protect underlying factual
records.
A specific record is not exempt when
publicly cited by an agency.
Protection ends when decision is made.
Does not apply to implementation records.
Pa
g
e
4
7
o
f
3
3
9
What is Exempt: Any employee's name or other personally identifying information, including but not limited to birthdate, job title, addresses of work stations and locations, work email address, work phone number, bargaining unit, or other similar information, maintained by an agency in personnel-related records or systems, or responsive to a request for a list of individuals subject to the commercial purpose prohibition under RCW 42.56.070(8).
Employee Must provide:
Sworn statement under penalty of
perjury; verified by the director or designee; that “they” are a survivor
with reasonable basis to believe risk continues, OR
Proof of participation in the address
confidentiality program under chapter 40.24 RCW.
Key Considerations:
Applies if employee, or the dependent
of the employee is the victim.
Also protects all documentation
maintained to administer the exemption.
DOES NOT APPLY to records requests from the news media as defined in RCW
5.68.010(5). See Green v. Pierce County, 197 Wn.2d 841, 487 P.3d 499 (2021).
RCW 42.56.250(1)(i) – Domestic Violence, Stalking … Survivors
Pa
g
e
4
8
o
f
3
3
9
Close the Request
1)Agency must provide a final, definitive response to a PRA request with the following requirements:
1.How the PRA request was fulfilled and why the agency is now closing the request, “Closed” is insufficient.
2.That the PRA's one-year statute of limitations to seek judicial review has started to run because the agency does not intend to further address the request, and
3.That the requester may ask follow-up questions within a reasonable time frame.
2)Closing letters must be written in plain, clear, language.
Pa
g
e
4
9
o
f
3
3
9
Why You Should Care About
PRA Laws
PRA Penalties & Judgments
$2.6 M – City of Tacoma
$14.00 – Office of the Governor
RCW 42.56.550(4) Judicial Review of Agency Action
Any person who prevails against an agency … shall be
awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, … In
addition, … an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars
for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect
or copy said public record.
Pa
g
e
5
0
o
f
3
3
9
Any questions?
Pa
g
e
5
1
o
f
3
3
9
Morgan Damerow (360) 570-3418
Melissa Drewry (360) 570-7412
PRAConsultation@atg.wa.gov
Technical Assistance – Training – Risk Mitigation
Local Government Public Records Consultation Program
Assisting local
governments with
PRA best practices.Pa
g
e
5
2
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 30, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Regional Lift Station and Private Pressurized Systems
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation Only
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is requested at this time. This item is for information and policy
discussion.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Regional Lift Stations:
Higher upfront capital investment due to construction of centralized
facilities and force mains.
Reduced long-term operations cost per connection through economies
of scale.
Centralized maintenance and professional oversight may improve
lifecycle cost control.
Private Pressurized Systems:
Lower initial cost per lot in areas where gravity sewer is not an option.
Higher long-term operations and maintenance costs borne by individual
property owners, homeowners’ associations, or utility entities like a City.
Lifecycle cost varies based on pump type, frequency of use, and
maintenance practices.
NOTE: that a shared private system poses a bigger risk to users, and may
require the City to step in and make emergency repairs if a health/safety risk
arises.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Page 53 of 339
Under Washington’s Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), sanitary sewer
service is considered an urban governmental service and must be planned to
support growth within designated Urban Growth Areas. Comprehensive plans
are required to include a Utilities Element that identifies existing sewer
facilities, describes their general location and capacity, and plans for future
sewer projected serve to needed extensions system and upgrades
development. Sewer planning must align with land use assumptions and
discourage extension of urban sewer service into rural areas except where
necessary for public health, supporting compact and efficient urban growth.
In Pasco, sewer planning under the Growth Management Act is implemented
through the Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element, the Comprehensive Sewer
System Plan, and the six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). These
documents evaluate and projections, collection wastewater flow establish
treatment capacity, and identify capital improvements needed to serve future
growth.
Together, these planning tools ensure that sewer infrastructure is planned,
sized, and funded to accommodate anticipated development at identified
densities in growth and infill areas while maintaining adopted levels of service.
City Council has previously considered sewer infrastructure needs in growth
areas where gravity sewer is not available due to topography or low
development density. In such cases, traditional gravity collection systems
transition to pressurized conveyance, typically through publicly owned and
operated lift stations that pump wastewater through force mains to downstream
gravity systems. Low-pressure sewer systems or private individual pressurized
systems have historically been reserved for limited conditions where neither
gravity sewer nor regional lift stations are an option.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recent increased interest in private pressurized sewer systems has prompted
the need to more clearly define the benefits and limitations of regional lift
stations compared to localized or individual systems. These systems are not
mutually exclusive; both have a role in enabling development where gravity
sewer is not feasible. However, the choice of sewer method directly influences
development patterns and has long-term implications for community costs,
service reliability, and quality of life.
Regional Lift Stations:
Advantages:
• Centralized operation simplifies maintenance and staffing.
• Typically more efficient for managing larger flows.
• Scalable as service areas grow.
Limitations:
Page 54 of 339
• Higher initial capital cost.
• Requires careful siting and environmental permitting.
Private Pressurized Systems:
Advantages:
• Lower upfront cost per connection in difficult terrain.
• May reduce the need for deep excavation.
Limitations:
• Long-term costs may exceed centralized systems if pumps require frequent
replacement or repair.
• A blockage on a shared system would impact many more people, with greater
cost and delay to address
The source of such a blockage would be difficult to determine, exacerbating
that problem.
• System failure could present a significant health and safety risk for other
users connected to that system, leading to pressure on a city to assume
responsibility for that low-pressure system.
While individual pressurized systems can reduce the need for deep excavation
and eliminate a centralized station, they shift operational complexity from a
single public facility to multiple private locations and increased risk, particularly
when shared force mains are involved. Failures of a system could create a duty
for the City to fix them and take responsibility for the system, leaving
ratepayers on the hook.
A gravity system discharging into a regional lift station has a built in layer of
protection as the sump at the station, the pipe, and manholes provides capacity
to surcharge in case of a failure. A shared force main would almost
immediately back up into houses.
The City of Pasco does not prohibit grinder pumps on individual
pressurized sewer systems. This is a common misconception. The use of
grinder pumps and low pressure sewer systems is reserved for small pockets
of otherwise unserviceable parcels. Historically, the City has allowed grinder
pumps only when the force main they discharge into is also private and
individually owned.
Because grinder pumps are privately owned and operated, regular professional
maintenance cannot be assured. A shared force main would create public
health and safety risks if even one user fails to properly maintain or replace
equipment.
Policy and Planning Considerations:
• Growth Areas: In future subdivisions where gravity sewer is infeasible,
pressurized systems may enable development at lower initial cost.
• Maintenance Strategy: A policy decision is needed regarding whether the City
Page 55 of 339
would assume responsibility for decentralized systems or require homeowners’
associations or utility districts to manage them.
• Risk and Liability: Failures affecting multiple properties raise questions
regarding liability, service expectations, and political and operational pressures
on the City. These challenges emerge as the system ages, homeowners
change, and homeowners’ associations (HOAs) become inactive.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City continue to be discerning in its use of private
pressure where a regional sewer solution exists or is planned in the Sewer
System Plan, individual grinder pumps should not be permitted. Similarly,
where a gravity sewer system is feasible, pressurized systems should not be
used.
Legislative Update. Bill 6234:
Senate Bill 6234 is being discussed at the legislature, it establishes that
Grinder Pumps and low pressure systems shall not be prohibited by cities or
sewer districts. At the time of writing this report, the bill is still at the senate in
readings and committees, with potential substitute bills being proposed and
discussed.
Page 56 of 339
Pasco City Council
February 23, 2026
Workshop
Pa
g
e
5
7
o
f
3
3
9
Regional Lift Stations and
Pressurized
Private Sewer Systems
February 23, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
5
8
o
f
3
3
9
1.Gravity sewer and lift stations/pressurized systems
2.Brief overview of the City’s Sewer System
3.Current regulations and framework
4.Wastewater infrastructure options for future development
5.Cost, reliability, and long-term responsibility
6.Information to support policy decisions
Regional Lift Stations and Pressurized Private Sewer System
Pa
g
e
5
9
o
f
3
3
9
Regional Lift Stations and Pressurized
Private Sewer System
Relevance
• Growth in areas without existing gravity sewer service
• Wastewater must be pumped uphill or long distances
• Infrastructure choices affect:
oCity and individuals’ budgets
oReliability
oPublic health and the environment
oLong-term maintenance obligations
Pa
g
e
6
0
o
f
3
3
9
Gravity Sewer
Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/design-sewerage-system-muhammad-bhatti/
Pa
g
e
6
1
o
f
3
3
9
Regional Lift Stations
Source: https://connected.pmhc.nsw.gov.au
•Centralized lift (pump) stations serving multiple
properties in an area
•City-owned and operated
•Designed as permanent public infrastructure
•Common in traditional sewer systems
Public infrastructure characteristics
•Wetwell and multiple pumps
•Redundant equipment and alarms
•Backup power capability
•Professionally maintained and monitored
Pa
g
e
6
2
o
f
3
3
9
Individual Private Pressurized Systems
Source: Grinder Pumps | District of West Vancouver
•Individual pump or grinder at each unit
or property
•Pumps wastewater into individual private
pressure main
•The system (pump and main) is homeowner-
owned and maintained
•Performance dependent on individual
maintenance
Pa
g
e
6
3
o
f
3
3
9
Shared Private Pressurized Systems
Source:Certified Grinder Pump Repair Upstate NY
•Individual pump or grinder at each unit
or property
•Pumps wastewater into shared private
pressure main
•The pump is homeowner-owned and
maintained
•The forcemain is HOA owned and
maintained
•Performance dependent HOA and
Homeowners maintenance and behavior
Private shared
forcemain
Pa
g
e
6
4
o
f
3
3
9
Comparison
Regional lift Stations Individual Private
Pressurized Systems
Shared Private Pressurized Systems
Upfront
Capital Cost
Highest Medium Lowest
Reliability
and Risk
Built-in redundancy
Central monitoring and
alarms
Professional maintenance
response
Single-point failures at each
property
Greater risk during power
outages
Slower response to failures
Single-point failures at each property
Higher risk of failure due to blockage
of shared forcemain impact to
others using this private system
Greater risk during power outages
Slower response to failures
Ownership Public Private individual Private but shared
Currently
allowed
YES YES NO
Pa
g
e
6
5
o
f
3
3
9
Overview of City’s Sewer System
Pa
g
e
6
6
o
f
3
3
9
Overview of City’s Sewer System
Components
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Collection System:
290 miles of gravity sewer mains
17 Regional Lift stations
7.6 miles of force mains
X lots served with private individual
pressurized systems
Pa
g
e
6
7
o
f
3
3
9
Overview of City’s Sewer System
WEST
BROADMOOR
LS
EAST RIVERVIEW
LS
GLADE RD
LS
Pa
g
e
6
8
o
f
3
3
9
Overview of City’s Sewer System
Pa
g
e
6
9
o
f
3
3
9
Overview of City’s Sewer System
Pa
g
e
7
0
o
f
3
3
9
Focusing on Riverview Area
Pa
g
e
7
1
o
f
3
3
9
Focusing on Riverview Area
Pa
g
e
7
2
o
f
3
3
9
Current regulations and framework
1.Gravity is required where feasible
2.Regional Lift Stations are planned in adopted Sewer System Plan,
approved by Ecology.
3.Individual Private Pressurized Systems are allowed in Pasco .
Their application is reserved for localized low spots, where gravity
cannot serve the parcel(s) and a regional facility is not already
planned.
4.Shared Private Pressurized Systems have not been allowed in
Pasco.
Pa
g
e
7
3
o
f
3
3
9
Current regulations and framework
Pa
g
e
7
4
o
f
3
3
9
What other cities are doing
Regional Feedback
•Prosser:Allows shared pressurized systems but will not accept as
public infrastructure; requires HOA ownership and maintenance.
•Kennewick: Previously allowed for isolated sites; now disallows
grinder pumps where gravity sewer is available, regardless of cost.
•West Richland: More permissive; older sewer plan (1997) may
explain broader approvals.
Pa
g
e
7
5
o
f
3
3
9
Policy discussion
•Clear ownership and responsibility vs. fragmented control
Who owns and maintains the system long -term?
•Emergency response coordination
•Liability for backups or overflows
•Enforcement challenges when private systems fail
How much operational risk is acceptable?
What is the City's duty to respond to health and safety issues?
•Equity concerns for homeowners
What protects future residents and other ratepayers?
Pa
g
e
7
6
o
f
3
3
9
Questions?Pa
g
e
7
7
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 28, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) – Comprehensive Plan Update Briefing
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Land Capacity Analysis City Council Presentation – February 2026
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
No formal action is requested. Staff recommends that Council receive the Land
Capacity Analysis as informational and use it as a reference document during
upcoming Comprehensive Plan policy discussions. Council may also provide
direction to staff regarding preferred housing strategies or request additional
analysis of specific land use or zoning approaches for further review with the
Planning Comprehensive any advancing Plan prior Commission to
amendments.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
jurisdictions (GMA), Act Management Under Washington the are Growth
required to periodically evaluate whether sufficient land capacity exists within
the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate projected population, housing,
and employment growth. The Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) was prepared as
part of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan update to meet this requirement and to
inform future land use and zoning decisions.
Background
The LCA evaluates current land use, zoning, development constraints, and
market trends to determine realistic development capacity through the 2046
Page 78 of 339
planning horizon. The analysis considers vacant, underdeveloped, pipeline,
and constrained parcels and applies density assumptions based on existing
development standards. The LCA also evaluates the income levels served by
different zoning categories to assess housing affordability capacity.
To summarize, Pasco currently has a surplus of higher-priced housing and a
deficit of more affordable options. Simply put, building more housing overall is
not the full solution. What is most needed is smaller-scale and lower-cost
housing types, such as condominiums, apartments, row houses, and small-lot
development.
to is Act Management (GMA) the under mandate Pasco’s Growth
accommodate housing growth across the affordability spectrum. While the City
currently has sufficient land capacity to meet projected growth in median- and
higher-income households, the LCA indicates there is not enough capacity to
meet anticipated demand for housing serving lower-income households.
To increase the City’s capacity for housing types that serve more affordable
households (including townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, appropriately scaled
apartment buildings, cottage clusters, and similar housing) staff is seeking
input from the City Council and Planning Commission on potential strategies to
pursue update. particularly is Staff Plan as the of part Comprehensive
interested in understanding which strategies, or combination of strategies,
these bodies prefer and which approaches should be deprioritized.
The City Council should also be prepared for what these changes could mean
in considerations, and zoning including development practice, patterns,
neighborhood design. These discussions will follow in future meetings.
In short, if the core challenge is that lower-income residents cannot afford the
current existing the persist will under that stock, housing challenge
development model. While the City has made meaningful progress over the
past five years, continued education and clarity will help the City Council,
Planning Commission and the community better understand the issue and the
types of solutions needed to address it.
Impact (other than fiscal)
The LCA identifies that while Pasco has adequate capacity to accommodate
projected employment growth, existing zoning does not fully accommodate
projected moderate-income housing demand, particularly for low- and
households. The analysis highlights a structural housing capacity gap that may
affect housing availability, affordability, and long-term community sustainability
if not addressed through policy decisions.
Page 79 of 339
V. DISCUSSION:
The LCA does not change zoning or land use regulations. Instead, it provides a
technical foundation for policy discussion during the Comprehensive Plan
update.
Potential strategies for the City Council consideration include:
Increasing residential density where multifamily housing is already
allowed (commercial and mixed-use areas). Directly increases capacity in
zones assumed to serve households below 80% of the area medium income
(AMI).
Allowing more “missing-middle” housing in lower-density residential
areas. Reduces reliance on apartments as the sole means of addressing the
housing gap and introduces more gradual forms of density.
Increasing height limits in commercial and mixed-use areas. Could be
paired with form-based standards such as stepbacks, transition areas, and
design controls to manage scale and compatibility.
Expanding available commercial and mixed-use zoned land. Could support
vertical mixed-use development in targeted areas.
through zones residential greenfield Expanding Note: lower-intensity
development at the edge of the City or UGA will not address the identified
housing capacity gap. Doing so would primarily add capacity for housing types
that tend to serve middle- and higher-income households, where the City
already has sufficient capacity.
These strategies will require further analysis, public engagement, and Planning
Commission direction before implementation.
Scenario Testing and Capacity Sensitivity Analysis
As part of the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA), staff and consultants evaluated
several and zoning how potential to scenarios sensitivity understand
development-assumption changes could affect housing capacity within city
limits. These scenarios are intended to inform policy discussion during the
Comprehensive Plan update and do not represent adopted policy direction.
The following modeling assumptions were tested:
zones.Increased density assumptions in higher-intensity Density
assumptions in the Mixed-Use (MU) and R-4 zones were adjusted to reflect
potential development capacity based on minimum lot size standards. The MU
density assumption was increased from 29 to approximately 43.6 dwelling units
Page 80 of 339
per to 21 from was assumption increased R-4 the and acre, density
approximately 34.8 dwelling units per acre. These adjustments resulted in an
estimated increase of approximately 970 housing units.
Residential development assumptions in commercial zones. To reflect the
modeled modest a staff development, mixed-use vertical for potential
residential development share in commercial zones. This included applying a
density assumption of 29 dwelling units per acre and assuming a 10 percent
residential development share in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones, resulting in
approximately 1,070 additional housing units.
zones.residential lower-density in assumptions infill Moderate Staff
modeled a conservative infill scenario assuming approximately 5 percent of
parcels in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones with existing single-family homes would
add additional housing units over time, similar to accessory dwelling unit
assumptions used in comparable analyses. This resulted in approximately 490
additional housing units.
Collectively, housing projected the adjustments reduced modeled these
capacity deficit identified in the LCA. However, the analysis still indicates a
remaining and overall housing units approximately of deficit 1,000
approximately 4,000 units serving households at or below 80 percent of Area
Median Income (AMI) within city limits.
These results suggest that addressing the identified housing capacity gap will
likely considered the through of combination a require strategies
Comprehensive Plan update process.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council receive the Land Capacity Analysis as
during informational and use it as a reference document upcoming
Comprehensive Plan policy discussions. Council may also provide direction to
staff regarding preferred housing strategies or request additional analysis of
specific land use or zoning approaches for further review with the Planning
Commission prior to advancing any Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Constraints (time or other considerations)
The LCA must be completed and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan
update to remain compliant with GMA requirements. Policy changes informed
by the LCA will require additional process, including public review and Council
action, within established planning timelines.
Next Steps
Staff will incorporate LCA findings into the Comprehensive Plan update and
return to Council with policy options, analysis, and recommendations for
Page 81 of 339
addressing identified housing capacity gaps later on in the year.
Alternatively, Council May
Provide directions to staff regarding preferred housing strategies or request
additional analysis on specific land use or zoning to look into with the Planning
Commission prior to advancing Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Page 82 of 339
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 5, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Water Rights History and Code Clarification
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
January 2018 Water Rights Staff Report
October 2023 Water Rights Staff Report
November 2023 Water Rights Staff Report
January 2024 Water Rights Staff Report
April 2024 Water Rights Staff Report
June 2024 Water Rights Staff Report
2025 Water Rights Metering Letter
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion and direction.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff is requesting discussion and direction. Impact will vary based on Council's
direction.
If Council desired to grandfather the entire ordinance (old fee and no
surcharge), the Water utility has to fund nearly $4 million in additional
water rights fees.
If the 50% surcharge applies when the property had water rights and the
owner chose to move them from the property and pay in-lieu fees, the
Water utility has to fund $2.5 million in additional water rights fees.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Water rights in Washington State are a legal authorization to use public water
for a beneficial purpose, regulated by the Department of Ecology (DOE). These
rights are separate from land ownership and specify source, quantity, place of
Page 83 of 339
use, and purpose. Transfers or changes require DOE approval.
For Pasco, water rights are critical because:
1. Growth depends on water availability: Without sufficient water rights, the
City cannot legally supply water to new developments.
2. DOE limits withdrawals: Even if water is physically available, legal rights
govern usage.
3. Economic development: Adequate water rights enable housing projects,
commercial expansion, and industrial recruitment.
Historical Context
Early 2000s: Pasco joined West Richland, Richland, and Kennewick to
acquire and residential rapid support to rights water City Quad
the acquisition, this Despite side. commercial its on growth west
Department of Ecology remained concerned that Pasco's water supply
could not meet escalating potable and irrigation demands, leading to the
inclusion of these concerns in Quad City water rights litigation.
2002: Ordinance 3547 required ALL developments, including
commercial and residential, to provide water rights, either through
transfer or payment in lieu of.
removed for the specifically requirement Ordinance 3795 2006:
commercial development to provide water rights, either through transfer
or payment in lieu of in an effort to spur commercial growth.
2018: Highlighted of original fees and recommended inadequacy
requiring developers to bring water rights or pay fees reflecting market
costs.
2023: Increased in-lieu fee from $1,725 to $4,150 per acre-foot and
added a 50% surcharge for properties that had had water rights within
the last 10 years (and were stripped or banked detaching them from the
developable property). This ordinance also reintroduced the requirement
for all types of development to provide sufficient water rights, either
through transfer of payment in lieu of.
Rights Subcommittee recommendations, Implemented 2024: Water
removed retroactive surcharge beyond Dec. 3, 2023, and required
biennial fee review.
V. DISCUSSION:
Current Challenges:
1. Available Water Rights
1. System A (Columbia River surface rights):
a. Authorized 21,097 acre-feet;
b. 2025 Usage - 20,133 acre-feet
c. Utilization - 964 acre-feet under authorization, i.e., available
spare capacity
2. System B (non-508-14 groundwater):
Page 84 of 339
a. Authorized 3,844 acre-feet;
b. 2025 use 3,612 acre-feet
c. Utilization - 232 acre-feet under authorization, i.e., available
spare capacity
3. System C (508-14 groundwater):
a. Authorized 2,263 acre-feet;
b. 2025 Usage - 3,761 acre-feet
c. - Utilization 1,498 acre-feet over authorization (primary
compliance risk)
4. PWRF spray fields:
o Authorized 8,230 acre-feet;
o 2025 Usage - 3,691 acre-feet
o Utilization - 4,539 acre-feet under authorization, i.e., available
spare capacity
Staff is working with the Washington State Department of Ecology to provide
flexibility in the City’s use of existing water rights for broader municipal
purposes. The City will also continue efforts to acquire additional water rights
as necessary to support service demands across its systems.
2. Grandfathering Preliminary Plats
o when rights water transfer of requires 13.45.060 PMC the
connecting to City water or pay in lieu fee if no water rights are
associated with the parcel. A 50% surcharge applies if the water
rights from the developing property have been removed from the
property (stripped or banked) between December 3, 2023 and the
time the connection occurs.
o exempt agreed verbally 2024 to in Council early
developments with completed preliminary plat from paying
revised fees, but this was not codified.
o Clarification needed on whether Council intended to grandfather
ALL aspects, including commercial and industrial exemptions and
the 50% surcharge. For e.g., for grandfathered preliminary plats,
if the property had water rights in the past: is the developer
exempt will words, other In the 50% from the surcharge?
developer pay the grandfathered rate of $1,725 or the surcharged
rate of $2,587?
o Vesting Doctrine does not apply to water rights. Fees can legally
be assessed at current rates.
Recommendation:
Staff requests Council discussion and direction on this matter and recommends
codifying the agreed-upon approach.
Constraints:
As development progresses, the City aims to provide clear and predictable
Page 85 of 339
guidelines. The goal is to obtain Council direction and implement the policy
immediately.
Alternatives:
1. Maintain existing codes with verbal direction to staff.
2. Make additional changes to the code beyond staff’s recommendation.
Next Steps:
After receiving direction from the Council, staff will proceed with either
notifications or outreach efforts, based on the scope of the proposed changes.
Page 86 of 339
February 23, 2026
Pasco City Council
Workshop
Pa
g
e
8
7
o
f
3
3
9
WATER RIGHTS
2
•Legal authorization to use public water for a beneficial
purpose, regulated by the Department of Ecology
(DOE)
•Separate from land ownership
•Growth depends on water availability
•DOE limits withdrawals even if water is physically
available
•Economic development relies on adequate water
rights
Pa
g
e
8
8
o
f
3
3
9
HISTORY
3
•Early 2000s: Quad City water rights acquisition
•2002: All developments required water rights or
in-lieu fee
•2006: Commercial/Industrial development were
exempted 2018: Fees and exemptions deemed
inadequate
•2023/2024: Fee increased to $4,150/acre-foot
and 50% surcharge if water rights are removed
from the land to be developed
Pa
g
e
8
9
o
f
3
3
9
2025 Usage
4
Systems
•System A (Columbia River
Surface Rights)
•System B (Non 508-14
Groundwater)
•System C (508-14
Groundwater)
•System D (PWRF Spray
Fields)
Pa
g
e
9
0
o
f
3
3
9
•System C
overuse; primary
compliance risk
•Overall Water
Rights balance
COMPLIANCE RISK
5
•DOE collaboration
for flexibility
•Ongoing
acquisition efforts
MITIGATION
Pa
g
e
9
1
o
f
3
3
9
2023 ORDINANCE CHANGES
6
•Fee increased to $4,150/acre-foot
•Commercial and industrial exemptions
removed
•50% surcharge for rights removed within
last 10 years
Pa
g
e
9
2
o
f
3
3
9
2024 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITEE
7
•Outreach to developers
•50% surcharge for rights revised from past 10
years TO active as of passage of 2023
Ordinance
•Evaluate fees every 2 years
•Explore water conservation programs
•Grandfather all approved preliminary plats
Pa
g
e
9
3
o
f
3
3
9
CLARIFICATION
8
•Does grandfathering apply to all aspects of the
ordinance
•Commercial and industrial exemption
•50% surcharge if water rights transferred
from land
Pa
g
e
9
4
o
f
3
3
9
NEXT STEPS
9
•Staff recommends codifying of direction from
Council to provide predictability and clarity to
development community.
Pa
g
e
9
5
o
f
3
3
9
FeedbackPa
g
e
9
6
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 4, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 1/8/18
FROM: Rick Terway, Public Works Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Water Rights and Private Property Development
I. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
In the early 2000’s the City was involved in acquiring the Quad City water right
with West Richland, Richland and Kennewick. For Pasco, a major impetus
behind this effort was that the City was beginning to experience the rapid
residential and commercial growth on the west side of town that continues to
this day. At the time the Department of Ecology (Ecology) was concerned that
even with the increase in water rights the City could realize from the Quad City
water right, Pasco had limited water rights to meet the rapidly growing demand
for potable and irrigation water. Ecology made this concern a part of the Quad
City water right litigation.
In a nod to Ecology’s concern, the city adopted ordinances to assure that water
rights of developing properties would be transferred to the City at the time of
development. They can be found in the Pasco Municipal Code Title 3, Title 13
and Title 26.
Page 97 of 339
V. DISCUSSION:
Conditions have changed and the water rights ordinances approved in the
2000’s have become inadequate for the conditions of today, specifically Title
3.07 City Fee Summary. Currently, a property owner developing property utilizing
city water, within or outside the city, is required to assign to the water right associated
with the property to the city if one exists. In cases where no water exists the property
owner is required to pay a water right acquisition fee of $1,725 an acre-foot. An acre-
foot of water currently can go for anywhere from $1,750 per acre-foot to $5,000 per
acre-foot. It is calculated a 10,000 square foot residential lot with potable and
irrigation water services will consume approximately 20.52 ac-feet of water in 20
years. The cost to the city to purchase a water right at $1,725 per acre-foot to serve this
property for 20 years is $36,225. This makes the original acquisition fee of $1,725
inadequate to meet the city’s future needs in purchasing water rights. The current
requirements, while in theory could work, in actuality has in many cases resulted in the
developer paying a relatively modest fee to the city with the burden of acquiring
sufficient water rights to account for growth shifted to the city at the expense of the
water ratepayers.
Staff is suggesting that development requirements be made such that the
developer bring sufficient water rights to the city for the property they wish to
develop or in the alternative remit what fees and charges will be required to
cover current and future cost to obtain the amount of water needed to cover
both potable and irrigation water associated with the development.
Conclusion
The current water right fees in Title 3.07 do not reflect current financial impacts
to the city when purchasing water rights to support residential growth.
Industrial growth is not mentioned in the water rights fees resulting in further
impacts to the city.
Staff suggests the following to begin discussion on the cost of water to the city.
