HomeMy WebLinkAbout3998 Resolution - Comprehensive Plan (CPA2020-002)RESOLUTION NO. 3998
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
ADOPTING VOLUME 1 AND VOLUME 2 OF THE 2018-2038
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of Washington (RCW 36.70A) requires that
the City of Pasco and other jurisdictions in Franklin County adopt Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A.130 requires the City of Pasco
to take legislative action to review, and if needed, revise its Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations to ensure their continued compliance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A; and
WHEREAS, the current Pasco Comprehensive Plan was adopted on September 2, 2008
Ordinance 3866) and is amended annually as necessary; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the Pasco Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2018-001
establishing the public participation process to be used for the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan
Update as required by RCW36.70A.130; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council established, via Council Goals a set of principles to
guide the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has undergone significant changes and continued growth
since the last major update in 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has grown by 24% (almost 18,000 residents) since 2008;
and
WHEREAS, the City has engaged in a multi-year planning process to update the
Comprehensive Plan that included public events in 2018 and over 26 public meetings from January
2018 through September 2020; and
WHEREAS, the community identified that Pasco will be a livable, family -friendly, multi-
cultural, affordable, safe, connective, attractive and welcoming community; and
WHEREAS, the community envisions that as one of the fastest growing communities in
the state, Pasco will be a distinctive and highly livable city that makes timely and strategic
investments in innovation, private enterprise, job creation, education, infrastructure and services;
and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates growth of an additional 48,200
additional residents, 15,200 housing units and home to over 41,000 jobs between 2018 and 2038;
and
Resolution - Comp Plan (CPA2020-02) - 1
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan includes significant updates to the Land Use,
Transportation, Housing, Economic Development, Capital Facilities, Public Services, Parks and
Open Space, Resource Lands, Critical Areas and Shorelines and Implementation Elements based
on a continued data driven approach to comply with the requirements of the Growth Management
Act and to meet the overall interests and needs of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the relationship between land use and
transportation and its importance to Pasco's future and further emphasizes that the balance of the
two elements must be strategic to ensure that future residents and businesses benefit from a well-
connected neighborhoods that allow residents to travel via various modes rather than relying solely
on private automobiles; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan includes the Transportation Element which is being
updated through a separate and ongoing Transportation System Master Plan process with
coordination from local, regional and state transportation agencies incorporating input from the
community; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan will be realized by the entire city organization, in
concert with the community of Pasco and local and regional partners; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act allows for amendments to comprehensive plans
once annually; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Planning Commission has held eighteen discussion and workshop
items on the Comprehensive Plan, including nine public hearings; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2020, the Pasco Planning Commission recommended for
approval the Comprehensive Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to the
Pasco City Council on September 14, 2020 with representatives from Oneza & Associates, White
Bluffs Consulting and city staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been provided with the Comprehensive Plan, Volume
1, Volume 2, and supporting analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco complied with the requirements of the State Environmental
Protection Policy Act (Chapter 43.21 C RCW) and the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC Title 23); and
WHEREAS, the projected growth could have significant impacts to both the natural and
built environments, the City of Pasco elected to prepare a Non -Project Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) evaluating the expansion of the Urban Growth Area for the Comprehensive Plan
Update; and
Resolution - Comp Plan (CPA2020-02) - 2
WHEREAS, the EIS provided for three UGA expansion alternatives for consideration and
action by the Pasco Planning Commission, which included a No -Action, Tradition Growth Target
and Compact Growth (Higher Density) Target; and
WHEREAS, the EIS analyzed the current state of the City and UGA with expected
changes under each alternative and evaluated the possible impacts of different land use options for
each alternative; and
WHEREAS, the EIS indicates that the preferred Urban Growth Area for the City of Pasco
result in the Compact High -Density Growth Target, Alternative #3; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan complies with the Franklin County County -Wide
Planning Policies per Resolution 2019-312 Adopted by Franklin County; and
WHEREAS, pending approval from the Franklin County Board of Commissioners, the
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map will reflect an expansion of the Pasco Urban
Growth Area.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. Amendments. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1, Volume 2 and the
Future Land Use Map is now hereby amended as set forth as Exhibit `B" and is hereby adopted.
Section 2. That the Final Non -Project Environmental Impact Statement for the
Comprehensive Plan identified as Exhibit "C" is hereby adopted.
Section 3. That this resolution be forwarded to Franklin County to accompany a formal
submittal and application for consideration of Comprehensive Plan certification.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this 5th day of October,
2020.
a
Saul Martinez
Mayor
ATTEST:
t
Debra Barham, CMC
City Clerk
Resolution - Comp Plan (CPA2020-02) - 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Attorney
City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan
2018-2038
Exhibit #B
Volume I Goals and Policies
City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan
2018–2038
Prepared by
Oneza & Associates
Prepared with assistance from
J-U-B Engineers Inc.
White Bluffs Consulting
City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan
Volume I, Goals and Policies Re-adopted by Ordinance No. ___________ City Council Mayor Saul Martinez (District 3) Mayor Pro Tem Blanche Barajas (District 1) Councilmember Ruben Alvarado (District 2) Councilmember Pete Serrano (District 4) Councilmember Daved Mline (District 5) Councilmember Craig Maloney (District 6) Councilmember Zahra Roach (At-Large) Planning Commission Position 1: Chair Tanya Bowers Position 2: Vice-Chair Joe Campos Position 3: Commissioner Paul Mendez Position 4: Commissioner Anne Jordan Position 5: Commissioner Abel Campos Position 6: Commissioner Isaac Myhrum Position 7: Vacant Position 8: Commissioner Pam Ransier Position 9: Commissioner Jerry Cochran City Staff Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Comprehensive Plan Framework .............................................................................................. 2
Relationship to the Growth Management Act..................................................................... 2
Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies ................................................................. 3
Public Participation ........................................................................................................................ 3
The Pasco Vision for 2038 ............................................................................................................ 4
Comprehensive Plan Elements ................................................................................................... 4
Implementing the Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................. 5
Land Use Element ............................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Growth Management Mandate .................................................................................................. 7
Plan Concept ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Land Use Designations and Areas ............................................................................................ 9
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 12
Housing Element ............................................................................................................. 16
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Growth Management Mandates .............................................................................................. 17
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 17
Economic Development Element .............................................................................. 19
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 19
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 20
Capital Facilities Element ............................................................................................. 22
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Growth Management Mandates .............................................................................................. 23
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 24
Utilities Element .............................................................................................................. 27
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 27
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II
Transportation Element ............................................................................................... 29
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 30
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 30
Implementation & Monitoring Element .................................................................. 32
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Growth Management Mandate ................................................................................................ 32
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................... 32
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 35
List of Tables
Table LU-1. Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage ................................ 10
Table LU-2. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage .................................. 10
List of Figures
Figure LU-1. Future Land Use Distribution in the City and Urban Growth
Areas .................................................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 1
Goals
e.g. Provide adequate and affordable
housing
Policies
e.g. Allow small lot and mixed use
housing
Regulations and Programs
e.g. Zoning Code -permit small lots,
mixed use; Budget; Capital
Improvement Plan
Introduction
The Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is a statement of goals and policies that outline the community’s vision for the future. The Plan is a basic reference document that provides guidance for the development and implementation of specific ordinances and regulations affecting the physical environment of the community. The Plan also anticipates population and employment growth, and how public facilities and services will be provided to accommodate that growth. The City originally adopted a Growth
Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive
Plan in 1995 in response to legislation provided in RCW 36.70A (Pasco 1995 1). This Plan is a revision and update of the 1995 plan and amendments thereto. The last major update occurred in 2008.
1 City of Pasco, 1995. Growth Management Act (GMA) Comprehensive Plan.
In this chapter, you will find:
Comprehensive Plan Framework
Relationship to the Growth Management Act (GMA)
Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies
Pasco Vision for 2038
Overview of the Comprehensive Plan Elements
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 2
Comprehensive Plan Framework This Comprehensive Plan encompasses all geographic and functional elements related to the community’s physical development. It is general in nature and long range in its scope. The Comprehensive Plan includes major planning components, visions, goals, policies, and analyses:
A vision is a collective value and target of a community, it is what a community wants to become.
Goals are individual values aimed at achieving the vision.
Policies define how we accomplish the goals. Regulations, codes and ordinances implement policies. The Plan is divided into two volumes:
Volume 1 - Contains an introduction including a description of the Comprehensive Plan, framework goals as mandated by state, a brief community profile, an outline of required elements, and other related information. This volume also includes goals and policies related to seven major elements that articulate the City’s vision for the future: Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Transportation, Economic Development, and Implementation and Monitoring. The Mapfolio (See Appendix A) includes maps related to these elements.
Volume 2 - Provides background information for each of the elements, including supporting data, maps, and inventories.
Relationship to the Growth Management Act In addition to outlining the required elements of comprehensive plans, the GMA (RCW 36.70A.020) prescribes 14 statutory goals. For a community’s plan to be valid, it must be consistent with and support the State’s goals as well as other specific requirements of the GMA. Consistency, in the context of the GMA, means a plan must not conflict with the fourteen statutory goals, county wide policies, and plans of adjoining jurisdictions. The preparation of this Plan was guided by these goals. The fourteen statutory goals adopted by the State Legislature (paraphrased) are: 1. Guide urban growth to areas where urban services can be adequately provided 2. Reduce urban sprawl 3. Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems 4. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population, and promote a variety of residential densities and housing 5. Encourage economic development throughout the State
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 3
6. Assure private property is not taken for public use without just compensation 7. Encourage predictability and timeliness in the permitting process 8. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries including productive agriculture, fisheries, and mineral industries 9. Encourage retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities 10. Protect the environment and enhance the State’s quality of life 11. Encourage public participation in the planning process 12. Ensure there are adequate public facilities and services necessary to support development 13. Identify and preserve lands and sites of historic and archaeological significance 14. Manage the State’s shorelines wisely
Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies Managing growth can be ineffective if it is carried out in a patchwork fashion. Therefore, the GMA provides a framework for regional coordination. Counties planning under the GMA should prepare Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and establish urban growth areas (UGAs). Cities and the county are required to be consistent with the CWPP in their comprehensive planning. The Franklin County Board of Commissioners adopted the Franklin Countywide
Planning Policies in 2019 (See Appendix B). This document establishes policies that the City’s Comprehensive Plan follows in addressing everything from transportation to the provision of municipal services, economic development, and fiscal considerations.
Public Participation The City of Pasco updated its Public Participation Plan in 2017 (City of Pasco 20182). Cities and counties planning under the GMA must establish “…procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans” (RCW 36.70A.140). In 2017 and 2018, the City conducted multiple opportunities for public involvement in the form of public workshops and meetings. The City established a Comprehensive Plan webpage to disseminate information to, and gather input from, the public. The City reached out to stakeholders such as Pasco School District, Columbia Basin College, the Benton Franklin Council of Government (BFCG), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The City also held Planning Commission and
2 City of Pasco, 2018. Public Participation Plan, City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan.
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 4
Council workshops. Planning Commission hearings were held in 2017 and 2018 with published notices. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was also prepared concurrently. The EIS addresses public input received during the scoping and comment period. The City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan on [INSERT DATE]. The Plan’s goals and policies directly reflect the input received from the public.
The Pasco Vision for 2038 Located along the north shore of the Columbia River, Pasco is the major service center for the agricultural production in the Columbia Basin region of the State. Our City contains tree lined streets with well-maintained and identifiable neighborhoods interspersed with parks and schools. The City’s infrastructure reflects good planning and public stewardship, while providing for acceptable levels of services. Fire stations and police mini-stations are optimally located throughout the community to provide exceptional and proactive public safety. City government actively participates with the Port of Pasco and regional economic development agencies to expand employment opportunities as well as the tax base necessary to support needed community services. Our retail and commercial service centers are attractive and inviting areas clustered near intersections of major arterial streets. Pasco is the multi-modal hub of southeastern Washington with flourishing industrial development along key transportation nodes, including rail, air, barge, truck, and pipelines. All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River. Pasco is oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways, boat launches, and docks.
Comprehensive Plan Elements The City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan contains seven elements, whose goals and policies guide Pasco’s growth toward the vision of the future. Each element contains a brief introduction explaining the purpose for establishing the respective goals and policies: The Land Use Element is the Comprehensive Plan’s bellwether element. This element provides direction for land use decisions necessary to guide the location of housing, commercial and industrial development as well as all other land uses within the City and expansion of the UGA. The Housing Element promotes the need for diverse and affordable housing for current and future residents of the City. The element also promotes the maintenance and preservation of the existing housing stock. The Capital Facilities Element discusses the utility, urban, and recreational services provided by the City. This element contains policies related to utility development, public safety, and essential public facilities.
--
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 5
The Utilities Element addresses utilities not owned or operated by the City of Pasco. The emphasis of this element is coordination between all utility providers during the planning and construction process. The Transportation Element discusses all modes of transportation within Pasco. Along with providing policy guides, this element also addresses needs for current and future transportation improvements in the City. The Economic Development Element provides a framework for the promotion of city business recruitment efforts, expanding the tax base, and creating new employment opportunities for Pasco residents. The Implementation and Monitoring Element contains general and administrative goals related to the planning process and executing of the Comprehensive Plan.
Implementing the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the goals and policies it identifies to guide local decision making related to urban development. The GMA encourages innovative implementation methods that are both regulatory and non-regulatory. Regulatory actions may include the adoption of a revised zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance, while non-regulatory actions could include the adoption of a capital facilities plan. Implementation may also include monitoring, evaluation, and amending the plan as conditions change. The City develops this Plan based on the community input, in order to achieve a desired outcome for the City. However, market forces and many other factors can affect this outcome. Implementation is also contingent upon availability of funds. The City will work to reconcile issues, where possible, in order to stay on course. Some of the actions necessary to implement the Plan are discussed as follows:
Regulatory Measures The GMA requires the City to enact land development regulations that are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. These regulations include zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, critical area regulations, shoreline regulations, and others. The zoning regulations and zoning map must be consistent with the land use map and the policies established in the Plan. The land use map and land use policies of the Plan establish the use, density, and intensity of future development. The zoning regulations ensure development occurs as identified in the Plan. The City is obligated by ESHB 1714 (adopted by the 1995 Legislature) to clarify the development and permitting process through the establishment of specific time frames and processes. These processes are provided in Title 4, Permit Process of the Pasco Municipal Code.
Concurrency Management A concurrency management system is a regulatory process that establishes procedures to determine if public facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 6
proposed development. The process uses criteria adopted and implemented in the municipal code. Under the GMA, concurrency must be established for transportation facilities; however, jurisdictions may establish concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development.
Budget The City’s biennial budget document identifies priorities based on the goals and policies, and future growth indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. The funds allocated in the budget document are also tied with the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Six Year Capital Improvement Plan The CIP sets out the capital projects the City plans to undertake within the next six years to support implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The six-year schedule is updated annually, with the first year of the schedule acting as the capital budget for the current fiscal year. During the annual updating of the six-year schedule, cost estimates, and funding sources are updated and revised to reflect changed conditions or new information available to the City. The CIP and the twenty-year Capital Facility Plan should be revised to include additional projects that may be needed to maintain adopted levels of service.
Administrative Actions The Comprehensive Plan includes policies that should be carried out through administrative actions. These actions include development review, development permitting, preparation of reports, making information available to the public, and review for concurrency. Development review practices must be continually monitored to ensure administrative function are consistent with and support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Public Involvement As the Plan is tested by development, there will be a need to respond by amending the Plan. Additionally, as the community grows, the vision for the future may change and new needs may emerge. Continued public involvement and communication is necessary to keep the Plan current and in step with community goals for the future.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 7
In this chapter, you will find:
Growth Management Mandate
Plan Concept
Land Use Designations and Areas
Land Use Goals and Policies
Land Use Element
Introduction The Land Use Element anticipates and directs growth and development in the Pasco UGA for the next 20 years. It is the policy basis for ensuring that adequate land is available for growth and that development will be orderly and efficient. The Land Use Element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses and the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given development trends; provides policy guidance for residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses; addresses pre-existing non-conforming uses; and establishes land division policies for creating new lots. It also provides the basis for coordination with Franklin County in establishing and expanding the UGA.
Growth Management Mandate The Land Use Element is designed to comply with the following state GMA planning goals:
Encourage urban development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner
Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-
density development
•
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 8
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
having been made; the property rights of landowners shall be protected from
arbitrary and discriminatory actions
Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks
Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a
timely and fair manner to ensure predictability
Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have
historical or archeological significance
Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure
coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing
types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock
Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; and
encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within
the capacities of the state’s natural resources, public services, and public facilities
Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries including productive
timber, agricultural, and fishery industries. Encourage the conservation of
productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands and discourage
incompatible uses. The state goals, in turn, led to the CWPP in Appendix B that provides specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element.
Plan Concept The largest city in Franklin County, Pasco is part of the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area, a region that includes parts of two counties—Benton and Franklin— as well as Kennewick, Richland, and West Richland, with a total population of 300,000. More than 80% of county residents live in Pasco, and as of April 1, 2019, population was estimated at 75,290 (Washington State Office of Financial Management). In terms of net percentage growth, Pasco is one of the fastest growing cities in the state of Washington. The current land area of the City is 37.42 square miles. The Plan concept is based on a vision of how the City should grow and develop while protecting its quality of life and equitably sharing the public and private costs and benefits of growth. The plan concept supports a distribution of land uses providing for residential, commercial, and industrial developments along with infrastructure, public facilities, parks, open space, and other community features - in order to maintain and protect public health, safety, and welfare, while enhancing the community’s character, amenities, and environmental quality.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 9
Land Use Designations and Areas Pasco’s approach to managing growth is accomplished through the comprehensive plan land use designations that, in turn, provide the basis for zoning, capital facilities planning, and public investment. Land use designations indicate where new urban growth will be encouraged and where necessary infrastructure improvements will be required, over time, to support the new growth. The UGAs (see Map LU-1 in Appendix A) within and adjacent to the City provide for future land needs that can support growth with adequate urban-level public facilities concurrent with development. New development is encouraged to locate in UGAs where adequate public facilities and services can be provided in an efficient and economic manner. An adequate supply of land will ensure that immediate and future urban needs are met, as well as provide for an orderly and efficient transition from low intensity land use to urban land use over time. Land use policies are intended to protect critical areas; provide efficient and safe transportation networks; and maintain and improve the quality of air, water, and land resources; as well as preserve existing urban neighborhood character. Map LU-1 in the Appendix A depicts the generalized Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the City and the UGAs. The land use designations represent the adopted policies that support land demand through the year 2038. The following land use designations are used to allow for the necessary flexibility and specificity in applying land use regulations and development standards:
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Residential/Commercial
Mixed Use Interchange
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Regional
Office
Commercial
Industrial
Public and Quasi Public
Department of Natural Resources Reserve
Airport Reserve
Open Space
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 10
The zoning code (Pasco Municipal Code Title 25) includes more detailed information on the specific zoning districts that implement these land use designations. Tables LU-1 and LU-2 indicate the land areas for each of the land use designations. Figure 1 indicates the percentage of land under each land use category. In defining density, it is important to distinguish the difference between “gross” and “net”. Gross density means the total number of dwelling units divided by the total land area of the site or area, excluding nothing. Net density means the total number of dwelling units divided by the net area of the lot or site. The gross area excludes roads, public open spaces, community facilities, and critical areas.
Table LU-1. Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage
Land Use Designations City Limits (Acres) UGA(Acres) Total (Acres)
Residential Lands Low Density 7,625 1676 9,301 Medium Density 1,253 425 1,678 High Density 189 -- 189
Subtotal 9,066 2,101 11,167 Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 564 17 582 Commercial 2,050 34 2,085 Subtotal 2,614 52 2,666 Industrial Lands Industrial 7,768 1,669 9,438 Subtotal 7,768 1,669 9,438 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 838 88 925 Subtotal 838 88 925 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 950 61 1,012 Subtotal 950 61 1,012
Area Total 21,237 3,971 25,208 Notes: 1. The total contains 4,292 acres of Street Rights of Way 2. Source: City of Pasco GIS . Acreage figures are derived based on the best information and parcel data available in GIS. Accuracy may vary depending on source of information, changes in political boundaries or hydrological features, or the methodology used to map and calculate a particular land use. 3. These do not include the water area.
Table LU-2. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage
Land Use Designations City Limits
UGA
Total (Existing and
Proposed)
Residential Lands
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 11
Land Use Designations City Limits
UGA
Total (Existing and
Proposed) Low Density 7,124 3,478 10,603 Medium Density 1,591 628 2,219 Medium-High Density 61 163 224 High Density 171 122 294
Subtotal 8,947 4,392 13,339
Commercial Lands Mixed Residential / Commercial 422 12 435 Commercial 1,867 370 2,237 Mixed Use Interchange 26 -- 26 Mixed Use Neighborhood 21 57 77 Mixed Use Regional 148 -- 148 Office 104 -- 104
Subtotal 2,588 439 3,027
Industrial Lands Industrial 4,938 1,606 6,545
Subtotal 4,938 1,606 6,545 Public / Quasi-Public Lands Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 851 82 933
Subtotal 851 82 933 Open Space / Park Lands Open Space / Park 1,251 70 1,321
Subtotal 1,251 70 1,321 Airport Reserve Lands Airport Reserve 1,709 382 2,091
Subtotal 1,709 382 2,091
DNR Reserve Lands DNR Reserve 764 469 1233 Subtotal 764 469 1233
Confederated Tribes - Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes - Colville Reservation 188 188
Area Total 21,2361 7,359 1, 2 28,677 3 Notes: 1. Includes 3,448 acres of proposed UGA 2. Includes rights of way 3. Does not include water area
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 12
Figure LU-1. Future Land Use Distribution in the City and Urban Growth Areas
Goals and Policies LU-1. GOAL: TAKE DELIBERATE, CONSISTENT, AND CONTINUOUS ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY’S QUALITY OF LIFE LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design standards for major public investments, particularly streets. LU-1-B Policy: Enhance the physical appearance of development within the community through land use regulations, design guidelines, and performance and maintenance standards including landscaping, screening, building facades, color, signs, and parking lot design and appearance. LU-1-C Policy: Encourage conservation design with cluster commercial development and discourage strip commercial development. LU-1-D Policy: Land uses should be permitted subject to adopted standards designed to mitigate land use impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses, while preserving constitutionally protected forms of expression.
Offi ce ,0 .3 6~
M i xed Use Regi on al , 0 .S2~
M i xed Use Neigh bor h ood ,
0 .27 96
M i xed Use Inter ch ange , 0 .09
M ed i um4 High Den si ty, 0 .78
Gov't Public / Qu asi 4 Public
3 .2 S96
Industr i al , 22.82~
0NR Re serve , 4.3096
Low De n si ty, 36.97 ;..s
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 13
LU-2. GOAL: PLAN FOR A VARIETY OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN THE UGA LU-2-A Policy: Maintain sufficient land designated to accommodate residential, commercial, industrial, educational, public facility, and open-space uses proximate to appropriate transportation and utility infrastructure. LU-2-B Policy: Facilitate planned growth within the City limits and UGA, and promote infill developments in the City limits through periodic review of growth patterns and market demand within each of the City’s land use designations. LU-2-C Policy: Ensure that adequate public services are provided in a reasonable time frame for new developments. LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or transition zones between non-compatible land uses. LU-2-E Policy: Discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to Pasco (Tri-Cities) Airport and other essential public facilities. LU-2-F Policy: Discourage developments dependent on septic system, and at a density below the minimum, to sustain an urban level of services. LU-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS AND ENSURE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAFE AND ENJOYABLE PLACES TO LIVE LU-3-A Policy: Design major streets, schools, parks, and other public facilities that will encourage the individual identities of neighborhoods.
LU-3-B Policy: Support existing and design future recreational, educational, and cultural facilities and services through the Capital Facilities Plan; dedication of land through the concurrency management process; and coordination with service providers. LU-3-C Policy: Ensure all developments include appropriate landscaping and screening, as required by adopted regulations and guidelines. LU-3-D Policy: Encourage the use of irrigation (non-potable) water for landscape maintenance, and consistent with state and federal laws.
•
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 14
LU-4. GOAL: INCREASE COMMUNITY ACCESSIBILITY THROUGH PROPER LAND USE PLANNING LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel, and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential neighborhoods. LU-4-B Policy: Encourage infill and higher density uses within proximity to major travel corridors and public transportation service areas. LU-4-C Policy: Encourage the development of walkable communities by increasing mixed-use (commercial/residential) developments that provide households with neighborhood and commercial shopping opportunities. LU-4-D Policy: Designate areas for higher density residential developments where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. LU-4-E Policy: Encourage the orderly development of land by emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network. LU-4-F Policy: Support mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community. LU-5. GOAL: MAINTAIN A BROAD RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF LIFESTYLES AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES LU-5-A Policy: Allow a variety of residential densities throughout the UGA LU-5-B Policy: Encourage higher residential densities within and adjacent to major travel corridors, Downtown (Central Business District), and Broadmoor. LU-6 GOAL: ENCOURAGE DISTINCTIVE QUALITY COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE CITY’S OVERALL DEVELOPMENT GOALS LU-6-A Policy: Encourage commercial and higher-density residential uses along major
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 15
corridors and leverage infrastructure availability. LU-6-B Policy: Promote efficient and functional neighborhood level and major commercial centers to meet community demand. LU-6-C Policy: Ensure attractive hubs for activity by maintaining and applying design standards and guidelines that will enhance the built environment of each community. LU-6-D Policy: Regularly review and update the City's industrial zoning regulations to allow design flexibility and creativity, address emerging issues, and foster compatibility of development with the character of surrounding areas. LU-6-E Policy: Support the Growth Management Act's goal to encourage growth, including industrial growth in urban areas LU-7 GOAL: SAFEGUARD AND PROTECT SHORELANDS AND CRITICAL LANDS WITHIN THE URBAN AREA LU-7-A Policy: Maintain regulatory processes to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitats, and other critical lands within the urban growth area. LU-7-B Policy: Conform to the adopted goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program as part of this Comprehensive Plan. LU7-C Policy: Ensure the implementation of the requirements of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) LU-8. GOAL: ENHANCE THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS, SITES AND NEIGHBORHOODS LU-8-A Policy: Allow adaptive re-uses in historic structures. LU-8-B Policy: Increase public awareness and partnerships to increase historic heritage tourism with the Franklin County Museum. LU-8-C Policy: Monitor and update the Historic Preservation Plan as guided by the Historic Preservation Committee. LU-8-D Policy: Preserve significant historic structures and cultural resources that are unique to the City, and consistent with state and federal laws
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 16
In this chapter, you will find:
Growth Management Mandates
Housing Goals and Policies
Housing Element
Introduction Housing is one of the most important needs in our lives and communities.
It provides shelter and a link to the neighborhood and the larger community.
It is the single largest purchase made by most households.
As an industry, housing is a major partner in the economic life of the community, both as a consumer of goods and services and a producer of dwelling units, jobs, and income.
As a major economic activity, housing depends on local government. While taxes on housing are an important source of local government revenue, services to housing and to the inhabitants of this housing comprise a major portion of local government expenditures. By 2038, the population within the Pasco is expected to be 121,828. This will be a 48,238 increase over the 2018 population estimate by the Office of Financial Management. Approximately 15,217 new housing units of will be added to the inventory in the next 20 years to accommodate this population growth. This comprehensive plan is a roadmap for Pasco as it works toward providing housing opportunities for present and future generations. Every community has low- and moderate-income households. Since a community benefits from its residents, it has a responsibility to ensure they have a desirable place to live. The Land Use Element establishes policies for providing a variety of residential densities and related housing
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 17
opportunities within the confines of the GMA. This Housing Element includes a description of issues, resources, goals, and policies that address Pasco’s housing programs and strategies. Housing Element in Volume 2 provides demographic information and analyses used to support the policy framework.
Growth Management Mandates Addressing local housing needs involves a regional approach supported by all levels of government - federal, state, and local - and the private sector. Each jurisdiction has a responsibility for meeting its obligations in addressing affordable housing issues in the Tri-Cities. The greatest potential for promoting affordable housing is in the urban areas, given the intent of the GMA to direct population growth to these areas while protecting outlying open space and rural lands. The Franklin Countywide Planning Policies are the most appropriate tool for advancing a countywide or regional housing strategy supported by the County, cities and towns, and other public and private entities. The Housing Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goal:
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Goals and Policies H-1. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE CITY’S POPULATION CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL MARKET H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line, planned unit developments etc. H-1-B Policy: Higher intensity housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas. H-1-C Policy: Support the availability of special needs housing throughout the community. H-1-D Policy: Support or advance programs that encourage access to safe and affordable housing. H-2. GOAL: PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS H-2-A Policy: Use the Residential Rental Program as a method to ensure that all rental housing in the city comply with minimum housing code standards.
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 18
H-2-B Policy: Assist low-income households with needed housing improvements. H-2-C Policy: Support organizations and or programs involved in affordable housing development, repair and rehabilitation. H-3. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THAT ENSURES LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE H-3-A Policy: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed- use areas to provide character and variety in the community. H-3-B Policy: Maintain development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of residential housing to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. H-3-C Policy: Utilize design and landscaping standards to ensure all residential development exhibits a consistent level of access, quality, and appearance. H-4. GOAL: SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY H-4-A Policy: Collaborate with local, state and federal agencies, and private organizations to assist lower income residents rehabilitate and/or maintain their homes. H-4-B Policy: Work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income and affordable housing is available. H-4-C Policy: Increase housing supply and diversity through appropriate and flexible development standards.
•
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 19
In this chapter, you will find:
Growth Management Mandate
Economic Development Goals and Policies
Economic Development
Element
Introduction The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide and promote economic opportunities for all citizens of the City. The Economic Development Element combines multiple efforts put forth by local and regional agencies. The Element also acknowledges and supports the strategies and priorities placed by SOMOS Pasco3.
Growth Management Mandate The Economic Development Element is designed to comply with the following state GMA planning goals:
Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans; promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons; promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new
3SOMOS PASCO is a long-range visioning and action plan for Pasco’s economy that aligned with
economic opportunities and community-wide priorities.
•
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 20
businesses; recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities; and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
Goals and Policies ED-1. GOAL: MAINTAIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS AN IMPORTANT AND ONGOING CITY INITIATIVE ED-1-A Policy: Promote an environment which supports the development and expansion of business opportunities. ED-1-B Policy: Continue efforts to attract and recruit new employers to the community with promotional efforts in cooperation with other Tri-Cities partners. ED-1-C Policy: Support the promotion of Pasco’s urban area as a good business environment by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. ED-1-D Policy: promote tourism and recreational opportunities. ED-1-E Policy: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning, is vital to economic development and attracting businesses. ED-1-F Policy: Support and encourage residential/commercial mixed-use developments that provide neighborhood shopping and services and promote walkable neighborhoods. ED-2. GOAL: ASSURE APPROPRIATE LOCATION AND DESIGN OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ED-2-A Policy: Maintain a strong working relationship with the Port of Pasco and regional Economic development agencies to further economic opportunities. ED-2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses strategically located near major transportation corridors or facilities and in close proximity to existing or proposed utility infrastructure while supporting local and regional needs. ED-2-C Policy: Continue to pursue the development of existing industrially zoned properties that may be serviced by existing or planned utilities. ED-2-D Policy: Ensure that lands with large-scale agricultural uses are converted to an appropriate scale of urban agriculture or other related uses to fit community needs. ED-2-E Policy: Periodically assess the adequacy of the supply of vacant and re-developable lands in the City limits and the UGA, especially commercial and industrially zoned land.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 21
ED-2-F Policy: Encourage the assembly and redevelopment of key underdeveloped parcels through incentives and public/private partnerships. ED-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO ENSURE THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with residential and mixed-use neighborhoods with appropriate landscaping, screening, building and design standards, ED-3-B Policy: Ensure outdoor illumination and signage of businesses have a positive impact and are compatible with neighborhood standards. ED-3-C Policy: Provide appropriate access through a combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes and parking. ED-3-D Policy: Require businesses and buildings in and adjacent to the Central Business District to conform to established development standards, ED-4. GOAL: POSITION THE COMMUNITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPERITY ED-4-A Policy: Leverage the Tri-Cities Airport as an appealing gateway to attract visitors and new industry to the airport district and the greater Pasco region. ED-4-B Policy: Collaborate with public/private partners to create a masterplan vision of the waterfront, Broadmoor area, and other neighborhoods as necessary. ED-4-C Policy: Pursue the ongoing revitalization of Downtown Pasco including incentivizing development in the Central Business District, and following the Main Street approach 4
4 The Main Street Four-Point Approach® is a preservation-based economic development tool that enables
communities to revitalize downtown and neighborhood business districts by leveraging local assets - from
historic, cultural, and architectural resources to local enterprises and community pride. Four points include
Organization, Promotion, Design and Economic Vitality.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 22
In this chapter, you will find:
Growth Management Mandates
Capital Facilities Goals and Policies
Capital Facilities Element
Introduction This Chapter, along with the six-year Capital Improvement Plan, constitutes the Capital Facilities Element. The Pasco Comprehensive Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Irrigation, and six-year Transportation Plans are a technical extension of the Capital Facilities, Utilities and Transportation Elements, and are designed to support the City's current and future population and economy. The goals and policies guide and implement the provision of adequate public facilities as required by the GMA. This Element and the Capital Improvement Plan contain level-of-service (LOS) standards for transportation, sewer, and water, and policies directing concurrency. Following the provisions for City capital facilities, this Element includes goals and policies for essential public facilities. Planning for major capital facilities enables Pasco to:
Demonstrate facility needs through adopted level of service standards
Anticipate capital improvement needs and plan for their costs
Integrate community capital facility wants and needs into the annual budget process
Monitor growth and manage development
Qualify for revenue sources such as federal and state grants and loans, real estate excise taxes, and impact fees. This level of planning also enables the City to receive a better rating on bond issues
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 23
The City of Pasco is responsible for capital facilities and service levels related to:
Public Works - Operation and maintenance, transportation, water, sewer, surface water management, and solid waste disposal facilities
Justice - Public safety and court facilities
General Government - Administrative facilities
Community - Parks, recreation and community services facilities
Source Documents The source documents primarily used as functional comprehensive plans for infrastructure and the six-year CIPs are prepared routinely and updated annually as required for obtaining funding from the State. The individual CIPs define projects and proposed funding for those projects required, first to rehabilitate existing facilities, and second to provide LOS capacity to accommodate new growth. Generally, the proposed new capacity, replacement, and rehabilitation of capital facilities and financing for the next six years, reflect the general planning goals and policies, as well as land use infrastructure requirements, identified in Pasco’s longer-range planning documents. These documents include:
The Transportation Element and related regional and county transportation plans
The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and the Forestry Plan
Water, Sewer, Irrigation, and Stormwater Comprehensive Plans
Specific facility plans for infrastructure improvements and city-owned buildings Other source documents include, plans for schools and the irrigation district, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) Regional Transportation Plan, the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area Plan, and other service providers.
Growth Management Mandates The Capital Facilities Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goals:
Ensure that the public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards The state goals, in turn, led to the following CWPP that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element (note that only those policies or portions pertaining to infrastructure are included here).
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 24
Goals and Policies CF-1. GOAL: USE THE SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS AS THE SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 20-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CF-1-A Policy: Systematically guide capital improvements consistent with the vision and plan of the community. CF-1-B Policy: Encourage public participation in defining the need for, the proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as parks, ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and improvements. CF-2. GOAL: ENSURE CONCURRENCY OF UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ACTIONS WITHIN CAPITAL BUDGET CAPABILITIES CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly, progressive, and efficient manner. CB-2-B Policy: Deficiencies in existing public facilities should be addressed during the capital facilities budgeting process. CF-2-C Policy: Periodically review capital facilities needs and the associated fiscal impacts on the community in light of changing regional and local economic trends. The appropriate interval for such a review is ten years during the mandated GMA update cycle, except for the annual 6-Year Budget review. CF-2-D Policy: Reassess the Land Use Element whenever probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs to ensure that the Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements are consistent with each other. CF-3. GOAL: MAINTAIN ADEQUATE LANDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES CF-3-A Policy: Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or other mitigation measures to address impacts on traffic, parks, recreational facilities, schools, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. CF-4. GOAL: ACQUIRE ADEQUATE WATER RIGHTS FOR FUTURE NEEDS CF-4-A Policy: Ensure the acquisition of water rights commensurate with the City’s planned development and need for water in residential, commercial, industrial, and other urban uses.
•
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 25
CF-4-B Policy: Ensure that new developments, utilizing the City water, transfer to the City any existing water rights associated with the properties being developed. In absence of any existing water rights, developments should pay water rights acquisition fees to the City.
CF-5. GOAL: IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY, PROVIDE PARKS, GREENWAYS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE UGA. CF-5-A Policy: Implement the adopted parks and recreation plan as a part of this comprehensive plan CF-5-B Policy: Encourage use of existing natural features, open spaces, and appropriate excess right-of-way as an integral part of the community-wide park system CF-5-C Policy: Maintain a cooperative agreement with the Pasco school district regarding the development, use, and operation of neighborhood parks. CF-6. GOAL: FOSTER ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE UGA CF-6-A Policy: Work with the school district to coordinate facility plans with this comprehensive plan and encourage appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. CF-6-B Policy: Work with Columbia Basin College to coordinate campus development plans including access and traffic circulation needs. CF-7. GOAL: MAINTAIN, WITHIN THE CITY, A LEVEL OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE THAT IS EFFICIENT AND COST-EFFECTIVE. ENCOURAGE THAT SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE UGA CF-7-A Policy: Strive to provide a sufficient number of fire stations in appropriate locations throughout the community. CF-7-B Policy: Maintain a cooperative policy with the county fire district. CF-8. GOAL: LOCATE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES TO OPTIMIZE ACCESS AND EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE ECONOMIC BENEFIT/BURDENS THROUGHOUT THE REGION AND COUNTY CF-8-A Policy: Review all reasonable alternatives for the location of essential public facilities prior to granting necessary permits. CF-8-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered for each essential public facility including the cumulative impacts of multiple facilities.
•
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 26
CF-8-C Policy: Ensure essential public facilities contribute to necessary concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities. CF-8-D Policy: Adopt mitigating measures during the special permit review process to address potential land use compatibility issues with surrounding uses.
UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 27
In this chapter, you will find:
Growth Management Mandate
Utilities Goals and Policies
Utilities Element
Introduction The GMA requires the utility element to describe locations, capacities, and needs for utilities. The policies in this Element cover all public water, sanitary sewer, and storm water utilities, as well as private natural gas, telecommunications, electric, and solid waste utilities. The information relating to utility service providers contained in this Plan is a summary only. More detailed discussions of the topics covered in this chapter are found under separate cover in utility service provider capital functional plans.
Growth Management Mandate The Utilities Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goals:
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. The state goals, in turn, led to the following CWPP that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element (note that only those policies or portions pertaining to utilities and community facilities are included here).
UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 28
Goals and Policies UT-1. GOAL: PROVIDE ADEQUATE UTILITY SERVICES TO THE UGA TO ASSURE THAT THE ANTICIPATED 20-YEAR GROWTH IS ACCOMMODATED UT-1-A Policy: Ensure that public water and sewer services are available concurrently with development in the urban growth area. UT-1-B Policy: Prioritize investments in public water and sewer system improvements to support planned development within the urban growth area. UT-1-C Policy: Coordinate utility providers’ functional plans and the City’s land use and utility comprehensive plans to ensure long term service availability. UT-1-D Policy: Leverage irrigation water in new developments to ease the use of potable water for maintenance of landscaping. UT-2. GOAL: ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE PLACEMENT OF UTILITY FACILITIES IS ADDRESSED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS UT-2-A Policy: coordinate private utility providers’ plans for energy and communication utilities with city land use plans and development permit applications. UT-2-B Policy: locate and design utility substations consistent with adopted codes and standards to be compatible with the aesthetic standards of affected neighborhoods. UT-3. GOAL: ASSURE THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UT-3-A Policy: Require adequate provision of storm water facilities with all new land development. UT-3-B Policy: Include adequate storm water management facilities to serve new or existing streets.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 29
In this chapter, you will find:
Growth Management Mandate
Transportation Goals and Policies
Transportation Element
Introduction The GMA has very specific requirements for comprehensive plan transportation elements. To meet these Transportation Element requirements, the City of Pasco maintains within the Volume 2 Transportation Element an inventory of existing facilities, land use assumptions, travel forecasts, LOS standards, current and future transportation needs, and a transportation financial plan, in addition to other GMA required information. In this chapter, the transportation goals and policies are presented. Together with the information in Volume 2, the goals and policies provide the basis for transportation infrastructure decisions pursuant to the GMA. Since transportation infrastructure and services are also provided by the state, regional government, and cities and towns, the Transportation Element is intended to complement those other systems and networks. Three aspects of the Transportation Element have a direct bearing on transportation project programming and funding through the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. These are: 1) transportation policies; 2) existing and future transportation needs (based on LOS); and 3) the Transportation Financial Plan. The transportation policies are used to give general direction for transportation improvement investments. Along with the near-term prioritized improvement projects, the LOS- based transportation needs are used to select potential future projects. The transportation financial plan is used to produce a financially feasible six-year plan. Thus, the Transportation Element provides a framework for use in transportation investment decisions.
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 30
Growth Management Mandate The Transportation Element is designed to comply with the following State GMA planning goals:
Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with County and City Comprehensive Plans The state goals, in turn, led to the following CWPP that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element (note that only those policies or portions pertaining to infrastructure are included here):
Goals and Policies TR-1. GOAL: PROVIDE FOR AND MAINTAIN A SAFE, INTEGRATED AND EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT PROMOTES CONNECTIVITY TR-1-A Policy: Participate in the metropolitan and regional transportation planning efforts of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments. TR-1-B Policy: Require transportation and land use planning efforts and policy that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of this plan. TR-1-C Policy: Minimize traffic conflicts on the arterial street system by implementing access and corridor management best practices. TR-1-D Policy: Encourage multi-modal street design with traffic calming and safety in consideration of surrounding land uses. TR-1-E Policy: Provide increased neighborhood travel connections for public safety as well as providing for transportation disbursement. TR-1-F Policy: develop an interconnected network of streets, trails, and other public ways during the development process while preserving neighborhood identity. TR-1-G Policy: adopt and maintain a functional street classification system consistent with regional and state guidance. TR-1-H Policy: Maintain level-of-service “D” on all arterials and collectors and level-of- service “C” during the PM peak-hour. TR1-I Policy: Require developments to meet the standards of the Pasco Complete Street Ordinance. TR1-J Policy: Collaborate with appropriate agencies to conduct a review of the current street design standards.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 31
TR-2. GOAL: ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT, ALTERNATE, AND MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS TR-2-A Policy: Maintain the multi-model passenger terminal. TR-2-B Policy: Collaborate with Ben Franklin Transit in programming transit routes, transit stops, and supporting facilities that increase user accessibility during the development process. TR-2-C Policy: Encourage the use of public transportation including ridesharing, and Ben Franklin Transit’s Van Pool program. TR-2-D Policy: Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes. TR-2-E Policy: Encourage park-and-ride lots for bicycles and/or automobiles. TR-2-F Policy: Support rail services for passengers, industries, and commerce within the area. TR-2-G Policy: Collaborate with transit agencies on the design of arterial streets to improve transit access. TR-3 GOAL: IMPROVE OPERATING EFFICIENCY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TR-3-A Policy: Evaluate, plan, and install traffic control devices and intersection designs to improve travel safety and efficiency. TR-3-B Policy: ensure adequate maintenance of the existing facilities. TR-4 GOAL: BEAUTIFY THE MAJOR STREETS OF THE CITY TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate streetscape design into all major arterial and collector streets. TR-4-B Policy: Encourage retrofit projects that include beautification on major arterial streets. TR-5 GOAL: MAINTAIN A FREIGHT ROUTE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS TR-5-A Policy: Promote the safe and efficient movement of freight through the city. TR-5-A Policy: Support the development of facilities that are critical components of the movement of freight.
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 32
Implementation &
Monitoring Element
Introduction This Plan Element is intended to establish the procedural framework for linking the goals and policies of all the elements with supporting and related actions and initiatives. This Plan is implemented through various development regulations; coordination with regional plans and programs; and regular assessment of the performance of the Plan in guiding development to deliver the vision.
Growth Management Mandate The Implementation and Monitoring Element functions as a checklist or tool for the City to use as it assesses the effectiveness of the Plan to deliver the community vision. It is designed to comply with the state GMA goals and the CWPP:
Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.020. The Comprehensive Plans of Franklin County and each of its cities therein shall be prepared and adopted with the objective to facilitate economic prosperity by accommodating growth consistent with the following:
Permits: Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. [RCW 36.70A.020 (7)].
Goals and Policies IM-1. GOAL: ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY IN LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
.... ,
. ,. -<~~ -n .,. .. ',:,,-_ -• 1§1,lf u ~· -~ ~ ..
rv.w$1'~ ~ ~,.~ J -'1-· ~ --~~
.~,. z . ) • -· ~ -·~~ ---~. ~ ----•s...,.,N .
I• C 3·.;:;....,,, ·--.
l, , , ..... _ ,,.,, ,,,, -· BUIL,;;;"'c PERN1'1 .... " 111 "·-=,,.,,,, .. , .. ,._.,. . ._ '·•--
•
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 33
IM-1-A Policy: Maintain codes, standards, and guidelines, which are clear, concise, and objective. IM-1-B Policy: Strive for consistency and certainty through a predictable schedule of assessment and amendments on an annual basis, rather than sporadically. IM-1-C Policy: Create and enforce a common set of development standards for both the incorporated and unincorporated lands of the UGA, in cooperation with Franklin County. IM-1-D Policy: Maintain a general land use map that clearly designates various land uses and densities consistent with the goals and policies of this plan. IM-1-E Policy: Establish development project permit approval procedures that are well defined and consistent with regulatory criteria and standards. IM-1-F Policy: Ensure appropriate time lines for action on applications. IM-2. GOAL: ADVANCE THE CITY’S INFORMATION AND DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY IM-2-A Policy: Utilize innovative planning level data and analysis to determine progress of the Comprehensive Plan through annual updates, metrics and tracking. IM-2-B Policy: Analyze development patterns of the UGA and identify revisions, amendments, and changes to the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan based on new development patterns during plan updates. IM-2-C Policy: Conduct an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan and any of its supporting documents to assess the adequacy and serviceability of the developable land supply for residential, commercial and industrial users. IM-2-D Policy: Ensure that all plans and studies shall be consistent with the goals, policies, and proposals of this comprehensive plan. IM-2-E Policy: Lead and collaborate on efforts for database, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and other data related programming and projects with local, regional, and state agencies. IM-3 GOAL: ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING EFFORTS OF THE CITY IM-3-A Policy: Ensure the appropriate notification of plans, projects, and studies are provided to all impacted residents of the city. IM-3-B Policy: Encourage and facilitate expanded public participation by designing user-friendly processes and documents.
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 34
IM-3-C Policy: Consider the interests of the entire community and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan prior to making land use and planning decisions. IM-4-D Policy: Use a range of public forums and media outreach to collect, obtain, and facilitate public engagement. IM-4-E Policy: Provide equitable access to all city programming, services, and events, including accommodations for disabilities and community members with limited English-speaking ability. IM-4-F Policy: Ensure that all public engagement is culturally relevant and provides residents with an opportunity to engage and provide feedback to the city. IM-4-G: Collaborate with the Inclusivity, Diversity and Equity Commission. IM-4 GOAL: WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IM-4-A Policy: Coordinate with other governmental units in preparing development regulations. IM-4-B Policy: Work with BFCG’s Growth Management Committee to develop consistency among the various jurisdictions that are planning. IM-4-C Policy: Work with other state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation when developing regulations, which would impact those agencies. IM-4-D Policy: Work with the Office of Financial Management in siting essential public facilities of regional and statewide importance IM-4-E Policy: Participate with communities within the County in developing regulations that are consistent with each other and provide a smooth transition between rural areas and urban cities. IM-4-F Policy: In cooperation with Franklin County and other appropriate agencies, update the City/County interlocal agreements governing annexations and development in the City’s unincorporated UGA. These documents establish development rules for the orderly and compatible transition from rural to urban uses.
APPENDICES
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME I 35
Appendices A. Mapfolio B. Countywide Planning Policies C. Land Capacity Analysis D. Environment Impact Statement E. Public Participation Plan F. Shoreline Master Program G. Comprehensive Water System Plan H. Comprehensive Sewer Plan 2014 I. Capital Improvement Plan 2019 - 2020
Volume II
Supporting Analysis
Comprehensive Plan
2018 to 2038
City of Pasco, Washington
City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan
Volume II, Supporting Analysis
Re-adopted by Ordinance No. ___ ________
City Council
Mayor Saul Martinez (District 3)
Mayor Pro Tem, Blanche Barajas (District 1)
Councilmember Ruben Alvarado (District 2)
Councilmember Pete Serrano (District 4)
Councilmember Daved Mline (District 5)
Councilmember Craig Maloney (District 6)
Councilmember Zahra Roach (At-Large)
Planning Commission
Position 1: Chair Tanya Bowers
Position 2: Vice-Chair Joe Campos
Position 3: Commissioner Paul Mendez
Position 4: Commissioner Anne Jordan
Position 5: Commissioner Abel Campos
Position 6: Commissioner Isaac Myhrum
Position 7: Vacant
Position 8: Commissioner Pam Ransier
Position 9: Commissioner Jerry Cochran
City Staff
Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director
Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II
I
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Pasco’s Setting ................................................................................................................................... 1
What's in a Name ............................................................................................................................. 2
Pasco Then and Now ...................................................................................................................... 3
Demography ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Economy ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Land Use Element ............................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Land Use Designations ................................................................................................................... 6
Land Use Challenges and Opportunities ................................................................................ 9
Land Use Compatibility and Planning Areas ..................................................................... 13
Growth Trends and Population Projection ........................................................................ 17
Urban Growth Area Planning ................................................................................................... 20
Housing Element ............................................................................................................. 24
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Existing Housing Units Inventory and Analysis ............................................................... 24
Projected Needs Analysis ............................................................................................................ 32
Tri‐Cities Home Consortium ...................................................................................................... 32
Available Resources ...................................................................................................................... 34
Housing Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 36
Summary of Strategy .................................................................................................................... 37
Economic Development Element .............................................................................. 39
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Economic Profile ............................................................................................................................. 40
Challenges and Opportunities .................................................................................................. 45
Economic Development Priorities .......................................................................................... 49
Capital Facilities Element ............................................................................................. 53
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 53
Water System ................................................................................................................................... 57
Sanitary Sewers .............................................................................................................................. 63
Industrial Wastewater Treatment ......................................................................................... 67
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II
II
Stormwater ....................................................................................................................................... 68
Irrigation System ............................................................................................................................ 69
Schools ................................................................................................................................................. 70
Essential Public Facilities ........................................................................................................... 71
Siting .................................................................................................................................................... 72
Funding Sources for Capital Facilities .................................................................................. 74
Public Services Element ................................................................................................ 84
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Existing Services and Facilities ................................................................................................ 84
Level of Service ................................................................................................................................ 86
Projected Demand.......................................................................................................................... 87
Future Services ................................................................................................................................ 87
Adoption of Plans by Reference ............................................................................................... 88
Transportation Element ............................................................................................... 89
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 89
County‐Wide Planning Policies ................................................................................................ 89
Regional Coordination and Referenced Plans .................................................................. 90
Complete Streets Policy ............................................................................................................... 90
Transportation Demand Management ................................................................................ 91
Transportation and Land Use .................................................................................................. 91
Transportation and the Environment .................................................................................. 92
Transportation Inventory .......................................................................................................... 93
Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 105
Transportation Concurrency ................................................................................................. 106
Deficiencies and Improvements ............................................................................................ 107
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 120
Finance ............................................................................................................................................. 120
Future Street Classification System .................................................................................... 123
Non‐City Utilities Element .......................................................................................... 124
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 124
Utility Providers ........................................................................................................................... 124
General Relationship ................................................................................................................. 125
Electricity ........................................................................................................................................ 125
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II
III
Natural Gas .................................................................................................................................... 125
Telecommunications .................................................................................................................. 126
Solid Waste Collection ............................................................................................................... 127
Franklin County Irrigation District .................................................................................... 128
South Columbia Basin Irrigation District ........................................................................ 128
Parks and Open Space Element ................................................................................ 130
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 130
Parks and Recreation Plan ..................................................................................................... 130
Level of Service Factor .............................................................................................................. 131
Parks and Sports Fields ............................................................................................................ 132
Park Standards and Needs ...................................................................................................... 135
Future Plans ................................................................................................................................... 136
Parks and Recreation Plan: Adopted by Reference ..................................................... 137
Preservation of Open Space .................................................................................................... 137
Resource Lands Element ............................................................................................ 139
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 139
Resource Lands Defined ........................................................................................................... 139
Agricultural Lands ...................................................................................................................... 139
Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 139
Designation of Mineral Resource Lands ........................................................................... 140
Mineral Resource Protection ................................................................................................. 141
Extraction of Mineral Resources .......................................................................................... 141
Other Resource Lands ............................................................................................................... 142
Resource Lands Map .................................................................................................................. 142
Critical Areas/Shorelines Element ......................................................................... 143
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 143
Critical Areas ................................................................................................................................. 144
Critical Areas Map ...................................................................................................................... 150
Introduction ‐ Shorelines ......................................................................................................... 150
Growth Management and Shorelines ................................................................................ 150
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 152
Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 152
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II
IV
Implementation ............................................................................................................. 153
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 153
Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 153
Regulatory Measures ................................................................................................................. 153
Capital Improvements ............................................................................................................... 154
Administrative Actions ............................................................................................................. 154
Concurrency ................................................................................................................................... 155
Amendments .................................................................................................................................. 155
Specific Implementation Tools .............................................................................................. 156
List of Tables
Table Int‐1: Population by Sex and Age Groups ...................................................... 3
Table Int‐2: Race and Ethnicity ..................................................................................... 4
Table LU‐1: Land Use Designations and Criteria .................................................... 7
Table LU‐2: Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage .................................. 8
Table LU‐3. OFM Population Projection for Franklin County ......................... 18
Table LU‐4. Population Projection for Franklin County and Pasco .............. 19
Table LU‐5. Employment Projection for Franklin County and Pasco ........... 19
Table LU‐6. Land’s Capacity of Future Residential Development .................. 20
Table LU‐7. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage .................................. 21
Table H‐1. Existing Housing Inventory .................................................................... 25
Table H‐2. County Point‐in‐Time Count .................................................................. 34
Table ED‐1. Benton and Franklin County Population and Economic
Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 42
Table ED‐2. Top Tri‐Cities Area Major Employers .............................................. 42
Table ED‐3. Employment Projections ...................................................................... 45
Table ED‐4. Educational Attainment ‐ 2011 to 2015 ......................................... 47
Table CF‐1. Cost of Capital Improvements ............................................................. 56
Table CF‐2. Water Guideline LOS Standards ......................................................... 60
Table CF‐3. Water System Capital Improvement Projects ............................... 61
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II
V
Table CF‐3a. 20‐year Water Planning Level Capital Cost Summary ............. 62
Table CF‐4: Wastewater Guideline LOS Standards ............................................. 64
Table CF‐5: Six‐Year Sewer System Capital Improvement Projects .............. 65
Table CF 5a: 20‐Year Sewer Planning Level Capital Cost Summary ............. 66
Table CF‐6: Process Water Reuse Facility Capital Improvement Projects . 67
Table CF‐7: Storm Capital Improvement Projects ............................................... 69
Table CF‐8. Irrigation System Capital Improvement Projects ........................ 70
Table CF‐9. Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public
Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 72
Table T‐1. Sustainable Transportation Objectives ............................................. 93
Table T‐2. Functional Classification ......................................................................... 99
Table T‐3. Mileage and Street Classification ......................................................... 99
Table T‐4. State Route Mileage ................................................................................. 100
Table T‐5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Comparison ..................... 102
Table T‐6. Average Daily Truck Traffic ................................................................. 103
Table T‐7. Level of Service (LOS) ............................................................................. 105
Table T‐8. BFCG LOS Standards ................................................................................ 106
Table T‐9. City of Pasco LOS Standards ................................................................. 106
Table T‐10. Short Range Transportation Improvements ............................... 108
Table T‐11. Long Range Transportation Improvements ................................ 112
Table PO‐1. Park and Recreation Inventory ....................................................... 134
Table PO‐2. Summary of Park Land and Facilities Needs ............................... 135
Table PO‐3. Planned Parks and Facilities List .................................................... 136
Table CA‐1. Wetland Functions ................................................................................ 144
Table IMP‐1. Implementation Tools ...................................................................... 156
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II
VI
List of Figures
Figure LU‐1: Population Growth in Pasco in the Last 10 Years ...................... 18
Figure LU‐2. Proposed UGA ......................................................................................... 22
Figure ED‐1: Historical Unemployment in the Tri‐Cities .................................. 41
Figure ED‐2: Historical Two‐County (Benton & Franklin) Employment .... 41
Figure ED‐3: Employment Distribution .................................................................. 44
Figure ED‐4: Median Household Income ................................................................ 44
Figure CF‐1‐ Construction of Columbia Water Supply Intake ......................... 59
Figure T‐1: Transportation and Land Use .............................................................. 92
Figure T‐2: Destinations of Tri‐Cities Airport ...................................................... 94
Figure T‐3: Pasco Airport Statistics ‐ Total Enplanements .............................. 94
Figure T‐4 ‐ Total Boarding & Alighting at Pasco Intermodal Train Station
............................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure T‐5: Journey to Work (Public Transportation) ...................................... 97
Figure T‐6: BFT System Map ....................................................................................... 97
Figure T‐7: BFT Park & Ride Facilities .................................................................... 98
Figure T‐8: Federal & State Facilities ..................................................................... 100
Figure T‐9: WSDOT FGTS Map .................................................................................. 101
Figure T‐10: Journey to Work (Bike/Walk) ........................................................ 103
Figure PS‐1: Existing Stations and PFD Response ............................................... 84
Figure PS‐2: Proposed Reconfiguration of Stations 2020 ‐ 2021 .................. 88
Figure PO‐1: Parks Service Area Analysis ............................................................ 131
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 1
Introduction
Volume II of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan (Plan) includes general information about
Pasco. For various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, it includes current and
forecast data, needs assessments or analyses, and conclusions, and as appropriate,
references to other source materials. Goals and policies are available in Volume 1 of
the Comprehensive Plan. Implementation tools are identified at the end of this
document.
Pasco’s Setting
The City of Pasco is located at the confluence of the Columbia, Yakima, and Snake
Rivers. It is one of the three cities in the Tri-Cities metropolitan area consisting of
Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. Because of its location, Pasco is considered the
gateway to the agriculturally rich Columbia Basin. The proximity of Grand Coulee
Dam, the largest hydroelectric dam in the United States, has unlocked a wealth of
agricultural possibilities for the Pasco area.
Pasco is situated in Franklin County (Figure Int-1) which, because of large water
diversion projects completed in the 1950s, has become a major agricultural product
producer in the State. Potatoes, onions, corn, and other grains; and lentils, apples,
grapes, and other crops, spring from lands formerly used for dry land farming and
livestock grazing.
Figure Int‐1: City of Pasco in the Region
WEST
RICHLAND
BENTON COUNTY
CJ Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
FRANKLIN COUNTY
PASCO URBAN GROWTH AREA
WALLA WALLA COUNTY
KENNEWICK
i,l'N TON COUNTY
SMot eitl.~GIOH,c.toeye.amw,{;~C!lfSMtiu$:OsJI" MT'!':-:~ .....
•
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 2
Agriculture had an early start in Pasco by means of pumped water from the Columbia
and Snake Rivers - perhaps as early as the 1890s. The first major irrigation project
began operating around 1910. It was privately funded because Congress did not
approve a proposal to bring water to Pasco from the Palouse River. This private effort
was designed to serve the immediate Pasco area and required large pumps to lift
water out of the Snake River for a projected 15,000 acres. The pump house was built
out of concrete and is still readily visible from the south side of the Snake River.
What's in a Name
The name of the City is something of a curiosity because it has an apparent Spanish
sound to it in a region geographically well beyond the past influence of Spanish
Mexican control. Thanks to the July 31, 1914 issue of Pasco Express, examined by
members of the Franklin County Historical Society, the following was learned about
how Pasco got its name:
"MAN WHO NAMED PASCO VISITS CITY V.C.
Bogue, now an eminent engineer of New York
City, renews acquaintances in Pasco on
Monday. This was his first visit in nearly thirty
years. Mr. Bogue an engineer for the Northern
Pacific Railroad, located the route of the N.P.
through Stampede Pass in the Cascade
Mountains, and he also located and named
Pasco.
Just how he came to choose the name was
news to this reporter and may be to others of
our readers. Just prior to his engagement with
the N.P., Mr. Bogue had successfully
constructed a line of railway across the Andes
Mountains in South America. The highest point
on the railway was a mining town named
Cerro de Pasco. It was distinguished as a
windy, dusty place, and so on the first day he
spent in our city, and meeting with a good old‐
fashioned dust storm, he was reminded of this
place in the Andes and tagged the new town site “Pasco.”
The name “Pasco” took on official status in May of 1881 when the rail switch named
Pasco was cut-in for the Cascade branch of the Northern Pacific Railroad. The name
stuck to the community that existed primarily because of the major rail line that
passed through it.
f'LHOP 'fH& ToWtl
-qr'-
PA~C!Ol
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 3
Pasco Then and Now
The original town site of Pasco was created in April of 1886 with the recording of the
Pasco Town Plat. The original town site contained 8 blocks equally divided by the
Pacific Northern Rail yards. From that modest beginning, Pasco has grown to
encompass more than 33 square miles of land. The original town site that was home
to a handful of settlers has now multiplied to over 75,290 residents.
The community of Pasco required three elections before it could be incorporated.
These were: May 24, 1890 with 37 for and 18 against; May 4, 1891 with an
unsuccessful vote; and August 29, 1891 with 55 for and 20 against. The success of this
August 1891 vote seems to strengthen the old adage of "If at first you don't succeed,
try, try again," and Pasco officially became an incorporated town.
Demography
Pasco has experienced rapid growth in the last few decades, growing from 32,066
residents in 2000 to 73,590 residents in 2018 (OFM 20181), and 75,290 residents in
the year of 2019 (OFM 20192). The growth can be attributed to many factors including
increasing job opportunities, housing affordability, and the overall growth of the Tri-
Cities region.
About 34% of the total population in Pasco is under 18 years old, as shown in Table
Int-1. This leads to the City’s increasing demand for school and related facilities.
Table Int‐1: Population by Sex and Age Groups
Sex and Age Population % of Total
Female 34,296 48.60
Male 36,311 51.40
Under 18 years 23,891 33.80
18 years and over 46,716 66.20
20 to 64 years 39,059 55.40
65 years and over 5,566 7.88
Notes:
American Community Survey 2017 data; total population in this 2017 estimate is 70,607
Pasco has the highest concentration of Hispanic population (55%) among all other
cities in the Tri-Cities region (Table Int-2). Whites alone make up the second
predominant ethnicity in the City. This population diversity has greatly influenced the
City’s culture - it celebrates several ethnic festivals throughout the year and attracts
ethnically diverse businesses. The City created an Inclusivity Commission in 2018 -
later named the Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Commission - with a mission focused
1 OFM (State Office of Financial Management), 2018; April 1, 2018 population of cities, towns, and
counties
2 OFM 2019; April 1, 2019 population of cities, towns, and counties
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 4
on embracing “diversity and promoting equality among our workforce, residents,
businesses and visitors…” (Pasco 2018)3
Table Int‐2: Race and Ethnicity
Race Population % of Total
Hispanic or Latino 38,893 55.1
Non-Hispanic or Latino 31,714 44.9
White alone 27,274
Black or African American alone 1,285
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 212
Asian alone 1,666
Notes:
American Community Survey 2017 data; total population in this 2017 estimate is 70,607
Economy
Much of Pasco’s (and Franklin County's) economic future will continue to be tied to
transportation and agriculture. As the agricultural industry in and around Franklin
County matures, additional support facilities, which process and handle plants, will
continue to be needed.
Pasco's role as a regional service provider is also likely to expand in the future. Pasco is
home to the Tri-Cities Regional Airport, Columbia Basin College, the grain terminal, the
Burlington Northern classification yard, and the Port of Pasco (Port) shipping facilities.
As the region grows, those employment facilities will grow to meet the demand.
Correspondingly, the economic base of Pasco will expand.
The development of the Trade, Recreation, and Agricultural Center at the Road 68
Interchange continues to bring regional and statewide events to the City. Dust Devils
Stadium is home to the Tri-Cities Dust Devils minor league baseball team. The soccer,
softball and baseball fields complete this complex, which is used to attract regional and
statewide sporting events.
While Pasco is less dependent on the programs of the Hanford Reservation than the
other cities in the area, these programs nevertheless have a significant impact on
Pasco's economy. Historically, employment in the Hanford area peaked in 1994 with
approximately 19,000 employees. The Hanford related workforce today is
approximately 9,000 (Wojtanik 20194). An additional 4,600 are employed at the
Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
3 City of Pasco, 2018. Resolution # 3820
4 Wojtanik, Robin. “DOE looks to way to replace outgoing workers”. Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business;
May 2019.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 5
Land Use Element
RCW 36.70A.070 (1)
Introduction
The Land Use Element is one of the key components of the Comprehensive Plan. This
Element identifies the general distribution of land use designations in the City of Pasco.
The land use map shown in Appendix A identifies the general distribution of the
various land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, public, open space, and
reserve areas. The land use map is implemented through the application of Pasco’s
Zoning Code. The description and allocation of uses in Table LU-1 identifies the zoning
districts that correspond to the land uses designation.
The Land Use Element also establishes goals and policies that guide local
decision-making related to urban development within the City’s Urban Growth Area
(UGA). The UGA is a designated boundary for cities and counties where growth is
intended to be concentrated as a means of controlling sprawl. Goals and policies are
available in Volume 1 of the Plan. Land use policies are intended to protect critical
areas, provide efficient and safe transportation networks, maintain and improve the
quality of air, water, and land resources, and preserve existing urban neighborhood
character.
New development is encouraged to locate in UGAs where adequate public facilities and
services can be provided in an efficient and economical manner. An adequate supply
of land will ensure that immediate and future urban needs are met, as well as provide
for an orderly and efficient transition from low intensity land use to urban land use
over time.
Land use management is the major implementation tool for community development,
achieved primarily through the use of zoning and subdivision regulations. The Growth
Management Act (GMA) requires each jurisdiction to ensure that adequate land and
•
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 6
facilities are available to accommodate the projected population and anticipated
employment growth. For cities, this responsibility includes land capable of being
developed at urban densities and intensities. Further, the City and County must
cooperate in designating adequate unincorporated lands as the UGA available for
future expansion of the incorporated area through annexation. The Franklin County
Countywide Planning Policies are the framework for interlocal coordination of urban
growth and development.
There are three significant types of processes used by local governments to enact or
carry out regulations that implement the comprehensive plan goals and policies:
legislative, quasi-judicial, and ministerial actions. It is Pasco’s intent to provide
procedural stability and consistency for processing development applications by
having appropriate land use actions approved administratively, rather than by the
legislative or quasi-judicial processes.
The Pasco Zoning Code and development standards need to be as clear and as
objective in content as possible. The regulations for land development should be
framed with appropriate policy direction to support ministerial decisions for permit
approval with minimal delay.
Land Use Designations
Land use designations specify various uses within the City. The UGA (Appendix A)
within and adjacent to the City provide for future land needs that can support growth
with adequate urban-level public facilities concurrent with development.
The future land use map illustrates the generalized Comprehensive Plan land use
designations for the City and the UGA. The land use designations represent the
adopted policies that support land demand through 2038. The following land use
designations are used to allow for the necessary flexibility and specificity in applying
land use regulations and development standards:
Open Space / Parks
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Residential/Commercial
Mixed Use Interchange
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Regional
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 7
Office
Commercial
Industrial
Public and Quasi Public
Department of Natural Resources Reserve
Airport Reserve
Table LU‐1: Land Use Designations and Criteria
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
Single family residential development
at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per
acre
R-S-20; R-S-12;
R-S-1; R-1; R-1-A;
R-1-A2
Medium Density
Residential
Single-family dwellings, patio homes,
townhouses, apartments, and
condominiums at a density of 6 to 20
dwelling units per acre.
R-2 through R-4; RP
High Density
Residential
Multiple unit apartments or
condominiums at a density 21 units
per acre or more
R-4
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
Allow a combination of mixed-use
residential and commercial in the same
development.
Single-family dwellings, patio homes,
townhouses, apartments and
condominiums at a density of 5 to 29
dwelling units per acre.
Neighborhood shopping and specialty
centers, business parks, service and
office uses
R-1 through R-4;
C-1 and O; Waterfront
Commercial
Neighborhood, community and
regional shopping and specialty
centers, business parks, service and
office uses
O; BP; C-1; C-2; C-3; CR
Industrial
Manufacturing, food processing,
storage and wholesale distribution of
equipment and products, hazardous
material storage, and transportation
related facilities
I-1; I-2; I-3
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 8
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning *
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
Medium-High
Density Residential
Broadmoor Only; single-family
dwelling units, townhouses,
condominiums and multi-family; 8-15
dwelling units per acre
MHDR
Mixed Use
Interchange
Broadmoor Only; along I-182 corridor;
commuter services, technology and
resource business parks, office and
retail uses
MU-I
Mixed Use
Neighborhood
Broadmoor only; townhouses, multi-
family developments, neighborhood
grocers/markets and drug stores,
vertically integrated buildings, live-
work spaces and other neighborhood
scale offices and uses
MU-N
Mixed Use
Regional
Broadmoor only; general retail
operations and shops, grocery stores,
residential above commercial/office,
high-density residential, dining,
entertainment uses
MU-R
Office Broadmoor only; professional office
and personal services, resource centers O-1
Table LU-1 indicates the land areas for each of the land use designations. Table LU-2
indicates the land use distribution within the City and existing UGA. More detailed
information about specific zoning designations and the development standards used to
implement land use applications can be found in Title 25 (Zoning) of the Pasco
Municipal Code (PMC).
Table LU‐2: Existing Land Use Designations and Acreage
Land Use Designations City Limits (Acres)UGA(Acres) Total (Acres)
Residential Lands
Low Density 7,625 1676 9,301
Medium Density 1,253 425 1,678
High Density 189 -- 189
Subtotal 9,066 2,101 11,167
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 9
Commercial Lands
Mixed Residential /
Commercial
564 17 582
Commercial 2,050 34 2,085
Subtotal 2,614 52 2,666
Industrial Lands
Industrial 7,768 1,669 9,438
Subtotal 7,768 1,669 9,438
Public / Quasi‐Public Lands
Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 838 88 925
Subtotal 838 88 925
Open Space / Park Lands
Open Space / Park 950 61 1,012
Subtotal 950 61 1,012
Airport Reserve Lands
Area Total 21,237 3,971 25,208
Notes:
1. The total contains approximately 4000 acres of Street Rights of Way.
2. Source: City of Pasco GIS. Acreage figures are derived based on the best information and parcel
data available in GIS. Accuracy may vary depending on source of information, changes in
political boundaries or hydrological features, or the methodology used to map and calculate a
particular land use.
3. Does not include water area
Land Use Challenges and Opportunities
The City of Pasco and the UGA will continue to be faced with demands for change.
Between 2000 and 2016, 38,494 new residents made Pasco their home. This
population growth, which represented a 120% increase since 2000, has brought with
it challenges and opportunities. The challenges have been the greatest along the I-182
Corridor, particularly as it relates to transportation needs. The following is a brief
discussion on some of the land use issues.
Central Business District
The Central Business District was established to promote a centralized location of
businesses and services in and around Pasco’s downtown core. As with many other
downtowns across the country, the neighborhood experienced a decline in business
growth and an increase in vacancy from mid-1970 to mid-1990. The rapid growth of
Pasco towards the west, along with regional growth of the Tri-Cities, decentralized
many core downtown businesses districts.
The City of Pasco has emphasized business growth and retention in its downtown with
the creation of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA). The DPDA (a
certified Washington Main Street Program) is able to leverage several resources
including the Main Street Tax Credit Program that provides an incentive for
contributions to the downtown.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 10
Photo source: Tri‐City Herald
The Pasco City Council has identified downtown revitalization as one of the primary
Council Goals, and recent infrastructure improvements and planned projects have
attracted new business and excitement. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen, a partnership
between the City of Pasco and the DPDA, is a thriving incubator for entrepreneurs in
the food industry.
In 2015, the Washington Legislature passed the Connecting Washington funding
package, which provided a $16 billion transportation investment across the State.
Pasco received $15 million to assist with the construction of the Lewis Street Overpass.
Lewis Street is a major access way for Pasco’s residents, as it connects communities
from the east to Downtown and City Hall, and to services to the west. In coordination
with this effort, City staff has been working with the community to develop a
revitalization program centered on the Pasco Farmers Market and Peanuts Park. This
four-block area will undergo a transformation that includes improvements to the
market area, an emphasis on pedestrian-oriented streetscape, and enhancements to
nearby infrastructure. This project is expected to break ground in late 2020.
Residential Neighborhoods in the Central Core
Many of the City of Pasco’s neighborhoods were established well before the rapid
growth of the 2000s. These neighborhoods, primarily located south of HWY 12 and
east of US 395, are near schools, various retail businesses, and parks. The homes in
these neighborhoods also provide additional options for renters and homeowners
because of the availability of frequent public transportation services and proximity to
downtown.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 11
A few neighborhoods, dating prior to the 1940s, are showing signs of aging, and in
some cases, substandard repair and maintenance. Pasco's code enforcement program
has seen noteworthy success in reversing continued physical decline. In 2004, the City
prepared a neighborhood redevelopment strategies program to address the concerns
of growing neighborhood decline. Similar programs for additional neighborhoods
surrounding the downtown and in East Pasco began in 2007. The redevelopment
strategies are implemented through the provision of Community Development Block
Grant Programs (CDBG).
Non‐Conforming Residential Neighborhoods
There are residential areas that border incompatible land uses or are intermixed with
commercial or industrial uses. Typically, these neighborhoods are zoned for
commercial or industrial uses but contain significant numbers of residential dwellings.
The dwellings are considered non-conforming and the neighborhoods are slated to
transition to their intended commercial and industrial uses.
Pasco includes areas where transitions from residential to commercial land use were
anticipated but did not occur. Because transitions from the original residential use to
the intended use takes many years, these areas are prone to code enforcement
difficulties and homeowners have challenges in obtaining conventional home loans.
The primary non-conforming residential area is located south of A Street between the
BNSF rail lines that serve the Port. Originally developed with single-family homes, the
neighborhood has been transitioning to industrial use. Homes in the area have been
replaced with trucking firms, construction yards, auto repair facilities, and an
agricultural chemical production facility. It is anticipated this area will continue to
transition to commercial and industrial use during the 20-year planning horizon.
Availability of Industrial Lands
Ensuring that the supply of industrial lands can meet the projected needs and demand
for its use is a key factor for sustainable growth in Pasco. There are just under
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 12
6,000 acres of designated industrial lands within the current Pasco City Limits and the
UGA. This total includes all right of ways, infrastructure and utilities, when removing
those, a total of about 4,800 acres remains.
A Land Capacity Analysis was conducted that identified industrial land development
by parcel types. Parcels were categorized based on existing ownership, improvement
values and building footprints. The analysis concluded that there are 3,524 acres of
industrial land that were available for private development. Over 1,200 acres of
existing land are tax-exempt, meaning they are owned by state or local agencies
including the Franklin County Irrigation District, BNSF, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and the Port of Pasco.
A challenge for the City is the availability of these lands for industrial development.
The Port owns and operates over 660 acres of industrial parcels that can eventually
develop for industrial users. However, various owners including the BNSF Railway
Company (273 acres); Bonneville Power Administration (53 acres); Franklin County
Irrigation District (46 acres); USACE (27 acres); and the Franklin County PUD (15
acres), which will likely not see industrial development, thus leaving over 400 acres of
industrial land unavailable.
The industrial lands south of Highway 12 towards the eastern edge of the Pasco City
Limits along the Columbia River include over 800 acres of mostly undeveloped large
parcels. This site also includes the Heritage Industrial Park, which represents about
50% of that total areas industrial land. Currently, Highway 12 is accessible via the ‘A’
Street and Sacajawea Park Road intersection, both of which are at-grade intersections,
and Heritage Boulevard, which directs truck traffic to the raised Highway 12
interchange. Limited vehicle capacity and safety challenges at these intersections have
limited the prospects of this site.
As Pasco and the Tri-Cities region continues to grow, its economic base will need to as
well. Future planning must address the availability of industrial land.
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area
The unincorporated UGA encompasses land outside of the City limits but within the
UGA. This land is under the jurisdiction of Franklin County. In Pasco, the majority of
this land is between the Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) Canal and the
Columbia River. Historically identified as the Riverview area, these neighborhoods
have developed into rural and low-density subdivisions that lack adequate
infrastructure, including an organized transportation network.
The Riverview area contains hobby farms and small pastures intermingled with
pockets of residential development on large lots. Because this area was developed in
the County at very low densities, the neighborhoods are often served with inadequate
roads and utilities. In 2013, the City annexed 608 acres of Riverview and another 688
acres was annexed in 2015. This area is surrounded by the City lands and residents in
the County benefit from municipal services (parks, traffic signal maintenance,
emergency medical service on demand, etc.).
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 13
The existing development patterns in the Riverview and unincorporated UGA present
a challenge for future planning efforts. The delineation of odd shaped lots - many
without access to the public right-of-way, along with the construction of homes and
structures in locations that block access for future roads and streets connections,
result in the need for creative zoning codes and tools to further develop this area.
Annexation of Unincorporated Lands
Annexation of unincorporated properties can only occur if said properties are located
within the Pasco UGA. Properties outside the UGA are not eligible for annexation. As
Pasco is responsible for planning for all lands within the UGA, it is anticipated that
most of these unincorporated lands will be annexed to the City during the planning
period. Through annexation, the City can manage development more efficiently, locate
utilities properly, ensure better alignment of streets, and provide higher levels of
service to residents within the UGA.
Being able to manage the development of lands within the UGA is an important part of
implementing the Comprehensive Plan, and part of that implementation is achieved
through the annexation of unincorporated lands.
The Built Environment
The built environment is a term used to describe the human-made surroundings that
provide a setting for activities. The visual appearance of our community plays an
important role to the residents and businesses in Pasco. The built environment also
assists with potential economic development opportunities, as businesses look to
locate in the City. Results from past community surveys, and the recommendations of
citizen advisory committees, attest to this fact. Routine code enforcement,
development of tree lined arterials and collectors, gateway improvement projects,
enhanced commercial landscaping standards, the I-182 Overlay District, and the
Commercial Corridors Design Standards are all an outcome of community concern for
a visually appealing urban environment. The implementing regulations for this Plan
will continue to have specific design and performance standards to ensure
development will make an aesthetically pleasing contribution to the community.
Land Use Compatibility and Planning Areas
Pasco’s land use distribution is intended to place compatible land uses next to each
other. Due to the geographic pattern of the City along the Columbia River - running
east and west - Pasco’s land is also distributed east to west, with various land use
designations. Much of the City’s industrial land uses are located on the east side with
the airport area abutting it. Residential neighborhoods are mostly located west of
US 395. Commercial clusters are primarily located in the central core and along the
I-182 corridor.
Compatibility of various land uses is based on the intensity of land uses. Generally
speaking, industrial is the most intense land use due to the impacts of its operations
(noise, light, dust, etc.), the need of supporting facilities, and the overall impact on the
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 14
land. Natural areas are considered the least intense as there are no developments or
improvements on such areas. Therefore, a low density residential next to a heavy
industrial land use would be considered incompatible because of the potential impacts
industrial use may have on the residences. Appropriately designed buffers,
landscaping, and transition areas should be considered between incompatible land
uses.
Mixed uses are encouraged in certain areas in Pasco. Such uses are generally mutually
supportive of each other. Locating residences, offices, neighborhood shops, cafes, etc.
in the same building or same site promotes walkability and reduces the vehicle miles
traveled.
Tri-Cities Airport is a major land use within the City consisting of more than 2200
acres of land north of I-182. The City’s land use pattern aims to maintain compatible
land uses surrounding the airport. The objective of having compatible land use around
the airport is to ensure that aircraft noise and associated airport operations do not
pose safety concerns on the surrounding areas. Land uses such as residential, schools,
and churches and generally considered incompatible with airports. Among residential
land uses, higher density residential land uses are considered less compatible than low
density residential. Industrial and commercial uses are considered compatible uses.
Land use on the east side of the airport is industrial along Hwy 395. The south side of
the airport includes a mix of open space, commercial and institutional use (Columbia
Basin College). Open space and low density residential uses exist on the west side of
the airport. Areas north of the airport are mostly within Franklin County with
agricultural uses.
Land Use and Transportation
The relationship between land use and transportation is a key to Pasco’s future
growth. Land use policies must be coordinated with transportation investments and
programs. The balance of these two elements must be strategic to ensure that future
residents and businesses benefit from well-connected neighborhoods that allow
residents to travel via various modes - walking, bicycling, or public transit, rather than
solely relying on private automobiles.
Planning Areas
Historically, Pasco has utilized four planning areas for development: Industrial Lands,
Central Core, I-182 Corridor, and Riverview. The planning areas identified, while
appropriate in the past, will need revisions to incorporate modern growth patterns to
accommodate the City’s forecasted growth. The following section includes a brief
description of the planning areas, as they exist today and alternatives for the future.
Residential Commercial Industrial
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 15
Industrial Lands
Industrial lands make up over 23% (i.e., 6,544 acres) of all lands within City limits and
UGA, and are largely located in the northeastern and eastern portions of the UGA.
These lands are home to thousands of jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, and food
processing. The Port also operates its marine terminal on the Columbia River, along
with the operations for the Tri-Cities Airport (PSC). The City coordinates potential
development and industrial recruitment with the Port, TRIDEC (Tri-City Development
Council) and other stakeholders.
DNR Lands
DNR owns approximately 1200 acres within the City limits and UGA. DNR owned lands
are managed by various state legislations (RCW 79.11 State Land Sales, RCW 79.13
Land Leases, RCW 79.17 Land Transfers, RCW 79.19 Land Bank). The 1988 Transition
Lands Policy Plan (internal DNR working document) sets forth goals and policies
recognizing the importance of balancing present use with future growth. The 1998
Asset Stewardship Plan is another internal working document for DNR lands.
Transition lands owned and presently managed by DNR for natural resource
production, but have characteristics indicating an opportunity for more efficient
management or obtaining a higher economic return by the conversion of the land to
another use. Characteristics include, but are not limited to, proximity to urban-type
development, road and utility infrastructure, and market demand.
Urban lands are a subset of transition lands under DNR ownership that have been
further designated as “urban” by local land use plans by the authorization for
commercial, industrial or residential uses by local government; or where capital
improvements and services exist or are scheduled to be available.
Central Core
The Central Core planning area contains much of the City that was established prior to
the growth rush in the 1990s. This area, south of I-182 and east of Highway 395, is
home to many public services and amenities from the municipal pool and Pasco High
School, to Pasco City Hall and the Franklin County Courthouse. Downtown Pasco is also
within the boundary of this planning area and recent activities have led to increased
attention and investment (both public and private) to revitalize the downtown and
surrounding neighborhoods.
I‐182 Corridor
The I-182 Corridor has been home to some of the most rapid growth in the region.
While there are some areas of high-density multi-family housing, the majority of the
corridor is designated for single-family home construction with various retail and
business. Because over 52,000 vehicles per day travel on Road 68, improvements have
been identified to accommodate the projected needs of the local transportation system
in the future.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 16
Riverview
The Riverview planning area encompasses much of the land west of Highway 395 and
south of Interstate I-182. When the original GMA plan was adopted in 1995, much of
the Riverview area was an unincorporated urban area within Franklin County. Since
that time, over 3,396 acres has been incorporated into the City. Planning in the
Riverview area is complex because of its rural and low-density development patterns.
The combination of hobby farms, poor subdivision practices with disconnected
accesses, and the difficulty in providing sewer service to Riverview, creates practical
difficulties for encouraging higher density developments in the Riverview area -
especially in the County islands, although they are completely within the UGA.
Future Planning Areas
While the City will continue to reference the existing planning areas described, there is
a need to update them as the City continues to grow. Pasco will be home to over
120,000 residents within the next 20 years. In order to accommodate the additional
needs of the Pasco community, the City will need to implement creative growth
strategies within its land use and zoning codes. The areas and strategies identified
below provide a brief description of where the City is headed next.
Broadmoor
The Broadmoor area encompasses over 1,600 acres of land in northwest Pasco. Efforts
have been underway to maximize the development potential for this land that benefits
the community and the region. This will occur through specific design and
development standards that will lead towards offering a mix of housing, retail,
commercial, and open space uses that incorporate walkable and transit friendly
design.
Shoreline and Waterfront
Pasco has over 15 miles of shoreline along the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In 2015,
Pasco adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that provides specific regulations
on what is permitted within these areas. The City will continue to enforce the required
development standards in the future, as it preserves and protects the natural
environment, habitat, and public access to our shorelines.
The Port owns and operates land adjacent to the waterfront. The City and the Port will
continue to coordinate potential opportunities that benefit the community, including
the development of a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses.
Tri‐Cities Airport (PSC)
The PSC is owned operated by the Port. It is the largest airport in southeastern
Washington and served over 400,000 passengers in 2018. Recent efforts have been
underway to develop the property surrounding the airport, with amenities and
services to benefit users of the airport. The Tri-Cities Business Airport Center includes
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 17
86 acres available for commercial businesses. This Airport Center will be home to
various new businesses and a regional hotel by the end of 2019.
Infill and Redevelopment
One of the biggest opportunities for Pasco is through the implementation of infill and
redevelopment strategies. These strategies will allow either hard-to-develop parcels of
land or existing structures to be updated or developed through changes in the zoning
code. The areas most suited for this are along major travel corridors and in and around
the downtown. The existing infrastructure and the availability of public transportation
can enhance the surrounding neighborhoods adding to the vibrancy of the City. The
economic benefits are plentiful and help to meet the needs of the City as many look to
have a more walkable and urban environment in which to live and work.
Growth Trends and Population Projection
Historic Population Growth
The official U.S. 1990 Census population for the City of Pasco was just 20,337, a figure
that escalated considerably during the following years. Growth between 1990 and
2000 was reported at 11,729 - a 58% increase, but the most significant transformation
occurred after the turn of the century. From 2000 to 2010, 27,715 new residents
flocked to Pasco - a marked increase of 86%. Overall, Pasco’s population nearly tripled
between 1990 and 2010 from 20,337 to 59,781, based on annual estimates produced
by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). An additional 10,779 residents
were recorded thereafter from 2010 to 2016. It must be noted that a portion of the
growth mentioned above can be contributed to annexations of unincorporated land.
The average annual increase for the period of 2000 to 2016 was 4.7%. During the
same period, Kennewick and Richland had average annual population increases of
1.5% and 2% respectively. The 2018 population estimate by OFM for Pasco is
approximately 73,590 (see Figure LU-1). The 2019 OFM population estimate for Pasco
is 75,290.
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 18
Figure LU‐1: Population Growth in Pasco 2009 to 2018
Population Forecast
The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan projected high, medium, and low ranges of
population targets for the City of Pasco based on OFM GMA projections provided in
December 2017 and received by the City of Pasco on January 18, 2018. The City uses
2018 as the base year for 20-year population projection.
The 2018 OFM projections for Franklin County are contained in Table LU-3.
Table LU‐3. OFM Population Projection for Franklin County
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2038
Low 70,114 76,486 82,466 89,970 94,306
Medium 79,770 91,025 101,954 114,470 121,828
High 93,109 112,931 132,493 153,705 166,052
Notes:
1. Franklin County Population Projections (OFM 2018)
Over the years, the population of Pasco has represented 80% or more of the County
population, and as a result, the County has always assigned 80% of the OFM County
population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the
80% assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection. Within the
planning horizon, the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where the
County population reaches about 152,285. With 80% of that population assigned to
Pasco, the City’s population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038. This is an
increase of 48,238 over the current City population (see Table LU-3 and Table LU-4).
57,579 59,781 61,000 62,670 65,600 67,770 68,240 70,560 71,680 73,590
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 19
Table LU‐4. Population Projection for Franklin County and Pasco
Year Franklin County
Population
Pasco Population1
2018 93541 73,590
2028 121,792 97,434
2038 152,285 121,828
10-year increase 28,251 23,844
20-year increase 58,744 48,238
Additional residential units needed
in Pasco in 10 years
-- 7,522
2
Additional residential units needed
in Pasco in 20 years
-- 15,217
2
Notes:
1. OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80% of the County population.
2. Based on OFM - household size: 3.17
Employment Forecast
Similar to the population growth, Pasco’s employment is also estimated to grow at a
percentage of Franklin County’s employment growth. Pasco has historically made up
about 75.5% of total jobs in Franklin County (ESDWA, pers. commun. between the City
and ESD 20195). Based on this, Pasco will expect to increase 15,425 additional jobs in
2018 (Table LU-5).
Table LU‐5. Employment Projection for Franklin County and Pasco
Year Franklin County
Employment
Pasco
Employment
2018 34,927 26,370
2038 55,358 41,795
20-year increase 20,431 15,425
Notes:
Washington Employment and Security Department Future Land Capacity
In order to identify land necessary to meet the future demand, a land capacity analysis
was performed. The analysis used the City’s existing land use density and land
inventory.
The first part of this analysis is based on the capacity of existing vacant and under-
utilized residential land to add additional units. This doesn’t reflect the property
owners’ intention of development; neither does it require the property owners to
develop their properties.
In this methodology, all vacant and under-utilized residential lands were identified. In
order to estimate the amount of buildable land, 20% of the land was excluded for
market factor, 5% was excluded for environmentally sensitive lands, and 20% of the
5 ESDWA Staff (Employment Security Department, Washington State), 2019. Personal communication
between the City of Pasco and ESD staff in April 2019
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 20
buildable land area was allocated for infrastructure. The remaining acreage was
identified to be buildable, and units were projected according to the City’s existing land
use densities (Table LU-6).
As shown in Table LU-4, 48,238 persons will be added to the City during the next
20-year planning period. This will require 15,217 residential units, considering Pasco’s
household size of 3.17 persons per unit based on OFM (48,238/3.17).
Table LU‐6. Land’s Capacity of Future Residential Development
Developable Land Acres
Capacity for
additional
residential units
Additional
population
needed to be
accommodated
Within City limits 428.20 1490 4,723
Within existing UGA 199.70 1091 3459
Within Broadmoor 70001 22,190
Current capacity including
Broadmoor.
9,581 30,372
Notes:
1. Capacity anticipated in the Broadmoor area
Based on the land capacity analysis (Appendix C) and Table LU-6, at full buildout,
about 30,372 persons can be added in the existing City limits and the UGA. This leaves
the City with a gap in its existing land inventory to accommodate an additional 17,866
(48,238 additional persons added, see Table LU-4 — 30,372 current population
capacity, see Table LU-6 = 17,866) persons in a full buildout scenario.
Urban Growth Area Planning
The UGA will include the City and may include territory outside of the City if that
territory is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory already
characterized by urban growth (Revised code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.110).
Based on the countywide policies and monitoring of growth trends, as well as the
jurisdictions’ capacities to provide urban-level services and facilities, changes to the
UGA are ultimately adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Pasco’s UGA is
illustrated in Figure LU-2 - Proposed UGA.
In order to meet the gap of future land deficit, as discussed in the previous section, the
City proposes to expand its UGA to the north. The City proposes to add approximately
3,548 acres of Low, Medium and High Density Residential, Commercial, Airport, and
Industrial land. Approximately 2,400 acres of this land is residential, a portion of which
will be used for parks and public lands as development occurs. There are 685 acres of
land north of the existing City Limits—between Railroad Avenue and Highway 395—
that is zoned for industrial use by Franklin County and that has been included in the
UGA expansion. The addition of this land into the UGA would allow the property to be
served with adequate facilities and utilities that would enhance its industrial
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 21
development potential. Another 40-acre parcel to the northeast is included in the
expansion as industrial land use. This expansion will benefit the area with existing City
utilities and easy access to transportation.
Although the City currently has adequate land to meet the current commercial need, it
is anticipated that additional commercial land will be needed in areas where the
additional population will live in order to promote a planned walkable and sustainable
community. Table LU-7 indicates the proposed and existing UGA expansion areas and
land use categories.
Table LU‐7. Future Land Use Designations and Acreage
Land Use Designations City Limits
UGA
Total (Existing and
Proposed)
Residential Lands
Low Density 7,124 3,478 10,603
Medium Density 1,591 628 2,219
Medium-High Density 61 163 224
High Density 171 122 294
Subtotal 8,947 4,392 13,339
Commercial Lands
Mixed Residential /
Commercial 422 12 435
Commercial 1,867 370 2,237
Mixed Use Interchange 26 -- 26
Mixed Use Neighborhood 21 57 77
Mixed Use Regional 148 -- 148
Office 104 -- 104
Subtotal 2,588 439 3,027
Industrial Lands
Industrial 4,938 1,606 6,545
Subtotal 4,938 1,606 6,545
Public / Quasi‐Public Lands
Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 851 82 933
Subtotal 851 82 933
Open Space / Park Lands
Open Space / Park 1,251 70 1,321
Subtotal 1,251 70 1,321
Airport Reserve Lands
Airport Reserve 1,709 382 2,091
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 22
Subtotal 1,709 382 2,091
DNR Reserve Lands
DNR Reserve 764 469 1233
Subtotal 764 469 1233
Confederated Tribes ‐ Colville Reservation
Confederated Tribes -
Colville Reservation 188 188
Area Total 21,236 7,359 1,2 28,677 3
Notes:
1. Includes 3,448 acres of proposed UGA
2. Includes rights of way
3. Does not include water area
Figure LU‐2. Proposed UGA
Appendix C (Land Capacity Analysis) for UGA expansion of this Comprehensive Plan
provides a detailed analysis of the urban growth boundary (UGB) needs for Pasco over
the next 20 years. The UGA expansion area includes approximately 3,448 acres of land
to the north and northeast edges of the City. This includes an area north of Pasco City
limits to Clark Road and Dent Road between Broadmoor Boulevard (Rd 100), and
(generally) the Clark addition to the east. West of Broadmoor Boulevard, the boundary
will extend to the north, near Fanning Road. East of the BNSF main line, the UGA
boundary will include part of an industrial LAMIRD (limited areas of more intense
rural development) between highway 395 and the BNSF rail lines.
•
LAND USE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 23
Future Land Use
The future land use map (Map LU-1) resulted from the public planning process and
illustrates the community’s vision for the planning period. An Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was prepared concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan to identify
impacts and mitigations (Appendix D).
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 24
Housing Element
RCW 36.70A.070 (2)
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the existing housing supply and needs along with projected
housing demand for the future. Housing is a mandatory element of the GMA, and its
purpose is to ensure the vitality and character of established neighborhoods per RCW
36.70A.070 (2). According to the GMA planning goals, the Comprehensive Plan should
encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. This Element analyzes existing
housing and projected housing demand in Pasco.
Although various market factors have an impact on the private industry to provide
affordable housing, many local government actions, including land use policies,
development standards, and infrastructure and finance, can influence the local housing
market. The strategies identified here should be monitored and adjusted as needed.
This will ensure that the goals and policies within this chapter are adapting to the
needs of the community and thus maintaining the quality of life for residents of Pasco.
Existing Housing Units Inventory and Analysis
Inventory
As of April 2017, there were 21,653 housing units in Pasco. That is an increase of 22%
from 2010, and over 110% since 2000. Housing units by type are indicated in Table H-
1 and Figure H-1. The data results are from the 2000 Decennial Census and the 2010
and 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates.
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 25
Table H‐1. Existing Housing Inventory
Building Type 2000* 2010** 2017***
1, detached 5,557 11,761 15,411
1, attached 258 442 501
2 488 308 406
3 or 4 850 839 1,157
5 to 9 495 750 801
10 to 19 356 936 717
20 or more 953 1,174 883
Mobile home 1,344 1,429 1,707
Boat, RV, van, etc. 33 38 70
TOTAL 10,334 17,677 21,653
Notes:
1. Data source: 2017 Census ACS
Figure H‐1. Housing Inventory Growth 2000 ‐ 2017
Note: Building Types from Table H‐1 aggregated to simplify growth trend
The data from the housing unit type inventory show the dramatic differences in
existing supply and growth type. Table H-1 breaks down the type of each unit totals
from 2000 through 2017 while Figure H-1 illustrates the percent of each unit type of
the total growth amount.
According to Table H-1, the greatest total unit increase from 2010 through 2017 was
that of single-family dwelling units (SFDUs), which increased by 3,709 (30%). SFDUs
are followed by multifamily at 18%, and manufactured mobile homes at just under 8%.
SFDUs have not only remained a dominant factor, but they have increased the
percentage of their construction as a total. In 2000, SFDU represented 56% of dwelling
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
SFDU MF Mobile Home
2000 2010 2017
--
■ ■ ■
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 26
units, which increased to 69% in 2010. Of the 3,976 housing units constructed since
2010, more than 73% were single-family.
Manufactured housing has seen the smallest increase overall (32 units), most likely
due to two factors limiting its growth. First, existing mobile home parks are at full
capacity - any new units are typically replacements for aging ones - resulting in no net
increase for park-based mobile homes. Second, contractors have found that stick-build
homes pencil out at nearly the same cost as manufactured homes with more consumer
appeal and without perceived concerns about construction quality.
Residential Ownership
Home ownership and rentals data helps to understand more about how the
community members are living. It provides information that can determine if enough
housing is available. When compared to household income, it can help the City
understand whether housing is affordable for the residents. Figure H-2 shows the
changes from 2010 through 2017 on home ownership and rentals for the City.
Figure H‐2. Owner Occupied vs Renter Occupied
At the 2010 Census, 64.3% of the units (10,456) were owner-occupied and 35.7%
renter-occupied (5,809). Total vacant housing units have decreased by almost 50%
from 2010 to 2017. American Community Survey estimates in 2017 indicated that
3.6% of total housing units were vacant compared to 8% in 2010. This trend is
reflected in both the State of Washington and the United States. However, the 2017
ACS data indicates a higher home ownership rate at 70.2% (29.8% renter-occupied).
The median home value of all owner-occupied units was $176,800 based on the 2017
ACS data. However, based on the City’s permit data, the average construction value of
newly permitted single-family homes was $246,000 in 2014, and $257,000 in 2015.
64.3
35.7
70.2
29.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2010 2017■ ■
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 27
The median home price based on market listing in 2018 is even higher at $305,400
(Zillow 20186).
Age of Units
Understanding when housing units were constructed is helpful in determining the
trends that have led up to our current inventory and helps with the identification of
future needs. Figure H-3 displays (by decade) the number of housing units built in
Pasco.
Since the year 2000, Pasco has grown exponentially. For example, leading up to the
year 2000, there were estimated 12,100 housing units built. Using data from the 2017
ACS 5-Year Estimates Census, out of all the total housing units in Pasco, almost 45%
have been built after 2000.
Almost 40% of all housing units in Pasco were built before 1980. For the area south of
I-182 and west of the BNSF mainline, most housing is pre-1980 stock. The majority of
housing north of I-182 was constructed after 1995, and the balance of the City is a mix.
Figure H‐3. Housing Units – Year Built
Note:
2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Table DP04
Figure H-4 shows the locations of housing units built by decade.
6 Zillow (Zillow Group, Inc.), 2018. Pasco Home Prices and Values. Data through January 31, 2020.
Available at: https://www.zillow.com/pasco-wa/home-values/
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 ■
1939 or
earlier
•
1940to
1949
Year Structure Built
I I I ■ I I
1950to 1960to 1970to 1980to 1990to 2000to 2010+
1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009
■ 2017
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 28
Figure H‐4. Locations of Housing Units Built – by Decade
Affordability
The United States Department of Urban and Housing Development (HUD) defines
housing affordability by measuring the allocation of household income on housing
related expenses. This moving target is relative not only to income but also to
geographic location. According to HUD, families who pay more than 30% of their
income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording
necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.
Figure H-5 shows the change in gross median rent for Pasco from 2010 to 2017. The
median rent jumped from $688 in 2010 to $851 in 2017— an increase of 23.6%.
The median home value for occupied housing units in Pasco was $176,800 in 2017.
That is a 23.5% increase, which is almost $34,000 more than the median value in 2010.
Figure H-6 shows median home value of occupied units per year.
4
. ,
Residential Units B y Decade
-Parcels<1950
Parcels 1950 -1959
Parcels 1960-1969
Parcels1970 -1979
Parcels1980-1989
-Parcels1990 -1999
-Parcels 2000 -2009
-Parcels>2010
=:\i~~~ir~ · -·
:•,.t~
Source Esr1 Dg1talGk>be GeoEyE> Eanhstar Gec!!l aph1cs, CNES AJrbu DS USOA. USGS AAroGR ID
IGN and the GIS User Communflv
•
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 29
Figure H‐5. Median Rent
Note:
American Community Survey 2010 – 2017
Figure H‐6 – Median Home Value (Occupied Units)
Note:
American Community Survey 2010 – 2017
As mentioned, the affordability of housing is based on various moving factors including
location, income, and the supply. Another measure to identify is households that are
cost burdened. Cost-burdened households have historically been defined as
households where families pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Severely
688 698 712 749 782 820 831 851
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
143,100 146,800 151,700 156,800 159,900 163,300 166,400
176,800
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 30
cost-burdened is defined as households paying more than 50% of one’s income on
housing.
Figures H-7 displays the percentage of households (renters) in Pasco compared with
the state of Washington experiencing cost-burdened and severe cost-burdened
scenarios. This data is from the ACS 5-year Estimates from 2010 to 2016. By
identifying households experiencing some level of cost-burdens, the City can
determine the possible constraints for affordable housing and select methods for
increasing supply.
Figure H‐7 – Cost‐Burdened Households (Renters)
Figure H-7 identifies those paying 30% and 50% or more of their household income on
housing for renters. In 2010, just under 16% of renters were cost-burdened, while
almost 8% were severely cost-burdened. In 2012, Pasco had a higher percentage of
cost-burdened (17.5%) and severely cost-burdened (9.4%) renter households. The
latest estimates from 2016 show that Pasco has experienced a slight reduction in both
levels of cost-burdened renter households with the statewide results showing a slight
increase.
The same measures for owner-occupied households (Figure H-8), shows a decrease in
owner households paying more than 30% of their income on housing, and a slightly
smaller decrease for those paying more than 50%. In Pasco, there was a decrease of
4%, and statewide, a decrease of almost 5% for households paying more than 30%.
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PSC ‐ Cost‐Burdened PSC ‐Severe Cost‐Burdened
WA ‐ Cost‐Burdened WA ‐ Severe Cost‐Burdened
: : : I I I I
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 31
Figure H‐8. Cost‐Burdened Households (Owners)
Comparing the results of cost-burdened households, it can be identified that there has
been more of a relief on owner-occupied households while renters are paying more of
their income on housing. Overall, as shown in Figure H-9, there has been a decrease in
Pasco and statewide on the total amount of households identified as cost-burdened.
Figure H‐9. Cost‐Burdened Households (All)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%20.00%25.00%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PSC ‐ Cost‐Burdened PSC ‐ Severe Cost‐Burdened
WA ‐ Cost‐Burdened WA ‐ Severe Cost‐Burdened
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2010 2016
PSC ‐ Cost Burdened WA ‐ Cost‐Burdened+ + ■ + + ■
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 32
Projected Needs Analysis
As discussed in the Land Use Element, Pasco’s population is expected to grow from
73,590 in 2018 to 121,828 by 2038, adding 48,238 persons in the City and UGA by
2038. Using the current OFM household size of 3.17, about 15,217 new housing units
will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. Assuming household
sizes remain similar, that would mean over 760 housing units would need to be built
each year for the next 20 years.
The City anticipates a 2028 population of around 97,434, or 23,844 new Pasco
residents and 7,522 additional units over the next 10 years.
Based on past trends, the City expects to see 2,447 new multi-family units built by
2038. The single-family stock will need to increase by 12,776 units during the same
period.
Housing units which may be rented or purchased by households earning at or below
local median income will also be required. This will include a combination of SFDUs
condominiums and townhomes in the lower price range, along with affordable rental
units.
Of the three components of population change—birth, death, and migration—
migration is the wildcard. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is still a major employer in
the region, although it has experienced slower growth. The plateauing job growth at
Hanford has been offset by additional job creation in the sciences and health sectors
that are recipients of federal spending. Changes in spending can shift the population by
thousands in a year. As such, local residential contractors rarely build units on
speculation, choosing instead to build a single model home and writing up a contract
before construction begins. Pasco has also worked to establish a more stable
agricultural economic base by attracting major food processors in the area, promoting
value-added production in existing ones, and diversifying its recruitment efforts for
new employers.
Tri‐Cities Home Consortium
The Tri-Cities Home Consortium is a collaborative program developed with the cities
of Kennewick and Richland. Each city receives an annual entitlement of CDBG funds for
housing and community development activities within their jurisdiction. The program
began in 1995 and its objectives include expanding economic activities, creating a
sustainable living environment, and providing safe and affordable housing.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awards annual
entitlement grants after the City has submitted an acceptable and HUD-approved
Consolidated Plan. The 5-year Plan is supplemented each program year with an annual
action plan to allocate funds. The City then submits a Consolidated Annual Plan
Evaluation Report (CAPER) to detail its accomplishments. Pasco’s CAPER was
prepared in 2017 and updated in 2018.
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 33
In 2014, Pasco adopted the 2015 to 2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan, developed in
cooperation with the cities of Kennewick and Richland. This 5-year Plan is required by
HUD in order for a jurisdiction to be eligible for Community Development Block Grants
and HOME grants. The plan serves as a planning document for the City, is an
application for funds from HUD, sets local priorities, and prescribes a strategy for
meeting local needs with HUD programs. An updated Plan will be adopted in 2020.
The CDBG and HOME funds help provide decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing
for moderate-, low-, and very low- income families. HOME focuses on increasing
affordable housing opportunities for moderate-, low-, and very low- income families
with eligible activities such as Down Payment Assistance, infill housing, and
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) new construction.
Assisted Housing Inventory
The Housing Authority of Pasco and Franklin County owns and operates 280 rental
units of various sizes, for qualified low-income families. In addition, they manage 8
complexes of public housing including 165 units designated for the elderly and
disabled and 115 units of public multi-family housing. A listing of facilities operated by
the Housing Authority can be found in the Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan.
The Housing Authority of Pasco and Franklin County uses only federal preference
guidelines and has not established local preferences when determining occupant
eligibility. The Housing Authority can assist approximately 320 families with HUD’s
Section 8 Rental Assistance program. Families qualify for this program if they are low-
income earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income [AMI] for the area.
Generally, demand for assisted housing far exceeds availability. Waiting lists are
opened annually and in many cases, wait times can extend to several years. Public
housing stock is generally in good overall condition. Improvements are made regularly
using Housing Authority funds and a variety of HUD Public Housing Grant Programs
for modernization, safety and security measures, rehabilitation, and other operating
issues. Units range from scattered site single-family homes to multi-family apartment
complexes.
The Housing Authority of Pasco and Franklin County actively markets their assistance
programs to private landlords and property management firms. The Housing
Authority serves all of Franklin County in addition to the City of Pasco.
Inventory of Facilities and Services for the Homeless
The Benton Franklin Community Action Committee, Salvation Army, and Domestic
Violence Services all provide hotel/motel vouchers to persons with short term or
emergency needs. Also 231 year-round shelter beds, 301 transitional housing beds,
and 45 supportive housing beds for disabled homeless are available through various
providers in the Tri-Cities area.
Additionally, the Benton-Franklin Department of Human Services serves as the lead
agency for the disbursement of homeless assistance funds collected by
Benton-Franklin County through recording fees.
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 34
Homeless Families
Information on the needs of homeless families in Pasco (other than special needs
population) comes mainly from the number of requests for assistance received by the
Continuum of Care Housing Network. The Homeless Housing and Assistance Act of
2005 established a statewide framework to reduce homelessness in developing
housing and assistance programs to meet community needs. The act also requires that
each county in the state of Washington conducts an annual point-in-time (PIT) count of
sheltered and unsheltered persons. The most recent results of the PIT count are
presented in Table H-2.
Table H‐2. County Point‐in‐Time Count
Year 2006 2010 2015 2018
Benton - Franklin County 751 433 272 163
Note:
2006, 2010, 2015, 2018 Point-in-Time Count (Washington State Department of Commerce)
The Pasco Housing Authority typically has approximately ten homeless families on the
Section 8 waiting list.
In addition to the Pasco Housing Authority, temporary shelter is provided by the
Salvation Army Shelter and Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission, both located in Pasco. The
vast majority of the homeless served are transitional. These people are passing
through the area or waiting for permanent housing through other programs. Although
these shelters are constantly full, the program directors state that there is always room
for those in need.
Needs Assessment
Homeless and at-risk populations in Pasco have access to a variety of agencies located
throughout the bi-county area that provide specialized facilities and other services.
While reliable statistical data is not available for the homeless and special needs
populations, the 2015 to 2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan reveals gaps in homeless
facilities and services within the larger Tri-Cities community. The Consolidated Plan
includes an expanded needs assessment for special needs populations and discusses
available resources and strategies to address those needs.
Available Resources
The Benton-Franklin Department of Human Services publishes a Community Resource
Guide that provides information on local resources, to assist in meeting housing needs.
Although resources can fluctuate from year to year, the following is a list of programs
and organizations available during preparation of this Plan.
Programs
Benton‐Franklin Department of Human Services Housing Resource Center
(HRC) – A first stop for those experiencing homelessness or are residing in emergency
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 35
shelters; provides screenings to determine eligibility for various housing programs in
the community.
Community Action Connections – Provides day shelter relief for families and many
other services.
Elijah Family Homes – Provides transitional housing and support services programs
for families in substance use recovery.
Habitat for Humanity – Housing organization that works in partnership with low-
income residents to build and own decent affordable housing.
Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County – Provides housing
and housing assistance to more than 600 families, and housing subsidies for 280 units
owned by the authority.
Sea Mar’s La Posada – Affordable housing for migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds – May be used for a variety of
community development needs which benefit persons at 80% or less of median
income.
Washington State Housing Finance Commission – Provided to establish
below-market, long-term fixed mortgage rates for first-time homebuyers.
Section 8 – Provides funds for rent subsidy for renter households who pay more than
30% of their income for housing and who earn less than 50% of median income.
Section 811 - Provides funds for construction of handicap accessible dwelling units.
Franklin County Public Utility District (PUD) – Operates an energy efficiency
upgrade program including weatherization and various rebate programs. These
programs can be used to assist the city’s rehabilitation program project for those
homes that are electrically heated.
Benton‐Franklin Community Action Committee (CAC) – Funding varies from year
to year. 95% of the funds will benefit owners and renters of single-family homes. Most
of the funds will be used for air infiltration sealing and insulation. Most roof repair and
electrical upgrading is available with limited migrant seasonal farm worker funds.
Organizations
Franklin County Senior Information and Assistance – Provides information and
referral on housing unit accessibility, health or personal care needs, and other housing
factors for the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Benton‐Franklin Housing Continuum of Care – Promotes affordable housing
programs, identifies needs, conducts information and education campaigns, and
develops community partnership.
Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health – RoundTable composed of
multiple health sectors around the state with a common interest in improving health
and health equity.
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 36
Salvation Army – Transitional living facility, rent and eviction notice assistance, and
short-term shelter.
Saint Vincent de Paul Society – Provides utility cut-off and eviction assistance.
Tri‐Cities Union Gospel Mission – Shelter for homeless men, women, and families
with children.
Benton‐Franklin Community Action Committee Homeless Prevention
Program – Shelter for very low-income homeless families with special needs.
HOPE Home – Housing for homeless pregnant and parenting teens.
Housing Strategy
With escalating construction costs, the ability of the community to provide affordable,
safe housing for future residents becomes a concern. To address the need for
affordable housing, the City will continue to evaluate and take the following steps:
Management of Land Use
Allow manufactured housing on platted lots
Allow a variety of smaller lot sizes for detached housing in the City
Increase the locations of multi-family housing development in the City,
particularly near the centers of activity (commercial, retail, and employment
center) accessible by transit
Provide density bonuses/increases for specific added amenities
Allow planned density/unit developments and subdivisions with varying lots
sizes to provide additional flexibility for residential development
Allow accessory dwelling units (“granny flats”) in single family homes
Allow residential units above the ground floor of commercial retail and office
buildings outright, with certain conditions
Increase height limits on higher density residential zoning districts
Utilize innovative methods for infill (i.e., shared street frontages)
Consider municipal code amendments (Subdivision Regulations, Zoning, and
Streets) to allow for parcels of land to be developed more efficiently
(i.e., parking requirements, street layout)
Property Maintenance
Community Housing Improvement Program
Rental Inspection Program
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 37
Leverage Plan
The City of Pasco coordinates and combines resources with the Franklin County PUD
and Benton-Franklin CAC to leverage funds on a per job basis. This enables the City
and cooperating agencies to rehabilitate more single-family residences than would be
possible as individual agencies.
Homeless Priority
The Housing Authority of the City of Pasco and Franklin County has set aside 12 family
units to serve “suddenly” homeless families. The Salvation Army acts as lead agency for
need determination. Once an evaluation is done, these families are referred to the
Pasco Housing Authority, which provides housing for a maximum of two weeks.
The Housing Authority estimates they serve between 40 to 50 families in this manner,
on a yearly basis. Single homeless people are referred to the Union Gospel Mission or
Salvation Army for temporary shelter.
Service Delivery and Management
The City of Pasco’s Community Development Block Grant Program is administered by
the Community Development Department. The weatherization programs of the
Franklin County PUD and Benton Franklin CAC will continue to administer their
respective weatherization and conservation programs. The Housing Authority of the
City of Pasco and Franklin County administers the Section 8 and other rental
assistance activities.
Summary of Strategy
The City of Pasco recognizes the need to maintain, and increase the supply of,
affordable housing through the rehabilitation of existing housing units and the
construction of new units. This includes promoting home ownership opportunities.
Through partnerships with other agencies, the City supports the idea of providing
rental assistance to alleviate the oftentimes severe rental cost burden, experienced by
lower income families and individuals.
The Tri-Cities Home Consortium has identified three priorities: Affordable Housing
Choice, Community and Economic Development, and Services and Homeless
Intervention/Prevention.
Priority 1 – Affordable Housing Choice
Affordable housing is a priority need in the Tri-Cities, particularly for lower-income
households who may be at-risk of homelessness, living in unsafe or overcrowded
conditions, or struggling to make ends meet. The majority of renter and owner
households with incomes at or below 30% AMI were burdened by housing costs—
most frequently costs in excess of 50% of household income. There is a growing
population of seniors, in the cities, who will be looking for housing that can
accommodate their changing needs (e.g., lower cost housing. Stakeholders, and others
HOUSING ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 38
interviewed for this Consolidated Plan, identified lack of affordable housing as a
significant barrier to self-sufficiency for several populations.
Priority 2 – Community and Economic Development
There is a substantial need for continued revitalization of older neighborhoods and
downtown spaces in each of the cities, including the removal of architectural barriers.
Public parks continue to see increased use and demand, and therefore require
maintenance and upkeep support.
Priority 3 – Services and Homelessness Intervention/Prevention
There is a need to increase the supply of affordable housing units by developing owner
and renter-occupied housing, including acquisition and rehabilitation. Financial
assistance to local housing development organizations should be provided to increase
the supply of affordable housing. Funds will sustain or improve the quality of existing
affordable housing stock, such as rehabilitation of housing, eligible code enforcement
tasks, energy efficiency/weatherization improvements, removal of spot blight
conditions, and ADA improvements.
In addition to acknowledging priority needs, the Tri-Cities Home Consortium has also
identified the following goals:
Increase and preserve affordable housing choices
Continued community, neighborhood, and economic development
Homeless intervention and public services
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 39
Economic Development
Element
RCW 36.70A.070
Introduction
The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan is intended to guide
and promote economic opportunities for all citizens of the City. The nature of
commerce and business stretches city limits and because of that, the City maintains
relationships with many other local and regional agencies and organizations to ensure
coordination leads to ample prospects. A strong economy can and should provide
opportunities for all members of the community by offering access to jobs and
business creation. This establishes a healthy base that can provide revenues for
schools, police and fire protection, community facilities, and services.
Pasco’s location along the Columbia and Snake Rivers has always allowed it to become
an important factor for logistics and transportation. The arrival of the Northern Pacific
Railroad in 1884 established Pasco as a major junction between rail lines serving
Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and Portland. The Columbia Basin Project reached Pasco in
1948. This project, in turn, spurred agricultural growth for the entire region thanks to
the irrigation of nearby rivers. World War II had a significant impact that is still felt in
our region because of the development of the Naval Air Station Pasco flight training
facility (later the Tri-Cities Airport), the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and the
Manhattan Project. While primary operations and research are conducted nearby in
Benton County, Pasco’s rail infrastructure provided much needed logistical help along
with plentiful land to house some of Hanford’s earliest workers.
These events (rail, irrigation, air, and nuclear energy) have created the economic
environment that Pasco, and the region enjoys today. Pasco’s economy still has roots in
•
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 40
transportation and agriculture, and the following sections describe how that plays a
role in carrying the City of Pasco into the future.
Economic Profile
Pasco and the Tri-Cities region enjoy a stable and rapidly evolving economic
environment. As the region has grown, its economy has diversified, and today, Pasco’s
economy includes various public and private sector employment opportunities. The
region and its location—at the confluence of the Columbia, Snake and Yakima Rivers—
has been a tremendous benefit historically, and its proximity to other major
populations and economic centers of the Pacific Northwest has provided unique
opportunities for future economic growth.
Much of Pasco’s (and Franklin County's) economy is tied to transportation and
agriculture. The agricultural economy of Pasco is mostly mass production—domestic
and global trade—with connections to international conglomerates. As this industry
in and around Franklin County matures, additional support facilities, which process
and handle production plants, will continue to be needed. This has also led to more
opportunities for year around employment, meaning that families are less likely to
migrate during the winter months, and instead, settle in the area permanently.
Pasco’s economy is also tied to the economy of the Tri-Cities metro area. Therefore,
rising employment at the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy Northwest, and the Office of River
Protection, will enhance the growth of Pasco’s population. This growth will not only
attract new residents to Pasco, it will also provide opportunities for young population
to remain in Pasco, rather than leave the area in search of technical and professional
job opportunities.
The expansion of Pasco’s economy led to increasing industrial diversity, and although
the 2008 economic downturn had an impact, food manufacturing, agriculture, and
private and public educational and healthcare services provided stability. In recent
years, the greater Pasco area has emerged as a dynamic engine for economic vitality in
the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. With strong job and population growth, Pasco is
becoming an increasingly significant part of a regional economy that consistently
ranks amongst the highest in the Northwest.
Unemployment rates have decreased significantly at the metropolitan, statewide and
national levels (Figure ED-1). From a high of 8.6% in December of 2010 to 6.7%
ending 2017. The Tri-Cities metropolitan area still has a higher unemployment rate
than the state rate of 4.6%. Compared to other metropolitan areas in our region,
Spokane (5.9%), Walla Walla (4.5%), Wenatchee (5.9%) and Yakima (8.2%) ending in
year 2017.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 41
Figure ED‐1. Historical Unemployment in the Tri‐Cities
Note:
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Figure ED-2 indicates the historic employment in Benton and Franklin Counties.
Figure ED‐2. Historical Two‐County (Benton & Franklin) Employment
The Tri-Cities region has realized strong population growth over the last 20 years,
averaging an annual growth rate of 2.4%. Since 2010, Pasco has added almost 14,000
new residents. With that came an increase in the percentage of the civilian labor force
that is now higher than the regional percentage. As seen in in Table ED-1, about two-
thirds (66%) of Pasco residents are in the labor force.
8.6
8
6.7
9.7
5.6
4.6
9.3
5
4.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2010 2015 2017
Tri‐Cities Washington State National
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
1995 2000 2005 2010 2017
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 42
Table ED‐1. Benton and Franklin County Population and Economic Indicators
County
Population1
Civilian Labor Force2
(% of total population 16
years and over)
2010 2018 2010 2016
Benton 175,177 197,420 67.1 62.9
Franklin 75,500 92,540 63.8 65.6
Pasco 59,781 73,590 66.0 68.4
Notes:
1. Washington State Office of Financial Management
2. U.S. Census Bureau
A 2016 report from TRIDEC noted that out of the region’s top 30 largest employers—a
combined total of over 36,000 employees—Pasco accounted for ten (Table ED-2).
Table ED‐2. Top Tri‐Cities Area Major Employers
Company Industry Location*
Employee
s
Batelle/Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
Research and
Development Richland 4365
Kadlec Regional Medical
Center Health Services Richland ** 3304
Bechtel National
Engineering and
Construction Richland 2898
ConAgra Foods Food Processing Pasco** 2727
Kennewick School District Education Kennewick 2130
Washington River Protection
Solutions
Environmental
Remediation Services Richland 2077
Pasco School District Education Pasco 2015
Mission Support Alliance, LLC
Support Services,
Hanford/DOE Site Richland 1928
Richland School District Education Richland 1500
CH2M Hill
Environmental
Remediation Services Richland 1400
Tyson Foods Food Processing Pasco 1300
Trios Health Health Services Kennewick 1261
Energy Northwest Utilities Richland 1089
Broetje Orchards Food Processing Prescott, Prosser 920
Lourdes Health Network Health Services Pasco 804
Coyote Ridge Correctional Facility Connell 800
Washington Closure Hanford
Environmental
Remediation Services Richland 724
AREVA Manufacturing Richland 632
Columbia Basin College Education Pasco 511
Columbia Crest Winery Food Processing Paterson 500
Department of Energy (DOE) U.S. Government Richland 440
Bybee Foods Food Processing Richland 400
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 43
Company Industry Location*
Employee
s
Pasco Processing Food Processing Pasco 400
Boise Cascade Manufacturing Wallula 380
Washington State University
Tri-Cities Education Richland 375
Douglas Fruit Food Processing Pasco 300
Tri-Cities Airport Transportation Pasco 300
Reser’s Fine Foods Food Processing Pasco 219
Lampson International Manufacturing
Kennewick/Pasc
o 160
Lockheed Martin
IT/Research and
Development Services Richland 150
NOTES:
TRIDEC (December 2016) website
*Location is per employer’s website
**Includes multiple Tri-City area locations, primary facility is noted
Total covered employment was 33,966 in 2017, an increase of 0.7% (249 jobs) since
2016. The five-year average growth rate in Franklin County for covered employment
was 2.1%. A 2015 report from the Washington State Employment Securities
Department noted that the greater Pasco area accounted for 94% of all covered jobs in
Franklin County and 27% in the Benton-Franklin County region.
Figure ED-3 displays the distribution of employment by job sectors for Pasco, the
Benton-Franklin County region, and the State of Washington. From the chart, the
following employment characteristics can be identified:
The largest employment sector in the Greater Pasco area is government and
education at nearly 5,000 jobs (16% of the total), followed by agriculture,
manufacturing (including food processing), and retail.
Compared with the state and the two-county (Benton-Franklin) region, Pasco’s
relatively dominant sectors are agriculture, manufacturing, wholesale trade,
transportation, and warehousing. Taken together, these account for 36% of
Greater Pasco employment, as compared with 23% of the two counties
combined and 20% of all jobs statewide.
In contrast, Pasco has only 12% of its employment in underrepresented
sectors including information, finance/insurance, professional/technical, and
health/social assistance, as compared with 23% of the two-county and 26% of
the state’s job base.
The shares of jobs in all other sectors of the economy are at 52% to 55% of the
job base across all three geographies.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 44
Figure ED‐3. Employment Distribution
Notes:
*Professional, Technical, Management
Figure ED‐4. Median Household Income
Note:
Source: American Community Survey 5yr Estimates (2010, 2015, 2017)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Pasco Benton‐Franklin County Washington State
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Pasco Benton & Franklin County Washington
Household Median Income (Dollars)
2010 2015 2017
■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 45
Figure ED-4 median household income in Pasco, Benton and Franklin Counties and
Washington State. The median household income in 2017 for Pasco was $59,969. This
represents a 34% increase in median income per household from the year 2000. Due
to a larger employer base, the median income at the bi-county (Benton-Franklin) rose
to $61,638 in 2017. Statewide, the household median income is $66,174. While bi-
county and statewide income levels are higher than Pasco, Pasco’s median income has
increased at a much faster rate (34%) versus 12.5% (Benton-Franklin) and 15.6%
(statewide). Corresponding data in Figure ED-3 determines that the disparity may
exist because of a high share of Pasco workers employed in the relatively low-wage
agricultural sector.
Employment Forecast
By 2038, Pasco will be home to over 121,828 people, and if our labor force
participation rate continues its upward trend, there will be a demand for employment
(Table ED-3). Pasco is expected to represent a large share of jobs in Franklin County in
the future, as it does today (approximately 76%). Pasco’s expected employment
forecast would increase by over 15,000 by 2038 for about 41,795 jobs. The expansion
of the UGA Boundary to include additional land for industrial and commercial land
uses will support the expected employment needs of our community.
Table ED‐3. Employment Projections
Year Franklin County Employment Pasco Employment
2018 34,927 26,370
2038 55,358 41,795
20-year increase 20,431 15,425
Notes:
Washington Employment and Security Department
Challenges and Opportunities
A diverse community and rapid growth provide Pasco with many opportunities for
economic expansion in the future. Notable strengths in Pasco’s economy include a
strong agriculture and food processing presence, a well-established transportation and
logistics hub, a growing manufacturing sector, abundant water supply, and robust
infrastructure to support economic growth. This portion of the Economic Development
Element will focus on unique strengths, challenges, and opportunities for Pasco.
Additionally, an emphasis will be placed on community participation, as will be
described by the SOMOS PASCO effort.
SOMOS PASCO was a long-range visioning and action plan
for Pasco’s economy that aligned with economic
opportunities and community-wide priorities. The SOMOS
PASCO study is referenced because of its direct relationship
to economic development locally and its public-facing and
inclusive participation process. The action plan was a
coordinated effort between The Port of Pasco, Franklin
•
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 46
County, and City of Pasco, with additional funding from the Benton-Franklin Council of
Governments.
In this study, promising sectors for Pasco’s future economy are discussed as follows:
Ag‐Industrial
Direct-to-table food manufacturing
Advanced manufacturing (e.g., specialty metals)
Multi-modal transportation/logistics and distribution services
Construction and design
Consumer Services
Planned retail centers and specialty districts
Latino/Anglo culinary culture catering to locals and visitors
Business and Government Services
Professional / technical services to ag-industrial
Creative services from the arts to marketing
Customized workforce training
Pasco has continued to attract a young, energetic and diverse workforce. The median
age is just 29—a decade younger than the statewide average. Most of Pasco’s labor
force and household incomes are climbing closer to regional and statewide levels,
making it an attractive place to relocate families and businesses.
A 2017 survey of Pasco area businesses and institutions (1,000 to 2,000) indicated that
60% have plans to expand locally in the future. There was a strong support for public
amenities including public markets, cultural facilities, and an accessible network of
paths for walking and biking.
The optimism shown by local businesses and employers adds to what Pasco is already
home to. The Tri-Cities Regional Airport (PSC) is located adjacent to the growing
campus at Columbia Basin College. The continued development of the Trade
Recreational and Agriculture Center (The HAPO Center), the Tri-City Youth Soccer
Complex, and the minor league baseball stadium (GESA Stadium) continue to provide
year-round access for recreational activities that attract local, regional, and state
visitors.
While less reliant on the programs of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the efforts
taking place by the Department of Energy still have a significant impact on the local
economy, specifically on housing construction. While regional growth has occurred at
the perimeters of each city, a number of private and public interests have brought
attention to the reality that a region of our size (almost 300,000) can support multiple
regional centers for commerce, retail, and businesses.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 47
The above-mentioned factors have helped create an evolving environment that is
adapting to the needs of the community. However, there are still some challenges—the
greatest being education.
Table ED-4 provides a comparison of educational attainment between Pasco, our local
neighbors, and statewide. Of those above the age of 25, almost 28% do not have a high
school diploma and only 16% have received a bachelor’s degree. There have been
significant strides made in public education (K-12) via the Pasco School District, which
has helped to increase educational achievement. However, with educational
attainment so closely related to long-term employment prospects and income, this will
need to be addressed before becoming a barrier for future economic vitality.
Table ED‐4. Educational Attainment ‐ 2011 to 2015
City/County/
State
Population
25 Years
and Over
High School
Diploma/GED
Associates
Degree
Bachelors
Degree
Graduate
Degree
Richland 34,712 95% 56% 45% 19%
Kennewick 47,478 86% 33% 22% 7%
Pasco 37,479 72% 25% 16% 5%
Benton County 118,423 89% 40% 29% 11%
Franklin County 49,013 74% 25% 16% 5%
Statewide 4,721,438 90% 43% 33% 12%
Notes:
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015 5-year, Table B15003.