1) A requirement that new development (residential, commercial or industrial)
supply or transfer to the city a water right to the city sufficient to meet the
developments annual water needs (potable and irrigation or potable only) a t
the time of development.
2) In a case where no water rights exist for a property, require a payment to the
city equal to the annual water needs at the current market rate plus the
administrative costs of acquisition.
3) Negotiate and purchase a water right from the Bureau of Reclamation
sufficient to meet the needs of the development. Since this will be an annual
Page 98 of 339
charge to the city by the Bureau of Reclamation, the city will pass that charge
onto those within the development in the form of a surcharge to their monthly
bill. The surcharge will be calculated based on residential use, commercial use
or industrial use.
4) Negotiate and purchase a water right from Ecology sufficient to meet the
needs of the development. Since this will be an annual charge to the city by
Ecology, the city will pass that charge onto those within the development in the
form of a surcharge to their monthly bill. The surcharge will be calculated
based on residential use, commercial use or industrial use.
Staff requests Council direction/discussion relating to development -related
water rights and long-term action through the Bureau of Reclamation, Ecology
or both.
Page 99 of 339
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 3, 2023
TO: Adam Lincoln, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/10/23
FROM: Steve Worley, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Ordinance - Amending PMC Sections 3.35.160 and 13.45.060 to Amend
Water Rights Acquisition Fee
I. REFERENCE(S):
Draft Ordinance
Water Rights Market Analysis
Water Rights Fee Update 2023
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Thr proposed fee amendment will increase revenues to the water rights fund
allowing the City to purchase water rights at current market rates to help
provide sufficient water for future development.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
For the City to serve its residents and businesses with enough municipally
treated water, the City must have an appropriate amount of water rights that
allow the withdrawal of large amounts of water from the Columbia River.
Currently the City has approximately 18,883 acre-feet of the Department of
Ecology (Ecology) approved water rights. In 2022, the City used approximately
15,873 acre-feet of water to serve its potable water customers. An acre-foot of
water is equal to one acre of land covered by one foot of water or 325,851
gallons.
It is important for the City to ensure there is a sufficient amount of water rights
available to serve new and future developments. This is done through the
transfer of water rights from land owners to the City as development occurs. If
a developer does not have water rights to transfer to the City, a Water Rights
Page 100 of 339
Acquisition Fee is paid. The monies collected through this fee are then used to
purchase more water rights.
The purchase of water rights to support future development is becoming
increasingly more difficult as landowners recognize the increased market value
of water rights. The market for water rights acquisition has increased
significantly over the past several years such that the value of water rights far
exceeds the City’s current Water Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-
foot.
This increase in value of water rights has resulted in developments within the
city choosing to pay the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per
acre-foot and then selling their water rights to others for a higher amount based
on the current market value.
Staff is also aware that some property owners are transferring their water rights
to properties outside the City, paying the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee
of $1,725.00 per acre-foot, and requesting water service from the City.
It has also become increasingly more difficult for the City to acquire water
rights due to the City’s lack of sufficient funds collected from the current Water
Rights Acquisition Fee and property owners are showing more interest in
leasing water rights through long-term contracts rather than selling the water
rights outright. The lease approach puts cities like Pasco in a position of
owning nothing after making 20 years of lease payments, which does not seem
to be a prudent course of action.
V. DISCUSSION:
In September 2022, the City contracted with Darryll Olson of Pacific Northwest
Project to evaluate the water rights market and provide a recommendation to
the City regarding the fair market value of water right purchases. That market
analysis estimated the current water rights value to be $4,150.00 per acre-foot.
This is a 140.6% increase over the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee.
It is in the City’s best interest for developers to transfer available water rights to
the City and discourage payment of the Water Rights Acquisition Fee.
Therefore, staff recommends the proposed Water Rights Acquisition Fee
include a 50% surcharge. This will allow for future increases in market value
and encourage transfer of water rights to the City.
The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Section 13.45.060 requires, as a condition
of extending water beyond the city limit to serve new development, water rights
must be transferred to the City in a quantity sufficient to serve the new
development. It is in the City’s interest to require the transfer of available water
Page 101 of 339
rights to the City for the provision of City water for all new developments; those
within and beyond the city limit and for commercial as well as residential.
Staff desires to have a discussion with Council on the proposed changes to the
Water Rights Acquisition Fee and the applicability of this fee to developments
both within and beyond city limits.
Page 102 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 1
Version 09.01.23
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.35.160 WATER
UTILITY ADJUSTING THE WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION FEE AND
SECTION 13.45.060 ASSIGNMENT OF WATER RIGHTS–EXTENSION OF
CITY WATER SERVICES BEYOND CITY LIMITS.
WHEREAS, recent water rate studies and fees of utility systems are generally conducted
on periodic intervals to ensure they provide adequate revenue for the utilities, and to ensure rates,
charges, and fees are, and continue to be, in conformance with state law; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of water rights by the City of Pasco (City) to support future
development is becoming increasingly more difficult as landowners recognize the increased
market value of water rights; and
WHEREAS, the market for water rights acquisition has increased significantly over the
past several years such that the value of water rights far exceeds the City’s current Water Rights
Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-foot; and
WHEREAS, the increase in value of water rights has resulted in developments within the
city choosing to pay the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-foot and
selling their water rights for a higher amount based on the current market value; and
WHEREAS, staff is also aware that some owners of property within the city are
transferring their water rights to properties outside the city and then paying the current Water
Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-foot; and
WHEREAS, it is increasingly more difficult for the City to acquire water rights at the
current market price as landowners recognize the increased market value of water rights and the
City’s lack of sufficient funds collected from the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee; and
WHEREAS, owners of water rights are showing more interest in leasing water rights
through long-term contracts rather than selling the water rights, which would put cities like Pasco
in a position of owning nothing after making 20 years of lease payments; and
WHEREAS, in September 2022, the City contracted with Darryll Olson of Pacific
Northwest Project to evaluate the water rights market and provide a recommendation to the City
regarding the fair market value of water right purchases; and
WHEREAS, in October 2022 Pacific Northwest Project provided the City with the results
of their market analysis and estimated a current water rights value of $4,150.00 per acre-foot, a
140.6% increase over the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee; and
Page 103 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 2
Version 09.01.23
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to discourage payment of the Water Rights
Acquisition Fee and instead have developers transfer available water rights to the City to help
serve new development in Pasco; and
WHEREAS, to ensure the City’s ability to purchase water rights in the future to adequately
serve new developments, the proposed Water Rights Acquisition Fee includes a 50% surcharge to
account for future increases in market value and encourage the transfer of water rights to the City
rather than payment of the Water Rights Acquisition Fee; and
WHEREAS, the PMC Section 13.45.060 “Assignment of Water Rights – Extension of
City Water Services beyond City Limits” requires, as a condition of extending water beyond the
city limit to serve new development, water rights must be transferred to the City; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s interest to require the transfer of available water rights to
the City for all new development both within and beyond the city limit.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All water rights acquisition fees shall be subject to an adjustment. PMC
Section 3.35.160 is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
3.35.160 Water utility effective January 1, 2022.
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Inside city:
Consumption – per 100
cubic feet:
Residential/commercial $0.88 $0.94 $1.00 $1.07 $1.12 $1.18 13.20.050
Bulk – per 1,000
gallons
$1.45 $1.54 $1.64 $1.75 $1.84 $1.93 13.20.080
Residential – single-
family base fees:
3/4 and 5/8 inch – per
month
$20.55 $21.89 $23.31 $24.83 $26.07 $27.37 13.20.020
1 inch – per month $30.81 $32.82 $34.95 $37.22 $39.08 $41.03 13.20.020
Senior reduced/low income:
3/4 and 5/8 inch – per
month
$6.83 $7.27 $7.74 $8.24 $8.65 $9.08 3.65.150
1 inch – per month $10.30 $10.97 $11.68 $12.44 $13.06 $13.71 3.65.150
Page 104 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 3
Version 09.01.23
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Commercial – base
fees:
3/4 inch – per month $28.97 $30.85 $32.86 $35.00 $36.75 $38.59 13.20.030
1 inch – per month $42.37 $45.12 $48.05 $51.17 $53.73 $56.42 13.20.030
1-1/2 inch – per month $81.60 $86.90 $92.55 $98.57 $103.50 $108.68 13.20.030
2 inch – per month $130.86 $139.37 $148.43 $158.08 $165.98 $174.28 13.20.030
3 inch – per month $178.74 $190.36 $202.73 $215.91 $226.71 $238.05 13.20.030
4 inch – per month $257.54 $274.28 $292.11 $311.10 $326.66 $342.99 13.20.030
6 inch – per month $402.01 $428.14 $455.97 $485.61 $509.89 $535.38 13.20.030
8 inch – per month $557.10 $593.31 $631.88 $672.95 $706.60 $741.93 13.20.030
Fee/Charge Reference
Outside City; effective 11/1/02:
Consumption – per 100 cubic feet:
Residential/commercial 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Bulk – per 1,000 gallons 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Residential – single-family base fees:
3/4 and 5/8 inch – per month 90% surcharge 13.20.090
1 inch – per month 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Senior reduced/low income 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Commercial – base fees:
All sizes 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Fee/Charge Reference
Fire hydrants:
Meter rental:
Refundable deposit
Not to exceed
110% of Cost, as
determined by the
Director of
13.20.080
Page 105 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 4
Version 09.01.23
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Finance
Nonrefundable removal fee $30.00 13.20.080
Monthly base rental fee $62.00
Late payment and not returning
meter after 48 hrs. (per day)
$50.00
Hydrant rental – outside corporate
limits, per year
$20.00 13.20.070
Charges for water meters and services:
Meter and service costs equal to
average cost to City based on prior
year
13.45.010
Move meter for owner Cost + 15% 13.30.060
Change meter size Cost + 15% 13.30.050
Water system capital expansion/replacement charges
Inside City limits:
3/4-inch meter $360.00 13.25.010
1-inch meter $601.00 13.25.010
1-1/2-inch meter $1,198 13.25.010
2-inch meter $1,918 13.25.010
3-inch meter $3,599 13.25.010
4-inch meter $5,999 13.25.010
6-inch meter $11,995 13.25.010
8-inch meter $19,192 13.25.010
10-inch meter $27,591 13.25.010
Outside City limits:
3/4 – 10-inch meter 90% surcharge 13.25.020
Page 106 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 5
Version 09.01.23
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Front footage (per foot):
Residential:
In and out City limits $20.00 13.45.020
Commercial:
In and out City limits $25.00 13.45.020
Square Footage (per sq. ft.):
Residential:
In and out City limits $0.0388 13.45.020
Commercial:
In and out City limits $0.0426 13.45.020
Water rights acquisition fee – per
acre foot
$1,725.00$6,225.00 13.45.060(2)
21.05.120(2)
Base water rights acquisition fee –
per residential unit
($1,725.00$6,225.00 per acre foot x
potable use factor .30)
$517.50$1,867.50 13.15.030(1)
Potable water irrigation fee (no
irrigation water available)
Equal to 50% of
the area of the lot
or parcel to be
served expressed
in acres or portion
of acres x 3.5-acre
feet of water x
$1,725.00$6,225.00
(per acre foot)
13.15.030(1)
Water rights transfer fee $1,000.00 13.15.030(5)
[Ord. 4561 § 1, 2021; Ord. 4406 § 2, 2018; Ord. 4252, 2015; Ord. 4160, 2014; Ord. 4139,
2014; Ord. 3961, 2010; Ord. 3827, 2007; Ord. 3693 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3655, 2004; Ord. 3610,
2003; Ord. 3575, 2002; Ord. 3553, 2002; Ord. 3543, 2002; Code 1970 § 3.07.160.]
Page 107 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 6
Version 09.01.23
Section 2. The water rights acquisition fee shall be applicable to all developments,
both within and beyond the City Limits. The PMC Section 13.45.060 is hereby amended and shall
read as follows:
13.45.060 Assignment of water rights – Extension of City water
services within and beyond City limits.
(1) As a condition for the extension of a City water main provision of City
water service within or beyond the City limits as a primary source of City water for
potable or irrigation uses within a residential subdivision or other development, any
property owner or developer of such property shall assign and transfer to the City
any certificate, permit or claim to a water rights for the withdrawal of ground or
surface waters, or such other water rights as may be appurtenant to such property,
including exempt well water rights in the quantity and manner set forth in PMC
13.15.030.
(2) In the event there are no water rights represented either by perfected
application, certificate, permit or right for withdrawal appurtenant to the real
property benefited in subsection (1) of this section, the property owner or developer
shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights acquisition fee as established in
the City Fee Summary Ordinance, Chapter 3.35 PMC.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance should be held to the 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.
Page 108 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160 & 13.45.060 - 7
Version 09.01.23
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of _____,
2023.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Published: _____________________________
Page 109 of 339
Markets for Water
City of Pasco,WA,Request for Proposals
The City of Pasco,WA,is reviewing potential water right lease purchases for future municipal
development.The City will accept proposals from credible water right holders that meet the long-
tenn water right lease quali?cations and conditionsstipulatedbelow.
Terms and Conditions:
The City’s RFP conditions are non-negotiable,with a ?xed price-point,lease terms,and
Valuation components:
Proposals will be considered for incremental water “blocks”of 500 acre-ft,up to 2,000
acre-ft.The City will require initial delivery by January 1,2024.
The water right lessee must be able to demonstrate secure water right ownership upon RFP
response.No other ownership conditions are acceptable.
The lease term will be for twenty years.The lease(s)will be nonrevocable;and can only
be terminated prior to twenty-years by written consent from the Pasco City Manager or
Public Works Director.
The leases will provide an annual payment of $3 10/acre—ft./yearfor the lease term,with no
escalators applied.This is a capital equivalent of about $4,150/acre-PL,based on the City’s
?nancial discount rate.Full capital payment would be considered for water right
ownership (title)transfers to the City (separate from a lease agreement).
Regulatory/Transfer Requirements:
Potential water rights for lease must have direct hydraulic continuity with the McNary
Pool,Columbia River.
The water rights for potential change/transfer must comply with RCW 90.03.380.It is the
responsibility of the lessee to con?rm such with proposal submission.
For potential lease agreements,the City will initially provide a letter of intent,while
completing ?irther due diligence.The City will prepare a purchase and sale agreement for
an accepted proposal.
The City will conduct water right change/transfers through the Franklin County Water
Conservancy Board,for either prior Ecology Trust actions with Ecology or new transfers.
Proposal Contact/Administration:
The City’s agent for proposal review and oversight is Darryll Olsen,Ph.D.,Paci?c Northwest
Project,and he may be contacted at 509-783-1623.Succinct written proposals may be sent to
DOlsenEcon(a;aol.com at any time.This RFP action will terminate on December 1,2022.
Proposals that do not comply with the RFP provisions will be rejected.The City has sole discretion
for acceptance of potential lease/purchase offerings.
2|Page
Page 110 of 339
Pasco City Council Meeting
October 9, 2023
Water Right Acquisition Fee Adjustment
Pa
g
e
1
1
1
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights
Potable Water
◦Source: Columbia River
◦Available withdrawal: 18,883 acre-feet/yr.
◦Ecology leased water: 10,000 acre-feet/yr.
◦$35/acre-ft = $350,000/yr. (2020)
◦2022 Usage: 15,873 acre-feet
Pa
g
e
1
1
2
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
PMC 13.45.160 –Water & Sewers
◦Extending water beyond the city limit
PMC 21.05.120 -Subdivision Regulations
◦Assignment of water rights for
subdivision of land
Pa
g
e
1
1
3
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
PMC 3.35.160 –Revenue and Finance
◦In-lieu Fees: $1,725/acre-foot
◦Irrigation: 50% of site @ 3 ½ acre-feet/year
per acre
◦Potable Water: 0.3 acre-feet/residential unit
◦Transfer Fee (Ecology)
Pa
g
e
1
1
4
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
What is Missing?
Irrigation & Water Rights Transfers for:
◦Commercial Developments
◦Large Industrial Users: Food processors
◦Schools
◦Water Usage (versus water line extension)
◦Current Market Rate: $4,150/acre-foot
Pa
g
e
1
1
5
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Developers Appear to Prefer
◦Pay In-Lieu Fee:
◦Existing Rights Transferred to other
properties
◦Sell Water Rights at Market Rate
◦Existing Rights Banked for later Transfer
or Sale
Pa
g
e
1
1
6
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Water Rights Lease RFP
◦$310/acre-foot per year
◦No Escalators
◦Capital Equivalent of $4,150/acre-foot
◦20-Year Term
◦3 Respondents: ~4,000 acre-feet available
◦Annual Payment: $1,240,000.00
Pa
g
e
1
1
7
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Proposed PMC Changes
◦Water Usage vs. Water Line Extension
◦Within and beyond City Limits
◦Market Rate + 50% Surcharge
◦Encourage Transfers vs. In-Lieu Fee
◦Account for future value increases
Pa
g
e
1
1
8
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Pa
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
3
3
9
Pasco City Council Meeting
March 4, 2019
Pa
g
e
1
2
0
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR:City Council November 22, 2023
TO:Adam Lincoln, City Manager City Council Special
Meeting: 11/27/23
FROM:Steve Worley, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT:Sections Code Municipal Pasco Amending 4701 No. Ordinance -
3.35.160 and 13.45.060 Related to Water Rights Acquisition Fee
I.REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance
Water Rights Market Analysis
Water Rights Fee Update 2023
II.ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4701, amending the Pasco Municipal
Code Section 3.35.160 Water Utility, adjusting the water rights acquisition fee;
Section 13.15.030 Connection Outside City Limits – Water Rights, and Section
13.45.060 Assignment of Water Rights–Extension of City Water Services
Beyond City Limits and, further, authorize publication by title only.
III.FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendment will increase revenues to the water rights fund
allowing the City to purchase water rights at current market rates and to help
provide sufficient water for future development.
IV.HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
For the City to serve its residents and businesses with enough municipally
treated water, the City must have an appropriate amount of water rights that
allow the withdrawal of large amounts of water from the Columbia River.
Currently the City has approximately 18,883 acre-feet of the Department of
Ecology (Ecology) approved water rights. In 2022, the City used approximately
15,873 acre-feet of water to serve its potable water customers. An acre-foot of
water is equal to one acre of land covered by one foot of water or 325,851
gallons.
Page 121 of 339
It is important for the City to ensure there is a sufficient amount of water rights
available to serve new and future developments. This is done through the
transfer of water rights from land owners to the City as development occurs. If
a developer does not have water rights to transfer to the City, a Water Rights
Acquisition Fee is paid. The monies collected through this fee are then used to
purchase more water rights.
The purchase of water rights to support future development is becoming
increasingly more difficult as landowners recognize the increased market value
of water rights. The market for water rights acquisition has increased
significantly over the past several years such that the value of water rights far
exceeds the City’s current Water Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-
foot.
This increase in value of water rights has resulted in developments within the
city choosing to pay the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per
acre-foot and then selling their water rights to others for a higher amount based
on the current market value.
Staff is also aware that some property owners are transferring their water rights
to properties outside the City, paying the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee
of $1,725.00 per acre-foot, and requesting water service from the City.
It has also become increasingly more difficult for the City to acquire water
rights due to the City’s lack of sufficient funds collected from the current Water
Rights Acquisition Fee and property owners are showing more interest in
leasing water rights through long-term contracts rather than selling the water
rights outright. The lease approach puts cities like Pasco in a position of
owning nothing after making 20 years of lease payments, which does not seem
to be a prudent course of action.
V.DISCUSSION:
In September 2022, the City contracted with Darryll Olson of Pacific Northwest
Project to evaluate the water rights market and provide a recommendation to
the City regarding the fair market value of water rights purchases. That market
analysis estimated the current water rights value to be $4,150.00 per acre-foot.
This is a 140.6% increase over the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee.
It is in the City’s best interest for developers to transfer available water rights to
the City and discourage payment of the Water Rights Acquisition Fee. Based
on feedback from the development community, staff recommends the
proposed Water Rights Acquisition Fee include a 50% surcharge for only those
properties that no longer have water rights but had water rights available within
the 10 years prior to any new proposed development. This surcharge will
Page 122 of 339
encourage the transfer of water rights to the City rather than paying the in-lieu
water rights acquisition fee.
The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Section 13.45.060 requires, as a condition
of extending water beyond the city limit to serve new development, water rights
must be transferred to the City in a quantity sufficient to serve the new
development. Due to the difficulty in finding opportunities to purchase water
rights in the market, it is in the City’s interest to require the transfer of available
water rights to the City for the provision of City water for all new developments;
those within and beyond the city limit and for commercial as well as residential.
This item was discussed at the October 10, 2023, Council Workshop meeting.
Staff also held a Developer's meeting on October 23, 2023, to review and
discuss the proposed code revisions. Five takeaways resulted from this
meeting.
1. Agreement that the water rights water acquisition fee (in-lieu fee)
needed to reflect the current market rate.
2. Consider requirement for water rights transfers for developments on
property that had water rights associated with them in the past 10 years
- no in-lieu fee allowed.
3. The proposed 50% surcharge seemed arbitrary and maybe too high.
Consider increasing future fees based on inflation, CPI or something
similar.
4. Xeriscaping should be encouraged for new developments as a way to
help reduce the in-lieu fee.
5. Reevaluate the return on investment of leasing water rights in lieu of
purchasing - may be worth doing.
The proposed Ordinance has been revised and addresses the first two items.
For item 3 the 50% surcharge is still being proposed but applicable only to
properties that historically had water rights but were removed within the past 10
years. More evaluation is needed to determine if the 50% surcharge should be
replaced with another inflationary type index. Items 4 and 5 will continue to be
evaluated but should not postpone the proposed code amendments.
An evaluation by staff also determined that the City's remaining available water
rights are not sufficient to serve all of the new developments that are currently
in the City's queue for review and approval.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the Water Rights
Acquisition Fee and the applicability of this fee to developments both within
and beyond city limits.
Page 123 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 1
Version 09.01.23
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.35.160 WATER
UTILITY, ADJUSTING THE WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION FEE; SECTION
13.15.030 CONNECTION OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS – WATER RIGHTS, AND
SECTION 13.45.060 ASSIGNMENT OF WATER RIGHTS–EXTENSION OF
CITY WATER SERVICES BEYOND CITY LIMITS..
WHEREAS, recent water rate studies and fees of utility systems are generally conducted
on periodic intervals to ensure they provide adequate revenue for the utilities, and to ensure rates,
charges, and fees are, and continue to be, in conformance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the purchase of water rights by the City of Pasco (City) to support future
development is becoming increasingly more difficult as landowners recognize the increased
market value of water rights; and
WHEREAS, the market for water rights acquisition has increased significantly over the
past several years such that the value of water rights far exceeds the City’s current Water Rights
Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-foot; and
WHEREAS, the increase in value of water rights has resulted in developments within the
City choosing to pay the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-foot and
selling their water rights for a higher amount based on the current market value; and
WHEREAS, staff is also aware that some owners of property within the City are
transferring their water rights to properties outside the City and then paying the current Water
Rights Acquisition Fee of $1,725.00 per acre-foot; and
WHEREAS, it is increasingly more difficult for the City to acquire water rights at the
current market price as landowners recognize the increased market value of water rights and the
City’s lack of sufficient funds collected from the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee; and
WHEREAS, owners of water rights are showing more interest in leasing water rights
through long-term contracts rather than selling the water rights, which would put cities like Pasco
in a position of owning nothing after making 20 years of lease payments; and
WHEREAS, in September 2022, the City contracted with Darryll Olson of Pacific
Northwest Project to evaluate the water rights market and provide a recommendation to the City
regarding the fair market value of water right purchases; and
WHEREAS, in October 2022, Pacific Northwest Project provided the City with the results
of their market analysis and estimated a current water rights value of $4,150.00 per acre-foot, a
140.6% increase over the current Water Rights Acquisition Fee; and
Page 124 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 2
Version 09.01.23
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to discourage payment of the Water Rights
Acquisition Fee and instead have developers transfer available water rights to the City to help
serve new development in Pasco; and
WHEREAS, to ensure the City’s ability to purchase water rights in the future to adequately
serve new developments, the proposed Water Rights Acquisition Fee includes a 50% surcharge to
account for future increases in market value and encourage the transfer of water rights to the City
rather than payment of the Water Rights Acquisition Fee; and
WHEREAS, the PMC Section 13.45.060 “Assignment of Water Rights – Extension of
City Water Services beyond City Limits” requires, as a condition of extending water beyond the
City limit to serve new development, water rights must be transferred to the City; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s interest to require the transfer of available water rights to
the City for all new development both within and beyond the city limit.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 3.35.160 entitled “Water utility effective January 1, 2022” of
the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
3.35.160 Water utility effective January 1, 2022.
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Inside city:
Consumption – per 100
cubic feet:
Residential/commercial $0.88 $0.94 $1.00 $1.07 $1.12 $1.18 13.20.050
Bulk – per 1,000
gallons
$1.45 $1.54 $1.64 $1.75 $1.84 $1.93 13.20.080
Residential – single-
family base fees:
3/4 and 5/8 inch – per
month
$20.55 $21.89 $23.31 $24.83 $26.07 $27.37 13.20.020
1 inch – per month $30.81 $32.82 $34.95 $37.22 $39.08 $41.03 13.20.020
Senior reduced/low income:
3/4 and 5/8 inch – per
month
$6.83 $7.27 $7.74 $8.24 $8.65 $9.08 3.65.150
1 inch – per month $10.30 $10.97 $11.68 $12.44 $13.06 $13.71 3.65.150
Page 125 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 3
Version 09.01.23
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Commercial – base
fees:
3/4 inch – per month $28.97 $30.85 $32.86 $35.00 $36.75 $38.59 13.20.030
1 inch – per month $42.37 $45.12 $48.05 $51.17 $53.73 $56.42 13.20.030
1-1/2 inch – per month $81.60 $86.90 $92.55 $98.57 $103.50 $108.68 13.20.030
2 inch – per month $130.86 $139.37 $148.43 $158.08 $165.98 $174.28 13.20.030
3 inch – per month $178.74 $190.36 $202.73 $215.91 $226.71 $238.05 13.20.030
4 inch – per month $257.54 $274.28 $292.11 $311.10 $326.66 $342.99 13.20.030
6 inch – per month $402.01 $428.14 $455.97 $485.61 $509.89 $535.38 13.20.030
8 inch – per month $557.10 $593.31 $631.88 $672.95 $706.60 $741.93 13.20.030
Fee/Charge Reference
Outside City; effective 11/1/02:
Consumption – per 100 cubic feet:
Residential/commercial 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Bulk – per 1,000 gallons 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Residential – single-family base fees:
3/4 and 5/8 inch – per month 90% surcharge 13.20.090
1 inch – per month 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Senior reduced/low income 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Commercial – base fees:
All sizes 90% surcharge 13.20.090
Fee/Charge Reference
Fire hydrants:
Meter rental:
Refundable deposit
Not to exceed
110% of Cost, as
determined by the
Director of Finance
13.20.080
Page 126 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 4
Version 09.01.23
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Nonrefundable removal fee $30.00 13.20.080
Monthly base rental fee $62.00
Late payment and not returning meter
after 48 hrs. (per day)
$50.00
Hydrant rental – outside corporate
limits, per year
$20.00 13.20.070
Charges for water meters and services:
Meter and service costs equal to
average cost to City based on prior
year
13.45.010
Move meter for owner Cost + 15% 13.30.060
Change meter size Cost + 15% 13.30.050
Water system capital expansion/replacement charges
Inside City limits:
3/4-inch meter $360.00 13.25.010
1-inch meter $601.00 13.25.010
1-1/2-inch meter $1,198 13.25.010
2-inch meter $1,918 13.25.010
3-inch meter $3,599 13.25.010
4-inch meter $5,999 13.25.010
6-inch meter $11,995 13.25.010
8-inch meter $19,192 13.25.010
10-inch meter $27,591 13.25.010
Outside City limits:
3/4 – 10-inch meter 90% surcharge 13.25.020
Front footage (per foot):
Page 127 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 5
Version 09.01.23
Fee/Charge Reference
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Residential:
In and out City limits $20.00 13.45.020
Commercial:
In and out City limits $25.00 13.45.020
Square Footage (per sq. ft.):
Residential:
In and out City limits $0.0388 13.45.020
Commercial:
In and out City limits $0.0426 13.45.020
Water rights acquisition fee – per acre
foot
$1,725.00$4,150.00 13.45.060(2)
21.05.120(2)
Base water rights acquisition fee – per
residential unit ($1,725.00$4,150.00
per acre foot x potable use factor .30)
$517.50$1,245.00 13.15.030(1)
Potable water irrigation fee (no
irrigation water available)
Equal to 50% of the
area of the lot or
parcel to be served
expressed in acres
or portion of acres
x 3.5-acre feet of
water x
$1,725.00$4,150.00
(per acre foot)
13.15.030(1)
Water rights transfer fee $1,000.00 13.15.030(5)
[Ord. 4561 § 1, 2021; Ord. 4406 § 2, 2018; Ord. 4252, 2015; Ord. 4160, 2014; Ord. 4139, 2014;
Ord. 3961, 2010; Ord. 3827, 2007; Ord. 3693 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3655, 2004; Ord. 3610, 2003; Ord.