Education was identified in the SOMOS PASCO effort, and strategic planning is now
underway to encourage the community commitment to public education. This includes
the Pasco School District’s pivot towards STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Math) related curriculum and partnerships with our local higher education providers
at Columbia Basin College and Washington State University, Tri-Cities.
Beyond education, there was community-wide agreement on the following priorities:
Building the future economy on a foundation of agriculture/food processing
and current strengths
Diversifying the economy into new sectors
Community projects that support Pasco’s quality of life
Capitalizing on Pasco’s unique multi-cultural population and heritage
Local and Regional Partnerships
Continued coordination and partnerships with local, regional, and statewide agencies
and organizations will only increase economic opportunities for our residents.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 48
The Port of Pasco plays a major role in the economic development of our city. The
Port focuses on a mix of transportation—water, rail and air—and
property/infrastructure to facilitate job creation. The City and the Port have spent
many years developing utilities and streets to serve lands for industrial developments
and employments. The Port owns and manages the PSC that serves the entire region.
The Port owns the 86-acre PSC Business Center, near the airport, that accommodates
commercial businesses. The Osprey Pointe area is a mixed-used development located
on the Columbia River adjacent to the Port’s Big Pasco Industrial Center. The 110-acre
waterfront property offers views of the Columbia River, with easy access to the entire
Mid-Columbia region. It encourages private sector investments in commercial, office,
and residential buildings in East Pasco. The Port owns many other industrial and
commercial areas that promote business and employment.
The Benton‐Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) serves as our federally
designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and Economic Development District
for the Tri-Cities region. BFCG prepares a Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) every five years. The Strategic Vision of the CEDS is provided below:
Encourage healthy growth of a resilient and diverse economy by providing
family wage jobs through new business attraction and retention and
development of the infrastructure necessary to encourage and achieve this
Nurture a thriving environment for entrepreneurial business creation through
greater collaboration, innovation, and access to capital
Support and protect the current industry clusters and their related natural and
financial resources
Expand educational and training opportunities and community amenities to
attract, uplift, and retain families and youth
The Tri‐City Development Council (TRIDEC) was established in 1963 and today is
charged with promoting and advancing the economic strength and diversity in Benton
and Franklin counties. TRIDEC is involved with many recruitment efforts that have
helped develop Pasco’s industrial base. Pasco also has established relationships with
the Tri‐Cities Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Pasco Chamber of
Commerce. Both organizations promote business efforts for their respective service
areas; however, Pasco fits firmly within their missions.
The Tri‐Cities Hispanic Chamber of Commerce also plays an important role for the
community. Their mission statement of “Connecting, empowering and celebrating the
Latino community to the Tri-Cities and beyond” provides an inclusive environment for
all residents of Pasco to be involved in. They host monthly networking events and
annual events that bring diverse stakeholders and community members to the table to
discuss ongoing efforts in the region.
The City of Pasco and the Downtown Pasco Development Authority are also
partners in the promotion of our Central Business District and the revitalization efforts
of Downtown Pasco. Together, there is a focus on a four-block core area centered on
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 49
4th Avenue and Lewis Street, in the heart of our downtown, to kick-start the
revitalization effort and set the standard for all future downtown improvements.
Improvements in the downtown area include the construction of a new Farmers
Market Pavilion and redesign for the Peanuts Park Plaza. Both of these locations are
home to numerous community-wide events each year. The weekly farmers market
attracts hundreds to annual events that bring in thousands of visitors from across the
region to Downtown Pasco.
Economic Development Priorities
Values and Economic Vision
Core values identified in the SOMOS PASCO study include:
Livable
Family Friendly
Multi-Cultural
Welcoming
Affordable
Safe
Connected
Attractive
The Economic Vision in the SOMOS PASCO study focuses on the following:
Envision
As one of the fastest growing communities, the possibilities are limitless. The
community imagines a distinctive and highly- livable community, and we are creating
that place.
Invest
Placing strategic, timely investments—in innovation, private enterprise, job creation,
education, public infrastructure, and services—will ensure our continued economic
vitality.
Achieve
The benchmark for Pasco’s success will be economic and educational progress for
every enterprise and every family in our multi-cultural community.
Strategies
Major economic strategies identified in the SOMOS PASCO study are as follows:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 50
Investing in Education
Education, at all levels, is the foundation for our economic future—the key to building
the future workforce to capitalize on new opportunities. Pasco is on the right track and
is already showing signs of improved educational attainment. Ongoing reinvestment in
educational programs and facilities (voter supported) will be essential. (In general, the
public education system in Pasco consists of Pasco School District, Columbia Basin
College, and WSU Tri-Cities.)
Educational programs include:
The “K through Career” pipeline
Career opportunity awareness
On-the-job training
Mentorships
Scholarships
Building on Our Strengths
Pasco has a competitive advantage in several economic sectors and niches. These will
continue to be supported as mainstays of the future economy:
Food processing
Transportation, warehousing, distribution, and logistics
Advanced manufacturing
Port of Pasco (Airport, Marine Terminal, and Industrial Development)
Timeline investments in infrastructure expansion and upgrades
Affordability
Business development
Looking Ahead to the Next Chapter
Diversifying Pasco’s economy beyond food and other leading employers is imperative.
Several opportunities have been identified:
Local professional, technical, and creative employment
Homegrown local service, and retail businesses
Business development training
Tech industry
Priority Projects
There is broad-based support for undertaking a handful of worthy community priority
projects:
Riverfront development
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 51
Year-round public market
Walking and biking (multi-modal) trail system
Aquatics center
Downtown Pasco revitalization
Multi‐Cultural Community
With a strong Hispanic cultural heritage and tradition and a majority population –
Pasco plans to embrace and capitalize on this unique asset:
Downtown character and signage
Cultural Center and events
Trade missions and sister city relationship with Mexico
Conversational Spanish language classes for English speakers
How is Pasco Doing?
Pasco’s and the region’s progress will be monitored annually and measured against
statewide benchmarks adopted for key strategy areas. This includes analyzing data on
demographics and employment, income and education, housing, and event
programming projects.
Economic Development Planning Considerations
Retaining existing business and attracting new and innovative businesses will diversify
the local economy and create a solid and resilient base for the City. The growth of retail
industries could be enhanced by opportunities for people to live and work close by.
Pasco has a relatively young population with an entrepreneurial spirit. This can be
seen in the number of small, family-owned businesses that have taken root in east and
central Pasco over the past decade. Pasco’s young population and ethnic diversity are
attractive assets to new investors.
Development of Agricultural Industries
To ensure the stability of the economy, the City should leverage existing assets but
adapt them to a changing economy. Mass production requires heavy infrastructure to
maintain the agricultural industry, and to protect public health. For these reasons, the
City will continue to invest and partner with this industry to improve our
infrastructure, including the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) and transportation
infrastructure. The PWRF is a critical piece of infrastructure that allows the City to
manage the capacity of its wastewater treatment plant for residential and commercial
growth. Pasco’s efforts will focus on increasing agricultural industries and
infrastructure opportunities provided by various agencies, including the Port.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 52
Infrastructure Development
Anticipating future growth, it is important for the City to plan ahead in terms of roads
and infrastructure—to remove congestion from key intersections and promote easy
transport of people and goods. The City has an ambitious Capital Improvement Plan
that correlates to current and future needs related to growth and sustainability.
Trained Labor Force
Additional training and education opportunities are needed to capture future growth
of trade and technology industries. The biggest challenge to this effort is not a lack of
people, but rather the bandwidth of our trade and technology training programs.
Continued investment in the community college and Washington State University Tri-
Cities is needed for our community to be responsive to workforce needs.
Promote Tourism
Pasco provides several contributions to the regional tourism economy. Sports tourism
is big business, and the number of tournaments held in Pasco has a direct correlation
to the number of new hotels that have been built and are being planned. In order to
capture more spending from this base, the City is embarking on a revitalization of
Downtown Pasco— promoting our agricultural heritage at the Pasco Farmers Market,
and the culinary and cultural flavor of the Mexican immigrant community, which is
featured prominently in downtown through various restaurants and boutique
retailers. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen, also located in downtown, has become a
regional culinary incubator, spawning restaurants and food trucks throughout the Tri-
Cities. The City and Port are also exploring the development of a Public Market to
highlight the bounty, talent, and diversity of our community, much as Pike Place
Market does for Seattle. There are also additional types of investments that can create
a destination for tourist activities, such as wine tourism and outdoor and agritourism.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 53
Capital Facilities Element
RCW 36.70A.070
Introduction
Land use decisions, such as annexation or commercial versus residential zoning, have
direct impacts upon the City’s financial capabilities and liabilities in the immediate and
distant future. Because of this relationship, the Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A.070[3]) requires that local governments include capital budgeting as an active
planning function. The GMA requires that capital facilities planning support the land
use decisions. If there is insufficient funding to meet the infrastructure demands of
growth, then the land use element should be adjusted to protect the integrity of the
financial capabilities of the respective local government.
Capital facilities planning is a tool that identifies the facilities planning, prioritization,
and financial decisions necessary to maintain and improve the physical attributes of
the City. Capital improvement projects are based upon the needs of the community
and are consistent with and promote the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Capital Facilities Element documents all capital projects needed to accommodate
projected growth. It also identifies the financing of the City-provided facilities, and the
sources and levels of financial commitment and revenues necessary to meet the
concurrency requirements of the GMA. Concurrency means that needed capital
facilities must be installed and available for use at the time of development, or within a
reasonable time period following completion of the development.
Pasco uses many revenue sources to fund the capital improvement projects identified
in the plan, including sales tax, business and occupation tax, utility rates, state
revenues, bonds, and grants. The City also collects park and school impact fees to
mitigate park and school impacts. Impact fees are collected according to the standards
set in the PMC.
•
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 54
According to the GMA, the Capital Facilities Element should contain the following
features:
An inventory of existing capital facilities
A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities
Proposed locations and sizes of expanded or new capital facilities
A 6-year plan to finance such capital facilities
A requirement to reassess the Land Use Element if funding falls short of
meeting capital facilities’ needs, and to ensure consistency between the Land
Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element and associated Finance Plan
Capital Facilities Types
The City of Pasco has a wide range of facilities which operate, maintain, and plan for
capital improvements. These include the following:
Transportation system including pedestrian and bicycle facilities
Potable water system (treatment, monitoring [testing], storage, and
distribution)
Sanitary sewer system (collection system, treatment system, monitoring, and
testing)
Storm drainage (collection and disposal) systems
Parks and open space system
Public Safety and Emergency response facilities (Fire, Paramedic, Police)
Public building construction and remodeling (libraries, city offices, community
centers, maintenance buildings, etc.)
Transportation, and parks and open space are discussed respectively under
Transportation Element and Parks and Open Space Element in this Comprehensive
Plan. Public safety and emergency response facilities are discussed under Public
Services sub-element in this Comprehensive Plan.
The following special service districts and utility companies represent an additional
range of capital facilities:
Schools
Public utility districts
Irrigation districts
Capital Budgeting Project Consideration Factors
Many factors are considered in the planning process with the intent to implement the
community’s vision. As discussed in the Land Use Element, the City is expected to add
an additional 48,000 new residents by the year 2038. Maintaining services for existing
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 55
neighborhoods and planning for future growth are both crucial in the capital facilities
planning. In the capital facilities planning, consideration is given to maintaining
compliance with the GMA to provide adequate facilities for growth. This also considers
upgrades and replacements of aging facilities. In addition, eligibility for grants was also
considered in the planning process.
Why Plan For Capital Facilities
As discussed, a Capital Facilities Element is mandated by the GMA. It identifies the
capital facilities’ needs, locations, and financing mechanisms in order to address the
City’s current and future growth and meet concurrency requirements of the GMA.
The intent of the capital facilities planning is to plan ahead in order to effectively
manage capital investments. It allows jurisdictions to use their limited funding wisely
to maximize the outcome. The planning process helps jurisdictions prioritize projects,
coordinate related projects, and apply for grant opportunities. Many grant and loan
programs require local governments to have a Capital Facilities Plan, or Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) to be eligible for funding
This Capital Facilities Element is developed to be consistent with countywide planning
policies and integrated with all other plan elements to ensure consistency throughout
the Comprehensive Plan.
Capital Improvement Plan
Pasco’s 6-year CIP supports the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan. The CIP and
amendments thereto are made as part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference.
The referenced CIP is presented in three sections:
Section I - Introduction: Purpose, benefits, and methodology of the CIP.
Section II - Fiscal Policies: Statements of requirements and guidelines that are
used to finance the CIP.
Section III - Capital Improvements: List of proposed capital projects, including
project costs, revenues, and timing, as well as future operating costs.
The accumulated total cost of capital improvements for 2020–2025 is mentioned in
Table CF-1.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 56
Table CF‐1. Cost of Capital Improvements
Project Category Cost
General $11,695,000
Fire & Ambulance $25,947,000
Parks & Recreation $27,948,000
Process Water Resource Facility (PWRF) $36,053,000
Sewer $56,766,000
Transportation $48,283,000
Water $39,911,000
Irrigation $1,980,000
Stormwater $1,029,000
Total $249,612,000
During the annual budgeting cycle, the budgeted amounts per type of facility are
changed to reflect the completion of some projects and the addition of others.
Funding sources identified in the CIP are intended to assist in prioritizing projects for
the next 6 years. A large amount of unsecured funding is expected and changes to cost
estimates or revenue sources are normal. The amounts shown are planned funding
sources, and costs generally precede detailed design work. The schedule of each
project may also change as assumptions like scope, the local and national economy, or
even the weather change.
The CIP utilizes the following four main categories of funding sources:
Internal fund reserves: These funds are available via annual ongoing revenue
received from anticipated sources. These include excise and property tax
revenues, impact fees, utility rates, utility expansion fees charged to new
customers and charges for existing and new customers. The City preserves
some of the fund balance as necessary and possible to account for large
investments on the horizon or for emergency purposes.
Grants: Larger City capital projects receive a significant portion of funding via
grants and loans made by federal and state agencies. Almost all federal funds
are “passed through” a state agency filter. Some of the major agencies involved
in funding grants and loans are Transportation Improvement Board (TIB),
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Water Resources
Program, and the Department of Ecology. Parks and Transportation projects
are the largest benefactors of such grants and loans at the City of Pasco.
Debt: Represents a commitment to repay borrowed funds over an extended
period of time. While the City has a relatively large legal debt capacity, the main
constraint is the ability to repay the debt.
Local partnerships: The City also relies on partnership with other local agencies
like Port or Pasco, Pasco School District, City of Kennewick, City of Richland,
and individual donations etc. to fund projects. Additionally, the City uses Local
Improvement District’s (LID) as a way to share the cost of infrastructure
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 57
improvements to fund a project that provides a specific benefit to proximal
property owners.
Transportation Capital Improvements
The City’s transportation improvements are discussed under the Transportation
Element of this Comprehensive Plan and also identified in the City’s 6-year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Benton-Franklin Council of
Governments is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO)
and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). It maintains the regional plans for all
modes of transportation and allocates federal transportation funds for local
improvements. That program is updated yearly and is incorporated in this plan by
reference.
Water System
Existing Conditions
The majority of the population within the incorporated limits of the City of Pasco is
served by the City’s Water Utility. The City builds capacity into the water system for
effective fire suppression in structures, which is an important safety measure. Pasco
currently has a very efficient storage and distribution system. The City water system
includes two water treatment plants, reservoirs, pump stations and pipelines that
serve the City limits and portions of the Urban Growth Area.
The City updated its Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP) in 2019, which has
been reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Health (WDOH). The
planning periods outlined in the CWSP are 2022, 2027, and 2036. The CWSP identifies
the existing system, expected City growth and projected demands for each planning
horizon, as well as, the performance criteria that dictate whether new infrastructure is
required.
The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary
Pool of the Columbia River and includes two surface water treatment plants and three
water reservoirs. The following is a list of key system water facilities.
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 26.8 million gallons per day
West Pasco Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day
(modular/expandable; the build out capacity is 18 million gallons per day when
all six treatment trains are installed)
Riverview Heights reservoir: 10 million gallons
Rd 68 reservoir: 2.5 million gallons
Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir: 1 million gallons
The CWSP indicates that the City currently holds surface water rights for 13,269.25
acre-feet of annual withdrawal and 20,149 gallons per minute (gpm) (29 mgd) of
instantaneous withdrawal. As defined in the CWSP, the City is currently in compliance
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 58
with water right quantities by borrowing the surplus from the Quad Cities water right,
at a current consumption of 14,424 acre-feet by volume and 18,456 gpm
instantaneous. The City also holds individual groundwater rights sourced by various
wells for separate irrigation purposes.
The river water requires treatment before being piped to customers. Butterfield is a
conventional filtration plant and West Pasco is an ultrafiltration membrane plant. The
current capacity of each water treatment plant is 26.8 mgd and 6 mgd respectively. It
should be noted that while current capacity of the West Pasco WTP is 6 mgd, it is
designed for expansion up to 18 mgd.
In addition, the City’s water system inventory consists of approximately 330 miles of
pipe ranging from 2-inch to 36-inch in diameter, 6 booster stations, and 20 pressure
reducing valve (PRV) stations. Service is presently provided to customers at a
minimum elevation of 340 feet to a maximum elevation of 525 feet. The City water
distribution system has been arranged into three (3) service/pressure zones.
Generally, these zones may be described as:
Pressure Zone 1: South of I-182 and west of the railroad yard
Pressure Zone 2: East of the railroad yard, the southern portion of the airport
and a strip south of I-182 between Service Zone 1 and Service Zone 3
Pressure Zone 3: Generally, north of I-182 and encompassing most of the
northern part of the city
The City has been implementing the CWSP with facility improvements that have been
made in recent years. These projects include the Columbia Water Supply Intake that
increased the water supply capacity and reliability. Other major projects included the
completion of the Water Treatment Plant and the Harris Road Sewer Trunk Line
Extension; this extension (over 5,500 feet) will serve the rapidly developing
Broadmoor area in NW Pasco.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 59
Figure CF‐1‐ Construction of Columbia Water Supply Intake
Photo source: MurraySmith
That Plan and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by
reference. The Plan describes basic components of the system, such as sources,
storages and distribution of water to serve its various pressure zones.
In 2019, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which
evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes.
As a result, in order to accommodate future growth, the City will need to make
additional improvements to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire
additional water rights to meet the 2038 demands.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 60
Pasco City Leaders break ground on the Columbia East Pump Station in 2018 (Photo source: Tri‐Cities
Area Journal of Business)
Level of Service
The City intends to maintain the current level of services by preserving and acquiring
water rights and improving the system. Elements are aimed at maintaining these
guideline LOS standards:
Table CF‐2. Water Guideline LOS Standards
Element LOS Standard
Demand per ERUa
ADD
MDD
PHD
424 gallons per day
890 gallons per day
1,119 gallons per day
MDDb/ADDc Factor 2.1
PHDd/MDD Factor 2.64
Service Pressure 30 – 80 psi
Notes:
a. ERU = equivalent residential unit
b. MDD = maximum daily demand
c. ADD = average daily demand
d. PHD = peak hour demand
Source: City of Pasco Comprehensive Water System Plan, Revised
January 2019
i -
-
I -
-
-,
-
' ---
I ---
---
' --
~ -- -I~ -I -_!
•
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 61
Future Needs
The CWSP identified several projects to address future needs within water system
over the next 20 years. Within this plan, the City reviewed each project, developed a
cost estimate and time frame for construction. In addition, the 2019 Expanded UGA
Infrastructure Evaluation identified four new projects that may be needed over the
next 20 years, three of which could be needed within the 6-year planning horizon.
The 2020-2025 6-year CIP for the City lists several water projects which are planned
through the year 2024 as well as a financial plan that allows the water utility to remain
financially viable. The 2020 CIP identifies the following priority projects listed in Table
CF-3. In addition, CF-3 includes the three additional projects identified in the Expanded
UGA Infrastructure Evaluation.
Table CF‐3. Water System Capital Improvement Projects
Project Title Timeframe
Funding
Sources Total Cost ($)
Annual System Improvements - Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $1,200,000
Butterfield WTP- Chlorine Safety 2020
2017 Revenue
Bonds $275,000
Emergency Power Improvements 2020-2023 Utility Rate $2,200,000
Transmission Main -
West Pasco WTP to Zone 3 2020-2021 Utility Rate $3,000,000
Water Main Extension -
Road 103 (Maple Dr to Willow Wy) 2022 Utility Rate $113,000
Water Main Replacement -
Alley East of WeHe Ave 2020 Utility Rate $140,000
Water Line Replacement -
Maple Drive, AC Main (Rd 100 to Rd 103) 2020 Utility Rate $250,000
Water Main Replacement –
South 18th Ave (Court St to WA Ave) 2021 Utility Rate $79,000
Water Main Replacement - Star Lane (Rd 100
to Rd 97) 2021 Utility Rate $236,000
Water Projects Allocated from Transportation 2020-2021 Utility Rate $247,000
West Pasco WTP Improvements 2020-2022 Utility Rate $4,620,000
Reservoir Storage Tank - Zone 3 2020-2023
Unsecured
Revenue Bond
Utility Rate
Utility
Expansion Fees $11,700,000
Automated Meter Reading 2020-2025
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $5,750,000
Reservoir Storage Tank - Zone 2 2024-2025
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $7,500,000
Water Main Extension –
Alton Street (Wehe Ave to the alley west of
Owen St) 2022
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $327,000
Water Main Extension - 2024 Unsecured $305,000
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 62
Project Title Timeframe
Funding
Sources Total Cost ($)
Riverhaven Street (Road 36 to Road 40)Revenue Bond
Water Line Replacement –
Richardson Road (Road 92 to Road 96) 2022
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $460,000
Water Line Replacement —
Road 60 (Court St to West Pearl) 2023
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $930,000
Water Line Replacement —
Road 76 (Wernett Road to Court Street) 2023
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $826,000
Zone 3 Tank Transmission Main* - Utility Rate $776,000
Water Main Extension - WTP to Zone 3* - Utility Rate $5,206,000
Backbone Transmission Main* - Utility Rate $18,355,000
Total $64,495,000
Notes:
Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan
* Proposed projects identified in the 2019 expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation which accounts for the
UGA expansion and updated Land Use Plan. The City’s Annual Water Upsize-Development Program is
anticipated to assist with these projects to pay for potential upsizing of water lines related to developer
installed lines.
**Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or possible in
the future as identified in the CIP.
The 20-year planning horizon includes additional projects to serve future growth
within the UGA that are not already covered in the 6-year planning horizon. The CWSP
indicated a majority of these projects, but with the modifications to the UGA, the
transmission mains have been upsized in areas and additional backbone piping was
included. Additionally, the size of the second storage tank has increased from 3.5 MG
to 4.0 MG and been moved from Zone 3, as specified in the CWSP, to Zone 2. The West
Pasco WTP improvements will also be included in the 20-year planning horizon that
will increase the plant’s capacity from 12 mgd to 18 mgd. Table 3a summarizes
planning level capital costs for the water infrastructure to serve the UGA beyond the 6-
year planning horizon but within the 20-year period.
The anticipated planning level cost for the infrastructure to serve the UGA is $51.8
million which accounts for a cost increase of $10.7 million due to the upsize of pipe
diameter, extension of waterlines, upsize of reservoir, and inclusion of additional
projects when compared to the CWSP. The City is planning to utilize their Annual
Water Upsize-Development Program to pay for a portion of these projects through
coordination with planned development as well as developer contributions.
Table CF‐3a. 20‐year Water Planning Level Capital Cost Summary
Description
Pipe Size
(inch)
Pipe
Length
(feet) Total Planned Cost
West Pasco WTP – Supply Capacity
Increase 12 to 18 mgd2 - - $1,470,000
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 63
Description
Pipe Size
(inch)
Pipe
Length
(feet) Total Planned Cost
Zone 2 Storage Tank3 - - $9,291,000
New Backbone Transmission Main
12 28,600 $9,526,000
16 35,100 $15,053,000
24 1,300 $775,000
CWSP Backbone Transmission Main1
12 5,400 $1,792,000
16 32,600 $13,969,000
Total Cost $51,876,000
Notes:
CWSP costs were escalated using ENR CCI values.
Costs taken from the CWSP and were not modified, no delta associated with this project. The project
includes a high service pump station and additional filter backwash.
Project T-002 in the CWSP was indicated for Zone 3, but this analysis indicates it is better located in
Zone 2.
Sanitary Sewers
Existing Conditions
In addition to water service, urban development with its associated concentration of
people requires sanitary sewers to safeguard the public health. Sanitary sewer service
is provided by the City of Pasco. The City’s collection system is a conventional
collection system that mainly relies on gravity sewers to convey wastewater flow to
two lift stations that discharge to the treatment facility. Additional pump stations and
force mains are used to supplement the gravity system.
The City’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP), 2014, identifies the existing system,
expected City growth and projected build out flows, and performance criteria that
dictate whether new sewer infrastructure is required. In 2017 and 2019, the City re-
evaluated the capacity and loading requirements of the Northwest Service Area as a
result of potential development demands and growth projects changes as part of the
2019 Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion. A
strategy to provide sewer service to the proposed UGA and other growth areas within
the city (Broadmoor Area) was evaluated and alternatives were identified.
The CSP and subsequent analyses identify the total capacity, utilized capacity, and
remaining capacity of both the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the sanitary
sewer collection system. The CSP and amendments thereto is made a part of this
Comprehensive Plan by reference. The following is a summary of the WWTP capacity
and the sanitary sewer collection system, based upon this planning document.
The City operates a wastewater collection and treatment system to manage the
domestic wastewater needs of the community. The City originally built a primary
treatment facility in 1954 which has been upgraded over the years to increase design
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 64
capacity and accommodate growth of the City’s service area. This system operates
under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Permit
issued by Ecology. Currently, the system is served by one activated sludge wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) which oxidizes, nitrifies and disinfects wastewater flow prior
to discharging to the Lake Wallula reach of the Columbia River.
The City updated the Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility Plan (WWFP) in 2019. This
update evaluated the WWTP through a 20-year horizon. This WWFP takes into
consideration the projected growth identified in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update
and will provide a CIP to accommodate the projected demands associated with the
expected increase in population for the City and its expanded UGA. The City’s existing
WWTP has a capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewer flow and currently
experiences average flows of 6 million gallons per day (MDG).
The City has a goal of extending municipal sewer to un-served portions of the city and
recover the cost over time as adjacent properties choose to connect to sewer. This is
being done through the local improvement district (LID) process. This process enables
the City to provide sewer service to areas that are lacking while at the same time
upgrading the substandard county roads that have been annexed.
The City’s wastewater collection system contains over 240 miles of sewer pipeline
ranging from 8-inch to 36-inch in diameter, 4,430 manholes, and 10 lift stations. The
gravity pipelines convey wastewater from the residential and commercial areas and
route it to interceptors and large sewer trunks. Due to the varied topography in the
City, several localized and regional lift stations are required to convey sewage to the
WWTP. The City’s two primary lift stations (Maitland and 9th & Washington) are
located just outside the WWTP and convey sewage directly to the WWTP.
Level of Service
Improvements recommended in the Comprehensive Plan are aimed at maintaining the
following guideline LOS standards.
Table CF‐4: Wastewater Guideline LOS Standards
Element LOS Standard
Residential Unit Flows 80 GPCDb
Commercial Unit Flows 80 GPCDb
Industrial Unit Flows 1,500 GPADc
Manning pipe roughness
coefficient
0.025
Min velocity 2 feet/second
Notes:
Based on 3.43 people per dwelling unit
GPCD = gallons per capita per day
GPAD = gallons per acre per day
Source: City of Pasco Comprehensive Sewer Plan, May 2014
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 65
Future Needs
The CSP includes a CIP which identifies future projects needed to accommodate
growth and to improve existing and future deficiencies. The City reviewed and
prioritized the improvements based on the system needs, anticipated system growth
and available funding. Many of the capital projects are triggered by anticipated future
flow condition therefore the timing is based on the year in which the flows are
projected. In addition, as a result of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land
use changes, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation in 2019.
The purpose of this analysis is to identify what additional improvements are needed to
accommodate the future growth. As a result, the Evaluation identified seven new
projects that may be needed over the next 20 years, three of which could be needed
within the 6-year planning horizon.
The City’s 2020-2025 CIP identifies the near-term 6-year projects. Table CF-5 shows
the summary of the near-term priority projects identified in the CIP. In addition, Table
CF-5 includes the three additional projects identified in the Expanded UGA
Infrastructure Evaluation.
Table CF‐5: Six‐Year Sewer System Capital Improvement Projects
Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($)
9th & Washington Lift Station 2020
2017 Revenue
Bond $496,000
Annual System Improvements -
Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $1,200,000
Pearl Street Lift Station 2020
2017 Revenue
Bond $673,000
Road 36 Lift Station Upgrades 2020
2017 Revenue
Bond $501,000
Maitland Lift Station -
Purchase/Install 4th Pump 2020
2017 Revenue
Bond $42,000
Northwest Area Lift Station 2020
Unsecured
Revenue Bond
Utility Expansion
Fees $3,500,000
Sewer Projects Allocated from
Transportation 2020 Utility Rate $10,000
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Improvements - Phase 1 2020-2022
Unsecured
Revenue Bond
Utility Expansion
Fees
2017 Revenue
Bond $25,805,000
Northwest Area Trunkline -
Sandifur Parkway Extension to
Desiree Street 2020
LID
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $4,598,000
Public Works Operation Center - - $ -
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 66
Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($)
Road 52 and Pearl Street Lift Station -
Riverview 2020-2021
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $2,084,000
Road 84 and Roberts Drive Lift Station -
Riverview 2022-2023
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $2,500,000
Southeast Industrial Trunkline - - $ -
Trunkline Deficiency - Court Street - - $ -
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Improvements - Phase 2 2023-2025
Unsecured Local
Grant/Loan
Unsecured
Revenue Bond $15,367,000
Regional/Broadmoor Area Lift Station - LID $3,500,000
Gravity Sewer Main –
Extension of Harris Rd Sewer* - LID $9,169,000
Gravity Sewer Main-
Regional Lift Station Basin* - Utility Rate $18,620,000
Kohler RD Lift Station* - LID $528,000
TOTAL $88,593,000
Notes:
Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan
*Proposed projects identified in the 2019 expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation which accounts for
the UGA expansion and updated Land Use Plan. The city is planning to complete these projects through
local improvement district (LID) or via the City’s Annual Sewer Upsize-Development Program which is
anticipated to assist to pay for potential upsizing of sewer lines related to developer installed lines.
**Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or
possible in the future as identified in the CIP.
The 20-year planning horizon includes all projects anticipated to serve the Urban
Growth Area that are not in the 6-year planning horizon, as identified in Table 5. The
CSP included some of these projects, but with modifications as a result of the Expanded
UGA Infrastructure Evaluation conducted in 2019. These modifications included the
upsizing of sewer trunk lines and additional backbone piping within the UGA to serve
new development. Table 5a summarizes planning level capital costs for the sewer
infrastructure within the UGA to be completed after the 6-year planning horizon but
within the 20-year period.
The total cost for these projects in the 20-year horizon is nearly $132.5 million. The
City is planning to utilize their Annual Sewer Upsize-Development Program to pay for
a portion of these projects through coordination with planned development as well as
developer contributions.
Table CF 5a: 20‐Year Sewer Planning Level Capital Cost Summary
Description
Pipe
Size
(inch)
Pipe
Length
(feet)
Total Planned
Cost
New Gravity Sewer Main
12 27,000 $15,855,000
15 8,100 $6,232,000
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 67
Description
Pipe
Size
(inch)
Pipe
Length
(feet)
Total Planned
Cost
18 13,600 $7,912,000
21 300 $165,000
30 3,400 $3,209,000
36 21,800 $15,585,000
42 21,300 $23,173,000
Lift Station – (WWTP)2 - - $7,450,000
Lift Station – (Northeast)2 - - $6,898,000
WWFP Facility Capital
Improvement Projects - - $34,537,000
CSP Gravity Sewer Main1, 3
21 5,341 $2,884,000
30 9,171 $6,302,000
Lift Station – Northwest Area1 - - $2,213,000
Total Cost $132,415,000
Notes:
Cost taken from CSP and were escalated using ENR CCI values.
Cost assumes to include the force main.
These are listed separately due to the changes to basins and corridors. A direct
correlation wasn’t feasible.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
The City also owns, maintains and operates a separate industrial wastewater
treatment plant (PWRF – Process Water Reuse Facility) that collects, stores and then
applies food processor wastewater to farm circles north of the City as irrigation. The
PWRF is an industrial facility that receives the discharge of process water from six
food processors in the region. The PWRF is a public/private partnership. The PWRF
and associated farm circle properties are located in an area of irrigated agriculture
production fields on approximately 1,800 acres north of Pasco and east of Highway
395 in Franklin County. The City of Pasco has owned and operated the PWRF since
1995.
Future Needs
The City’s CSP identified several projects related to the improvements needed to the
PWRF which address deficiencies within the system over the next 20 years. The
following table lists priority projects from the 2020 CIP.
Table CF‐6: Process Water Reuse Facility Capital Improvement Projects
Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($)
Columbia East Lift Station &
Force Main 2020
Unsecured Revenue Bond
Federal EDA Grant
WA State Capital Budget
Franklin Co. 09 Grant $8,309,000
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 68
Project Title Timeframe Funding Sources Total Cost ($)
PWRF Irrigation Pump Station
(IPS) Improvements 2020
Unsecured Revenue Bond
HAEFIC Loan $5,100,000
PWRF Primary Treatment
Improvement 2020-2021
State PWB Loan
Unsecured Revenue Bond $22,644,000
Total $36,053,000
Notes:
Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan
**Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available
or possible in the future as identified in the CIP.
Stormwater
Storm water is handled in Pasco by the storm sewer system, on-site collection and
dissipation systems or grassy swales along roadways. A stormwater conveyance pipe
system is used in the older parts of the City to accept storm run-off from adjacent land
developments as well as streets. In recent years the City has been requiring
development to mitigate the effects of storm water runoff at projects. This eliminates
the need for an extensive stormwater conveyance pipe system.
Street drainage in newer areas is also accomplished in a similar fashion by the use of
catch basins and infiltration facilities or grassy swales along the side of the street or by
detention/infiltration ponds. The arid and often windy climate which evaporates
moisture quickly enables these methods to function effectively and avoids affecting the
waters of the Columbia River. The City of Pasco will continue to require onsite storm
water retention methods through the planning period and beyond.
The City prepared a separate Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan in 2016.
That Plan and amendments thereto, are made a part of this Compr ehensive Plan by
reference. The storm water system includes over 50 miles of stormwater pipeline,
2,768 Catch Basins, 835 manholes and over 13 miles of exfiltration storm drain.
Future Needs
The City strives to maintain the level of service of the storm water system by
addressing existing and potential issues. Improvements are identified with the
following solutions:
Stormwater infrastructure rehabilitation; and
Water quality protection.
A list of capital projects has been identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Stormwater
Plan. Most of the site-specific problems identified in the plan are localized flooding
issues caused by inadequate system capacity, failing and or reduced performance of
aging system components, or poor design and construction of stormwater facilities.
The following is a list of the projects identified in the 2020 CIP which need to be
addressed in the next six years.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 69
Table CF‐7: Storm Capital Improvement Projects
Project Title Timeframe Funding
Sources* Total Cost ($)
1st Avenue Pipe Rehab 2022 Utility Rate $249,000
Annual Stormwater Improvements -
Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $300,000
North Industrial Way Infiltration Retrofit
Project 2020 Utility Rate $150,000
Stormwater Projects Allocated from
Transportation 2020-2022 Utility Rate $585,000
Sylvester Pipe Relining 2022 Utility Rate $330,000
TOTAL $1,614,000
Notes:
Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan
*Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available or
possible in the future as identified in the CIP.
Irrigation System
The City owns and operates a non-potable water utility that provides irrigation water
to residential customers and a limited number of commercial customers in the
northwest part of the City. The irrigation system serves residential, commercial and
public facility users. Providing a system for irrigation water separate from the drinking
water utility allows the City’s customers to avoid using treated drinking water to
irrigate. The City’s existing irrigation system is supplied by water from 11
groundwater wells and water pumped from the Columbia River and distributed via
135 miles of PVC, ductile iron, and steel distribution pipes ranging from 3 to 24 inches
in diameter.
The City acquired the first portions of the system in 2002 from a private irrigation
utility. The system has grown considerably since that time. The City uses the irrigation
system annually from April 1st to October 31st. The 2013 Irrigation System Master
Plan (ISMP) recommended capital improvements to ensure the continued delivery of
economical irrigation water to City’s residents.
The irrigation system has six pressure zones which are separated by pressure-
reducing stations. The 2013 ISMP identified that total irrigation area was
approximately 1,492 acres located in the northwest part of the City. Future
development and improvements of the irrigation system are primarily limited to
development within the existing service area. Expansion of the system beyond the
existing service area is based on the available irrigation water rights, which would
allow for the additional place of use.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 70
Future Needs
The City’s Water System Plan also identified several projects related to the irrigation
system. The purpose of these projects is to address deficiencies within the system over
the next 20 years. The following table lists priority projects from the 2020 CIP.
Table CF‐8. Irrigation System Capital Improvement Projects
Project Title Timeframe Funding
Sources Total Cost ($)
Annual System Improvements - Development 2020-2025 Utility Rate $300,000
Chapel Hill Boulevard to Interstate 182 —
Irrigation Main 2020 Utility Rate $100,000
Columbia River Intake Capacity Upgrades 2020 Utility Rate $170,000
Irrigation Project Allocated from
Transportation 2020 Utility Rate $9,000
Well Capacity Upgrades 2021-2023 Utility Rate $1,410,000
TOTAL $1,989,000
Notes:
Source: City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan
**Funding Sources – The funding sources are the best estimates of sources currently available
or possible in the future as identified in the CIP.
Schools
General education in Pasco is provided by the Pasco School District. The School
District’s latest Capital Facilities Plan was updated in 2016 and identified educational
facilities needs in the Pasco School District over a 6-year planning horizon. The plan
compared the district’s current facilities to present and future educational needs.
Alternates to satisfy projected educational needs are identified in the plan and
recommendations are presented to ensure facilities are available to meet the needs of
student enrollments. As of 2019, the School District reportedly served 17,891 students,
an increase of 14% since 2011.
Based on the 2016 School Plan, there are fifteen (15) elementary schools providing a
capacity to serve 7,735 students in permanent capacity. As of October 1, 2015, there
were 9,940 elementary students enrolled. There are 129 portable classrooms at the
elementary schools. Since 2014, the District has added 33 new portable classrooms as
temporary capacity.
There are three (3) middle schools providing a capacity to serve approximately 2,814
students, and two traditional high schools with a capacity to serve 3,931 students.
The School District is adding and upgrading the following schools:
Three Rivers Elementary; expected to be completed in 2019
Columbia River Elementary; expected to be completed in 2020
Replace Stevens Middle School; expected to be completed in 2021
Reynolds Middle School, expected to be completed in 2020
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 71
The need for school sites, buildings, and supporting facilities will continue to grow as
population expands. The School facilities plans are to be updated in 2020 and the City
will continue to work with the school district during the development review process
to ensure that the impacts of development on the school district are minimized. The
City’s future land use plan recognizes the need of additional approximately 160 acres
of land to meet the school district’s need.
The District funds capital projects through bonds, state match or State Construction
Assistance Program (SCAP), and school impact fees, SEPA mitigation fees.
Essential Public Facilities
Introduction
Essential public facilities (EPF) are capital facilities typically difficult to site because of
potential adverse impacts related to size, bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise, or
public health and safety. EPF’s include those facilities that are typically difficult to site,
such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as
defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW
81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-
patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group
homes, and secure community transition facilities(SCTF). WAC 365-196-550 provides
a list of EPF’s and suggests a potential siting.
The GMA precludes local comprehensive plans or development regulations from
prohibiting the siting of essential public facilities. [RCW 36.70A.200 (5)]
The distinction between lands identified for public purposes, as shown on the land use
map contained in Appendix A, and EPF’s can create confusion. Table CF-8 illustrates
the distinction.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 72
Table CF‐9. Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public Facilities
Public Purpose Lands Essential Public Facilities
FOCUS: Lands needed to accommodate
public facilities.
Lands needed to provide the full range of
services to the public provided by
government, substantially funded by
government, contracted for by
government, or provided by private
entities to public service obligations.
Examples:
Utility corridors
Transportation corridors
Sewage treatment facilities
Storm water management facilities
Recreation facilities
Schools
Other public uses
FOCUS: Facilities needed to provide public
services and functions that are typically difficult
to site.
Those public facilities that are usually unwanted
by neighborhoods have unusual site
requirements or other features that complicate
the siting process.
Examples:
Airports
Large-scale transportation facilities
State educational facilities
Correctional facilities
Solid waste handling facilities & landfills
Inpatient facilities (substance abuse
facilities, mental health facilities, and
group homes)
Existing Facilities
A few of the EPF’s located in Pasco include the PSC, the Basin Disposal solid waste
transfer station, the Franklin County jail, the Benton-Franklin Detox Center, Lourdes
Medical Center, Columbia Basin College and the Chevron Tank Farms. Transportation
facilities within the City include Interstate Highway I-182, US 395, US 12, and the BNSF
Classification yard. The Columbia-Snake River System is also identified as an EPF as it
provides an important inter modal commercial transportation network for the state
extending to the Pacific Ocean.
Siting
The siting process should be consistent with the Franklin CWPP. Policy IV of the CWPP
indicates that the County and Cities, along with public participation, shall develop a
cooperative regional process to site EPF of regional and statewide importance. The
objective of the process shall be to ensure that such facilities are located so as to
protect environmental quality, optimize access and usefulness to all jurisdictions, and
equitably distribute economic benefits/burdens throughout the region or county.
No local comprehensive plan or development regulations will preclude the siting of
essential public facilities, but standards may be generated to ensure that reasonable
compatibility with other land uses can be achieved.
Siting Criteria
The City establishes the siting criteria with the understanding that some EPF’s may not
pose any siting difficulties beyond those associated with commercial or public
developments. The Planning Director will determine if the facility is an Essential
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 73
Public Facility. If the facility does not present siting difficulties, it will be relegated to
the normal siting process applicable to a facility of its type, as identified in the PMC.
Pasco reviews the siting of EPF’s with a process established in PMC 25.200, Special
Permits. EPF’s are listed as unclassified uses in the City’s development regulations. As
such these uses are generally not restricted by zoning districts, but due to their nature
require extraordinary review through the special permit review process prior to
locating within the City. Unclassified uses are listed in PMC 25.200.20 and include the
facilities discussed above.
If the facility does present siting difficulties, it should be subjected to the siting process
as follows:
Option 1
1. Determining the Essential Public Facilities. Determine whether the facility is
identified as an EPF in the City, County or State list of such facilities and is
consistent with the definition under the Growth Management Act. Also,
determine that it provides services to the public and there are difficulties in
siting the facility in terms of limited availability of sites, location needing
proximity to another public facility, and anticipated adverse environmental
impact.
2. Review and permit. Review should determine the applicability of the facility,
whether such facility already exists, and the service level is adequate.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan should also be reviewed. The City
will participate in an inter-agency review if the facility is of a statewide,
countywide or regional nature. Alternative sites for appropriate location and
regional fair share should also be considered during the interagency review.
Finally, impacts should be identified along with appropriate mitigations
measures.
The review process can be a case-by-case approach where additional review processes
may be required due to the unique nature of the facility. Public should be engaged
according to the statutory requirements, and if the facility is anticipated to have an
impact on the community.
Permitting should begin according to the City’s development regulations after
determination and review of such facilities. Conditions can be added during the
permitting process to address adverse impacts.
Option 2
The following additional review shall be combined with the permitting process.
However, some review shall be required prior to the permitting process, such as
finding the appropriate location for the facility.
Applicability. Review shall determine the need of the facility in the light of
established level of service. It shall review whether such facility already exists,
and the service level is adequate or can be accommodated in an existing facility.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 74
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Facilities shall be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan land use map and policies. Facilities, if provided
through a special district plan, the special districts plan must also be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Multi‐jurisdictional approach and CWPP. The facility needs to be consistent
with the County-Wide Planning Policies. Interagency review shall be required if
the facility is of a statewide, countywide or regional nature.
Location. Review of alternative sites for appropriate location and regional fair
share considerations.
Facilities shall be allowed in the zoning districts according to the Essential
Public Facilities table.
Review and compare between several alternative sites within the City if it is a
City provided Essential Public Facility.
Consider several alternative sites in other jurisdictions as well if the facility is a
state or county Essential Public Facility providing services of regional nature.
Impact and mitigation. Identify the potential impacts of the proposed facility.
Impacts shall be identified in the most comprehensive manner to include social,
environmental and economic impacts. Measures shall be taken to mitigate the
adverse impacts such as noise, odor, pollution, traffic, aesthetics and health and
safety concerns.
Cost‐benefit analysis. The facility’s financial impact on the City shall be
analyzed. If analysis shows that it would cause a disproportionate financial
burden for the community, an agreement shall be required among jurisdictions
to mitigate the adverse financial burden when the facility offers regional
services.
Case‐by‐case approach. Director of the Community Planning or person of a
similar responsibility may add additional review process if required due to the
unique nature of the facility. Conditions shall be added in each case to mitigate
the adverse impacts and to make the facility compatible with the affected area.
All the issues that make the specific facility difficult to site shall be
appropriately addressed and mitigated.
Public involvement. The public shall be notified according to the statutory
requirements. Public meetings shall be conducted by the applicant before the
public hearing to address public concerns.
Funding Sources for Capital Facilities
Funding sources are of several types and are designed either for one specific
application or may be used for a variety of projects. As an example, sources of grant
money for transportation facility construction are dedicated to that single general
purpose.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 75
The City of Pasco uses several different financing sources to pay for capital projects.
Typically, large capital projects are financed through long-term bonded debt and
grants and loans. Capital improvements will be funded by a variety of funding sources
which range from the City of Pasco, late comer agreements and grants and loans.
Funding sources for all planned capital projects are indented in Tables CF-5 through
CF-8.
State statutes set out the powers local governments have for funding capital and other
projects. There are four generic types of local government project funding: taxes, fees,
grants, and dedicated funds from State revenues. The following is a description of
funding sources.
Taxes
Property Tax
Property tax levies are most frequently used means of supporting operational and
maintenance expenses due to the recurring nature of both. It is also used to meet
general obligation bond debt service costs.
Under State law local governments are prohibited from increasing the property tax
levy more than the lesser of 1% or the implicit price deflator as of July of the previous
year.
Retail Sales and Use Tax
There is levied a total of 8.6% on all retail sales, except for off-premise food and drugs.
The allocation of the 8.6% is as follows:
• State - 6.5%
• County - 1.5%
• City - 0.60%
The City does not need to designate how their portion of the sales taxes will be spent.
Real Estate Excise Tax
The state authorizes a tax of 1.28% on the sale of all real estate. RCW 82.46 authorizes
cities, planning under the GMA, to assess an additional tax on real estate sales of .25%.
These funds must be spent on capital projects listed in the capital facilities plan. A
second .25% may also be levied to help defray the costs of development and
rehabilitation. The City levies both .25% taxes for use in funding capital projects.
Lodging Excise Taxes
RCW 67.28 authorizes a 2% tax on all charges for lodging furnished for a continuous
period of less than one month. This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% State sales
tax assessed on the lodging charges for the promotion of tourism, acquisition and or
operation of tourism related facilities (i.e. specific stadium, convention, performance or
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 76
visual arts facilities). An additional 2% tax can be levied for a total rate of 4%. The
additional 2% levy does not reduce the sales tax rate.
Leasehold Excise Tax
RCW 82.29A authorizes a 12.84% tax on the permanent occupancy of publicly-owned
premises for private use for 30 days or more. The tax is a substitute for regular
property taxes to compensate for services provided. The tax is sent to the Department
of Revenue which keeps 6.84%, with 2% of the remaining 6% going to the County and
4% going to the City. The purpose for which the money will be used does not need to
be specified.
Commercial Parking Tax
The Transportation Improvement Act authorizes a tax on commercial parking based
on either gross proceeds, the number of parking stalls or on the number of users.
Revenues must be spent for general transportation purposes, including highways,
public transportation, high capacity transportation, transportation planning, etc.
Currently, the City of Pasco does not impose a Commercial Parking Tax.
Business and Occupation Tax
RCW 35.1 1 authorizes cities to collect this tax on the gross or net income of
businesses, not to exceed a rate of .2%. Revenue thus received may be used for capital
facilities acquisition, construction, maintenance and operations. Voter approval is
required to initiate the tax or increase the tax rate to be applied
Gambling Tax
RCW 9.46 provides for a tax on gambling revenues. Currently the City collects 5% of
the gross revenue less the amount paid for prizes for bingo and raffles, 10% of gross
receipts for punch boards and pull-tabs, and 10% of gross receipts on all card games.
Funding is primarily used for gambling enforcement.
Admission Tax
All cities may levy an admission tax in an amount no greater than five percent of the
admission charge, as is authorized by RCW 35.21.280. This tax can be levied on
admission charges (including season tickets) to places such as theaters, dance halls,
circuses, clubs that have cover charges, observation towers, stadiums, and any other
activity where an admission charge is made to enter the facility.
The statute provides exceptions for admission to elementary or secondary school
activities and any public facility of a city or county public facility district for which the
district has levied an admission tax under RCW 35.57.100 or 36.100.210. A city may,
however, impose its own tax on admission to activities at a public facility district, in
addition to the tax the district levies, if the revenue is used for the construction,
operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or enhancement of that public facility or
to develop, support, operate, or enhance programs in that public facility.139 The
admission tax must be collected, administered, and audited by the city. Some cities
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 77
exempt certain events sponsored by nonprofits from the tax. This is not a requirement,
however.
At this time the City’s admission tax is 2.5 percent which applies to all for profit
admission fees within the City.
Local Option Sales Tax
Local government may collect a tax on retail sales of up to 1.1%, of which .1% can be
used only for criminal justice purposes. Imposition of this tax requires voter approval.
Utility Tax
RCW 35.21 authorizes cities to place a tax on the gross receipts of electricity, gas,
garbage, telephone, cable TV, water, sanitary sewer and storm water management
providers. The current rate is 8.5%.
Emergency Medical Services
The State authorizes $.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation property tax levy which may
be enacted by fire and hospital districts, cities, towns, and counties.
Fire Districts
The State authorizes a levy limit of $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for fire and
emergency medical response service.
Park and Recreation Services Area
RCW 36.68.400 authorizes park and recreation service areas as junior taxing districts
for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance
or operation of any park, senior citizen activity center, zoo, aquarium and recreational
facility. The maximum levy limit is $.15 per $1000 assessed valuation. The Park and
Recreation Service District can generate revenue from either the regular or excess
property tax levies and through general obligation bonds, subject to voter approval.
Flood Control Special Purpose District
RCW 86.15.160 authorizes flood control special purpose districts with independent
taxing authority (up to a $.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval), to
finance flood control capital facilities. In addition, the district can, with voter approval,
use an excess levy to pay for general obligation debt. This is unneeded in the Pasco
UGA.
Storm Drainage Payment In Lieu of Assessment
Revenues from this fund may be used for the construction, maintenance and/or repair
of storm drainage facilities, acquisition of property, or related debt service.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 78
Utility Revenue Bonds and Property Tax Excess Levy
See above for a general discussion of general obligation bonds. The amount of local
government debt for utility bands is restricted by law to 25% of the taxable value of
property. Local government utilities tend to use bonds backed by utility user fees
rather than general obligation bonds.
Fees
Park User Fees and Program Fees
The City charges fees for using park facilities, or for participating in recreational
programs.
Park Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050-080 and 090 authorizes local governments to enact impact fees to
fund parks and recreational facilities necessary to serve new development. These fees
are usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy.
Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for park and recreation costs
that are paid by other sources of revenue. Additional credit can also be given to
developers that contribute land, improvements or other assets. These impact fees are
in addition to any mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA, local
improvement districts, etc. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for
growth, and not to meet current deficiencies, and cannot be used for operating
expenses.
Sewer Districts/Users Fees
This is a special purpose district that must be established by the voters of the affected
area. Once established with an operating levy it may assess properties in the district
for operating and other expenses within approved limits and perform all the duties
and responsibilities related to the construction, maintenance, and operation of sewage
collection and treatment. The State authorizes cities, counties and special purpose
districts to collect fees from wastewater generators. Fees may be based upon the
amount of potable water consumed or may be flat rate fees. The revenue may be used
for capital facilities or operating and maintenance costs.
Water User Fees
State authorized rate charged to each residential and commercial customer, based on
the volume of water used. Revenue may be used for capital facilities, operations and
maintenance.
Road Impact Fees
ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for roads required to serve new
development. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed for growth, and
not to meet current deficiencies and cannot be used for operating expenses. Road
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 79
impact fees must also be directly related to the impacts created by the development
and must be utilized within 5 years or returned.
Local Option Vehicle License Fee
RCW 82.80 authorizes a county-wide local option fee up to $15 maximum annually per
vehicle registered in the county, subject to a January 1, 2000 "sunset". Revenues are
distributed back to the county and cities within the county levying the tax on a
weighted per-capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and 1.0 in
incorporated areas). Revenues must be spent for general transportation purposes.
Street Utility Charge
RCW 35.95.040 authorizes cities to charge for city street utilities in order to maintain,
operate, and preserve city streets. Facilities which may be included in a street utility
include street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking
facilities, and drainage facilities. Households and businesses may be charged a fee up
to 50% of actual costs of construction, maintenance, and operations while cities
provide the remaining 50%. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of
employees and may not exceed $2 per full-time employee per month Owners or
occupants of residential property are charged a fee per household which may not
exceed $2 per month.
System Development Fees
The State authorizes a fee to connect to a sanitary sewer system based upon the capital
cost of serving the new connection.
User Fees and Program Fees
Fees or charges for using City owned property, facilities or programs, such as
swimming lessons.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services Impact Fees
ESHB 2929 authorizes impact fees to pay for fire protection and emergency service
facilities required due to new development. These fees are usually collected at the
issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Fire and emergency services
fees are usually based on a flat rate for dwelling units by type and per square foot for
non-residential uses. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for fire
and Emergency Services costs that are paid by other sources of revenue. Additional
credit can also be given to developers that contribute land, improvements or other
assets. These impact fees are in addition to any mitigation or voluntary payments
authorized by SEPA, local improvement districts, etc. Impact fees must be used for
capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet current deficiencies, and cannot be
used for operating expenses. Fire and emergency services impact fees must also be
directly related to the impacts created by the development and must be utilized within
5 years or returned. Currently, City of Pasco does not impose fire protection and
emergency services impact fees.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 80
Storm Drain Utility Fee
The State authorizes cities and counties to charge a fee to support storm drain capital
improvements. The fee is usually a flat rate per month per residential equivalency.
Residential equivalencies are based on an average amount of impervious surface.
Commercial property is commonly assessed a rate based on a fixed number of
residential equivalencies.
School Impact Fees
School impact fees are used for capital facilities needed for growth, and not to meet
current deficiencies and cannot be used for operating expenses.
Bonds
General Obligation Bonds
There are two types of general obligation bonds. Those approved by the voters and
those limited in amount that may be approved by the elected body of the county, city
or special district, called council manic bonds.
Voter-approved bonds increase the property tax rate so that for a given assessed value
on a property, the owner will pay a higher percentage in taxes. This increase in taxes
collected across the properties of the affected districts is exclusively dedicated to
paying off the debt and interest of the money borrowed under the authority of the
approved banding measure. As assessed property values increase, the bonds may be
paid off in a shorter timeframe than originally projected. Approval for general
obligation bonds requires 60% of the number of voters provided the voter turnout is
at least 40% of the turnout at the last previous general election.
Council manic bonds are different than voter-approved bonds because they do not
have associated with them the authority to raise taxes. Council manic bonds must be
paid off from the operating budget created with general tax revenues. Lease-Purchase
arrangements also fall in this general type of financing public facilities.
The amount of local government debt allowable in the form of general obligation
bonds is limited to 7.5% of the taxable value of property in the jurisdiction. This is
divided so that a jurisdiction cannot use all of its bonding capacity for one type of
improvement. The total general obligation bonding capability is divided as follows:
2.5% general purpose use, 2.5% for utility bonds, and 2.5% open space and park
facilities. If the jurisdiction has an approved General Purpose Bond with unused
capacity, as much as 1.5% of the 2.5% may be used as council manic bonds.
Special Assessment District Bonds
Special assessment districts, such as Local Improvement Districts (LID), Road
Improvement Districts (RID) and Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID), may be
formed by the city to finance capital facilities required by other entities (property
owners, developers, etc.). These capital facilities are funded through the issuance of
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 81
special assessment bonds, paid for by the entities benefited. Use of special assessment
bonds is restricted to the purpose for which the special assessment district is created.
Grants and Loans
Community Development Block Grant
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development makes financial assistance
available through this program to local general purpose governments. This money
must be must be used for eligible activities such as public facilities projects, economic
development, housing, etc. which benefit low and moderate income households.
Community Economic Revitalization Board
The State Department of Commerce provides low interest loans and occasional grants
to finance public sewer, water, access roads, bridges, and other facilities in support of a
specific private sector development project which will trade goods and services
outside of the State. One of the objectives is to create one job per each $3000 of loan or
grant money made available.
Public Works Trust Fund Grant
The State Department of Commerce provides low interest loans for capital facilities,
planning, emergency planning and construction of bridges, roads, domestic water,
sanitary sewer, and storm water. Applicant jurisdictions must have a capital facilities
plan in place and must be levying the original .25% real estate excise tax. Construction
and emergency planning projects must be for construction or reconstruction of
existing capital facilities only. Capital Improvement Planning projects are limited to
streets and utilities.
Special Purpose Districts
RCW 67.38.130 authorizes cultural arts, stadium/convention special purpose districts
with independent taxing authority to finance capital facilities. The special district
requires a majority voter approval for formation and has an annual funding limit of
$25 per $1000 of assessed valuation; these districts may be formed across the borders
of other governmental units.
State Parks and Recreation Commission Grants
State Parks and Recreation Commission grants are available for the acquisition of land
and capital improvement projects for parks and recreation purposes. Funds come
from both State and Federal sources and are granted on a 50% State and 50% Local
basis.
Department of Health Grants & Loans
State grants & loans for technical assistance and updating existing water systems, are
available for ensuring effective management, and achieving maximum conservation of
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 82
safe drinking water. Matching requirements for grant vary depending on the program
and loan rates for loan programs.
Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant
The State Department of Ecology issues grants and loans for the design, acquisition,
construction and improvement of water pollution control facilities and related
activities to meet State and Federal requirements and to protect water quality. Future
funding cannot be reliably forecast.
Department of Ecology Grants
The State Department of Ecology grants to local governments for a variety of programs
related to solid waste, including Remedial Action Grants to assist with local hazardous
waste sites, Moderate Risk/Hazardous Waste Implementation Grants to manage local
hazardous waste, and Food and Yard Waste Composing Grants.
Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program
In the 2009 Legislative Session Senate Bill 2SSB 5045 Chapter 270 was adopted
creating the Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program. The program helps local
governments finance public improvement projects that encourage private
development within a revitalization area. The LRF program authorizes cities and
counties to create “revitalization areas” and allows certain increases in local sales and
use tax revenues and local property tax revenues generated from within the
revitalization area, additional funds from other local public sources, and a state
contribution to be used for payment of bonds issued for financing local public
improvements within the revitalization area. The state contribution is provided
through a new local sales and use tax that is credited against the state sales and use tax
(sometimes referred to as the “LRF tax”). This tax does not increase the combined sales
and use tax rates paid by consumers.
The Department of Revenue administers the LRF program. The state provides money
to the local government sponsoring the LRF area through a local sales and use tax
under RCW 82.14.510 (commonly referred to as the “LRF tax”). This local sales and use
tax is credited against the state sales and use tax, so it does not increase the sales and
use tax rate for the consumer. Instead, the LRF tax shifts revenue from the state
general fund to the sponsoring local government.
The maximum amount allowed statewide for state contributions to LRF is $4.75
million per state fiscal year. Of this amount, $2.25 million is allocated for the seven
demonstration projects, and $2.5 million is allocated for the other projects approved
on a first-come basis. The maximum amount of state contribution for each
demonstration project is specified in the bill and ranges from $200,000 to $500,000
per project. The maximum state contribution for each project approved on a first-come
basis is $500,000.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 83
National Highway System Grants
The Washington State Department of Transportation awards grants for construction
and improvement of the National Highway System. In order to be eligible projects
must be a component of the National Highway System and be on the Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan. Funds are available on an 86.5% Federal to a
13.5% local match, dependent upon if the proposed project's ranking is sufficiently
high enough on the Regional TIF list.
Surface Transportation Program Grants
This provides grants for road construction, transit capital projects, bridge projects,
transportation planning, and research and development. To be eligible, a project must
have a high enough ranking on the Regional TIP list. Funds are available on an 86.5%
Federal to a 13.5% local match.
Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program Grants
The Washington State Department of Transportation provides grants on a statewide
priority for structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Funding is on an
80% Federal to 20% local match.
Federal Aid Emergency Relief Grants
This funding source is limited to restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid
system which are damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic failures. Funding is
available at an 83.13% Federal to a 16.87% local match.
Urban Arterial Trust Account Grants
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for
projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion. Project funding is an 80% Federal
and a 20% local match.
Transportation Improvement Account Grants
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for
projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development
growth. Eligible projects should be multi-agency, multi-modal, congestion and
economic development related which are partially funded locally. Funding is an 80%
Federal to a 20% local match.
State Revolving Fund Loans
The State Department of Ecology administers low interest loans and loan guarantees
for water pollution control projects. Applicants must demonstrate water quality need,
have a facilities plan for water quality treatment, show ability to repay a loan through a
dedicated source of funding, and conform to other State and Federal requirements.
PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 84
Public Services Element
Introduction
The City of Pasco provides emergency response service in three significant areas:
Emergency Medical, Fire, and Law Enforcement.
Existing Services and Facilities
Fire
Pasco Fire Department (PFD) provides fire suppression, advanced life support,
emergency medical services, ambulance transport services, technical rescue services,
and hazardous materials services (through a regional partnership) to its service area
community. The PFD, through a contract with the Port, also provides Aircraft Rescue
and Firefighting services to the Pasco airport. As indicated in Figure PS-1, the City has
four fully staffed fire stations—Stations 81, 82, 83, and 84. Station 81 is located on
Oregon Avenue; Station 82 is located at the Tri- Cities Airport; Station 83 is located on
Road 68, north of Argent Road; and Station 84 is located at the intersection of Road 48
and West Octave Street. These stations are staffed by full-time emergency medical
personnel and firefighters.
Figure PS‐1. Existing Stations and Pasco Fire Department Response
Note:
Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan, 2016
:.
PFD 2014-2015 Incidents
and 6 Minute Travel Time
Model ' ··••t.rAo
• 2014-2015 Incidents
Travel T ime-
Staffed Stations
~ 6 Minutes Travel
-1
Pasco Fire Department
Study Area
PFD Fire Station
• Staffed
• Unstaffed
0 City of Pasco
,(,! Pasco UGB
County Boundary
llfl"
•
PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 85
The City also maintains a training facility, administrative offices, and the Franklin
County Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) at the northeast corner of Maitland
Avenue and Ainsworth Avenue.
The City cooperates with the Franklin County Fire Protection District No. 3, which is a
combination career/volunteer-supported fire protection service. The District has one
fire station in the Riverview area providing service to the unincorporated islands
within west Pasco. The Fire District also maintains a fire station near the corner of
Clark Road and Road 36. This Station can respond to emergencies inside the UGA.
The UGA is served by a total of six fire stations—four within the city limits and two in
the County. However, the Tri-Cities community as a whole relies heavily on an
extensive Automatic Aid agreement. The agreement defines the “full effective
response” for residential fires as 16 to 18 firefighters and commercial fire responses as
24 to 26 firefighters. In most cases, none of the agencies can supply that force with
their own on-duty staff. The PFD experienced 74.7 emergency responses per 1,000
population in its service area in 2015, which is eight more responses per 1,000
population served (or 544 total responses more per year) than the regional median.
Police
Law enforcement services for the City are provided by the City Police Department.
Unincorporated areas of the UGA are served by the County Sheriff. The City and County
law enforcement agencies cooperate readily when the need arises. Pasco currently has
1.03 patrol officers per 1,000 people.
The Pasco Police Department provides service to the community through two
divisions. The Field Operations Division responds to citizen complaints, handles traffic
enforcement, accident investigations, and reporting, and is primarily responsible for
maintaining public order. The Support Operations Division includes the investigative
services detectives, the street crimes unit, Task Force detectives, Area and School
Resource Officers, and the Records Division. The primary function of Support
Operations consists of investigating serious criminal offenses, internal affairs
investigations, record management, and department wide training.
The City is divided into four patrol districts with a mini-station located in each district.
Police mini-stations are located in Chiawana Park, Kurtzman Park, the Central
Business District, and Alderwood Square.
The new police department community services building completed construction in
early 2017 and is located on Sylvester Street, directly east of Pasco City Hall.
PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 86
Level of Service
Fire
The adopted standards for emergency incidents, as identified in the Emergency
Services Master Plan and by Council Resolution are:
Turnout Time: 2:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (From the time dispatched
to apparatus en route)
o Which the fire department meets 67% of the time
Travel Time: 6:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (From the time apparatus is
en route to the arrival of the first apparatus on scene)
o Which the fire department meets 62% of the time.
Travel Time: 6:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (For the arrival of an
advanced life support apparatus)
o Which the fire department meets 74% of the time.
Travel Time: 12:00 minutes or less 90% of the time (For the arrival of the full
first alarm assignment at a fire suppression event)
o Which the fire department meets 50% of the time
There are two areas that impact the travel time in an incident response. Both are
related to travel distance. One is the distance for the first due station to travel and the
other is coverage by a second due station when the first due is on a previous call.
The determining factor in adding additional fire stations will be the ability of the fire
department to meet council-established travel times. Developing areas outside the
6-minute travel time will impact the ability to provide service throughout the City.
Additional staffing at existing stations, or a need for an additional station is
determined when multiple simultaneous events occur within any particular station’s
service area. Travel time is also a determining factor in this regard.
Police
The current service standard is approximately one patrol district and mini-station for
every 18,000 residents. Police services are delivered to the community by direct
contact with officers who are permanently assigned to each patrol district. They are
further supported by the assignment of Area Resource Officers who connect and build
a collaborative partnership with the community and assist in problem-solving.
Specialty services are also delivered in the following areas:
Area Resource Officer
School Resource Officer
Detectives
PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 87
Street Crimes Unit
Taskforce Officers
Traffic Enforcement
Homeless Liaison Officers
Projected Demand
Fire
The Emergency Services Master Plan examines low, moderate, and high-risk land
areas in order to provide services. Much of the east Pasco industrial- and Port-owned
lands are considered high risk as opposed to low-risk residential development areas.
Commercial and office uses in the City Center areas, and along Road 68, are considered
moderate risk areas.
Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan 2016 projects service demand through 2040.
According to this plan, PFD service demand grew by over 20% in the last five years.
Based on projected population growth, PFD can expect to see service demand continue
to increase. Fires, of all types, demonstrate the lowest rate of increase. This reflects a
national trend and can be attributed to improvements in building codes and fire
prevention over the last several decades. The Emergency Medical System is expected
to continue to be the predominant factor affecting service demand. Other incidents
(including hazmat, alarm sounding, and service calls) not involving actual fires are
predicted to increase in part due to the use of automatic alarm systems, which
decrease the number of actual fires but increase service demand.
Police
As the population increases, additional patrol districts and mini-stations will be
established to maintain quality service level.
Future Services
As development occurs within the City and portions of the UGA are annexed, the need
for Police and Fire services will also need to be expanded. The increased service
demands and costs will be offset by added revenues associated with development.
Development into the far northwest portions of the UGA will also bring with it a need
for additional fire stations and Police mini-stations along with new police patrol
districts and mini-stations.
The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration of
stations and an extended service area as shown in Figure PS-2. This will be completed
by the end of 2021. Property for an additional station has been purchased at
3624 Road 100. Additional station locations need to be determined in the northwest
area of the City and in the industrial area off of the Kartchner interchange.
PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 88
Figure PS‐2. Proposed Reconfiguration of Stations ‐ 2020 to 2021
Note:
Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan, 2016
Adoption of Plans by Reference
The Police Services Strategic Plan and amendments, the Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan,
and Pasco Fire Department Strategic Plan 2017 thereto are hereby adopted and made a part of
Comprehensive Plan by reference.
.
i
Proposed 4 Staffed
Station Deployment
(81 ,82,Relocated 83 ,
Relocated 84) ~ c, ..... , .. A••
• Staffed Station
Travel Time -Proposed
Staffed Station
~ 6 Minutes Travel
Pasco Fire Department
Study Area
PFD Fi re Station
• Staffed
• Unstaffed
0 City of Pasco
,(,! Pasco UGB
County Boundary
Miles
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 89
Transportation Element
RCW 36.70A.070 (6)
Introduction
The purpose of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure the
transportation system within the UGA is preserved and enhanced to meet the needs of
our community. The Transportation Element must consider all modes of
transportation—from walking to aviation. The Washington State Growth Management
Act requires the Transportation Element to consider existing inventories of services
and facilities, LOS, system deficiencies, regional coordination, land use patterns, and
goals and policies, among other items.
An efficient and well-maintained transportation network is vital to the social and
economic well-being of any community. Reliable access on our roadways, sidewalks
and pathways ensures community members and visitors are able to travel to the
places they need. The Transportation Element considers our rapidly growing city,
changing demographics, and quality of life for our community members. It recognizes
the need to look into the conditions of the future and not limit the flexibility of our
travel in the years to come by what is decided today.
County‐Wide Planning Policies
Franklin County adopted its County-Wide Planning Policies in October 2019, and
encourages efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with the comprehensive plans of Franklin County, the Cities
of Pasco, Mesa, Connell and Kahlotus, the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), and the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
The County-Wide Planning Policies related to transportation are contained in
Appendix B.
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 90
Regional Coordination and Referenced Plans
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) is the federally designated
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Transportation Management Area
(TMA) for the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. BFCG is recognized under Washington
State Law (RCW 47.80.020) as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization
(RTPO) for Benton and Franklin counties. BFCG members include cities, towns,
counties, ports, public transportation (Ben Franklin Transit), and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
BFCG is responsible for the development of a long-range Metropolitan/Regional
Transportation Plan (Transition 2040) that sets transportation policies and goals,
which address regionally significant transportation opportunities and deficiencies
with recommendations for all of Benton and Franklin counties. The City of Pasco
coordinates transportation issues and planning on a regional basis through the BFCG.
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be consistent with the
goals and policies identified in Transition2040 below:
Safety and Security
Preservation
Mobility and Accessibility
Freight and Economic Vitality
Community and Environmental Sustainability
Ben Franklin Transit (BFT) is the regional public transportation service provider. Each
year, BFT adopts Transit Development Plan as required by the Washington State
Legislature and the Federal Transit Administration. The plan identifies projects and
programming consistent with regional policies.
Elected officials and staff for the City of Pasco serve on the policy and technical
advisory boards of both BFCG and BFT.
Local coordination also takes place between the City of Pasco and Franklin County to
ensure local transportation plans and projects are consistent and compatible.
Complete Streets Policy
Complete Streets is a term used to describe a street that is designed to enable safe
access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all
ages. While broad in nature, a complete street is unique and responds to community
context. Different neighborhoods require different solutions ranging from the wider
sidewalks in Downtown Pasco, and bike lanes connecting residential and commercial
corridors, to comfortable and accessible transit stops.
Complete Streets benefit Pasco by creating a livable community for all users for all
trips. They improve equity, safety, and public health, and can help reduce
transportation costs and congestion. The City of Pasco adopted a Complete Streets
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 91
Policy (PMC 12.15) in 2018. It is intended to increase the overall safety of the
community and support the desirability of Pasco as a place to live and conduct
business.
The City will evaluate Level of Traffic Stress indicators for pedestrians and bicyclists as
determined by the Regional Active Transportation Plan.
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on understanding how people
make their transportation decisions and helping identify existing infrastructure that is
in place for transit, walking, biking, telecommuting, and ridesharing. At a basic level,
TDM is a program of information, encouragement, and incentives that can be provided,
at the local or regional level, to help people utilize and understand all of their
transportation options.
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments completed the 2019 Congestion
Management Process that has identified TDM strategies that can include the following:
Flexible work hours
Pedestrian and bicycle network improvements
Ride sharing programs
Congestion pricing
Telecommuting programs
Transit Oriented Development
Parking Management
The strategies identified above are an example of what can be helpful; however, the
context of their applicability will be an important factor in applying any one or
combination of them.
Transportation and Land Use
Transportation and land use decisions influence each other directly by affecting the
amount of land used for transportation facilities such as roads and parking lots, and
indirectly by affecting accessibility and development costs in different locations.
Figure T-1 provides an explanation of how decisions in the planning process impact
travel behavior and potential costs.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 92
Figure T‐1. Transportation and Land Use
As mentioned in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, understanding the
relationship between transportation and land use is key to Pasco’s future success and
sustainability. Land use policies and development patterns play a critical role in
shaping our community and travel behaviors. For example, the compact
neighborhoods of Central Pasco offer residents more of an opportunity to walk or use
public transportation due to the closer proximity of services and destinations.
Neighborhoods where essential services are spread out typically result in a reliance on
driving. The complexity of these relationships further emphasizes the need for
continued coordination and mutually supportive policies.
As Pasco grows, the transportation system will face increased demand. In some areas
of the City, there are limited opportunities to expand vehicle right-of-way without
significant disruption and cost. Strategic investments will need to be made to serve a
rapidly growing population that supports economic development while maintaining
the quality of life of our residents.
Transportation and the Environment
Transportation has a significant impact on the environment. Motor vehicles consume
non-renewable energy resources and in the process discharge waste products to the
atmosphere. Street rights-of-way consume 25% of the developed land within the City.
Congestion and traffic cause noise pollution and paved surfaces increase storm water
run-off.
The consumption of non-renewable resources with motor vehicles is an issue that
requires national attention. Locally, programs to encourage van pooling, ride sharing,
transit use, and non-motorized transportation can help reduce consumption of motor
fuels that pollute the air. Table T-1 indicates examples of sustainable transportation
goals.
Planning Decisions
*development standards *zoning *infrastructure investment
Urban Form
*density *connectivity *design
Travel Behavior
*automobile *public transit *walking *cycling
Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts
*congestion *safety *pollution
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 93
Table T‐1. Sustainable Transportation Objectives
Objectives Definition
Economic
Efficient Mobility Fast and affordable transport of people and goods
Operational Efficiency Maximize efficiency of providing facilities and services
Social
Safety and Health Increased travel safety and public health
Affordability Ability of households to afford basic transportation
Social Equity Supportive of objectives including fair distribution of impacts
(benefits and costs)
Environmental
Pollution Reductions Reduced air, noise, and water pollution
Conservation Efficient use of scarce resources
Preservation Preservation of farmlands, parks, and natural habitats
In 2016, the Washington State Department of Ecology collaborated with local agencies,
including the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, to conduct the Tri-Cities Ozone
Precursor Study. The study measured precursors of ozone and is currently evaluating
implementation of ozone reduction measures.
In Transition2040, the region’s long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan,
community and environmental sustainability was an identified goal aimed at making
and enforcing transportation decisions that protect the environment and promote
sustainable development.
Transportation Inventory
The Comprehensive Plan is required to identify an inventory of transportation
facilities and services available within the city. Pasco’s transportation system is diverse
in a variety of ways, due to its location along the Columbia River and being home to the
only regional airport and passenger rail station. The following section will highlight the
various modes of transportation and travel.
Air Travel
The PSC is owned and operated by the Port and is the
largest in the Southeastern Washington and
Northeastern Oregon regions. With connections to
eight major hubs, it helps serve a vibrant and growing
region with easy and reliable air travel. In the past five
years, the number of enplanements at the airport has
increased by nearly 100,000, which represents both
the continued vibrancy of the region and the growing
flight service available at the airport (Figure T-2).
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 94
Figure T‐2. Destinations of Tri‐Cities Airport (PSC)
The PSC is served by the following airlines: Delta, Alaska Air, United, and Allegiant,
with flights to Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Denver, Salt Lake City, Los
Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix-Mesa. Aircraft services include major and minor
repair, navigational radio repair and sales, flight training, aircraft rental, aircraft
charter, aircraft storage, and aircraft sales. Figure T-3 indicates total enplanements of
PSC. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates the Air Traffic Control Tower
and the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) that provide airspace
management and radar coverage to Pasco as well as several area airports.
Figure T‐3. Pasco Airport Statistics ‐ Total Enplanements
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
Total Enplanements
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 95
In 2014, the Port approved a $42 million renovation and expansion plan that doubled
the size of the airport terminal. Construction was completed in January of 2017 and
included a new west concourse along with new car rental and baggage claim areas.
The recent improvements and services offered by the airport have resulted in a steady
increase of passenger travel. In 2019, an additional 86,000 passengers traveled
through the PSC, increasing the total to 870,890. The Port is currently developing a
new Master Plan for the PSC.
Marine Travel
The Port owns and operates the Big Pasco Industrial Center and Container Terminal.
Combined, they consist of over two miles of waterfront on the north side of the
Columbia River, upstream from the mouth of Snake River. Connections for trucking
and rail can be made at the terminal. A Port-owned rail spur connecting to the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe serves the dock and yard area.
Before 2005, the Port had the largest bulk cargo tonnage movement of any terminal on
the upper river system and provided docking, loading and unloading for grain and
petroleum barges. In 2004 the Port had moved 4,231 containers (101,126 tons) of
cargo through its terminal. In 2008, however, many of the international shipping lines
discontinued service at the Port of Portland, which subsequently shifted the bulk of the
containers to rail and truck
Nearby on the Snake River lies a barge terminal operated by Tidewater Barge Lines.
The barge line ships grain down-river and petroleum products upriver.
Rail
Pasco Rail Yard
Pasco has been a train switch and makeup center for over a century. BNSF Railway has
several miles of mainline and a complex system of sidetrack within Pasco. BNSF also
maintains a computerized classification yard in Pasco. Trains are moved into the yard
and broken up and blocked for movement east, west, north, and south.
The BNSF mainline from Vancouver to Spokane via Pasco sees 45 to 55 freight
movements a day, accounting for more than 100 million gross ton miles per year.
Loaded grain cars are also held or stored in Pasco prior to movement down river to
Portland.
BNSF also operates from the Tri-Cities to Auburn via Yakima, Ellensburg, and
Stampede Pass.
Passenger Rail
Daily Amtrak passenger service is available in Pasco at the Pasco Intermodal Train
Station. The station is on Amtrak’s Empire Builder line, servicing Portland to the west
and Spokane to the east. From 2011 to 2018, the station averaged 23,572 passengers
per year. Figure T-4 indicates the total boarding and alighting by year.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 96
Figure T‐4. Total Boarding and Alighting at Pasco Intermodal Train Station
Recently, the Washington State Legislature commissioned a feasibility analysis of an
east-west intercity passenger rail system over Stampede Pass, serving cities in the
South Puget Sound and along the Yakima Valley, including connections to the Tri-Cities
and Spokane.
Public Transportation
Pasco is served by the Ben Franklin Transit (BFT), which operates 17 fixed routes
through the Tri-Cities metropolitan area. In addition to the fixed-route system, BFT
provides a Dial-A-Ride service for community members. Taxi-contracted services were
lost in late 2018; however, BFT restored night service on its bus routes to continue to
serve passengers. Vanpool service has been a successful program for BFT, and in 2016,
the program ranked fourth largest in the state. In 2017, BFT provided over two million
unlinked passenger rides on its fixed route service, with another 646,200 trips on the
BFT vanpool program.
BFT operates nine routes in the City of Pasco that serve a variety of communities and
neighborhoods including Columbia Basin College, Pasco and Chiawana High Schools,
Downtown Pasco, Tierra Vida, and the Road 68 and Sandifur corridors. Figure T-5 and
Figure T-6 provide journey to work statistics for Pasco and an illustrative map of
where BFT fixed route services.
Another popular service offered by BFT is their park and ride facilities, located on
22nd and Sylvester, and near the HAPO Center off Road 68. These locations and their
capacities are identified Figure T-7.
Data from the American Community Survey indicates that there has been a decrease in
public transportation use in the City of Pasco. In 2009, 2.2% of all trips were made on
public transportation, and in 2017 that decreased to less than 1%.
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
Total Passengers
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 97
Figure T‐5. Journey to Work (Public Transportation)
Figure T‐6. BFT System Map
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PCT
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
25 ••••••
41 ---
42 ---
47 ---
48 ---
■
KEY
65 ~ ··-67 WN,/',,
110 -
120 -
121 -
■ ■
126 -,so -
160 ---
170
225 -
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 98
Figure T‐7. BFT Park and Ride Facilities
The 2019 Transit Development Plan for Ben Franklin Transit includes an emphasis on
urban design to support transit facilities and technology. This includes equipping
busses with Wi-Fi, and advocating for better land use and transportation integration to
foster transit usage in the community.
Further out, BFT has plans to develop new transit centers to serve Downtown Pasco
and the planned growth in NW Pasco, specifically in the Broadmoor area.
Streets, Roadways and Highways
The City of Pasco currently manages and maintains approximately 322.88 centerline
miles of public streets which does not include alleyways, private streets, or the State
and Federal system. The citywide transportation system includes 56 controlled
(signalized) intersections.
City streets are federally required to be classified according to how they function
within the overall transportation network. Table T-2 indicates functional classification
description.
BFT Service Area Park & Ride Capacity N
Park & Rid♦S Capeity
e 2s .110
• 111 -156
• 156 ·220
-W •lSS
-2115,340
0 1 2 4 6 6
Miles
A
Lege nd
--i:.«o~
c::JPubkTr,~IBene!ilN'N
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 99
Table T‐2. Functional Classification
Classification Description
Principal
Arterials
Intercommunity and intra-metro area streets that are primarily used
for traffic movement. Their general characteristics include moderate to
high speeds that are generally 35 mph to 55 mph, high traffic
generators, and no on-street parking
Minor
Arterials
Intercommunity and intra-metro area streets that provide primarily
for traffic movement and secondarily for land access. Their general
characteristics include moderate speeds (30 mph and above) and
moderate to high traffic volumes (5,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day),
some restriction on traffic movements, controlled driveway spacing,
and on-street parking is generally prohibited
Collectors
Streets with primary function to collect and distribute traffic between
the local street system and the arterial street system. Collectors also
provide for land access and inter-neighborhood traffic movement.
Their general characteristics include low speeds (25 mph and above),
low to moderate traffic volumes (500 to 20,000 vehicles per day),
limited regulation of access control, and limited on-street parking
Local Access
Streets that primarily serve direct land access with the secondary
function of traffic movement. Their general characteristics include low
speeds (25 mph), low traffic volumes (less than 1,500 vehicles per
day), few access controls, and parking is generally permitted
Table T-3 below identifies the percentage of the transportation network within the
City and their corresponding classification.
Table T‐3. Mileage and Street Classification
Street Classification Total Miles Pasco Federal
Guidelines
Interstate 18.92 4.92% 1-3%
Other Freeways & Expressways 17.99 4.68% 0-2%
Other Principle Arterials 16.82 4.37% 4-5%
Minor Arterials 30.42 7.91% 7-14%
Collectors 45.97 11.95% 7-15%
Local Access 254.46 66.17% 63-75%
TOTAL 384.58 100%
State and Federal Transportation Facilities
Pasco is connected to the region and the northwest by various state and federal
transportation routes. These include Interstate I-182, US Highway 395, US Highway
12, and State Route 397 (Figure T-8).
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 100
Figure T‐8. Federal and State Facilities
Table T-4 provides information on state route mileage in the City of Pasco.
Table T‐4. State Route Mileage
Route Beginning
Mile Post Beginning Ending
Mile Post Ending Route
Miles
I-182 6.04 Benton Co. Line
at Columbia Point 15.19 East of Jct. SR 395/
SR 397 at Pasco 9.15
US 395 18.93 Benton Co. Line
at Pasco/Kenn Bridge 25.53 Leave Pasco 6.60
US 12 291.67 End I-182 at Pasco 293.21 Leave Pasco 1.54
SR 397 6.26 Benton Co. Line
at Pasco/Kenn Bridge 10.25 Jct. I-182/U.S. 395
at Pasco 3.99
Total Route Miles 21.28
Legend
--Federal & State Facilities
I I City Limit s
-Pasco U rban Growth Boundary D Proposed -Urban Growth A rea
--~----------..L-"'!" ___ ...
•
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 101
Freight and Goods Transportation
The movement of freights and goods plays an important role in the transportation
system of the City and the regional economy. There are over 60 trucking firms licensed
in Pasco, and while they are primarily located along industrial corridors, they have a
significant impact on the overall transportation system.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has developed a
classification system for the statewide Freight and Goods Transportation System
(FGTS). This is a classification system for roadways, railways and waterways based on
freight tonnage (Figure T-9).
Figure T‐9. WSDOT FGTS Map
In addition to the Freight and Goods Transportation System, the City of Pasco also
establishes truck routes in the Municipal Code (PMC 10.80.040). Truck traffic and
vehicles with a gross weight of 14,000 pounds or more are restricted to the streets
identified in the transportation maps in Appendix A.
Traffic Volumes
The number of people traveling on our roadways is important in understanding how
our community is using the transportation system. Tracking the volumes and the
modes in which people are traveling can help with the maintenance of system in future
years and identify which corridors are operating at capacity. Volumes for city and state
transportation facilities are found in Table T-5.
Legend
FG T S -Classification
--T-1
--T-2
--T-3
T-4
--T-5
( I City Limits
1-.-~
__ J
-Pasco Urban Growth Boundary c:J Proposed -Urban Growth Area
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 102
Table T‐5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Comparison
Historical Average Daily Traffic Volume Comparisons
Roadway Location 2006 2010 2016 2018 %Change
North‐South Roadways
Road 68 Argent Rd to I-182 10,883 13,840 17,209
18,498 70%
Burden Blvd to Sandifur Pkwy 18,976 22,886 18,215
18,837 -1%
Sandifur Pkwy to North City Limits 8,177 9,883 10,444
11,142 36%
Broadmoor
Blvd Welsh Dr to St. Thomas Dr 6,418 7,576 9,994
9,986 56%
St. Thomas Dr to I-182 12,789 16,208 21,765
22,163 73%
I-182 to Sandifur Pkwy 10,472 10,255 21,596
22,434 114%
East‐West Roadways
Sandifur
Pkwy Road 68 to Valdez Rd -- 8,009 12,106
13,609 70%
Valdez Rd to Outlet Mall -- 9,135 11,507
13,449 47%
Outlet Mall to Broadmoor Blvd 6,724 9,931 12,208
14,211 111%
Burden
Blvd Road 44 to Road 60 6,457 9,353 7,657
7,614 18%
Road 60 to Robert Wayne Dr 7,770 11,455 15,233
17,044 119%
Road 68 Pl to Road 68 11,432 12,847 21,558
23,267 104%
Argent Rd 20th Ave to Road 44 -- 9,311 13,165
13,720 47%
Road 52 to Road 68 3,548 4,969 6,211
6,316 78%
Road 68 to Road 84 4,404 7,442 8,379
8,857 101%
Notes:
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Regional Traffic Count Program
--: not applicable
The most traveled roadway in Pasco is Burden Boulevard, just east of Road 68, with a
total mid-week average of over 23,000 vehicles. Broadmoor Boulevard, just north of
Interstate I-182, experiences the second highest amount (22,434).
WSDOT publishes truck traffic volumes on the state highway system (estimated, not
actual counts) in their Annual Traffic Reports. The data includes truck percentages of
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Table T-6 shows estimated truck volumes, at
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 103
selected sites in Pasco, on the state highway system between 2010 and 2016. The data
shows substantial increases in estimated truck volumes in the primary corridors.
Table T‐6. Average Daily Truck Traffic
Average Daily Highway Truck Traffic ‐ 2010 to 2016
State
Route Location 2010
Trucks
2012
Trucks
2014
Trucks
2016
Trucks
182 At Columbia
River Bridge 3,342 3,356 3,568 3,867
395
After ramp
SR 240 4,567 4,571 4,825 5,125
S/O Vineyard Dr. 3,151 3,190 3,375 3,656
Active Transportation (Non‐Motorized)
Active transportation is an umbrella term that refers to any non-motorized
transportation mode, for example, walking, biking, skateboarding, or using a
wheelchair. Understanding the locations where community members travel when not
in a vehicle is important in ensuring that the mobility needs of residents are met. The
following section provides information on city bikeways, pathways, and sidewalk
networks.
Similar to the decrease in public transportation ridership, data from the American
Community Survey shows that there has been a slight decrease in non-motorized
mode travel to work. In 2017, 0.7% of all trips to work were made by foot or bicycle,
compared to 2.1% in 2009 (Figure T-10).
Figure T‐10. Journey to Work (Bike/Walk)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PCT
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 104
Sidewalks
Walking may be the most important mode of transportation within the community. All
other modes of travel begin and end with people walking. A well-connected
community also includes safe access to sidewalks from our residential neighborhoods
and along our major travel corridors.
Sidewalks are required in all residential neighborhoods within city limits. In areas with
higher movements of people, sidewalks are required to provide adequate widths. For
example, Downtown Pasco has wider sidewalks, allowing residents and customers to
walk and enjoy a safer pathway as they shop downtown.
In total, the City of Pasco maintains over 360 miles of sidewalks. In 2019, the City
Council adopted Ordinance 4454, requiring adequate street improvements, including
sidewalks in all residential zoning districts.
Trails
There are over 35 miles of walking trails in the Pasco area including both separated
asphalt paths and City sidewalks. They consist of a 6.4 mile Sacajawea Heritage Trail, a
one-mile trail around the Road 68 softball complex, a 6.2-mile trail along the north side
of I-182, a .80-mile trail along the south side of Burden Boulevard, and a 2.2-mile trail
at the cross-country course off Road 36.
The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan also includes a proposed trail along the FCID
irrigation canal right-of-way. This right-of-way is located midway between the
Columbia River and the north City limits and extends east to west for over five miles.
When the canal is fully enclosed in a pipe, the 50- to 100-foot-wide right-of-way has
ample room for pedestrian paths, bike paths, jogging paths, and equestrian trails. The
canal right-of-way would allow development of pathways, with few conflicts with
motorized facilities. The first two miles of the canal, from Road 111 and Court Street to
Road 88, is enclosed.
Sacajawea Trail
The City of Pasco participated with the Cities of Kennewick and Richland, Benton and
Franklin Counties, the Ports of Benton, Kennewick, and Pasco, as well as the Tri-Cities
Visitor and Convention Bureau, to develop the Sacagawea Heritage Trail Master Plan.
The purpose or vision of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail Plan is to implement and
maintain a multi-purpose recreation and transportation trail that engages trail users;
interprets cultural, historic, and natural elements; and enhances the Columbia River
and its shoreline within the community. This trail is approximately 14 miles long.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 105
Level of Service
Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative measures established for various types of
roadways using factors such as speed, freedom to maneuver, interruptions in the
traffic flow, and convenience. LOS ranges from A to F and are defined by the
Transportation Research Board. Table T-7 identifies the LOS and their definitions.
Table T‐7. Level of Service (LOS)
Category Definition
LOS A
Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and higher speeds.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic
stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal
LOS B
Represents reasonably unimpeded traffic flow operations at average
travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only
slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are
not generally subjected to appreciable tensions
LOS C
In the range of stable flow but speeds and maneuverability are more
closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now
significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream
and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial
vigilance on the part of the driver. The general level of comfort and
convenience declines noticeably at this level
~4 59!nF~F :fi~ ..
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 106
Category Definition
LOS D
Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to
maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian
experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. Small
increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at
this level
LOS E
Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level.
Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult,
and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to
“give way” to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience
levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is
generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because
small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream
will cause breakdowns
LOS F
Describes forced flow operation at very low speeds and long delays.
Volumes exceed theoretical capacity. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and then be
required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Operations within a queue are
characterized by stop and go waves and are extremely unstable
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments is required by the Washington Growth
Management Act to identify LOS standards. In Transition2040, BFCG adopted uniform
urban and rural standards for the two-county region (Table T-8).
Table T‐8. BFCG LOS Standards
Population Level of Service
> 5,000 LOS D
< 5,000 LOC C
The City of Pasco has adopted LOS standards for various streets as indicated in Table 9
below:
Table T‐9. City of Pasco LOS Standards
Functional Classification Level of Service
Local Streets LOS C
Arterials and Collectors LOS D
Transportation Concurrency
The Washington State GMA (RCW 36.70A.070) requires cities to “adopt and enforce
ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level
of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standard adopted in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, unless transportation
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 107
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made
concurrent with the development.”
The GMA further specifies that “concurrent with the development” means that
improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that financial
commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years.
To address the concurrency requirements, the City adopted Ordinance No. 3821,
establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with
new development. These procedures are located in PMC 12.36.
Deficiencies and Improvements
The City meets its transportation concurrency requirements by identifying deficiencies
based on the LOS standards established in Table T-9 and addressing deficiencies
through short and long-term improvements. The City plans to provide adequate
transportation facilities within its growth areas as growth occurs according to the
GMA. The Pasco Capital Improvement Program is updated annually to meet the needs
of growth.
For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, five primary sources are used to
evaluate the transportation system and identify deficiencies and short-range and long-
range improvements to address deficiencies:
Evaluation of 2018 traffic volumes and historic trends
2020–2025 Transportation Improvement Program
2015–2020 Capital Improvement Program
Broadmoor Area Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Impact Analysis
Evaluation of the BFCG Regional Traffic Model
The following maps have been produced to help in this evaluation and are included in
Appendix A. Mapfolio:
Existing Functionally Classified Transportation Network
Existing Intersection Control
Existing Number of Lanes
Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio
Existing Intersection Control Evaluation
Future 2038 Street Functionally Classification System
Future 2038 PM Peak Period Traffic Volumes
Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 108
Future 2038 Intersection Control Evaluation
Transportation Improvements
Short‐Term Improvements
Traffic volumes collected by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments in 2018 were
reviewed and evaluated at a planning level for both roadway segments and
intersection LOS to identify potential areas of concern that may not meet City
standards. These volumes represent the vast majority of functionally classified
roadway segments and intersections of functionally classified roads. In cases where
2018 volumes were unavailable, 2016 volumes, or volumes representing 2015 existing
conditions from the Regional Travel Demand Model were used. Capacities from the
regional model were also used for each roadway. The resulting roadway network
volume to capacity ratios are included in Appendix A. Intersection approach volumes
were also examined and evaluated for two conditions: 1) whether stop control is
adequate when comparing major street and minor street traffic volumes, comparing to
a Highway Capacity Manual (Intersection Control Type and Peak-Hour Volumes); and
2) for signalized intersections, entering volumes are compared with entering capacity
with an intersection adjustment factor to account for the fact that two roadways must
share the pavement within the intersection.
The City of Pasco annually prepares and updates a Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) that is designed to maintain the transportation network
and address known deficiencies and issues. Studies for various issues are often
identified in the TIP in order to determine appropriate solutions for known concerns.
The results of the analysis described above are compared with the current Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and it was found that each deficiency was addressed by a
project in the TIP (Table T-10).
In 2018, the Pasco City Council approved the budget considerations for the development of
the city’s first Transportation System Master Plan (TSMP). The TSMP will be an extensive
technical and policy-oriented document that will evaluate the existing transportation system
and identify the most important improvements that will service the community in the future.
The TSMP is a more refined evaluation than what is prepared for the Comprehensive Plan.
Table T‐10. Short Range Transportation Improvements
Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($)
Lewis Street
Overpass
Construct a new railroad
overpass between 2nd Ave
and Oregon Ave to replace
the existing deteriorating
underpass
Connecting
Washington,
Arterial Street Fund,
Street Overlay Fund,
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, REET, Water
Utility, Stormwater
Utility, TIB, Fed STBG
$32,016,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 109
Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($)
Lewis Street
Corridor
Improvements
Tie Lewis Street Overpass
into other downtown
improvements for safety and
Pedestrian/Bicycle
accessibility
CDBG Grant, REET,
Stormwater Utility $1,625,000
Road 68/Burden
Blvd Intersection
Improvements
Channelization
improvements to reduce
queueing on westbound
approach and
access to I-182
Arterial Street Fund,
Fed STBG $260,000
Wrigley Drive
Extension
Extend from Clemente Lane
to Convention Drive
Fed STBG, Arterial
Street Fund, Water
Utility Fund,
Irrigation Utility
Fund, Sewer Utility
Fund
$310,000
Road 68 Widening
South of I-182
Widen from Argent Road to
I-182 to 5 lanes and
sidewalks
Fed STBG, Arterial
Street Fund $307,628
Argent Road
Improvements -
Phase 1
Widen from 20th Ave to
Varney/Saraceno to 5 lanes,
with intersection
improvements
Private, Arterial
Street Fund $2,015,000
Argent Road
Improvements -
Phase 2
Widen from
Varney/Saraceno to Road 36
to 5 lanes, with intersection
improvements
Private, Arterial
Street Fund $3,715,000
Burns Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Pathway Phase 1
12-foot-wide Pedestrian/
Bicycle pathway from
Road 100 to Road 90
REET, Safe Routes to
School $120,000
Burns Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Pathway Phase 2
12-foot-wide Pedestrian/
Bicycle pathway from
Road 90 to Road 84
REET, Safe Routes to
School $71,000
Burns Road
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Pathway Phase 3
12-foot-wide Pedestrian/
Bicycle pathway from
Road 84 to Road 68
REET, Safe Routes to
School $102,000
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Access Road 100
Interchange
Pedestrian/Bicycle facilities
on Road 100 from St
Thomas Dr to Harris Road
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, Arterial Street
Fund, State grant
$2,320,000
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Access Road 68
Interchange
Pedestrian/Bicycle facility
on Road 68 from Chapel Hill
Blvd to Burden Blvd
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, State grant $1,100,000
Sacajawea
Heritage Trail
Lower the levee and install
pathways for pedestrians REET, state grant $4,731,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 110
Project Title Project Description Funding Source Total Cost ($)
Levee from Road 52 to Road 72
Sandifur Pkwy
Widening
Widen from Road 60 to
Road 52
Street Overlay Fund,
Arterial Street Fund $425,000
Court Street/ Road
68 Intersection
Improvements
Improve safety, intersection
control, and capacity
Arterial Street Fund,
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, State
$860,000
Study Road
44/Argent Road
intersection
Study Road 44/Argent Road
intersection
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, State grant $65,000
Traffic Analysis for
I-182/US 395
Interchange
Traffic Analysis for I-182/
US 395 Interchange
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, State grant $265,000
Traffic Analysis for
US 12/Tank Farm
Road
Traffic Analysis for
US 12/Tank Farm Road
I-182 Corridor Impact
Fund, State grant $250,000
FCID Canal
Pedestrian/
Bicycle Pathway
Study
FCID Canal Pedestrian/
Bicycle/Pathway Study REET, state grant $870,000
Sandifur Pkwy
Extension Phase 1
From Road 100 west ~2,800
feet and modify current
Harris Road connection
Developer, Arterial
Street Fund $1,650,000
James Street
Improvements
Improve safety and
pedestrian features and
consolidate accesses
LID $483,000
Total $53,560,628
Future Functionally Classified Network
Growth in the City of Pasco is anticipated in several undeveloped areas, including
existing county islands south of I-182, as well as areas within the existing UGA north of
I-182, and areas in the proposed UGA Expansion further to the north. The City of Pasco
has planned a roadway network to serve these developing areas and many of the
improvements are anticipated to be paid for by private development.
The future functionally classified street system of roadways anticipated to serve the
City of Pasco is shown in Appendix A and is the network towards which the City is
working to provide in order to serve development. It includes the following mileages
of the various types of roads:
Interstate (18.92 miles)
Other freeway/expressway (17.99 miles)
Principal Arterials (33.3 miles)
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 111
Minor Arterials (31.29 miles)
Collectors (38.23 miles)
Local (residential) streets (234.8 miles, existing, future is yet to be determined)
Roadway System Deficiencies
The GMA requires that communities forecast anticipated growth in traffic volumes for
at least a 10-year horizon period, based on the adopted land use plan, to provide
information on the needs of future growth.
To assist with identifying future conditions, the BFCG develops and maintains the
regional travel demand model. The model is a strategic planning tool that includes
population and employment forecasts, identifies transportation projects, and models
future conditions across the region. The outcome is a regional model that is adopted
by the BFCG Board, of which the City of Pasco is a member.
The City of Pasco submitted to BFCG updated population and employment forecasts,
by Transportation Analysis Zones, that reflect the expanded UGA and land uses
associated with the Comprehensive Plan. An updated traffic volume forecast, using the
regional travel demand model, was prepared but was not represented in the current
Regional Transportation Plan: Transition2040. This effort ensures that the Land Use
Element and the Transportation Element are consistent for the purposes of this
Comprehensive Plan. The results of this refined regional model provide insights and
better understanding as to how the transportation network will function with the
increase in population and employment. The regional model forecasts a two-hour
peak traffic volume.
A similar analysis to that of existing conditions was performed using the traffic volume
forecasts to evaluate both roadway segments and intersections to determine where
capacity needs are anticipated, based on the land uses built into the regional model. In
addition to the network that will be needed to serve future undeveloped areas of the
City in the expanded UGA, there are potential roadway capacity enhancements that
will be needed to serve forecasted travel volumes on Road 68, Road 100, Broadmoor
Boulevard, Court Street, Road 44, and Road 36. There are also approximately
50 intersections that are identified for capacity improvements. These range from
construction of exclusive turn lanes, traffic signals or roundabouts, or reconstruction
of an existing traffic signal to include additional lanes through an intersection.
The Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio Map (Appendix A) identifies that several
roadway corridors will experience increased travel congestion. The most notable are
the I-182 interchanges at Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68. The US
395/I-182 interchange will also experience added levels of congestion.
The City of Pasco has been involved with discussions with WSDOT to evaluate the
I-182 interchanges to identify appropriate solutions. These solutions will likely need
to address congestion at each of the ramp terminals as well as capacity over I-182
itself.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 112
The detection of forecasted congestion after discussion with WSDOT and other
regional stakeholders (BFCG) significantly influenced the land use assumptions of the
Comprehensive Plan. Revised land uses now include higher housing densities and
additional employment and commercial uses, the result of which has reduced the per
capita demand on these two interchanges and I-182 over the Columbia, and similarly
US 395 over the Columbia River.
The City of Pasco is committed to additional demand management activities, discussed
elsewhere in this Comprehensive Plan, to preserve and protect the investments in
these major facilities.
The Comprehensive Plan will require improvement projects for both the short-range
as well as the long-range horizons to address LOS deficiencies and to serve the
growing population. Additional improvements will also be needed as part of the Plan’s
proactive strategy to encourage economic development. Projects also may be needed
to address safety or maintenance needs. Table T-11 shows the preliminary
recommended improvements to address LOS deficiencies, as well as projects
anticipated to be constructed to provide the future functionally classified network
(Appendix A). Potential funding sources are listed in Table T-11 as well, although
being a long-range forecast, these funding sources are not yet fixed or secured.
Long‐Term Improvements
This section will discuss the future transportation network to serve the anticipated
growth within the City. As mentioned on page 106, Pasco’s upcoming Transportation
System Master Plan will included additional data and analysis addressing intersection
movements and travel forecasts that may identify additional projects and insight of the
recommendations of this planning level analysis such that some may alter the projects
listed in Table T-11 (below).
Table T‐11. Long Range Transportation Improvements
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Access Sylvester St
Overpass
Pedestrian/Bicycle facility
on
Sylvester St from
32nd Ave to 28th Ave
I-182 Corridor
Impact Fund,
State grant
$1,500,000
Road 100 widening Widen from Court St
to Chapel Hill Blvd
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$4,125,000
Crescent Rd
Construct a new Road in the
Crescent Road Right-of-Way
to connect Road 108 and
Chapel Hill Blvd
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$400,000
Sandifur Pkwy
Extension - Phase 2
From 2,800 feet west of
Road 100 to Dent Rd
Developer,
Arterial Street $1,650,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 113
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Fund
Road 76 Overpass
Extend Road 76 from
Chapel Hill Blvd to
Burden Blvd over I-182
I-182 Corridor
Impact Fund,
Arterial Street
Fund,
Connecting
Washington
successor
program
$30,000,000
Broadmoor Blvd
Widening
5-lane cross section; two NB
lanes; two SB lanes, two-way
left-turn lane from the I-182
WB Ramps to approximately
halfway between Burns Rd
and Dent Rd and signalize
intersection at Broadmoor
Blvd
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$3,654,000
Future East-West
Connection (Deseret
Drive Alignment)
Located mid-way between
Dent Rd/Broadmoor Blvd
and Burns Rd/Dent Rd
Developer $2,755,000
Sandifur Pkwy
Extension
5-lane minor arterial
extending west from 5600 ft
west of Broadmoor Blvd
Developer $3,538,000
Broadmoor Blvd/
Dent Rd Traffic Signal
Install traffic signal and
widen each approach for
dedicated left turn lanes
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$350,000
Broadmoor Blvd/
Burns Rd
Traffic Signal
Install traffic signal and
widen each approach for
dedicated left turn lanes and
dedicated EB right turn lane
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$350,000
Sandifur Parkway/
Broadmoor Blvd
intersection
improvements
Add dual NB left turn lanes;
dual SB left turn lanes; dual
EB right turn lanes
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$700,000
Broadmoor Blvd/new
east-west connector
traffic signal
New signal serving
approximately mid-way
between Dent Rd and Burns
Rd at new east-west
connector
I-182 Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$350,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 114
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Broadmoor Blvd
Widening
Capacity improvements from
Deseret Drive to UGA
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$2,535,000
Burns Rd Capacity improvements;
Broadmoor to Road 44 N
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer, Fed
STBG grant
$13,804,000
Future Connection:
Deseret Dr
Capacity improvements;
Broadmoor to Road 44 N Developer $8,137,000
Capacity
Improvements;
Clark/Dent
Capacity Improvements and
widening; Dent Rd to Road
52
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$8,019,000
Road 52 Capacity improvements;
Burns Rd north to UGA Developer $1,391,000
Road 60 Capacity improvements;
Burns Rd north to UGA Developer $2,781,000
Convention Drive Capacity improvements;
Burns Rd north to UGA Developer $2,781,000
Road 68
Capacity
Improvements/widening;
Sandifur Parkway to Clark
Rd
I-182 Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer
$5,736,000
Road 84
Capacity
Improvements/widening;
Burns Rd to UGA
Developer $3,734,000
Road 90
Capacity
Improvements/widening;
Burns Rd to UGA
Developer $3,966,000
Future Connection;
Approx 2,600 ft west
of Broadmoor Blvd
Harris Rd to Dent Rd Developer $5,408,000
Dent Rd
New road Harris Rd to
Burns Rd, Capacity
Improvements; Burns Rd
to UGA
Developer $5,046,000
Hillsboro Rd Extension New road from east of
King Ave to UGA Developer $2,730,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 115
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Wernett Rd Extension New road from Rd 76
to Road 84
Arterial Street
Fund, Water
Utility Fund,
Sewer Utility
Fund
$1,365,000
Road 100/Argent Rd Install Traffic Signal
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund
$250,000
Lewis St/Heritage Ave Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street
Fund $220,000
Sandifur Pkwy:
Convention to Rd 68 Widen to 5 lanes
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund
$335,000
Burden Blvd/Road 60 Install Traffic Signal
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund
$30,000
Road 44/Burden Blvd Install Traffic Signal
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund
$190,000
Heritage Ave/A St Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street
Fund $220,000
Madison Ave/
Burden Blvd Install Traffic Signal Arterial Street
Fund $190,000
Road 44/Argent Rd Install Traffic Signal
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$250,000
Harris Rd Realignment Broadmoor to Sandifur
Pkwy
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund
$267,250
Dent Rd/Road 68,
Columbia River Rd/
Taylor Flats Rd/
Clark Rd Intersection
Improvements
Re-design/construct
intersection for all 5-legs
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
Developer,
State
$1,000,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 116
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Sandifur Pkwy/
Road 76 Intersection Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$350,000
Burns Rd/Road 68 Intersection Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$350,000
Sanidfur Pkwy/
Road 68 Intersection Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$700,000
Chapel Hill Blvd/
Road 68 Intersection Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$700,000
Argent Rd/Road 68 Intersection Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$700,000
Wernett Rd/Road 68 Intersection Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$350,000
Court St/Road 60 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $350,000
Argent Rd/Road 52 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $350,000
Court St/Road 52 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $350,000
Sylvester St/Road 28 Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $700,000
20th Ave/A St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $300,000
10th Ave/Sylvester St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $50,000
10th Ave/A St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $700,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 117
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
10th Ave/
Ainsworth St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $700,000
4th Ave/Ainsworth St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $350,000
Cedar Ave/Lewis St Intersection Improvements Arterial Street
Fund, State $350,000
Road 68 Court St to
Argent Rd Capacity Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$1,158,000
Court St Rd 84 to
Road 68 Capacity Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, Street
Overlay Fund,
Water Utility
Fund, Sewer
Utility Fund
$2,841,000
Road 44 Argent Rd to
Madison Ave Capacity Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$852,000
Road 36 Argent Rd to
Desert Plateau Drive Capacity Improvements
Arterial Street
Fund, I-182
Corridor
Impact Fund,
State
$1,748,000
I-182/Road 68
Interchange
Improvements
Interchange Reconstruction,
improve on and off-capacity
for EB and WB traffic,
widen bridge structure.
Connecting
Washington
successor
program,
Arterial Street
Fund, Street
Overlay Fund,
I-182 Corridor
Impact Fund,
REET, TIB, Fed
STBG
$40,000,000
I-182/Broadmoor
Blvd Interchange
Improvements
Interchange Reconstruction,
improve on and off-capacity
for EB and WB traffic,
widen bridge structure.
Connecting
Washington
successor
program,
Arterial Street
Fund, Street
Overlay Fund,
I-182 Corridor
$40,000,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 118
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Impact Fund,
REET, TIB, Fed
STBG
Court St/Rd 36 Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$700,000
20th Ave/I-182
eastbound ramps
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$700,000
20th Ave/I-182
westbound ramps
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$700,000
20th Ave/Argent Rd Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$700,000
4th Ave/I-182
Westbound ramps
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$700,000
4th Ave/3rd Ave Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$700,000
Court Street/Harris
Road
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Court Street/Crescent
Road
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Court Street/Road 100 Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Court Street/Rd 84 Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Burns Rd/Convention
Drive
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Sandifur/Convention
Drive
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Sandifur/Road 60 Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Wernett Rd/ Road 52 Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Sylvester Street/ Road
36
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street $350,000
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 119
Project Title Project Description Funding
Source Total Cost ($)
Fund
Lewis Street/ 14th
Ave
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Lewis Street/1st Ave Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Broadway Street/
Oregon Ave
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Ainsworth Street/
Oregon Ave
Signalized intersection /
capacity improvements
Developer,
Arterial Street
Fund
$350,000
Total $222,452,250
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
In 2016, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments adopted the Regional Active
Transportation Plan. The plan addresses existing conditions for non-motorized travel
in the region and identifies projects, plans, and policies for implementation
Specific issues for Pasco ranged from maintenance of existing facilities and locations,
as well as barriers such as gaps in the network and freeway barriers. While the Lewis
Street Overpass project will replace a dilapidated bridge and roadway, the new
crossing will include additional space for bicycles and pedestrian users that will
significantly improvement access between East Pasco and Downtown.
The Short-Range Transportation Improvements (Table T-10) includes improvements
on Argent Road that will provide safety enhancements adjacent to the PSC and
Columbia Basin College. A new pedestrian and bicycle pathway is identified on Burns
Road, on the northern edge of the current Pasco City Limits. A variety of other
considerations are also included in the Short- and Long-Range Transportation
Improvements tables to ensure there is adequate opportunity for all users of the
transportation system to travel where they need to.
Air and Rail Service
As identified earlier in the chapter, the PSC has experienced positive growth in
ridership levels and that trend will only increase as Pasco and the region grows.
Recently, the airport announced new daily flights to Los Angeles, California, and
Chicago, Illinois, further pointing towards the success of airport operations and
passenger demands. The Pasco Airport Master Plan calls for a runway extension to the
northwest in order to accommodate faster larger aircraft. This runway extension will
cause the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to be extended further to the northwest.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 120
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in recent years has taken significant
interest in development within Runway Protection Zones, and the City of Pasco has
worked cooperatively with the Port to update the Airport Overlay Zone to protect the
airport and create appropriate land uses surrounding the airport.
Demand for freight and passenger rail facilities could increase, depending on the type
of new commercial and industrial development the Plan’s economic strategy attracts.
The City of Pasco serves as a significant hub of rail activity. As needs expand, there
appears to be ample space in which the rail yard can expand to serve the needs.
Recommendations
Improvement Projects
The Comprehensive Plan will require improvement projects for both planning periods
to address level of service deficiencies. Additional improvements will be needed as
part of the Plan’s proactive strategy to encourage economic development. Projects also
may be needed to address safety or maintenance needs.
Some projects will be the City’s responsibility; WSDOT facilities will be the
responsibility of WSDOT, and in many cases, developers will be required to construct
improvements associated with proposed subdivisions or other developments.
Finance
The City of Pasco receives funding for transportation projects from a variety of
sources, including, but not limited to the following:
Impact fees
City General Fund
Arterial and Urban Street Funds
Capital Improvement Fund
Transportation Improvement Board
Highway Safety Program
Federal Surface Transportation Program
Pasco’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is updated each year and helps the City to
be flexible by reassessing projects, timelines, and phasing due to changing conditions
and needs within the community. Seven guiding areas of concern in the CIP are
reviewed when selecting projects to be included:
Public Safety
Public Health
Legal Requirement
Related Projects
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 121
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Net Impact on Future Operating Budgets
Other
Comprehensive Plans are required to identify strategies addressing funding shortfalls
for transportation projects per RCW 36.70A.020 (6)(C). The Capital Facilities Element
contains Policy CF-2-D which states the city will reassess the Land Use Element
whenever probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs to ensure that the
Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements are consistent with each other. That policy
includes any transportation related funding shortfalls. Ongoing transportation
planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect
federal, state, and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources.
The city has identified the following options for dealing with funding shortfalls
including:
Seek additional revenue resources for transportation improvements identified
in this plan
Adjust level of service standards to reduce the cost or need of facilities
Identify transportation demand management strategies to reduce the need for
new facilities
Funding sources for all planned transportation projects are identified in Tables T-10
and T-11. A detailed list of various funding sources is available in Capital Facilities
Element, under subsection Funding Sources. Additional transportation specific funding
sources are described below.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grants
State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants are available for roadway and
sidewalk projects caused by economic development or growth, development activities,
and partially funded locally. Grants are funded 80% State/20% Local.
• Urban Arterial Program (UAP) - best suited for roadway projects that
improve safety and mobility.
• Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) – Best suited for sidewalk projects that
improve safety and connectivity.
• Arterial Preservation Program (APP) – provides funding for overlay of
federally classified arterial streets in cities with a assessed valuation less
than $2 billion.
Transportation Partnership Program (TPP)
Transportation Improvement Board grants are available for projects to relieve and
prevent traffic congestion. Preference is given to projects that are structurally
deficient, congested by traffic, and has geometric deficiencies or accident incidents.
Grants are funded 80% State 20% Local.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 122
Surface Transportation Program
WSDOT State Aid Division block grant revenue is available for road construction and
maintenance, transit capital projects, bridge projects, transportation planning,
research and development, participation in wetland mitigation and wetland banking.
Funds are distributed generally at 80% federal/20% local based on the highest
ranking projects from Regional Transportation Improvement Program list.
Federal Bridge Replacement Program
Grants (80% Federal/20% Local) issued by the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) State Aid Division, are available for replacement of
structurally deficient of functionally obsolete bridges. The bridge must be on the
Washington State Inventory of Bridges.
National Highway System Grants
WSDOT State Aid Division revenue is available for construction and improvement of
the National Highway System. The project must be on the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) list and must be a component of the National Highway
System (NHS), including all highways classified as principal arterials. These funds are
available on an 86.5% Federal/13.5% Local match, based on the highest ranking
projects from the Regional TIP list.
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
RCW 82.36 authorizes this tax which is administered by the State Department of
Licensing and paid by gasoline distributors. Cities and counties receive 11.53% and
22.78%, respectively, of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts. Revenues must be spent
for highway purposes including the construction, maintenance, and operation of city
streets, county roads, and State highways.
Local Option Fuel Tax
RCW 82.80 authorizes this countywide local option tax equivalent to 10% of the
statewide motor vehicle fuel tax and a special fuel tax of 2.3 cents per gallon. Revenues
are distributed back to the county and its cities on a weighted per capita basis (1.5 for
population in unincorporated areas and 1.0 for population in incorporated areas).
Revenues must be spent for highway purposes (construction, maintenance, operation).
Transportation Benefit District
RCW 35.21 225 authorizes cities to create transportation districts with independent
taxing authority for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and
funding any city street, county road, or state highway improvement within the district.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 123
Future Street Classification System
The Future 2038 Street Functional Classification System Map (Appendix A) displays
the major street plans for the UGA, and shall be considered during new development to
ensure compatibility.
NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 124
Non‐City Utilities Element
RCW 36.70A.070
Introduction
Consideration of utility needs is a mandated requirement of the GMA. In general
terms, the City is required to address the location, proposed location, and capacity of
all existing utilities within the planning area defined by the UGA. This element only
discusses non-City-owned utilities. City-owned and operated utilities are covered in
the Capital Facilities Element chapter.
The responsibility for planning for private utilities rests with the utility providers.
Unlike City utilities that are provided mainly to City residents, non-City operated
utilities are not limited to city limit lines for service areas. Consequently, service
boundaries for each utility provider will vary in size.
Some utilities are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC). The WUTC is a three-member board which regulates rates,
services, and practices of privately-owned utilities and transportation companies,
including electric, telecommunications, natural gas, water, and solid waste collection
companies. State law regulates the rates, charges, services, facilities, and practices of
these utilities. Any changes in policy regarding these aspects of utility provision within
Pasco require WUTC approval.
Utility Providers
Non-City-owned utilities include those utilities—whether owned privately or
publicly—that provide services. Non-City owned utilities serving Pasco are as follows:
Franklin County PUD
Big Bend Electrical Cooperative
Cascade Natural Gas
Charter
CenturyLink
Various wireless telephone providers
Basin Disposal Incorporated (BDI)
Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1
South Columbia Basin Irrigation District
NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 125
General Relationship
The general relationship between the City and these utilities is one of cooperation in a
continuing effort to address the needs of residents with minimum disruption of
service. This is largely accomplished in the day-to-day maintenance and construction
needs of the City and each utility provider. Notification, by one party to the others, of
intended changes in facilities which may affect other parties, is the key activity that
promotes the best service for residents.
Electricity
The primary supplier of electrical power to Pasco and the surrounding UGA is the
Franklin County Public Utility District (Franklin PUD) with offices located at 1411
West Clark Street. The Big Bend Electrical Cooperative, with an office in Mesa, also
provides service to a small portion of northwestern Pasco and the UGA in the vicinity
of Broadmoor Boulevard.
The Franklin PUD purchases power from the regional power grid (Bonneville Power
Administration) and distributes the power through substations and distribution lines
to end users.
The Franklin PUD and Big Bend Electrical Cooperative operate electrical transmission
and distribution systems and facilities—within public right-of-way—as well as
easements, all in accordance with state law. Electrical power needs in the Pasco UGA
are generally served by 10 miles of 115kV transmission lines, 7 substations, and 45
electric feeder lines. Each feeder supplies the needs of a number of defined geographic
areas within the community, often referred to as sub regions. The feeders are the basic
planning component within the two electrical supply systems. Each feeder supplies the
needs of approximately 850 houses.
Electrical consumption (load) is directly related to both local and regional land use
development. As local and regional development increases, the demand for electrical
power will also increase. With the future growth and anticipated addition of new
housing units within the planning horizon, Franklin PUD and Big Bend Electric,
together, will need to add about 11 new feeders and one substation over the next 20
years. For more detailed information on power planning needs, refer to Franklin PUD
Strategic Plan 2018-2023.
Natural Gas
Cascade Natural Gas corporation provides gas service to the Pasco UGA. Cascade
obtains its gas from the Williams interstate line through two reduction and gate
stations within the Pasco UGA. The original gate station is located at the northwest
corner of Court Street and Road 76. To serve the needs of an expanding community, a
second gate station was constructed in 1995 east of the Soccer complex and south of
Burden Boulevard. From these two stations, natural gas is conveyed through the Pasco
UGA in a distribution system of smaller lines and regulators. Cascade supplies natural
NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 126
gas to 4,600 residential and 1,022 commercial customers in Pasco. Some of the less
densely developed areas of West Pasco do not have gas service.
Natural gas consumption is directly related to both local and regional land use
development. As local and regional development increases, the demand for natural
gas also increases. Based on current trends and projected population growth, Cascade
Natural Gas projects that the system can be expanded to meet community growth
needs. Future extensions of the natural gas distribution system will occur on an as-
needed basis as development warrants.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications include conventional telephone, cellular phone, and cable
television. Interstate and international telecommunication activities are regulated by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent Federal Government
agency.
Conventional Telephone
Telephone service to Pasco is provided by Qwest Communications International, Inc.
(Qwest). Qwest facilities within the Pasco UGA include a switching station, trunk lines,
and distribution lines. The switching station is located in a building at the corner of
5th Avenue and West Lewis Street. Four main feeder cable routes extend out from the
switching station. Connected to these main feeder routes are branch feeder lines. The
branch feeders connect with thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every
subscriber. These facilities may be aerial, or buried, and copper, or fiber optic. Local
loops can be used for voice or data transmission.
While Qwest is involved with its own planning efforts, much of the system necessary to
accommodate future growth will be constructed on an as-needed basis.
Cellular Telephone
Cellular telephone service is provided by broadcasting and receiving radio signals to
and from cellular facilities and cellular phone handsets. Cellular telephone service is
licensed by the FCC for operation in Metropolitan Services Areas (MSAs) and Rural
service Areas (RSAs). The FCC grants several licenses within each service area.
Current licensed cellular service providers for the Pasco area include Verizon, Sprint,
Cingular, T-Mobile, Qwest, and Nextel.
A number of cellular base stations and antennas are located within the Pasco UGA.
These base stations connect cellular phones to the regional network. Cellular antennas
must be placed at a height that allows them to broadcast throughout their local area.
In Pasco, the antennas are located on the Housing Authority high rise apartment, on
the city water tanks, on the Sacajawea Apartments building, on school, college and
County property, and on freestanding communication towers.
Expansion of cellular facilities is demand driven. Raising the density of transmission
and reception equipment to accommodate additional subscribers follows, rather than
NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 127
proceeds, increase in local system load. Cellular companies therefore maintain a short
response time and a tight planning horizon.
Cable Television
Cable television service is provided in Pasco by Charter Communications, with a
central office in Kennewick. Charter Communications currently has a franchise to
service Pasco residents. Most residential neighborhoods within the City are currently
served by Charter.
The provisions of the franchise agreement between the City and Charter requires that
the Charter make service available upon request to any residential property within the
current or future boundaries of the City. Under the current terms of the franchise, the
Charter would be required to provide service to accommodate the project growth
within the Pasco UGA.
Internet Providers
There are over a dozen internet service providers in the Pasco area. These internet
companies provide a variety of data networking options for business and personal use.
These services include standard dial up service, DSL, broadband, business voice
services, web hosting, secure data centers, inter-office networks, and high capacity
data transport. Community internet access is available free of charge at the Pasco
Library and for students at local schools.
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection services are provided in Pasco through a franchise agreement
with Basin Disposal Inc. (BDI). BDI provides automated curbside services to all
residential properties. Refuse is collected in the community and taken to the Transfer
station on Dietrich Road. The transfer station tip-floor has a capacity of about 1,200
tons per day. BDI delivers approximately 646 tons per day of waste to the transfer
station each day. Any waste that is economically recyclable is diverted at this point,
and the remainder is placed in specially constructed trailers and transported to the
regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon.
Garbage service in the City is mandatory and is required for all businesses and
residential structures. The residential service is often referred to as total service in
that homeowners may set additional bags, boxes, or bundles beside their standard
garbage can on collection day for pick-up at no additional charge. Garbage pick-up
occurs weekly for all residential customers and may occur more than once a week for
commercial customers. BDI also provides two coupons a year to residential customers
that can be used for free dumping at the transfer station.
BDI, through Basin Recycling, provides recycling services in the community.
Newspaper, mixed paper, aluminum, tin, and cardboard are all recycled at Basin
recycling. BDI maintains 10 neighborhood recycling centers in convenient locations
around the community where residents can recycle glass, newspaper, mixed paper,
cardboard, tin cans, and aluminum. There are over 300 cardboard-only drop-box
NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 128
recycling containers that BDI regularly services for cardboard recycling. In addition,
BDI also maintains a paper recycling service that provides weekly wastepaper pick-up
at major employment centers such as the City Hall and other City related facilities, and
Columbia Basin college.
Through their franchise agreement, BDI must provide solid waste collection service to
all households and businesses in Pasco. As the community grows, BDI’s service must
expand concurrently to accommodate the growth. It is anticipated that BDI will
continue to expand solid waste collection and disposal services on an as needed basis.
Franklin County Irrigation District
The Franklin County Irrigation District No.1 (FCID) provides irrigation water to almost
7 square miles of land within the Pasco UGA. Most of the properties within the FCID
are located west of Highway 395 and south of the FCID canal. Some properties located
between Highway 395 and 22nd Avenue also receive irrigation water from the FCID.
The FCID is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of Washington.
It is governed by an elected board and managed by an administrative staff. The FCID
succeeded the Pasco Reclamation Company that was incorporated in 1909 to bring
water from the Snake River west to irrigate more than 10,000 acres of land around
Pasco. The original mission of the FCID was to provide irrigation water to farm fields
mainly west of Pasco. That is no longer the case. With the expansion of urban growth,
and the conversion of farmlands into housing developments in West Pasco, the
mission of the district has changed to that of an urban service provider, bringing
irrigation water to more and more residential properties.
The FCID main pumping station is located on the Columbia River near the intersection
of Court Street and Road 111. The pumping station, with a 450-horsepower pump and
a 200-horsepower pump, lifts water from the river to a 60-inch main line that carries
the water to an irrigation canal located near Road 88. The canal runs east from Road
88 to a tail water pond on Road 36. Through a series of trunk lines, water is drawn
from the canal and distributed throughout West Pasco. The FCID maintains 36 miles of
pipeline and 3.35 miles of canal. Long-range plans of the FCID call for the remaining
portions of the canal to be replaced by a pressure pipe.
New subdivisions within the FCID service area must install the irrigation lines
necessary to connect to the existing system. The FCID has ample water rights to serve
future development through and beyond the 20-year planning horizon. All system
expansions will occur concurrent with development.
South Columbia Basin Irrigation District
South Columbia Irrigation District provides irrigation water to 230,000 acres of land
mainly in Franklin County. Some lands within the Burbank area of Walla Walla County
are also served by the District.
The South Columbia Irrigation District offices are located on Hillsboro Street in Pasco;
however, the District service area is mainly outside the City limits to the north and
NON-CITY UTILITIES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 129
northwest of the northern City limits. The District was established to provide irrigation
water to farmland. These lands produce, grain, fruit, vegetables, melons, and oilseeds.
The District cannot serve residential development with irrigation water unless the
water goes through a conversion process, enabling it to be used for domestic and
industrial purposes. The Archer Estates subdivision in the northwest portion of the
Pasco UGA is now served by South Columbia Basin Irrigation water.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 130
Parks and Open Space
Element
RCW 36.70a. 070(8)
Introduction
The planning goals of the GMA encourage communities to retain open space, enhance
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to
natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. The
purpose of this Element is to fulfill these goals and meet the mandate for required
Comprehensive Plan Elements. This Element, in concert with the City of Pasco 2016
Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan (Parks Plan), guides the future of park acquisition,
development, and management to meet the service needs of the City.
Parks and Recreation Plan
In this discussion, "open space'' is used as generic term for all types of parks, game
fields, and trails, and certain vacant lands. The Parks Plan was updated in 2016 and
includes an inventory, needs analysis, park goals and policies, and supporting
background information.
There is a marked difference in the availability of park lands provided in the City from
those areas within the unincorporated portion of the UGA—there are no neighborhood
or community parks within the unincorporated portion of the UGA. Table PO-1
indicates existing parks and recreational facilities within the City.
•
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 131
Level of Service Factor
The supply of open space lands within the Pasco UGA has expanded with the
population growth. Seven new parks have been added to the park system since 2000.
The City of Pasco also assumed the management and maintenance of Chiawana Park,
after the County did not renew its lease with USACE in 2003. Future park needs, or
LOS factors, have been set in the adopted park ratios of the Park Plan. Table PO-2
identifies future park standards and needs through the 20-year planning period. The
City is in the process of updating its Parks Plan to modify the levels of service
standards for parks.
This Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the current standards for parkland can cause
a much higher need of parkland and can cause a larger boundary for the UGA area. In
order to optimize the parkland needed in an urban setting within the UGA, the City
considers a LOS in terms of distance from the park instead of acres per population
standards. A park buffer analysis was performed using GIS as shown in Figure PO- 1,
with quarter mile and half mile buffers from existing, planned, and future parks.