3575, 2002; Ord. 3553, 2002; Ord. 3543, 2002; Code 1970 § 3.07.160.]
Page 128 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 6
Version 09.01.23
Section 2. That Section 13.15.030 entitled “Connection Outside City Limits – Water
Rights” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
13.15.030 Connection Within or Outside City Limits – Water Rights
Any application for a new water service connection to serve real property located within
or outside the City limits of the City of Pasco, except for those properties for which water rights,
or payment in lieu of water rights, have been received by the City pursuant to PMC 13.45.060,
shall be conditioned upon the transfer to the City of water rights associated with the property; or,
if such water rights are not available or are inadequate to meet the water needs of the property to
be served, upon payment to the City of a water rights acquisition fee in lieu of transfer, determined
as follows:
(1) Amount of Water Rights or Payment in Lieu. The amount of transferred water rights or
the fee in lieu of transfer pursuant to this section and PMC 13.45.060 shall be sufficient to serve
the number of residential units supplied by the connection for in-house domestic water service and
irrigation water service sufficient to cover 50 percent of the lot or parcel of real property to be
served by the water connection.
If the property to be served by City water service had a certificate, permit, application, or
claim to a water right for withdrawal of ground or surface waters, or such other water rights as
may be appurtenant to such property, including well water rights, within ten years prior to
submittal to the City of a development proposal or application for City water services, and the
water rights are no longer available for transfer to the City, a 50% surcharge shall be added to the
water rights acquisition fee.
(a) Irrigation Water Service Available. If the property to be served by the City is located
within and served by the Franklin County Irrigation District, or other public or private irrigation
provider acceptable to the City for landscaping irrigation purposes, the property shall continue to
be served by the District or other irrigation provider and the applicant for water service shall only
be required to transfer three-tenths acre-foot of water rights per residential unit or its equivalent,
or provide a payment in lieu for said quantity as directed by subsection (3) of this section.
(b) Irrigation Water Service Unavailable. If the property to be served by the City is not
included within or served by the Franklin County Irrigation District or other public or private
irrigation water provider acceptable to the City for landscaping irrigation purposes, the applicant
for water service shall be required to transfer three-tenths acre-foot of water rights per residential
unit or its equivalent and in addition, three and one-half acre-feet per year per acre of irrigable land
or fraction thereof, or provide a payment in lieu for said quantity as provided in PMC 3.35.160.
The requirement relating to irrigable land cannot be waived on the basis that the current owner or
developer does not plan to irrigate said land.
Page 129 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 7
Version 09.01.23
Section 3. That Section 13.45.060 entitled “Assignment of water rights – Extension of
City water services beyond City limits” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
13.45.060 Assignment of water rights – Extension Provision of City water
services within and beyond City limit.
(1) As a condition for the extension of a City water main provision of City water
service within or beyond the City limits as a primary source of City water for
potable or irrigation uses within a residential subdivision or other development, any
property owner or developer of such property shall assign and transfer to the City
any certificate, permit, application, or claim to a water rights for the withdrawal
of ground or surface waters, or such other water rights as may be appurtenant to
such property, including exempt well water rights in the quantity and manner set
forth in PMC 13.15.030. This assignment and transfer shall not apply to individual
service wells as are exempt from certification under the laws of the State of
Washington, or properties which receive sufficient irrigation water services
provided under a perfected water right from a City-approved irrigation water
service provider.
(2) In the event there are no water rights represented either by perfected
application, certificate, permit, application, or right for withdrawal appurtenant to
the real property benefited in subsection (1) of this section, the property owner or
developer shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights acquisition fee as
established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance, Chapter 3.35 PMC; or upon
appropriate notice recorded with the real property subject to development, defer
payment in lieu to the time of application for connection of the new water service
serving real property as provided by PMC 13.15.030. This water rights acquisition
fee shall be in addition to any other water rates or charges as established in the City
fee summary ordinance, Chapter 3.35 PMC.
(3) Excess Water Rights. To the extent the water rights associated with the
subject property exceed the anticipated water requirement for the subject property,
the City, in its sole discretion, may require the owners of the subject property to
transfer any amount of excess water rights to the City, and the City shall pay the
owners of the excess water rights transferred to the City an amount representing the
market value of the excess water as determined pursuant to PMC 13.15.030(3),
subject to the right of administrative appeal as provided in PMC 1.30.030. [Ord.
4160, 2014; Ord, 3795, 2006; Ord. 3547 § 1, 2002; Code 1970 § 13.36.070.]
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this Ordinance should be held to the 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.
Page 130 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.160, 13.45.060 & 13.50.030 - 8
Version 09.01.23
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.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of _____,
2023.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _______________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Published: _____________________________
Page 131 of 339
Markets for Water
City of Pasco,WA,Request for Proposals
The City of Pasco,WA,is reviewing potential water right lease purchases for future municipal
development.The City will accept proposals from credible water right holders that meet the long-
tenn water right lease quali?cations and conditionsstipulatedbelow.
Terms and Conditions:
The City’s RFP conditions are non-negotiable,with a ?xed price-point,lease terms,and
Valuation components:
Proposals will be considered for incremental water “blocks”of 500 acre-ft,up to 2,000
acre-ft.The City will require initial delivery by January 1,2024.
The water right lessee must be able to demonstrate secure water right ownership upon RFP
response.No other ownership conditions are acceptable.
The lease term will be for twenty years.The lease(s)will be nonrevocable;and can only
be terminated prior to twenty-years by written consent from the Pasco City Manager or
Public Works Director.
The leases will provide an annual payment of $3 10/acre—ft./yearfor the lease term,with no
escalators applied.This is a capital equivalent of about $4,150/acre-PL,based on the City’s
?nancial discount rate.Full capital payment would be considered for water right
ownership (title)transfers to the City (separate from a lease agreement).
Regulatory/Transfer Requirements:
Potential water rights for lease must have direct hydraulic continuity with the McNary
Pool,Columbia River.
The water rights for potential change/transfer must comply with RCW 90.03.380.It is the
responsibility of the lessee to con?rm such with proposal submission.
For potential lease agreements,the City will initially provide a letter of intent,while
completing ?irther due diligence.The City will prepare a purchase and sale agreement for
an accepted proposal.
The City will conduct water right change/transfers through the Franklin County Water
Conservancy Board,for either prior Ecology Trust actions with Ecology or new transfers.
Proposal Contact/Administration:
The City’s agent for proposal review and oversight is Darryll Olsen,Ph.D.,Paci?c Northwest
Project,and he may be contacted at 509-783-1623.Succinct written proposals may be sent to
DOlsenEcon(a;aol.com at any time.This RFP action will terminate on December 1,2022.
Proposals that do not comply with the RFP provisions will be rejected.The City has sole discretion
for acceptance of potential lease/purchase offerings.
2|Page
Page 132 of 339
Pasco City Council Meeting
October 9, 2023
Water Right Acquisition Fee Adjustment
Pa
g
e
1
3
3
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights
Potable Water
◦Source: Columbia River
◦Available withdrawal: 18,883 acre-feet/yr.
◦Ecology leased water: 10,000 acre-feet/yr.
◦$35/acre-ft = $350,000/yr. (2020)
◦2022 Usage: 15,873 acre-feet
Pa
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
PMC 13.45.160 –Water & Sewers
◦Extending water beyond the city limit
PMC 21.05.120 -Subdivision Regulations
◦Assignment of water rights for
subdivision of land
Pa
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
PMC 3.35.160 –Revenue and Finance
◦In-lieu Fees: $1,725/acre-foot
◦Irrigation: 50% of site @ 3 ½ acre-feet/year
per acre
◦Potable Water: 0.3 acre-feet/residential unit
◦Transfer Fee (Ecology)
Pa
g
e
1
3
6
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
What is Missing?
Irrigation & Water Rights Transfers for:
◦Commercial Developments
◦Large Industrial Users: Food processors
◦Schools
◦Water Usage (versus water line extension)
◦Current Market Rate: $4,150/acre-foot
Pa
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Developers Appear to Prefer
◦Pay In-Lieu Fee:
◦Existing Rights Transferred to other
properties
◦Sell Water Rights at Market Rate
◦Existing Rights Banked for later Transfer
or Sale
Pa
g
e
1
3
8
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Water Rights Lease RFP
◦$310/acre-foot per year
◦No Escalators
◦Capital Equivalent of $4,150/acre-foot
◦20-Year Term
◦3 Respondents: ~4,000 acre-feet available
◦Annual Payment: $1,240,000.00
Pa
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Proposed PMC Changes
◦Water Usage vs. Water Line Extension
◦Within and beyond City Limits
◦Market Rate + 50% Surcharge
◦Encourage Transfers vs. In-Lieu Fee
◦Account for future value increases
Pa
g
e
1
4
0
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Pa
g
e
1
4
1
o
f
3
3
9
Pasco City Council Meeting
March 4, 2019
Pa
g
e
1
4
2
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 4, 2024
TO: Adam Lincoln, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 1/8/24
FROM: Maria Serra, Interim Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Water Rights Acquisition Fees
I. REFERENCE(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion and public comment.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
The recently adopted increase in the Water Rights Acquisition Fee will increase
revenues to the Water Rights Fund allowing the City to purchase additional
water rights at current market rates to help provide sufficient water for future
development.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
For Pasco to serve clean drinking water to residents and businesses, the City
must have sufficient water rights to allow for the withdrawal of water from the
Columbia River. As the city grows, so does the need for additional water
rights. Water rights can either be transferred to the City by property owners
who have them and wish to develop their properties or purchased from owners
willing to sell them.
Council recently amended the Pasco Municipal Code to increase the Water
Rights Acquisition Fee to current market rates and made this fee applicable to
all developments within the City.
V. DISCUSSION:
Council asked that this issue be brought back to the first workshop meeting in
Page 143 of 339
January to have further discussion and allow for public comments.
Page 144 of 339
Pasco City Council Meeting
January 8, 2024
Water Right Acquisition Fee Adjustment
Pa
g
e
1
4
5
o
f
3
3
9
Types of Water Rights
◦Potable Water:
◦Surface withdrawal
◦Irrigation Water:
◦Surface and well withdrawal (+ 508.14)
◦PWRF Irrigation Water:
◦508.14 well withdrawal
Pa
g
e
1
4
6
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -Municipal
◦Columbia River
◦Available: 18,883 acre-feet/yr.
◦2022 Usage: 15,873 acre-feet
◦Ecology lease: 10,000 acre-feet/yr.
◦Included in number above
◦$35/acre-ft = $350,000/yr. (2020)
Pa
g
e
1
4
7
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -Municipal
Pa
g
e
1
4
8
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -Irrigation
◦Groundwater + Columbia River
◦Available: 8,660 acre-feet/year
◦Groundwater: 3,459 acre-feet
◦Columbia River water: 2,882 acre-feet
◦508.14 Groundwater: 2,319 acre-feet
◦2022 Usage: 10,490 acre-feet
Pa
g
e
1
4
9
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -Irrigation
Pa
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -Irrigation
Pa
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -Summary
Municipal Water
◦18,883 acre-feet/yr.Available
◦15,873 acre-feet Used
◦3,010 acre-feet not used
Irrigation Water
◦8,660 acre-feet/year Available
◦10,490 acre-feet Used
◦<1,830> acre-feet overused
Balance of
Available
Water Rights
1,180
acre-feet
Pa
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -PWRF
PWRF Irrigation Water
◦Source: 508.14 Groundwater
◦Available withdrawal: 8,230 acre-feet/year
◦2022 Usage: 4,539 acre-feet
Pa
g
e
1
5
3
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights –PWRF
Pa
g
e
1
5
4
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights -PMC
PMC 13.45.160 –Water & Sewers
◦Extending water beyond the city limit
PMC 21.05.120 -Subdivision Regulations
◦Assignment of water rights for
subdivision of land
Pa
g
e
1
5
5
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Market Value
PMC 13.15.030(3) -Determination of Market Value for Payment in Lieu. The market value of water rights shall be determined periodically by the City Engineer, but not less frequently than every five years, based upon a water rights market study or similar investigation of the fair market value of perfected water rights that can be transferred to the City.
Pa
g
e
1
5
6
o
f
3
3
9
Historical Practices
◦Pay In-Lieu Fee
◦Existing Rights Transferred to other
properties
◦Water Rights sold at Market Rate
◦Existing Rights Banked for later Transfer
or Sale
Pa
g
e
1
5
7
o
f
3
3
9
Adopted PMC Changes
◦Transfers of Potable & Irrigation Water
Rights apply to Commercial Developments:
◦Large Industrial Users
◦Food Processors
◦Schools
◦Water ‘Usage’ vs. Water ‘Line Extension’
Pa
g
e
1
5
8
o
f
3
3
9
Adopted PMC Changes
◦Applies Within and beyond City Limits
◦Increase to Market Rate -$4,150/Acre-Foot
◦Encourages Transfers vs. In-Lieu Fee
◦50% Surcharge –Rights removed w/in 10 yrs
◦Accounts for future value increases
◦Incentive to Transfer rights
Pa
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
3
3
9
Communications
Council Workshop 10/10
Developer Meeting 10/23
Council Meeting 11/22
Handouts Developed & Distributed 12/27
◦Emailed to Developer list
◦Available online
◦Available at City Hall touchpoints
Webpage Live-12/27
◦Online Commenting Option 12/27-1/6
Social Media Posts
◦12/27
◦1/4/24
KONA Radio Segment
◦1/8
Council Meeting 1/8
Pa
g
e
1
6
0
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Fee
PMC 3.35.160 –Revenue and Finance
◦In-lieu Fees: $4,150/acre-foot (as of 11/27/2023)
◦Irrigation Water: 50% of site @ 3 ½ acre-
feet/year per acre
◦Potable Water: 0.3 acre-feet/residential unit
◦Transfer Fee (Ecology paperwork)
Pa
g
e
1
6
1
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Fee -Example
1-acre site @ 4 units/acre = 0.25 acre/unit
Irrigation Water: 0.25 acre/unit x 50% x 3.5 acre-feet/acre
= 0.4375 acre-feet/unit
Potable Water: 0.3 acre-feet/unit
Irrigation + Potable = 0.4375 + 0.3 = 0.7375 acre -feet/unit
= 2.95 acre-feet total for 1-acre site
2.95 acre-feet x $4,150/acre-foot = $12,242.50 Total Fee
Pa
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
3
3
9
4 units/acre = 2.95 acre-feet/acre
◦1,180 acre-feet water rights available
◦Serves 400 Acres = 1,600 units
11 units/acre:5.1 acre-feet/acre
◦1,180 acre-feet water rights available
◦Serves 231 Acres = 2,545 units
Number of Units needed in 20 years = 23,318
Water Rights -Development
Pa
g
e
1
6
3
o
f
3
3
9
4 units/acre = 2.95 acre-feet/acre
◦1,180 acre-feet water rights available
◦Serves 400 Acres = 1,600 units
11 units/acre:5.1 acre-feet/acre
◦1,180 acre-feet water rights available
◦Serves 231 Acres = 2,545 units
Additional Water Rights needed over 20 yrs. at11 units/acre = 10,794 acre-feet
Water Rights -Development
Pa
g
e
1
6
4
o
f
3
3
9
Developer
◦4 units/acre = $1,794.50 per housing unit
◦11 units/acre = $1,115.50 per housing unit
Water Customer
◦$4/month increase for each $1 million spent to
purchase water rights
Recent Offer
◦2,147 acre-feet @ $3,850/acre-foot = $8.3 million
Water Rights Increase Cost
Increase: $2,425/acre-foot
Pa
g
e
1
6
5
o
f
3
3
9
Did Pasco follow all legal requirements for the
code change?
Water Rights -Legal
Pa
g
e
1
6
6
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Pa
g
e
1
6
7
o
f
3
3
9
Pasco City Council Meeting
January 8, 2024
Pa
g
e
1
6
8
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Acquisition
Water Rights Lease RFP
◦$310/acre-foot per year
◦No Escalators
◦Capital Equivalent of $4,150/acre-foot
◦20-Year Term
◦3 Respondents: ~4,000 acre-feet available
◦Annual Payment: $1,240,000.00
Pa
g
e
1
6
9
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 8, 2024
TO: Adam Lincoln, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 4/22/24
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Water Rights Subcommittee Update (15 minutes)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Presentation
Draft Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NA
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
4701, No. Ordinance Council approved Pasco 2023, November In City
amending Pasco Municipal Code sections related to water rights. The most
significant changes to the code were related to the increase of in-lieu fees and
surcharges for properties where the transfer of water rights happened within
the last ten years. In 2024, Council created a Water Rights Subcommittee
consisting of Councilmembers Perales and Grimm to conduct public meetings,
gather input, and provide recommendations to the Council.
V. DISCUSSION:
Councilmembers Perales and Grimm have participated on the Water Rights
Subcommittee. from input gather to public were meetings Two held
stakeholders in early 2024. The main takeaways included:
1. In-Lieu Fee Adoption and Water Rights Acquisition
o The majority supported the adoption of in-lieu fees as a
Page 170 of 339
mechanism to facilitate water rights acquisition.
o There was consensus on the necessity for the City to acquire
water rights to support development, particularly through transfer
during and option) preferred via (the development City's
acquisition using in-lieu fees.
2. Surcharge on Water Rights Transfer/Sale
o The majority disagreed with the retrospective 10-year surcharge
applied to water rights transfers or sales.
o surcharge, an was there 50% opposed many While the
understanding of the escalating costs and debt service required
for acquiring large portions of water rights.
3. Operational Clarifications
o Some stakeholders sought operational clarification on regulations
governing commercial and industrial water use.
Below are recommendations from the Water Rights Subcommittee to the larger
Council.
Remove 10 years retroactive element
o Surcharge for water rights sale or transfer made after the
published date of Ordinance 4701 (12/3/2023)
Evaluate water rights in-lieu fees every 2 years
Explore water conservation programs
Staff requests discussion and guidance on the recommendations from the
subcommittee.
Page 171 of 339
Pasco City Council Meeting
April 22, 2024
Pa
g
e
1
7
2
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Subcommittee
Members
• Councilmember Charles Grimm
• Councilmember Leo Perales
Objective
• Assess current municipal water rights codes
• Evaluate current and emerging issues
• Propose amendments to enhance water rights management
Pa
g
e
1
7
3
o
f
3
3
9
Public Meetings
• Held on:
• January 31
st
• February 22
nd
• Councilmember Remarks
• Staff Presentation
• Public Comments
Pa
g
e
1
7
4
o
f
3
3
9
Public Meetings
• Majority agree with in-lieu fee adopted
• Majority agree that there is need for City to acquire water rights to
support development
• Via transfer during development (City desired option)
• Via acquisition by the City using the in-lieu fees
• Majority disagree with the City’s outreach or lack thereof
• Majority disagree with the retrospective 10 years of water rights transfer
or sale receiving the surcharge
• While many did not like the 50% surcharge, there was understanding of
escalating costs and debt service cost to buy large portions of water
rights
• Operational clarification needed on commercial and industrial uses
Pa
g
e
1
7
5
o
f
3
3
9
Recommendations
• Remove 10 years retroactive element
• surcharge for water rights sale or transfer
made after the published date of Ordinance
4701 (12/3/2023)
• Evaluate water rights in-lieu fees every 2 years
• Explore water conservation programs
Pa
g
e
1
7
6
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Subcommittee
Questions?Pa
g
e
1
7
7
o
f
3
3
9
Pasco City Council Meeting
April 22, 2024
Pa
g
e
1
7
8
o
f
3
3
9
Pasco City Council Meeting
April 22, 2024
Pa
g
e
1
7
9
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Subcommittee
Members
•Councilmember Charles Grimm
•Councilmember Leo Perales
Objective
•Assess current municipal water rights codes
•Evaluate current and emerging issues
•Propose amendments to enhance water rights management
Pa
g
e
1
8
0
o
f
3
3
9
Public Meetings
•Held on:
•January 31st
•February 22nd
•Councilmember Remarks
•Staff Presentation
•Public Comments
Pa
g
e
1
8
1
o
f
3
3
9
Public Meetings
•Majority agree with in-lieu fee adopted
•Majority agree that there is need for City to acquire water rights to
support development
•Via transfer during development (City desired option)
•Via acquisition by the City using the in-lieu fees
•Majority disagree with the City’s outreach or lack thereof
•Majority disagree with the retrospective 10 years of water rights transfer
or sale receiving the surcharge
•While many did not like the 50% surcharge, there was understanding of
escalating costs and debt service cost to buy large portions of water
rights
•Operational clarification needed on commercial and industrial uses
Pa
g
e
1
8
2
o
f
3
3
9
Recommendations
•Remove 10 years retroactive element
•surcharge for water rights sale or transfer
made after the published date of Ordinance
4701 (12/3/2023)
•Evaluate water rights in-lieu fees every 2 years
•Explore water conservation programs
Pa
g
e
1
8
3
o
f
3
3
9
Water Rights Subcommittee
Questions?Pa
g
e
1
8
4
o
f
3
3
9
Pasco City Council Meeting
April 22, 2024
Pa
g
e
1
8
5
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 8, 2024
TO: Adam Lincoln, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 6/3/24
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 4716 - Water Rights Subcommittee Recommendation to
Amend PMC Sections 13.15.030 and 13.45.060
I. REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4716, amending the Pasco Municipal
Code Rights, Water - Limits 13.15.030 Outside Connection Section City
Section 13.45.060 Assignment of Water Rights - Extension of City Water
Services beyond City Limits and, further, authorize publication by title only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NA
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In November 2023, Pasco City Council approved Ordinance No. 4701,
amending Pasco Municipal Code sections related to water rights. The most
significant changes to the code were related to the increase of in-lieu fees and
surcharges for properties where the transfer of water rights happened within
the last ten years. In 2024, Council created a Water Rights Subcommittee
consisting of Councilmembers Perales and Grimm to conduct public meetings,
gather input, and provide recommendations to the Council.
Councilmembers Perales and Grimm have participated on the Water Rights
Subcommittee. Two public meetings were held to gather input from
stakeholders in early 2024. The main takeaways included:
1. In-Lieu Fee Adoption and Water Rights Acquisition
o The majority supported the adoption of in-lieu fees as a
Page 186 of 339
mechanism to facilitate water rights acquisition.
o There was consensus on the necessity for the City to acquire
water rights to support development, particularly through transfer
during and option) preferred via (the development City's
acquisition using in-lieu fees.
2. Surcharge on Water Rights Transfer/Sale
o The majority disagreed with the retrospective 10-year surcharge
applied to water rights transfers or sales.
o surcharge, an was there 50% the opposed many While
understanding of the escalating costs and debt service required
for acquiring large portions of water rights.
3. Operational Clarifications
o Some stakeholders sought operational clarification on regulations
governing commercial and industrial water use.
Below are recommendations from the Water Rights Subcommittee to the larger
Council.
Remove 10 years retroactive element
o Surcharge for water rights sale or transfer made after the
published date of Ordinance 4701 (12/3/2023)
Evaluate water rights in-lieu fees every 2 years
Explore water conservation programs
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared the ordinance required to change the current PMC to
implement the recommended changes. The ordinance also includes additional
language to ensure that the City can go through the Department of Ecology's
approval and they are the final authority that qualifies the transfers of all water
rights.
Page 187 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 13.15.030 and PMC 13.45.060 - 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.15.030
CONNECTION OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS – WATER RIGHTS AND SECTION
13.45.060 ASSIGNMENT OF WATER RIGHTS–EXTENSION OF CITY
WATER SERVICES BEYOND CITY LIMITS.
WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance 4701A increasing the City Water Rights
Acquisition Fee as well as other significant changes to its Water Rights program; and
WHEREAS, Council desired additional public engagement, forming a Water Rights
Subcommittee to gather more comments and concerns from the public; and
WHEREAS, Water Rights Subcommittee conducted two public meetings; and
WHEREAS, Water Rights Subcommittee provided recommendations to the City Council
on April 22nd Council Workshop meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 13.15.030 entitled “Connection Outside City Limits – Water
Rights” of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
13.15.030 Connection Within or Outside City Limits – Water Rights
Any application for a new water service connection to serve real property located
within or outside the City limits of the City of Pasco, except for those properties
for which water rights, or payment in lieu of water rights, have been received by
the City pursuant to PMC 13.45.060, shall be conditioned upon the transfer to the
City of water rights associated with the property; or, if such water rights are not
available or are inadequate to meet the water needs of the property to be served,
upon payment to the City of a water rights acquisition fee in lieu of transfer,
determined as follows:
(1) Amount of Water Rights or Payment in Lieu. The amount of transferred water
rights or the fee in lieu of transfer pursuant to this section and PMC 13.45.060
shall be sufficient to serve the number of residential units supplied by the
connection for in-house domestic water service and irrigation water service
sufficient to cover 50 percent of the lot or parcel of real property to be served
by the water connection.
If the property to be served by City water service had a certificate, permit,
application , or asserted pre-code claim to a water right for withdrawal of
Page 188 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 13.15.030 and PMC 13.45.060 - 2
ground or surface waters, or such other water rights as may be appurtenant to
such property, including permit exempt well water rights, within ten years prior
to submittal to the City of a development proposal or application for City water
services post December 3rd, 2023, and the water rights are no longer available
for transfer to the City at the time of a development proposal or application for
City water services, a 50% surcharge shall be added to the water rights
acquisition fee.
Prior to accepting such assignment or transfer, the City is entitled to evalu ate
the likely validity and transferability of rights offered for transfer, and to receive
technical assistance from the Department of Ecology on same. The City may
decline the offer of such assignment or transfer if it believes, following such
evaluation and/or technical assistance, that such rights are unlikely to be
successfully transferred for use by the City.
(a) Irrigation Water Service Available. If the property to be served by the City
is located within and served by the Franklin County Irrigation District, or
other public or private irrigation provider acceptable to the City for
landscaping irrigation purposes, the property shall continue to be served by
the District or other irrigation provider and the applicant for water service
shall only be required to transfer three-tenths acre-foot of water rights per
residential unit or its equivalent, or provide a payment in lieu for said
quantity as directed by subsection (3) of this section.
(b) Irrigation Water Service Unavailable. If the property to be served by the
City is not included within or served by the Franklin County Irrigation
District or other public or private irrigation water provider acceptable to the
City for landscaping irrigation purposes, the applicant for water service
shall be required to transfer three-tenths acre-foot of water rights per
residential unit or its equivalent and in addition, three and one-half acre-feet
per year per acre of irrigable land or fraction thereof, or provide a payment
in lieu for said quantity as provided in PMC 3.35.160. The requirement
relating to irrigable land cannot be waived on the basis that the current
owner or developer does not plan to irrigate said land.
(2) Excess Water Rights. To the extent the water rights associated with the subject
property exceed the anticipated water requirement for the subject property as
determined pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the City in its sole
discretion may require the owner(s) of the subject property to transfer any
amount of the excess water rights to the City and the City shall pay the owner(s)
of the excess water rights transferred to the City an amount representing the
market value of the excess water rights as determined by subsection (3) of this
section, subject to the right of administrative appeal as provided in Chapter 1.30
PMC.
Page 189 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 13.15.030 and PMC 13.45.060 - 3
(3) Determination of Market Value for Payment in Lieu. The market value of water
rights shall be determined periodically by the City Engineer, but not less
frequently than every five two years, based upon a water rights market study or
similar investigation of the fair market value of perfected water rights that can
be transferred to the City.
(4) Security for Water Rights Transfers. Because the process for transferring water
rights to the City may involve applications to the Department of Ecology or a
water conservancy board and are subject to various legal standards and factual
investigations over which the City has no control, the City shall require security
in the form of a performance bond, deposit, or assignment of account in an
amount equal to the payment-in-lieu transfer as provided in subsection (1) of
this section, in the event that the water rights transfer is not successful. In the
event the water rights transfer is not approved, the security will be forfeited in
satisfaction of the obligation as provided in this section.