Figure PO‐1. Parks Service Area Analysis
Legend
Parks UGA_Bufler_HalfMi ,--
Parks UGA _ Buffe r_ OtrMi
-Par1<s
P arks_QtrMiBuffer
Parks_ HalfMileBuffer
City Limits
~ Pasco Urban G rowth Boondary
c:J Proposed Urban Grcw.1.h Area Boundary
•
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 132
Parks and Sports Fields
The City of Pasco has a strong neighborhood park system providing park areas within
walking distance of most neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks are only one of seven
types of park facilities included within the Parks Plan. Parks facilities existing and
planned include neighborhood parks, community parks, large urban parks, regional
parks, linear parks, trails, and special use facilities.
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks include playgrounds and parks designed primarily for
non-supervised, and non-organized recreation activities. Neighborhood parks are
generally small (3 to 7acres) and serve a radius of approximately one-half mile.
Total Neighborhood Park Acreage: 105.00
Community Parks
Community parks are typically designed for organized activities and sports, although
individual and family activities are encouraged. Community parks can also provide
indoor facilities to meet a wider range of recreation needs. Community parks can
double as a neighborhood park, although they serve a much larger area. The service
area of a community park is about a one-mile radius.
Total Community Park Acreage: 70.77
Large Urban Parks
Large urban parks, like Chiawana Park, are designed to serve the entire community.
They are similar to a community park, but much larger. They provide a wide variety of
specialized facilities such as large picnic areas, water related activities, indoor
recreation facilities, and sports fields. They require more support facilities such as
parking, restrooms, and play areas. Large urban parks usually exceed 50 acres in size.
Total Large Urban Park Acreage: 127.00
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 133
Regional Parks
Regional parks are large recreational areas that serve the entire city or region. These
parks can be very large and often include one specific use or feature. Sacajawea State
Park is the only regional park in Pasco. Columbia Park in Kennewick, Howard Amon
Park in Richland, and Hood Park in Walla Walla County are examples of other regional
parks in the Tri-City region. These parks offer riverfront and boating facilities as well
as passive recreation opportunities and are within a short travel time for Pasco
residents.
Total Regional Park Acreage: 284.00
Linear Parks
Linear Parks are land areas that generally follow a drainage corridor, ravine or some
other elongated feature such as a power line or railroad right-of-way. This type of
park often contains various levels of a trail system, and sometimes includes greenbelts.
Total Linear Park Acreage: 25.00
Special Use Areas
Special use areas include miscellaneous sites that do not fit into any other category of
park designation. These areas include specialized single purpose fields, sports
complexes, and land occupied by major recreation structures.
Total Special Use Areas Acreage: 277.68
Trails
Pathways and trails are designed to provide walking, bicycling, and other non-
motorized means of linking various parts of the community. The trail system includes
unpaved foot trails used for walking, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding,
while paved trails are used for biking, walking, and hiking. The system can consist of
both off-street and on-street trail segments. Many of the current off-street segments
already exist along the waterfront and Interstate 182.
Total Trails Length (Miles): 19.60
Table PO-1 indicates the inventory of park and recreation facilities in Pasco.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 134
Table PO‐1. Park and Recreation Inventory
Parks Acres
Special Use Areas
Cable Bridge Park 1.0
City Hall Activity Center 0.5
Dust Devil Stadium/Soccer Complex/Softball Complex 99.0
Library Park 1.0
Martin Luther King Community Center 0.5
Peanuts Park 0.5
Riverview Park 17.0
Road 36 Soccer Fields 10.0
Schlagel Park 3.0
Sun Willows Golf Course 135.18
Volunteer Park 7.0 7.0
Wade Park Boat Launch 3.0
Total 298.68
Neighborhood Parks
Capital Park 5.0
Casa Del Sol Park 5.0
Centennial Park 2.0
Chapel Hill Park 5.0
Desert Dunes Park 5.0
Heritage Park 5.0
Highland Park 10.0
Island Park 5.0
Kurtzman Park 7.0
Liberty Park 5.0
Lincoln Park 5.0
Lucas Park 2.0
Mariposa Park 5.0
McGee Park 10.0
Mercier Park 3.0
Richardson Park 5.0
Sunny Meadows 5.0
Sylvester Park 3.0 3.0
Tierra Vida Park 5.0
Vintage Park 8.0
Total 105
Community Parks
Memorial Park 13.0 13.0
County Soccer Park 5.0
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 135
Parks Acres
Cross Country Course Park 52.77
Total 70.77
Linear Parks
Wade Park 25.0
Total 25.0
Large Urban Parks
Chiawana Park 127.0
Total 127.0
Regional Parks
Sacajawea Park (State) 284.0
Total 284.0
Trails Miles
FCID-proposed Trail 6.4
Sacajawea Heritage Trail 7.0
I-182 Trail 6.2
Total 19.6 Miles
Park Standards and Needs
Table PO‐2. Summary of Park Land and Facilities Needs
Park/Facility
Type*
Adopted
Standard
2018
Inventory
2018
Demand
2018
Need
2038
Demand
2038
Need
Neighborhood
Parks
2.00
ac/1,000
pop
110 acres 147 37 244 134
Community
Park
2.10
ac/1,000
pop
70 acres 155 85 256 186
Large Urban
Parks
2.99
ac/1,000
pop
127 acres 220 93 364 237
Regional
Parks
8.93
ac/1,000
pop
284 acres 657 373 1,088 804
Linear Parks
1.56
ac/1,000
pop
25 acres 115 90 190 165
Special Use
Areas
5.80
ac/1,000
pop
298 acres 427 129 707 490
Total Parks
23.38
ac/1,000
pop
914 acres 1,721 807 2,848 2,016
Youth
Baseball
1
field/2,900 10 fields 25 15 42 32
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 136
Fields pop
Adult Softball
Fields
1
field/3,000
pop
9 fields 24 15 41 32
Soccer Fields
1
field/2,000
pop
30 fields 36 6 61 31
Tennis Courts
1
court/1,500
pop
29 courts 48 19 81 52
Trails
0.50
miles/1,000
pop
19 miles 36 17 61 42
Notes:
*This table is based on the 2018 OFM population estimate of 73,590 and the OFM projection of
121,828 for 2038.
Future Plans
The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2021 to
address current and future parks and recreational needs. The adopted standards (LOS)
do not take into consideration the benefit school playgrounds provide in fulfilling park
and open space needs. Depending on where various types of parks are located there
could be an overlap in use that is also not reflected in the standards. A community
park could also fulfill neighborhood park needs for residential subdivision adjacent to
community parks. Likewise, a large urban park may double as a community park,
limiting the need for acquiring additional park lands.
When the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan is updated in 2021, additional
refinement of the standards should be considered. For the purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan update it will be assumed there will be overlapping use of various
parks to satisfy the LOS. Also, the park buffer analysis, as discussed under the LOS,
considers about 113 acres of additional park land (Table PO-3). Approximately 75
acres of this additional land are already planned in the City limits, and approximately
37 to 40 acres of land will be needed in the UGA area. This doesn’t include the need for
additional recreational facilities.
Table PO‐3. Planned Parks and Facilities List
Park/Facility Description Acres Proposed in the City/UGA
A Street Sports Complex 39 City
RD 48 Fire Station/Park 19 City
Chapel Hill Boulevard 4City
RD 84 Pasco/Pasco School District 3City
Burns Road 10 UGA
Multiple parks 37 UGA
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 137
Airport Reserve and Other Park Lands
To protect the public investment and future use of the PSC, the Port has acquired over
400 acres outside the operating boundaries of the airport. The bulk of these
protection lands are located north of I-182, west of the airport, and north of Burden
Boulevard. Because these properties were purchased to prohibit or severely restrict
development, they are ideal areas for designated open space.
Two hundred and twenty acres of the northern reserve area has never been farmed or
developed. These lands are in a native state, except for minor portions that have been
damaged by off-road motorized vehicle activities. These lands are located in Section 2
and Section 11 of Township 9 North, Range 29 East.
The land located in Section 14, between Road 44 and Road 36, is developed with the
Golf Land driving range and golf course—a 10-acre soccer park maintained by the
City—and a 14-acre research and training farm operated by Columbia Basin College.
The balance of the land (53 acres) is in a natural state, with the Big Cross cross-country
track occupying 2.2 acres. This land is now under lease with the City. The City has
installed a disc golf course in the middle of the trails. The cross-country track is used
by the Pasco School District for track meets and is maintained by the City. The general
public also uses the track as a walking and jogging trail.
All of the airport reserve property south of I-182 is being used as a grape vineyard.
The Port purchased the described lands to preclude development that is not
compatible with airport operations. The land use chapter identifies these lands as
severely restricted for development and as such suggests they be designated as open
space areas. As Airport needs change and future plans are developed, not all of the
airport reserve lands may be needed to protect airport operations.
The City has also owned 28 acres on A Street. This land is slated for additional
multi-use sports fields once financing is identified.
Parks and Recreation Plan: Adopted by Reference
The 2016 City of Pasco Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan, and any amendments or
updates thereto, is hereby adopted and appended to this Comprehensive Plan and
should be referred to for detailed actions related to the planning and development of
parks, recreation facilities, and sports fields within the Pasco UGA. The Parks,
Recreation, and Forestry Plan is also scheduled to be updated in 2021 to address
current and future parks and recreational demands.
Preservation of Open Space
The preservation of open space is a key component of protecting our environmental
quality, disaster mitigation, local goods production, and compact communities. The
adopted Park Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan states that the availability of natural
areas and open space enhances the community’s connection to the outdoors and offers
a variety of recreational opportunities.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 138
Many of the goals and policies identified in the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital
Facilities Elements of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the preservation of our
natural environment and open space.
RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 139
Resource Lands Element
RCW .70A.170
Introduction
The maintenance and enhancement of natural resource-based industries is a goal of
the GMA. As a result, the GMA requires cities planning under the Act to adopt
regulations to assure the conservation of natural resource lands, including mineral
resource lands. This element of the Comprehensive Plan describes and designates
mineral resource lands within the UGA.
Resource Lands Defined
Resource lands are those agricultural, forest, and mineral lands which have long-term
commercial significance. It is the intent of the Growth Management legislation that
these resource lands be protected and preserved for future generations. This chapter
provides the framework from which future regulations will be developed and
maintained to preserve resource lands.
Agricultural Lands
Agricultural production occurs within the City and its UGA as a non-conforming
permitted use. Wheat, alfalfa, potatoes, corn, and onions are the primary crops
produced within the UGA.
Due to the proximity of urban development, the location of major utility lines, the
location of I-182 and other major roadways, the agricultural lands within the City and
UGA do not have long term commercial significance.
The UGA was established for the purpose of facilitating and accommodating urban
growth. Lands outside of the growth area are to be protected for rural activities such
as long-term agricultural production. By establishing the UGA, agricultural lands of
long-term commercial significance are being protected.
Mineral Resources
The GMA requires each county and each city in the State to designate, where
appropriate, “mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban
growth and that have long term significance for the extraction of minerals.” (see RCW
36.70A.170).
The Washington Administrative Code defines mineral resources as lands primarily
devoted to the extraction of minerals or that have known potential long-term
commercial significance for mineral extraction (WAC 36.190.030[14]).
RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 140
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Handbook Mining Regulations in
Washington (DNR 20007) states that the definition of surface mining in RCW 78.44
specifically excludes the on-site processing of minerals, such as concrete batch plants,
asphalt batch plants, rock crushing, and chemical processing. The Handbook explains
that local jurisdictions can regulate these activities.
The City of Pasco is relying on direction of the GMA and the Department of Natural
Resources has defined mineral resource lands for the purposes of comprehensive
planning as those lands devoted to the extraction of minerals.
Designation of Mineral Resource Lands
The Mineral Resources Map found in the Franklin County Growth Management
Comprehensive Plan (Franklin County 20088) indicates there are 21 mineral resource
sites within Franklin County. The mineral resource lands were identified through a
review of local conditions,
DNR surface mining data
(DNR Permits), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) mapping and
Soil Conservation Service soils
data. Of the 21 sites identified
in the Franklin County map,
three are located within the
City of Pasco. The Pasco
Shops site, located near the
southwest corner of Argent
Road and Stearman Avenue, is
in fact a stockpile site for the
County Road Department and
not a mineral extraction
location. The other two sites
are located on the western
edge of the community near Harris Road in Section 12, Township 9 North Range 28
East; and Section 7, Township 9 North Range 29 East. The sites (land owned by
different owners) are part of the Central Pre-Mix pit that is used for mineral extraction.
These are the only known mineral resource lands of commercial significance within
the UGA. These lands contain one of the best gravel deposits in Franklin County. Gravel
has been mined at this location since the early 1950s. Prior to that time, it has been
reported that gold mining occurred in the area.
7 DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources – Washington Division of Geology and Earth
Resources), 2000. Mining Regulations in Washington. September 2000.
8 Franklin County, WA, 2008. Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan. February 27,
2008.
•
RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 141
Presently, American Rock Products is mining the lands and producing various types of
crushed rock. American Rock Products also produces ready mix concrete utilizing
gravel the company mines.
The current permit expires in 2025. The city is not aware of American Rock’s plan of
not extending its mineral permit. After operation, this area can be reclaimed which
may take more that the timeframe of this Plan.
While the lands described above have been designated for mineral extraction, such use
designation is considered an overlay use only. Upon completion of the mineral
extraction, the intended and ultimate use of the land is as shown on the land use map
discussed in the Land Use Chapter and as shown in land use map (Appendix A).
Mineral Resource Protection
Mineral resource lands, once designated, are to be protected for the extraction of
minerals RCW 36.70A.060 (1)(a). In addition to controlling the density and uses
around the designated mineral resource lands, the City will protect mineral resources
through implementation of the notification requirements of RCW 36.70A.060(1)(b).
All plats, short plats, binding site plans, and developed plans approved or issued for
development activities within 500 feet of designated mineral resource lands will
contain the following notice:
“This (plat/short plat/etc.) is near a designated mineral resource area on which a
variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential
development for certain periods of limited duration. An application might be made for
mining-related activities, including mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling,
blasting transporting, and recycling of minerals.”
Extraction of Mineral Resources
Due to their industrial nature, gravel pits, mining, and quarries are not permitted uses
in any zoning district. They are considered unclassified uses that are deemed to
require special review, on a case by case basis, to consider their impacts on adjacent
uses and upon surrounding infrastructure. The granting of a conditional use
permit/special permit for mineral extraction does not guaranty or include using
mineral resource lands for the operation of an asphalt batch plant or concrete pre-mix
batch plant.
Asphalt batch plants, hot mix asphalt batch plants, or concrete pre-mix batch plants
are industrial uses permitted only within I-3 Heavy Industrial Districts or upon
approval of a conditional permit in the I-2 District. Under limited circumstances, such
uses may be considered for a conditional permit/special permit in association with the
extraction of minerals on designated mineral resource lands only. Special permit
applications for the location of asphalt batch plants, hot mix asphalt batch plants, or
concrete pre-mix batch plants, in association with the extraction of minerals on
designated mineral resource lands, may not be approved due to the location of the
resource lands within the UGA. In reviewing an application, the City will consider the
RESOURCE LANDS ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 142
impacts of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, air borne toxins, and the issues listed
in PMC 25.86.060.
Other Resource Lands
Other than the mineral lands discussed above, there are no known resource lands
within the Pasco UGA.
Resource Lands Map
The map identifying Mineral Resources Lands in the Pasco UGA can be found in
Appendix A: Map CA-1 of the Comprehensive Plan, 2018–2038.
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 143
Critical Areas/Shorelines
Element
RCW 36.70A.170 (Critical Areas)
RCW 36.70A (Shorelines)
Introduction
Critical areas are defined by the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030 [5]) as wetlands, aquifer
recharge areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water,
frequently flooded areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geological
hazard areas. In an ecological or natural sense, these lands provide beneficial values
and functions by restoring ground water levels (as in an aquifer recharge), serve as
flood protection zones (wetlands), and provide critical food production areas for
sustaining fish and wildlife (habitat).
Geologically hazardous areas are deemed critical in the sense that they present
hazards to life and property. These areas include lands that are susceptible to erosion,
landslides, earthquakes, and other geological hazards.
The City, under the provisions of the GMA, is required to identify critical areas and
adopt regulations for the protection of these areas. The City uses the best available
science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions
and values of critical areas and give special consideration to conservation or
protection measures. Maps of designated critical areas are shown in Appendix A.
•
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 144
Critical Areas
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined in the GMA (RCW 36.70A.030 [21]) as areas that are saturated
with surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands perform key ecological functions for water
quality, hydrology, and habitat as described in Table CA-1.
Table CA‐1. Wetland Functions
Key Functions Wetland Functions
Water Quality
Reduces siltation and erosion
Provides water filtration
Moderates water temperature
Hydrology Stores water to reduce flooding and contributes to base flows
Habitat Provides aquatic and woody vegetated habitat for fish and
wildlife
Development of the Columbia Basin Project has directly and indirectly caused the
formation of many of the wetlands within the County through water management
actions and associated facilities. The GMA specifically excludes artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to irrigation
and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, and farm ponds.
Many wetlands are considered unintentional wetlands, resulting from localized
conditions such as seepage from irrigation ditches. These types of wetlands are
considered jurisdictional wetlands regulated by state wetland law. Improving water
management practices (e.g., implementation of water conservation practices)—which
is happening through projects and practices implemented in Franklin County and even
in some areas of the City—affects the size and number of wetlands and associated
habitats. However, if the irrigation practices are changed (e.g., implementation of
water conservation practices), and the wetland dries up and no longer performs
wetland functions, then no mitigation is required (Ecology 20109).
In Franklin County, wetlands can be found along the margins, side channels and
islands of the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Wetlands mapping and characterization of
functions and values were prepared as part of the City’s SMP update (Anchor QEA
9 Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2010. Ecology (Washington State Department of
Ecology), 2010. Focus on Irrigation-Influenced Wetlands. Ecology Publication Number: 10-06-015. July
2010.
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 145
201510). Wetlands primarily exist along the Columbia River shoreline, but some
interior wetlands also are present, established either directly or indirectly from
irrigation water. Of the 48 acres of wetlands mapped within the City, approximately 29
acres are within shoreline jurisdiction.
The shoreline maps identify wetlands within the Pasco UGA in areas along the river
shore, particularly in Sacajawea State Park and in the lowlands on the Columbia River
bend. There are some locations between these two areas that are also highlighted as
possible wetlands. These maps were produced with the use of imagery which,
according to the map instructions, has an inherent margin of error. The instructions
caution that an on-the-ground inspection is needed to verify the imagery for accuracy.
Much of the Pasco shoreline has been altered due to the construction of the levees that
line the shoreline with large basalt riprap. Levee service roads, drainage facilities, and
pumping facilities are located directly behind the levees. The areas between the levees,
without riprap, have been altered by the removal and replacement of soils with a clay
barrier, designed to keep the river from seeping into the community.
However, even with these alterations, some riparian and floodplain wetland areas still
exist along the Columbia and Snake rivers and continue to support a variety of plant
and animal species. Black cottonwood is the dominant plant species in lowland
riparian areas and plays a key role in the integrity of riparian systems (USBR 200811).
Other species include a variety of willow species, red-osier dogwood, aspen, water
birch, serviceberry, as well as invasive species such as Russian Olive. Reptile and
amphibian species found in these habitats include western painted turtle, spotted frog,
gopher and garter snakes, and others. Small mammals include beaver, river otter,
muskrat, mink, porcupines, raccoons, skunks, and bats. Common avian species include
Wilson’s phalarope, belted kingfisher, peregrine falcon, and woodpeckers. Species of
waterfowl that utilize the wetland and riparian habitats within the affected area
include mallard, American wigeon, pelicans, and others (USFWS 2008, 201212).
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Two types of habitat conservation areas exist within the City—aquatic and upland
(riparian and shrub-steppe habitat).
10 Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA), 2015. City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program. June 2015, Revised
October 2015.
11 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 2008. Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study
Final Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement. December 19, 2008
12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, 2012. The Final Hanford Reach National Monument
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. September 24, 2008.
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 146
Aquatic Habitat
The aquatic habitat within the City and UGA consists of the Columbia and Snake rivers.
The quality of the aquatic habitat within these systems is controlled by a number of
key ecosystem features that combine to provide important ecological functions (or
ecosystem services) and support an interconnected array of species, including
numerous salmonids species listed as threatened under the ESA. Aquatic habitat
features that support healthy salmonids stocks likely also support other
aquatic-dependent and aquatic-associated birds and terrestrial species. Some
ecosystem features applicable to aquatic habitat, within the shoreline management
jurisdiction of the City, include water quality (including presence of contaminants as
well as water temperature); water depth; instream cover (such as presence of large
rocks and woody debris); substrate size; aquatic and riparian vegetation; and
floodplain extent and health.
While there are no known spawning beds in the UGA, upper Columbia and Middle
Columbia Steelhead, Upper Columbia Spring-Run Chinook, Sockeye, and Bull
Trout/Dolly Varden spawning occur in the rivers. The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists
the Bull Trout as a threatened species. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists the
Snake River Sockeye, Spring/Summer Chinook, and Fall Chinook as threatened species.
The Steelhead is also listed as a threatened species. The river system through the UGA
is listed as a critical habitat for the listed anadromous fish species (BergerABAM
200813).
The listed fish species migrate by Pasco as juveniles from April to July, and as adults
from April to October. Waterfowl also pass through Pasco during their annual
migration.
Shrub‐steppe Habitat
Shrub-steppe upland habitat is the largest native land cover type in Franklin County
and is also found within the City as small remnant patches. In some areas, shrub-
steppe communities abut or nearly abut shoreline areas, and there are small remnants
of shrub-steppe habitat interspersed among the irrigated agricultural fields that
displaced the original habitat. The primary remaining shrub-steppe plant association
type in the City area is big sagebrush-bunch wheatgrass.
Riparian Areas
Riparian areas are located along the shorelines of the City, with varying levels of
structural diversity and productivity in terms of organic material, with reductions in
diversity and productivity due to levees and upland developed areas. Habitat
characteristics of healthy riparian areas include a connected corridor for fish and
wildlife travel, vegetation types adapted to wetter soils, occasional flooding, and
natural disturbance regimes. Riparian areas also offer important functions for species
13 BergerABAM, 2008. Port of Pasco Industrial Center Shoreline Master Plan SEPA. 2008.
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 147
that inhabit the shrub- steppe, as well as species more limited in range to the riparian
zone. For shrub-steppe species, they provide a critical water source and often a more
productive environment for forage, escape, thermal cover, and nesting sites. For many
species, they provide critical winter habitat.
Habitat Modifications
Similar to wetland habitat, the native or natural landscape and environment within the
Pasco UGA has been subject to high levels of disturbance because of ongoing
agricultural production, industrial and commercial activities, and other forms of urban
development for over 100 years. The construction and operation of the transportation
system (barge, rail, highway, and airport); mineral extraction; development of urban
parks, schools; and other concentrated urban development has significantly
diminished the functions and values of natural areas for habitat. The remaining natural
sites containing remnants of the original shrub-steppe environment are fragmented in
areas that pose serious conflicts for the encouragement of wildlife habitat. The areas
enclosed within the PSC (the third busiest airport in the state) are marginal habitat.
For the safety of airport operations, and the threat these operations pose to wildlife,
encouraging the protection of habitat around the runways is not appropriate. The site
at the northwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and Harris Road is occupied by a
farming operation, South Columbia Irrigation District facilities, and the Central Pre-Mix
mineral extraction facility. Much of this area is reserved for the production of mineral
resources (Resource Lands Chapter).
The riparian environment in the Pasco UGA has been significantly altered over the
years such that its values and functions have been seriously diminished. The
Sacajawea State Park and the low-lying areas west of Shoreline Road and north of
Harris Road are the exceptions. The State Park and the Columbia Bend area are both
adjacent aquatic systems (Columbia and Snake Rivers) that contain elements of both
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. The western
portion of Chiawana Park may also provide some beneficial functions and values for
riparian habitat.
Aquifer Recharge Areas
Pasco obtains most of its water from the Columbia River, as opposed to ground water
aquifers. Water is pumped upstream from the Cable Bridge and treated at the filter
plant located on West “A” Street. A secondary diversion point for pumping water from
the river is located at the far western edge of the City, south of Harris Road. This
pumping facility is currently used for irrigation water. The City also operates a number
of wells that provide untreated water for irrigation purposes. The irrigation water
from these wells comes from aquifer sources.
The Franklin Conservation District has identified four primary aquifer recharge areas
in Franklin County: 1) the irrigated portions of the county; 2) the Scooteney-Eagle
Lakes area; 3) areas behind the Snake River dams; and 4) the Washtucna Coulee. The
only areas of Pasco that may be considered for aquifer recharge, per the Conservation
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 148
District, are the few remaining irrigated farm fields. These fields do not have long-term
commercial significance for farming and are not unique geologic features that
naturally support aquifer recharge. Without the irrigation and farming activity, these
lands would not be considered significant recharge lands. All significant aquifer
recharge areas within Franklin County are located outside the Pasco UGA.
Frequently Flooded Areas
The last damaging floods to occur in Pasco were in the late 1940s, early 1950s. Since
the construction of the Columbia and Snake River dams and levee system, Pasco has
not experienced a major flood. According to the Franklin County Growth Management
Comprehensive Plan (Franklin County 2008; page 35), areas most susceptible to
flooding in Franklin County are the Esquatzel Coulee and the Kahlotus Creek areas.
Both of these flood prone areas are located north of the Pasco UGA. The southern end
of the Esquatzel Coulee disappears into the farm circles around the north end of the
PSC.
Approximate flooded hazard areas for the Pasco UGA are identified on the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA. These maps classify floods by category. Most
of the UGA is located in flood zone “C”—areas designated as minimal flood hazard.
Certain areas of the UGA, such as the Juvenile pond (the Corp of Engineers Drainage
pond south of “A” Street), are located in flood zone “A”—areas designated as special
flood hazard. Special flood hazard areas are also located in Sacajawea State Park and
along the shoreline in the Columbia Bend area. There are some areas behind the levees
that are incorrectly identified on the Flood Rate Maps as zone “A”. The City is in the
process of requesting a map revision to correct the inaccurate designation. Due to the
limited number of areas of potential flooding, the Critical Areas Map, in the
Comprehensive Plan (Appendix A), does not reflect those areas. Please refer to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps for that information.
Geological Hazardous Areas
A geological hazard is a natural geologic structure or event that places life and
property in danger. The GMA defines geologically hazardous areas as “areas that
because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological
events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial
development consistent with public health or safety concerns” [RCW 36.70A.030(9)].
Each year in the United States, geologic or natural hazards cause hundreds of deaths,
and cost billions of dollars in property damage and disruption of commerce. These
hazards include earthquakes, landslides, mud flows, rockslides, volcanic eruptions,
liquefaction, land subsidence (sinkholes), and expansive soils.
There are a number of canyons, coulees, unique rock formations, and cliffs within
Franklin County, none of which are in the Pasco UGA. It is within these geological
features that most of the County’s hazards related to erosion, landslides, and
rockslides can occur. There are no cliffs, canyons, or coulees within the Pasco UGA.
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 149
Slopes of 15% or more can be found to the west of Dent Road in the northwest portion
of the UGA, and to the west of the PSC in Sections 11 and 14 in Pasco.
The three principal natural factors that influence landslide related hazards are
topography, geology, and precipitation. As noted, the Pasco UGA is devoid of cliffs,
canyons, coulees, and other geological features that pose threats to life and property—
from rockslides or various types of landslides. There are, however, slopes in excess of
15% in Sections 11 and 14 west of the airport and along the west side of the
north/south portion of Dent Road. The third natural factor to influence landslides is
precipitation. Slope saturation by water is the leading cause of landslides. Pasco
receives from 5 to 7 inches of precipitation a year, an insignificant amount to cause any
concern about slope saturation.
A majority of the earthquakes in Washington occur around Puget Sound. Eastern
Washington experiences low seismic activity except for the western edge of the
Columbia Basin and the Washington-Oregon border areas. The most recent
earthquake of note to occur near Pasco was located northwest of Othello and occurred
on December 20, 1973. This was 4.4 magnitude earthquake.
Liquefaction susceptibility is influenced by the process that created various soil
deposits. Saturated alluvial soils or Aeolian soils are most susceptible to liquefaction.
According to mapping prepared by the DNR, there are two areas within the Pasco UGA
that may be susceptible to liquefaction. These areas include the low-lying lands in the
Columbia Bend area and a band of land stretching southeasterly along the Columbia
River, from Road 52 to the Snake River. The Critical Areas Map (appendix A) is a
generalized location of lands that may be susceptible to possible liquefaction. This map
can only be considered a general guide and should not be used as a substitute for on-
site investigation. Past on-site studies (Shannon and Wilson 200814) have shown the
composition of the soils within the mapped liquefaction area are not all prone to
liquefaction.
In addition, the Port formally requested an amendment to the Plan to remove the
critical areas designation from their Osprey Pointe development area—based on a
2009 on-site geotechnical investigation from Landau Associates—concluding the area
is not at widespread risk for liquefaction. This area has been removed from the
liquefaction zone as shown in Appendix A, Map CA-1.
In summary, the risk of a geological event is minimal. For such an event to occur, the
ground would have to be saturated to coincide with the timing of an earthquake.
Present development standards are in place to address this issue.
14 Shannon and Wilson, 2008. Technical Memo on Geotechnical Conditions in certain areas of the City, on
file with the City of Pasco. July 2008
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 150
Critical Areas Map
The Critical Areas Map located (Appendix A) identifies general locations of probable
critical areas. Additional onsite investigation may be required at the time of
development to determine the full extent of these critical areas.
Introduction ‐ Shorelines
Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
The State Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
was established in 1971 and approved by a
voter referendum in 1972. The goal of the
SMA was “to prevent the inherent harm in an
uncoordinated and piecemeal development
of the state’s shorelines.” Shorelines include
all marine waters, streams with flow of more
than 20 cubic feet per second, lakes 20 acres
and larger and shorelands that extend 200
feet upland from the water’s edge.
In developing Shoreline Master Programs,
local jurisdictions are required to give
preference to uses along shorelines in the following order (RCW 90.58.020):
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Results in long term over short term benefit
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline
7. Provide any other elements as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary
Growth Management and Shorelines
The goals and policies of the City’s SMP are considered an element of this
Comprehensive Plan—according to RCW 36.70A.480—along with the shorelines
regulations.
There are eight land use and water elements within the Shoreline Master Program.
The implementation goals for each element are as follows:
1. Economic Development: Economic development is to be encouraged
along the shoreline with minimal disruption to the environment while
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 151
enhancing the quality of life. The Port of Pasco Master Plan for
redevelopment of the Port supports this element.
2. Public Access and Recreation: While preserving ecological systems,
diverse, convenient, and adequate recreational opportunities are
encouraged for all residents. The City and Franklin County recently
completed construction on new a new boat launch, dock, and parking
facilities at Road 54 to enhance access to the river. The Marine
Terminal/Boat Basin Plan, approved by Pasco city Council in December of
2010 (Resolution 3292), and the Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan,
approved by council in July of 2012 (Resolution 3413), also address issues
of river access in support of this element.
3. Circulation: This element deals with the location and extent of major
streets and transportation routes through the community. The goal is to
assure efficient movement of people, goods, and services with minimum
disruptions to the shoreline environment. The City and the Port have
collectively added trails along the shoreline to complete the Sacajawea
Heritage Trail on the Pasco side of the Columbia River. The Marine
Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and the Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, adopted by council in October 2011 (Resolution 3347), support this
element.
4. Shoreline Use and Modification: The Shoreline Use and Modification
Element considers the pattern and distribution of land uses on the
shorelines and uses associated with the rivers. The goal is to encourage the
best possible land and water use allocations without diminishing the quality
of the natural and human environment. The Rivershore Linkage and
Amenity Plan also supports this element.
5. Conservation: This element deals with the preservation of the natural
shoreline resources. The goal is to conserve and enhance the renewable
resources of the region, to conserve fragile, scenic areas, and to restore
damaged ecosystems where feasible.
6. Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources: The History
and Cultural Element deals with the natural restoration of areas blighted by
abandoned and dilapidated structures. Part of the goal is to provide
protection to objects, sites, and structures that are significant to history,
architecture, archaeology, or culture.
7. Flood Hazard Management: The Flood Hazard Management Element is
designated to protect public safety within river floodways and floodplains,
and to protect natural systems. This is done by preserving the flood storage
function of floodplains, and the purpose is to diminish potential hazards
that may be caused by inappropriate development in areas where severe
and costly flooding is anticipated to occur. It is acknowledged that water
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINES ELEMENT
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 152
levels in Columbia and Snake rivers next to the City are generally stable as
part of the USACE McNary Pool project
8. Private Property Rights: The Private Property Rights element recognizes
and protects private property rights in shoreline uses and developments
consistent with the public interest.
Goals and Policies
Goals and Policies are contained in Chapter Two of Volume I, Comprehensive Plan
2018-2038, and in the City’s adopted Shoreline Master Program. Shoreline goals and
policies are incorporated by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies.
Implementation
Pasco’s shoreline consists of approximately 515 acres of land on the Columbia and
Snake rivers shoreline. A SMP was developed and adopted by the Pasco City Council
and approved by the Department of Ecology in 2016. This Comprehensive Plan
incorporates the SMP by reference. The SMP aims to utilize Pasco’s shoreline for
various water-oriented uses and facilities while protecting the ecological functions and
cultural and historic values of the shoreline. The SMP designates seven shoreline
environments as follows:
1. Aquatic
2. Natural
3. Urban Conservancy
4. Recreation
5. Shoreline Residential
6. Public Flood Protection
7. High Intensity
The SMP includes shoreline use and modification regulations, along with critical areas
regulations specific to shoreline areas, to guide development, maintain no net loss of
ecological functions, and provide for continued public access.
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 153
Goals
Policies
Regulations and
Programs
Implementation
RCW 36.70A.180
Introduction
The Introduction contained in Volume I of this Comprehensive Plan contains
information on the various means the City of Pasco employs to implement the Plan.
This Plan will not only be implemented through the goals and policy statements
contained herein, but also through the use of regulatory measures, concurrency
management, annual capital budgeting, and administrative actions.
Goals and Policies
The Goals and Policies of the Plan are found in Volume I and are
used to guide the decision-making processes related to land use
and the physical development within the Pasco UGA. Goals and
policies have been adopted for land use, housing, capital
facilities, utilities, transportation, economic development, and
implementation and monitoring.
Regulatory Measures
Regulatory measures used to implement the Plan include all
regulations (development or otherwise) dealing with the use
and development of land within the City. Code RCW 36.70A.030 (7) defines
development regulations as “the controls placed on development or land use activities
by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical area
ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 154
ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with
any amendments thereto.”
The following Pasco Municipal Codes are the regulatory measures used to implement
the Plan:
PMC Title 4, Permit Process
PMC Title 5, Business Licenses and Regulations
PMC Chapter 9.60, Public Nuisances
PMC Title 12, Streets and Sidewalks
PMC Title 13, Water and Sewers
PMC Title 14, Public Works
PMC Title 16, Building and Construction
PMC Title 17, Sign Code
PMC Title 19, Residential Parks (Mobile Home Parks)
PMC Title 20, Historic Preservation, and the Shoreline Master Program.
PMC Title 21, Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
PMC Title 23, Environmental Impact (including Critical Area regulations)
PMC Title 24, Flood Plain
PMC Title 25, Zoning
Capital Improvements
The City’s annual capital project process is used to identify major projects necessary to
address urban development needs within the city. Capital improvement projects
include water, sewer, parks, streets, and similar facilities that support urban levels of
service. It is through the CIP that the City is able to maintain the adopted levels of
service. Development activity can support the goals and policies of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Administrative Actions
Administrative actions include development review, development permitting,
preparation of reports, making information available to the public, and review of
projects for concurrency.
The principle Administrative Actions or documents used to implement the Plan are as
follows: Administrative Order No. 76 (Building Permit/Development Review Process);
Power of Attorney for Covenant on Utility Services (Outside Annexation Agreements);
City of Pasco Standard Specification (street and utility standards); and plat and utility
plan review processes as used by the City Planning and Engineering Departments.
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 155
Growth Monitoring
The City monitors the growth within the City limits and UGA in order to review how
development occurs, especially in the unincorporated UGA. The City and County
intends to on a growth monitoring program in order to have a clear picture of where
growth is occurring and whether the assumed densities are achieved.
Concurrency
Concurrency is discussed in the Transportation Element of Volume II. Under the GMA,
concurrency must be established for transportation facilities; however, jurisdictions
may establish concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted
Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities
in conjunction with new development.
The City will monitor the cumulative impacts of new development by taking periodic
traffic counts on selected streets. The City may also undertake periodic studies to
assess the overall circulation system and or utility system within the City for
compliance with the adopted level of service standards.
Amendments
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are legislative actions requiring City Council
approval. With a few exceptions, amendments cannot be considered more often than
once per year. Major Plan updates occur by legislative action on a seven-year cycle as
prescribed by RCW 36.70A.130 (4) (d). For Pasco and the other cities within Franklin
County, this seven-year cycle began on December 1, 2007, with the next major update
to be completed by December 1, 2014. However, due to general economic decline
experienced throughout the Tri-Cities during the late 2000s recession, the City of
Pasco was granted an extension with the agreement that an update to the
Comprehensive Plan would occur by 2018 at the latest.
Amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or map are generally not to be
considered more often than once per year, although there are exceptions to this rule.
Amendments can be requested by the City or by private individuals (PMC 25.215.020).
Multiple applications for amendments will be considered in a single legislative review
process, in order to evaluate the potential cumulative effect of the requests.
Applications for amendments are accepted from January to August. Planning
Commission review begins no later than October, with City Council action occurring by
the end of the calendar year.
Annual amendments will address proposed changes to the goals, policies, and text of
the Comprehensive Plan, changes to supporting data and implementation, changes to
the land use and other maps, and changes to the inventories.
Every ten years the annual amendment review may be combined with the required
review of the UGB pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (3).
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 156
Amendments may be considered and approved outside the standard annual process
whenever an emergency exists or when necessary to resolve an appeal filed with the
Growth Management Hearings Board or the court (RCW 36.70A.130).
Specific Implementation Tools
Table IMP-1 describes various tools to implement the Elements of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Table IMP‐1. Implementation Tools
Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents
Land Use
Annexations PMC 25.220 Annexation Procedure
RCW 35A.14 Annexation by Code Cities
Zoning PMC 25 Zoning Regulations
PMC 4 Permit Process
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance
PMC 29 Shoreline Regulations
Subdivisions PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
PMC 4 Permit Process
PMC 19 Mobile Homes
PMC 3.4 Impact Fees
PMC 3.45 School Impact Fees
PMC 3.501 Park Impact Fees
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance
PMC 29 Shoreline Regulations
Streets PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks
PMC 12.36 Concurrency
PMC 3.40 Impact Fees (Traffic)
Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
Capital Improvement Plan
Washington State Department of Transportation
Design Manual
Water and Sewer PMC 13 Water and Sewers
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
Capital Improvement Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 157
Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents
Building PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations
PMC 4 Permit Process
PMC 17 Sign Code
PMC 19 Residential Parks
WAC 51-11C State Energy Code
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
Businesses PMC 5 Business Licenses and Regulations
Peace and Safety PMC 9.56 Dust Control
PMC 9.60 Nuisances
PMC 9.62 Noise Regulations
Other Area Master Plans Comprehensive Water Plan
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Forestry Plan
Broadmoor Area Master Plan
Boat Basin and Marine Terminal Plan
Tri- Cities Rivershore Master Plan
Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Historic Preservation PMC Title 20 Historic Preservation, and the Shoreline
Master Program
PMC 20.25 Review and Monitoring of Properties for
Special Property Tax Valuation
Housing
Land Use PMC 25 Zoning Regulations
PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
Broadmoor Area Master Plan
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance
Construction PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations
PMC 4 Permit Process
PMC 19 Mobile Homes
WAC 51-11C State Energy Code
Fair Housing Tri-Cities Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Benton-Franklin Counties Continuum of Care for the
Homeless 2015-2019
Consolidated Community Development & Affordable
Housing Plan
PMC 9.68 Discrimination in Housing
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 158
Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents
Peace and Safety PMC 9.56 Dust Control
PMC 9.60 Nuisances
PMC 9.62 Noise Regulations
Utilities PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks
PMC 12.36 Concurrency
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
Capital Improvement Plan
Washington State Department of Transportation
Design Manual
PMC 13 Water and Sewers
Capital Facilities
Phasing and Priorities Through the annual CIP process the City Council
prioritizes capital projects
PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
Facility Construction PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations
PMC 4 Permit Process
PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks
Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication
PMC 12.36 Concurrency
PMC 26 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
PMC 3.132 Impact Fees (Traffic)
PMC 3.133 School Impact Fees
PMC 3.133-1 Park Impact Fees
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
Comprehensive Water Plan
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan
Resolution 1373 Park Planning in Riverview Area
Resolution 1149 Water Utility Extension Beyond the
City Limits
Resolution 3590 Sewer Utility Extension Beyond the
City Limits
Capital Improvement Plan
Other Area Master Plans Comprehensive Water Plan
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 159
Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents
Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Forestry Plan
Boat Basin and Marine Terminal Plan
Tri- Cities Rivershore Master Plan
Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Non‐City Utilities
Utility Review & Siting PMC 16 Building and Construction Regulations
PMC 4 Permit Process
PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks
PMC 6.04 Garbage Regulations
Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication
PMC 12.36 Concurrency
PMC 26 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
(Plats)
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
Franchise Agreements between the City and Utility
providers
Transportation
Airport Port of Pasco Tri-Cities Airport Master Plan
PMC 25.190 Airport Overlay District
Airport Reserve designation on the Land Use Map
Streets PMC 12 Streets and Sidewalks
PMC 12.36 Concurrency
PMC 3.132 Impact Fees (Traffic)
Resolution 1372 Right-of-Way Dedication
City of Pasco Standard Drawings and Specifications
Finance Capital Improvement Plan
PMC 12.36 Concurrency
PMC 3.132 Impact Fees (Traffic)
Transportation Improvement Plan
Other Area Master Plans 2017 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
Metropolitan / Regional Transportation Plan
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
Parks and Open Space
Parks services and maintenance Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan
Resolution 1373 Park Planning in Riverview Area
PMC 3.133-1 Park Impact Fees
Capital Improvement Plan
PMC 21 Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations
IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VOLUME II 160
Elements / Tasks Implementation Tools / Documents
Public Services
Service Provisions Capital Improvement Plan
Pasco Annual Operating Budget
The Emergency Services Master Plan 2016, Pasco Fire
Department
Police Services Strategic Plan
Resource Lands
Protection of Resource Lands Resource Lands Map (Designating Resource Lands)
PMC 25 Zoning Regulations
PMC 21 Subdivision Regulations
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
RCW 36.70A.170 (Resource Lands Designation)
RCW 36.70A.060(1)(b) Plat and Short Plat
Requirements
Critical Areas & Shorelines
Protection, use and maintenance PMC 28 Critical Areas Ordinance
Pasco Shoreline Master Program
PMC 29 Shoreline Regulations
PMC 23 Environmental Impact (SEPA)
RCW
Economic Development
Resources Capital Improvement Plan
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
Project (BFCG)
Historically Underutilized Business Zones (SBA)
Opportunity Zones
Other Area Master Plans Comprehensive Water Plan
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
Comprehensive Park, Recreation, and Forestry Plan
Boat Basin and Marine Terminal Plan
TRIDEC Plan of Work
Tri- Cities Rivershore Master Plan
Pasco Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Transportation System Master Plan
Appendix A: MAP FOLIO
Comprehensive Plan Update
List of Maps:
LU-1: Future Land Use Map
CF-1: Water Infrastructure
CF-2: Sanitary & Sewer Infrastructure
CF-3: Parks, Schools & Open Space
CF-4: Municipal Facilities
CF-5: Airport & Port Facilities
T-1: Existing Street Functional Classification System
T-2: Existing Intersection Control
T-3: Existing Number of Lanes
T-4: Existing All Day Traffic Counts
T-5: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
T-6: Existing Volume to Capacity Ratio
T-7: Existing Intersection Control Evaluation
T-8: Future 2038 Street Functional Classification System
T-9: Future 2038 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
T-10: Future 2038 Volume to Capacity Ratio
T-11: Future 2038 Intersection Control Evaluation
T-12: Transportation Improvements
CA-1: Critical Areas & Resource Lands
A
I-182
COURT
ARGENT 4THU
S
1
2
BURNS
US 395ROAD 68
DENT
B20THRAILROAD
SYLVESTER
SANDIFUR
ELMWERNETT
14THBURDEN
1STCLARK
OREGON24THCAPITOLPEARL
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
10TH6TH19THROAD 52WEHE22ND28THROAD 84CRA
N
EROAD 48ROAD 56DOC
KBROADMOORROAD 60HENRY
CEDARROAD 64ELLAROAD 36PASC
O
KA
HL
OT
US
IR
I
S
C
LEWISROAD 96AINS
W
O
R
T
H
BONNEVILLEEASY OWENAL
D
E
R
S
O
N
ROAD 40ROAD 72ROAD 76INDUSTR
IALGLADE NORTH9THKOHLERSINAI
ROAD 88FOSTER WELLS
HARRISUS 395 TO I 182DIETRICHCONVENTIONROAD 100WRIGLEY
PIMLICO
18TH17THROAD 34LAREDO
BUTTESTEARMANMADISONSANTA FEROAD 90HILLTOP
SACAJAWEA PARKDRADIE
ARTESIA
CHAPEL HILL YUMAOLIVER
ROAD 111RICHV
IEW
FENWAY
MIA
13THBYERSKINGSHORELINE7THJAN
IVY ROBERT WAYNEUTAH5THRAINIERSHOSHONEVALDEZ PARKVIEW
MEADO
W
V
I
E
W
DESERT PLATEAU
ROAD 80FLORESPARK
RIVER MAIN
RICHARDSON JAMESPORTOHU
D
S
O
N
O
A
K
VENTUREWESTMINSTERWEL
S
H
RUBY
SEVILLE
BELL
KAU TRAIL
MAPLERICKY OVERTON
16THROAD 6225THHERITAGEWASH
I
N
G
T
O
NMAITLANDSUPERI
O
ROCHOCO
ROAD 30B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
MOLINE
HIGHLAND
NIXON
OPALARTHURTAYLOR FLATSROAD 54REAGANCOOKROAD 57LE
W
I
S
T
O
U
S
1
2
JAYMARYHILL
12THRIVERHAVEN ESTRE
L
L
A21STUS 12
TO
US
395
ALTON
MUSTANG
AGATE
BAKER
TAMARISK
15THLATAHIRVING
23RDROAD 18DESERET
ROAD 67JEFFERSONKENT ROAD 44GRAYBILBAO
MATIASUNSE
TSANDY RIDGE3RDADAMS
SUN WILLOWS
AUSTIN
MARIEORIOLECLEMENTEPELICAN
ROA
D
6
8
T
O
I
1
8
2
MARGARETROAD 92GARL
A
N
D
LA SALLE
TANK FARMBALFLOUR
8THI 182 TO 4THVARNEYRIO GRANDE26TH43RDADELIA
BAYBERRY
MATHE
WS
OCTAV
E
2NDBAYVIEWAVIONLIVINGSTON
FRONTLEOLA
ANACONDADIAMONDNAUVOOTIPPET
MANZANITAFR
O
N
T
I
E
R
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
L
JERSEY
A
T
O
U
S
1
2ROAD 94YAKIMA
OLIVIAWHETSTONE
ROAD 20VALLEY VIEW
ROAD 70KENDALL65THHARRIS
18THROAD 44NIXON
C
I-182
MAPLE
RUBY
22NDPARK
B10TH18THBURNS
ROAD 3612THUS 395NIXON NIXON 3RDJAN
13THB
ARGENT
JAY
MARIE MARIE
US 395ROAD 76U
S
1
228THDRADIE
3RDOWENLIVINGSTON
8THMARIE 5THIRVING
DRADIE
.
Future Land Use MapLU-1
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395§¨¦182
Legend
Land Use Classifications
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
Mixed Use Neighborhood
Mixed Use Regional
Office
Open Space Parks
Public Quasi-Public
Broadmoor Planning Area
City Limits
Proposed - Urban Growth Area
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
~
~
~
1111
1111 ..... , __ .,
'i"'--■--i ____ J
CJ
City 0f ~ Pasco
%,
%,
!<
"J
"J
")
")
")")
!(
.
Water InfrastructureCF-1
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395
§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
Proposed New Projects
12"
16"
18"
24"
!(Proposed Road 68 Lift Station
%,Proposed Tank Location
Expanded Pressure Zones
Zone-1
Zone-1A
Zone-2
Zone-2A
Zone-2B
Zone-2C
Zone-3
Current Water Mains
Up to 8"
8" - 12"
12" - 36"
")Lift Station
"J Storage Tank
!<Water Treatment Plant
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
City 0f ~ Pasco
·-···-···---..
=
----.-----■-■ : I
l--···-=
C]
")
")
")")
")
.
Sanitary & Sewer InfrastructureCF-2
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395
§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
Proposed
")Proposed Lift Stations
Potential Alternative Alignment
Proposed Sewer Pipes
Proposed Lift Station Pump
Sewer Force Main
Existing Sewer Main
2" = 16"
16" - 36"
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
r-···-···-.
: i '···-···-·. D
I
I
I
I • I I ! ,J I :r --------------1 __ J !
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J·-···-···-i,---..
I
City 0f ~ Pasco
.
Parks, Schools & Open SpaceCF-3
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395
§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
Facility Type
Parks
Future Park & Open Space
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Large Urban Park
Regional Park
Linear Park
Special Use Park
Trails
Schools
College / University
Future Public
Private
Public
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area BoundaryNote: Estimated 47 Acres of future Parks/Open Space to be available in the Urban Growth Area
Urban Growth Area: Park/Open Space Area build as area develops
1111
1111
1111
1111
t::::::7 L3
1111
1111
1111
L. ___ _j
□
!
!
i
':.--···---·-···-···---■--■■-■
City 0f ~ Pasco
K
IH
IH
")9
")8
")7
")6
")5
")4
")3
")2
")1
")14
")13
")12
")11
")10
.
Municipal FacilitiesCF-4
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395
§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
Facility Type
1 - Road 68 Water Tower
2 - West Pasco Water Treatment Plant
3 - Pasco Municipal Court
4 - Memorial Pool
5 - Pasco Softball Complex
6 - Public Works Reuse Facility
7 - CityView Cemetery
8 - Martin Luther King Center
9 - Public Work Waste Water Treatment Plant
10 - Public Works Butterfield Water Plant
11 - Senior Center
12 - Public Works Riverview Water Tank
13 - Pasco Farmers Market
14 - Water Treatment - WPWTP Intake
&-Fire Station
IH Library
K Hospital
Pasco Sanitary Landfill
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
City 0f ~ Pasco
r•■■-■■■-I
: i
l--·-···--'
D
.
Airport & Port FacilitiesCF-5
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395
§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
PSC (Tri-Cities) Airport
Port of Pasco Facilities
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
-~
r-···-···-. : i
l--·-···-."
D
City 0f ~ Pasco
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Street Classification (Existing)
Interstate (18.92 miles)
Other Freeway & Expressway (17.99 miles)
Other Principal Arterial (16.82 miles)
Minor Arterial (30.42 miles)
Collector (45.97 miles)
Ramps
Pasco City Boundary
Current UGA
Existing Street Functional
Classification System
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-1
,,1',&~
Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington
CJ
CJ
Kennewick
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
!"$
èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
!"$!"$
èéëìí
èéëìí
!"$!"$!"$!"$
!"$!"$
!"$
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN 4ThAveRoad684Th AveN 1St Ave4th AveClark St
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
Oregon Ave10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd Industrial WaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
l
A
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rd AveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroad AveHeritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Existing Intersection
Control
Street Classification (Existing)
Interstate (18.92 miles)
Other Freeway & Expressway (17.99 miles)
Other Principal Arterial (16.82 miles)
Minor Arterial (30.42 miles)
Collector (45.97 miles)
Ramps
Intersection Control
èéëìí Signalized Intersection
Roundabout
!"$All Way Stop
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-2
,,1',&~
Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Existing
Number of Lanes
Number of Lanes
6
5
4
3
2
1
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-3
,,1',&~
Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Existing All Day
Traffic Counts
All Day Traffic Counts
Less than 1,000
1,000 to 5,000
5,000 to 10,000
10,000 to 20,000
20,000 to 30,000
30,000 to 40,000
More than 40,000
No Count Data
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-4
-,,1',&~
Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington -----
•••• -
Kennewick
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
E Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
Broadway St
A St
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
146/278452/673
385/55646/814803/304808 / 6771181 / 932881 / 1111
166/153104/1022348/1831385/34431/59
18 / 77
141/
1
8
8
60 / 58 19/40674 / 574
1055 / 717282/
4
9
8 707/56932/63
1030 / 682
341 / 556 311 / 430
106/99354 / 601
202/294
1043 / 869183 / 319
257 / 433211 / 106118 / 11371 / 59501 / 428
261 / 445283 / 25763/51472/
5
8
2
112 / 138
147 / 170 34/81397 /1669
792 / 536
1403/93712 / 15522 / 656169/ 187
305/
5
4
9140 / 19321/29256 / 195
445/186
95 / 162 128 / 50131 / 98135/93 56 / 77173 / 197150/49
275 / 362438/791455/414103 / 1793
7
0
/
6
0
1
18 / 81
531 / 631319 / 409
3213/317210 / 10
327 / 400
197 / 176
587 / 644
169 / 105
223/223237/278
458 / 585339 / 406342 / 40843 / 41243 / 144
57 / 1937 / 44398 / 367
38 / 2839 / 41192 / 149
268/251505 / 363
107 / 718 / 13
509 / 566294 / 221395 / 28925 / 26
274 / 262
702 / 796434/
5
5
0 245 / 248406/286428/5068/9145 / 124276/383340 / 266475 / 353402/ 414
8
7
6
/
9
2
8
58 / 5
66 / 32
2228 / 2353309 / 5241698 / 1831
221/291213/225196 / 1214
6
2
/
4
2
1
114 / 97233 / 16833/73
5
2
/
4
2
1
721/1143430 / 253488 / 216223 / 167
3604/294
9
3
6
1
/
5
9
4
396 / 311
825/87
8
3349
/
1
9
9
6
92/346
269
7
/
2
4
9
2 227/23558/4338 / 63
3
9
2
/
4
7
45 / 33272 / 357
81 / 96 190 / 14410 / 13 50 / 48
358 / 604 300/3834438/
3
6
7
3
2472/26
4
1
384
1
/
3
5
3
9 18/15114 / 22915 / 1272 / 77
9 / 687/153
335
0
/
3
3
6
8
334
9
/
3
3
6
8
2
7
2
/
2
6
0155/328Existing PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Traffic Volume
Less than 200
201 to 500
501 to 1000
1001 to 1500
More than 1500
No Count Data
Note: Volume labels show
eastbound or northbound
volumes first and westbound
or southbound volumes
second as follows:
EB / WB or NB / SB
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-5
c· ,,1',&~
1tyof 11111 11• Pasco Wash· ington ----Kennewick -
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Road 60Pearl St
WeheRoad 52Argent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
0.230.350.480
0.13
00.410.510.410.50.340.6200.170.210.131.240.07
0.7
0.36
0.1
0.24
0.48
0.280.08
0.19
0.12 0.050.61
0.50.790.2
90.8
1
0.42
0.2
0.52
0.01
0.20.210.480.30.080.260.230.690.54
0.34
0.36
0.04
0.38 0.830.93
0.13
0.55
0.630.29
0.870.84
0.20.260.150.090.330.080.150.080.07
0.240.210.09
0.21
0.18 0.040.21
0.86
0.810.540.72
1.040.020.270.80.23
0.460.190.370.010.16 0.261.020.56
0.36
0.1 0.290.280.8
0.160.160.08 0.101.10.19
0.02
1.720.4500.
1
40.260.140.130.190.220.
2
0.
20.60.
1
5
0.1
00.260.51
0.950.
4
6
1.01
0.71
0.69
0.
3
1
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.290.51
0
0.21
0
0.090.23
0.270.510.050.3
0.070.070.06
0.36
0.050.24
0.24
0.630.46
0.130.02
0.350.24
0.21
0.370.180.03000.34
0.23
0.610.211.070.050.010.050.320.040.430.590.630.520.27 0.010.630.52
0.
3
1
0.07
0.080.08
0.
1
6
0.690.330.54
0.120.250.020.6
3
0.770.020.
1
5
0.070.290.040.05
0.480.71
0.42
0.540.610.28
0.71
0.43 0.29
0.53
0.43
0.53 0.080.070.08
0.
1
60.040.22
0.12 0.240.87
0.32
0.40.480.87
0.78
0.75
0.75
0.34 0.020.1 0.290.020.1
0.010.14
0.66
0.66
0.
3
40.41Existing Volume to
Capacity Ratio
Volume to Capacity Ratio
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
No Count Data
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-6
,,1',&~
Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington ----Kennewick -
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClark St
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Road 60Pearl St
WeheRoad 52Argent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service
Two-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service
èéëìí Signalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service
Existing Intersection
Control Evaluation
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated May 14, 2020
T-7
,,1',&~
Cityof 111111 11• Pasco Washington
0 • @
Kennewick
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Street Classification (Future)
Interstate (18.92 miles)
Other Freeway & Expressway (17.99 miles)
Other Principal Arterial (33.3 miles)
Minor Arterial (29.47 miles)
Minor Arterial, Future (3.94 miles)
Collector (35.67 miles)
Collector, Future (13.90 miles)
Ramps
Future 2038
Street Functional
Classification System
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020
T-8
I
I
I I --------+----~--
I
I I
City of ii1 1P .Pasco Washington
Kennewick
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
E Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
Broadway St
A St
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Pearl St
WeheArgent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
e
182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
1031 / 6761879/2435
927/3
1
9
305 / 417
924/
4
7
4
20 / 37 41/411
9
7
6
/
2
1
8
7652 / 797423/5901059/2
1
2
5
1781 / 1143
159/303 196/931466 / 2471
720 / 1191
399 / 248307 / 113266 / 509
905 / 9042292 / 2019647/175853/
1
5
1
2
36/ 59
379 / 752
1729 / 2015 437/61
2973 / 4830
3066 /36471710 / 9651148 / 1108
1104/
1
1
7
9
146/
5
2
0
225/ 222
2188/
1
6
3
0241 / 31520/285709/11681098 / 1292 1474/18572312/1870615/512
1033 / 1520 1683/15991185 / 771 1205 / 714571 / 370305/339211 / 13763/198
403/44
8
189 / 536895 / 666100/61191/22351233 / 9286
8
2
/
1
1
8
6
51 / 215
3345 / 3280829 / 1114
7116/61041027 / 8401132 / 1351
122 / 200
1017 / 18861158 / 3589
109 / 111
777 / 824
1120/1271603/8081546 / 11882174 / 1261948 / 1634892 / 2651450 / 1885 894 / 733
919 / 723835 / 5871009 / 1168
497 / 70865 / 353746 / 719
1430 / 1932
978 / 1177569 / 870
32 / 183156 / 97
104 / 197
2596 / 3637 1830 / 18621728 / 2558
751 / 5271393/127664 / 79
900 / 1419
1647 / 1451464/
1
4
6
1 563 / 4321213 / 2138 1827/11544367/371775/461036 / 750291/345773 / 422625 / 6571294 / 8242790/23241176 / 304
244 / 279
4738 / 5132504 / 9931017/7621433/1230635 / 3151
0
9
1
/
1
0
0
6
283 / 631528 / 776431/55692/1036
8
3
4
/
1
0
0
6
6926/536118
8
0
/
1
3
4
5
1365 / 1304
1481 / 9162142 / 3121 1599 / 9618437 / 5836
6
8
4
/
1
1
2
5
1134 / 1314
1787 / 20827225
/
4
6
5
0
97/121
604
1
/
5
5
1
8 1441/1274861/1552
816 / 1455
9
0
8
/
1
0
4
8596 / 1391414 / 25701353 / 1136938 / 1475
148 / 1001 209 / 950
1277 / 1091
547 / 9121284/152311071/
8
3
6
8
3946 / 58511603/2045
844
3
/
7
8
0
6
974/1266 152/59494 / 33017 / 36936 / 1356
457 / 1409206/247
722
5
/
7
5
9
0
9
0
0
/
3
9
21419/1187Future 2038
PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
Note: Volume labels show
eastbound or northbound
volumes first and westbound
or southbound volumes
second as follows:
EB / WB or NB / SB
PM Peak Traffic Volume
(2 hour)
Less than 400
401 to 1000
1001 to 2000
2001 to 3000
More than 3000
No Count Data
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020
T-9
City of ii1 1P .Pasco Washington ----Kennewick -
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Road 60Pearl St
WeheRoad 52Argent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
0.28
0.01
0.12
0.640.670.260.80.130.490.11 0.621.041.01
1.52
0.350.74
0.26
0.58
0.62
0.780.02
0.05
0.57
0.5 0.030.52
0.910.470.99
0.
3
6
0.49
0.420.50.390.26
0.370.09
1.250.56
0.570.790.47
0.09
0.
1
70.950.24
0.120.56
0.4
0.57
0.740.54
0.291.120.57
0.230.250.190.240.480.66
0.32
0.210.60.40.03
0.33
0.32
0.47
0.53 0.270.19
0.69
0.93
0.991.070.52
1.05
0.33
0.230.56
1.020.14
0.91
0.18
0.560.490.540.37
1.
0
7
0.4 0.370.391.450.38
0.37
0.35
0.52
0.350.3
0.54 0.750.360.080.120.75
0.28
0.0201.840.340.560.060.160.370.560.
1
9
0.
20.470.
1
8
0.13
0.70.7
0.960.63
1.17 0.63
0.75
0.43
0.550.640.42
0.13
0.43
0
0.82
0.07
0.52
0.260.340.971.360.370.560.86 0.56
0.090.570.520.53
0.310.540.47
0.88
0.740.40.110.1
0.12
0.76 0.580.34
0.53
0.470.320.05
0.89
0.3
0.97 0.30.911.190.170.050.170.140.460.480.410.811.740.550.12 0.030.680.58
1.09
0.
3
6
0.74
0.240.17
0.
1
7
0.64
0.750.310.86
0.210.010.7
4
0.730.
1
8
0.20.490.210.
0
50.651.441.
1
8
0.36
0.930.65 10.
1
9
0.3
0.35 0.35
0.71
0.59
0.08
0.59 0.240.
9
7
0.91 0.370.58
0.850.92
0.63 0.59
1.09
0.34
0.410.951.09
0.86
0.83
0.83
0.79 0.10.310.020.880.11
0.74
0.
5
60.89Future 2038
Volume to
Capacity Ratio
Volume to Capacity Ratio
Less than 0.70
0.70 to <0.80
0.80 to <0.90
0.90 to <1.00
More than or equal to 1.00
No Count Data
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020
T-10
I I
City 0J __ ,P Pasco Washington ----Kennewick -
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìí èéëìíèéëìí
èéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìíèéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
èéëìí
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN 4ThAveRoad684Th AveN 1St Ave4th AveCourt St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
Oregon Ave10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Road 60Pearl St
Road 52Argent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd Industrial WaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
l
A
v
eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rd AveAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroad AveHeritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Future 2038 Intersection
Control Evaluation
Intersection Control Evaluation
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Acceptable Level of Service
Two-Way or All-Way Stop, Improvements Likely Needed
Proposed Future Intersection Improvements
Roundabout, Acceptable Level of Service
Roundabout, Improvements Likely Needed
èéëìí Signalized Intersection, Acceptable Level of Service
èéëìí Signalized Intersection, Over Capacity
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020
T-11
I
I
I --------+----~--
I
I I
----
I I
City 0f ii11 111 Pasco Washington
I
I
I
I
I
0 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I
I
Kennewick
C OL UMBI A
RI VER
Lewis
Foster Wells Rd
Pasco
K
a
hl
ot
u
s
R
dN4ThAveRoad68
4ThAveN1StAve4th AveClarkSt
Court St
Sylvester St
Harris Rd
28Th AveE Hillsboro Rd
Kartchner St
OregonAve10ThAveRoad 10014Th AveSaratogaCresc
e
nt
R
d
20Th AveBroadway St
A St
Colombia
Burden Blvd
Burns Rd
Road 60Pearl St
WeheRoad 52Argent Rd
Road 36A St Capitol AveRoad 84Road 44Wernett Rd
Chapel Hill Blvd IndustrialWaySandifur Pkwy
Comm
e
r
c
ia
lA
v
eConvention DrRoad 60Road 52Madison Ave182
182
./12
./395
./395
Le
w
i
s
S
t24th Court St.Road 36Arg
e
n
t
R
d
3rdAveMaitlandAin
s
w
o
r
t
h
S
tCedarRailroadAve Heritage BlvdBroadmoor BlvdDent Rd Clark Rd
Transportation
Improvements
Short Range Intersection
Improvements
Short Range Roadway
Segment Improvements
Short Range New Roadway
Long Range Intersection
Improvements
Long Range Roadway
Segment Improvements
Long Range New Roadway
Pasco Comprehensive Plan - Map Last Updated August 27, 2020
T-12
I
I
I
- - -+=-=-+ ..;:a;c ... :a,;a;,
I I . City of __ ,p Pasco Washington
I I
I ,
• -
•••
: ' : '
I '
I
I
I
t
• -
•••
•
•
---------
• -•• •
• ••
• • •
Kennewick
.