(5) Process, Costs and Forms Required for Transfer of Water Rights. If there are
water rights appurtenant to the subject property, they shall be assigned and
transferred to the City using forms approved by the City Attorney together with
the water rights transfer fee required by PMC 3.35.160 for that purpose,
including but not limited to the following: water rights transfer agreement,
assignment of water rights permit, conveyance of water rights claim or
certificate (deed), application to change water rights, and bond, deposit, or
assignment of account to secure payment in lieu of water rights if transfer of
the water rights is not approved. The applicant shall pay the water rights transfer
fee as provided in PMC 3.35.160, and shall provide the City with
documentation of the validity of the water rights as requested by the City
Engineer. If there are no water rights appurtenant to the subject property, the
applicant shall pay only the water rights acquisition fee in lieu of water rights.
Section 2. That Section 13.45.060 entitled “Assignment or transfer of water rights –
Provision of City water services within and beyond City limit” of the Pasco Municipal Code is
hereby amended and shall read as follows::
13.45.060 Assignment or transfer of water rights – Provision of City water
services within and beyond City limit.
(1) As a condition for the provision of City water service within or beyond the City
limits as a primary source of City water for potable or irrigation uses within a
residential subdivision or other development, any property owner or developer
of such property shall assign and or transfer by deed to the City any certificate,
permit, application, or claim to a water rights for the withdrawal of ground or
surface waters, or such other water rights as may be appurtenant to such
property, including permit exempt well water rights in the quantity and manner
set for in PMC 13.15.030. This assignment and transfer shall not apply to
individual services wells as are exempt from certification under the laws of the
State of Washington, or properties which receive sufficient irrigation water
Page 190 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC 13.15.030 and PMC 13.45.060 - 4
services provided under a perfected water right from a City-approved irrigation
water service provider. Prior to accepting such assignment or transfer, the City
is entitled to evaluate the likely validity and transferability of rights offered for
transfer, and to receive technical assistance from the Department of Ecology on
same. The City may decline the acceptable of such assignment or transfer if it
believes, following such evaluation and/or technical assistance, that such rights
are unlikely to be successfully transferred for use by the City.
(2) In the event there are no water rights represented either by perfected application,
certificate, permit, application, claim, or other right for withdrawal appurtenant
to the real property benefited in subsection (1) of this section, the property
owner or developer shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights
acquisition fee as established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance, Chapter 3.35
PMC.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance should be held to the invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validi ty 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.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of _____,
2024.
_____________________________
Pete Serrano
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Published: _____________________________
Page 191 of 339
Public Works Department | 525 N 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301 | 509-543-5738 | www.Pasco-WA.gov
January 31, 2026
Johnny Jones, Ph.D., J.D.
Columbia Basin Watermaster
Department of Ecology
4601 North Monroe Street
Spokane, WA 99502-1295
Email: johnny.jones@ecy.wa.gov
Re: 2025 Metering Report
Dear Dr. Jones,
Thank you for your technical assistance letter dated June 26, 2025, and for meeting with us in
August and October to discuss our system operations and water use. We appreciate your guidance
as we work toward compliance with water rights requirements.
As you know, the City owns and operates three separate utilities (Potable Water, Irrigation, and
PWRF) as well as a City parks irrigation program, all of which rely on the three Water Rights
Systems we report on. For the Irrigation Utility and the parks program, water sources span multiple
water rights systems, and the utilities are not interconnected. This has historically created a complex
operational and monitoring environment. Our discussions over the past year on this issue have
been extremely helpful in improving our understanding of compliance requirements and in
optimizing operations to better align with those requirements.
Following your letter and meetings, we implemented corrective actions to reduce water use in
Systems B and C, including a mid-season water use review, increased reliance on Columbia River
sources (System A), and operational adjustments. These actions eliminated the projected overage
in System B and significantly reduced the overage in System C.
Corrective Actions
Conducted a mid-season meter reading in September 2025 to evaluate system-specific
water use and support operational adjustments.
Shifted irrigation demand to System A sources where surplus capacity and infrastructure
allowed. This included shutting off two wells in late September 2025 within the water right
system projected to exceed authorized use.
Coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Department to reduce irrigation at City Parks
by decreasing watering frequency and ending irrigation earlier than normal.
Accelerated the end of the irrigation season by rescheduling system shutoff one week
earlier than prior years; effective irrigation shutdown occurred on October 13, 2025.
Completed a source and meter inventory to clarify operations, identify improvements for
the 2026 irrigation season, and correct a malfunctioning meter at McGee School.
Page 192 of 339
Public Works Department | 525 N 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301 | 509-543-5738 | www.Pasco-WA.gov
Launched a monthly meter reading program for both Public Works and Parks and
Recreation to improve monitoring and enable timely operational response to water right
limitations by system.
We are continuing to research our technical needs and system design limitations to better
understand what investments or operation changes could be implemented to better monitor our
water use and optimize source utilization.
Water Rights Management
We are actively pursuing water right changes and acquisitions to increase authority in System C:
Darigold (G3-27030(C)) – Change in process with Franklin County WCB; expected to add
532 acre-feet/year by the end of the 2026 irrigation season.
Ambrose (G3-28379(C)) – Application planned for early 2026; expected to add 45.76 acre-
feet/year by the end of 2026.
SCBID Contract Water – Contract for 1,000 acre-feet/year; pump station construction
scheduled for 2027.
508-14 Rights – Additional changes underway to enable use from System C wells,
targeted for completion by the end of 2026.
Water Conservation
Our conservation efforts continue to focus on public education, efficient operations, and
infrastructure improvements. We are also evaluating additional measures such as smart meter
retrofits, expanded outreach, and voluntary odd-even irrigation schedules, with the goal of
strengthening conservation in 2026.
We recognize the complexity of our systems and the challenges associated with rapid growth; yet
remain committed to achieving compliance. Through operational changes, water rights
management, and conservation efforts, we are working toward full compliance in 2026 and long-
term sustainable operations. We appreciate your continued collaboration.
Sincerely,
Maria L. Serra, PE
Public Works Director
City of Pasco
Page 193 of 339
February 23, 2026
Pasco City Council
Workshop
Pa
g
e
1
9
4
o
f
3
3
9
WATER RIGHTS
2
•Legal authorization to use public water for a beneficial
purpose, regulated by the Department of Ecology
(DOE)
•Separate from land ownership
•Growth depends on water availability
•DOE limits withdrawals even if water is physically
available
•Economic development relies on adequate water
rights
Pa
g
e
1
9
5
o
f
3
3
9
HISTORY
3
•Early 2000s: Quad City water rights acquisition
•2002: All developments required water rights or
in-lieu fee
•2006: Commercial/Industrial development were
exempted 2018: Fees and exemptions deemed
inadequate
•2023/2024: Fee increased to $4,150/acre-foot
and 50% surcharge if water rights are removed
from the land to be developed
Pa
g
e
1
9
6
o
f
3
3
9
2025 Usage
4
Systems
•System A (Columbia River
Surface Rights)
•System B (Non 508-14
Groundwater)
•System C (508-14
Groundwater)
•System D (PWRF Spray
Fields)
Pa
g
e
1
9
7
o
f
3
3
9
•System C
overuse; primary
compliance risk
•Overall Water
Rights balance
COMPLIANCE RISK
5
•DOE collaboration
for flexibility
•Ongoing
acquisition efforts
MITIGATION
Pa
g
e
1
9
8
o
f
3
3
9
2023 ORDINANCE CHANGES
6
•Fee increased to $4,150/acre-foot
•Commercial and industrial exemptions
removed
•50% surcharge for rights removed within
last 10 years
Pa
g
e
1
9
9
o
f
3
3
9
2024 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITEE
7
•Outreach to developers
•50% surcharge for rights revised from past 10
years TO active as of passage of 2023
Ordinance
•Evaluate fees every 2 years
•Explore water conservation programs
•Grandfather all completed preliminary plats
•Estimated impact of $4M
Pa
g
e
2
0
0
o
f
3
3
9
CLARIFICATION
8
•Does grandfathering apply to all aspects of the
ordinance
•Commercial and industrial exemption
•50% surcharge if water rights transferred
from land
Pa
g
e
2
0
1
o
f
3
3
9
NEXT STEPS
9
•Staff recommends codifying of direction from
Council to provide predictability and clarity to
development community.
Pa
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
3
3
9
FeedbackPa
g
e
2
0
3
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 2, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance - Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment- School
District Capital Facilities Plan Update
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
The Ordinance informs and supports school impact fees as established by
Ordinance 4774, adopted by Council on June 16, 2025. School impact fees are
collected by the City when building permits are issued. Each month, city staff
transmits any school impact fees collected that month to the School District,
therefore having no fiscal impact to the Cities budget.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
The capital the with consistent Comprehensive must Plan City’s remain
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.
Pasco School District No. 1 (PSD) adopted an updated Capital Facilities Plan
in March of 2025. 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.
Page 204 of 339
Impact (other than fiscal):
The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan allows for the continued collection
of school district impact fees that periodically are adjusted due to emerging
trends project and budgets district capital growth, community in school
demands.
V. 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 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 deficiency the in identified addresses amendment proposed an
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;
Page 205 of 339
(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 of protection and the safety, health, public welfare,
environment?
The PSD Capital Facilities Plan is intended to directly support the
health, building safety and welfare of the community through 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment is intended
to maintain timely updates that reflect emerging trends and maintaining
consistency across various PSD and City plans and goals.
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. and facilities, public on utilities, the are What impacts
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 plan forecast, facility needs and costs, a finance and
Page 206 of 339
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.
Recommendation:
Based on analysis of the review criteria above, staff recommends approval of
this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adoption of the Pasco School
District No. 1 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Update.
Constraints (time or other consideration):
Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary in order to
continue to charge and collect the school impact fees as amended by
Ordinance 4774.
Next Steps:
This agenda item is scheduled to be considered for final action on the March 2,
2026 regular City Council Meeting.
Alternatives:
The City Council may elect to reject the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
direct staff to coordinate with the school district on how best to facilitate
enacting the School District's Capital Facilities Plan.
Page 207 of 339
Ordinance - PSD No. 1 Update to Capital Facilities Plan - 1
Version 1.8.26
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 2025 UPDATE TO THE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BY REFERENCE AND INCORPORATING
SUCH INTO THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
ADDENDUM .
WHEREAS, 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.; and
WHEREAS, capital facilities must be identified as necessary to support development
when the City imposes school impact fees as a funding strategy for the Pasco School District;; and
WHEREAS, on March 25th, 2025, the Pasco School District adopted its 2025 Capital
Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, emergency amendments may be reviewed and acted upon outside the annual
amendment review cycle; and.
WHEREAS, such amendments 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; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, The Pasco City Council ADOPTED Resolution 4679
authorizing the initiation of an emergency amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Pasco Planning Commission held a public
hearing to receive testimony regarding said Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Pasco Planning Commission did move and
approve a motion to recommend approval of said Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The Pasco School District No. 1 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan is sufficient
in consideration of the imposition of Impact Fees authorized by adopted of Ordinance 4774 .
Section 2. The City adopts by reference as if fully set forth herein, The Pasco School
District No. 1 2025 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan and incorporates such into the City of
Pasco Comprehensive Plan by addendum.
Page 208 of 339
Ordinance - PSD No. 1 Update to Capital Facilities Plan - 2
Version 1.8.26
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance should be held to the 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.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _____,
2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 209 of 339
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 2, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance - Emergency Low Density Residential Land Use
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and R-S-20 Rezone
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
01 Proposed Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
02 Proposed Ordinance - Text Amendments and Rezone
03 Ordinance 4663
04 BFHD Table XI
05 SEPA Notice and Affidavit
06 SEPA2025-036 Checklist Submitted
07 SEPA Decision
08 Commerce Notice
09 Public Hearing Notice
10 Public Comments (13a, 13b & 13c)
11 Planning Commission Meeting
12 PowerPoint slides
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion only. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the two
proposed ordinances at the regular meeting scheduled for March 2, 2026.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adoption of the proposed
ordinances. This action is a legislative amendment that does not authorize
capital expenditures or require additional City staffing or resources. Any future
development enabled by the amendment would be subject to existing permit
fees, impact fees, and utility connection requirements adopted by the City.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Page 210 of 339
Land Use Designation and Zoning Relationship:
In Pasco, land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan establish the City’s
long-range policy direction for the general type and density of development,
while zoning regulations in the Pasco Municipal Code provide the specific,
enforceable development standards for individual properties. Zoning
implements the Comprehensive Plan by translating broad land use policies into
detailed requirements such as lot size, setbacks, and permitted uses, and must
remain consistent with the assigned land use designation. Under this proposal,
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation allows for 2–5 dwelling units per
acre to preserve long-term flexibility, while the implementing zoning regulations
currently limit development to 2–3 dwelling units per acre.
History of Proposal
On April 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 (Exhibit 03),
amending Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.215.015 and the 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 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre.
Ordinance No. 4663 also established that the gross density of any proposed
development within a zoning district shall not fall below the corresponding
minimum an created change 25.215.015. This in identified density PMC
unintended conflict with the R-S-20 zoning district, where minimum lot sizes
and infrastructure constraints are not compatible with the higher minimum
density requirements.
The City Council was briefed on this matter on three occasions in 2025 and the
City the revising by inconsistency the staff to directed Council resolve
comprehensive plan designation from 3-6 units per acre to 2-5 units per acre
and the revise the zoning from allowing 2 units per acre to 2-5 units per acre.
Staff conducted a workshop with the Planning Commission on November 20,
2025, followed by a public hearing on December 18, 2025, to discuss options
for resolving this inconsistency. The proposal presented in December 2025
sought to restore a 2–5 dwelling units per acre land use designation for
properties currently zoned R-S-20 and to replace the R-S-20 zone with a new
R-9 Low Density Residential District, establishing a minimum lot size of 8,700
square feet.
The Planning Commission did not support allowing densities of 2–5 dwelling
units per acre and directed staff to revise the proposal to reduce the density
range to 2–3 dwelling units per acre and to schedule a second public hearing in
January to review the changes.
The Planning Commission held a second public hearing on January 15, 2026,
Page 211 of 339
to review the revised proposal as noted above, and recommended that the City
Council approve the following actions:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 2025-002), including the
proposed Land Use Map amendment establishing the Low Density
Residential–Riverview designation at 2–5 dwelling units per acre; and
2. Replacement/rezone of the R-S-20 zone with the R-15 Low Density
Residential zoning associated the and approval and District, of
Comprehensive Plan text amendments, including a revision to PMC
21.20 added during the meeting.
Full meeting minutes for the Planning Commission meetings held on November
20, 2025, December 18, 2025, and January 15, 2026, are attached as Exhibit
11.
Background
subdivision several 03), (Exhibit 4663 Ordinance adoption the Since of
applications within the R-S-20 district have been denied due to a mismatch
between the Comprehensive Plan’s current minimum density requirements and
the zoning district’s large lot standards. Many parcels in this area are also
located far from existing City sewer infrastructure, leaving septic systems as
the only feasible wastewater option. Under Benton-Franklin Health District
Table XI (Exhibit 04), parcels using septic on Soil Type 1 must be at least one-
half acre, which limits achievable density to two units per acre below the
Comprehensive Plan’s current minimum density.
Because it for difficult make and infrastructure zoning these constraints
property owners to meet the Plan’s existing density standards, the City Council
directed staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and corresponding
zoning code revisions to restore the previous 2–5 unit-per-acre designation for
properties zoned R-S-20. Planning Commission has suggested the zoning
designation be 2-3 units per acre.
Impact (other than fiscal)
the between inconsistency long-standing a proposal The resolves
Comprehensive Plan’s minimum density requirements and the R-S-20 zoning
district’s a restoring and clarity improving standards, large-lot regulatory
feasible development pathway for affected properties. The amendments
maintain low-density neighborhood character while allowing modestly smaller
lots where urban services are available. Wastewater standards remain driven
by infrastructure conditions: lots capable of connecting to sewer must do so,
while septic development remains limited by Health District requirements. The
proposal does not approve a specific development; environmental protections,
including critical areas regulations, remain unchanged and will be applied
during project review.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 212 of 339
Under the existing 3–6 unit-per-acre land use designation, the R-S-20 zone
cannot achieve the required minimum density due to its 20,000-square-foot lot
size and the reliance on septic systems in areas lacking sewer access. These
combined factors have resulted in a functional moratorium on subdivisions in
the district because properties cannot meet both the density requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan and the infrastructure realities on the ground.
Restoring the 2–5 unit-per-acre land use designation and rezoning the area to
allow 2-3 units per acre, resolves this regulatory conflict and enables a
consistent framework for both 14,520-square-foot lots and larger half-acre lots
where septic remains necessary. This adjustment restores development
feasibility, supports existing neighborhood patterns, and allows zoning
regulations to match actual service conditions.
Septic systems remain limited to lots of at least one-half acre located more
than 200 feet from an accessible sewer line, while smaller lots must connect to
City ultimately zoning) availability (not therefore, sewer; infrastructure
determines achievable density in these areas.
Analysis
Under the proposed amendment, the restored 2–5 dwelling unit per acre land
use designation provides the appropriate policy basis for low-density residential
development in the Riverview area. To implement this designation, staff
propose replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-15 Low Density Residential
District that establishes a minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet. This zoning
framework allows development within the density range contemplated by the
Comprehensive Plan while continuing to accommodate larger half-acre lots in
areas that rely on on-site septic systems.
Not all development would be eligible for septic systems, as wastewater
service will remain dependent on project size, site conditions, and proximity to
City sewer infrastructure. To address site-specific constraints, the proposed
code allows limited flexibility in individual lot sizes (up to 25 percent smaller or
larger) provided overall density requirements are met. This flexibility is intended
to improve site design options and alleviate certain, but not all, constraints
associated with septic system requirements.
The proposed R-15 district reestablishes consistency between the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, supports long-term growth
management objectives, and aligns Pasco’s development standards with
emerging statewide housing requirements.
Analysis - Proposed Setback and Lot Revisions
Page 213 of 339
Under current zoning standards, 20,000-square-foot lots are subject to
minimum setbacks of 25 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet on each side,
with a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. These standards were designed
for larger lots with greater separation between homes.
The proposed zoning revision would allow smaller lots, down to 14,520 square
feet, while still permitting lots up to one-half acre. To ensure these smaller lots
remain buildable, staff proposes modest reductions to the front and rear
setbacks while retaining the existing side setback requirement.
Specifically, the proposal would revise setbacks to 20 feet in the front, 10 feet
on each side, and 20 feet in the rear, and increase maximum lot coverage from
40 percent to 45 percent. These changes align development standards with the
reduced minimum lot size while maintaining reasonable separation between
homes and protecting neighborhood character.
spacing and privacy preserve helps 10-foot side the Retaining setbacks
between structures, even as lot sizes decrease. Table 1 summarizes the
proposed changes to development standards.
Table 1. Development Standards Comparison Table
The proposed code also allows limited flexibility in individual lot sizes when site
conditions require it, such as septic system constraints, provided the overall
development remains within the planned low-density range of 2–3 dwelling
units can while proceed development flexibility This acre. per ensures
maintaining consistency with adopted density standards. The proposed
language code is included in Exhibit 02 (PMC 25.30.050).
General Approval Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezone and Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 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 the adopted City’s of portion the with and RCW 36.70A
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 Comprehensive approving to Plan factors following the prior
amendments:
Page 214 of 339
(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?
No. This code change would change the R-S-20 zone to allow for 2-3 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 emergency amendment is intended to retain the previous 2–5 units
per acre land use designation. The proposed rezone to R-15 would allow
development at 2–3 units per acre, supporting slightly smaller lot sizes in the
Riverview area and the area southwest of West Court Street and Harris Road,
and better aligning zoning with the Comprehensive Plan and state housing
requirements.
Under the Growth Management Act, cities are required to plan for increased
housing capacity. Very large minimum lot sizes are generally discouraged in
urban areas because they limit housing supply and increase infrastructure
costs. The proposed zoning change supports more efficient land use while
maintaining low-density character.
Additionally, by the end of 2026, state law (including HB 1110) will require
cities to allow increased housing types citywide, regardless of existing zoning.
This zoning update positions Pasco to remain compliant with state law while
supporting gradual, appropriately scaled residential growth.
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
Page 215 of 339
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 14,520 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?
The proposed minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet is significantly larger
than the 8,700-square-foot lot size presented at the December public hearing.
Accordingly, the potential development intensity and associated impacts are
expected to be substantially less.
Introducing 14,520-square-foot lots into an established neighborhood
in shifts create parcels can and half-acre by characterized one-acre
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 development. Architectural smaller-lot large-lot between and
standards, window placement, and streetscape design can further support
compatibility and help new development blend with the existing character. With
these tools, an 14,520-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?
Page 216 of 339
Development at a 14,520-square-foot minimum lot sizeis generally associated
with low to moderate impacts on public facilities and services. Compared to
larger half-acre or one-acre lots, this lot size may result in a modest increase in
dwelling units and corresponding demand on water, sewer, stormwater,
transportation, parks, and schools. These impacts are anticipated under the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan and are consistent with
planning assumptions for low-density residential development.
Overall, development at this scale is not expected to create significant or
unmanageable impacts and represents a balanced approach that limits density
while allowing more efficient use of infrastructure compared to very large-lot
development.
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 14,520-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 more neighborhoods, residential well-connected compact, encourage
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
Rezone and Text Amendment Criteria
Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.210.030, the petition for a change of zoning
classification must show the following criteria provided below followed by staff
analysis in bold italics:
(1) The date the existing zone became effective;
The existing zone was created on April 19, 1999 via ordinance 3354.
(2) The changed conditions which are alleged to warrant other or
additional zoning;
The rezone from R-S-20 to R-15 Low Density Residential District is needed to
comply with the proposed CPA amendment change to allow for 2-5 units per
acre as a land use designation and 2-3 units per acre for the zoning.
(3) Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare;
The zoning amendment advances the public health, safety, and general
welfare by restoring regulatory consistency; ensuring safe wastewater disposal;
Page 217 of 339
supporting orderly, predictable development; expanding attainable low-density
housing opportunities; improving infrastructure efficiency; maintaining
with compliance for the City and compatibility; neighborhood positioning
statewide housing requirements. The amendment resolves a conflict that
prevented lawful development and ensures development patterns that protect
environmental long-term quality, promote public services, and preserve
community well-being.
(4) The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent
property and the Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely affect the value or
character of adjacent property, as it maintains low-density residential
development patterns similar to existing neighborhoods and promotes
regulatory clarity and predictability. The amendment strengthens the
Comprehensive Plan by restoring internal consistency, aligning land use
designations with infrastructure realities, and supporting adopted policies
regarding housing, growth management, and neighborhood quality.
(5) The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not
granted;
If the zoning change is not approved, property owners within the current R-S-
20 district will remain unable to lawfully subdivide or develop their property
because the existing minimum lot size and septic requirements prevent them
from achieving the Comprehensive Plan’s required minimum density of three
dwelling units per acre. This regulatory conflict creates a functional
development moratorium, limiting the owners’ reasonable use of their land and
preventing investment, homebuilding, and property improvement. Denial would
therefore continue to restrict property rights, depress development potential,
and perpetuate uncertainty regarding future land use expectations.
(6) The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property; and
The Comprehensive Plan criterion is met because a companion amendment
establishes the Low Density Residential–Riverview designation of 2–5 dwelling
units per acre for the subject properties. This restored designation reflects the
development patterns and infrastructure limitations of the area and provides
the appropriate policy basis for the proposed R-15 zoning district. With the land
use designation and zoning aligned, the rezone is fully consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(7) Such other information as the Hearing Examiner requires.
This criterion is not applicable because the request is not an applicant-initiated
petition but a legislative, area-wide rezone initiated by the City. Based on staff’s
review of the applicable code provisions, the appropriate process for a
legislative rezone is a public hearing before the Planning Commission followed
by a recommendation to the City Council. Staff notes that related procedural
sections of the municipal code will be clarified and improved during the
Page 218 of 339
comprehensive code update scheduled for next year in coordination with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Notice & Public Comment
The public hearing notice (Exhibit 09) was processed in accordance with PMC
27.12.090. Written comments related to the public hearing notice were not
received, however, there were verbal public comments at the public hearing as
outlined in the Planning Commission meeting meetings (Exhibit 11). Written
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) comments received are addressed
below.
SEPA Notice
The public comment period for the SEPA notice (Exhibit 05) closed on
December 30, 2025. Three comments were received. One comment was
submitted by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, which staff
determined was not applicable, as the proposed action would result in lower
residential density than is currently allowed for the site. A second comment
was received from the Bonneville Power Administration and was noted by staff;
no changes were required in response.
The third comment addressed lot size and on-site septic system requirements.
Staff have responded to this comment, as provided in Exhibit 13c.
The SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (Exhibit 07) was issued on
January 27, 2026. No appeals were filed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the two proposed ordinances
during the regular meeting on March 2, 2026.
Constraints (time or other considerations)
Staff respectfully recommend timely action on this matter to resolve the code
inconsistency and lift the current prohibition on development for affected
property owners.
Next Steps
None.
Alternatively, Council May
The City Council may:
1. Recommend Approval of the proposed ordinances;
2. Recommend Approval with Modifications;
3. Recommend Denial; or
Page 219 of 339
4. Remand the issue to Planning Commission for further vetting.
Page 220 of 339
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1
Version 1.8.26
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDENT: LOW-
DENSITY RESDIENTIAL-RIVERVIEW BY REFERENCE AND
INCORPORATING SUCH INTO THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY ADDENDUM.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 on April 17,
2023, amending Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.015 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density
Table (Table LU-1) allowing gross density range for areas designated as Low Density Residential
from 2-5 dwelling units per acre to 3-6 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4663 created an unintended conflict with the R-S-20 zoning
district, where minimum lot sizes and infrastructure constraints are not compatible with the higher
density minimum density requirements; and
WHEREAS, comprehensive plan emergency amendments may be reviewed and acted
upon outside the annual amendment review cycle; and.
WHEREAS, such amendments 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; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, The Pasco City Council ADOPTED Resolution 4679
authorizing the initiation of an emergency amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, City of Pasco Planning Staff conducted a workshop with the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2025, followed by public hearings on December 18, 2025, and
January 15, 2026, to discuss options for resolving the unintended conflict; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Planning Commission at the January 15, 2026 meeting,
passed a motion recommending the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA
2025-002, including the Land Use Map Amendment establishing the Low Density Residential-
Riverview designation of 2-5 dwelling units per acre.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Pasco adopts by reference, Exhibit A below, referred to as the 2018
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Low-Density Residential-Riverview Addendum.
Page 221 of 339
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 2
Version 1.8.26
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance should be held to the 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 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days
after approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _____,
202_.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 222 of 339
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 3
Version 1.8.26
EXHIBIT A
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Low-Density Residential-Riverview Addendum
City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Addendum
R-S-20 Zone & Low-Density Residential Land Use changes
1. Purpose of Addendum
This amendment is intended to correct an existing internal inconsistency between
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s zoning map by designating properties
currently zoned R-S-20 as Low Density Residential – Riverview on the Comprehensive Plan/Land
Use Map. This amendment does not increase development capacity beyond what is currently
allowed by zoning. All related Comprehensive Plan text, land use tables, and growth and capacity
analysis will be updated as part of the City’s 2025 Periodic Comprehensive Plan Update.
2. Introduction and Purpose
This addendum supplements the City of Pasco’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan to re-establish the
appropriate density range for properties within the existing R-S-20 zoning district and introduce a
new land use sub-designation, Low Density Residential–Riverview, allowing 2–5 dwelling units
per acre.
This addendum does not alter, strike, or amend the adopted Comprehensive Plan document.
Instead, it provides supplemental direction and replaces a specific portion of the Land Use Map
for the Riverview area to ensure consistency between land use policy, zoning implementation, and
infrastructure limitations.
3. Background and Need for Addendum
Following adoption of Ordinance 4663 (2023), the citywide Low Density Residential range
increased from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 du/acre. However, this amendment
unintentionally created an inconsistency for the R-S-20 zone, which allows only two units per acre
based on a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and the septic system requirements identified in Benton-
Franklin Health District Table XI.
This inconsistency resulted in subdivision denials and prevented development within the R-S-20
district. Staff analysis determined that restoration of the 2–5 du/ac density range for these parcels
is necessary to align policy with achievable development patterns and ensure internal consistency.