Critical Areas & Resource LandsCA-1
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Resource Lands (Mineral)
Steep Slope
Wetlands / Riparian
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
r-···-···-. : i
l--·-···-."
D
:-··•--■■
i
!
City 0f ~ Pasco
.
ShorelinesCA-2
0 21
Miles
Columbia River
BENTON COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Richland
Kennewick
WALLA WALLA COUNTYSnake River
£¤12£¤395
£¤395
§¨¦182
§¨¦182
£¤12
£¤395
City Limits
Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
City 0f ~ Pasco
r-···-···-. : i
l--·-···-."
D
FRANKLIN COUNTY COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
The following County-Wide Planning Policies were developed and adopted by Franklin County in
coordination with Franklin County Cities to establish a framework to ensure that county and city
comprehensive plans are consistent with one another as required by the Growth Management Act.
Resolution 2019-312 (October 22, 2019).
I. Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.020
1. The Comprehensive Plans of Franklin County and each of its cities therein shall be prepared and
adopted with the objective to facilitate economic prosperity by accommodating growth
consistent with the following:
A. Urban Growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
exist or can be provided in a cost efficient manner.
B. Reduce Sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low-density development.
C. Transportation: Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with the comprehensive plans of Franklin County, the
Cities of Pasco, Mesa, Connell and Kahlotus, the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), and the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
D. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
Franklin County population and promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
E. Economic Development: Encourage economic development consistent with the adopted
comprehensive plans. Promote economic opportunity for all residents of the county,
especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons and encourage growth in areas
experiencing insufficient economic growth.
F. Property Rights: Private property rights shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from
arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
G. Permits: Applications for permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure
predictability, and through a process which provides for integrated and consolidated review.
H. Natural Resource Industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource based industries
including: productive agriculture (cultivation and grazing), fisheries and mineral industries.
Encourage the improvement of productive agricultural lands and discourage incompatible
uses.
I. Open Space and Recreation: Encourage the retention of Retain useful open space and
enhance development of recreational opportunities, conserve critical fish and wildlife
habitat, increase public access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and
recreation facilities.
J. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the region’s high quality of life,
including air and water quality, and the availability of water for all uses, including potable
domestic requirements.
K. Citizen Participation and Coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
L. Public Facilities and Services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development
is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards.
M. Historic Preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of land sites and structures
that have historical or archaeological significance.
II. Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.110 relating to the establishment of
Urban Growth Areas
1. Each city within Franklin County is included within a designated urban growth area (UGA).
2. Designated UGAs should include an amount of undeveloped area to adequately accommodate
forecasted growth and development for the next 20 years. The size of the UGA should reflect
the Comprehensive Plans of each municipality which identifies the amount of land needed to
accommodate community and essential public facilities, housing, commercial and industrial
activities, and enough land to prevent inflation of land costs due to market fluctuations and
limited land supplies. Further, the size of UGAs should consider the provision of open space,
locations for parks and recreation, and protection of Critical Areas as well as natural barriers to
development.
3. Designated urban growth areas should include those portions of the county already
characterized by urban growth and having existing public infrastructure, public facilities and
service capacities to serve existing and future growth.
4. Designated urban growth areas should include those areas that are within the recognized utility
service areas of each city.
5. The size of urban growth areas will vary due to regional settings and should be adequate to
promote-viable economic development strategies, promote choices in housing accommodations
and ensure adequate lands are available for associated open spaces and public purposes.
6. Population projections used for designating urban growth areas will be based upon information
provided by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Use of the “mid” series as provided by
OFM is preferred, but the Counties and Cities may determine to use different estimates ("high"
or low") based on coordination and mutual agreement. A period of twenty years is the typical
planning period.
7. The County shall, in consultation with the cities, propose a population allocation for the
purposes of updating Comprehensive Plan documents, based upon the most recent ratio of
population distribution as provided by the published OFM intercensal population estimates.
The combined population figures for each municipality and the County must total the State's
population forecast for Franklin County. The allocation shall be reconsidered during the periodic
review required by RCW 36.70A.130. The County, in consultation with the Cities, may review
growth projections and allocations between update cycles when circumstances have changed,
(for example, actual growth rates or permitting varies from the predicted patterns, or when
OFM provides a new set of projections for GMA planning).
8. Municipalities should limit the extension of water and sewer service to area within each
jurisdiction’s urban growth area.
9. Final development approval will continue to reside with the County for areas outside of City
limits.
10. Applications for amendments or changes to the UGA may only be submitted by the County or a
municipality within the County in even-numbered years prior to the deadline established for the
year's docketing process (with intervals coinciding with the required periodic update of the
comprehensive plan). When a city or the county proposes to alter a UGA, it is the responsibility
of the proponent to provide confirmation (through studies, reports, and adopted plans) that all
of the requirements above have been met, as well as provide a land capacity analysis (guided by
WAC 365-196-325) , and SEPA documentation.
11. Within Urban Growth Areas, urban uses shall be concentrated in and adjacent to existing urban
services, or where they are shown on a Capital Improvement Plan to be available within six
years.
12. The extension of a UGA into an area of Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance
(or any Resource lands) is not allowed. Lands with no existing commercial agriculture use or
production should be considered for UGA expansion prior to the addition of lands with existing
commercial agriculture. However, the availability of water rights may also factor into the
selection of lands to be included into UGAs, and the availability of water rights shall be factored
in for consideration of approval.
13. When requesting UGA expansions, Cities shall demonstrate the ability for in-fill development to
occur in existing low-density areas within the City's UGA to avoid leap-frog development
patterns.
14. All policies within each jurisdiction's and Franklin County’s Comprehensive Plans shall be
modified to be consistent with adopted Countywide Policies.
III. Policies for promotion of contiguous and orderly development and the
provision of urban services to such development [RCW 36.70A.210 (3)b]
15. Joint county/city standards shall be established for development within each individual urban
growth boundary, but beyond corporate limits of cities. It is in the public interest that joint
standards be developed to preclude the creation of development patterns without municipal
utilities and substandard infrastructure and property division that would burden the public with
unnecessary costs to correct or compromise the ability of the UGA to accommodate the
municipality’s 20-year population forecast. These standards should include:
A. Street locations, both major and secondary;
B. Street right-of-way widths;
C. Street improvement widths;
D. Street improvement standards;
E. Lots and blocks including special lot reservation system when public sewer concurrency
cannot be provided;
F. Curbs and gutters;
G. Sidewalks for secondary streets;
H. Road construction standards;
I. Cul-de-sac, location and dimensions;
J. Storm drainage facilities, quantity, quality and discharge locations;
K. Street lights, conduit, fixtures, locations;
L. Sewer, septic regulations, private sewer, dry sewer facilities;
M. Water, pipe sizes, locations, fire flows, uniform codes;
N. All building requirements;
O. Subdivision and platting requirements including density, parks and open space;
P. Collection and use of development impact fees as appropriate;
Q. Mobile home and manufactured home regulations as appropriate;
R. Zoning standards;
16. The availability of the full range of urban governmental services will be subject to the
annexation policies of the adjacent municipality.
The timing of utility extensions into the urban growth area should be consistent with the
adopted comprehensive plan and capital facilities plan of the adjacent municipality.
IV. Policies for siting public facilities of a county-wide or state-wide nature,
including transportation facilities of a statewide significance as defined in RCW
47.06.140 [RCW 36.70A.210(3)c]
17. When an appropriate issue arises, the county and cities within, along with participation from the
public, shall cooperate in a process to site essential public facilities of regional and statewide
importance. The objective of the process shall be to ensure that such facilities are located so as
to protect environmental quality, optimize access and usefulness to all jurisdictions, and
equitably distribute economic benefits/burdens throughout the region or county.
18. No local comprehensive plan or development regulations will preclude the siting of essential
public facilities, but standards may be generated to ensure that reasonable compatibility with
other land uses can be achieved.
V. Policies for county-wide transportation facilities and strategies [RCW
36.70A.210(3)d]
19. Maintain active county-city participation in the Benton Franklin Council of Governments in order
to facilitate city, county, and state coordination in planning regional transportation facilities and
infrastructure improvements to serve essential public facilities including Port District facilities
and properties.
20. Comprehensive plans shall include, where applicable, the master plans of identified major
transportation facilities such as airports, railroads, major freight terminals, and public transit
and policies to ensure that they are reasonably accommodated and compatible with future
surrounding land uses, in order to ensure the protection of regional transportation assets.
VI. Policies that consider the need for affordable housing for all economic
segments of the population and parameters for its distribution [RCW 36.70A.210(3)e]
21. The housing element of each comprehensive plan shall:
A. Address the manner and the extent that demand from all segments of the housing
market will be met.
B. Assess the ability to provide sufficient land, infrastructure and services to each housing
segment including but not limited to, government assisted housing for low income
families, manufactured housing, multi-family housing, migrant agricultural worker
housing, and group homes. All segments of the housing market must be accommodated
in appropriate numbers.
22. Individual plans should encourage regeneration of existing housing inventories.
23. To the extent possible each plan should promote the construction of affordable housing,
particularly for low and moderate income segments of the population.
24. Consideration should be given to the provision of diversity in housing types to accommodate
elderly, physically challenged, mentally impaired, and the special needs of the population, i.e.
congregate care facilities.
25. Comprehensive plans shall consider the effects of public improvement development costs on
housing, including impact fees. Allowance for exemption from impact fees for projects, which
enhance housing for low and moderate income householders, should be considered.
26. Each community is encouraged to provide its fair share of housing affordable to low and
moderate income households by promoting a balanced mix of diverse housing types.
27. Consideration should be given to implementing innovative regulatory strategies, which provide
incentives for developers to provide housing affordable to low and moderate income
households in order to avoid socioeconomic segregation.
VII. Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas [RCW
36.70A.210(3)f]
28. City and county planning efforts will be coordinated within urban growth areas.
29. The county and each city shall jointly develop and implement development, land division and
building standards, and coordinate permit procedures for the review and permitting of new
subdivisions within Urban Growth Areas.
VIII. Policies for county-wide economic development and employment [RCW
36.70A.210(3)g]
30. The comprehensive plan of the county and each city shall promote employment and economic
opportunity for all citizens.
31. The County and all municipalities will participate in creating a County-wide economic strategy.
32. The provision of utilities and other supporting urban governmental services to commercial and
industrial areas should be coordinated and assigned a high priority by utility purveyors and
service providers.
IX. Policies for the analysis of fiscal impacts [RCW 36.70A.210(3)h]
33. Construction design and placement standards for roads, intersections and streets(with
provisions for storm water conveyance), sewer, water and lighting infrastructure, should be
determined based upon an analysis which identifies the most appropriate public expenditure
over extended periods of time. Utilities should be incorporated into such analysis.
34. If communities consider the imposition of impact fees said fees should be established on the
basis of identifiable development impacts.
35. Capital Improvement Plans and Land Use Plans shall include fiscal analyses which identify the
most cost effective uses of regional and local public services.
36. Support the development of public schools in areas where utilities are present or can be
extended, is financially supportable at urban densities, where the extension of public
infrastructure will protect health and safety, and the school locations are consistent with the
analysis recommended by WAC 365-196-425(3)(b).
1
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Land Capacity Analysis
City of Pasco, Washington
Introduction
The purpose of the land capacity analysis (LCA) is to identify the City of Pasco’s availability of
land to accommodate the projected population for the next 20 years. The study analyzes existing
vacant and under-utilized parcels within the existing City limits and Urban Growth Area, and
identifies number of persons it can accommodate during the planning timeframe. The difference
between the projected population and the existing land capacity will identify whether the City
has adequate land, or will need additional land to meet the future growth needs.
This study finds that additional land is required for the City to accommodate the 20-year
population growth. The study was conducted using the Franklin County Parcel GIS data (dated
October 2018) and planning assumptions (existing zoning requirements, standards) that covers a
time period coinciding with the 2038 Comprehensive Plan and population projections provided
by the Washington State Office of Financial Management.
The results of the Land Capacity Analysis may vary over the duration of the twenty-year time
period due to external influences including: fluctuating market factors and regional economy,
land owner choice and infrastructure availability. The LCA provides a broad understanding for
the City to plan and prepare for future growth.
This document will address the following:
• Methodology
• Projected Growth
• Residential Land Capacity
• Land Needed
Methodology
To estimate capacities, the LCA involved the following processes:
1. Identify developable land within existing Pasco City Limits and existing Pasco Urban
Growth Area (UGA) for residential land use designations:
a. Identify vacant land
b. Identify under-utilized land
c. Address right of way (20%), market (20%) and environmental factors (5%) to
identify the net developable land
2. Calculate housing units on developable land within the City limits and existing UGA
a. Developable land area is multiplied the maximum density in each zoning and land
use category
3. Identify existing land capacity to accommodate future population
2
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
a. Multiply housing units with OFM household sizes
4. Identify difference between the projected (OFM) population estimates and the existing
land capacity to determine the City’s adequacy or insufficiency of land supply within the
existing UGA boundary
Data Gaps:
The LCA does not take into consideration potential prohibiting and/or limiting factors of
growth that can include the lack of infrastructure, utilities and access in areas of the City.
Projected Growth
The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) produces a state population
forecast for each county. Each forecast identifies a low, medium and high projection for each
county. County population estimates are then assigned to the cities within the counties based on
local processes.
The 2018 OFM population estimate for Pasco is approximately 73,590. Historic trends have
indicated that the population of Pasco has represented 80 percent or more of the total Franklin
County population. As a result, the County has always assigned 80 percent of the OFM County
population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the 80
percent assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection.
Within the planning horizon the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where
the County population reaches an estimated 152,285 in the year 2038. With 80 percent of that
population assigned to Pasco the City’s population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038.
This represents an increase of 48,238 over the current City population.
Table 1 below provides the City’s population projection for the next 20 years. Table 1: Population Estimates Franklin County and the City of Pasco Franklin County Pasco1 2018 93,541 73,590 2028 121,792 97,434 2038 152,285 121,828 10 year increase 30,493 23,844 20 year increase 58,744 48,238 Residential units needed in Pasco in 10 years 7,522 Residential units needed in Pasco in 20 years 15,217
1OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80 percent of the County population. 2Based on OFM - household size: 3.17
3
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Residential Land Capacity
The following section describes the steps taken to identify residential land capacity.
Step 1: Identify vacant and underutilized land within City limits
The LCA is based on Franklin County GIS parcel data from October 2018. Parcels were
aggregated into two categories: within City limits and within the UGA. Tax exempt parcels were
excluded from the analysis. Excluding tax exempt parcels eliminated land that was not available
for residential development due to its ownership. These parcels were selected using ownership
field included within the attribute table of the parcel GIS.
In total, 665 parcels with an estimated sum of 6,500 acres were excluded. The following table
identifies parcel excluded:
Table 2: Exempt Parcels
Owner Parcels Area (Acres)
City of Pasco 122 619
Port of Pasco 75 2,934
Pasco School District (Education) 52 463
BNSF Railway 40 290
Franklin County Housing Authority 36 38
USA / Army Corps of Engineers / Bonneville Power
Administration
32 411
Franklin County Irrigation District 17 73
Franklin County – Other 47 121
Lourdes Hospital 14 3
State of Washington (WSDOT, Others) 16 93
Columbia Basin College 3 138
State of Washington (Department of Natural Resources) 19 1,052
All Others 192 260
Underutilized parcels were identified by comparing the Land Market Value and Improvement
Value attributes from the parcel GIS. The following steps were followed to identify parcel types:
Step 1A) Select parcels where Land Market Value is greater than or equal to the
Improvement Value
Step 1B) Select from remaining parcels, select parcels where the Improvement Value was
equal to zero. These parcels were identified as vacant.
Step 1C) Underutilized parcel data was collected by selecting parcels where the Land
Market Value was greater than and/or equal to the Improvement Value, where the
Improvement Value was greater than zero.
4
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
The result of Step 1C were used to create two sets of data; underutilized parcels at 2x the
zoning minimum and 3x the zoning minimum. Table 3: Vacant and under-utilized1 land in the City
Zone Description Vacant Land
(Acres)
Underutilized Acres
(2x-3x Zoning
Minimum)1
Underutilized Acres
(3x + Zoning
Minimum)1
R-1 Low Density 283.02 0.31 5.39
R-1-A Low Density Alternate 14.45 - -
R-1-A2 Low Density Alternate 0.58 - -
R-1/PUD Low Density Planned
Unit Development - - -
R-2 Medium Density 17.31 0.19 -
R-3 Medium Density 12.19 0.20 10.68
R-4 High Density 0.82 - -
R-S-1 Suburban 16.92 - -
R-S-
1/PUD
Suburban Planned Unit
Development 27.19 - -
RP Residential Park 0.67 - -
RS-12 Suburban 43.20 - 50.36
RS-20 Suburban 173.06 8.86 84.54
RT Residential Transition 6.90 - -
Total 596.30 9.56 150.96
Total Acres 596.30 160.52 1Includes lots twice or higher than minimum lot size required in the zoning
Step 2: Identify vacant and underutilized land within the existing Urban Growth Area
This step was used to identify vacant and underutilized lands within the existing Pasco Urban
Growth Area. The results did not take into consideration potential limiting factors for
redevelopment such as land not available in the near future. Therefore, not all of the identified
vacant land may be available for development. An additional challenge within the UGA is the
vacant land in west Pasco. This area, south of Interstate I-182 and west of Highway 395 consists
of remnant parcels created with poor subdivision practices (not at urban densities). The
transportation system is limited with housing placed in the path of logical connections, the
creation of long and narrow lots and parcels delineated with odd shapes leaving difficulties for
future subdivisions to occur. The result has created challenges for future home construction,
providing services (sewer) and limiting transportation access for fire and emergency responders.
5
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Table 4: Vacant and underutilized land in the existing UGA1 Land Use Vacant land Underutilized Residential - High Density Residential - Low Density 255.29 74.33 Residential - Mixed 13.45 20.02 Residential / Commercial - Mixed
Total 268.74 94.35
Step 3: Identify developable land
To identify the developable land, the LCA subtracts 45% from all land. The 45% reduction
includes the need for transportation right of ways (20%), market factor (20%) and environmental
constraints (5%).
The transportation (roads) right of way (ROW) reduction of 20% is based on identifying future
ROW of needs of the anticipated growth. Recent residential development has varied below 20%
while central Pasco has higher ROW totals (up to 28%). This LCA uses the 20% ROW to
incorporate a balanced approach for future development considerate of a more refined
transportation (grid) pattern.
The Washington State Department of Commerce defines “market factor” as the “…final
deduction from the net developable area to account for lands assumed not to be available for
development during the planning period.” RCW 36.70A.110 (2) states that cities and counties
have discretion by considering local circumstances to determine the appropriate market factor.
Table 5 and Figure 1 indicate developable residential lands within the City limits and UGA. Table 5: Developable land in the existing UGA1 Acres
(A)
20% ROW (B) 20% Market Factor (C) 5% Environment (D) Developable Acres {A – (B+C+D)} Vacant land in the City limits 596.30 119.26 119.26 29.82 327.97 Underutilized land in the City limits1 160.52 32.10 32.10 8.03 88.29 Vacant land in existing UGA1 268.74 53.75 53.75 13.44 147.81 Under-utilized land in existing UGA 94.35 18.87 18.87 4.72 51.89
1Doesn’t include Broadmoor area
6
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Figure 1: Vacant and Under-utilized Residential Parcels
-Vacant Parcels ~ Broadmoor Planning Area □Citylimits D Urban Growth Area (Current) D Proposed Urban Growth Area Land Capacity Analysis Vacant & Underutilized Parcels FRANKLIN COUNTY ·, . I a_:-.. · •'& .... ...,, .:,· -. ;I .,-. .... ~ .~ .. Cl : .. 'I·.:--. .. . . .. -; i "i.• mce ~WARRANTY Of ACCUAACY ~lb;:.a~~°.\~:~ ---... Thf'CttyofPACOUsnot_,._ .. ~~:::'~~':.;:: ~~twWIIDrffllliorlstlO'Mlonhinap . Rlucrllglllll:NlllmlldD ... loeall"lofa'IY...., .. .,__ Sudl _ _..,_,ll'llllfllDl:niltllld__,,at ,..,-....................... a,~ "--~ ll_,.,,..,._wollon1'1111 N ..._ 11N' 1w ....... ,.1or..,,cn1 JIIO"'d--d~."""1~fflaP ..• ,,\..-'•~ .. Department of Community & Economic Development w+• •
7
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Step 4: Identify current residential capacity
This step identifies the developable land by each zoning district to determine the residential units
that may be available in the future. Residential units are multiplied by the average household size
(3.17) per OFM estimates. The amount of units referenced for the Broadmoor area is in line with
the proposed mid-range development projects in the Broadmoor planning efforts.
Table 6: Number of Buildable Units in the Vacant and Under-utilized Parcels
Zone Description Density (DU/Acre) City limits UGA Vacant Underutilized Vacant Underutilized
R-1 Low Density 4 566 11 562 162
R-1-A Low Density
Alternate 4 29
R-1-A2 Low Density
Alternate 4 1
R-
1/PUD
Low Density
Planned Unit
Development
4
R-2 Medium Density 15 142 148 219
R-3 Medium Density 18 120 85
R-4 High Density 29 12
R-S-1 Suburban 4 34
R-S-
1/PUD
Suburban Planned
Unit
Development
4 54
RP Residential Park 20 7
RS-12 Suburban 3 65 80
RS-20 Suburban 2 173 100
RT Residential
Transition 3 10
Total 1214 276 710 381
Total Units 1,490 1,091
1 Density used in calculating the units is a range, that includes maximum density, and in some cases the median of the range of density
8
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Table 7: Residential capacity Type Acres Residential Unit Capacity Population to be Accommodated Developable land in the City limits 428.20 1,490 4,723 Developable land in existing UGA 199.70 1,091 3,459 Broadmoor1 7,0001 22,190
Current Capacity (Includes Broadmoor Area) 30,372 1Broadmoor Planning Area (In Progress)
Table 8: Gap in future land supply 20yr Population Projection (Growth) Current Capacity (City Limits & Urban Growth Area) Population Gap 48,238 30,372 17,866 (48,238 - 30,372)
Land Needed
Step 5: Identify Land Use Needs
This section identifies other land categories needed to serve the additional 17,866 residents. The
City had an adequate supply of land necessary to meet current commercial needs, however
additional commercial land will be needed to support new residential neighborhoods in an effort
to increase and promote efficiently planned walkable and sustainable communities.
Industrial Lands Lands for industrial development were identified within the current Urban Growth Area. This included selecting all parcels within current industrial land use designations, and aggregating them into three different categories:
• Developed:
o Parcels with existing structures; above $10,000 in Improvement Value
The City of Pasco will need to accommodate an additional 17,866 residents
outside of the existing Urban Growth Area boundary and City limits.
9
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
• Underutilized:
o Parcels with building footprints covering less than 5% of total area
• Vacant
o Parcels with less than $10,000 in Improvement Value Publically owned parcels were and tax-exempt within industrial land use areas were also identified for the following analysis. In total, there are just under 6,000 acres of designated land use lands within the Urban Growth Area. It is important to note that this total includes all rights of ways, infrastructure and facilities. Of that total, almost 4,800 parcel acres remain. The analysis then moved on to selecting publically owned and tax-exempt parcels. Using Franklin County parcel and assessor data, a total of 1,262 acres were identified. The City of Pasco, the Franklin County Irrigation District, BNSF, the Port of Pasco and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are some of the largest landowners in this category. After removal of tax-exempt parcels, a total of 3,524 acres remained. Using the definitions from above, parcels that met the criteria for developed, underutilized and/or vacant were selected. Table 9 (below) provides a summary of the results. Table 9: Industrial Lands Analysis Parcel Type Area (Acres) Developed 907.79 Underutilized 412.81 Vacant 2,203.73
TOTAL 3,524.33 Recent large land purchases include over 181 acres from the Colville Indian Tribe along the Highway 395 corridor that may reduce total industrial development capacity. Additionally, the Port of Pasco owns 661 acres of land within the industrial land use.
Industrial Land Challenges An estimated 4,800 acres of land are designated within the Pasco City Limits and the Urban Growth Area. The Heritage Industrial Park encompasses 810 acres located in the southeastern portion of the city. While the site consistent of predominantly large parcels best suited and historically planned for industrial development, access to the state transportation system is limited. Currently, Highway 12 is only accessible via the ‘A’ Street and Sacajawea Park Road intersection, both of which are at-grade. Limited vehicle capacity and safety challenges at these intersections have limited the prospects of this site. Pasco’s rapid growth has also led to increased residential housing developments constructed in older neighborhoods east of Oregon Avenue, including adjacent to the
10
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Heritage Industrial site. Impacts of traditional industrial developments on residential neighborhoods are an added concern for the marketability of the area, thus leading to a vacant and challenging industrial site.
Future Industrial Lands There are 685 acres north of the existing City Limits, between Railroad Avenue and US HWY 395 that is zoned for industrial use by Franklin County and within a County Industrial LAMIRD. The addition of this land into the Urban Growth Area would allow the property to be served with adequate facilities and utilities that would promote its development potential. The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan designates the area (Figure 2) as Rural Industrial. Discussions with the Franklin County Planning Department indicate that this area is intended for industrial development.
Figure 2: Future Industrial Lands
A smaller, 40-acre parcel of land is also included within the expansion. This area east of US
HWY 395 is located adjacent to existing city utilities (water and sewer) and includes access via
Capital Avenue and E Foster Wells Road. Currently zoned for AP-20 (Agricultural Production)
by Franklin County, the land is surrounded to the south and west by industrial uses.
A benefit of the locations identified for industrial expansion include access to rail and existing
transportation facilities. Regional travel forecasts show that US HWY 395 (north of HWY 12)
will experience less than a 70% volume to capacity ratio, this includes additional population and
employment growth within the expanded Urban Growth Area. This may alleviate the traffic on
current roadways facing higher than average congestion levels, such as Interstate 182.
The Census provides employment data that is reported via the Local Employment Dynamics
partnership. Using this data, we find that that employment within the industrial land use in Pasco
increased by 40% from 2010 – 2017.
Of the reported jobs within industrial lands, 68% are categorized as construction, manufacturing,
transportation/warehousing or agriculture. Pasco has historically had a higher percentage of
industrial employment within these sectors compared to the regional employment type. Recent
employment data (2016) identified that these sectors make up 40%, more than ten percent higher
than the entire Benton-Franklin County region.
11
City of Pasco Land Capacity Analysis (2018)
Future Lands Summary
Table 10 below summarizes the land needed to accommodate the estimated population growth
for the City of Pasco, a total of 3,573 acres. The per capita ratio is calculated by dividing the land
use area by the population. The per capita ratio goal provides a guide for future land
development to take place in more compact forms. The land needed columns is the estimated
amount of land necessary per each land use category of the Comprehensive Plan. These totals are
estimates, and subject to external market and economic factors.
Table 10: Land Needed for Additional People
Land Use Per Capita Ratio
(with street ROW)
Per Capita Ratio
(Goal)
Land Needed
(Acres)
Residential 0.123 0.110 1,965
Commercial 0.028 0.025 447
Public Lands 0.012 0.012 204
Open Space / Park Lands 0.013 0.013 232
Industrial1 725
Total 3,573
1Includes an existing industrial land use in the county. This is added to the City’s UGA in
order to serve the area with municipal utilities.
______________________________________________________________________________
END OF LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Appendix E: Supplemental Public Parcipation Plan
Comprehensive Plan Update
Introduction
In 2018, the Pasco Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2018-001 establishing the public
participation process to be used for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update. Per RCW 36.70A.130
(2)(a), the law requires the City to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public
participation plan or program that establishes procedures and schedule for the Comprehensive
Plan Update process.
This supplemental Public Participation Plan is an extension of Resolution 2018-001.
Work Program for Comprehensive Plan Update
The following tasks were identified for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update process:
October 2018: Environmental Impact Statement – Scoping Notice
The City of Pasco, during the update of the Comprehensive Plan issued a Determination of
Significance and Scoping Notice in October 2018. The notice proposed three alternatives of the
Urban Growth Area (boundary) based on forecasted growth assumptions.
The three proposed alternatives:
• Alternative #1: No Action
• Alternative #2: Traditional Growth Target
• Alternative #3: Compact Growth Target
The results of the analysis are included within the Comprehensive Plan’s Environmental Impact
Statement. The City of Pasco served as the lead agency and received over thirty comments from
the public, local, regional and state agencies.
Updated Schedule
Date Item
October 2018 EIS Scoping Notice Issued
January 2019 – May 2020 Environmental Impact Statement and Analysis
June 2019 – December 2019 Comprehensive Plan Elements review with Planning
Commission (Workshop)
January 2020 – April 2020 Draft any changes needed to Plan Elements
April 2020 – July 2020 Planning Commission Workshops and Public Hearings
July 2020 – August 2020 Final Council Actions/Ordinances Adopting Update
How to Provide Comments
Comments are welcome throughout the update process.
Written comments may be submitted by mail or email to the following:
Pasco Planning Department
PO BOX 293
Pasco, Washington 99301
gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov
Notification and Dissemination of Information
Appropriate notification of all public hearings will be published in the Tri-City Herald.
Additional news and press releases announcing hearing times, dates and location may be
provided to local media per City of Pasco’s communication requirements. Notices and meeting
agendas to be published on the City website.
Appendix E – Public
Participation
RCW 36.70A.110 (1)
Mandatory GMA Provision
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
City of Pasco
2018 Comprehensive Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2018 Pasco will update its Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to ensure
consistency with the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Periodic review and update
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations is necessary to reflect current
law, local needs, new data, correct errors, and or clarify intent. The update is required to be
completed by June 30, 2018.
This document provides the procedural framework for involving residents within the Pasco
Urban Growth Boundary and the public in general in efforts to update the Comprehensive Plan
and Development Regulations as mandated by the State Growth Management Act (GMA) in
RCW 36.70A.130 (4).
This public participation plan is intended to:
•Establish a clear public involvement process that provides information to the
public on the Comprehensive Plan update process;
•Include broad public participation from interested agencies, organizations,
groups and individuals;
•Establish public meetings for the purpose of sharing information on the
Comprehensive Plan update process and receiving comments, ideas, and
public suggestions related thereto;
•Establish a process, if needed, for public involvement for individuals or
groups that may have scheduling conflicts with established public meeting
times;
•Schedule public meetings in west, central and east Pasco to achieve
convenient opportunities for public involvement in the update process, and:
•Ensure public documents and information are available
2
1.10 What is the Comprehensive Plan?
Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan is an expression of community goals and desires formalized
in a document adopted by the City Council. The Comprehensive Plan contains various
goals and policies along with supporting information necessary to guide decision making
related to the general health, welfare, safety and quality of life of current and future Pasco
residents. The fundamental purpose of the Plan is to manage urban growth and land use
within the Urban Growth Boundary.
1.20 What are development regulations?
Development Regulations include zoning and subdivision regulations, master shorelines
regulations, critical lands regulations and any other set of regulations designed to protect
the general health, safety and welfare of the community while regulating land use.
Development regulations are used to implement the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
The following vision statement that was included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan will
continued to be used to guide the 2018 update process. The vision statement is highlighted
below.
Pasco Vision for 2038
Located along the north shore of the Columbia River, Pasco is the major service
center for the ever expanding agricultural industrial region of the Columbia Basin.
Our City contains tree lined streets with well-maintained and identifiable
neighborhoods interspersed with neighborhood parks and schools. The City’s
infrastructure reflects good planning and public stewardship by being well
maintained and providing acceptable levels of services. Fire stations and police
mini-stations are optimally located throughout the community to provide
exceptional and proactive public safety.
City government activity participates with the Port of Pasco and regional
economic development agencies to expand employment opportunities as well as
the tax base necessary to support needed community services. Our retail and
commercial service centers are attractive and inviting areas clustered near
intersections of major arterial streets.
Pasco is the multi-modal hub of southeastern Washington with flourishing
industrial development along key transportation nodes including rail, air, barge,
truck and pipelines.
All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River. Pasco is
oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways,
boats launches and docks.
3
The following Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, Background Information and Development
Regulations will be reviewed under the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update:
1. General and Administrative Goals
2. Land Use Element
3. Housing Element
4. Capital Facilities Element and Program
5. Utilities & Community Facilities Element
6. Transportation Element and Program
7. Open Space
8. Public Services
9. Critical Areas/Shorelines
10. OFM Population Projections
11. Urban Growth Boundary
12. Development regulations such as zoning and subdivision
13. Other items as may be required to meet the intent of the Growth Management Act
3. WORK PROGRAM FOR THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
The Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review and Update Program will result in:
1. An update of the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the GMA; and,
2. Revised development regulations as needed for compliance with GMA and to improve
their consistency with the Plan.
4. UPDATE SCHEDULE
The Compliance Review Update schedule will consist of phases generally following the outline
below:
PHASE Date
Completed
I. Review GMA Regulations Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to
identify inconsistencies Jan-March 2018
II. Review background and supporting information contained in the Comprehensive
Plan Jan- March 2018
III. Review goals and policies of the various Plan Elements. Jan - March
2018
IV. Draft any needed changes to the Plan Elements April - May
2018
V. Draft any needed changes to the Development Regulations April - May
2018
4
V. Review Land Use Map April
2018
VI. Planning Commission Workshops & Public Hearings Dec 2017-May
2018
V. Final legislative action: City Council Ordinance adopting updates and revisions
as needed
June
2018
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) requires local governments to establish a public participation program
for the review and update of comprehensive plans and development regulations. In establishing a
public participation program the City of Pasco must ensure the following:
1) That notice of the update process is broadly and effectively disseminated (RCW
36.70A.035).
2) That the notice identifies the procedures and schedules by which updates will be
considered.
3) That the program provides for early and continuous public participation (RCW
36.70A.140).
The goal of this public participation plan is to provide the public with timely information and
opportunities to review and comment on proposed updates and revisions to the plan and
regulations before they are made. To that end the City of Pasco will encourage contact and
involvement from and with the following groups:
• The general public
• Property owners
• The City Council and Planning Commission
• Franklin County Commission and Planning Commission
• Local, state and federal agencies with interest in Pasco
• Business organization and other non-governmental groups
• Tribes
• Utility and transportation providers
• Media
The City of Pasco will communicate with the public throughout the duration of the
Comprehensive Plan update process to ensure the broad groups listed above are provided
information and have opportunities to participate in the update process. Communications may
include the following:
5
Press Releases: The City’s Communications Manager will issue periodic press
releases throughout the update process to inform the public of mile stones in the
update process.
Mailings and Public Notices: Notices of meetings and hearings and or other
events will be posted on the City’s Website, posted on City’s main Bulletin
Board at the City Hall and published in the Tri-City Herald. Notices will also be
mailed to each dwelling unit and business within the City’s water service area
with the monthly utility bills. Efforts will be made to provide notices in English
and Spanish.
Website Postings: All notices of meetings and hearings and agendas’ will be
posted on the City’s Website (www.pasco-wa.gov). All maps, documents,
reports and update information will be available on the Website. Information on
the Website will be updated as information becomes available.
Comment Forms: Comment forms will be available at the City Hall and on the
Website.
Written Comments: The City will accept written comments throughout the
duration of the update process. Comments may be submitted by letter, in person
or by email. Email addresses for comments sent electronically can be found
under Section 9 below.
6. HOW CAN CITIZENS GET INVOLVED?
Opportunities for public involvement will be provided throughout the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
and Development Regulation update process. Residents are encouraged to actively participate in
the project by attending public meetings, workshops, and hearings of the Planning Commission
and City Council, visiting the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov) or by contacting planning
staff.
The City will use a variety of methods to inform the public about public meetings, availability of
planning documents and reports, and important milestones related to the Update process
including, but not limited to the following:
6.1 City Council Meetings:
The Pasco City Council meets in regular session on the first and third Mondays of each
month. Council workshops are held on the second and fourth Mondays. All meetings are
held at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers at 525 North Third Ave. in Pasco
6.2 Planning Commission Meetings:
The Planning Commission is the responsible citizen board that advises the City Council on
6
Comprehensive Plan and land use issues. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will be
the primary source of public involvement in guiding the 2018 Review and Update Program.
The Planning Commission meets the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 pm in the City
Council Chambers at 525 North Third Avenue in Pasco.
6.3 Public Meetings:
In addition to the City Council and Planning Commission's meetings and hearings, the Planning Staff
will conduct public meetings around the community to receive public comment on Comprehensive Plan
issues. These public meetings will be scheduled for the following locations:
• West Pasco Mid-Columbia Library (Wrigley & Rd 76)
• Kurtzman Park Community Mini-Station (333 S Wehe Ave)
• City Hall (525 N 3rd Ave.)
6.4 Public Hearings:
All public hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council will be
held in the City Council Chambers following public notification. All such meetings will
be broadcast live on Public Access channel 191 through Charter Cable. Public notice of
all hearings will be published in the Tri-City Herald and on the City’s Web page. The
notice shall give the date, time, location and purpose of the hearing.
6.5 Additional Public Involvement Methods:
In addition to the procedures described above, the City of Pasco may utilize one or more
of the following to increase public involvement in the update process:
• Additional meetings: The City may elect to hold additional meetings as needed to
provide information and or to receive comments from the public.
• Information Bulletins: The City may prepare short informational bulletins (fact
sheets) to disseminate information to the public.
• Access to Planning Staff: City staff will be available to provide information and
answer questions throughout the update process. Planning Staff can be reach at
City Hall. Contact information is provided under Section 9 below.
7. WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written comments are welcome throughout the update process. Written comments may be
submitted by mail, fax or email to: Pasco Planning Department, P.O. Box 293, Pasco, WA
99301, Fax: (509) 545-3499, Email: mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov or adamsj@ pasco-wa.gov
7
8. NOTIFICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
Proper notification of all meetings and hearings will be published in the Tri-City Herald. Additionally
news releases announcing public meeting and hearing times, dates and locations will be provided to the
local media including, but not limited to: Tri-City Herald, local television and radio stations, and those
who request to be notified. Notices will also be posted on the City’s Website and on the main bulletin
Board at the City Hall. Meeting agendas will be available on the City’s Website at www.pasco-wa.gov
9. WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION ?
For more information, please contact the Pasco Planning Office:
Dave McDonald, City Planner mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner adamsj@ pasco-wa.gov
509-545-3441
252 N. 3rd Ave. Pasco WA, 99301
City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan:
Non -project Draft
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
May September 2020
Prepared for:
City of Pasco
Prepared by:
White Bluffs Consulting
With assistance from:
Oneza & Associates
JUB Engineers, Inc.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page a
Integrate d Non -project Draft Final E nvironmental I mpact
S tatement
Factsheet
Project Title:
Integrated Non-Project Final Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Pasco 10-year
Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Action and Alternatives:
The City is updating its Comprehensive Plan based on projected growth projections. Three
alternatives were studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including a No Action
Alternative and two Action Alternatives.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative growth will occur based on the past trends. No land use change will occur
to affect the growth pattern. The UGA boundary would remain as currently identified for the City.
Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target
Alternative 2 proposes changes in the Comprehensive Plan land use designations to accommodate
Pasco’s 20-year population growth and capitalize on other development opportunities in a large
UGA area expansion on the northern borders of the City.
Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, proposes changes in the Comprehensive Plan land use
designations with higher density land use designations proposed in a UGA area expansion on the
northern borders of the City, and smaller in area than Alternative 2, and also through increased in-
fill development and higher density development, including redevelopment, within the City.
Lead Agency:
City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department
525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, Washington 99301
State Environmental Policy Act
Responsible Official:
Rick White, Director
City of Pasco Community & Economic
Development Department
525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, Washington 99301
EIS Contact Person:
Rick White
Community & Economic Development
Director
City of Pasco
525 N 3rd Avenue
Pasco, Washington 99301
Phone: (509) 545 3441
E-mail: whiter@pasco-wa.gov
Required Permits and/or Approvals:
Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan by the City of Pasco Council; review by the Washington State
Department of Commerce, as required by the GMA. Additionally, any approval of the Urban Growth
Area expansion would be granted by the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners. Also, the
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page b
transportation element will be reviewed and is expected to be certified by the Benton-Franklin
Council of Governments.
Authors and Principal Contributors:
This Integrated Non-Project Final EIS was prepared under the direction of the City of Pasco
Community & Economic Development Department. Research and analysis was provided by:
• White Bluffs Consulting, Lead Author
• Oneza & Associates, Built and Natural Environment Analysis
• JUB Engineers, Transportation analysis
Date of Draft EIS Issuance:
May 15, 2020
Date of Draft EIS Comments Due:
June 15July 31, 2020
Public Meetings
May 21, 2020
Date of Final EIS Issuance
September xx, 2020
Related Plans and Documents
• City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan 2020 (September 2020) - Volume 1
• City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (September 2020) - Volume 2, prepared by Oneza &
Associates
• The City of Pasco Urban Growth Area Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis (May 21,2020)
and its appendix, Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation by Murray Smith and Associates
(November 18, 2019)
A limited number of CD and hard copy draft Final EIS documents are available at the City of Pasco
Community & Economic Development Department at 525 N 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington 99301. The
draft Final EIS is also available online at:
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/1088/10763/Comprehensive-Plan-
Update-2018-2038
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. What is an Integrated SEPA/GMA document? .................................................................................. 1
1.3. What is an EIS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4. What is this Process ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.5. Background information on GMA ...................................................................................................... 2
1.6. Location .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.7. Summary of the Proposal................................................................................................................... 4
1.8. Scope of Review ................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2. Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Description of EIS Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2. How the Alternatives Were Developed ............................................................................................. 6
2.3. The Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action .............................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target .................................................................................... 8
2.3.3. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative ................................................ 10
Chapter 3. Major Issues and Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 14
3.1. Major Issues and Areas .................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.1. Increased Density and Development ........................................................................................ 14
3.1.2. Traffic ........................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1.3. Open Space and Natural Areas ................................................................................................. 15
3.1.4. Healthy Community .................................................................................................................. 15
3.2. Comparison of Alternatives to GMA Goals ...................................................................................... 15
Chapter 4. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 21
4.1. Earth ................................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 21
4.1.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 22
4.1.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 23
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page ii
4.2. Surface and Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 24
4.2.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 26
4.2.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 28
4.3. Plants and Animals ........................................................................................................................... 29
4.3.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 29
4.3.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 31
4.3.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 33
4.4. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................... 34
4.4.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 34
4.4.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 37
4.4.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 38
4.5. Environmental Health ...................................................................................................................... 40
4.5.1: Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 40
4.5.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 40
4.5.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 41
4.6 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................................ 42
4.6.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 42
4.6.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 42
4.3.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 44
4.7. Shoreline Use ................................................................................................................................... 44
4.7.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 44
4.7.2. Probable Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 45
4.7.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 45
4.8. Population, Housing, and Employment ........................................................................................... 46
4.8.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 46
4.8.2. Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 47
4.8.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................. 4948
4.9. Parks and Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 50
4.9.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 50
4.9.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................. 5150
4.9.3. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 51
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page iii
4.10. Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 53
4.10.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 53
4.10.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 54
4.10.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 55
4.11. Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................................... 58
4.11.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 58
4.11.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 61
4.11.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 62
4.12. Heritage Conservation ................................................................................................................... 65
4.12.1. Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 65
4.12.2. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 67
4.12.3. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 68
4.13. Summary of Impacts by Alternative .............................................................................................. 69
4.14. Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic ................................................................................... 80
Chapter 5. Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................ 87
5.1. Comments and Responses for Final EIS ........................................................................................... 87
References ................................................................................................................................................ 197
City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update – EIS Scoping Comment Response Matrix ................... 203
List of Tables
Table 1 Population Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2 Existing Residential Capacity .................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3 Alternative 1 Existing Land Use Acreage .......................................................................................... 7
Table 4 Proposed UGA Area Alternative #2 ..................................................................................................... 8
Table 5 Land Use in Alternative #2 ...................................................................................................................... 9
Table 6 Proposed Land Use in the UGA Expansion Area ........................................................................ 11
Table 7 Land Use in Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................... 12
Table 8 Summary of Alternatives Compared to GMA Goals ............................................................ 1514
Table 9 Geologic Hazards of the City ......................................................................................................... 2221
Table 10 Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in the City Limits and UGA 3534
Table 11 Existing Land Use within the City’s Shoreline Jurisdiction ................................................ 3635
Table 12 Summary of Impacts by Alternative ............................................................................................ 6968
Table 13 Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic ............................................................................ 8078
Table 14 Comments and Responses for Final EIS .................................................................................... 8785
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page iv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Context........................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-2 Alternative 2: Traditional Growth ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2-3 Alternative 3: Compact Growth – Preferred Alternative ........................................................... 11
Figure 4-1 Geologic Formations ................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 4-2 Frequently Flooded and Water Resources Critical Areas ......................................................... 25
Figure 4-3 Priority Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4-4 Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 4-5 Proposed and Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space .......................................................... 52
Figure 4-6 Existing Transportation System. .......................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4-7 Transportation improvements. ............................................................................................................ 57
Figure 4-8 Existing Water System ............................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 4-9 Existing Sanitary Sewer System ........................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4-10 Water infrastructure improvements .................................................................................................. 63
Figure 4-11 Sewer system improvements ............................................................................................................... 63
Figure 4-12 Fire service improvements ..................................................................................................................... 64
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 1
Chapter 1. Overview
1.1. Introduction
The City of Pasco (City) is updating its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) consistent with the
Growth Management Act (GMA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A). Every 10 years, the
City is required to update its Plan. Pursuant to the GMA, the City wais to complete the update by the
target date of June 30, 20189; this plan is expected to be completed by Fall 2020.
The Plan consists of goals, policies, and analyses of the following elements: economic, land use,
transportation, utilities, capital facilities, and housing. It also includes parks and recreation, schools,
municipal facilities, fire and emergency services, police services, telecommunications, and
Irrigation District Facilities. The Plan guides decisions about development and growth within the
City limits and in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). It is designed to help the City meet its long-term
vision for growth. The updated document contains visions, goals and policies, and analyses. The
Plan is also required to be consistent with the County-wide Planning Policies established for
Franklin County (Franklin County 2019).
The City has determined this proposal is likely to have significant adverse impact of the
environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).
1.2. What is an Integrated SEPA/GMA document?
In 1995, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) adopted amendments to the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11-210) to authorize
cities and counties planning under GMA to integrate the requirements of SEPA and GMA. These new
rules (WAC 197-11-210 through 235) allow the environmental analysis required under SEPA to
occur concurrently with and as an integral part of the planning and decision making under GMA.
The City has decided to follow this course and incorporate the EIS discussion of the impacts of the
Plan by SEPA into the Plan itself.
The integration of SEPA and GMA results in improved planning and project decisions from the
environmental perospective. Just as GMA goals cannot be addressed without consideration of
environmental factors, the goals of SEPA are benefited by the examination of the "big picture" and
identification of mitigation to address cumulative impacts of development that occurs during GMA
planning.
1.3. What is an EIS
An EIS is a document required under the SEPA that evaluates the possible impacts of a proposed
action. Several different ways of achieving the goal must be explored and contrasted before a final
option/alternative is chosen. The EIS alternatives provide a framework for analyzing impacts and
making comparisons among different land use options.
This document discusses the current state of the City, presents two action and one no-action
alternative for the future of the City, and analyzes expected changes under each alternative. No
alternative should be considered definitive. This will allow decision makers, with input from
residents, the opportunity to incorporate the better features of each alternative (if appropriate)
into a recommended Plan.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 2
1.4. What is this Process
First, the Responsible Official of the City determined an EIS was required. Once that occurred, the
City issued a Scoping Notice to request public input on the scope of the document, including issues
to be addressed, alternatives to be evaluated, and the level of detail to be provided. Several public
comments were received during scoping, as provided in Appendix A. These comments were
considered in both scoping the draft EIS and the alternatives and in analysis of specific topics
addressed in the draft EIS. Once a final scope of work had been determined, then the draft
comprehensive plan was prepared, and this draft EIS was also prepared to more fully considerable
effects and also to solicit comments during the public review process.
1.5. Background information on GMA
In 1990, the Washington State Legislature recognized that uncoordinated and unplanned growth
was reducing the quality of the environment and of life in many areas of the State, and so adopted
the GMA. The overall goal of this legislation is to provide a managed framework for growth and
development throughout Washington State. There are 14 goals in GMA as follows:
• Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities exist
or can be provided.
• Reduce Sprawl: Reduce inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-
density development.
• Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems based on regional
priorities.
• Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population.
• Economic Development: Encourage economic development consistent with adopted Plans,
promote economic opportunity for all citizens, especially for the unemployed and the
disadvantaged, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth,
all within the capacity of the state’s natural resources, public services and public facilities.
• Property Rights: Protect property rights from arbitrary or discriminatory actions.
• Permits: Process permits in a timely and predictable manner.
• Natural Resource Industries: Conserve timber, agricultural, and mineral resource lands.
• Open Space and Recreation: Retain open space and enhance recreational opportunities.
• Environment: Protect the environment and enhance air quality and availability of water.
• Citizen Participation and Coordination: Foster early and continuous public participation in
the planning process.
• Public Facilities and Services: Provide adequate public facilities and services to serve new
growth.
• Historic Preservation: Encourage historic preservation.
Shoreline Management: Incorporate the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
into the Plan.
In order to attain these goals, cities and counties planning under GMA are required to develop Plans
addressing land use, transportation, housing, utilities, and capital facilities for the next 20 years.
Plans are required to be updated every 10 years.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 3
1.6. Location
The proposal includes the City limits and UGA boundary. The City of Pasco, Washington, is in
Franklin County bordered by the Columbia and Snake rivers, in the geographic region known as the
Mid-Columbia Basin. Pasco and the nearby communities of Richland and Kennewick are commonly
called the Tri-Cities.
The Tri-Cities area is the largest metropolitan area between Spokane, 145 miles to the northeast,
and Seattle, 220 miles to the northwest. Boise, Idaho, is situated 300 miles southeast of Tri-Cities.
Because of its location, the Tri-Cities metro has become a major transportation and commercial hub
for travelers, and commodities in the Pacific Northwest. Figure 1-1 shows the City regional context.
Figure 1-1 Regional Context
• Populate d Place
0 Ccunty Seat
--Inter stat es
D Incorporat ed City of Pasco
D Urban Growth kea IC Franklin Count y Bou ndary
Other Crunty Boundary c:::I Stat e Bourdary
D Hydrologic Uni t
-SMA J 1Jisdiction
NOTES:
1. This information is to be used for plan ning purposes onty . Data are
~i_s,f~~~~~~ ~~~~:o0~t J~u~~~t(io%)cruracy o r cofll)leteness
3. Hyd rologic u nit data acqu ire d from USGS and NRCS
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 4
1.7. Summary of the Proposal
A Public Participation Plan was adopted by the City. The City provided multiple opportunities for
public involvement in the form of public workshops with the Planning Commission and City Council
(also broadcast on cable television), open houses, and through a Plan update webpage. The City
reached out to agencies such as Pasco School District, Columbia Basin College, Benton Franklin
Council of Government, Washington State Departments of Commerce and Transportation and other
agencies. The Plan’s goals, policies, and elements reflect the input received from the public.
The City of Pasco is updating its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) consistent with the Growth
Management Act (GMA; RCW 36.70A). The updated Plan consists of goals, policies and analyses of
the following elements and sub-elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, transportation,
economic development, utilities, open space, public services, resources lands, and critical areas and
shorelines.
The updated Plan guides decisions about development and growth within the City limits and the
Urban Growth Area (UGA). It is designed to help the City meet its long-term growth target as
allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The updated plan contains vision, goals and
policies, analyses of future growth and potential UGA expansion, and updated elements to comply
with the GMA. The Plan is also required to be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies
established for Franklin County.
The current OFM population estimate for Pasco is 73,590 (OFM 2018). Population of the City is
expected to reach 121,828 by 2038, an increase of 48,238 persons over the current population
(Table 1).
Table 1
Population Estimates
Population in
Franklin County Population in Pasco1
2018 93,541 73,590
2028 121,792 97,434
2038 152,285 121,828
10 year increase 30,49328,251 23,844
20 year increase 58,744 48,238
Additional Rresidential units needed in Pasco in 10
years2
7,522
Additional Rresidential units needed in Pasco in 20
years2
15,217
1. OFM Medium Series. Historically, Pasco’s share has been 80 percent of the County population.
2. Based on OFM - household size: 3.17
The land capacity analysis indicates that the City and the existing UGA has the capacity to
accommodate 30,372 persons in the vacant, and under-utilized land and in the current UGA. See
Table 2 for details.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 5
Table 2
Existing Residential Capacity
Acres
Capacity for additional
residential units
Additional
Ppopulation
needed to be
accommodated
Developable land in the City limits 428.20 1,490 4,723
Developable land in existing UGA 199.70 1,091 3,459
Broadmoor area1 7,000 22,190
Current capacity including Broadmoor. 9,581 30,372
1. Capacity anticipated in the Broadmoor area in the draft master plan
1.8. Scope of Review
This Integrated EIS analyzes, at a programmatic level, the potential impacts on the following
elements of the environment identified through the scoping process:
• Earth
• Water
• Plants and Animals
• Land Use
• Environmental health
• Shoreline Use
• Population, Housing, and Employment
• Parks and Recreation
• Transportation
• Public Services and Utilities
• Heritage Conservation
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 6
Chapter 2. Alternatives
2.1. Description of EIS Alternatives
The City is proposing three alternatives based on projected future growth patterns. Alternative 1,
No Action, calls for keeping the City’s existing Plan without modifications. Alternative 2,
Recommended Growth Target, allows for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20-year
population growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM).
Alternative 3, Recommended Growth Target High Density also accommodates the 20-year growth
projection but through a growth pattern of higher density.
2.2. How the Alternatives Were Developed
For the Draft EIS, the City conducted multiple visioning workshops with the public, Planning
Commission, and City Council to develop the alternatives. An online survey was also available to
offer input on multiple issues. Public input was gathered in accordance with the adopted Public
Participation Plan. Multiple ways of outreach include:
• Online, television, and mail
• Public meetings
• Council and Commission workshops
• Online survey
• Topic group discussion
• Other agency coordination
Key topics to address in the Plan were gathered during the outreach process. These include:
• Include a higher density alternative
• Transportation system (roads/airport) and other infrastructure impacts
• Characterize impacts to agriculture lands and critical areas/shrub steppe
• Consider employment forecast and regional availability of industrial lands
• Conduct detailed land capacity and densities analysis
• Characterize impacts on existing water rights and needs/deficiencies
• Evaluate affordable housing effects
• Characterize air quality effects
2.3. The Alternatives
The EIS is considering three alternatives for evaluation based on future growth expectations.
Alternative 1, No Action, Alternative 2, Traditional Growth Target, and Alternative 3, Compact
Growth Target. Description of each alternative with maps are summarized below.
2.3.1. Alternative 1: No Action
SEPA requires an EIS study to contain a “no action” alternative. This alternative would maintain the
City’s existing Comprehensive Plan without modifications. This means growth would be expected
consistent with past trends but no land use changes would occur to accommodate this growth. The
Urban Growth Area would remain the same. Limited policy changes may be needed to maintain
consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 7
The land capacity analysis indicates that the City and the existing UGA has the capacity to
accommodate 29,629 persons. This alternative will have a deficit of land to accommodate 18,625
(48,238 - 29,613) persons.
The existing land use distribution in the City is shown in Figure 2-1 and described in Table 3. Draft
EIS Chapter 2 includes a more detailed description of Alternative 1.
Figure 2-1 No Action Alternative
Table 3
Alternative 1 Existing Land Use Acreage
Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total
Residential Lands
Low Density 7,624.78 1,675.85 9,300.63
Mixed Density 1,252.65 425.18 1,677.83
High Density 188.59 — 188.59
Subtotal 9,066.02 2,101.03 11,167.05
Commercial Lands
Mixed Residential / Commercial 564.28 17.42 581.69
Commercial 2,050.20 34.42 2,084.62
Subtotal 2,614.48 51.83 2,666.31
Industrial Lands
Industrial 5,118.44
7,768.43 849.351,669.12
5,967.799,437.55
Subtotal 5,118.44 849.351,669.12
Legend ----
D
Comtnlfci111 ---P\tlk/Oua►P\.cllc
Park"'°Pen Space
14rP I
+ -N-
•
Land u se
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 8
Land Use Designations City Limits UGA Total
7,768.43 5,967.799,437.55
Public / Quasi-Public Lands
Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 837.71 87.53 925.23
Subtotal 837.71 87.53 925.23
Open Space / Park Lands
Open Space / Park 950.24 61.37 1,011.61
Subtotal 950.24 61.37 1,011.61
Airport Reserve Lands
Airport Reserve 1,884.94 350.75 2,235.68
Subtotal 1,884.94 350.75 2,235.68
DNR Reserve Lands
DNR Reserve 765.05 469.03 1,234.08
Subtotal 765.05 469.03 1,234.08
Total Land Area 21,236.87 3,970.89 25,207.761
Notes:
1. Total land area includes approximately 4,300 acres of street right of way
Source: City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b)
2.3.2. Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
This alternative allows for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20-year population growth
projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). In this alternative,
growth would occur based on the past trends, which could include some development within the
undeveloped and infill areas of the City along with an expansion of the Urban Growth Area north of
the City to accommodate future growth. This alternative considers land use and policy changes in
order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and to
accommodate growth. In this alternative, the Broadmoor area will develop under the current land
use and traditional growth pattern.
This alternative will add approximately 5000 acres in the area north of the City as shown in
Figure 2-2 and Table 4. It should be noted that the land designated industrial in the UGA
associated with this alternative is currently designated as industrial by Franklin County. This area
is currently part of a County-designated Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development or
LAMIRD.
Table 4
Proposed UGA Area Alternative #2
Land Use Area (Acres)
Low Density Residential 3,622.00
High Density Residential —
Mixed Residential (Mixed Density) 278.00285278.00
Mixed Residential & Commercial 3.00
Commercial 119.00
Industrial 725809.00810.00
Government & Public —
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 9
Open Space & Parks —
Airport Reserve 33.00
DNR Reserve —
Total
4,738.864,871.334,864
Table 45
UGA Land Use in Alternative #2
Land Use Designations City Limits
UGA
(Existing and
Proposed) Total
Residential Lands
Low Density 7,624.78 5,287.81 12,912.59
Medium Density 1,247.12 708.58 1,955.70
High Density 188.59 188.59
Subtotal 9,060.49 5,996.39 15,056.89
Commercial Lands
Mixed Residential / Commercial 564.50 17.45 581.95
Commercial 2050.00 152.31 2,202.51
Subtotal 2,614.70 169.76 2,784.46
Industrial Lands
Industrial 5,106.88 1,645.86 6,752.74
Subtotal 5,106.88 1,645.86 6,752.74
Public / Quasi-Public Lands
Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 840.00 74.27 914.27
Subtotal 840.00 74.27 914.27
Open Space / Park Lands
Open Space / Park 938.16 73.82 1,011.98
Subtotal 938.16 73.82 1,011.98
Airport Reserve Lands
Airport Reserve 1,919.32 384.67 2,303.99
Subtotal 1,919.32 384.67 2,303.99
DNR Reserve Lands
DNR Reserve 764.54 469.50 1,234.04
Subtotal 764.54 469.50 1,234.04
Area Total 21,244.09 8,814.65 30,058.37
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 10
Figure 2-2 Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
2.3.3. Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
This alternative allows for changes in the Plan to accommodate the 20-year population growth
projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and to capitalize on
other development opportunities. In addition, alternative 3 will consider a growth pattern of
higher density. It includes considering land use and policy changes to gain an increase in
development capacity within the undeveloped and infill areas of the City. Under this alternative,
the Urban Growth Area would be modified to the north of the City at a higher density/smaller area
compared to Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth. It will consider land use and policy
changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policies, and
to accommodate growth. In this alternative, the Broadmoor area will develop under a higher
density growth pattern.
This alternative will add approximately 3600 3500 acres in the area north of the City as shown in
Figure 2-3, and Table 56. Table 6 7 summarizes land use under Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2,
the land designated industrial in the UGA associated with this alternative is currently designated as
industrial by Franklin County.
Richland
Legend
O c1yuma
D C11rre nt Urban GrO'Mh Area
D Proposed Urtliln Growth Are.i (Alt 2)
-A irport R1tMIMI 1
;:; Ai rport ReseM 2
-Commercial
-Mno:ed Resl1ential & Commercl81
LowD&nsrty Re5ldltntial
-Mixed Reside nt.al
-High Density Res.ldential
-Industrial
-GovemrTMJnl & Pubhc
-Open Spece & Parks
DNR ReseMI
Kennewick
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 11
Figure 2-3 Alternative 3: Compact Growth – Preferred Alternative
Table 56
Proposed Land Use in the UGA Expansion Area
Land Use Land (acres)
Low Density Residential1 1,8301,758
Mixed/Medium Density Residential 429351
High Density Residential 122
Commercial 39323362
Industrial 7266
Public / Quasi-Public 82
Airport Reserve 33
Total 3,53343,448
1. About 40 acres of parks, 160 acres of land for school facilities and additional public lands are included in the Low Density
Residential land use acres. Locations to be identified at a later phase with the land use changes.
2. Additional commercial lands is assumed to be available through redevelopment on existing corridors over time
Richland
Legend
Land Use Classifications
-AirportReserve _c,,,n,«••
-Coofederalt!d Tribn -Colville
ONR RefffVe
HighDensit)'Residefitial
-lndustri911
Low Density Res~ial
-Medium Oetisrty Resdentilll
-Medium High Density Residential
-MiKed Resldenbill & Conmeraal
~ Mli e<I UM lnterchanoe
EZ2:J MiKed Use Neighbomood
~ Mbce<I UM RegiOna,I
Offio,
-Open5p.cePa<1u
-Publi,::Ouasl-Public
C'J ~ Pllnn~ Area
[:~]City lmts
c:]Proposed •UrbillnGrowth Area
Ke nnewic k
Miles
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 12
Table 67
Land Use in Alternative 3
Land Use Designations City Limits
UGA
(Existing and
Proposed) Total
Residential Lands
Low Density
7,136.507,124.3
4
3,581.52 3,478.35
10,718.0210,502.6
9
Medium Density
1,648.631,590.5
3
690.34628.34 2,338.972,218.87
Medium-High Density 60.77 162.96 223.73
High Density 171.25 122.40 293.65
Subtotal
9,017.158,946.8
9
4,557.224,392.05
13,574.3713,338.9
4
Commercial Lands
Mixed Residential / Commercial 345.31422.21 12.31 357.62434.52
Commercial
1,872.271,866.6
3
427.70370 2,299.972,236.83
Mixed Use Interchange 26.35 — 26.35
Mixed Use Neighborhood 20.60 56.82 77.42
Mixed Use Regional 147.96 — 147.96
Office 104.01 — 104.01
Subtotal
2,516.502,587.7
6
496.84439.34 3,013.333,027.10
Industrial Lands
Industrial
5,128.114,938.4
7
1,564.561,606.04 6,692.676,544.51
Subtotal 5,128.11
4,938.47 1,564.56 1,606.04 6,692.67 6,544.51
Public / Quasi-Public Lands
Gov't Public / Quasi-Public 850.96 —82.17 850.96933.13
Subtotal 850.96 —82.17 850.96 933.13
Open Space / Park Lands
Open Space / Park
1,040.181,251.0
7
70.39 1,110.57 1,321.46
Subtotal 1,040.18
1,251.07 70.39 1,110.57 1,321.46
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 13
Land Use Designations City Limits
UGA
(Existing and
Proposed) Total
Airport Reserve Lands
Airport Reserve 1,919.64
1,708.75 382.39 2,302.032,091.14
Subtotal 1,919.64
1,708.75 382.39 2,302.03 2,091.14
DNR Reserve Lands
DNR Reserve 764.04 468.85 1,232.89
Subtotal 764.04 468.85 1,232.89
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation 188.00 188.00
Area Total 21,2365.5793 7,540.257,359.05 28,776677.82 16
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 14
Chapter 3. Major Issues and Summary of Environmental Impacts
3.1. Major Issues and Areas
3.1.1. Increased Density and Development
Densities will be increased under the preferred alternatives, which may significantly impact the
character built environment of the City, especially in the Broadmoor area to the northwest and the
area to the north proposed for future UGA expansion. Some areas in existing single-family
neighborhoods may have increased densities and infill developments in both action alternatives 2
and 3.