Page 223 of 339
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 4
Version 1.8.26
4. Supplemental Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential–Riverview
This addendum establishes a new sub-designation:
Low Density Residential–Riverview (2–5 dwelling units per acre)
This designation applies only to properties currently zoned R-S-20 and identified on the
supplemental exhibits. It supports a range of lot sizes from 14,520 sq. ft. (when sewer is available)
to 21,780 sq. ft. (for septic-dependent parcels) with lot size flexibility built into the proposed
zoning code.
This designation restores historic density assumptions for the Riverview area without changing
other Low Density Residential areas in the city.
5. Replacement of Land Use Map for the Riverview Area
To maintain the integrity of the adopted 2018 Comprehensive Plan while ensuring policy
consistency, this addendum replaces only the affected portion of the Land Use Map applicable to
the Low Density Residential–Riverview area shown in Exhibit C.
The following exhibits are hereby adopted as the controlling land use maps for all parcels shown
as Low Density Residential-Riverview in Exhibit C:
• Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Map
• Exhibit C: Low Density Residential–Riverview Supplemental Land Use Map
These exhibits replace and supersede the corresponding geographic portion of the 2018
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map without modifying any other part of the document.
All other land use designations and mapping in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan remain unchanged.
6. Scope of Supersession
• Replacement applies exclusively to the Low Density Residential-Riverview-area parcels
shown in Exhibit B.
• Outside the affected geography, the 2018 Land Use Map continues to govern.
• Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council shall rely on Exhibit C when
interpreting or applying land use designations in the Riverview area.
7. Relationship to Zoning – Implementation Through R-15 Low Density Residential
District
To implement the restored density range, the city proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new
zone: R-15 Low Density Residential District (2-3 units per acre).
This zoning district:
• Aligns with the 2–5 dwelling units per acre land use policy framework
• Supports a mix of sewer-served lots and larger septic-served lots
• Eliminates the inconsistency created by Ordinance 4663
• Prepares the City for mandatory middle housing integration under HB 1110 by 2026
Page 224 of 339
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 5
Version 1.8.26
The zoning revision does not alter the Comprehensive Plan; it implements this supplemental land
use direction.
8. Findings and Policy Basis
The proposed addendum is consistent with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan because it advances the
Plan’s goals of providing diverse and attainable housing, ensuring the efficient use of residential
land, maintaining compatibility with long-range planning assumptions, and supporting fiscally
responsible infrastructure planning. It also corrects a policy inconsistency created by Ordinance
4663, which established a minimum density that cannot be achieved under existing R-S-20
zoning or in areas dependent on septic systems. Restoring the 2–5 dwelling-units-per-acre range
at the land use level and 2-3 units-per-acre range at the zoning level aligns achievable
development patterns with the Comprehensive Plan’s intent and resolves the mismatch between
allowable density and infrastructure constraints. In addition, the proposed density range is
consistent with the City’s established planning assumptions for sewer and utility system
expansion, transportation modeling, stormwater capacity, and parks and school facility planning,
ensuring coordinated and predictable long-term growth.
9. Applicability
This addendum applies only to parcels labeled Low Density Residential-Riverview in Exhibit C.
10. Implementation and Forward Integration
This supplemental designation and map replacement remain in effect until the city completes its
2026 mandated periodic Comprehensive Plan update, at which time the land use map and density
ranges may be comprehensively evaluated and integrated.
11. Adoption
This addendum was reviewed by the Planning Commission, subject to public notice and hearing,
and adopted by the City Council as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-002,
pursuant to PMC 25.215.020.
Page 225 of 339
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
Pa
g
e
2
2
6
o
f
3
3
9
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 2Miles
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
Pa
g
e
2
2
7
o
f
3
3
9
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING AND
REPEALING SECTIONS OF PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE, IN TITLE 17 SIGN CODE, TITLE
21 URBAN AREA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND TITLE 25 ZONING, RELATED TO
CHANGES MADE TO THE R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT AND FURTHER AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CLASSIFCATION FROM R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT TO
R-15 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 on April 17,
2023, amending Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.015 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density
Table (Table LU-1) allowing gross density range for areas designated as Low Density Residential
from 2-5 dwelling units per acre to 3-6 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4663 created an unintended conflict with the R-S-20 zoning
district, where minimum lot sizes and infrastructure constraints are not compatible with the higher
density minimum density requirements; and
WHEREAS, City of Pasco Planning Staff conducted a workshop with the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2025, followed by public hearings on December 18, 2025, and
January 15, 2026 to discuss options for resolving the unintended conflict; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Planning Commission at the January 15, 2026 meeting,
passed a motion recommending the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA
2025-002, including the Land Use Map Amendment establishing the Low Density Residential-
Riverview designation of 2-5 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Planning Commission at January 15, 2026, Planning
Commission meeting passed a motion recommending the City Council replace/rezone the R-S-20
zone with the R-15 Low Density Residential District, along with the associated Pasco Municipal
Code changes below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be
and herby is changed from the R-S-20 Suburban District to R-15 Low Density Residential District
as shown in Exhibit A:
Page 228 of 339
C-2
R-S-12
R-2
R-S-1/PUD
C-1
R-15
R-3/PUD
I-1
MU
I-2
BP
R-1-A2
O
C-3
R-3
C-R
RP
R-1/PUD
R-1
R-S-1
R-1-A
R-T
R-4
I-3
Zoning
²0 1 2Miles
Legend
Zoning
BP
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-R
I-1
I-2
I-3
MU
O
R-1
R-1-A
R-1-A2
R-1/PUD
R-15
R-2
R-3
R-3/PUD
R-4
R-S-1
R-S-1/PUD
R-S-12
R-T
RP
1/28/2026
PLOT DATE
EXHIBIT A
Pa
g
e
2
2
9
o
f
3
3
9
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 3
Section 2. PMC Title 17.15.010 Sign Allowance Table, is hereby amended and shall
read as follows:
Chapter 17.15 SIGN ALLOWANCE TABLE
17.15.010 Interpretation of sign allowance table.
(1) The sign allowance table, as incorporated herein, determines whether a specific sign is
allowed in a zone district or by land use activity. The zone district or land use activity is
identified in the left column and the specific sign allowances are located in the rows of the table.
(2) If no symbol or number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row,
the sign is not allowed in that category or is not subject to an allowance.
(3) If a number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row or in the
column or row heading, the sign may be allowed subject to the appropriate requirement and
specific conditions indicated in the table footnotes.
(4) All applicable requirements shall govern a sign whether or not the requirements are cross-
referenced in the table.
Sign Allowance Table
Permit requirement
| Material restrictions
| | Number of signs
| | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1)
| | | | Height in feet (2)
| | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line
| | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3)
| | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4)
| | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line
| | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Duration (days)
| | | | | | | | | | | Notes
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Page 230 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 4
Access, landmark, and informational signs - all zones
entry/exit freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 4 4 5 0 per exit/entry
landmark wall sign/plaque yes durable 1 10 8 5 0 per building
frontage
informational -
private (6)
wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
no durable 1 6 4 5 0 per street
frontage
informational -
public
wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
no durable 1 6 4 5 0 per street
frontage
Permanent signs
Residential districts - RT, R-S-20R-15, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, RFAH -1/1A, R-2, R-3, R-4, RMHP
identification -
dwelling unit
wall sign no durable 1 2 8 5 0 per property
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
no durable 1 2 4 5 0 per property
identification - bldg
complex
wall sign yes durable 1 24 20 5 0 per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
yes durable 1 24 4 5 0 per street
frontage
daycare facility wall sign yes durable 1 16 20 5 0 per building
frontage
commercial freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
yes durable 1 16 15 5 0 per street
frontage
school/religious
use (15)
wall sign yes durable 1 24 20 5 0 per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
yes durable 1 40 15 5 0 per street
frontage
freestanding
marquee/readerboard
sign (17)
yes durable 1 24 15 5 0 per street
frontage
Page 231 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 5
Office/commercial districts - O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3
Composite allowance - all sign surfaces
maximum per sign window sign (11) no transparent na 25% 15
per building/street
frontage
awning sign per
business
yes durable 1 24 15 (2)
8 may extend
over walkway
canopy sign yes maintained na 25% 24 (2)
8 may extend
over walkway
wall sign yes durable na 25% na 14 0
blade/projecting sign yes durable 1 125 (2)
(2)
5 0
freestanding pedestal
sign
yes durable 1 350 15 0 5 0
freestanding
marquee/readerboard
sign (17)
yes durable 1 48 15 5 0 per street
frontage
freestanding pole -
tenant directory sign (17)
yes durable 1 12 35 0 6 5 0 up to 12 tenants
per sign
freestanding pole
sign (17)
yes durable 1 350 35 0 6 5 0
freestanding billboard
sign (7)(17)
yes durable 1 250 35 0 500 6 5 0 Maximum 25
billboard sign
structures in
City.
freestanding digital
billboard sign (7)(17)
yes durable 1 250 35 0 500 6 5 0
off-premises directional
sign (14)
yes durable 1 5 15 5 0
Commercial/industrial districts - C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3
maximum per sign freeway sign yes durable 1 350 70 500 6 35 35 per freeway
frontage
per freeway or freeway
interchange (9) sign
yes durable 1 480 70 500 6 35 35 per 15-acre site
minimum
frontage property and freeway
readerboard (9) sign
yes durable 1 150 35 500 6 35 35 per 15-acre site
minimum
Limited duration signs
Page 232 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 6
Undeveloped property
Residential freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 15 after closing
- lot
- tract freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 60 8 5 0 15 after last closing
Commercial freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 15 after closing
- lot
- tract freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 60 8 5 0 15 after closing
Construction wall/banner sign yes durable 1 24 8 5 0 const
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 32 8 5 0 const
Real estate sales/rentals per building or property
Residential zones window/poster sign no 1 2 0 15 after closing
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (10)
no durable 1 6 8 5 0 15 after closing
freestanding sign (10) no durable 2 2 8 5 0 15 after closing
Commercial
zones (12)
window/poster sign no 1 2 0 15 after closing
wall/banner sign no durable 1 6 20 5 0 15 after closing
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (9)
no durable 1 6 8 5 0 15 after closing
Temporary signs
Open house - real
estate sales
sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 4 6 4 5 0 after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event
Special event - sales, charities, etc.
Schools, churches,
parks, farmers mkt,
Xmas trees
sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 4 6 4 5 0 after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event
Page 233 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 7
window poster no na 50% after event
window banner no durable 1 16 0 after event
wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20 5 0 after event
banner - mounted
freestanding pole
no durable 1 10 20 (2)
8 5 0 after event
marquee/readerboard -
portable
no durable 1 18 4 5 0 after event
balloons (12) no biodegradable 15 20 5 after event
Residential zones sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 2 6 4 5 0 after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event
Commercial zones sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 2 6 4 5 0 after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4 5 0 after event
window poster no na 50% after event
window banner no durable 1 16 0 after event
wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20 5 0 after event
banner - mounted
freestanding pole
no durable 1 16 20 (2)
8 5 0 after event
marquee/readerboard -
portable
no durable 1 18 4 5 0 after event
balloons (12) no biodegradable 15 20 5 after event
inflatables (13) yes nonflammable 1 350 70 250 5 0 after event
SR-12/395 and I-182 inflatables (13) yes nonflammable 1 350 70 500 5 0 after event
Political (16) freestanding no durable na 6 4 5 0 10 after election
1 The area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the outer limits of the sign face, but not
including structural elements, which are not a part of the display. The area of a two-sided sign
equals the area of one side. The area of a spherical, cubical, or polyhedral sign equals 1/2 the
total surface area.
2 Height: measured from the average finished grade at the sign foundation.
Page 234 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 8
Awning signs shall be at least 8 and no more than 16 feet above the walkway.
Blade/projecting signs shall not extend more than 10 feet above the building facade or 6 feet
from the face of the building.
3 Spacing: the linear distance between signs, or sign structures, in feet.
4 The area under the sign that shall be free of obstructions to allow passage of pedestrians and
vehicles.
5 Setback: shall be that portion of any sign or sign structure that is closest to the property line.
6 Private informational signs must be for an original purpose and may not simply repeat the same
message over and over.
7 Signs visible from Washington State Highways may be subject to the Highway Advertising
Control Act of 1971 and require approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation
in additional to local approval.
8 On private property adjacent to an arterial road: not within 100 feet of a public street
intersection, 300 feet of a residential district, within 250 feet of a freestanding sign of 200 sf of
display area.
9 Freeway interchange signs must be located within 1,000 feet of an interchange, and 300 feet of
ROW, on site of business on a minimum 15-acre site.
10 Square feet per one face of a two-sided sandwich board.
11 Window signs may include credit card logos and advertise hours of operation and address.
12 Balloons shall be no larger than 18 inches in diameter, not attached to a roofline.
13 Inflatables shall be securely anchored to the ground and not create a traffic or other hazard in
the event of deflation.
Inflatables shall be measured by square feet of surface volume.
14 Off-premises directional signs shall be of the material, color, lettering font, and structure
specified by the Building Official.
15 Excepting Pasco High School Bulldogs stadium sign.
16 Campaign signs on private property are limited to 32 square feet in size.
17 Permanent freestanding pole signs are not allowed within the downtown core, as illustrated in
PMC 25.95.050(2) of the downtown Pasco overlay zone.
[Ord. 4729 § 2, 2024; Ord. 4678A § 2, 2024; Ord. 4678 § 2, 2023; Ord. 3865 § 1, 2008; Ord.
3790 § 2, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.05.010.]
Page 235 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 9
Section 3. PMC Title 17.15.030, Exempt signs, is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
17.15.030 Exempt signs.
The following signs shall not require application, fee or sign permit. These exceptions shall not
be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from responsibility for its erection, and its
compliance with provisions of this code or any other law or ordinance regulating the same:
(1) Changing of the advertising copy or message on theater marquees, readerboards, and similar
signs.
(2) Painting, repainting, cleaning, repairing and other normal maintenance, unless structural or
electrical changes are made.
(3) Signs erected or installed by or at the direction of the City, such as traffic signs, legal notices,
railroad warning signs, signs showing the location of underground public utility facilities, and
other signs of a nonadvertising nature erected for warning or emergency purposes.
(4) Interior signs; provided, that no interior sign shall be permitted in the R-T, R-S-20R-15, R-S-
12, R-S-1, R-l and R-2, R-3, R-4, R-1-A and R-1-A2 zoning districts.
(5) Temporary signs and decorations that are customary for special holidays and that are erected
on private property.
(6) Signs directly related to a municipal building, structure or installed by the City or required
by a governmental entity.
(7) Bona fide religious symbols on the buildings or grounds of religious institutions.
(8) Traffic or pedestrian control signs, signs required by law, or signs indicating scenic or
historic points of interest that are erected by or on the order of a public officer in the performance
of his public duty.
(9) Sculptures, fountains, mosaics, and design features that do not incorporate advertising or
identification.
(10) The flags of governments or noncommercial institutions such as schools, with the poles
treated as structures.
(11) Official public notices of federal, state or local governments, official court notices.
(12) Signs not intended to be viewed by the public from the street right-of-way.
Page 236 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 10
(13) Lettering or symbols painted directly onto or flush-mounted magnetically onto an operable
vehicle.
(14) Identification signs upon recycling collection containers for public, charitable or nonprofit
organizations.
(15) Emblems of local nonprofit organizations and community service clubs, including signs
less than two square feet that identify the meeting place and time.
(16) Political signs. [Ord. 3790 § 3, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.05.030.]
Section 4. PMC Title 21.15.010, Street connectivity, is hereby amended and shall
read as follows:
21.15.010 Street connectivity.
(1) Connectivity to Abutting Lands. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be
designed to provide direct and efficient connections to existing, proposed, and planned streets
adjacent to the subdivision. Wherever a proposed development abuts unplatted land or a future
development phase of an existing development, street stubs shall be provided to allow access to
future abutting subdivisions and to extend the street system into the surrounding area. Street ends
shall contain turnarounds constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards and shall be designed to
facilitate future extension in terms of grading, width, and temporary barricades.
(2) Future Street Plan. Subdivision applicants must demonstrate, pursuant to City standards, that
the proposed development does not preclude future street connections to adjacent lands.
(3) Public Street and Street Connectivity Requirements. Dedicating or deeding property for
right-of-way or a portion thereof to the City for public streets within, or along the boundaries of
all residential subdivisions or developments, shall be required as a condition of application
approval where the following can be demonstrated:
(a) Facts support that such dedication is reasonably necessary as a result of the impact created
by the proposed development;
(b) Such dedication will result in proportionate mitigation of the impact in the reasonably
foreseeable future;
(c) Connectivity to the existing or foreseeable future public right-of-way is feasible; and
(d) One or more of the following circumstances are met:
(i) A city transportation plan indicates the necessity of a new or additional right-of-way or
portion thereof for street purposes;
Page 237 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 11
(ii) The dedication is necessary to provide additions of right-of-way to existing right-of-way to
meet city road standards;
(iii) The dedication is necessary to extend or to complete the existing or future neighborhood
street pattern;
(iv) The dedication is necessary to comply with road standards and city transportation plans;
(v) The dedication is necessary to provide a public transportation system that supports future
development of abutting property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Pasco Municipal
Code.
(4) Dead-End Streets. Dead-end streets are prohibited; except, where the Comprehensive Plan or
preliminary plat indicates a street is to continue past the subdivider’s property, the City may
allow the dead end until such time as the street can be built through at a later date. Dead-end
streets may be permitted in the R-S-20 R-15 and R-S-12 districts as provided in PMC 21.15.080.
(5) Half Streets. Half streets shall be prohibited except that the City may permit their inclusion
in cases where a normal alignment of a present or future planned street will fall half on an
adjoining ownership.
(6) Street Names. Streets shall be named to conform with existing streets on the same or
reasonably similar alignment. New street names shall be reviewed by the Planning Department,
the Fire Department and/or the Emergency 911 Coordinator to ensure that no confusion with
existing street names occurs. [Ord. 4694 § 6, 2023; Ord. 3736 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999;
Code 1970 § 26.12.010.]
Section 5. PMC Title 21.15.080, hammerhead/T, is hereby amended and shall read
as follows:
21.15.080 Hammerhead/T.
Hammerhead/Ts are only permitted in R-S-20 R-15 and R-S-12 zoning districts where property
was platted in the county prior to annexation and existing development precludes the expectation
requirement that a standard cul-de-sac can be developed.
(1) Dead-end streets with hammerheads should normally be less than 300 feet, but will be
permitted up to 450 feet in length.
(2) Streets with hammerheads shall not serve more than eight lots.
(3) Right-of-Way Widths for Streets Intersecting Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths
for all dead-end streets with hammerheads serving no more than eight lots shall not be less than
40 feet, with no on-street parking.
Page 238 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 12
(4) Right-of-Way Widths for Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths for hammerheads
shall not be less than 30 feet, with no on-street parking.
(5) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all dead-end streets with hammerheads shall
not be less than the following dimensions:
(a) Thirty-two feet from the face of curb to the face of curb;
(b) Thirty feet of pavement width where there is no curb and gutter;
(c) Twenty -eight feet of pavement for hammerheads;
(6) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Figure 21.15.080.01
or 21.15.080.02.
(6) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Figure
21.15.080.01 or 21.15.080.02.
Figure 21.15.080.01. Connecting Road
Page 239 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 13
Figure 21.15.080.02. Connecting Road
[Ord. 4694 § 6, 2023; Ord. 3736 § 3, 2005; Code 1970 § 26.12.075.]
Section 6. PMC Title 21.20.060, Lots without public street frontage, is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
21.20.060 Lots without public street frontage
(1) Purpose. These regulations are intended to implement comprehensive plan goals and policies
encouraging infill development, more efficient use of the remaining developable land, protection
of environmentally sensitive areas, and creating opportunities for more affordable housing.
(2) Applicability. All applications proposing residential lots without public street frontage may
be approved only when each of the requirements identified below have been met. These
conditions are supplemental to any other requirements found in this title. In the event of any
conflict, the conditions in this section shall apply.
Page 240 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 14
(a) All applications shall include a site map depicting proposed lot layout, including the location
of existing structures on adjacent parcels, if any;
(b) Permitted only where, due to geometric, topographic, or other physical features in proportion
to the size of the development, it would be impractical to extend or build a publicly dedicated
street;
(c) Lots without public street frontage shall not be permitted within the RS-20 R-15 zoning
district;
(d) There shall be no more than three adjoining lots created without public street frontage;
(e) Emergency Access. When the furthest point of a proposed structure is greater than 150 feet in
distance from the public right-of-way, as measured along an accessible route, an approved fire
vehicle turnaround with a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet is required as defined by the
International Fire Code;
(f) All corners shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet;
(g) Parking. No parking is permitted along the access (shared driveway) portion of the lot. The
installation of no parking signage shall be required as a condition of approval;
(h) Utilities and Improvements. All impacted and new utilities and improvements shall be
constructed to the standards identified in the Pasco Design and Construction Standards and
Specifications;
(i) Drainage and storm water shall meet the requirements of PMC 16.10.050;
(j) Signage with addresses shall be posted on the public street side for all properties that are
adjacent to any private shared driveway or access. Signage shall comply with the requirements of
PMC Title 17. All addresses shall be displayed on the same pedestal unless otherwise authorized;
(k) Structural setbacks on lots without public street frontage shall conform to the requirements
of the applicable zone;
(l) The shared access must be located no closer than five feet to any existing structure;
(m) Access, maintenance and utility easements necessary to accommodate and maintain
proposed driveway/shared access improvements and utilities shall be approved through the
subdivision process in this title and included on the face of the final plat;
(n) The shared driveway/access must be maintained by the homeowner’s association or by the
adjoining property owners. A maintenance agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy and signage on the plat and must include provisions for snow
removal, garbage pickup and any other necessary provisions as determined by the City; and
Page 241 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 15
(o) The shared driveway/access shall have a minimum paved width of 20 feet. [Ord. 4536 § 1,
2021; Ord. 4444 § 2, 2019.]
Section 9. PMC Section 25.20.010, Establishment of zoning districts, is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
25.20.010 Establishment of zoning districts.
For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City,
the City is divided into the following types of zones:
R-T District Residential Transition District
R-S-20 District
R-15
Residential Suburban District
Low-Density Residential District
R-S-12 District Residential Suburban District
R-S-1 District Low-Density Suburban Residential District
R-1 District Low-Density Residential District
R-1-A District Low-Density Residential Alternative District
R-1-A2 District Low-Density Residential Alternative District
R-2 District Medium-Density Residential District
R-3 District Medium-Density Residential District
R-4 District High-Density Residential District
RP District Residential Park District
O District Office District
C-1 District Retail Business District
C-2 District Central Business District
C-2 Overlay District Central Business Overlay District
C-3 District General Business District
C-R District Regional Commercial District
Page 242 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 16
BP District Business Park District
I-182 Overlay District I-182 Corridor Overlay District
I-1 District Light Industrial District
I-2 District Medium Industrial District
I-3 District Heavy Industrial District
MU District Mixed-Use District
[Ord. 4668 § 1, 2023; Ord. 4514 § 1, 2021; Ord. 4110 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3731 § 27, 2005; Ord.
3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.16.010.]
Section 10. PMC Chapter 25.30, R-S-20 Suburban District, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
Chapter 25.30 R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT R-15 Low Density Residential
District
Sections:
• 25.30.010 Purpose.
• 25.30.020 Permitted uses.
• 25.30.030 Permitted accessory uses.
• 25.30.040 Conditional uses.
• 25.30.050 Development standards.
Section 11. PMC Section 25.30.010, Purpose, is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.30.010 Purpose.
The R-S-20 suburban district R-15 Low Density Residential District is established to
provide a low-density residential environment permitting a gross density of two to five three
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
Page 243 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 17
§ 5, 2022; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.010.]
Section 12. PMC Section 25.30.020, Permitted Uses, is hereby amended and shall read
as follows:
25.30.020 Permitted 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.]
Section 13. PMC Section 25.30.030, Permitted accessory uses, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
25.30.030 Permitted 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
Page 244 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 18
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,
Section 14. PMC section 25.30.050, “Development standards” is hereby amended and
shall read as follow: Exemptions,” is hereby added to read as follows:
25.30.050 Development standards.
(1) Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet.
Minimum Lot Area: 14,520 square feet.
Maximum Lot Size: One-half (½) acre.
Permitted Density: 2–3 dwelling units per acre.
(a) Lot Size Adjustments: The Director may approve adjustments to individual lot sizes of up to
twenty five (25) percent above or below the minimum lot area where necessary to comply with
Benton-Franklin Health Department on-site septic system requirements or to address site-specific
constraints such as soil conditions, drainage, topography, or irregular parcel configuration.
Any adjustment to individual lot size approved under this subsection shall be accommodated
through lot size averaging, such that the overall development maintains a density of 2–3 dwelling
units per acre. Development of densities outside this range is not permitted.
(2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in PMC 25.30.030(8).
Page 245 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 19
(3) Maximum lot coverage: 405 percent.
(4) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 25 20 feet.
(b) Side: 10 feet.
(c) Rear. Principal building: 25 20 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.]
Section 15. PMC Section 25.165.200, Vehicle-related uses, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
25.165.200 Vehicle-related uses.
(1) Any building to be used as an auto body shop, as defined in PMC 25.15.030, shall have a
spray paint room or spray paint booth which complies with the requirements of the International
Fire Code and/or International Building Code;
(2) Inoperable vehicles, as defined in PMC 25.15.240, are permitted within the R-T, R-S-20 R-
15, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and RFA-1/1-A districts and on all nonconforming
residential uses in other districts subject to the following conditions:
(a) Only one inoperable vehicle may be stored outside of a fully enclosed building on the
property, as an accessory use to a dwelling unit.
Page 246 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 20
(b) The inoperable vehicle stored outside shall not be stored upon a public right-of-way or in the
front or side yard areas of the property, and shall not conflict with other residential requirements,
such as off-street parking and lot coverage.
(c) The trunk of the outside inoperable vehicle shall be removed or locked at all times it is
unattended, and the unattended vehicle shall be completely enclosed within a six-foot fence,
which is fully sight obscuring.
(d) All vehicle parts not properly installed upon a vehicle shall be stored inside a fully enclosed
building, except that parts may be stored within the outside inoperable vehicle.
(3) In the C-3 and I-1 zoning districts, inoperable vehicles, as defined in PMC 25.15.240, and
vehicle parts, tires and accessories that are not readily movable and for immediate sale shall be
stored or parked behind screening as provided by PMC 25.180.040(1)(d). [Ord. 4700A § 14,
2023; Ord. 4121 § 3, 2013; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.70.150.]
Section 16. PMC Section 25.175.020, Setbacks, is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.175.020 Setbacks.
(1) Variable Yard Requirements. The City Council, on recommendation of the Planning
Commission, and after a public hearing held by the Planning Commission, may establish a
building line along certain streets throughout certain zones or throughout certain natural areas,
other than the setback requirements as established herein, when it is found that to do so will
protect public health, welfare and safety;
(2) Where any setback is required, no building shall be hereafter erected, altered, or placed in
the setback, except:
(a) Eaves, cornices, belt courses, and similar ornamentation may project into the setback not
more than two feet;
(b) Steps, platforms, and open porches may extend into the rear yard setback, but not more than
four feet;
(3) An open or enclosed porch shall be considered part of a building in the determination of the
front yard setback and lot coverage;
(4) (a) Where two contiguous corner lots, or two lots separated only by an alley, form the entire
frontage between two parallel streets and there is erected a solid six-foot fence, permitted
accessory buildings may be located not closer than five feet from the property line along the
Page 247 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 21
street on which there is a solid six-foot fence. This reduced setback shall not apply to
garages or accessory buildings higher than 10 feet.
(b) Where two contiguous corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel streets,
the front yard along the common flanking street shall be reduced to 15 feet. This reduction
shall not apply to garages that are accessed from the flanking street.
(c) Within the R-S-20 R-15, R-S-12, R-S-1 and R-1-A/A2 districts, where the front yard of
a lawfully existing structure is less than that required for the district in which the structure is
located, alteration or enlargement of said structure may be permitted, but shall not further
reduce the existing front yard dimension or be located closer than 15 feet from the front
property line, whichever is the most restrictive;
(d) Within the R-S-20 R-15, R-S-12, R-S-1 and R-1-A/A2 districts, where the front yards
provided for lawfully existing structures upon the majority of lots within the same block
front and on the same side of the street are of less depth than required by the applicable
district regulation, the minimum front yard requirement for the remaining unoccupied lots
within the same block front and on the same side of the street shall be reduced to a depth not
less than the average front yard dimension provided by said existing structures, but in no
case shall the front yard depth be less than 15 feet.