Some of the areas in the existing UGA, especially the Riverview area , located between the Franklin
County Irrigation District (FCID) Canal and the Columbia River… would most likely retain similar
densities for a longer timeframe. The creation of odd shaped lots and the placement of buildings in
locations where future streets need to be extended, and the lack of sewer service all create
challenges for future development. In addition, the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation is recommending cultural surveys be conducted for development proposals in this
area that will add to development costs and time. City of Pasco Ordinance 4221 (June 2015)
established that the RS-20 Zoning designation would remain in place for a period of five years. As a
result, low density in this area will change to a higher density at a much slower pace than other
areas within the City limits and UGA.
Future development under both action alternatives will change the character of the primarily
undeveloped areas of the City and the unincorporated areas in the County currently proposed for
UGA expansion. Alternative 3 will have a variety of housing styles, including cluster and multi -
family housing, requiring less expansion of the UGA. Therefore, and will impact less area in the
unincorporated part of the County.
In the responses to the scoping notice and in meetings, the Pasco community has largely expressed
support for higher density development and a variety of housing choices.
3.1.2. Traffic
The additional traffic generated by the increased housing densities, and commercial, and public
facilities land uses could impact existing traffic pattern. Both action alternatives would result in a
substantial increase in traffic volume, although proposed mitigation could reduce transportation
impacts sufficiently under Alternative 3 to meet the City’s current Level-of-Service requirements.
Additionally, the Broadmoor area in both alternatives will retain more some traffic internally due to
the increase of a mix of land uses.
Traffic within the Broadmoor area and in the proposed expanded UGA area is anticipated to
significantly increase in Alternative 3. However, a portion of this traffic is expected to be contained
internally due to the combination of businesses and housing opportunities planned in the same
area. Alternative 2 will have an increased vehicular movement due to the UGA area consisting
mostly of residential land uses, with residential traffic travelling to the work areas both within and
outside of Pasco in the greater Tri-Cities area, along with travel to commercial areas throughout the
City.
The major facilities that will be affected by the forecasted growth in the City of Pasco under all
alternatives are I-182 as well as Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd, both of which provide the
only access at interchanges with I-182 in the western portion of the City where much of the growth
is forecast to occur.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 15
3.1.3. Open Space and Natural Areas
Open space and natural areas are located along the extensive shoreline areas of the City, industrial
areas on the eastern side of the town, around the Pasco airport and near the Broadmoor area.
Habitats in these areas include wetlands, sand dunes, shrub-steppe habitat and riparian areas, in
varying levels of function. Many open space areas are also disturbed with non-native vegetation on
them. The City’s existing environmental protection regulations, including Pasco Municipal Code
(PMC) Titles 28 (Critical Areas) and 29 (Shoreline Master Program) designed to protect wetlands,
fish and wildlife habitats, and other critical area functions and values. Additionally, state and
federal regulations also guide the preservation of cultural resources in this area.
3.1.4. Healthy Community
As the growth occurs in the City, there has been concern about the planning for a walkable,
bike-friendly and a more active community that promotes a healthy lifestyle. The City’s zoning code
currently allows mixed uses in certain zones with Mixed-Residential/ Commercial land use. Both
alternatives would promote mixed-use developments as future development is anticipated in the
Broadmoor area. Both alternatives’ goals and policies include streetscape and traffic improvement,
along with pedestrian- and bike-friendly options. Land use in the proposed UGA area in the
Preferred Alternative 3 includes a mix of residential, commercial, park, and public facilities land
uses that would promote live and work environments, increase physical activities and encourage
multi-modal travel options. The UGA area in Alternative 2 will include a minimal mix of uses. With
predominantly low-density residential land use in the UGA area, Alternative 2 will mostly remain as
an auto-oriented community.
3.2. Comparison of Alternatives to GMA Goals
Table 78
Summary of Alternatives Compared to GMA Goals
Goals
Alternative 1:
No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Urban Growth: Encourage
development in urban
areas where adequate
public facilities and services
exist or can be provided in
an efficient manner.
• Would
accommodate the
lLeast amount of
future growth in
the City.
• Dispersed future
growth throughout
the city and low
rise pattern.
• Focused growth
within the UGA.
• Focused growth
within the UGA
with higher
density and infill.
Reduce Sprawl: Reduce
inappropriate conversion of
undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density
development.
• Dispersed and low-
rise development
pattern, would
exceed the UGA to
accommodate
growth increasing
sprawl.
• Growth within the
UGA, but
suburban nature
of development
will result in
sprawl.
• Growth within the
UGA, planned
areas would
reduce sprawl.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 16
Goals
Alternative 1:
No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Transportation: Encourage
efficient multi-modal
transportation systems
based on regional priorities
and coordinated with the
City Plan.
• Retains current
• Transportation
plans with limited
improvements.
• Adds new
transportation
improvements to
improve
connectivity and
street design that
supports urban
environment.
• Adds new
transportation
improvements to
improve
connectivity and
street design that
supports urban
environment.
• Adds multi-modal
travel options
• Could result in
shorter trips due
to more compact
development
patterns and could
also lead to more
kids walking to
school.
Housing: Encourage the
availability of affordable
housing to all economic
segments of the
population, promote a
variety of residential
densities and housing
types, and encourage
preservation of existing
housing stock.
• Housing not
adequate to meet
the 20-year
demand. Disbursed
and low rise
pattern of housing
development.
• Housing meets
the 20-year
demand with
limited housing
types.
• Housing meets the
20-year demand
with a variety of
housing types and
residential
densities.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 17
Goals
Alternative 1:
No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Economic Development:
Encourage economic
development consistent
with adopted Plans,
promote economic
opportunity for all citizens,
especially for the
unemployed and the
disadvantaged, and
encourage growth in areas
experiencing insufficient
economic growth, all within
the capacity of the state’s
natural resources, public
services and public
facilities.
• Current economic
development
trends continue.
• Employment to
occur in the
existing
commercial and
industrial areas.
• Economic
opportunities are
identified in the
plan.
• Some
employment will
occur in the
limited
commercial areas.
• Economic
opportunities are
identified in the
plan.
• Additional
commercial and
mixed-use areas
will accommodate
more
employment.
• Results in less land
conversion than
Alternative 2,
maintaining
existing
agricultural
production, and
associated
economic benefits
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 18
Goals
Alternative 1:
No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Open Space and
Recreation: Encourage the
retention of open space
and development of
recreation opportunities,
conserve fish and wildlife
habitat, increase access to
natural resource lands and
water, and develop parks.
• Maintains existing
parks and Natural
Open Space.
• Recreation
opportunities will
be provided based
on the Parks and
Recreation’s
adopted Level of
Service.
• Maintains existing
parks and natural
open space and
adds additional
park land to serve
future growth.
• Larger area of
farmland (not Ag
land of long-term
commercial
significance) and
rural land to be
changed to
various uses in the
UGA over time.
Agricultural and
rural lands to
remain in
production until
the time of
development.
Parks and
recreational open
spaces will be
provided to serve
in future, as
development
occurs.
• Maintains existing
parks and natural
open space and
adds additional
park land to serve
future growth.
• A smaller growth
area "footprint" ,
although changing
land use from
farmland (not Ag
land of long-term
commercial
significance) and
rural land to
various uses in the
UGA over time.
Agricultural and
rural lands to
remain in
production until
the time of
development.
Will maintain
more open space
than Alternative 2.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 19
Goals
Alternative 1:
No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Environment: Protect the
environment and enhance
the City’s high quality of
life, including air and water
quality, and the availability
of water.
• Environmental
qualities are
protected based on
the current
regulations and
development
pattern.
• A sprawl type
growth will involve
more land for
development,
resulting in higher
vehicular traffic
that could
negatively impact
the air quality.
• Environmental
qualities are
protected based
on the current
regulations and
development
pattern.
• A low density
growth pattern
will involve more
land for
development,
more farmland
(not Ag land of
long term
commercial
significance) and
rural land to be
changed to
various uses in the
UGA, resulting in
higher vehicular
traffic that could
negatively impact
the air quality.
• Environmental
qualities are
protected based
on the current
regulations and
development
pattern.
• A higher density
development will
involve less land,
reduce vehicular
traffic, and will
reduce impact to
air quality and
ozone.
• A smaller growth
area "footprint"
will maintain more
open space than
Alternative
Public Facilities and Service.
Adequate public facilities to
serve the development.
• Public facilities
continue to serve
the current
development
pattern.
• Additional public
facilities will be
required in certain
areas for urban
development.
• Additional public
facilities will be
required in certain
areas for urban
development.
• Public facilities will
be more efficient
due to the more
densely planned
development
pattern.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 20
Goals
Alternative 1:
No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Historic Preservation.
Identify and encourage the
preservation of lands, sites
and structures that have
historical or archaeological
significance.
• Historical or
archaeologically
significant sites or
structures are
protected under
the current
regulations during
construction phase.
• Historical or
archaeologically
significant sites or
structures are
protected in the
planning phase,
and also under
the current
regulations during
construction
phase.
• Historical or
archaeologically
significant sites or
structures are
protected in the
planning phase,
and also under the
current
regulations during
construction
phase.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 21
Chapter 4. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1. Earth
4.1.1. Affected Environment
The geology, soils, and topography of the City area are primarily dictated by glacial outburst
flooding that occurred near the end of the last major glacial period, approximately 18,000 to 20,000
years ago. This event is referred to as the Missoula Floods. The geologic makeup is the result of
erosion of pre-flood geologic units, deposition of sediments carried by the floodwaters, and the
formation of the unique topographic features that influence present-day hydrology. Prior to the
Missoula Floods, the geology of Franklin County consisted primarily of Miocene-aged Columbia
River Basalt flows that were in some places (e.g., plateaus) capped with varying thicknesses of
wind-blown fine sands and silt known as loess (Grolier and Bingham 1978). The segments of the
Columbia and Snake rivers around the City are located in a wide valley primarily comprising
alluvial soils with relatively high infiltration rates. Within upland areas, particularly areas farther
from the confluence of the rivers, outburst flood deposits of gravel occur as well. Figure 4-1 shows
the geologic formations that occur near the City.
Geologically hazardous areas are defined as those lands susceptible to erosion, landslides, seismic,
or mine hazard events. Surficial geology is shown on Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 89.
Figure 4-1 Geologic Formations
Geologically hazardous areas are defined as those lands susceptible to erosion, landslides, seismic,
or mine hazard events.
Ntemabve 2 UGA
c:::J Ntemabve 3 U GA . Preferred Action
-Geologic Hazan:lArea
Geologl e Unit
AIILMal Deposits
-Flood Deposits
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 22
Table 89
Geologic Hazards of the City
Hazard Description Summary Source
Erosion
Soil units susceptible
to erosion by wind,
water, and unstable
slopes
Some water erosion hazard areas
exist along the Columbia River along
with wind erosion hazard areas
where sandy soils and dunes exist.
Soils – Water Erosion
Hazards GIS Data
(Franklin County)
Landslides
Steep Slopes
underlain by weak,
fine, and unstable
geology
There are three areas in the City that
have slopes greater than 15%
underlain by alluvium or dune sand.
No area in the City is mapped as an
active landslide area.
Generalized Slope GIS
Data (Franklin County),
Surface Geology
Polygon, 1: 100,000
Scale (WDNR)
Active Landslide Area
GIS Data (Franklin
County)
Seismic
Hazards
Active faults and
earthquake locations
There is no known fault exist in the
City.
Active fold and fault
GIS data layers (WDNR)
Mine Sites Active (permitted)
mine sites
One mine site is identified; both
mines were for sand or gravel.
Underground mining practices are
currently not taking place in
Franklin County. There are no
known inactive mines sites;
however, if they exist, these areas
may present slope hazards (see
Comprehensive Plan Appendix A
Mapfolio – Map CA-1).
Mining and Energy
Resources GIS data
(WDNR) 2004, 2010,
2011, and 2012
Liquefaction
Susceptibility
zone
Liquefaction
Susceptibility zone
under alluvium
deposit
One liquefaction susceptibility zone
is identified along the Columbia
River (see Comprehensive Plan
Appendix A Mapfolio – Map CA-1).
City critical areas data
Note:
WDNR = Washington Department of Natural Resources
4.1.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Earth-related impacts would occur during development activities and operation that may cause any
of the following disturbance mechanisms: clearing, grading, erosion and sedimentation, impervious
area expansion, increased chemical contamination, or other site-disturbing activities. Such
activities have the potential to increase erosion, compaction, or contamination of earth resources.
Infill and new developments near the steep slope areas in all alternatives would impact the ea rth
surface.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use
designations. Earth-related impacts under the No Action Alternative would scale with the intensity
of future activities occurring within the City’s infill areas, which are expected to be less intensive
compared to future uses proposed under the two action alternatives. Future population growth
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 23
would not be fully accommodated under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in
increased and more diffuse impacts to earth resources from future sprawl-type development in
other parts of the City and neighboring rural areas in the County.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Alternative 2 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped and infill areas
of the City and in the UGA. Compared to the No Action Alternative, disturbance mechanisms
associated with more intensive development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in increased
erosion, compaction, or contamination of earth resources within the planning areas.
Due to the maximum acreages occupied under this alternative, the extent of impacts to earth
resources within the undeveloped or infill areas would be more in Alternative 2 than other two
alternatives. A limited potential for earth slides or slope sloughing exists within the steeper sloped
areas on the north side of the City within the Broadmoor area. Because of the fine sandy soils in
most part of the planning area including the Broadmoor area and the northern part of the planning
area, a potential does exist for siltation, particularly during construction. The Loess soils are
windblown and extremely fine. Thus, these soils compact well but may be subject to some erosion.
Because of the low rainfall in the Tri-Cities area, siltation from runoff after construction is not
typically an issue. However, windblown siltation can impact surrounding areas if not watered
during construction.
Alternative 2 proposes lower density land use designations than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would
accommodate more land and less density, potentially resulting in increased impacts to earth
resources from future development in the planning area.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas
of the City and in the UGA area. Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 proposes denser
residential development to occur in the northern portion of the City and in the Broadmoor area. as
indicated in Figure 2-3. Broadmoor area anticipates adding about 7,000 dwelling units in by the
year 2038. In Alternative 3, the denser development would result in higher population density per
acre and reduce the need for sprawl-type development in the City and nearby rural areas to
accommodate future population growth. This would concentrate development to planning areas
and potentially reduce impacts to earth resources in other areas compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Compared to Alternative 2, this could reduce impacts from development to earth resources,
including steep slopes.
4.1.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce siltation
and slides:
• Maintain compliance with local air-quality agency requirements by watering exposed areas
during construction.
• Avoid disturbing the steep slope area.
• Compact soils at densities appropriate for planned land uses.
• Provide vegetative cover or soil cement on exposed surfaces.
• Maintain Open Space land use and environment designations along the shoreline to protect
shoreline functions.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 24
• Construction should be staged so that the maximum amount of existing vegetation is left in
place.
• Catch basins should be installed near storm drains
Other Mitigation Measures
The City has updated its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and will reflect updates to the GMA and
SMP at a state and local level. PMC Title 28 addresses geologic hazard areas that occur in the County
and provides parameters for development in and near geologic hazard areas through regulatory,
review, and permitting processes. It also provides the designation and classification of geologic
hazard areas (PMC 28.32.020 and 28.32.030), determination (PMC 28.32.050), and detailed study
requirements (PMC 28.32.060 and 28.32.070) for activities that occur in or near geologic hazard
areas. Development that is consistent with the CAO would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential
impacts to earth resources under the three alternatives.
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (City of Pasco 2020b18) encourages
consistency with the CAO and provides goals and policies related to natural resources, including
protection goals for property and people near geologic hazard areas. The following goals and
policies should be considered for future development:
• LU-7Goal: Safeguard and protect shorelands and critical lands within the urban area.
For consistency with the Plan, future urban design under Alternatives 2 and 3 should be sensitive to
existing topography and landscaping and utilize design strategies and building techniques that
minimize environmental impact, particularly near sensitive areas.
4.2. Surface and GroundwWater
4.2.1. Affected Environment
The City of Pasco is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers in southeastern
Washington within Franklin County. The Columbia River is to the west and south of the City, and
the Snake River is to the east. The study area includes relevant discussion of the contributing
watersheds.
Damage from flooding along the Columbia River occurred in 1948 prior to the construction of the
dam system. The flood stage for the Columbia River is 32.0 feet and is measured at the gage
downstream of the Priest Rapids dam. During maintenance of the Priest Rapids Dam spillway i n
July of 2012, high outflows from the dam raised the river near flood stage in the Tri -Cities (KNDU
2012). The floodway boundary is shown in Figure 4-2. The flood stage for the Snake River is 20.0
feet and is measured at USGS gage #13334300 (Snake River near Anatone, Washington).
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 25
Figure 4-2 Frequently Flooded and Water Resources Critical Areas
The planning area is mostly located in the Esquatzel Coulee basin (Water Resource Inventory Area
36). A small area along the eastern boundary of the planning area is located in the lower Snake
River basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 33). Major surface water resources are the Columbia
River and Snake River.
Lake Wallula is the major surface water resource for the planning area. The portion of the
Columbia and Snake rivers within the planning area is part of the upstream portion of Lake Wallula.
The lake is created from the impoundment of the Columbia River by McNary Dam.
The Columbia River’s active continuous USGS gage nearest to the planning area is gage #12514500
(Columbia River on Clover Island at Kennewick, Washington). The Columbia River at this gage
drains 104,000 square miles. This gage is a water surface elevation gage and has records from
Water Year 1988 to present. The water surface elevation at this gage ranges from 335 feet to 344
feet (NGVD 1929).
The closest Snake River historic USGS gage that measured streamflow near the City is
gage #13353000 (Snake River below Ice Harbor Dam, Washington). The Snake River at this gage
drains 108,500 square miles. It has records from Water Years 1913 to 2000.
Because the planning area is within the Lake Wallula portion of the Columbia and Snake rivers,
water levels are generally stable. Floodplain levels are also confined due to river regulation.
The Columbia and Snake rivers are on the Ecology 303(d) list of impaired waters for temperature
within the planning area. The Columbia River also has a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for total
dissolved gas and is a 305(b) water of concern for pH. Additionally, the Snake River has TMDLs for
dioxin and total dissolved gas, and it is a 305(b) water of concern for pH and dissolved oxygen.
Alternative 2 UGA
c:::J Alt ernative 3 UGA -Preferred Action
-NWI Wellarll
~ FEM A Flo o:!way
100-year FloOOplaln
500-year FloOOplaln
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 26
Temperature and total dissolved gas are measured in the Columbia and Snake rivers at several
gages as part of the Columbia River Data Access in Real Time (DART) program. The DART gage
nearest to the planning area on the Columbia River is gage PAQW (Columbia River at Pasco,
Washington). This gage has been in operation since 2000. The DART gage nearest to the planning
area on the Snake River is gage IDSW (Ice Harbor Tailwater). This gage has been in operation since
2005.
The Columbia and Snake rivers are stable, confined, single-thread channels with low sinuosity and
largely unvegetated depositional mid-channel islands and bars. The flooding risk is low in the
Columbia and Snake rivers due to the levy and dam system maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Therefore, no Channel Migration Zone is present adjacent to the City.
Groundwater in the planning area is within the Columbia Plateau aquifer system, which consists of
the Columbia River Basalt Group overlain by quaternary flood deposits. Groundwater in the
planning area is hydraulically connected to surface water, so the amount of groundwater pumping
affects surface water stream flow, and groundwater resources are recharged by surface water
interaction. The estimated mean annual groundwater recharge in the planning area is up 2 inches
(USGS 2011).
The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary Pool of the
Columbia River. A portion of the Columbia River within the City is part of the upstream portion of
Lake Wallula. Lake Wallula was created from the impoundment of the Columbia River by McNary
Dam. Because the City is largely within the Lake Wallula portion of the Columbia River, water levels
are generally stable within an operating elevation range as controlled at McNary Dam. Columbia
River floodplain levels are also confined due to river regulation.
An irrigation system was originally established to serve farmlands in Pasco by the Franklin County
Irrigation District No.1 (FCID). With the expansion of urban growth in West Pasco, the missi on of
the district has changed to that of an urban service provider as it provides irrigation water to more
and more residential properties. The FCID pumps irrigation water from the Columbia River. Its
main pumping station is located on the Columbia River near the intersection of Court Street and
Road 111. The FCID maintains 36 miles of pipeline and 3.35 miles of canal.
The City currently holds surface water rights for 13,269.25 acre-feet of annual withdrawal and
20,149 gallons per minute (gpm) (29 mgd) of instantaneous withdrawal. As defined in the CWSP,
the City is currently in compliance with water right quantities by borrowing the surplus from the
Quad Cities water right, at a current consumption of 14,424 acre-feet by volume and 18,456 gpm
instantaneous. The City also holds individual groundwater rights sourced by various wells for
separate irrigation purposes. These existing water rights and access to future water sources are
adequate to serve the areas in all the alternatives.
4.2.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Impacts to surface water resources could occur from development activities that may cause erosion
or increase impervious surfaces that could discharge contaminated or sediment-laden water to
nearby surface waters. This point-source and non-point source pollution is a major sources of
water quality impacts resulting from changes in development. Point-source and non-point source
pollution can be exacerbated by development if not properly managed or mitigated (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2012). Additionally, increased impervious surface and
erosion from construction and development could impact groundwater infiltration and increase the
amount of impacted stormwater runoff into nearby surface waters and groundwater. Petroleum
products from construction equipment could accidentally spill and contaminate the shallow
aquifer. Stormwater is generally collected by storm drains and discharged to stormwater handling
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 27
facilities. Current state and City regulations require the inclusion of stormwater treatment facilities
for projects that create significant new impervious surface area.
Developing currently undeveloped or infill areas that are irrigated could also change the
stormwater recharge dynamics from new impervious surfaces, soil compaction, or other soil-
disturbing activities. In the undeveloped condition, groundwater recharge would either return to
streams as baseflow or recharge deeper portions of the underlying aquifer. Reducing groundwater
recharge can result in lower water tables and reduced baseflow to streams, lakes, and wetlands.
Additionally, expansion of the city's UGA and subsequent annexation and extension of sewer can
limit the number of homes that are built with septic systems, which can benefit groundwater
quality.
The same factors that impact groundwater and surface water quality and availability can also affect
water supply. As described previously, changes in land use that reduce groundwater recharge have
the potential to prevent precipitation from recharging groundwater aquifers. Additionally, changes
in population can increase demand for water for public water supplies, domestic use, irrigation,
industrial processing, energy production, or other needs. This can limit the availability of water
supplies in various parts of the City, particularly during drought conditions.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use
designations. Surface water-related impacts under the No Action Alternative would scale with the
intensity of future activities and population growth occurring within the planning areas as infill
developments, which is expected to be less intensive compared to future uses proposed under the
two action alternatives due to the limited land area in this alternative. Since the additional and
projected future growth won’t be occurring within the City limits, sprawled development will take
place in the areas surrounding the City. These developments would most likely to occur on large
lots in the County impacting surface waters outside the planning areas.
The rate of water supply demand would generally be proportionate to the rate of growth
anticipated for each alternative. The impacts of Alternative 1 on water supply demand could be less
with lower expected population growth and associated development, compared to the other
alternatives.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide the capacity to develop existing undeveloped or infill lands to
accommodate future population growth. Recent studies indicate that land use intensity, land cover
composition, landscape configuration (i.e., patterns or distributions), and the connectivity of
impervious surface areas have complex but direct influences on the ecology and water quality of
the surface waters within a watershed (Alberti et al. 2004). Consequently, these alternatives could
indirectly affect surface water resources, scaled to the intensity of development.
The change in development patterns to the north under Alternatives 2 and 3 from irrigated and
vacant to developed lands would also change groundwater and stormwater recharge dynamics
from new impervious surfaces, soil compaction, or other soil-disturbing activities. This change
would concentrate where stormwater recharges compared to existing conditions where rain
currently falls and dispersed across agricultural fields and seeps into groundwater aquifers.
Alternative 2 could have more impervious surface per capita due to the lower density development
planned for this alternative, compared to Alternative 3
Without mitigation, surface waters within the City would be at greatest risk of degradation because
of the expected development.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 28
As described above, the rate of water supply demand would generally be proportionate to the rate
of growth anticipated for each alternative. The impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 on water supply
demand could be greater than the No Action Alternative due to higher expected population growth
being planned for.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas
of the City and in a smaller UGA area compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes denser
residential development to occur in the Broadmoor and UGA areas. Due to increased density and
land area covered by Alternative 3, this alternative would increase new impervious surface area
and development-related impacts to surface water within the planning areas. However, Alternative
3 would focus development within the City and could potentially result in decreased impacts to
surface water recharge to groundwater from future development within the city infill and
redevelopment areas, and in the reduced and higher density UGA area compared to Alternative 2.
4.2.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the mitigation measures described in Section 4.1.3. for reducing impacts to
earth resources should also be employed to reduce potential impacts to nearby surface waters and
the underlying groundwater from erosion and runoff, and surface water infiltration. The following
mitigation measures should also be employed:
• Under both development alternatives, detention ponds will reduce peak runoff flows to
natural state conditions. Detention ponds will also provide settlement for silt. Oil/water
separators can reduce impacts from automobiles.
• Additional mitigation measures include bio-filtration, either before or after entry into the
various detention ponds, and buffers around wetlands and around wetlands in accordance
with the CAO.
• Stormwater improvements are planned to manage stormwater and protect water quality.
• Evaluate and apply Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater techniques, where
appropriate, to maintain dispersed groundwater infiltration.
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) goals and policies encourage the
protection of critical areas, and management of storm water. Alternatives 2 and 3 should identify
and regulate the use of wetlands, essential habitat areas, and other critical lands within and
adjacent to the planning areas, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. The following goals
and policies should be considered for future development:
• UT-3 Goal: Assure the provision of adequate and efficient storm water management.
• UT-3-A Policy: Require adequate provision of storm water facilities with all new land
development
• UT-3-B Policy: Include adequate storm water management facilities to serve new or existing
streets.
Proposed policies and regulations for the environmental protection of surface water and
groundwater resources, and the protection of public health and safety from flood hazards, would
apply, to minimize surface and groundwater quality impacts.
The City of Pasco 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan also identifies the priority projects.
Improvements identified for the Water Treatment Plant, Process Water Reuse Facility, and
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 29
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water quality improvement features on the existing storm drainage
and water main system are also planned to be constructed. Water-capacity improvements are also
planned throughout the City.
Existing federal, state, and county policies regulate land use activities near, and within, surface
waters such as the Columbia and Snake rivers and wetlands. The City CAO in PMC 28.16, addresses
and provides protections for the wetlands and provides parameters for development in and near
these resources through regulatory, review, and permitting processes. Similarly, CAO in PMC 28.24,
protects groundwater resources from hazardous substance and hazardous waste pollution by
controlling or abating future pollution from new land uses or activities. Development that is
consistent with the CAO would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth resources
under the three alternatives.
The following regulations and commitments are relevant to protecting County surface water
resources:
• Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations as well as
City stormwater regulations require stormwater quantity and quality controls. The City has
adopted the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (Ecology
2004).
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promotes wetland avoidance and regulates the
filling of wetlands via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
• The City uses its SEPA authority in PMC 23.05 to require mitigation for impacts on drainage,
habitat, and water quality and ensure mitigation is appropriate and sufficient.
4.3. Plants and Animals
4.3.1. Affected Environment
This section reviews plant species and habitat, and fish and wildlife. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has identified fish and wildlife resources that are a priority for
management and conservation and maps areas where these habitats are known to occur through
the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program (WDFW 2008). WDFW designation of priority
habitat types is advisory only and carries no legal protection; although, such designation may
increase the significance of impacts as evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the SEPA process. WDFW does have authority over projects within the wetted
perimeter of rivers, streams and lakes. Additionally, cities are required to designate and conserve
priority species and habitats through their GMA critical areas regulations , as discussed further
below. Figure 4-3 shows the extent of listed PHS occurrence within the City, including floodways,
wetlands, and priority species and habitats, based on data and observations by the agency staff over
the past several years. As can be seen with the underlying imagery, some of these lands have been
developed for housing, agriculture or industrial uses since the species or habitats were identified.
These maps provides a general guide for the environmental review process but site-specific
permitting and studies should be conducted to verify and confirm what habitats and species exist at
the time of the development. The City protects the habitats and associated plant and animal species
through its Critical Areas code, PMC Title 28.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 30
Figure 4-3 Priority Habitats and Species
Plants and Habitat
Shrub-steppe upland habitat is the largest native land cover type in Franklin County and is also
found within the City as small remnant patches, primarily in the western and northern parts of the
City and UGA areas. The shrub-steppe habitat in the city and UGA areas provides certain ecosystem
services, including soil stabilization, wildfire moderation, and increased biodiversity in the few
areas where native vegetation exists. Vegetation is primarily invasive species such as cheatgrass
and Russian thistle, with pockets of sagebrush and native grasses. The displacement of shrub-
steppe plant species by the invasive cheat-grass, Russian thistle, and other invasive species
increases fire intensity and frequency, which, in addition to the hazards this creates for humans and
wildlife, and also impacts shrub-steppe plant species such as big sagebrush, an important species
for rare birds such as the sage grouse (Link et al. 2006).
In some areas, shrub-steppe habitat abuts or nearly abuts the shoreline, and there are small
remnants of shrub-steppe habitat interspersed among the irrigated agricultural fields and
industrial lands. Much of the remnant shrub-steppe habitat has been previously disturbed through
grading, gravel mining, agriculture and off-road recreation vehicle activity, and the non-native
grasses and weeds have taken over most of these areas.
Riparian areas are located along the shorelines of the City, with varying levels of structural
diversity and productivity in terms of organic material, with reductions in diversity and
productivity due to levees and upland developed areas. Habitat characteristics of healthy riparian
areas include a connected corridor for fish and wildlife travel, vegetation types adapted to wetter
soils, occasional flooding, and natural disturbance regimes. Riparian areas also offer important
functions for species that inhabit the shrub- steppe, as well as species more limited in range to the
riparian zone. For shrub-steppe species, they provide a critical water source and often a more
productive environment for forage, escape, thermal cover, and nesting sites. For many species, they
[:J CityUmlts
D Altema~ve 1 • Pasco Exl!tlng UGA (No Action) Freshw'aterEmergentWetlarld
AJtema~ve 2 UGA -Freshw'ater Forested/Shnb Welland
c::::J AJtema~ve 3 UGA-Prererred Action -Fresrwater P171CI
Frecwertry F1oooeoArea -Lake
e:szJ Pt1 crlty Species Occurrerw::e -Ott-er
Habitat,
ShruO-Steppe
Ul'OanNatura l Open Space
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 31
provide critical winter habitat. Riparian areas typically support larger flocks and a greater density
of upland birds than shrub-steppe habitat due to the greater production of biomass and the more
complex mosaic of vegetation (Stinson and Schroeder 2012).
The removal of native riparian vegetation in riparian and shrub-steppe habitat, the introduction
and proliferation of invasive plant species, like Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and the
filling or degradation of wetlands along shorelines impact the organic inputs that fuel production of
the lower levels of the food chain and, therefore, can have impacts throughout the entire food web.
Organic matter produced by these habitats supports terrestrial and aquatic insects and other
organisms that are then eaten themselves by birds, juvenile salmonids, and various fish species.
Fish and Wildlife Species
The Snake and Columbia rivers make up the border of the southern and eastern areas of the City
and provide the shoreline aquatic habitat within the City. The aquatic habitat supports numerous
resident and anadromous fish, aquatic invertebrates, and numerous migratory bird species.
Many ESA-listed anadromous salmonid species are found within the two rivers, including bull trout,
steelhead, sockeye, and spring and fall Chinook salmon. Coho salmon are rare but may occur
through reintroduction programs underway in the Yakima River Basin and this population segment
is not ESA-listed. Pacific lamprey are present but have experienced population decline in recent
years. Resident fish include a mix of native and non-native species, such as smallmouth and
largemouth bass, northern pikeminnow, sculpin, mountain whitefish , sturgeon, catfish, sucker and
other species.
The aquatic nearshore and riparian shoreline areas of the Columbia and Snake rivers near the City
support concentrations of wintering migratory waterfowl, and primarily serve as resting and
feeding areas for Canada goose and ducks. Some waterfowl nesting likely occurs in areas with
wider riparian buffers, potentially near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia rivers and along
reaches of the Columbia River where development is less intensive, such as residential zones, parks,
and open spaces. The Columbia River in the vicinity of the City also provides a breeding area for
long billed curlew and a variety of gulls, as well as a resting area with limited nesting for great blue
heron and egret (USFWS 2008, 2012).
Some common species for shrub steppe habitat include sparrows, magpie, robins and various types
of hawk species. State species listed as threatened or candidate species that can be associated with
this habitat include Ferruginous hawk, Townsend’s Washington Ground Squirrel and burrowing
owls. The entire Columbia Basin is a bird migration route for nearly 350 species of migratory birds
(USFWS, May 5, 2011).
4.3.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Under all three alternatives, development would continue to occur throughout the City and
neighboring rural areas for urban uses and activities of varying intensity. Construction activities
can cause noise and activity that can disturb wildlife or cause avoidance behavior. The effects of
construction on nesting birds and other wildlife would depend on project‐specific factors, including
the timing of construction, background noise levels, and the type and duration of construction
activities. Impacts to surface waters from increased impervious surface and erosion from
development, as described in Section 4.2, can also impact fish and wildlife habitat. Fis h breeding
and rearing areas are particularly sensitive to siltation caused by erosion.
Development activities could have direct and indirect impacts on vegetation and habitat for listed-
and non-listed species in the County, with direct impacts primarily involving the physical removal
of vegetation and other habitat features. This can lead to impacts on riparian, wetland, and shrub-
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 32
steppe habitat. Development of currently vacant or underdeveloped parcels could lead to
fragmentation of wildlife habitat, potentially further altering habitat connectivity, and potentially
causing some species to migrate into remaining undeveloped areas. Indirect effects common to all
alternatives could include a reduction in wildlife habitat quality and function because of increased
human disturbance and associated factors in areas adjacent to wildlife habitat. Additionally,
operational impacts include light from buildings, streetlamps, and vehicles, traffic noise, and other
urban activities, causing sensitive wildlife species to avoid the area. Traffic would also continue to
cause mortality to wildlife crossing roadways. These impacts would increase with the intensity of
development and population growth.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use
designations. Impacts to plants and animals under the No Action Alternative would scale with the
intensity of future activities and population growth occurring within the planning areas as infill
developments which are expected to be less-intensive compared to future uses proposed under the
two action alternatives due to the limited land area in this alternative.
Under Alternative 1, the least amount of development would occur as it has the least projected
capacity to accommodate population growth of all alternatives and would be expected to have the
least impact on plants and animals. However, population growth would not be accommodated
under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impa cts
to plants and animals from future development in other parts of the City and neighboring rural
areas. For example, sprawl developments in the northwest side of the City could potentially affect
disturbed shrub-steppe habitat around agricultural and industrial lands. Development under this
alternative would have very limited impact on wetlands or wetland buffers in the City, as these
largely exist along the shorelines.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Alternative 2 proposes to change land use designations to allow development to occur within
currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City, and in the expanded UGA area to the north.
Alternative 2 proposes lower density land use designations than Alternative 3. Under the 20-year
population growth projection for the City, Alternative 2 would increase the buildable areas and
developments resulting in greater impacts to plants and animals in those areas compared to
Alternative 3.
The change in development patterns under Alternatives 2 and 3 from undeveloped and irrigated to
developed lands would alter the landscape, potentially reducing habitat provided by open tracts of
land. Although agriculture practices impact historical habitats with a more intensely managed
landscape, they can provide pockets of semi-natural habitat among the more intensively cultivated
ground.
Development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a very limited impact on wetlands or wetland
buffers in the City, as these largely exist along the shorelines and are designated open space and
protected from development under the City’s Shoreline Master Program update. Wetlands provide
habitat for species such as waterfowl, which are concentrated at the confluence of the Columbia and
Snake rivers, and also provide water filtration and storage that improve water quality and
temperatures for salmonid species.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 proposes to change land use designations to allow development to occur within
currently undeveloped or infill areas of the City and in the less expansive UGA area to the north.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 33
Alternative 3 would focus development in these areas to a greater density than proposed in
Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 2, vegetation and wildlife habitat would be impacted within the
planning areas. However, by focusing most development in these areas, fewer impacts on terrestrial
plants and animals would occur outside of the planning areas than under Alternatives 1 and 2. In
the Broadmoor area, Natural Open Space along the core PHS areas would be preserved. Compared
to Alternative 2, this could reduce potential impacts to habitats and species from future
development.
4.3.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to plants and animals:
• Provide erosion and stormwater control measures during construction, particularly in areas
adjacent to surface waters that provide fish and wildlife habitat such as Columbia Point
South.
• Consider landscaping with native plants to provide vegetation of habitat significance in
streetscapes, buffers for stormwater swales, rain gardens, and other habitat features.
• Avoided, minimize, or mitigate impacts to shrub steppes, priority habitats, wetlands or
wetland buffers, in accordance with the CAO and SMP.
All alternatives will provide shoreline and critical areas buffer along the Columbia and Snake rivers
shoreline, providing fish and wildlife habitat protections from future development. In Alternative 3,
Broadmoor area, designates wildlife mitigation area and corridor and protects them as open space.
Alternative 3 would have less impact on shrub steppes due to the limited area it covers. Compared
to Alternative 2, this would provide additional fish and wildlife habitat protections from future
development.
Other Mitigation Measures
The City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (20182020b) goals and policies encourage the
protection of critical areas, including surface waters. Alternatives 2 and 3 should identify and
regulate the use of essential habitat areas, and other critical lands within and adjacent to the
planning areas, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. Public access opportunities to the
shoreline and other natural features should be considered through integration with the City’s trail
system to the extent practicable. The following goals and policies should be considered for future
development:
• LU-7 Goal: Safeguard and protect shorelands and critical lands within the urban area.
• LU-57-A Policy: Maintain regulatory processes to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitats, and
other critical lands within the urban growth area.
The City CAO in PMC 28.20, addresses and provides protections for fish and wildlife habitat areas,
including surface waters that provide habitat to native fish. Development that is consistent with the
CAO would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth resources under the three
alternatives. The City uses its SEPA authority in PMC 23.05 to require mitigation for impacts on
drainage, habitat, and water quality and ensure mitigation is appropriate and sufficient.
Mitigation measures may include:
• Reduce impervious surface area by evaluating, adopting and implementing applicable low-
impact development (LID) requirements practices per the Stormwater Management Manual
for Eastern Washington (Ecology 2004).
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 34
• Promote the preservation of on-site native vegetation, particularly riparian vegetation near
surface waters and upland shrub-steppe communities.
• Publicize and encourage the preservation of native soils and protect the natural processes
of soil maintenance and on-site hydrology. Leaving areas/tracts (“belts”) of native
vegetation undisturbed in commercial and residential developments can be shown to
provide long-term benefits regarding stormwater management, on-site “landscaping”
maintenance, microclimate, and general aesthetics/sense of well-being in a developed
landscape.
• Sponsor or encourage public education about the benefits of native vegetation.
• Promote LID, with emphasis on native plant retention in greenbelts between and within
areas of proposed development to retain a portion of the wildlife habitat on the site and to
preserve a measure of connectivity between areas of wildlife habitat.
• Encourage buffer enhancement. Where stream and/or wetland buffers to be left are in a
degraded condition, encourage enhancement of the buffer through means such as
establishment of native vegetation and control of non-native invasive plant species.
4.4. Land Use
4.4.1. Affected Environment
The City is part of the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area in southeast Washington and includes
25,72925,208 acres in the current incorporated City limits and UGA. The City is located at the
southern edge of Franklin County, bounded by the Columbia River to the south and the Snake River
to the southeast. The City is the major urban area within Franklin County. The City and its
associated UGA comprise about 72% of the 55 square miles of designated UGA in Franklin County
(Franklin County 2008).
The City includes a variety of land uses from residential, commercial, industrial and agriculture
(primarily in the UGA alternative areas) to open space. The City’s land use designations and
acreages within the City limits and UGA alternative areas are identified in the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan. Residential land is the predominant use in the City limits and current UGA, containing over
3544% of the City’s total land. Residential land use is followed by industrial land use, which
consists of 1924% of the total land use within the City. Commercial lands are distributed along the
major corridors, City Center and along the Interstate-182. Open space land use is distributed
throughout the City in the form of parks and natural open spaces. The shoreline areas consist of
several parks, trails, and natural open space. See Table 9 10 for a summary of existing land use
types designations in the City limits and current UGA.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 35
Table 910
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in the City Limits and UGA
Land Use Designations Acreage 1 % of Total
Residential Lands 11,167 44%
Low Density
Mixed Density
High Density
Commercial Lands 2,666 11%
Mixed Residential/Commercial Commercial
Industrial Lands 5,968 2437%
Public/Quasi-Public Lands 925 4%
Open Space / Park Lands 1,012 4%
Airport Reserve Lands 2,236 9%
DNR Reserve Lands 1,234 5%
Total 25,208 100%
Note:
1. The total includes approximately 4,300 acres of street right of way, which is about 17% of the total land area
The County land use designations of the proposed UGA areas in both alternatives include Agriculture, Ag
Service Center – LAMIRD Type III, Rural Industrial – LAMIRD Type III, Rural Remote – LAMIRD Type I, and
Rural Residential – LAMIRD Type I. Alternative 2 also includes Rural Shoreline Development – LAMIRD
Type II. Within the proposed UGAs, agriculture lands are estimated at XX3,250 acres in alternative 2,
and 2,520 acres in alternative 3acres. Both alternatives 2 and 3 would impact existing lands under
cultivation, however, Nnone of the alternatives would affect Franklin County-designated agricultural
lands of long-term commercial significance.
The proposed industrial land to the north in Alternatives 2 and 3 is currently classified as industrial by
Franklin County (as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development or "LAMIRD"). For this area,
there is no net increase in the amount of land designated for industrial purposes; rather it is a
jurisdictional change. Switching the land from industrial in the county to industrial in the city will serve
the area with urban-level services.
Shoreline
Unlike the Citywide land use pattern, the City's shoreline is dominated by Open Space land
use consisting of 60% of the total shoreline area. Industrial land use consists of over 25% of
the shoreline. Much of the Open Space area is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Washington State Parks and Recreation Department also owns Open Space (Sacajawea
State Park) within the shoreline. Other major public landowners include Port of Pasco
and Washington State Department of Transportation. Industrial land along the shoreline is mostly
owned by the Port of Pasco on the south and southeast sides of the City.
Residential uses are mostly concentrated on the south side of I-182. See Table 10 for a summary
of land use within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 36
Table 110
Existing Land Use within the City’s Shoreline Jurisdiction
Land Use Category Acres in Shoreline % of Land Use
Open Space 307.30 60.2%
Low Density Residential 68.24 13.3%
Mixed Residential 2.53 0.5%
Mixed Residential Commercial 2.38 0.5%
Industrial 130.21 25.5%
Commercial 0.02 0.0%
Total 510.68 100.0%
Source: Pasco Shoreline Master Program 2015
The City’s proposed Comprehensive Plan land use categories and their purposes are discussed
below.
• Open Space/Nature – This land use designation applies to areas where development will
be severely restricted. Park lands, trails, and critical areas are examples of different types of
open spaces.
• Low Density Residential – This land use allows residential development at a density
of two to five dwelling units per acre. The land use designation criteria includes sewer
availability or approval from the Benton-Franklin Health District when sewer is not
available, suitability for home sites, and market demand.
• Medium Density Residential – This land use designation includes single-family dwellings,
patio homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling
units per acre. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient to major
circulation routes and it provides transition between more intense uses and low density
uses. Availability of sewer services and market demand are also key criteria for this land
use designation.
• Medium High Density Residential – This land use designation includes single-family
dwelling units, townhouses, condominiums and multi-family; 8-15 dwelling units per acre.
This is designated in Broadmoor area only.
• High Density Residential – This land use designation includes multi-family dwellings,
apartments, and condominiums at a density of 21 dwelling units or more per acre. This is
designated to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and
employment areas. Availability of sewer services and market demand are also key criteria
for this land use designation.
• Mixed Residential Commercial – This land use designation is a mix of residential and
commercial uses. Residential uses include single-family dwellings, patio
homes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units
per acre. Commercial uses include neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business
parks, service, and office uses. This is designated to areas where the location is convenient
to major circulation routes and land is suitable for heavy building sites.
• Mixed Use Interchange – This land use designation is to protect existing and future
interchange efficiency from high traffic-generating uses that compound congestion and
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 37
increase access conflicts.. This is designated along along I-182 corridor in Broadmoor area
only.
• Mixed Use Neighborhood – This land use designation is to provide a variety of residential
options, and a mix of residential and commercial uses such as neighborhood grocer, drug
stores, coffee shops in a pedestrian friendly environment. This is designated in Broadmoor
area only.
• Mixed Use Regional – This land use designation is to provide a mix of residential and
commercial uses in a pedestrian and transit friendly environment. This is designated in
Broadmoor area only.
• Office – This land use designation is to provide a mix of professional office, personal
services, and resource centers. This is designated in Broadmoor area only
• Commercial – This land use is designated for neighborhood, community and regional
shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service, and office uses. This is designated
to areas where the location is convenient to major circulation routes and land is suitable for
heavy building sites.
• Industrial – This land use is designated for manufacturing, food processing,
storage, and wholesale distribution of equipment and products, hazardous material
storage, and transportation-related facilities.
• Public and Quasi Public - This land use is designated for schools, civic buildings, fire
stations and other public uses.
• Airport Reserve - This land use is designated for lands owned or occupier by the Port of
Pasco for Tri-Cities Airport.
• 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.This land use is
designated for lands owned by DNR.
• Confederated Tribes – Colville Reservation - This land use is designated for lands owned
or occupier by Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
4.4.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Future development resulting from adoption of the Plan update could convert undeveloped and
infill areas to more intensive uses. Impacts associated with land use conversions could include
construction-related and operational impacts. General land use impacts are likely to be associated
with future population growth, increased development densities and aesthetic impacts associated
with changed land use. Associated development activities would include increased noise, light and
glare, and traffic delays; changes in views or the aesthetic character of the area; and increased
pressure to develop or redevelop adjacent vacant or underutilized areas. Construction and
operational noise is regulated by the PMC 9.130.030 – Public Disturbance Noise – Prohibited.
In all alternatives, infill lands would continue to be redeveloped under the existing land use
designations. All alternatives would change the build environment as well as the aesthetics of the
current conditions.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the
City. Current land uses would continue to predominate, including residential and industrial uses.
Future population growth would not be accommodated in the planning areas under the No Action
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 38
Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to land use from
future sprawl type development surrounding the City in the neighboring rural areas. The No Action
Alternative will not result any short-term impacts to the aesthetic and visual quality of the planning
area. But in the long-term, when developments are permitted in the vacant and infill areas under
the current land use and zoning, this will result in significant aesthetic and visual quality impacts.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Under Alternatives 2 the land use from underutilized and vacant land in the UGA would change to a
mix of Low, and Medium Density Residential, Commercial, industrial and Public Facility. Compared
to the No Action Alternative, land use patterns would increase in intensity from the current land
uses. Agricultural and other land uses will be transformed by future roadways, residential and
commercial development, and light industrial activities with some green spaces. None of the
alternatives would include Franklin County designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance. Also, under Alternatives 2 and 3, some of the limited current shrub-steppe topography
will be removed to some extent to accommodate housing development and roadways, noting that
for Alternative 3 in the Broadmoor area Natural Open Space along the core Priority Habitat Species
(PHS) areas would be preserved, reducing potential impacts to habitats and species from future
development.
New development and redevelopment would involve demolition of some existing structures, site
preparation, infrastructure installation, and construction of new buildings. Such development and
construction activities would affect surrounding land uses in terms of dust, construction traffic, and
noise throughout the duration of the construction. Throughout the full buildout timeframe, these
impacts would shift from one development location to another within the planning areas.
Construction of infrastructure, housing, and business facilities is usually accompanied by
temporary increases in noise and vibration due to the use of heavy equipment and hauling of
construction materials. Noise impacts depend on the background sound levels, the type of
construction equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use. Operational noise (including
construction-related noise) in the City is regulated by PMC 9.130.030, addressing public
disturbance noise. Developments in Alternatives 2 and 3 would include an UGA area that falls
within the Tri-Cities airport safety compatibility zone. Alternative 2 will include a larger area within
the airport safety compatibility zone than Alternative 3.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 proposes denser residential development to occur in the
northern portion of the City and in the Broadmoor area. Under Alternative 3, land use to the north
would transform from underutilized, low intensity and current agricultural uses to a mix of Low,
Medium, and High Density Residential, Commercial, Public Facility, and Open Space. Alternative 3
includes the highest density residential land use allocation.
Alternative 3 will have higher density and more concentrated development and less need for
development in low-density land use designated areas compared to Alternative 2. The higher
density will help the City to meet the 20-year population growth target. Both alternatives will
reduce potential future impacts from development in the shoreline area.
4.4.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to land uses in and adjacent to the planning areas:
• Meet population growth targets and housing demand through developing planned areas,
and infill developments.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 39
• Improve the built environment through designing new structures and development per
PMC.
• Reduce local traffic volumes by creating a live-work environment in Alternative 3
• Protect shoreline areas according to the City’s shoreline regulations under Title 29
• Allow adequate parks, open space and public facilities
• Implement design standards for Broadmoor area (under development).
• Implement City’s land use and zoning regulations to maintain the physical and aesthetic
qualities of future developments.
• Maintain low density residential in the airport’s fly zones. New avigation easement(s) will
be in place near the airport with height restrictions per PMC 25.190 Airport Overlay
District.
• Airport Overlay District (PMC 25.190) in the City and Franklin County (Chapter 17.76,
Airport Zoning) codes - provide for safety, compatibility zones, use restrictions, and height
limitations.
• Maintain land use compatibility to mitigate adverse impacts between different land uses
(see Comprehensive Plan Volume II)
• Revised Alternative 3 further reduces the UGA area by 100 acres of agricultural land.
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (20182020b) goals and policies are
intended to plan for future population growth within the UGA while promoting compatible land
uses and community objectives. The following goals and policies should be considered for future
development under the three alternatives:
• LU-2. GOAL: Plan for a variety of compatible land uses within the urban growth area
• LU-2-A Policy: Maintain sufficient land designated to accommodate residential, commercial,
industrial, educational and public facility uses proximate to appropriate transportation and
utility infrastructure.
• LU-2-B Policy: Facilitate planned growth within the City limits and UGA, and also promote
infill developments in the City limits.
• LU-2-C Policy: Ensure that adequate public services are provided in a reasonable time frame
for new developments.
• LU-2-D Policy: Encourage the use of buffers or transition zones between non-compatible
land uses.
• LU-2-E Policy: Discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to Pasco airport.
• LU-3 Goal: Maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe
and enjoyable places to live.
The City of Pasco Zoning Regulations in PMC Title 25 regulate development in various zoning
districts, and a zoning change could be made to further restrict the type and density of development
in the planning area. Similarly, the City CAO in PMC Title 28, and Shoreline Regulations in Title 29
address and provide protections for critical areas and shorelines. Subdivision Regulations in Title
21 regulate and ensure appropriate land sub-divisions for developments to occur. Development
that is consistent with these regulations would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to
land use under the three alternatives.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 40
Another mitigation measure to consider is implementing rural land protection measures and
incentives to make UGAs and planning areas more attractive (e.g., density incentives and
infrastructure investment), which could be applied to direct growth to urban areas under all
alternatives.
4.5. Environmental Health
Environmental health addresses all the physical, chemical, and biological factors external to a
person and related factors impacting behaviors.
4.5.1: Affected Environment
The City includes a variety of land uses from residential and commercial/industrial to open space.
While the residential land is the predominant use in the City, it is followed by industrial land use.
Commercial lands are distributed along the major corridors.
Future developments of infill and undeveloped commercial and industrial lands could impact
environmental health. During construction and operation of some industrial developments,
chemicals may be stored that could potentially create a risk of fire, explosion or spills. Additionally,
within the existing City limits and within both UGA areas associated with alternatives 2 and 3
respectively, are in proximity to Superfund sites, facilities with Risk Management Plans (RMP),
facilities that generate hazardous waste and Wastewater Discharge Indicator [Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 2019].
4.5.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the
City. Current land uses would continue to predominate, including residential and industrial uses.
Future population and employment growth would not be accommodated in the planning areas
under the No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and intense use of
industrial lands, as well as more diffuse impacts to land use from future sprawl type development
surrounding the City in the neighboring rural areas. In the long-term, when developments are
permitted in the vacant and infill areas under the current land use and zoning, this will result in
continued risks to environmental health as seen by current development patterns.
Additionally, the EPA EJSCREEN (environmental justice screening) report generated for the City
identifies that within the current city limits three factors are above the state average. Superfund
proximity is rated in the 61st percentile; RMP Proximity in the 92nd percentile and Wastewater
Discharge Indicator in 96th percentile. Hazardous waste proximity is below the state average at the
41st percentile (EPA 2019). Accordingly, additional growth that would occur within the existing
City limits would continue risk exposure at the existing levels.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Compared to the No Action Alternative, land use patterns would increase significantly in inte nsity
from the current land uses. Vacant open land will be transformed by future roadways, residential
and commercial development, and light industrial activities with some green spaces. Under
Alternatives 2 and 3, existing County under-utilized industrial lands will be added to the UGA. Also,
limited areas of agricultural land will be added in the industrial land use inventory.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 41
New industrial developments could increase the exposure to chemicals or risk of fire. Hazardous
waste could occur depending on the types of uses. However, most of these uses would have
happened within the County’s industrial uses. In both alternatives 2 and 3, the industrial lands will
be served with better utilities and safety system.
Open burning is not allowed within the UGA. Therefore, and expanded the UGA will limit the ability
for existing and future residents in the subject area from being able to burn, which may lead to air
quality enhancements.
The EPA EJSCREEN report generated for the two UGA areas identifies Superfund proximity
increasing from 61 to the 62nd percentile when compared to the existing City limits; RMP Proximity
reducing from 92 to the 91st percentile and Wastewater Discharge Indicator reducing from 96 to
the 57th percentile. Hazardous waste proximity is below the state average for but increases from
41 to the 47th percentile (EPA 2019).
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 will have higher density and more concentrated development. Development impacts
in the industrial areas will remain the similar in both Alternatives 2 with slightly less in 3. Because
this alternative includes higher density and more concentrated development, both within the
existing City limits and within the smaller UGA, risk exposures would be comparable both to the No
Action and Alternative 2, for development within the City limits and the smaller UGA area
respectively, as described above.
4.5.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to environmental health in and adjacent to the planning areas:
• Improve the built environment through designing new structures with safety and hazard
maintenance per PMC.
• Maintain and employ emergency management plans for all existing industrial facilities and
new industrial development.s
• Support the preparation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans (SPCC)
required for existing facilities and construction projects, along with timely spill or
contamination emergency response measures.
• Support appropriate hazardous waste management through reuse, recycling, and disposal.
• Listed hazardous sites should be subject to ongoing monitoring by Ecology’s Hazardous
Waste and Toxic Reduction Program.
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b18) goals and policies are intended
to plan for future population growth within the UGA while maintain the environment. The following
goals and policies should be considered for future development under the three alternatives:
• CF-8-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered for each essential
public facility including the cumulative impacts of multiple facilities.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 42
• ED-1-2C PolicyGoal: Support the promotion of Pasco’s urban area as a good business
environment by enhancing the infrastructure of the community Assure appropriate location
and design of commercial industrial facilities..
4.6 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
4.6.1. Affected Environment
The City of Pasco experiences air quality conditions similar to the rest of the Tri-Cities region.
Typical air pollution sources include vehicle traffic and commercial and industrial businesses,
releasing carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
Particulate matter is generated by industrial emissions, motor vehicle tailpipes, and fugitive dust
from agricultural and open space lands, and roadways, including particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 micrometers in size (PM10) and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in size (PM2.5).
Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive form of oxygen that is generated by an atmospheric chemical
reaction with ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides and VOCs. Ozone concentrations in City of
Pasco are being watched more closely after AIRPACT, a daily predictive air quality forecast model
operated by Washington State University (WSU), consistently showed elevated ozone in the Tri -
Cities area. It has been determined from ozone monitoring that began in 2013 that elevated ozone
occurs in the summer months on hot days > 85 °F with light NNE winds (< 6 mph) (WSU 2017).
The highest ambient concentrations generally occur near the emissions sources, which would be
from motor vehicle tailpipes driving on major roads. PM2.5 has a greater impact than PM10 at
locations far from the emitting source because it remains suspended in the atmosphere longer and
travels farther.
Additionally, the EPA EJSCREEN report generated for the City and the UGA areas for the alternatives
identifies that two parameters are well above the state average for air quality: PM2.5 and ozone are
both above the 90th percentile. Within the current city limits the values are higher and they slightly
decline farther north in the UGA alternative areas (EPA 2019).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) are gases that, when present, absorb or reflect heat that normally
would radiate away from the earth and thereby increases global temperature. GHGs typically
include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, ozone, and halocarbons. CO2 is the individual
constituent that is normally emitted in the greatest amount and generally contributes the most to
climate change.
Two agencies have jurisdiction over ambient air quality in Franklin County: the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
4.6.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, current air quality regulations would continue to prevent new
developments and commercial and industrial facilities from generating unacceptable air pollutant
emissions that would affect nearby areas during construction or operation.
Population is expected to increase but not at the same levels within the City limits and UGA areas as
expected with Alternatives 2 and 3, and there would be expansion of commercial and industrial
space; therefore air pollutant emissions generated within the study area are expected to increase.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 43
Similarly, vehicle miles traveled for those who work in the City and its UGA would also increase,
along with the tailpipe emissions generated by those vehicles.
During construction, dust from excavation and grading could cause temporary, localized increases
in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction
activity could cause localized fugitive dust impacts at homes and businesses near construction sites.
Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel-powered heavy trucks and smaller
equipment, such as generators and compressors that could slightly degrade local air quality in the
immediate vicinity of construction sites. However, these emissions would be temporary and
localized.
Some construction activities could cause odors detectable to some people in the vicinity of
construction activities, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would
be short-term and localized.
Future development is expected to increase traffic and add additional roadways. When a street is
widened or extended, or a new road constructed, air emissions could be higher.
Localized CO impacts could occur at major intersections that experience significant traffic
congestion. Additionally, tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on public streets are one of the
largest sources of air pollutant emissions associated with the growth in the study area. However,
ongoing EPA emission control requirements for on-road cars and trucks have dramatically
improved per-vehicle tailpipe emission rates.
This beneficial trend is expected to continue into the future as drivers gradually replace old vehicles
with new, cleaner-burning ones. As a result, the decrease in future per-vehicle emission rates would
at least partially offset the likely increase compared to existing levels.
Additional air quality impacts are expected due to commercial and business operations. It is likely
that new commercial development would occur near either current or future residential property.
Stationary and mechanical equipment, and trucks at loading docks at retail buildings could cause
air pollution issues at adjacent residential properties.
Accordingly, additional growth that would occur within the existing City limits would continue risk
exposure at the slightly higher levels for PM2.5 (92nd percentile) and ozone (98th percentile) (EPA
2019).
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Alternative 2 air quality impacts are expected to be similar to those impacts identified in the No
Action Alternative. Temporary construction impacts would likely be higher as construction
activities are expected to be more concentrated in the northwest areas of the City and UGA Area for
this alternative. Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone would initially be slightly lower than the No Action,
as the UGA area for Alternative 2 is currently rated in the 91st percentile for PM2.5 and ozone is in
the 95th percentile, but over time as development occurs and more population is located within the
City and UGA area, then these values are expected to increase. Open burning is not allowed within
the UGA. Expanding the UGA will limit the ability for existing and future re sidents in the subject
area from being able to burn, which may lead to air quality enhancements.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 air quality impacts are expected to be similar to those impacts identified in the No
Action and Alternative 2. Temporary construction impacts would likely be higher as construction
activities are expected to be more concentrated in the northwest areas of the City and UGA Area for
this alternative, although more concentrated than Alternative 2. Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 44
would be similar to that described for Alternative 2. The exposure values could increase over time
as growth occurs. Open burning restriction may lead air quality enhancements.
4.3.3. Mitigation Measures
For all the Alternatives, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce impacts.
• Reductions in traffic congestion through encouraging alternative modes of transportation
such as transit and bicycles or walking may help offset any potential localized increase in
emissions. Furthermore, on a regional basis, the EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations (coupled
with ongoing future fleet turnover) should, over time, cause significant reductions in
region-wide air quality levels. Ongoing EPA motor vehicle regulations have caused steady
decreases in tailpipe emissions from individual vehicles, and it is possible that those
continuing decreases from individual vehicles could offset the increase in vehicle traffic.
• Air quality regulations require construction contractors to take all reasonable steps to
minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction. These required mitigation measures
are designed to reduce localized impacts affecting homes and businesses adjacent to
construction sites.
• Promote transit and other types of transportation that do not contribute to additional air
emissions and reduce vehicle traffic.
• Support State and EPA efforts to reduce ozone levels during hot summer days where levels
might increase due to limited wind.
• Continue to support hydropower electrical general facilities in the region that do not
contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated.
Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. Existing
regulations and other mitigation measures described above should be adequate to mitigate any
adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of projected growth.
4.67. Shoreline Use
4.76.1. Affected Environment
The City of Pasco is located along the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers in southeastern
Washington within Franklin County. The Columbia River is to the south of the City, and the Snake
River is to the east. The affected area for this section includes all land currently within the
shoreline jurisdiction for incorporated City and the City’s unincorporated Urban Growth Area
(UGA). The City’s shoreline consists of various water-related and water-oriented uses.
The City’s shoreline consists of water-related uses such as industrial and barge facilities along the
Snake River and the Port of Pasco’s industrial facilities along the Columbia River. Water-enjoyment
uses include much of the park and open space areas along the shoreline that provides for
recreational use, including beach and shoreline access, as well as aesthetic enjoyment of the
shoreline on trail systems. The shoreline also contains fishing and passive recreation (e.g., bird
watching) opportunities on multiple shoreline locations. Sacagawea State Park is located at the
confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers and includes a bike and pedestrian trail that connects
to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail providing public access to the shoreline area throughout most part
of the City.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 45
4.76.2. Probable Environmental Impacts
Increased population growth in the City, including growth in rural areas, has the potential to change
shoreline uses. Shoreline areas often attract development due to the scenic values that they
provide. Increased development in or adjacent to these areas may c hange the existing character or
degrade the shoreline environment. Additionally, development could potentially alter surrounding
land use patterns sufficiently to reduce the value of shoreline areas as recreational opportunities or
wildlife habitat. The City’s Shoreline Master Program (PMC Title 29) sets requirements for land
uses, densities, setbacks, and open space for the 17 miles of river shoreline within the City.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to the shoreline are anticipated to be similar to current
development patterns. Future population growth would not be fully accommodated under the
No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to
shoreline areas from future sprawl-type development surrounding the City in the neighboring rural
areas. In these cases, development in shoreline areas would be required to comply with the SMP
and other rules and regulations, and avoid or minimize potential impacts to the shoreline
environment.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Alternative 2 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas
of the City, primarily located outside of the shoreline. Directing development into these areas would
minimize potential impacts sensitive shoreline environments in other parts of the City or nearby
rural areas. Alternative 2 also expands development on the north side along the shoreline.
Shoreline buffer within the planning area would alleviate pressure associated with shoreline
development and maintain the existing public accesses. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would protect the
publicly owned open space along the Columbia River. Mixed use developments would occur in this
alternative which will provide buffers and open space according to the shoreline regulations.
Shoreline area that would be added within the City through annexations over time includes an
additional 1.5 XX miles.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 proposes to allow development to occur within currently undeveloped or infill areas
of the City. Similar to Alternative 3, directing development into these areas would minimize
potential impacts sensitive shoreline environments in other parts of the City or rural areas.
Alternative 3, similar to Alternative 2, expands development on the north side along the shoreline.
The land along the shoreline is less in this alternative compared to Alternative 2. Shoreline area
that would be added through annexations over time includes an additional quarter of a XX miles.