(e) Handicapped access ramps may encroach within the front yard setback of all residential
zoning districts, provided such ramps are built to the Washington State Building Code
standards. The ramps must also be constructed and finished to complement the dwelling
with respect to finishes and construction materials and must be built in a workmanlike
manner;
(5) Commercial Yard Exception Requirements. Where a lot in a commercial district abuts or
adjoins a front, side or rear yard in a residential district, any building on the commercial lot
shall conform to and meet the front, side or rear yard setbacks in the adjoining residentially
zoned lot;
(6) Residential Yards in Commercial Districts. Nonconforming residential uses in
commercial or industrial districts must maintain residential setbacks as provided in
PMC 25.45.050; and
(7) Vision Triangle. No building, wall, fence or other structure higher than 36 inches above
curb grade shall be placed in a C-3 or I-1 district within any vision triangle, the equal legs of
which are formed by lines measured 20 feet along the property line from the intersection of
two streets, or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and alley. [Ord. 4700A § 16, 2023;
Ord. 3603 § 1, 2003; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.74.030.]
Page 248 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 22
Section 17. PMC Section 25.185.030, General Provisions, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
25.185.030 General provisions.
(1) The off-street parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be established prior
to the occupancy of any new or enlarged structure;
(2) Required off-street parking spaces shall provide vehicle parking only for residents,
customers, patrons, and employees and shall not be used for the storage of equipment or
materials, or for the sale, repair or servicing of any vehicle;
(3) Any area once designated for required off-street parking shall not be used for any other
purpose unless and until equal facilities are provided elsewhere and a site plan has been
approved to reflect the change, or the primary use of the property is changed to a use requiring
less off-street parking;
(4) The required front yard in the single-family residential districts shall not be used for off-
street parking for five or more cars. The storage and parking of vehicles in front yard areas of
single-family properties shall be limited to that area formed and bounded by parallel lines
extending from the outer dimension of a garage, carport, or parking slab to the right-of-way. An
additional area between the nearest side property line and the driveway of not more than 10 feet
by 20 feet may be used for additional parking. On lots with 100 feet of frontage or more, parking
may be permitted on circular drives. All primary parking areas and driveways in front yards shall
be hard surfaced, except in the R-S-20 R-15 and R-S-12 districts, driveways may be of an all-
weather surface, provided the first 20 feet from the right-of-way is hard surfaced; and
(5) In the R-2, R-3 and R-4 residential districts off-street parking spaces for multiple-family
dwellings shall not be located in the front yard, except that a single two-lane drive may extend
through the required front yard, provided no portion of the drive is within 10 feet of a dwelling
unit entry nor five feet from any portion of a residential structure. [Ord. 4700A § 17, 2023; Ord.
3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.78.030.]
Section 18. PMC Section 25.185.140, Recreational equipment parking, is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
25.185.140 Recreational equipment parking.
Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailer, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers,
and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within the R-1, R-2, R-3 and
Page 249 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 23
R-4 districts, and only within the side and rear yards in the R-S-20 R-15, R-S-12 and R-S-1
districts. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all-weather materials such as asphalt, brick,
stone, concrete or gravel. Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in residential
districts shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in PMC 25.185.030(4). Bona fide
guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to
exceed 10 days in any 60-day period. [Ord. 4700A § 17, 2023; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970
§ 25.78.140.]
Section 19. PMC Section 25.215.015, Comprehensive Plan land use density table, is
hereby 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 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-15
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
R-1 through R-4; C-1 and
O; Waterfront
Page 250 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 24
areas, and civic uses at a density of 5 to
29 dwelling units per acre
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 utility
infrastructure, and market demand.
I-1
[Ord. 4663 § 2, 2023; Ord. 4575 § 14, 2022.]
Section 20. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this
ordinance should be held to the 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 21. 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.
Page 251 of 339
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 25
Section 22. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _____,
2026.
_____________________________
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 252 of 339
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
Page 253 of 339
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
Page 254 of 339
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
Page 255 of 339
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
Page 256 of 339
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
Page 257 of 339
Table XI
mum Land Area Requirement For Each Single-F:Residence or Unit Volume 11fSewage and
M nimum Usable Land Area
Soil Type (defined by WAC 246-212A-0220)
1 2 a A 5 s
Public 11,780 sq.ft-
WalerSuPPlY1.5 acres‘
Nonpublic 1.0 acre
WalerSuPPlY1.5 acres‘
0.5 acre 0.5 acre 0.5 acre 0.5 acre 13,000 sq.ft.
M mum Land Area
1.0 acre 1.0 acre 1.0 acre 2.0 acres 1.0 acres
um Usable Land Area .75 acre 6,750 sq.ft.7,500 sq.fr.9,000 sq.ft.10,000 sq.ft.10,000 sq.ft.
1 as mm:mm sewage um ind :nmv SSA:musl have a mlllmlnn ranama m z 5 am as wnc zwvznmum.
Pa
g
e
2
5
8
o
f
3
3
9
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
NOTICE OF APPLICATION/SEPA DETERMINATION
(Optional DNS Process)
Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de
Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441.
SEPA Comment Period Deadline: December 30, 2025
Proposal: On April 17, 2023, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4663, which amended PMC 25.215.015 and the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density Table (Table LU-1). The ordinance updated allowable gross densities for Low
Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre and required
that all new development meet the minimum density standards in PMC 25.215.015. In the R-S-20 zone, with a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, a one-acre lot can accommodate only two dwelling units, effectively creating
a moratorium on small-lot development. Several requests from property owners to divide land in this zone have
been denied for not meeting density requirements.
To address this issue, the Planning Division has initiated an emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City
Council adopted a resolution initiating this amendment on November 17, 2025, and the proposal was presented to
the Planning Commission as a workshop on November 20, 2025. The amendment includes a land use designation of
2–5 dwelling units per acre to provide policy guidance for low-density housing, implemented at the parcel level
through zoning. Staff proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District with 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 district is intended to restore consistency, reflect infrastructure realities, and prepare the City for
future statewide housing obligations. The proposed emergency amendment has been transmitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce for the required 60-day agency review.
Public Comment Period: Written comments must be submitted to the Community Development Department by
5:00 p.m. on December 30, 2025. Only comments received by the referenced date will be included in the SEPA
record. If you have questions on the proposal, contact the Planning Division at (509) 544-4146 or via e-mail to:
barragani@pasco-wa.gov.
Open Record Hearing: No public hearing is required for the SEPA review. The SEPA determination will be issued
administratively by the City’s SEPA Administrator. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the
emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 18, 2025, and final action by the City Council will be
scheduled at a later date, no sooner than 60 days after November 14, 2025, in accordance with Pasco Municipal
Code.
Determination of Completeness: The application has been declared complete for the purpose of processing.
Environmental Documents and/or Studies Applicable to this Application: Environmental Determination No.
SEPA2025-036 has been assigned to this proposal. The SEPA comment period will end December 30, 2025. It is
probable that a Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance will be issued for
this proposal (WAC 197.11.355 optional DNS process). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the
environmental impacts of this proposal or to appeal any State Environmental Policy Act related decisions.
Preliminary Determination of Regulations Used for Non-Project Mitigation: To evaluate the impacts of the
proposed non-project, the following may be used for mitigation, consistency, and the development of findings and
conclusions:
Page 259 of 339
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
�� Title 12 (Streets and Sidewalks), Title 16 (Buildings and Construction), Title 21 (Subdivision), Title 25
(Zoning), Title 28 (Critical Areas) regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code, and the land use policies
contained in the Pasco Comprehensive Plan;
�� Regulations of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of
Ecology, Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation;
�� Other required agency evaluations, approvals, permits, and mitigations as necessary.
Estimated Date of the Decision: A DNS or MDNS will be issued following the close of the comment period on
December 30, 2025.
To receive notification of the threshold determination and any other information concerning this action, contact the
Pasco Planning Division at barragani@pasco-wa.gov or at the address and telephone number listed below.
Phone: 509-544-4146
Appeals:
You may appeal the subsequent threshold determination by submitting a written appeal to one of the following
addresses:
Email: barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Physical Address: City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 525 N. 3rd Avenue, First Floor
Pasco, WA 99301
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301
Appeals must be submitted within 14 days of issuance of the threshold determination. The appeal must be in writing,
include a concise statement identifying the matter being appealed, and provide the basic rationale for the appeal. A
filing fee is required in accordance with the City’s Fee Resolution.
Please note: Failure to file a timely and complete appeal shall constitute a waiver of all rights to an administrative
appeal under City Code.
All appeals should be directed to: Haylie Matson, CED Director
All comments should be directed to: Ivan Barragan, Planner III
Prepared: November 24, 2025
By: Ivan Barragan
Page 260 of 339
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-3R-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 2Miles
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
Convert
R-S-20 to R-9
Low Density
Residential
District
Pa
g
e
2
6
1
o
f
3
3
9
THANK YOU for your legal submission!
Your legal has been submitted for publication. Below is a confirmation of your legal placement. You will
also receive an email confirmation.
ORDER DETAILS
Order Number:
IPL0293939
Order Status:
Submitted
Classification:
Legals & Public Notices
Package:
TRI - Legal Ads
Site:
tricity
Final Cost:
$790.32
Referral Code:
SEPA2025-036 NOA R-S-20 ZONE CHANGES
Payment Type:
Account Billed
User ID:
IPL0018633
ACCOUNT INFORMATION
Debra Barham
525 North Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
509-544-3096
cityclerk@pasco-wa.gov
City of Pasco
TRANSACTION REPORT
Date
November 24, 2025 4:43:34 PM EST
Amount:
$790.32
SCHEDULE FOR AD NUMBER IPL02939390
November 30, 2025
Tri-City Herald Print Publication
<< Click here to print a printer friendly version >>
PREVIEW FOR AD NUMBER IPL02939390
4.9inches x 8.91inches
11/24/25, 4:43 PM Adportal Self Service Advertising Confirmation
https://placelegal.mcclatchy.com/legals/tricity/home/confirmation.html?id=274975&returnto=1/1Page 262 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 15
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of checklist
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance,
minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an
environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult
with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or
"does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is
unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and
accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the
decision-making process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your
proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may
be significant adverse impact.
Instructions for lead agencies
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to
evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse
impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to
make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable
parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely
answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site"
should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency
may exclude (for non-projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute
meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA
Page 263 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 15
A. Background Find help answering background questions
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of applicant:
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
4. Date checklist prepared:
5. Agency requesting checklist:
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
City of Pasco
11/24/2025
City of Pasco/State of Washington
525 N Third Ave509-544-4136Haylie Matson
There are no development plans associated with this request at this time. This is a citywide Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Low Density Residential designation, specifically addressing changes to the R-S-20 Zone
A non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed in September 2020 for the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. This FEIS remains relevant and applicable to the current non-project proposal.
See last supplemental page for answer.
The Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce for review on November 14, 2025. At this time, no specific properties are affected; the amendment applies citywide.
City Council approval of the application at a later date. SEPA Determination. Dept. of Commerce approval.
Page 264 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 15
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you
to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information
on project description.)
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
See last supplemental page for answer.
Throughout all R-S-20 zoned lots and Pasco Municial Code text.
Page 265 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 15
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth Find help answering earth questions
a. General description of the site:
Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural
land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of
these soils.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any
filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any.
No specific soils have been identified at this time. It would be prudent to address soil-related considerations during future, site-specific project actions.
City of Pasco R-S-20 zoned lots.
Although the City is generally flat, it is difficult to provide a specific answer, as this is a citywide, non-project proposal.
This is a citywide, non-project proposal and is not specific to any individual site or action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Existing City development regulations currently govern and control erosion during construction activities.
Page 266 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 15
2. Air Find help answering air questions
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation,
and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities if known.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any.
3. Water Find help answering water questions
a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round
and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names.
If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If
yes, please describe and attach available plans.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate
the source of fill material.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
Not applicable-non-project action.
No plans are proposed at this time, as this is a City-wide Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Specific projects will need to address this issue when they are developed.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Some lots affected by this amendment may be located near the river; however, as this is a non-project action, any specific project proposals will need to address this issue at the time of development.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 267 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 15
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
b. Ground Water: Find help answering ground water questions
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a
general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the
well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals…; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
a) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any
(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If
so, describe.
b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so,
describe.
d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage
pattern impacts, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 268 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 15
4. Plants Find help answering plants questions
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
☐ shrubs
☐ grass
☐ pasture
☐ crop or grain
☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops.
☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
☐ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation
on the site, if any.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
5. Animals Find help answering animal questions
a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be
on or near the site.
Examples include:
• Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
• Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
• Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 269 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 15
6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions
1. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,
etc.
2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
3. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any.
7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development
and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines
located within the project area and in the vicinity.
3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating
life of the project.
4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 270 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 15
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term
or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours
noise would come from the site)?
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any.
8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land
uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How
much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other
uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many
acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal
business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling,
and harvesting? If so, how?
c. Describe any structures on the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
R-S-20
Low Density Residential
This is a City-wide amendment affecting lots currently zoned R-S-20. The nature of this proposal is non-project.
Page 271 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 15
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so,
specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any.
9. Housing Find help answering housing questions
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 272 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 15
10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any.
11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities
to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 273 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 15
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation
questions
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old
listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically
describe.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This
may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas
of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the
site to identify such resources.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on
or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of
archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to
resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.
14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle,
or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be
trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models
were used to make these estimates?
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
According to DAHP’s statewide predictive model, most of the City of Pasco has a high to very high probability of containing cultural resources. Since this proposal is non-project in nature, any specific development projects will need to address these resources at the time they are proposed.
Page 274 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 15
f.Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest
products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
g.Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
15. Public Services Find help answering public service questions
a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
b.Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions
a.Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
b.Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed.
C. Signature Find help about who should sign
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
X
Type name of signee: Click or tap here to enter text.
Position and agency/organization: Click or tap here to enter text.
Date submitted: Click or tap to enter a date.
Community & Economic Development Department
This application was reviewed by the Planning Division of the Community & Economic
Development Department. Any comments or changes made by the Department are entered in the body of the
checklist and contain initials of the reviewer.
Signature: ______________________________________________________
Name of signee: __________________________________________________
Position: ___________________________________
Date Reviewed: _____________
____________________
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Ivan Barragan
11/24/2025
Craig Raymond
Deputy CED Director
Ivan Barragan
Planner III City of Pasco
11/24/2025
Page 275 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 15
D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions
worksheet
IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
• Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
See answers below question number 7, for answers to questions 1 through 7.
Page 276 of 339
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 15
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
• Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
1. This proposal is a non-project Comprehensive Plan Amendment and does not authorize any specific development, construction, or physical site activity. As such, it does not directly result in discharges to water, emissions to air, noise generation, or the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances.
Any future development that may occur under the revised land use designation or new zoning district would be reviewed through separate project-level permitting processes. At that time, all environmental impacts—including stormwater, air emissions, noise, and hazardous materials—would be evaluated in accordance with applicable City, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, no direct environmental impacts are anticipated as part of this non-project action.
Question 6 from page 2- This proposal is non-project in nature. The anticipated timeline for this emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes a public hearing with the Planning Commission scheduled for December 18, 2025. Final action by the City Council to adopt the amendments will occur at a later date, no sooner than 60 days after November 14, 2025, which is the date the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified.
Question 11 from page 3- This non-project proposal is an emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by City Council resolution on November 17, 2025. The amendment addresses a conflict created by Ordinance No. 4663, adopted on April 17, 2023, which revised allowable gross densities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation from 2–5 to 3–6 dwelling units per acre and required all new development to meet minimum density standards outlined in PMC 25.215.015. In the R-S-20 zone—classified as Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. To resolve this inconsistency, the Planning Division has been directed to initiate an amendment establishing a land use designation of 2–5 dwelling units per acre. To align zoning with this designation, staff proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District, featuring a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change would support the full permitted density range, maintain compatibility with areas reliant on septic systems, restore consistency between land use and zoning, and better position the Cityto meet future statewide housing obligations.
Page 277 of 339
2. This is a non-project, policy-level amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and does not authorize any specific development or construction activity. As such, the proposal would not directly result in increased discharges to water, air emissions, noise generation, or the release oftoxic or hazardous substances.
Any future site-specific development enabled by subsequent zoning or permit actions would be subject to separate environmental review, including evaluation of potential impacts to water, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials. Appropriate mitigation would be required at the time individual development proposals are submitted.
3. The amendment itself does not authorize construction and therefore would not directly consume or deplete energy or natural resources.
Any potential increase in development capacity resulting from future zoning changes would be evaluated during project-level permitting, at which time energy use, resource consumption, and required mitigation measures would be addressed through applicable codes and SEPA review.
4. Because this is a non-project Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it does not authorize any specific development, construction, or physical changes to the environment. As a policy-level action, the amendment only adjusts the land use designation for Low Density Residential areas and proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District.
The proposal does not directly affect environmentally sensitive areas, parks, critical areas, wildlifehabitat, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmland. Any future site-specific development proposals would be reviewed under existing local, state, and federal regulations, including the City’s critical areas ordinance, SEPA requirements, and applicable permitting processes. At that time, impacts to environmentally sensitive areas would be evaluated and mitigation applied as necessary.
5. Because this is a non-project legislative amendment, it will not directly change or authorize any specific land or shoreline use. The proposal adjusts the Low Density Residential land use designation to 2–5 units per acre and replaces the R-S-20 zoning designation with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District to restore consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. These changes do not expand urban growth areas, introduce new shoreline designations, or authorize development inconsistent with the City's adopted plans.
Any future site-specific development would still be required to comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, shoreline regulations (if applicable), critical areas ordinance, and all permitting requirements. Therefore, the proposal is not expected to allow or encourage land or shoreline uses that are incompatible with existing plans.
Page 278 of 339
6. Because this is a non-project policy amendment, it does not authorize any specific development and would not directly increase demands on transportation systems, utilities, or public services. The amendment revises the land use designation for areas currently zoned R-S-20 and establishes a framework for the eventual creation of a new R-9 Low Density Residential District.
Any future increase in demand for transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, police, fire, or other municipal services would depend on separate, site-specific development proposals, each of which would undergo its own permit review and SEPA evaluation.
The amendment itself is not expected to generate immediate or measurable increases in service or utility demands, and any future development resulting from zoning changes would be planned and reviewed in coordination with adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, the Capital Facilities Plan, and available infrastructure capacity.
7. The proposed amendment is a non-project action that adjusts Comprehensive Plan policy for Low Density Residential areas and replaces the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District. Because it does not authorize any specific development, it does not directly conflict with local, state, or federal environmental protection requirements. Any future development occurring under the amended land use designation andzoning would remain subject to all applicable regulations, including the City’s development standards, critical areas ordinance, stormwater requirements, and SEPA review at the project level.
While House Bill 1110 (Middle Housing) will be implemented by the City of Pasco at a later date, this amendment is a temporary policy and zoning correction intended solely to address density inconsistencies in the R-S-20 zone until HB 1110 is fully adopted.
Page 279 of 339
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
(Optional DNS Process)
Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al
Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441.
Issuance Date: January 27, 2026
Lead Agency: City of Pasco
Project Name: R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA
Project Number: SEPA2025-036
Applicant/Proponent: City of Pasco
C/o Haylie Matson
525 N 3rd Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
Proposal Description: At the direction of the City Council, the proposal includes a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the City’s Land Use Map by adding a new Low
Density Residential–Riverview designation, which would allow development at 2–5 dwelling
units per acre on properties currently designated R-S-20. The proposal also includes a rezone
and municipal code amendment to replace the existing R-S-20 zoning designation with a new R-
15 Low Density Residential zoning district.
Proposal Location: Various locations citywide within Pasco, Washington (99301).
Lead Agency: The City of Pasco, acting as lead agency for this proposal, has determined that the
proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) is issued under the optional DNS process in WAC 197-
11-355, and no further comment period will be provided. This decision is based on review of
the completed environmental checklist, consultation with legal counsel, and consideration of
other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon
request.
Appeals: You may appeal the threshold determination by submitting a written appeal to
one of the following addresses:
Email: barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Page 280 of 339
Physical Address: City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 525
N. 3rd Avenue, First Floor Pasco, WA 99301
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301
Appeals must be submitted within 14 days of issuance of the threshold determination.
The appeal must be in writing, include a concise statement identifying the matter being
appealed, and provide the basic rationale for the appeal. A filing fee is required in
accordance with the City’s Fee Resolution.
Please note: Failure to file a timely and complete appeal shall constitute a waiver of all
rights to an administrative appeal under City Code.
All appeals should be directed to: Haylie Matson, CED Director
Responsible Official: Haylie Matson
Position/Title: Community and Economic Development Director
Phone (509) 544-4136
Address: 525 N. 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
Responsible Official: ________________________________________________
Haylie Matson, Community & Economic Development Director
Page 281 of 339
THANK YOU
We have received your amendment submission. Please allow 1-3 business days for review. Please keep the Submittal ID as your receipt and for any future
questions. We will also send an email receipt to all contacts listed in the submittal.
Submittal ID: 2025-S-11143
Submittal Date Time: 11/17/2025
Submittal Information
Jurisdiction City of Pasco
Submittal Type 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment
Amendment Type Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Categories
Submittal Category
Capital Facilities
Comprehensive Plan
Emergency
Schools
Anticipated/Proposed Date of Adoption 01/20/2026
n Yes, this is a part of the 10-year periodic update schedule, required under RCW 36.70A.130.
Brief Description
This emergency amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain consistency with the City ’s adopted budget and
current capital planning needs. The amendment also relates to school impact fee policies and utilizes the Pasco School District ’s adopted Capital Facilities
Plan.
Amendment Information
City Council Date 11/17/2025Planning Commissions Date 11/20/2025
Planning Commissions Date 12/18/2025
Page 282 of 339
Intake Received Date 11/17/2025
Full Name Ivan Barragani
Email barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Attachments
Attachment Type File Name Upload Date
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft ____ Resolution - Initiating Emergency CPA - PSD Capital
Facilities Plan (CPA2025-001) - FINAL.pdf
11/17/2025 12:35 PM
Supporting Documentation or Analysis CPA2025-001 School Capital Facilities Plan-Agency-Notice-
Cover-Sheet.docx
11/17/2025 12:36 PM
Correspondence Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments Initial
Notice.msg
11/17/2025 12:36 PM
Correspondence RE Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments Initial
Notice.msg
11/17/2025 12:37 PM
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft ECPA Coversheet to COM.pdf 11/17/2025 12:37 PM
SEPA Materials Notice of Application CPA 2025 Emergency Amendments.pdf 11/17/2025 12:37 PM
Yes, I would like to be contacted for Technical Assistance.n
Entered by Sarah Van Etten Leupold on 11/17/2025 12:39:31 PM
Contact Information
Prefix Ms.
First Name Haylie
Last Name Matson
Title CED Director
Work (509) 544-4136
Cell
Email matsonh@pasco-wa.gov
Certification
Page 283 of 339
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
City of Pasco
NOTICE OF OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE
AMENDMENTS AND EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de
Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The City of Pasco is considering proposed code amendment(s) and an emergency comprehensive plan amendment.
The Pasco Planning Commission will hold an open record public hearing and a continued open record public hearing
to receive public comment on the proposed amendments at 6:30 p.m. on January 15, 2026, in the Council Chambers
at Pasco City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington (please use the east side parking lot entrance).
Final action on the proposed Code Amendments and Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be taken by
the City Council at a later date. Please note that City Council action on the Emergency Comprehensive Plan
Amendment must occur within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Planning Commission’s findings and
recommendations. This notice also serves as notification to the general public regarding the public hearing.
At this hearing, the Planning Commission will hear public testimony regarding the following proposed amendments:
CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way: The City of Pasco Planning Commission will conduct an
open record public hearing to consider a proposed code amendment regarding the allowance of sandwich board (A -
frame) signs within the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission previously held a workshop on December 18,
2025, to discuss the proposal. The targeted amendment would allow sandwich board signs within the Downtown
Pasco Overlay District, where placement within the sidewalk area has been technically prohibited since 2006. Under
the proposed regulations, each business would be permitted one sign per frontage, all required ADA clearances must
be maintained, signs may only be displayed during business hours, and signs located near intersections must be
positioned to minimize impacts on sightlines. This regulated approach is intended to support business visibility and
streetscape activation while maintaining pedestrian safety and accessibility, preventing visual clutter, and
establishing clear standards for sign placement and oversight. For more information please contact: 509-544-4146 /
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
CPA2025-002/CA2025-003 Emergency Amendment-Low Density Residential Land Use -R-S-20 Zone Changes: The
City of Pasco Planning Commission held an open record hearing on December 18, 2025, at 6:30 p.m., to review an
emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Code Amendment. During the hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to continue the discussion to January 15, 2026, to allow for further research and review.
As part of this research, the Commission has asked staff to revise the original proposal to maintain the proposed
“Riverview” land use designation to allow 2-5 units per acre but with a zoning designation for the area that provides
for less density at 2-3 or 2-4 units per acre with revised corresponding development regulations in code relating to
lot sizes and dimensions.
ORIGINAL NOTICE: On April 17, 2023, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4663, which amended PMC 25.215.015 and
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density Table (Table LU-1). The ordinance revised allowable gross densities for
Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre, and
established that all new development must meet the minimum density requirements in PMC 25.215.015. In the R-
S-20 zone, classified as Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 squa re feet, a one-acre lot can
accommodate only two dwelling units. Under the current standards, such development is prohibited, effectively
creating a moratorium on small-lot development in the R-S-20 zone. The City has received several requests from
property owners to divide land in this zone, but those applications have been denied for failing to meet the adopted
density requirements. To address this issue, the Planning Division has been directed to initiate an amendment. The
proposed 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
Page 284 of 339
revised land use designation, staff proposes replacing the R -S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential
District, establishing a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change allows 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 district provides a balanced approach that restores consistency, reflects
infrastructure realities, and prepares the City for future statewide housing obligations. The City of Pasco has
transmitted the proposed emergency amendment to the Washington State Department of Commerce for the
required 60-day agency review. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist will be reviewed for this action and
made available for public review and comment in accordance with WAC 197-11-355, with the optional
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process applied as appropriate. For more information please contact: 509-
544-4146 / barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Public Comment Period: Written comments must be submitted to the Community and Economic Development
Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2026. Any interested party may submit written comments,
attend the public hearing to provide oral testimony, or request notification of the Planning Commission’s findings
and recommendations to the City Council, as well as the City Council’s final decision when action is taken.
To submit comments, request notification, or ask questions regarding these proposals, please contact the Planning
Division using the phone number or email address provided after the project description, or by mail or in person at
the address below. Please note that written comments submitted prior to the meeting will be accepted and
included in the official record. Oral testimony provided during the meeting will also be accepted and entered into
the record at that time.
City of Pasco – Planning Division
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
In Person:
525 N. 3rd Avenue, 1st Floor (CED)
Pasco, WA 99301
If you wish to participate in the hearing virtually, please register at least 2 hours prior to the meeting at the
following registration link: Public Comment. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
The City of Pasco welcomes full participation in public meetings by all citizens. No qualified individual with a disability
shall be excluded or denied the benefit of participating in such meetings. If you wish to use auxiliary aids or require
assistance to comment at this public meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at (509)
545-3441 or TDD (509) 585-4425 at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting to make arrangements for special
needs.
Page 285 of 339
1
Haylie Miller
From:Rodgers,Deborah (CONTR) - TERR-TRI CITIES RMHQ <dxrodgers@bpa.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 1:33 PM
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:Connell,Valorie L (BPA) - TERR-PASCO
Subject:RE: Notice of Application-SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA
(CPA2025-002)- City of Pasco
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Ivan,
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has had the opportunity to review Preliminary Plat Review Notice
of Application-SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA (CPA2025-002)- City of Pasco.
In researching our records, we have found that this proposal will not directly impact BPA facilities. BPA
does not have any objections to the approval of this request at this time.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (360) 624-0566 or BPA
realty specialist Valorie Connell at (509) 544-4746.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application.
Deborah Rodgers
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(CONTR) Actalent
Right-of-Way Agent | Real Property Field Services | TERR/Tri-Cities-RMHQ
dxrodgers@bpa.gov | 360-624-0566
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 12:13 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Notice of Application-SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA (CPA2025-002)- City of Pasco
Good afternoon,
In consideration of the upcoming public hearing, we want to clarify that the public hearing / Notice of
Application sent on November 21, 2025, for CPA2025-002 and the SEPA review being issued now are
separate processes. The public hearing is for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed
amendment, which will then proceed to City Council review at a later date, no sooner than 60 days after
November 14, 2025. The SEPA review, on the other hand, is an administrative process. However,
because both pertain to the same non-project proposal, it is worth noting them together. For the SEPA
review, we are opting for the optional DNS process under WAC 197-11-355, with a 30-day comment
period following the publication date, which is scheduled for November 30, 2025.
Page 286 of 339
2
Attached are the following materials:
· Notice of Public Hearing / Notice of Application (sent November 21, 2025)
· SEPA2025-036 Notice of Application
· SEPA2025-036 checklist
· Resolution 4680 (recently became available)
· Initial packet presented at the Planning Commission workshop on November 20, 2025
Comments on the SEPA review are due by December 30, 2025, at 5:00 PM. All pertinent materials are
available in the SEPA register.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be public record under Washington State law and subject to inspection and copying by
the public upon request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
From: Ivan Barragan
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 12:29 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Notice of Application/Notice of Public Hearing Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA2025-001 and
CPA2025-002
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached Notice of Application/Notice of Public Hearing for two emergency
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, initiated by City Council resolutions on November 17, 2025. The
public hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2025, at 6:30 PM. Please submit any comments by
5:00 PM on December 18, 2025.
Summary of Proposals:
CPA2025-001: Emergency Amendment – Pasco School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan
The Planning Commission will hold an open record hearing to consider an emergency amendment to the
Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment updates the element to align with
the City’s adopted budget and reflect the Pasco School District’s 2025 Capital Facilities Plan, including
policies related to school impact fees. The amendment has been transmitted to the Washington State
Department of Commerce for the required 60-day review. The Community and Economic Development
Department will process it following standard Comprehensive Plan procedures. The School District’s
plan previously received a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
CPA2025-002: Emergency Amendment – Low Density Residential Land Use (R-S-20 Zone)
The Planning Commission will also consider an emergency amendment addressing a conflict between
current Low Density Residential (LDR) standards and development in the R-S-20 zone, where one-acre
lots can only accommodate two dwelling units, eBectively creating a moratorium on small-lot
development.
The amendment proposes:
· A land use designation of 2–5 dwelling units per acre
Page 287 of 339
3
· Creation of a new R-9 Low Density Residential District with a minimum lot size of 8,700 square
feet
This approach aligns zoning with the Comprehensive Plan, accommodates larger parcels where septic
systems are an option, restores consistency, reflects infrastructure realities, and prepares the City for
future statewide housing obligations.
The City has transmitted the amendment to the Washington State Department of Commerce for the
required 60-day review. A SEPA checklist will be available for public review and comment in accordance
with WAC 197-11-355, with the optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process applied as
appropriate.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying by the public upon
request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 288 of 339
Pa
g
e
2
8
9
o
f
3
3
9
Pa
g
e
2
9
0
o
f
3
3
9
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
South Central Region • Region 3 • 1701 South 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902-5720
Telephone: (509) 575-2740 • Fax: (509) 575-2474
December 1, 2025
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
City of Pasco Planning Division
525 N. 3rd Ave Pasco WA 99301
Subject: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2025-002.
Dear Mr. Barragan,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA 2025-002 regarding changes in density to the low-density residential land use
zone, R-S-20. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) generally supports ability
for jurisdictions to allow high densities within the urban environment as it results in less urban
spread and greater overall protection of habitats. WDFW does have a concern with this proposal
as it relates to impacts on shoreline habitat.
There are parcels that are currently zoned with the R-S-20 designation that are either partially or
wholly within the shoreline environment of the Columbia River. WDFW is concerned that this
amendment could increase housing density within the shoreline environment, which would be
both inconsistent with the city’s shoreline master program and protection of functions and values
of the shoreline ecosystem. WDFW recommends a modification to this amendment that either
excludes these shoreline parcels from the proposed amendment or specifies that any new
dwelling units beyond the two currently allowed must be located outside of the shoreline
environment.
If you have questions regarding any of the above comments, please contact me at 509-607-3578
or Scott.Downes@dfw.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott Downes
Regional Land Use Lead
Cc: Troy Maikis, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist
Page 291 of 339
Page 292 of 339
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 5
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: Rosa Torres, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Jay Hendler, and Jerry
Cochran, a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Austin Crawford and Dana Crutchfield
Staff Present: CED Director Haylie Matson, Deputy Director Craig Raymond, and Administrative Assistant
II Carmen Patrick
Others Present: Denise Stiffarm, Pasco School Representative
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.
Commissioners Cochran and Lehrman declared they both live in the Riverview area, even though a
vote was not required.
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 November 18,
2025. Commissioner Jones seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
WORSHOP
• CPA2025-001 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Pasco School District #1 Capital Facilities Plan
Adoption
Staff provided an overview of the proposed Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment, clarifying that the
term “emergency” refers to an amendment being processed outside of the City’s normal update cycle and is
not intended to imply any immediate public safety concern. The amendment is necessary due to time-
sensitive items that cannot wait for the full periodic Comprehensive Plan update currently underway.
An emergency amendment is defined as a change to the Comprehensive Plan that arises from circumstances
requiring expeditious action. City Council determined that such an emergency exists and, on June 17, 2025,
Page 293 of 339
Page 2 of 5
adopted a resolution initiating the amendment process in accordance with City Code and RCWs. A 60-day
notice was provided to the Washington State Department of Commerce, and the proposal will come before
the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to City Council.
The amendment incorporates the Pasco School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The School District adopted the revised plan in March 2025 following an extensive
planning process. The plan includes six primary elements:
• District standards of service
• Inventory of facilities
• Capacity by grade span
• Six-year enrollment forecast
• Facility needs and costs
• Financing plan and calculation of school impact fees
Staff noted that community concerns regarding school overcrowding frequently arise during annexation and
subdivision hearings. However, the School District actively monitors growth trends and plans accordingly
through this Capital Facilities Plan. While Pasco continues to experience significant growth, particularly in
northwest Pasco, enrollment increases have remained within manageable projections, and the District has
constructed multiple new school facilities to address capacity needs.
Following adoption of the updated Capital Facilities Plan, City Council approved Ordinance No. 4774 on
June 15, 2025, revising school impact fees. This included elimination of the single-family dwelling school
impact fee and a reduction of the multi-family fee from $4,525 per unit to $2,595 per unit.
Staff concluded the presentation by introducing Denise Stiffarm, representing the Pasco School District,
who attended the meeting virtually and was available to answer questions from the Planning Commission.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners:
Chair Cochran asked while acknowledging that the elimination of single-family impact fees and the
reduction of multi-family fees appears beneficial, he questioned whether increased zoning density and large
multi-family developments, such as the Broadmoor project, could result in greater overall impacts to
developers. He asked if any analysis had been conducted on this issue and whether feedback had been
received from the development community.
Denise Stiffarm explained that the revised school impact fees are based on updates to the School District’s
Capital Facilities Plan. Prior plans included elementary and high school projects, which carried higher
student generation rates and higher fees. Those projects are now complete and were removed from the
calculation. The current fees are based on a planned new middle school, which generates fewer students and
results in lower impact fees. Staff also noted that the elimination of the single-family fee reflects current
data showing more students are generated from multi-family development, and while multi-family fees were
reduced, they still apply.
• CPA2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
Director Matson presented the second Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment addressing a
discrepancy between the RS-20 zoning designation and the City’s residential land use designation. A 2023
Comprehensive Plan amendment allowed 2–5 units per acre in the Riverview area, while the RS-20 zone
still limited development to 2 units per acre, creating a conflict that has impacted development applications.
Staff proposes revising the land use designation for RS-20 properties to 2–5 units per acre and subsequently
renaming the zone to R-9 Low Density Residential, allowing a minimum lot size of approximately 8,700
Page 294 of 339
Page 3 of 5
square feet. This change would correct the inconsistency and allow development to proceed.
Director Matson noted that two units per acre would still allow septic systems, while densities of three units
per acre or greater would require sewer connection, which is currently limited in portions of Riverview. She
stated that the development community supports the proposal due to infrastructure constraints and
development feasibility.
She also previewed upcoming state-mandated middle housing requirements that will require all residential
lots to allow up to six units by next year. Finally, she explained that staff is requesting expedited action due
to the existing code conflict, prior applicant reliance, and staffing delays. The proposal is scheduled for a
public hearing in December, followed by City Council consideration in January.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Hendler asked whether parking requirements have been coordinated with upcoming middle-
housing mandates, noting that increased density could create significant parking challenges on some lots. He
requested clarification on current parking standards and whether any flexibility is being considered.
Director Matson explained that the State is significantly reducing parking requirements for middle housing,
generally allowing zero to one space per unit regardless of size. While Pasco currently requires two spaces
per single-family home, state law allows one space per unit on lots over 6,000 square feet and zero spaces
on lots under 6,000 square feet. Staff noted these changes may present challenges for communities like
Pasco and stated the City may consider consultant assistance during future middle housing code adoption to
address potential safety and parking impacts.
Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed approach could create future challenges, including
emergency vehicles and garbage trucks and shared initial observations for consideration as the process
moves forward.
Commissioner Jones raised concerns about potential impacts to existing residents, including whether
property owners currently on septic systems could be required to connect to and help fund sewer in the
future. He also expressed concern about how increased density and smaller lots could affect neighborhood
expectations, particularly where existing residents believed adjacent properties would remain undeveloped
or preserve views.
Director Matson stated explained that existing homeowners on septic systems are vested and generally will
not be required to connect to City sewer unless their system fails and sewer is available nearby.
Development in Riverview is limited to two units per acre when septic is used; any development at three
units per acre or more requires sewer connection under Ben Franklin Health District standards.
Staff noted that all existing setback, fire separation, and safety requirements remain in place, and cities may
adopt stricter standards in preparation for future middle-housing mandates. Regarding concerns about views
and new development, staff emphasized that the City has no authority to prevent the State’s upcoming
middle-housing requirements, which will allow increased density on all residential lots. While the City can
adjust local land-use designations, residents should not expect surrounding vacant land to remain
undeveloped, as cities are required by State law to accommodate additional housing.
Commissioner Jones asked about the potential consequences of not complying with state requirements. Staff
responded that failure to comply could result in the State withholding grant funding for City projects.
Commissioner Hendler strong concern about the impacts of increased residential density on traffic, parking,
and established low-density neighborhoods. He stated for the record that he does not support the proposed
change at this time, regardless of state mandates.
Page 295 of 339
Page 4 of 5
Chair Cochran expressed frustration with state mandates and the loss of local control, stating that reliance on
state grant funding limits the City’s ability to oppose state requirements. The Commissioner noted that while
change may require action at the state level, the City must also consider the importance of continued access
to funding for critical infrastructure and public improvements.
Director Matson stated the public hearing will be noticed per City code, and public comments will be shared
with the Commission. While lower density options remain available to support septic use, staff
recommended the proposed 2–5 units per acre range to allow smaller single-family lots, provide flexibility,
and better align with future state housing requirements for the Riverview area.
Commissioner Lehrman asked so point of clarification, at this point in time there's no lots that are currently
being built on that have more than two units per, per lot.
Director Matson explained that any higher-density development occurring in the area has likely resulted
from individual rezones to R-1 or R-4. Properties that remain zoned RS-20 are limited to two units per acre
and cannot currently develop due to the existing code conflict, which has halted new applications in recent
months. Staff emphasized that RS-20 has never allowed more than two units per acre under current
standards.
Commissioner Crawford asked when Ordinance 4663 was, you know, passed in 2023, what were they trying
to accomplish?
Director Matson explained that the 2023 density change was intended to increase residential density
citywide and reduce reliance on septic systems, as a unified sewer system is more efficient to operate and
maintain. However, with new Council members and upcoming state middle-housing requirements that will
mandate additional density regardless of local policy, staff noted that the issue has become largely moot.
Staff stated that maintaining a two-unit minimum would allow continued use of septic in Riverview, but
increasing the range to 2–5 units per acre would provide a more balanced approach for future development
in the RS-20 area.
She outlined that a public hearing is planned for December and emphasized the importance of having a
quorum. Commissioners unable to attend were asked to notify staff in advance so alternate scheduling can
be considered. Staff noted the development community is expecting resolution by year-end and will
include any public feedback received in the staff report.
OTHER BUSINESS
• Director Items
Director Matson outlined plans for a December workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss Pasco’s
economic development priorities and gather input to support the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff also
noted that monthly Planning Commission meetings will be required throughout the update process, with
parallel coordination occurring with City Council.
Director Matson introduced new City Planner II James Bagley to the Commissioners.
She also thanked the Commissioners for the work they do, that they are volunteers and appreciated their
hard work.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn.
Page 296 of 339
Page 5 of 5
Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner
Lehrman, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:33 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting: City of Pasco Planning Commission November 20, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 297 of 339
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, DECEBMER 18, 2025
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 6
CALL TO ORDER
The 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, Dana Crutchfield, Jay Hendler and Jerry Cochran, a
quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Rosa Torres, Kim Lehrman, and Rob Waites
Staff Present: C& ED Director Haylie Matson, 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 Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 20,
2025. Commissioner Hendler seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• CPA 2025-001 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Pasco School District #1 Capital Facilities
Plan Adoption
Craig Raymond presented the staff report for the Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
amendment is considered “emergency” because it is occurring outside the normal annual cycle and
during an active major Comprehensive Plan update. The City Council initiated the process by
Resolution 4679, 60-day Commerce notice has been provided, and the Planning Commission is being
asked to conduct the public hearing and make a formal recommendation to Council, which will take
final action within 60 days.
The amendment incorporates the school district’s updated Capital Facilities Plan, including service
standards, facility inventory, capacity, enrollment forecasts, facility needs/costs, financing, and impact
fee calculations. The update reflects recently completed and significant upcoming school projects, which
influenced impact fee changes.
Page 298 of 339
Page 2 of 6
Council adopted Ordinance 4774 revising school impact fees: single-family impact fees were
eliminated, and multifamily impact fees decreased from $4,525 per unit to $2,595 per unit. Despite
reductions, future facility needs remain.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Crutchfield ask what the reasoning was behind them being lowered so much. Craig
Raymond explained that they have multiple funding sources (including impact fees, bonds, and levies).
Major projects have recently been completed, and future facility needs are shifting in a different
direction.
Director Matson noted that school impact fees must have a clear nexus to new student population
generated by new development, not the city’s existing population. State law strictly limits how much
can be charged. Fees cannot be increased to make new development pay for existing deficiencies (e.g.,
an entirely new high school serving current students). Fees must be directly tied to impacts created by
new growth.
Chair Cochran opened the public hearing, nothing was heard, Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Jones moved that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-001, incorporating the Pasco School District 2025, Pasco
School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan by addendum.
Motions was seconded by Commissioner Hendler, motion passed unanimously.
• CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
Director Matson presented the staff report and asked the Commission to consider a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, companion rezone, and related text amendments to address an inconsistency between
Comprehensive Plan density requirements and RS-20 zoning in the Riverview area. The proposal
restores a 2–5 units per acre land-use designation and replaces RS-20 with a new R-9 Low Density
Residential zone to enable subdivision and development. Changes are limited to the Riverview area and
reflect sewer service constraints and larger lot character. Proposed development standards include an
8,700 sq. ft. minimum lot size, lot coverage up to 45% (previously 40%), and modest front and rear
setback reductions, with side setbacks retained. The action maintains low-density character, better aligns
with infrastructure limitations, and positions the city for future housing law compliance. Two motions
were requested: one for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and one for the zoning/text amendments.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the proposed action constitutes a true code change rather than
a simple renaming and whether notice to all affected property owners is required. She Expressed
concern that this is a significant change and that each resident and property owner in the area should be
notified in advance of the public hearing so they can understand potential impacts. Director Matson
replied that this action is treated as a citywide or area-wide rezone, and current code does not require
direct mailed notice to all affected property owners. She noted that past practice for similar broad
rezonings has not included individual mailings.
Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concern that the proposal represents a significant change for
existing Riverview neighborhoods, particularly with the potential introduction of triplexes in established
areas where residents invested with certain expectations. She recalled prior assurances about preserving
neighborhood character. Crutchfield also asked whether state law mandates construction of higher-
density housing on eligible lots or whether owners may still choose to build single-family homes.
Director Matson clarified that while 2–5 units per acre is modest in an urban context, it represents a
significant change for the Riverview area, effectively more than doubling current density. She explained
Page 299 of 339
Page 3 of 6
that the proposal follows prior City Council direction and responds to property owners seeking greater
ability to develop their land, while recognizing that opinions will differ. Director Matson emphasized
that the current proposal maintains single-family and does not allow triplexes; those discussions relate to
future state-mandated “missing middle” housing requirements under HB 1110 and will be discussed at a
later time.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated that she feels this deserves a lot more consideration and letting the
property owners in the area know because they don't as there was only newspaper notification of the
hearing. Crutchfield stated that she is aware the city is not bound to do that by code, but this is a
significant change.
Commissioner Jones asked if the City of Pasco adopted the Uniform Building Code for their rules for
how they build. What rule book did they follow and do those setbacks and those kinds of things you
talked about; do they fall into those guidelines? Director Matson answered International Building
Codes, International Resident Codes, and State-specific Energy Codes have been adopted and clarified
that building separation depends on fire code and construction standards. With appropriate firewalls,
buildings may be attached; without firewalls, typical separation is governed by required setbacks (e.g.,
10 feet between structures, 5 feet per side). Setbacks and lot coverage limits are determined by city
regulations.
Commissioner Crutchfield asked if the property owners within Franklin County, the Donut Hole area,
since they're part of the urban growth, are they subject to these changes as well? Director Matson stated
no. Commissioner Crutchfield stated she understood that the current proposal applies only to the
Riverview area, and that future citywide changes may be required later in response to state mandates.
Director Matson clarified that citywide densities are currently designated at 3–6 units per acre, and that
various zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) already exist across the city. Citywide changes are not
automatically required at this time.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated, for the record, that she views the proposal as a significant change
affecting a relatively small portion of the city, despite being characterized as citywide. She reiterated her
concern that, if the City intends to pursue this action, the minimum level of consideration should have
included providing written notice to the affected property owners. While she acknowledged that staff
explained the City is not required to notify all property owners citywide, she emphasized that the
specific property owners impacted by the proposal should have received notice of the public hearing in
advance, so they would be aware and have an opportunity to engage before being presented with a
decision they cannot influence. She stated that, in her view, this consideration for property owners who
have invested in their properties is more important than prioritizing the development community’s
desire to receive an answer by the end of the year.
Chair Cochran expressed that the issue is complex and politically sensitive. He noted that many
`Riverview residents are concerned about increased density, especially replacement of large-lot
properties with multiple new homes, which could change neighborhood character. Suggested aligning
with Council direction in the least impactful way, potentially targeting densities closer to three units per
acre to balance development opportunities with protection of existing neighborhood feel. Chair Cochran
emphasized the desire from many homeowners to maintain the current Riverview/West Pasco lifestyle
and larger-lot character.
Director Matson clarified that in 2023 Council set a citywide density range of 3–6 units per acre and
later directed staff to pursue a 2–5 unit per acre range for the Riverview Comprehensive Plan
designation. Explained that 2–5 units per acre functions as an umbrella range, under which different
zoning options (e.g., 2–3 units per acre) could still comply. Noted that the Planning Commission is
Page 300 of 339
Page 4 of 6
making a recommendation to Council, which makes the final decision. Also cautioned that limiting
density to around three units per acre would likely remove the option for development on septic,
requiring sewer availability instead.
Chair Cochran stated we are a recommendation to the council. They can completely ignore and overrule
like they have done on occasion. That's their prerogative because they're the elected officials. But I do
think if you want a recommendation out of this body, you're going to have to come up with a more
moderate approach. Commissioner Crutchfield agreed and emphasized the importance of respecting
existing homeowners who have already invested in the area and avoiding situations where they are
surprised by nearby development that could negatively affect them.
Commissioner Hendler followed with support for maintaining lower density in the Riverview area,
noting that many larger cities are increasing density by reducing development standards, but those
pressures are not yet present locally. Emphasized the desire to keep the area livable and consistent with
its current character.
Chair Cochran opened the public hearing, nothing was heard, Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Crutchfield made a motion to send the package back to staff for rework based on some
recommendations the Commission have made.
Commissioner Crawford asked Director Matson what the item would be sent back for and what
additional information would come from that process to help the Commission. Director Matson noted
that a wide range of opinions were shared and said staff is seeking clearer direction from the Planning
Commission, especially on public noticing. She explained that if no action is taken, development would
remain prohibited in RS-20 areas, which creates some urgency, but emphasized the importance of
getting the changes right rather than rushing. She also stated that staff is willing to continue the
discussion over multiple meetings. Director Matson explained that the proposal has two main parts:
adjusting the Comprehensive Plan designation in the Riverview area from 3–6 units per acre to 2–5
units per acre and making related zoning changes.
Commissioner Jones seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.
WORSHOP
• CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way
Ivan Barragan presented a proposal to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in the
Downtown Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The intent is to permit signs along business
frontages within sidewalk or improved frontage areas, with placement standards to protect visibility at
intersections and accessibility.
Proposed code changes would also address removal of violations and clarify prohibited locations (e.g.,
travel lanes, medians, roundabouts). Examples from other cities were provided for comparison. Potential
benefits include added flexibility for downtown businesses and clearer enforcement standards.
Alternatives discussed included no action, unregulated allowance (not recommended), or expanding the
allowance citywide. Staff requested Planning Commission input and recommended scheduling a
January 15, 2026, public hearing.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Jones raised concerns about ADA accessibility and sidewalk width impacts from
sandwich board signs, noting variability in sidewalk conditions. Emphasized the need for an enforceable
ordinance and requested clarification on who would be responsible for enforcement and whether it
would be complaint-based or proactive. Staff indicated that enforcement would likely fall to Code
Page 301 of 339
Page 5 of 6
Enforcement and, given current staffing constraints, would primarily be complaint-based rather than
proactive patrols.
Commissioner Crutchfield raised concern about prohibited sandwich board signs being placed in the
public right-of-way, potentially impacting pedestrian accessibility and safety. Clarification was
requested on enforcement responsibility. Questions were also raised about allowing one sign per
business tenant in multi-tenant buildings and whether this could result in excessive sidewalk
obstructions due to lack of spacing or placement standards.
Ivan Barragan noted that, due to limited code enforcement capacity, not all prohibited signs are
currently being addressed. The proposal would allow sandwich board signs with specific restrictions.
Flexibility for multi-tenant buildings was discussed to provide signage opportunities while
acknowledging potential visual clutter. As the proposal is in the early stages, recommendations are
being considered, and the matter will move forward by consensus.
Chair Cochran asked if there's no enforcement of prohibited signs, what makes them think there would
be any change in enforcement of regulated signs?
Director Matson stated that while enforcement of sandwich board sign violations does occur, it is
limited and not a primary focus due to staffing constraints and higher-priority life safety issues.
Enforcement is generally complaint-driven, with staff responding when a sign poses a problem.
• Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development discussion
Director Matson provided an overview of the economic development element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, noting that consultants are underway and internal and partner discussions have
begun, including coordination with the Port of Pasco and economic development specialists. It was
shared that monthly workshop discussions will be brought forward to gather Council vision and
feedback, with no immediate decisions required. Key topics discussed included Pasco’s strengths and
gaps in retail, commercial, and entertainment offerings; the desire to attract destination retail and unique
uses that draw visitors to Pasco; opportunities for expanded shopping, dining, and entertainment; and
long-term healthcare needs, particularly in West Pasco. Workforce considerations were also discussed,
including Pasco’s younger and diverse workforce, the need for higher-wage employment opportunities,
and potential future industries such as aerospace manufacturing. The economic development element is
intended to be implementation-focused and actionable rather than aspirational, and Council feedback
will be shared with the consultant as the plan is developed.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Jones commented from a newer perspective; the City of Pasco and the broader Tri-Cities
area lack a dedicated fine arts venue. It was suggested that the region has sufficient population and
higher-wage employment to support such a facility, and that developing a fine arts venue could
represent a potential opportunity for Pasco’s economic development.
Commissioner Hendler emphasizing the Columbia River as a major, underutilized asset for Pasco. It
was suggested that greater focus be placed on river-oriented development, including recreation,
hospitality, and business uses, and that opportunities to better connect the city to the riverfront should be
explored despite regulatory challenges.
Commissioner Crawford stated that expanding retail in Pasco is a necessity given the City’s rapid
residential growth and increasing infrastructure demands. While Pasco has strong housing growth and a
high per capita student population, reliance as a bedroom community does not generate sufficient tax
revenue to support long-term infrastructure needs, underscoring the importance of attracting additional
retail and commercial development.
Page 302 of 339
Page 6 of 6
Commissioner Crutchfield support was expressed for the proposed ideas, with emphasis on leveraging
Pasco’s unique assets, such as the river, while continuing to pursue additional retail. The importance of
ensuring adequate transportation and infrastructure to support growth was noted, particularly along key
corridors. It was also noted that Pasco’s distinct amenities and character, when developed in synergy
with neighboring communities, can help strengthen the City’s overall economic position.
Commissioner Crawford added that economic development functions as a reinforcing cycle, with
employers and retailers evaluating factors such as household income and housing costs when choosing
locations. It was noted that Pasco currently faces stronger competition from neighboring cities in these
areas, and that falling further behind could make it increasingly difficult to attract higher-wage
employers and retail investment.
Chair Cochran reiterated for river-focused development, noting that regulatory constraints have limited
progress and that coordinated advocacy may be needed. It was also noted that attracting higher-wage
jobs may require Pasco to focus on targeted economic specializations. Focusing on specific industries
that bring higher-wage jobs. Data centers were mentioned as one possible opportunity given Pasco’s
strong power infrastructure, and targeting these types of industries could help strengthen and diversify
the local economy.
OTHER BUSINESS
Director Matson shared that another Comprehensive Plan workshop topic will be brought forward next
month. A staffing update was provided, noting the department is nearing full staffing with a senior planner
starting soon and a Planner II position still open. Despite recent changes, staff are performing well, and
major permit system improvements are underway. Online permit payments are expected to be available next
month, with fully online, fillable permit applications anticipated later this year. These updates are intended
to improve customer service, reduce phone inquiries, and streamline internal processes. Staff and IT were
thanked for their work, with acknowledgment that some initial system adjustments are expected as the new
tools are implemented.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Crutchfield made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner
Crawford, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pasco+wa+planning+commission+meeting+20025
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 303 of 339
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 8
CALL TO ORDER
The 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: Rosa Torres, Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Dana
Crutchfield, Miguel Miranda and Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Brian Tungesvik
Staff Present: C&ED Director Haylie Matson, C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, Senior Planner
Daniel Leavitt, Planner III Ivan Barragan 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.
Miguel Miranda recused himself on items CPA2025-002, Z2025-001 and CA2025-006, as a realtor
of the community, he has an active client that is directly impacted by the decisions made tonight.
Commissioner Lehrman wanted to clarify two meetings ago in November, she had made a
correction. She is not living in the SR20 Riverview area, and that correction during the meeting was
not reflected in the meeting minutes in December.
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 Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 18,
2025. Commissioner Crawford seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way
The proposed code amendment was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in a workshop and
later advanced to a public hearing. Notice was posted at City Hall and published in the Tri-City Herald. No
public comments were received.
Staff presented a limited code amendment to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in
the Downtown Pasco Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The proposal updates the sign code,
clarifies definitions, revises the allowance table, and creates a new section, PMC 17.15.025 (Sandwich
Board Signs).
Page 304 of 339
Page 2 of 8
The amendment establishes clear standards governing placement, number of signs per business, hours of
display, ADA accessibility, intersection safety, prohibited locations, enforcement and removal procedures,
and includes a hold harmless provision, along with minor consistency updates to Title 17.
A revision from the prior proposal adjusts corner lot standards, allowing signs closer to intersections when
frontage placement is not feasible, provided a minimum 10-foot clearance from the curb radius or verge is
maintained for pedestrian safety and sight distance.
Staff noted this represents a significant update to a long-standing prohibition and provides added flexibility
for downtown businesses while maintaining pedestrian safety. Alternatives included taking no action,
allowing signs without regulation (not recommended), or expanding the allowance citywide.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration
at the February 9, 2026, workshop, with final action anticipated at the February 17, 2026, meeting.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Jones asked about a slide depicting a vehicle marked with an “X” and its purpose. Ivan
Barragan explained that the image was intended to clarify that sandwich board signs are not permitted on
vehicles.
Commissioner Lehrman stated that she appreciated the language clarifying the construction of the signs but
noted that the code does not specify that signs should be weighted. Given wind conditions in the area, she
encouraged staff to consider adding language to address this concern. Ivan Barragan commented that he
understood.
Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concerns regarding enforcement and staffing capacity, noting the
limited availability of code enforcement resources. She referenced an example observed along Court Street
near Andy’s Diner where multiple sandwich board signs—located in areas that would not be permitted
under the proposal—were placed in the middle of the sidewalk, potentially obstructing pedestrian access and
ADA compliance. She questioned how the proposed standards would be effectively enforced given these
constraints.
Director Matson explained that enforcement is complaint-based and prioritized by life-safety concerns due
to limited staffing. With two code enforcement officers handling a high volume of inquiries, issues are
triaged, with immediate hazards addressed first. Staff noted that sandwich board signs are already a citywide
issue and that the proposed amendment would establish clearer standards within downtown, where visibility
and oversight are greater. The amendment is not expected to significantly change current enforcement
practices.
Chair Cochran opened the meeting for public comment, no individuals appeared, he then closed the
public hearing for this item.
Commissioner Lehrman asked if there was insight as far as potential opportunities for additional code
enforcement staff.
Director Matson noted that a presentation to City Council on code enforcement priorities and staffing levels
is planned for later this year at the request of the City Manager’s Office. Staff explained that reductions in
staffing have required corresponding adjustments to enforcement priorities citywide. Staff recommended
bringing the issue to City Council for policy direction, noting that expanding enforcement across all issues
citywide would require additional staffing and would be a budget consideration.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated that, given the challenges facing code enforcement, she questioned the
Page 305 of 339
Page 3 of 8
wisdom of taking action on an issue that will likely require enforcement when similar activity is already
occurring in areas where it is not proposed and is difficult to enforce. She noted that while these issues may
not be as severe as other reported violations, the enforcement challenges remain.
Director Matson added that the proposal would reduce enforcement burden by allowing sandwich board
signs under clear standards rather than prohibiting them outright. Establishing defined parameters would
provide clarity for both business owners and code enforcement, reduce conflicts, and allow the Downtown
Overlay District to serve as a pilot area to evaluate compliance and effectiveness.
Chair Cochran noted an additional benefit of the proposal is reduced City liability. Establishing regulations
and a hold harmless provision would help protect the City in the event of injuries related to sandwich board
signs in the public right-of-way, as compared to having no clear standards or enforcement framework in
place.
Commissioner Lehrman asked about funding for code enforcement officers and whether Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are used. Director Matson explained that approximately $70,000
is allocated to one or both positions, but those funds are restricted by CDBG requirements and must be spent
in designated low-income areas, limiting applicability to downtown enforcement. Future funding levels are
uncertain.
Commissioner Lehrman also asked whether codifying sandwich board sign regulations could lead to
increased complaints used to harass business owners. Director Matson responded that clear, objective
standards are expected to reduce disputes rather than increase them by providing consistency, clarity, and
allowing downtown businesses to better self-manage compliance.
Commissioner Jones stated “I move that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council
approve Code Amendment CA2025-002, allowing Sandwich Board Signs within the public right of way
only in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District as proposed in Exhibit 2.” Motion seconded by
Commissioner Crawford, motion passed unanimously.
• CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
Director Matson provided background on an inconsistency between the City’s land use map and zoning
code. In 2023, the city updated its low-density residential designation citywide to 3–6 units per acre;
however, the RS-20 zoning district retains a 20,000-square-foot minimum lot size, effectively allowing
approximately two units per acre. This conflict was identified at the staff and legal levels following a
development proposal, and development in the affected RS-20 areas has been paused.
She noted that property owners have been unable to develop for approximately 18 months due to this
inconsistency and requested Commission action to provide relief. She acknowledged broader policy
concerns and upcoming state requirements but explained that the proposal would resolve the immediate
issue while keeping the area at the lowest density in the city.
Director Matson presented a revised proposal establishing a new R-15 zoning designation allowing 2–3 units
per acre and reverting the land use designation to 2–5 units per acre. This represents a modest increase from
historic standards and maintains consistency with long-standing zoning policy. Staff noted public comments
requesting larger lots for septic feasibility but explained that RS-20 has never allowed densities below two
units per acre and that further reductions would conflict with city policy and Growth Management Act
requirements.
She emphasized that Pasco must plan for approximately 18,000 new housing units over the next 20 years
and that reducing density in the Riverview area would require increased density elsewhere in the city. The
Page 306 of 339
Page 4 of 8
proposal recognizes Riverview’s unique conditions, including larger lots and limited sewer availability,
while limiting reliance on septic systems.
Director Matson also discussed a potential lot size adjustment allowing up to a 20 percent variation to
address septic and site constraints, consistent with flexibility allowed in other zoning districts. Staff
recommended forwarding the revised 2–3 units per acre proposal to City Council, noting it represents the
lowest density staff supports, and clarified that final recommendations rest with the Planning Commission.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Chair Cochran thanked staff for responding to Commission direction and for balancing developer and
property owner interests while preserving West Pasco’s character. The Chair noted the proposal addressed a
code inconsistency consistent with City Council direction and emphasized the importance of resolving the
current issue independently of broader state housing policy discussions. The item was then opened for
Commission discussion.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated that staff clearly incorporated prior Commission and City Council
feedback, noting the importance of avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach and honoring commitments made to
residents at annexation regarding neighborhood character. While acknowledging that change is inevitable,
she appreciated the proposal’s attempt to balance flexibility with community character. She asked for
clarification on the purpose of a maximum lot size and whether a nearly one-acre lot could still be developed
with a single-family home.
Director Matson explained that state law allows a single-family home on any existing legal lot regardless of
size, and such development would not be denied. The maximum lot size applies only to subdivisions and is
intended to maintain the overall zoning density of 2–3 units per acre, while still allowing flexibility through
varied lot sizes. Lots larger than one-half acre would need to be balanced by smaller lots within the same
subdivision to meet density requirements. Similar density controls existed under the former RS-20 zoning.
Commissioner Lehrman asked staff to respond to concerns raised by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife regarding septic systems near the shoreline and potential Shoreline Master Program conflicts,
and whether Shoreline Master Program updates would be required if the proposal is forwarded to City
Council.
Director Matson stated that staff reviewed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comments and
found no conflict with the Shoreline Master Program, noting the proposed density is lower than the
shoreline’s allowed density range. She explained this position and stated that no Shoreline Master Program
update is proposed at this time, as the concern reflects differing agency interpretations rather than a true
conflict.
Commissioner Jones expressed concern about septic systems near the shoreline and the importance of sewer
connections to protect water quality, and thanked staff for the prior response. She asked how sewer would
be provided where it is not currently available, who would bear the cost, and whether per-foot cost estimates
exist.
Director Matson explained that extending sewer infrastructure is expensive and can make development
infeasible, which is a key reason for proposing a reduction to two units per acre to allow limited septic use
where appropriate. Under the City’s 2023 land use changes, development generally assumed sewer
connection at the property owner’s expense or delayed development until service is available. Where septic
is not feasible, sewer extension or delayed development would be required.
She explained that the City has attempted to partner with developers to extend sewer service in the area,
Page 307 of 339
Page 5 of 8
including discussions about a lift station involving City Manager Zable. These efforts have been limited by
the need for multiple easements and funding constraints, making projects infeasible. While grant
opportunities continue to be explored, no funding is currently available, and future sewer extensions would
likely require developer partnerships, which have not been successful to date.
Commissioner Crutchfield asked for clarification on the proposed administrative adjustment authority for
minimum lot sizes, questioning the City’s role given Health District oversight of septic systems and
expressing concern about administrative discretion. She suggested that Hearing Examiner review with
public notice could provide greater transparency.
Director Matson responded that the proposed 20 percent adjustment is intended to address site-specific
constraints, such as irregular lot shapes, while avoiding the added cost and time of a Hearing Examiner
process. The adjustment would allow minimum lot sizes to range from approximately 11,000 square feet up
to one-half acre, providing flexibility in lot design while maintaining overall density standards. She stressed
that the provision is optional and could be revised or removed at the Commission’s direction, noting that an
alternative would be a fixed minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet and a maximum of one-half acre with
no adjustment.
Commissioner Crawford asked whether the code amendments were intended to provide maximum flexibility
to avoid hamstringing existing properties. Director Matson confirmed that the proposal is largely developer-
and property-owner-focused and provides substantial flexibility, though it cannot resolve constraints
imposed by septic requirements. She explained that where Health District standards require larger lots,
flexibility is limited, but the proposal helps address site-specific challenges such as irregular lot shapes,
topography, or parcels divided by roads, allowing more varied lot configurations.
Commissioner Miranda commented that the proposed 20 percent adjustment may not be sufficient in some
cases, citing an example where a 2.48-acre parcel cannot be reasonably subdivided into five half-acre lots
due to septic requirements. He asked what guidance the city would provide in that situation.
Director Matson responded that in such cases, development would need to proceed at a lower intensity or
wait until sewer service is available. Allowing exceptions below two units per acre could shift overall land-
use patterns and risk broader reliance on septic systems, which would hinder long-term sewer planning. She
emphasized the need for coordinated planning for future sewer service rather than parcel-by-parcel
exceptions.
Commissioner Lehrman asked whether staff would have sufficient capacity to manage case-by-case
decisions given the City’s move toward more automated permitting systems.
Director Matson stated that the proposal is straightforward to administer and largely aligns with existing
automated processes. The built-in flexibility is workable, and in cases of uncertainty staff would likely allow
the 20 percent adjustment. She does not anticipate an increased workload for staff and noted that, after the
area being effectively paused for over a year, there may be an initial increase in applications that can be
managed with existing staffing levels.
Public Comment:
Roger Wright lives on Willow Way in the city of Pasco:
As a local civil engineer, thanked Council and City staff for their service and responsiveness. He expressed
support for the City’s goal of creating housing but emphasized the need for practical and logical standards.
He explained that on-site septic systems require a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres per Health Department
regulations, which limits flexibility when parcels do not divide evenly. He shared a current project example
where sewer service was initially pursued, including funding infrastructure, but delays in updating the sewer
comprehensive plan ultimately made sewer infeasible. As a result, the project shifted to septic, but parcel
Page 308 of 339
Page 6 of 8
configuration prevents exact half-acre lots. He stated that while the proposed 20% lot size flexibility could
help, averaging lot sizes below the half-acre minimum is not allowed by the Health Department. He
requested a workable, common-sense solution for irregular parcels while acknowledging and supporting the
City’s two-units-per-acre policy.
Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco:
Stated that the proposal may inadvertently prohibit subdivision of parcels between approximately 2.4 and
2.5 acres. With a 20% lot size adjustment, 2.4 acres is the maximum size that can accommodate four half-
acre septic lots, while 2.5 acres is the minimum needed to meet Health Department requirements, resulting
in parcels that cannot feasibly be subdivided into either four or five lots. He indicated this outcome was
likely unintended. He suggested that a larger adjustment, such as 25%, could provide a workable solution
for smaller parcels, noting that without such flexibility the result would be very low-density development,
which he did not believe was the City’s or State’s intent. He concluded that he would follow up with staff to
discuss the technical details further.
Brett Lott lives on Castle Holly Court in the city of Pasco:
Noted that he is working with staff on the same project and reiterated that sewer service was the preferred
option but is not currently feasible due to City constraints. He emphasized that while most developments fit
within standard regulations, some sites present unique conditions that do not align cleanly with rigid
standards. He expressed concern that strict policies without flexibility can unintentionally prevent otherwise
reasonable development, particularly when minor deviations exceed the 20% allowance by a small margin.
He cautioned that over time, the intent of the policy may be lost, leaving permit staff constrained by exact
language rather than intent.
He emphasized the broader housing shortage at the state and national level and stated that delays in
development directly increase housing costs. He requested additional flexibility in the policy—such as
increasing the allowable adjustment or including a provision for case-by-case consideration—to allow staff
discretion in unique situations. He provided an example where City-required road placement results in
compliant half-acre lots on one side and slightly larger lots on the other, narrowly exceeding the limit. He
concluded by encouraging the City to seek solutions that enable development rather than prohibit it, noting
that not all projects are large enough to independently fund sewer infrastructure.
Commissioner Jones observed a common theme among the speakers that additional lot size flexibility—
potentially up to 25%—could help projects move forward. He asked whether a framework that maintains a
20% standard but allows applicants to request additional flexibility through a review process might address
unique site conditions. He noted that land parcels are not always uniform and that some discretion may be
appropriate. He expressed that developers bring valuable expertise and that it may be in the City’s best
interest to work collaboratively to find solutions rather than rely solely on rigid standards. He suggested the
concept warranted further discussion.
Chair Cochran asked Director Matson whether there are potential mechanisms that would allow limited
exceptions without undermining the intent of the proposed change. He highlighted the need to balance
flexibility with maintaining the overall purpose of the policy and invited staff to share any suggestions,
based on the testimony received, that could allow discretion while preserving the framework for further
discussion.
Director Matson stated that staff does not recommend additional exceptions without undermining the intent
of the proposal. She explained that increasing flexibility to 25 percent would expand allowable density
beyond the intended 2–3 units per acre, effectively allowing densities closer to 1–3 units per acre. The 20
percent adjustment does not resolve cases where larger lots are required for septic systems, and staff
emphasized concerns about expanding long-term reliance on septic systems.
Page 309 of 339
Page 7 of 8
She stated coordinated sewer infrastructure as the preferred solution but noted progress has been limited by
funding constraints, despite coordination efforts with developers beginning in September 2025. Given
current infrastructure and timing, staff stated that a coordinated sewer solution is not realistic in the near
term and cautioned that allowing larger septic lots would likely undermine the City’s ability to implement a
future sewer system.
Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the City typically installs sewer trunk lines with connection costs
passed on to developers or property owners. Staff confirmed this remains the City’s practice and noted that
connection costs can be significant.
Director Matson explained that sewer connection fees are paid at the time of connection to cover system
capacity, treatment, and maintenance, and are typically passed through as part of development or building
permits. While costly, sewer connections provide long-term benefits by eliminating reliance on septic
systems and supporting city infrastructure.
Commissioner Lehrman asked whether developers would bear the cost of extending sewer trunk lines where
infrastructure is not in place. Director Matson confirmed that developers would be responsible in those cases
and noted that alternative funding tools, such as TIF, could potentially be explored for smaller developers.
Staff also confirmed that the Health Department continues to regulate septic systems within the city.
Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco:
Noted that Washington State has enforced strict septic system standards for decades, and that newer systems
are highly regulated and less prone to failure. He stated that the proposed 20% lot size adjustment works for
parcels larger than three acres but does not address smaller parcels, particularly those around 2.5 acres. He
expressed concern that such parcels could become unbuildable and remain vacant, which can negatively
affect surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested that a 25% adjustment, particularly for smaller parcels,
could help address these situations.
Chair Cochran closed the public hearing.
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment Motion:
Commissioner Lehrman stated “I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-002, including proposal land use map amendment
established the low-density residential Riverview designation 2-5 dwelling units per acre development. As
shown in Exhibit 2 and the 2018 conference plan addendum shown as Exhibit 7.” Commissioner Jones
seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Residential Density Amendment Motion:
Commissioner Jones stated “I move to recommend that the City Council consider approval of the rezone
replacing the R-S-20 zone with the R-15 Low Density Residential District, as shown in the zoning map
revision (Exhibit 4), and approval of the associated zoning map, Comprehensive Plan, and text
amendments identified in Exhibit 6. This includes revising PMC 21.20 to replace references to R-S-20
with R-15.” Commissioner Lehrman seconded. Motions passed with a vote of 7 ayes to 1 opposed.
Next Steps:
This will go to the City Council for a workshop, then to a regular meeting.
WORSHOP
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Director Matson introduced the city’s new Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt.
Page 310 of 339
Page 8 of 8
Informed the Commission that Framework has been contracted with the city to help with the municipal code
changes.
Stated that CED is still looking to fill vacancies for a Planner II, a Permit Tech and a Senior Plan Examiner.
Let the Commission know of the status of the new online permit system that will be implemented in
February.
Commissioner Lehrman commented towards the end of the meeting, after motions are passed, show a
graphic or flow chart of the upcoming steps in order for the motions to then become a code and that more
graphics and pictures be included for a better understanding of residents. Director Matson agreed, stating
both can be added to the PowerPoint presentation.
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 8:18 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting: https://youtu.be/8hu7LneA_rE
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 311 of 339
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map Amendment (CPA 2025-002)
–Low Density Residential Land Use
Changes, and the R-S-20 Rezone with
Associated Text Amendments (CA2025-
006 & Z2025-011)
February 23, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
3
1
2
o
f
3
3
9
HISTORY
•2023:Ordinance No. 4663 amended Low Density Residential to 3–6 du/ac, creating an unintended
conflict with R-S-20 zoning standards
•2025:City Council briefed and directed staff to resolve the inconsistency
Planning Commission Process:
•Nov. 20, 2025:Workshop
•Dec. 18, 2025:Public hearing; revisions requested
•Jan. 15, 2026:Second public hearing and recommendation
Recommendation to Council:
•Approve CPA 2025-002 establishing Low Density Residential–Riverview at 2–5 du/ac
•Replace R-S-20 with R-15 Low Density Residential
•Approve associated zoning and Comprehensive Plan text amendments (incl. PMC 21.20)
Pa
g
e
3
1
3
o
f
3
3
9
KEY CHANGES
1.Comprehensive Plan Amendment –Emergency
2.Zoning Map change/Rezone
3.Pasco Municipal Code changes
Pa
g
e
3
1
4
o
f
3
3
9
Pa
g
e
3
1
5
o
f
3
3
9
Existing → Proposed Land Use:
3-6 units/acre → 2-5 units/acre
Existing → Proposed Zoning:
R-S-20 (2 units/acre) → R-15 (2-3 units/acre)
Pa
g
e
3
1
6
o
f
3
3
9
KEY CHANGES
Pa
g
e
3
1
7
o
f
3
3
9
OTHER
1.Public Comments
2.Periodic Update/Municipal Code Changes
3.Upcoming – standards for sidewalks and curbs
Pa
g
e
3
1
8
o
f
3
3
9
Questions?
Pa
g
e
3
1
9
o
f
3
3
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council January 28, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 2/23/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Public Works Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution - City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Update and Adoption (10 minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Resolution
Presentation
Link to City of Pasco - Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Link to City of Pasco - CSAP Webpage
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Veronica Sullivan, DKS Associates, Consultant Project
Manager.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the CSAP does not require an immediate capital expenditure;
however, it is a mandatory prerequisite for the City to remain eligible for the
secured federal Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Planning Grant Program and other
future state/federal funding opportunities. Having an adopted plan significantly
strengthens the City's competitive position for millions of dollars in future grant
funding to support safety projects identified within the document.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
In early 2020, the City completed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), and later
updated it in June 2022, using a framework established in Washington State’s
Target Zero effort to provide data-driven collision reduction strategies on the
City’s roads. To continue this commitment, in 2023, the City of Pasco secured
a federal grant through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program to develop a Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan (CSAP). This data-driven, context-sensitive plan is tailored to
Page 320 of 339
Pasco’s unique infrastructure needs and aligns with the USDOT Safe System
Approach. Its primary objective is to identify high-risk areas, recommend
proven countermeasures, and prioritize safety improvements that protect all
road users, with a specific focus on eliminating fatalities and serious injuries.
A formal adoption of this plan is critical to the City's immediate funding strategy.
The City is currently preparing a grant application for a safety infrastructure-
based improvement IB2 (Systemic Pedestrian Crossings) for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which has a submission deadline of
March 6, 2026. This funding program aims to reduce fatal and serious injury
crashes on city streets through targeted funding and engineering
improvements. Formal adoption of the CSAP is a mandatory prerequisite for
this HSIP application; any delay in approval would jeopardize the City’s
eligibility for this and future funding opportunities. Without an adopted plan, the
City will struggle to secure future SS4A Action Plan funds, significantly limiting
its ability to address high-priority safety needs.
The CSAP aligns with the City’s core strategic goals by directly addressing
crash reduction through targeted engineering and policy solutions. It provides a
prioritized list of non-infrastructure and infrastructure capital improvements for
integration into the City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
ensures that safety investments are equitably distributed to benefit
traffic by disproportionately impacted that are communities underserved
incidents. Adoption of the CSAP will provide a clear roadmap for the City to
secure state and federal funding opportunities for the projects prioritized within
the plan. Once adopted, the City will apply for grant opportunities as criteria fits
project scopes; once funding is secured, the City will be able to begin design,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction activities until the project is complete.
Ultimately, these improvements and policies will foster a safer, more
connected, and more equitable transportation network that directly improves
the daily quality of life and physical well-being of every Pasco resident.
To oversee the plan’s development, the City established a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) composed of cross-departmental leadership:
Andrey Avetisyan – Engineering Manager
Faigda Garcia – Engineer I/Project Manager
Kevin Crowley – Fire Chief
Michael Andrews – Police Traffic Sergeant
Matthew Decker – Police Lieutenant
Mark Trumpy – Public Works Street Lead Maintenance
The project team performed a rigorous assessment of safety needs by
analyzing five years of crash data (2020–2024), conducting extensive
community engagement, and evaluating underserved areas alongside local
policies and standards. This process culminated in the creation of a High Injury
Page 321 of 339
Network (HIN) to score and prioritize project locations. Proposed interventions
are categorized into Safety Policy Strategies and Infrastructure Safety Projects,
supported by a transparent progress-tracking methodology.
A key requirement of the SS4A program is a formal commitment to a safety
timeline. In August 2025, through Resolution No. 4641, the City Council
officially adopted a goal to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries by
50% by the year 2035. This CSAP represents a collaborative foundation for
making Pasco’s roadways safer for everyone, incorporating continuous
feedback from the Public Works Department and the TAC.
Impact (other than fiscal)
Adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) ensures the City of
Pasco’s compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT)
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program. Additionally, serving as a
strategic gateway, allowing the City to leverage the plan's recommended safety
improvements to secure future state and federal grants.
Any delays to adoption will affect our eligibility to apply for the earliest grant
opportunity for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding due on
March 6, 2026.
Choosing not to adopt the plan will compromise the City’s eligibility for future
federal and state funding opportunities and hinder efforts to secure future
SS4A Action Plan grants, significantly limiting the City's ability to address high-
priority safety needs.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
This presentation provides a comprehensive update on the project’s
development and formally introduces the Final Comprehensive Safety Action
Plan (CSAP) for City Council review and consideration.
Staff recommends that the City Council formally adopt the Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan at the Council meeting on March 2, 2026. This action fulfills
the requirements of the SS4A funding program, aligns with the City's long-term
strategic goals for multimodal safety, and establishes a strategic framework for
eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries within the community.
Next Steps
Following this workshop, the project team will incorporate any final feedback
from Council into the document. The CSAP is scheduled for formal adoption at
the next regular City Council meeting. Once adopted, the City will be eligible to
apply for implementation funding through various state and federal grant
Page 322 of 339
programs in the upcoming cycles.
Alternatives
At this time, the plan is presented for information and discussion only.
A formal adoption at the March 2, 2026, Council Meeting is essential to
maintain the City's eligibility for the upcoming City Safety Program (HSIP)
funding cycle, which has a strict application deadline of March 6, 2026. Any
delay in adoption will result in the loss of this immediate grant opportunity.
Choosing not to adopt the plan will compromise the City’s eligibility for future
federal and state funding opportunities and hinder efforts to secure future
SS4A Action Plan grants, significantly limiting the City's ability to address high-
priority safety needs.
Page 323 of 339
Resolution – Adopting the City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) - 1
Version 1.9.26
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
APPROVES THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE
SAFETY ACTION PLAN (CSAP).
WHEREAS, in 2024, the City of Pasco secured federal funding from the U.S. Department
of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program to help develop a
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP).
WHEREAS, the CSAP aims to reduce fatal and serious injuries on city roadways through
engineering improvements and countermeasures.
WHEREAS, as commitment to the eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious
injuries, the City Council of the City of Pasco approved Resolution No. 4641, adopting the
commitment goal to reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries by 50% by the year 2035.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco is committed to the eventual goal of zero
roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Pasco adopts the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP), and
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ____ day of
________________, 2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Page 324 of 339
Pasco City Council
February 23, 2026
Workshop
Pa
g
e
3
2
5
o
f
3
3
9
Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan (CSAP)
February 23, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
3
2
6
o
f
3
3
9
Text Here
Crash Data
Pa
g
e
3
2
7
o
f
3
3
9
Safe Streets and Roads for All Funding
City of Pasco received
$320,000 in planning funding
to develop a Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan, with a key
goal of securing an
implementation grant for
initiating projects.
CSAP Technical Advisory Committee
Members
Police Dept: Matthew Decker and
Michael Andrews
Fire Dept: Kevin Crowley
PW Operations: Mark Trumpy
PW Engineering: Andrey Avetisyan
and Faigda Garcia
Pa
g
e
3
2
8
o
f
3
3
9
What is a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
(CSAP)?
●A plan to enhance public safety across all
modes of transportation.
●Investigates risk factors, performs a safety
analysis, implements strategies and proposes
data-driven infrastructure improvements.
Pa
g
e
3
2
9
o
f
3
3
9
Commitment Goal
In August 2025, the City of Pasco formally
committed to:
A 50% reduction of fatal and serious
injury crashes on city roads by 2035.
RESOLUTION NO. 4641
Pa
g
e
3
3
0
o
f
3
3
9
Map of Fatal and Serious Injuries (FSI)
2020-2024
Study corridors include
city-maintained streets.
Not including Highway
12, 182 and 395.
Pa
g
e
3
3
1
o
f
3
3
9
Public Engagement
4
2
440+
46
142
In-person events
Virtual events
People spoken to
Surveys completed
Online comments
on Comment Map
Engagement Summary:Common Concerns:
●Observed drivers exhibiting risky
behaviors (i.e.speeding)
●Need more connections across highway
182 for all modes
●Some areas have inadequate pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure (sidewalks,
bike lanes, crosswalks, etc.)
●There is a need for safer access to public
transit
Pa
g
e
3
3
2
o
f
3
3
9
Proposed Infrastructure Projects
1.Access Management (add hardened
curbs to reduce turning)
2.Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings (4)
3.Intersection Improvements at stop
locations (3)
4.Signalized Intersection
Improvements
5.Lighting Enhancements (2 corridors)
6.Rd 76 Overpass
Pa
g
e
3
3
3
o
f
3
3
9
July
2025
August
2025
Fall
2025
Winter
2025
Spring
2026
Engagement: TAC Meetings, Social Pinpoint Website, Public Open Houses, Pop-ups
Visit: dks-engage.com/pasco-safety
Determine the
Fatal & Serious
Injury Commitment
Goal
City Council
Meetings:
8.4: Present the
proposed Fatal &
Serious Injury
Commitment Goal
8.18: Sign the
Resolution
Conduct Data
Analysis
Brainstorm
Potential Safety
Projects
Draft Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
Complete Engagement
Finalize
Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
March 6, 2026
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Grant Deadline
CSAP Timeline
Pa
g
e
3
3
4
o
f
3
3
9
Questions?Pa
g
e
3
3
5
o
f
3
3
9
CSAP Timeline
Pa
g
e
3
3
6
o
f
3
3
9
High
Injury
Network
Pa
g
e
3
3
7
o
f
3
3
9
Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and
appropriate investment and re- investment in community
infrastructure.
City Council Goals
QUALITY OF LIFE
2024-2025
Enhance the long-term viability, value, and service levels of services
and programs.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Promote a highly functional multi-modal transportation system.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Implement targeted strategies to reduce crime through strategic
investments in infrastructure, staffing, and equipment.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Promote and encourage economic vitality.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Identify opportunities to enhance City of Pasco identity, cohesion,
and image.
CITY IDENTITY
Page 338 of 339
METAS DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL
2024-2025
Promover una alta calidad de vida a través de programas, servicios
y inversion apropiada y reinversión en la comunidad infraestructura
comunitaria.
CALIDAD DE VIDA
Promover viabilidad financiera a largo plazo, valor, y niveles de
calidad de los servicios y programas.
SOSTENIBIILIDAD FINANCIERA
Promover un sistema de transporte multimodal altamente funcional.
RED DE TRANSPORTE DE LA COMUNIDAD
Implementar estrategias específicas para reducir la delincuencia por
medios de inversiones estratégicas en infraestructura, personal y equipo.
SEGURIDAD DE NUESTRA COMUNIDAD
Promover y fomentar vitalidad económica.
VITALIDAD ECONOMICA
Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la
cohesión, y la imagen.
IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA
Page 339 of 339