4.76.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to shoreline:
• Provide a development buffer along the Columbia and Snake rivers shoreline using Open
Space land use designation.
• All shoreline goals and policies, and regulations should be applied for future developments.
• No net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development shall be
allowed, consistent with the provisions of the SMP.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 46
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) considers Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) goals and policies as part of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These goals
and policies encourage the protection, conservation, and restoration of natural areas, including the
shoreline, as assets to the community. Alternatives 2 and 3 should identify and regulate the use of
shorelines, in coordination with the appropriate agencies. The following goals and policies should
be considered for future development:
• SMP Public Access Goal (1)(a): Promote, protect, and enhance physical and visual public
access along the shoreline of the Columbia and Snake rivers. Increase the amount and
diversity of public access along the shoreline consistent with private property rights, public
safety, and the natural shoreline character.
• SMP Shoreline Uses and Modifications Goal (1)(a): Encourage shoreline development and
uses that recognize the City’s natural and cultural values and its unique aesthetic qualities
offered by its variety of shoreline environments, including, but not limited to, reservoir-
bounded river segments, flood protection levees, recreational and industrial developments,
riverine wetlands, open views, and plentiful formal and informal public access.
• SMP Conservation Goal (1)(a): Protect the existing hydraulic, hydrologic, and habitat
functions, as well as scenic and recreational values, of City’s shorelines and the McNary Pool
The City of Pasco SMP establishes regulations to protect sensitive shoreline areas from the impacts
associated with new development. Any development projects undertaken within the jurisdiction of
the SMP would be required to undergo evaluation for consistency.
The City CAO and SMP addresses and provides protections for sensitive habitats, including the
shoreline environment. Additionally, the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations in PMC Title 25 regulate
development in various zoning districts, including the shoreline environment. Development that is
consistent with these standards would avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to earth
resources under the three alternatives.
4.87. Population, Housing, and Employment
4.87.1. Affected Environment
As discussed above, population estimates for the City in 2018 are 73,590 and in 2019 are 75,290.
Based on 2018 numbers, it is estimated that 48,238 people will be added to the City’s population in
the next 20 years (Oneza & Associates, 2020). The 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data
indicate existing 21,653 housing units in Pasco (Table H-1 in Comprehensive Plan Volume II). About
70 percent of the housing units are owner‐occupied, and 30 percent renter‐occupied. About 73
percent of all housing units are single-family both attached and detached, and 18 percent are multi-
family. Mobile homes constitute about 8 percent of the total housing stocks. Per the City of Pasco
Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume IIs, using the average household size of 3.17 persons per unit,
added population from the 2018 base population will require 15,217 housing units. Existing vacant
buildable land is estimated to provide 9,581 units in a variety of housing types (e.g., single‐family,
multi‐family, townhome, condominium); therefore, an additional 5,636 housing units will be
required to meet the demand of future housing (Oneza & Associates 201208).
Much of Pasco’s (and Franklin County's) economy is tied to transportation and agriculture. The
agricultural economy of Pasco is mostly mass production, tied to domestic and global trade, and
connected to international conglomerates. As this industry in and around Franklin County matures,
additional support facilities which process and handle production plants will continue to be
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 47
needed. This has also led to more opportunities for year around employment, meaning that families
are less likely to migrate during the winter months, and are settling in the area permanently.
(Oneza & Associates 201208).
Pasco’s economy is also tied to the economy of the Tri-Cities metro area. The Tri‐Cities area is
unique in that its employment base is dominated by a select num ber of large employers. Roughly
one in five of estimated 116,000 jobs in the Benton and Franklin Counties are for large employment
firms or agencies, with the top five ranging in type, including research and development, health
services, engineering and construction, food processing, and education. The continued employment
growth at the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Energy Northwest and the Office of River Protection will continue the growth of Pasco’s
population. This growth will not only attract new residents to Pasco, but also provide opportunities
for our young population to remain in Pasco. Employment in the Tri‐Cities region increased from
2006 to 2015 by more than 22,000 jobs, with an average annual growth rate of 2 percent. There are
roughly 116,000 jobs in the region. All industries experienced positive employment growth by the
end of the 10‐year period. However, from 2011 to 2014 employment slightly declined as spending
cuts at the Hanford Site impacted the entire regional economy. In Pasco, the expansion of its
economy led to increasing industrial diversity, and although the economic downtown in 2008 did
have an impact, food manufacturing, agriculture, private and public educational and healthcare
services provided strong stability.
Additional information on population, housing, and employment can be found in the City of Pasco
Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume II (Oneza & Associates, 201208).
Industrial lands and associated jobs are mostly located on the east side of the City. Other business-
related jobs are dispersed throughout the City with major clusters near the City Center, and Road
68 and I-182 intersection areas.
4.87.2. Impacts
According to current trends, population is expected to grow under all three alternatives. Housing
and employment growth are also expected and would be accommodated under each alternative,
but at varying levels. Impacts to population, housing, and employment would occur from
inadequate existing facilities or insufficient future development opportunities to accommodate
growth. An increase in population will require more intensified commercial, business, and other
public facilities than would be possible under current development and population conditions. An
intensification of urban uses and densities will increase traffic congestion, park requirements,
police and fire requirements, and other public service demands and fiscal impacts. Additional urban
development could further tax the City’s fiscal and public service resources, potentially leading to a
dilution of the service levels or capabilities provided current residents. Additionally, inadequately
located or designed urban infrastructure, including roads, parking lots, and other improvements
that are not properly sited, could create stormwater runoff, erosion, and other environmental
hazards affecting neighboring properties and public services. These impacts should be mitigated
through consistency with the Plan and other planning documents to ensure compatible
development.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of the properties as currently zoned by the
City. Future population growth would not be accommodated in the planning areas. Similar to the
action alternatives, the No Action Alternative would increase housing or employment opportunities
in the City but would not meet the demand for housing and employment based on future population
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 48
growth trends. The City is currently updating its development regulations which would have the
potential to add additional densities. Based on permitted housing units, from 2014-2019, 10% of all
units were duplexes/zero-lot-line. Under the No Action Alternative, this mayupdated regulations
may addresult in an increaseapproximately XX% units in addition to of the current capacity in a
variety of housing types.
Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the expanded land area will accommodate population growth, and
provide housing and employment opportunities. Both alternatives would accommodate 15,217
housing units to meet the future needs. The addition of housing in these areas is expected to
improve the City’s economic vitality and support local businesses. Alternatives 2 and 3 would
increase housing and employment opportunities in the City consistent with future population
growth trends. The industrial area to the north along US-395 would provide the City with additional
capacity for industrial developments to add more jobs. However, the uses that would increase
population and employment levels, would include associated traffic, noise, air pollution, public
service demands, and other issues related to increased development in urban environments.
Alternative 2 would result in a traditional low-density growth predominant by single family homes
in approximately 3,622 acres in the proposed UGA. Approximately 280 acres of additional mixed
residential land will be added allowing single-family homes, patio homes, townhouses, apartments
and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 dwelling units per acre. Overall density in the proposed
UGA will be 2.55 units/acre.
Similar to No Action Alternative, both Alternatives 2 and 3 will experience increased density as a
result of updated development regulations. Based on permitted housing units, from 2014-2019,
10% of all units were duplexes/zero-lot-line. Under the No Action Alternative, updated regulations
may result in an increase of the current capacity of housing types.
Alternative 2: Recommended Growth TargetThis may add result in approximately XX% units in
addition to current capacity of 9,581 units in a variety of housing types. For Alternative 2, this
would mostly be single family homes in a low density setting.
Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 includes the highest density residential land use allocation and would accommodate
additional future population growth and housing in an area smaller than the area proposed in
Alternative 2. Higher density and proximity between housing and jobs could attract more
employers and businesses. Alternative 3 would allow for more affordable housing opportunities in
terms of variety of housing types such as single-family, townhomes, condominiums, and
apartments. It would also create job opportunities in certain centers in close proximity to housing,
creating a more walkable community than the traditional growth in Alternative 2. Approximately
1750 acres of low density residential land will be added in the proposed UGA. After deducting
approximately 400 acres of land needed for public facilities and parks, about 1,350 acres will be
available for low density residential development at a density of at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre. Approximately 350 acres of additional land will be added to the medium density land use
inventory. This will allow small lot single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments,
and condominiums at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 120 acres of
additional land will be available for the high density residential developments, allowing multiple
unit apartments or condominiums at a density 21 units per acre or more. Overall density in the
proposed UGA will be 5.23 units/acre.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 49
4.87.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume II (Oneza & Associates
20182020) identifies the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts to
population, housing, and employment:
• Implement SOMOS1 Pasco economic development strategies.
• Development of agricultural industrial businesses
• Infrastructure development
• Train labor force
• Promote tourism
• Meet housing demand through developing existing planned areas, infill developments and
development in the UGAs.
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (20182020b) provides goals and policies
to accommodate population trends, housing, and employment. The following goals and policies
should be considered for future development:
• H-1. GOAL: Encourage housing for all economic segments of the City’s population consistent
with the local and regional market.
• H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses,
condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot
line, planned unit developments etc. in areas as appropriate.
• H-2. GOAL: Preserve and maintain the existing housing stock for present and future
residents.
• ED-1 Goal: Maintain economic development as an important and ongoing City initiative.
• ED-1-F Policy: Recognize that infrastructure, including transportation and utility planning
are vital to economic development and attracting businesses.
• ED-2 Goal: Assure appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial facilities.
• ED-2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
• ED-3 Goal: Maintain development standards and design guidelines to ensure that
commercial and industrial developments are good neighbors.
• ED-3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with
residential and mixed-use neighborhoods through the use of landscaping, screening, and
superior building design standards and guidelines.
The GMA requires jurisdictions to allocate population growth to cities when feasible. Housing and
employment are maintained and updated by the City as part of required Plan updates.
1 Somos means “we are.” Somos Pasco is a community wide effort to discuss the future of the Pasco community.
It is a collaboration of the City, Port of Pasco, Franklin County, the Pasco School District, Columbia Basin
College and the Hispanic and other groups.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 50
To accommodate future population growth, the City should consider infill incentives and upzones.
Other rural land protection measures and incentives make UGAs more attractive through
infrastructure investment and infill incentives.
4.98. Parks and Recreation
4.98.1. Affected Environment
The City has approximately 656 acres of park and open space land within its corporate limits and
UGA (Oneza & Associates 201208; Figure 4-4). The City’s park land inventory includes
neighborhood, community, large urban, regional, linear, and special use parks. In general, the City
has excellent waterfront shoreline access along most portions of the Columbia River and part of the
Snake River, with boating facilities, trails, and active and passive recreation opportunities. There is
a land trail component and water trail component that make up a corridor of various habitats
ranging from shrub-steppe to wetlands.
Sacagawea State Park is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake Rivers and includes a
bike and pedestrian trail that connects to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail. The rivers provide
recreational watersport and fishing opportunities on multiple shoreline locations. On the north
side, Shoreline Road currently provides shoreline access to the Columbia River on the northern part
of the City with some open space abutting the river.
The City of Pasco typically devotes 5% of the City’s overall budget for parks and recreation. This
funding supports the acquisition, development, and maintenance of facilities, and operation and
management of recreational programs.
Figure 4-4 Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space
Rich land
Facility Type
CorrJTuwty Part
-NeqibofhoodPart
-l.argeUrbanPMII -~PYie.
-Lne•Pri
ffiffiill1 Speaa1Use-P.i,r1<
-Trah
C]c,,LmS
c:::J Pasco Urb.Jln Growlh Bolmary
Kennewick
.... ,
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 51
4.98.2. Impacts
Regional population growth will result in greater demand for parks and open space. Recreational
opportunities will also be in higher demand, commensurate with population growth in the area.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would provide additional parks and recreation within the City limits.
Therefore, the parks and recreation opportunities would be insufficient to accommodate future
population growth.
Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target
Increased population growth and density projected for Alternatives 2 and 3 would place greater
demand on parks and recreation facilities within and near the City. Alternatives 2 and 3 would
preserve waterfront access to the Columbia River and trail along the river. Both alternatives would
set aside lands to the north in the UGA to accommodate future parks demand.
Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 includes the highest density residential land use allocation and would place a greater
demand on parks and recreation facilities within the planning areas. Alternative 3 includes a similar
amount ofmore land for park and recreation space asthan Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would
provide natural open space and wildlife mitigation areas in the Broadmoor area. Additionally, the
Broadmoor area will provide streetscape and design standards to offer additional urban
recreational opportunities.
4.98.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to parks and recreation:
• Provide for park or recreation opportunities near urban centers through land use
designations (Figure 4-5).
• As development occurs, incorporating shoreline access may be appropriate to meet future
demand for access created by the development.
• Public access opportunities to the shoreline and other natural features should be
considered through integration with the City’s trail system to the extent practicable.
• Continue park and school impact fees for future developments
•
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 52
Figure 4-5 Proposed and Existing Parks, Schools and Open Space
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b18) Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space goals encourage providing an integrated system of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open
spaces. Alternatives 2 and 3 should maintain consistency with the policies under this goal by:
• CF-5. GOAL: In conjunction with the County, provide parks, greenways, trails, and
recreation facilities throughout the urban growth area.
• CF-5-B Policy: Encourage use of existing natural features, open spaces and appropriate
excess right-of-way as an integral part of the community-wide park system.
CF-5-C Policy: Maintain a cooperative agreement with the Pasco school district regarding the
development, use, and operation of neighborhood parks. Also consider Goals from the City of Pasco
Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan (2016) provides additional mitigation measures:
• Goal 1: Provide physical facilities that offer youth and adults a broad variety of passive,
active and organized recreation opportunities
• Goal 2: Maintain and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities to provide the highest quality
of service level to the community
The GMA provides 14 goals for comprehensive planning, including goals to encourage the retention
of open space and development of recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. Development under
Alternatives 2 and 3 should consider these goals to the extent practicable in providing parks and
recreation opportunities.
The City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update includes policies to work with other
jurisdictions, property owners, open space groups, and interested parties to develop and
Richland
Faci lity Ty pe
Parka
~ Fulure Part. & Open Space
C011VT1Unity P ane
-NeighborhoodP•rtr.
-l•rgeUrbanPa rlr.
-RegionalParlr.
-Lwiear Pa/11
[I] Special Use Pane
-TraW• _""",_
-Fu ture Public
-Prwate
[:] C,,l-
Ke nnewick
c::::J Proposed uroan GfowthAtea Bou~cite: Estimated 47 Acres of future Par1<.s/Open Space to be available in the Urban G rowth Area Miles
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 53
implement regional and City parks, recreation, trails plans, and appropriate implementation
strategies (Anchor QEA 2014).
4.109. Transportation
4.109.1. Affected Environment
The Tri‐Cities area is the largest metropolitan area between Spokane to the northeast, Seattle to the
northwest, Portland to the west, and Boise to the southeast. Because of its location, the Tri‐Cities is
a major transportation hub for travelers and commodities in the Pacific Northwest. As part of the
Tri-Cities, Pasco has easy, direct access to all modes of commercial transportation services
(Oneza & Associates 201208). Throughout the next 20 years, Pasco is projected to experience a
3 percent annual increase or a 66 percent of total increase in population. This growth will result in
an increase in traffic volumes to, from, though, and within the City.
The Tri‐Cities are connected to the interstate highway system. I‐82 links the Tri‐Cities metropolitan
area to I‐90 to the north and west, through Yakima, and to I‐84 to the south, in northern Oregon.
I-182, which passes through Pasco, links Pasco to these interstates and US 395. US 12 links the Tri‐
Cities to the interstates and to US 395 and provides access to Walla Walla and other southeastern
Washington locales. The limited‐access interstates serving the Tri‐Cities carry between 40,000 and
60,000 vehicles per day. I‐182 is a major 6-lane freeway that travels through the City of Pasco from
the western edge at the Columbia River providing access to Richland and connects to US 395 which
provides access to the City of Kennewick to the south. The only other access across the Columbia
River is the Cable Bridge or SR 397 connecting to Kennewick from the downtown area of Pasco.
The Washington State Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining an adequate
level of service on these highways. The City has developed future street classification system that
re-emphasizes a grid network with arterial and collector roadways that serve the existing
developed areas. Figure 4-6 shows the transportation network in the City.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 54
Figure 4-6 Existing Transportation System.
4.109.2. Impacts
Demands on transportation and transit facilities throughout the City would continue to increase
due to future population and employment growth. Under all alternatives, continued maintenance of
these facilities would occur on a regularly scheduled or as-needed basis. For transit operations, the
increases could increase in hours of operations and some capital facilities such as park -and-ride
lots. This includes projects under the regional 2020-2025 Transportation Improvement Program
developed by the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments for the Tri-Cities Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and Benton-Franklin Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO;
2019).
Increases in population and employment levels would also increase the demand for additional
non-motorized facilities such as trails and bikeways. These bicycle and trail facilities may be located
along roadways as bike lanes/sidewalks or as separated facilities and would provide opportunities
for recreational and commuter users.
Under all alternatives, rail and airport use could also increase. In general, as employment and
population increase, the use of these facilities also increases. Rail facilities would be affected by an
increase in commerce associated with employment growth. Airport activity would also increase as
recreational activities and employment increases.
The major facilities that will be affected by the forecasted growth in the City of Pasco under all
alternatives are US 395, I-182 as well as Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd, both of which
provide the only access at interchanges with I-182 in the western portion of the City where much of
the growth is forecast to occur.
Doff Id
lums Id
Cicy cf ~ Pasco Washington
Existing Street Functional
Classification System
°""' 'd
Street Classm catioo (Existing)
--(18.92miles)
-Olh<r-(17.99miles)
--Anirial(10-82miles)
_.....,Anirial(l0.48miles)
-O-W,(47.29miles)
-(23.34miles)
o-.av-
•°""'=
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 55
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued use of land under the existing Plan land use
designations. Future population and employment growth would not be accommodated under the
No Action Alternative and could potentially result in increased and more diffuse impacts to
transportation facilities from future development in other parts of the City and nearby rural areas.
In turn, maintenance of transportation facilities would also be greater and more widespread across
the City rather than focused near infill and urban areas.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Under Alternatives 2, the land use patterns would increase in intensity from the current
agricultural land uses to low-density and predominantly residential uses. Increased population
within the planning areas would in-turn increase demand on transportation facilities. Compared to
Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would require additional roads to serve the larger area. Traffic analysis
also indicates that Alternative 2 would likely need additional intersection improvements at several
intersections due to longer trip lengths.
Development associated with Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would result in potential impacts
from construction activities, including increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes,
and road closures. During construction, vehicles would be necessary to bring equipment and
materials to the planning areas. Large, oversized trucks could require pilot vehicles as they travel to
and from the freeway with large loads. These trucks may also require flaggers to manually divert or
control traffic as it enters or exits roadways (due to large turning radii). This traffic maintenance
would cause delays for motorists.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 also includes significant population growth, increasing in intensity from the current
vacant, under-utilized and agricultural uses to a variety of low, medium and high density
residential, commercial, and public uses. Hhowever with the population being will be
accommodated within a smaller geographic area with higher residential densities. The additional
commercial and employment included in the land use assumptions of Alternative 3 would
potentially decrease the amount of trips and trip lengths resulting with less overall impacts to the
transportation network than Alternative 2.
Increased density in urban areas would most efficiently support new or extended bus routes in
addition to more frequent service provided by transit facilities. Similarly, non-motorized transit
demand would also increase. This increased demand would be more localized than the diffuse
impacts anticipated under the No Action Alternative.
4.109.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to the transportation network (Figure 4-7):
• The City will undertake joint efforts with the Washington State Department of
Transportation to identify appropriate improvements at the I-182/Road 68 interchange as
well as the I-182/Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd interchange along with appropriate local
roadway improvements to protect and preserve those investments.
• The City will implement travel demand management methodologies identified in the City of
Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) to limit and manage the demand on and access to
the major facilities of I-182 and US 395.,
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 56
• During construction, the City will work with its development applicants to oversee that
appropriate coordination with affected agencies and property owners occurs upon future
development. This includes providing appropriate public notification and detour routes
upon development of its own projects.
• During construction, the City could require construction management plans at the time of
development to reduce potential short‐term impacts.
• To accommodate future population growth projections, the City has planned a roadway
network to serve developing areas, and many of the improvements will be paid for by
private development. Identified improvements to transportation networks are described
further in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan Volume 2 (Oneza & Associates 2020).
• The City will cooperate with the RTPO and Benton-Franklin Council of Governments for
levels of service.
• The City should consider multi‐modal needs in new corridors and in street standards for
when new roadway facilities are constructed.
• Implement the City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency
procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development.
• Implement land use compatibility that generates traffic along roads with adequate capacity
• City’s allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $48M of this
would be spent on transportation improvements.
• Various long term and short term improvements are identified in Table T-10 and T-11 in
the Comprehensive Plan Volume II.
• City will continue to require the traffic impact fees from future developments that will be
used for future road and other improvements
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 57
Figure 4-7 Transportation improvements.
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2017a2020b) transportation goals and
policies encourage providing an efficient and multimodal transportation network to support the
City’s land use vision and existing needs. The following goals and policies should be considered for
future development:
• LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design standards for major public investments,
particularly streets.
• LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle travel and encourage pedestrian and
multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and around residential
neighborhoods.
• CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be
extended in an orderly, progressive and efficient manner.
• TR1-J Policy: encourage developments to meet the mission of the Pasco Complete Street
Policy TR1-I Policy: Require developments to meet the intentstandards of the Pasco
Complete Street Ordinance.
• TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate streetscape design and streetscape into all major arterial and
collector streets as they are constructed.
T-12
Cityef tlii Pasco Washington
Transportation
Improvements
• ~~:terr.«tion • ==tersection
-~~~ -~ffl)f~ts
• ■ • Short Range New Roadway ■ ■ ■ l.009 Range New Roadway
...
•· KortchnetSt
E Hl bboro Rd
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 58
4.110. Public Services and Utilities
4.110.1. Affected Environment
Water Supply System
The City’s water system is supplied from surface water withdrawals from the McNary Pool of the
Columbia River and includes two surface water treatment plants and three water reservoirs
(Figure 4-8). The majority of the population within the incorporated limits of the City of Pasco is
served by the City’s Water Utility. The City has the following key water system facilities:
• Butterfield Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 26.8 million gallons per day
• West Pasco Water Treatment Plant: capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day
• Riverview Heights reservoir: 10 million gallons
• Rd 68 reservoir: 2.5 million gallons
• Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir: 1 million gallons
The City water distribution system has been arranged into three (3) service/pressure zones.
Generally, these zones may be described as:
• Pressure Zone 1: South of I-182 and west of the railroad yard
• Pressure Zone 2: East of the railroad yard, the southern portion of the airport and a strip
south of I-182 between Service Zone 1 and Service Zone 3
• Pressure Zone 3: Generally, north of I-182 and encompassing most of the northern part of
the city
Figure 4-8 Existing Water System
Richland
Current water Main s
Upto8"
--s·-12·
--12·.36·
Pressure Zones
Zone 1
Zone2
Zone3
c=l crtyUmits
c:::::J Pasco Urban Growth Boundary
Kennew1c~
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 59
Sanitary Sewer and Wastewater Collection System
The City’s collection system is a conventional collection system that mainly relies on gravity sewers
to convey wastewater flow to two lift stations that discharge to the treatment facility (Figure 4-9).
Additional pump stations and force mains are used to supplement the gravity system.
The City operates a wastewater collection and treatment system to manage the wastewater needs
of the community. The City originally built a primary treatment facility in 1954 which has been
upgraded over the years to increase design capacity and accommodate growth of the City’s service
area. This system operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste
Discharge Permit issued by Ecology. Currently, the system is served by one activated sludge
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which oxidizes, nitrifies and disinfects wastewater flow prior
to discharging to the Lake Wallula reach of the Columbia River.
The northern part of the City is currently not served by the system.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City also owns, maintains and operates a separate industrial wastewater treatment plant
(PWRF – Process Water Reuse Facility) that collects, stores and then applies food processor
wastewater to farm circles north of the City as irrigation. The PWRF is an industrial facility that
receives the discharge of process water from six food processors in the region. The PWRF is a
public/private partnership. The PWRF and associated farm circle properties are located in an area
of irrigated agriculture production fields on approximately 1,800 acres north of Pasco and east of
Highway 395 in Franklin County. The City of Pasco has owned and operated the PWRF since 1995.
Figure 4-9 Existing Sanitary Sewer System
Richland
Existing Sewer Main
--2"=16"
--16"-36"
--Sew er Force Ma in
LJ Citylimits
D Pasco Urban Gro'Mh Boundary
Kennewick
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 60
Stormwater System
Stormwater runoff is a major contributor of water quality pollution to waterways. Being located in
a semi‐arid climate, the streets in Pasco still collect sediments from construction sites, fertilizers
and pesticides from yards, bacteria from animal waste, and gas, oil, and toxic metals from cars.
Managing the stormwater system includes illicit discharge detection and elimination, runoff
control, operation and maintenance, and monitoring of the system. The City continually updates its
system through a combination of programs and facilities. Public involvement, education, and
outreach are important components of the program.
Solid Waste Management
Solid waste collection services are provided in Pasco through a franchise agreement with Basin
Disposal Inc. (BDI). BDI provides automated curbside services to all residential properties. Refuse is
collected in the community and taken to the Transfer station on Dietrich Road. The transfer station
tip-floor has a capacity of about 1,200 tons per day. BDI delivers approximately 646 tons per day of
waste to transfer station each day. Any waste that is economically recyclable is diverted at this
point and the remainder is placed in specially constructed trailers and transported to the regional
landfill in Morrow County, Oregon.
Garbage service in the City is mandatory and is required for all businesses and residential
structures. The residential service is often referred to as total service in that home owners may set
additional bags, boxes or bundles beside their standard garbage can on collection day for pick-up at
no additional charge. Garbage pick-up occurs weekly for all residential customers and may occur
more than once a week for commercial customers. BDI also provides two coupons a year to
residential customers that can be used for free dumping at the transfer station.
Public Safety
Pasco Fire Department (PFD) provides fire suppression, advanced life support, emergency medical
services, ambulance transport services, technical rescue services, and hazardous materials services
(through a regional partnership) to its service area community. The PFD, through a contract with
the Port, also provides Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting services to the Pasco airport.
Law enforcement services for the City are provided by the City Police Department. Unincorporated
areas of the UGA are served by the County Sheriff. The City and County law enforcement agencies
cooperate readily when the need arises.
Energy
The primary supplier of electrical power to Pasco and the surrounding UGA is the Franklin County
Public Utility District (Franklin PUD). The Franklin PUD purchases power from the regional power
grid (Bonneville Power Administration) and then distributes through substations and distribution
lines to the end users.
Utilities from Other Providers
Other utilities are provided by various service providers, including natural gas,
telecommunications, and irrigation district facilities.
Additional details for all services described above are included in the City of Pasco Draft
Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2 - Supporting Analysis (Oneza & Associates 202018).
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 61
4.110.2. Impacts
Under all alternatives, future population and employment growth will result in increased demand
on public services and utilities. Increases in population density and employment under all
alternatives could increase the number of calls for police and medical emergency services.
Increases in traffic related to growth under both alternatives could affect the response time of
emergency vehicles. Increases in vehicle and pedestrian traffic could result in the need for
additional traffic enforcement. Increases in population and employment could occur and increase
the use of existing schools and parks, as well as create a need for new educational and recreational
facilities. The demand for other public services, including sanitary sewer, wastewater treatment,
water, stormwater, solid waste management, energy, and other utilities, would also increase.
Construction impacts from population and employment growth would occur to accommodate the
increased demand. Impacts include construction to expand capaci ty for water and sewer services;
existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with
new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or
future dedicated public rights‐of‐way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would
connect with the existing distribution network. Existing utility lines would continue to service the
area during construction, or temporary bypass service would be implemented until the distribution
or collection system is complete and operational. Construction impacts on fire protection and
emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of
construction sites and potential construction‐related injuries.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in continued growth under the existing Plan’s land use
designations. Future population growth would not be accommodated under the No Action
Alternative. This could impact public services and utilities need for these facilities to areas
surrounding the City and neighboring rural areas in the County. Additional growth would put
pressure on the rural facilities providers.
Alternative 2: Recommended Growth Target
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the land use patterns and the planning area would increase significantly
in intensity from the current under-utilized land uses to mixed-use and predominantly residential
uses. Increased residential density would increase demand on public services and utilities.
Construction impacts in these areas would also increase to accommodate more intense land uses.
These impacts would be more localized rather than the diffuse impacts in the nearby rural areas
under the No Action Alternative. Public services and utilities in the north side are currently limited
and will require transportation and other public services improvements and utility connections to
occur under future use scenarios.
Alternative 3: Recommended Growth Target High Density, Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 includes a similar level of development as Alternative 2, with increased residential
density expected to the north, and in an area smaller than the area in Alternative 2. This alternative
would place the greatest demand on public services and utilities. However, these demands would
be more localized rather than the diffuse impacts anticipated under the No Action Alternative or
spread out impacts anticipated in Alternative 2.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 62
4.110.3. Mitigation Measures
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the following mitigation measures should be employed to reduce impacts
to public services and utilities (Figures 4-10 and 4-11):
• The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP), 2019 to address deficiencies resulting from
growth for the planning period. Priority projects and financing are included in the 2019
Capital Improvement Program for water and stormwater systems (City of Pasco).
• The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the City of Pasco ’s
Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP), 20194 to address deficiencies resulting from growth for
the planning period.
• To accommodate future population growth, the City should maintain its services with Basin
Disposal Inc.
• In 2019, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which evaluated
the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in
order to accommodate future growth, the City will need to make additional improvements
to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional water rights to meet the
2038 demands.
• In 2017 and 2019, the City re-evaluated the capacity and loading requirements of the
Northwest Service Area as a result of potential development demands and growth projects
changes as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area (UGA)
expansion. A strategy to provide sewer service to the proposed UGA and other growth
areas within the city (Broadmoor Area) was evaluated and alternatives were identified.
• The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration of stations and
an extension of services to the north.
• City allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $57M would be
spent on Sewer System Improvements, $40M on water, $36M on process water resource
facility, $25M on Fire safety, $2M on irrigation and $1M of stormwater.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 63
Figure 4-10 Water infrastructure improvements
Figure 4-11 Sewer system improvements
Richland
Proposed New Project •
--12·
--,s· --,e·
--24•
• Proposed Road 68 Lift Station
• Proposed Tank Location
Expanded Prenure ZonH
Zone-1
Zone-1A
Zone-2
Zone-2A
Zone-2B
-Zone-2C
Zone-3
Proposed
■ Propoled Lift Stations
----Potential Alternative A lignment
-·-Proposed Sewer Pipes
--Proposed Lift Station Pump
--Sewer Force Main
Existing Sewer Main
--2"=16"
--16"-36"
L_J City Limits
Current Wate r Main•
Upto8"
--s·-12·
--12"-36"
■ LlftStation
l!'.I Storage Tank
Water Treatment Plant
C.:J cay um,11 D Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary
D Proposed Urban Growth Area
Kennewick
.....
Kennewick
~ites
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 64
Figure 4-12 Fire service improvements
Other Mitigation Measures
The current draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b18) utilities element goals are
intended to ensure public facilities and services necessary to support development are planned,
sized, and constructed to serve new development. Alternatives 2 and 3 should be implemented
consistent with the policies identified therein. This includes using a minimum 20‐year planning
horizon to plan for City-provided public utilities and identifying new facilities, expansions, and
improvements that will be needed. The City will work with other purveyors of public services to
provide facilities and services concurrent with development. The City will also minimize
environmental impacts while providing safe and reliable services.
• CF-2. Goal: Ensure concurrency of utilities, services, and facilities consistent with land use
designations and actions within realistic capital budget capabilities.
• CF-3. Goal: Maintain adequate lands for public facilities.
• CF-4. Goal: Acquire adequate water rights for future needs.
• CF-7. Goal: Maintain within the City a level of fire protection service that is efficient and cost
effective. Encourage that same level of service in the unincorporated portion of the the
Urban Growth Area.
• UT-I Goal: Provide adequate utility services to the Urban Growth Area to assure that the
anticipated 20-year growth is accommodated.
.
i
Proposed 4 Staffed
Station Deployment
(81 ,82,Relocated 83 ,
Relocated 84)
• Staffed Station
Travel Time-Proposed
Staffed Station
~ 6 Minutes Travel
;;
i
0 ..
95
Pasco Fire Department
Study Area
PFD Fire Station
• Staffed
• Unstaffed
0 City of Pasco
(',! Pasco UGB
County Boundary
Miles
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 65
• UT-3 Goal: Assure the provision of adequate and efficient storm water management.
4.121. Heritage Conservation
4.121.1. Affected Environment
Pasco Cultural History
Pasco is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers. It is in the Southern Plateau,
part of the larger Columbia Plateau culture area. The Southern Plateau stretches from southern
Okanogan County in the north to the northern border of the Great Basin to the south. The
prehistory and history of the Southern Plateau is briefly summarized here.
Beginning about 11,000 years ago, early mobile foragers were present in the Columbia Plateau. This
was followed by a brief but widespread Clovis occupation, and a “broad-spectrum” hunter-gatherer
culture developed in the Columbia Plateau region and persisted until the middle Holocene, around
5,300 years ago (Chatters and Pokotylo 1998).
A shift toward more permanent settlement began around 6,000 years ago, characterized by
intensive salmon fishing and associated storage features, social inequality, large permanent winter
villages, and diverse tool assemblages (Chatters and Pokotylo 1998; Ames et al. 1998).
Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Palus tribe, a constituent tribe of the Confederated Tribes
of the Colville Reservation. It is also in the 1855 ceded lands of the Yakama Nation, additionally the
Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids and the Walla Walla tribe also utilized the area extensively. All are
Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people. Pasco is in the traditional territory of the Yakama Nation, a
Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people (Walker 1998). Wanapum and Walla Walla people also used the
area (Kershner 2008). Traditional Plateau cultures were based on a seasonal round that took
advantage of fish runs, game, and root resources, as well as trade, kinship ties, and intermarriage
among groups (Walker 1998). Prior to historic resettlement, permanent winter villages anchored
the seasonal round (Boyd and Hajda 1987).
The spot where the Snake enters the Columbia had been a popular tribal rendezvous spot for
centuries, sometimes called the Grand Rendezvous or the Great Forks. Tribes commonly camped,
fished, and wintered from the Snake's mouth upstream on the Columbia for eight miles toward the
spot where the Yakima River enters. The City of Pasco spreads out today over the eastern bank of
this stretch of the Columbia (Brum & Associates, 2014).
Fishing activities revolved around an early salmon run in March, and a second, larger run in June
(Schuster 1998). Gathering activities took place throughout the year. Although salmon were a key
staple, plant foods also made up a significant portion of the diet (Hunn 1981).
By the time of the first sustained contact between the tribes of the Pasco area and Euro-American
settlers in the mid-1800s, tribal life had already been significantly impacted. Introduced diseases
decimated the population (Vibert 1997:50), and the introduction of the horse altered social and
economic activities.
In 1853, Washington became a territory separate from Oregon and, by the next year, Governors of
both the territories began pursuing treaties that relegated tribes to reservations (Wilma 2003).
Fourteen tribes and bands signed the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 that established the Yakama
Indian Reservation (Yakima Nation Museum [YNM] 2011). The same year, the Walla Walla tribe
signed the Treaty of Walla Walla, which established the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon, and
many Walla Walla (and some Yakama) tribal members moved to there.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 66
The Lewis and Clark expedition recorded the first description of the confluence area in 1805, and
David Thompson passed through in 1811 (Nisbet 2005). The area was rarely visited, a nd several
early attempts at settlement (a mission, a group of cattle ranchers) failed (Kershner 2008).
However, by the 1890s, settlers had established an agricultural economy and built irrigation
systems (Kershner 2008).
The general Tri-Cities region as a whole is within territory inhabited traditionally by Native people
represented today by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the
Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids, and others. Large permanent villages were located in prominent
locations, such as at the confluence of the Columbia River (Nch'i-Wana) and the Yakima River
(Koots Koots A Min Ma). (Heather & Darby, 2018).
The original town site of Pasco was created in April of 1886 with the recording of the Pasco Town
Plat. The original town site contained 8 blocks equally divided by the Pacific Northern Rail yards.
From that modest beginning Pasco has grown to encompass more than 33 square miles of land.
The original town site that was home to a handful of settlers. (Oneza & Associates, 202019)
The Yakima-Columbia confluence has a rich archaeological record, with sites in the area attributed
to all of the Southern Plateau cultural phases. The area has been, “occupied more or less
continuously for the last 10,000 years” (Western Heritage 1983). There are 32 recorded
archaeological sites within 1 mile of the confluence.
The arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1884 established Pasco as a major junction between
rail lines serving Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and Portland. The Columbia Basin Project reached
Pasco in 1948. This project, in turn, spurred agricultural growth for the entire region thanks to the
irrigation of nearby rivers. World War II had a significant impact that is still felt in the region
because of the development of the Naval Air Station Pasco flight training facility (later the Tri-Cities
Airport), the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and the Manhattan Project. While primary operations
and research are conducted nearby in Benton County, Pasco’s rail infrastructure provided much
needed logistical help along with plentiful land to house some of Hanford’s earliest workers.
These events (rail, irrigation, air, and nuclear energy) have affected the cultural environment that
Pasco, and the region enjoys today.
Recorded Cultural Resources
Many archaeological sites, Native American traditional places, and historical structures related to
the area’s cultural history have been recorded in the City.
Previously conducted cultural resources review
This discussion includes two of many cultural resource reviews undertaken in Pasco and Tri-Cities
area. A cultural resources survey for the Pasco Tri-Cities airport area indicates two National
Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) in the city of Pasco south of the Tri-Cities Airport. The
Franklin County Courthouse (Building #78002740, 1016 N. 4th St., Pasco) is approximately 1.4
miles south of the Tri-Cities Airport. The Pasco Carnegie Library (Building #82004212, 305 N. 4th
St., Pasco) is located approximately 1.7 miles south of the Tri-Cities Airport. The James Moore
House (Resource ID: 674795) is also on the NRHP. The pedestrian archaeological survey did not
locate any prehistoric or historic sites. Pasco’s Historic Preservation Plan (Brum & Associates,
2013) includes an inventory of historic buildings and structures.
The Broadmoor area Cultural Literature Review, review of the WISAARD database shows 13
archaeological sites fall within a mile of the Broadmoor area. Some sites fall in Benton County,
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 67
others fall in Franklin County. Eight of these sites fall within the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP)-eligible “Tri-Cities Archaeological District,” which runs along the Columbia River bank
including adjoining uplandsthe Columbia River bank and does not extend inland, starting at about
Van Giesen Street on the Benton County side, and just slightly north of Burns Road in Franklin
County in the north, all the way to the Pioneer Memorial Bridge (locally referred to as the Blue
Bridge) to the south (Solimano 2012). Also present within the Broadmoor Area is the “Hanford
South Archaeological District,” which covers about 19 miles on both banks of the Columbia River,
beginning at River Mile 350.5 (north of Wooded Island) and ending at River Mile 339 (near north
Richland) (Hanford South Archeological District 45DT39A form 1983). One site within a mile of the
Project Area falls within the Hanford South District. The Hanford South District has never been
determined as eligible for the National Register and has not been recently updated in WISAARD, so
its NRHP eligibility is unknown to NWA at this time.
All but one of the 13 sites within a mile of the Broadmoor Area are precontact (one is historic) —
eight of the 13 are eligible to be listed on the National Register. There are no sites located directly
within the Broadmoor Area. The 13 sites within the one-mile radius contain an array of
litchisNative American burials are identified within this radius. There are also archaeological , shell
deposits, burials, irrigation features pipes, and an archaeological one was designated as a field
camp. The singular historic site found within a mile of the Project Area indicates historic farming
was also occurring nearby, which indicates there will have already been a great deal of ground-
disturbing activity. The number of sites and their proximity to the river is unsurprising due to the
nature of Native cultures in the Broadmoor AreaProject Area subsisting largely on fish resources
since time immemorial (Hansen and Darby, 2018).
Similarly, for the proposed Urban Growth areas identified in Alternatives 2 and 3, no recorded
resources, including archaeological sites, historic structures or other resources are located directly
within these boundaries. Some irrigation related structures are identified but have been
determined not eligible to be counted as historic resources. It is important to note that there have
been only limited surveys for these resources conducted in the proposed UGA areas. There are
some resources just outside of the UGA areas, including facilities associated with the Esquatzel
canal (Anchor QEA 2020).
Even with this information, the cultural sensitivity of the city and its Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP’s) Statewide
Predictive Model categorizes the city and the UGA areas as “high to very high risk” for encountering
cultural resources (DAHP 2020). This means there is high potential for the presence of
archaeological resources in the region that could be disturbed or otherwise impacted by
development.
4.121.2. Impacts
Generally, the potential for impacts to cultural resources is proportional to the intensity of
development. The greater the horizontal and vertical extent of ground disturbance, the more likely
that a development will impact archaeological materials, historic structures, or traditional cultural
properties.
Several existing laws and regulations govern the identification and treatment cultural resources.
These include:
• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at
36 Code of Federal Regulations 800, which apply to projects that are federally funded or
approved.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 68
• Governor’s Executive Order 05-05, which applies to projects that use State of Washington
capital funds.
• RCW 27.53 (Archaeological Sites and Records), which prohibits the unpermitted removal of
archaeological materials and establishes a permitting process.
• RCW 27.44 (Indian Graves and Records), which describes how human remains must be
treated.
Also, PMC Historic Preservation Title 20 regulates historic sites for “identification, evaluation,
designation, and protection of designated historic and prehistoric resources”.
Given these laws and regulations, it is likely that any impacts to significant cultural resources would
have to be mitigated, in consultation with Native American tribes and the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, areas of proposed change would maintain the current zoning.
Under existing conditions, most of City would be developed to its maximum capacity. Construction
citywide could potentially impact cultural resources, including recorded and unrecorded
archaeological sites.
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth Target
Under the Traditional Growth Target Alternative, various new residential, public use, and
commercial developments could occur in the north side of the UGA. These developments would
likely include disturbance of previously undisturbed soils for building foundations, utilities,
roadways, and other infrastructure. Unrecorded archaeological sites could be affected in these
areas.
Alternative 3: Compact Growth Target, Preferred Alternative
Under the Compact Growth Target Alternative, developments would be similar to the Traditional
Growth Target Alternative, though with greater intensity of development in some parts of the
planning areas. The greater magnitude could lead to potentially greater disturbance of
undocumented archaeological resources.
4.121.3. Mitigation Measures
The City should comply with applicable laws and regulations regarding impacts to cultural
resources. Section 106, Executive Order 05-05, and RCW 27.53, among others, require impacts to
cultural resources be mitigated. Mitigation is developed on a project-by-project basis, in
consultation with Native American tribes, the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, and other interested parties.
The draft City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b) goals and policies encourage the
preservation of structures, districts, and cultural resources unique to the City. The following goals
and policies should be considered for future development:
• LU-8 Goal: Encourage the restoration and rehabilitation of historic buildings and sites.
• LU-8-A Policy: Allow adaptive re-uses in historic structures.
• Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies Historic Preservation: Identify and
encourage the preservation of land sites and structures that have historical or
archaeological significance.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 69
4.132. Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Table 12
Summary of Impacts by Alternative
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.213.1. Earth
• Earth-related impacts
Disturbance mechanisms
(e.g., clearing, grading,
erosion, impervious area
expansion, and
contamination) related to
construction and
operation would be scaled
with the intensity of
future development and
operation.
• Disturbance
mechanisms to earth
resources would be
less intensive than with
Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Population growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
could result in
increased and more
diffuse impacts to
earth resources from
sprawl-type
development in other
parts of the County and
nearby rural areas.
• Increased impacts to earth
resources compared to
No Action Alternative
associated disturbance
mechanisms from more
intensive development within
the planning areas.
• Increased erosion potential,
compaction, or contamination
of earth resources from
development within the
planning areas.
• Due to lower density
development compared to
Alternative 3, and maximum
acreages occupied under this
alternative, the extent of
impacts to earth resources
within the undeveloped or infill
areas would be more in
Alternative 2 than other two
alternatives
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development proposed. This
would result in higher
population density per acre and
reduce sprawl-type
development in the City and
nearby rural areas to
accommodate future
population growth.
Concentrated development and
associated impacts within the
planning areas would reduce
earth-related impacts in other
areas.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 70
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.213.2. Surface Water
• Development activities
may cause erosion or
increase impervious
surfaces that could
discharge contaminated
or sediment-laden water
to nearby surface waters.
• Point source and non-
point source pollution can
be exacerbated by
development if not
properly managed or
mitigated.
• Development of
undeveloped areas could
reduce groundwater
recharge and potentially
reduce baseflow to nearby
surface waters.
• Changes in population and
increased development
could limit the availability
of water supplies.
• Lower population
growth and less
intensive development
within the planning
areas would have less
impact on surface
waters compared to
Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Impacts to water
supplies and water
supply demand would
also be less due to
lower number of
population
accommodated
compared to
Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Population growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
could result in
increased and more
diffuse impacts to
surface water from
sprawl-type
development in the
nearby rural areas.
• Changes in development
patterns in the north UGA area
from irrigated/ vacant to
developed lands would change
stormwater and groundwater
recharge dynamics.
• Without mitigation, higher
intensity development within
the planning areas could put
surface waters at greater risk of
degradation.
• Water supply demand could be
higher than the No Action
Alternative due to higher
population growth.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development would increase
impervious surfaces and other
development-related impacts
within the planning areas.
•
• Development within the City
could potentially result in
decreased and less diffuse
impacts to surface water
resources from future
development in other parts of
the City and nearby rural areas
compared to Alternatives 1 and
2.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 71
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.213.3. Plants and Animals
• Impacts to plants and
animals would generally
be scaled with the level
development.
• Construction causes noise
and other activities that
are known to cause
short-term behavioral
disturbance to wildlife.
• Development activities
can remove vegetation
and result in
fragmentation of wildlife
habitat, reduce wildlife
habitat quality and
function, and result in
long-term operational
impacts.
• Lower population
growth and
less-intensive
development within
the planning areas
would have less impact
on plants and animals
compared to
Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Population growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
could result in
increased and more
diffuse impacts to
plants and animals
from sprawl-type
development in the
nearby rural areas,
potentially impacting
shrub-steppe habitat,
burrowing owl, and
other wetlands or
riparian vegetation
designated in other
communities.
• Due to lower density
residential designations
compared to Alternative 3,
increased development in
other parts of the City and
nearby rural areas could have
greater and more diffuse
impacts to plants and animals.
• Changes in development
patterns from irrigated/ vacant
to developed lands would alter
the landscape and potentially
reduce habitat provided by the
existing uses.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development in would
potentially reduce habitat
provided by existing uses.
• More area would be preserved
in the Broadmoor area
including the core PHS areas.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 72
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.213.4. Land Use
• Future development could
convert undeveloped and
infill areas to more
intensive uses.
• Construction-related and
operational impacts could
affect immediate vicinity
and nearby land uses from
increased noise, light and
glare, and traffic delays;
changes in views or the
aesthetic character of the
area; and increased
pressure to develop or
redevelop adjacent vacant
or underutilized areas.
• The No Action
Alternative would
result in continued use
of the properties as
currently zoned by the
City.
• Population growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
could result in
increased and more
diffuse impacts to land
uses in the nearby rural
areas.
• in the long-term, when
developments are
permitted in the vacant
and infill areas under
the current land use
and zoning, this will
result in significant
aesthetic and visual
quality impacts.
• Land use patterns would
increase in intensity in the
north UGA area as they change
from irrigated/ agricultural /
vacant to predominantly
residential uses.
• Vacant open land will also be
transformed by future
roadways, commercial
development, and light
industrial activities with some
green spaces.
• None of the area would include
Franklin County designated
agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development in the planning
area and would better
accommodate future
population growth.
• Higher density and more
concentrated development.
Land use to the north would
transform from underutilized,
low intensity current uses to a
mix of Low, Medium, and High
Density Residential,
Commercial, Public Facility, and
Open Space.
• None of the area would include
Franklin County designated
agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 73
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.213.5. Environmental Health
• Future developments of
infill and undeveloped
commercial and industrial
lands could impact
environmental health.
• During construction of
some industrial
developments, chemicals
may be stored that could
potentially create a risk of
fire, explosion or spills.
• The No Action
Alternative would
result in increased and
intense use of
industrial lands.
• Developments in
vacant and infill areas
under the current land
use and zoning will
result in continued
risks to environmental
health as seen by
current development
patterns.
• Under this alternatives, existing
County under-utilized industrial
lands will be added to the UGA
and will be developed.
• New industrial developments
could increase the exposure to
chemicals or risk of fire.
Hazardous waste could occur
depending on the types of
uses.
• Under this alternatives, existing
County under-utilized industrial
lands will be added to the UGA
and will be developed.
• New industrial developments
could increase the exposure to
chemicals or risk of fire.
Hazardous waste could occur
depending on the types of uses.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 74
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.13.6. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
• Future development
twould include expansion
of commercial and
industrial space; therefore
air pollutant emissions
generated within the
study area are expected
to increase.
• Vehicle miles traveled for
those who work in the
City and its UGA would
also increase, along with
the tailpipe emissions
generated by those
vehiclesext.
• Temporary construction
activities are common to
all alternatives.
• Increases in ozone are all
expected for each
alternative at varying
degrees based on
concentration of
development.
• Population is expected
to increase but not at
the same levels within
the City limits and UGA
areas as expected with
Alternatives 2 and 3, so
the localized air quality
effects are expected to
be lower.text
• Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone
would initially be slightly lower
than the No Action, as the UGA
area for Alternative 2, but over
time as development occurs
and more population is located
within the City and UGA area,
then these values are expected
to increase.
• Expanding the UGA will limit
the ability for existing and
future residents in the subject
area from being able to burn,
which may lead to air quality
enhancements.text
• textSimilar effects to
Alternative 2 are expected,
with potential higher localized
concentrations due to expected
higher densities.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 75
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.2.513.7. Shoreline Use
• Increased population
growth has the potential
to change shoreline uses
and increase development
in or adjacent to these
areas.
• Changes in surrounding
land use patterns could
reduce the value of
shoreline areas as
recreational opportunities
or wildlife habitat.
• Population growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
could result in
increased and more
diffuse impacts to
shoreline areas in the
nearby rural areas.
• The current Public
Facility and shoreline
areas would allow for
more intensive future
development to occur
adjacent to the
shoreline compared to
Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Directing development to
within the planning areas
would minimize potential
impacts sensitive shoreline
environments in other parts of
the City or nearby rural areas.
• Future development would
allow shoreline public access,
recreational and water-
oriented uses to occur.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development would better
accommodate future
population growth, reducing
shoreline impacts in other parts
of the City or nearby rural
areas.
• Less shoreline area is involved
in this alternative compared to
Alternative 2.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 76
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.2.613.8. Population, Housing and Employment
• Population, housing, and
employment growth are
all expected, with more
intensive growth
occurring under
Alternatives 2 and 3.
• Impacts to population,
housing, and employment
would occur from
inadequate existing
facilities or insufficient
future development
opportunities to
accommodate growth.
• Population and
employment growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
would nominally
increase housing or
employment
opportunities in the
City. Housing demand
would not be met
based on future
population growth
trends.
• Land use would accommodate
population growth and provide
housing and employment
opportunities.
• The industrial area to the north
along US-395 would provide
the City with additional
capacity for industrial
developments to add more
jobs.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development would better
accommodate future
population growth and provide
more opportunities for housing
and employment.
• Higher intensity uses within the
planning areas would increase
issues related to increased
development in urban
environments such as traffic,
noise, air pollution, public
service demands, and other
issues, but within a lesser
geographic area compared to
Alternative 2.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 77
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.2.713.9. Parks and Recreation
• Regional population
growth will result in
greater demand for parks
and open space.
• Recreational
opportunities will be in
higher demand,
commensurate with
population growth.
• No parks and
recreation would be
provided beyond the
land already set aside
for public purposes and
would be insufficient to
accommodate future
population growth.
• Preserving Open Space land
use in UGA area would meet
the future demand for park
land.
• More parks and open space
area than Alternative 2.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but dDenser residential
development proposed would
place greater demand on parks
and recreation in these areas.
• In the Broadmoor area,
streetscape and design
standards to offer additional
urban recreational
opportunities.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 78
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.2.813.10. Transportation
• Demand on transportation
and transit facilities would
increase commensurate
with population and
employment growth.
• Demand for additional
non-motorized facilities
such as trails and
bikeways would also
increase with population
growth.
• Rail and airport use would
increase with population
and employment growth.
• Population and
employment growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
would result in
increased and more
diffuse impacts to
transportation facilities
in other parts of the
City and nearby rural
areas.
• Maintenance of
transportation facilities
would also be greater
and more widespread
to accommodate
growth in other parts
of the City and nearby
rural areas.
• Increased density would
increase demand on
transportation and transit
facilities, as well as non-
motorized transportation
opportunities.
• Compared to Alternative 3,
Alternative 2 would require
additional roads to serve the
larger area. Alternative 2
would likely need additional
intersection improvements at
several intersections due to
longer trip lengths.
• Construction impacts on
transportation facilities would
be increased near the planning
areas from development.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but with the population being
accommodated within a smaller
geographic area with higher
residential densities, this would
place greater but more
localized demand in these
areas.
• The additional commercial and
employment included in the
land use assumptions of
Alternative 3 however mean
that shorter trip lengths would
result, with less overall impacts
to the transportation network
than Alternative 2.
• Increased density in urban
areas would most efficiently
support new or extended bus
routes in addition to more
frequent service provided by
transit facilities. Similarly, non-
motorized transit demand
would also increase. This
increased demand would be
more localized than the diffuse
impacts anticipated under the
No Action Alternative.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 79
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.2.913.11. Public Services and Utilities
• Demand on public
services and utilities
would increase with
population and
employment growth.
• Increases in traffic could
result in the need for
additional traffic
enforcement and affect
the response time of
emergency response
vehicles.
• Public facility usage would
also increase with
population and
employment growth.
• Population and
employment growth
would not be fully
accommodated and
could impact public
services and utilities by
increasing the service
area to other parts of
the City and
neighboring rural
areas.
• Increased and more
diffuse demand for
public services and
utilities could result in
added costs to the City
and utility providers
and delay service
response times.
• Increased growth would
increase demand on public
services and utilities. However,
this demand would be more
localized to urban areas
compared to the No Action
Alternative.
• Increased residential growth
would increase demand and
construction impacts related to
public services and utilities.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but denser residential
development would place the
greatest demand on public
services and utilities. The
increased demand would be
more localized to urban areas
under this alternative.
• Due to the limited area in the
UGA compared to Alternative 2,
cost associated with pipeline
expansions, roads and utilities
will be less.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 80
Topics/Impacts Common to
All Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2: Traditional Growth
Target
Alternative 3: Compact Growth
Target, Preferred Alternative
4.2.1013.12. Heritage Conservation
• The potential for impacts
to cultural resources is
generally proportional to
the intensity of
development.
• Impacts to significant
cultural resources would
have to be mitigated, in
consultation with Native
American tribes and the
Department of
Archaeology and Historic
Preservation.
• The vacant area to the
north would likely
remain vacant and
maintain current uses
with limited potential
for impacts to
archaeological
resources.
• Under the existing land
use designation, vacant
lands within the City
could be developed
and potentially impact
cultural resources,
including recorded and
unrecorded
archaeological sites.
• New development would likely
disturb soils and have the
potential to impact unrecorded
archaeological sites in these
areas.
• The area re-designated as
Commercial, Residential etc.
could potentially impact
cultural resources, including
recorded and unrecorded
archaeological sites and the
Columbia Point South Cultural
Landscape.
• Similar impacts as Alternative 2,
but with greater intensity of
development in some parts of
the planning areas.
• At Broadmoor area, more
cultural resources land will be
preserved.
4.143. Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic
Table 13
Summary of Mitigation Measures by Topic
Topics
4.13.1. Earth
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Maintain compliance with local air-quality agency requirements by watering exposed areas during construction.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 81
Topics
• Avoid disturbing the steep areas.
• Compact soils at densities appropriate for planned land uses.
• Provide vegetative cover or soil cement on exposed surfaces.
• Maintain Open Space land use and environment designations along the shoreline to protect shoreline functions.
• Construction should be staged so that the maximum amount of existing vegetation is left in place.
• Catch basins should be installed near storm drains
Other mitigation measures include:
• Maintain compliance with the CAO.
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
4.13.2 Surface Water
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Implement mitigation measures described for reducing impacts to earth resources described in Section 4.1.3.
• Under both development alternatives, detention ponds will reduce peak runoff flows to natural state conditions. Detention ponds
will also provide settlement for silt. Oil/water separators can reduce impacts from automobiles.
• Additional mitigation measures include bio-filtration, either before or after entry into the various detention ponds, and buffers
around wetlands in accordance with the CAO.
• Stormwater improvements are planned to manage stormwater and protect water quality
• Evaluate and apply Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater techniques, where appropriate, to maintain dispersed groundwater
infiltration.
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain compliance with existing federal, state, and local policies that regulate land use activities near, and within, surface waters
such as the Yakima and Columbia rivers and wetlands, including:
‒ NPDES regulations and City stormwater regulations
‒ USACE wetland avoidance and mitigation requirements
‒ The City SEPA and CAO requirements
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 82
Topics
4.13.3 Plants and Animals
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Provide erosion and stormwater control measures during construction, particularly in areas adjacent to surface waters that provide
fish and wildlife habitat such as Columbia Point South.
• Consider landscaping with native plants to provide vegetation of habitat significance in streetscapes, buffers for stormwater swales,
rain gardens, and other habitat features.
• Avoided, minimize, or mitigate impacts to shrub steppes, priority habitats, wetlands or wetland buffers, in accordance with the CAO
and SMP.
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain compliance with the CAO.
4. 13.4. Land Use
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Meet population growth targets and housing demand through developing planned areas, and infill developments,.
• Improve the built environment through designing new structures and development per City code.
• Reduce local traffic volumes by creating a live-work environment in Alternative 3.
• Protect shoreline areas according to the City’s shoreline regulations under Title 29
• Allow adequate parks, open space and public facilities
• Implement design standards for Broadmoor area developments under the Broadmoor area master plan and design standards.
• Implement City’s land use and zoning regulations to maintain the physical and aesthetic qualities of future developments.
• Maintain low density residential in the airport’s fly zones. New avigation easement(s) will be in place near the airport with height
restrictions per PMC 25.190 Airport Overlay District.
• Airport Overlay District (PMC 25.190) in the City and Franklin County (Chapter 17.76, Airport Zoning) codes - provide for safety,
compatibility zones, use restrictions, and height limitations.
• Maintain land use compatibility to mitigate adverse impacts between different land uses (see Comprehensive Plan Volume II)
• Revised Alternative 3 further reduces the UGA area by 100 acres of agricultural land.
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain compliance with City Zoning Regulations and CAO requirements.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 83
Topics
• Implement rural land protection measures and incentives to make UGAs and planning areas more attractive (e.g., density incentives
and infrastructure investment).
4. 13.5. Environmental Health
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Improve the built environment through designing new structures with safety and hazard maintenance per PMC.
• Maintain and employ emergency management plans for all industrial developments
• Support the preparation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans (SPCC) required for existing facilities and
construction projects, along with timely spill or contamination emergency response measures.
• Support appropriate hazardous waste management through reuse, recycling, and disposal.
• Listed hazardous sites should be subject to ongoing monitoring by Ecology's Hazardous Waste and Toxic Reduction Program.
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. 13.6. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Reductions in traffic congestion through encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as transit and bicycles or walking may
help offset any potential localized increase in emissions. Furthermore, on a regional basis, the EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations
(coupled with ongoing future fleet turnover) should, over time, cause significant reductions in region-wide air quality levels. Ongoing
EPA motor vehicle regulations have caused steady decreases in tailpipe emissions from individual vehicles, and it is possible that
those continuing decreases from individual vehicles could offset the increase in vehicle traffic.
• Air quality regulations require construction contractors to take all reasonable steps to minimize fugitive dust emissions during
construction. These required mitigation measures are designed to reduce localized impacts affecting homes and businesses adjacent
to construction sites.
• Promote transit and other types of transportation that do not contribute to additional air emissions and reduce vehicle traffic.
• Support State and EPA efforts to reduce ozone levels during hot summer days where levels might increase due to limited wind.
• Continue to support hydropower electrical general facilities in the region that do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 84
Topics
4. 13.67. Shoreline Use
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Provide a development buffer at along the Columbia and Snake rivers shoreline using Open Space land use designation
• All shoreline goals and policies, and regulations should be applied for future developments
• No net loss of shoreline ecological functions as a result of new development shall be allowed, consistent with the provisions of the
SMP.
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain compliance with the City SMP and CAO.
4. 13.3.68. Population, Housing and Employment
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Implement SOMOS Pasco economic development strategies.
• Development of agricultural industrial businesses
• Infrastructure development
• Train labor force
• Promote tourism
• Meet housing demand through developing existing planned areas, infill developments, and Development of the UGA
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain compliance with the Washington State GMA requirements.
• The City should consider infill incentives and upzones.
4. 13.3.78. Parks and Recreation
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• Consider ways to provide park or recreation opportunities near urban centers through land use designations.
• As development occurs, incorporating shoreline access may be appropriate to meet future demand for access created by the
development.
• Public access opportunities to the shoreline and other natural features should be considered through integration with the City’s trail
system to the extent practicable.
• Continue park and school impact fees for future developments
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 85
Topics
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Maintain compliance with the Washington State GMA requirements.
• Maintain compliance with the City SMP policies to work with other jurisdictions, property owners, open space groups and interested
parties to develop and implement regional and City parks, recreation, and trails plans and appropriate implementation strategies.
4. 13.3.8.9. Transportation
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• The City will undertake joint efforts with the Washington State Department of Transportation to identify appropriate improvements
at the I-182/Road 68 interchange as well as the I-182/Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd interchange along with appropriate local roadway
improvements to protect and preserve those investments.
• The City will implement travel demand management methodologies identified in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan (2020b)
to limit and manage the demand on and access to the major facilities of I-182 and US 395,
• During construction, the City will work with its development applicants to oversee that appropriate coordination with affected
agencies and property owners occurs upon future development. This includes providing appropriate public notification and detour
routes upon development of its own projects.
• During construction, the City could require construction management plans at the time of development to reduce potential short‐
term impacts.
• To accommodate future population growth projections, the City has planned a roadway network to serve developing areas, and
many of the improvements will be paid for by private development. Identified improvements to transportation networks are
described further in the City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2 - Supporting Analysis (Oneza & Associates, 201720).
• Cooperate with the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments for levels of service,
• The City should consider multi‐modal needs in new corridors and in street standards for when new roadway facilities are constructed.
• Implement the City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in
conjunction with new development.
• Implement land use compatibility that generates traffic along roads with adequate capacity
• City's allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $48M of this would be spent on transportation
improvements.
• Various long term and short term improvements are identified in Table T-10 and T-11 in the Comprehensive Plan Volume II.
• City will continue to require the traffic impact fees from future developments that will be used for future road and other
improvements
---
Integrated Non-project Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 86
Topics
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. 13.3.910. Public Services and Utilities
For Action Alternatives 2 and 3:
• The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the Comprehensive Water System Plan (CWSP), 2019 to
address deficiencies resulting from growth for the planning period.
• The City should continue to implement the improvements described in the City’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP), 2014Plan to
address deficiencies resulting from growth for the planning period.
• To accommodate future population growth, the City should, maintains its services with Basin Disposal Inc..
• In 2019, the City conducted an Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth, UGA
expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in order to accommodate future growth the City will need to make additional
improvements to the West Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional water rights to meet the 2038 demands.
• In 2017 and 2019, the City re-evaluated the capacity and loading requirements of the Northwest Service Area as a result of potential
development demands and growth projects changes as part of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Area (UGA)
expansion. A strategy to provide sewer service to the proposed UGA and other growth areas within the city (Broadmoor Area) was
evaluated and alternatives were identified.
• The 2016 Pasco Emergency Services Master Plan proposes a reconfiguration of stations and an extension of services to the north.
• City allocates $249M budget for Capital improvements in 2020-2025. About $57M would be spent on Sewer System Improvements,
$40M on water, $36M on process water resource facility, $25M on Fire safety, $2M on irrigation and $1M of stormwater.
Other mitigation measures include:
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The City should continue to provide and maintain collection services to all City residents consistent with adopted service levels and
the City’s various public services and utilities plans.
4. 13.3.1011. Heritage Conservation
Mitigation measures include:
• Comply with applicable laws and regulations regarding impacts to cultural resources. Section 106, Executive Order 05-05, and RCW
27.53, among others, require that impacts to cultural resources be mitigated.
• Development should be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 87
Chapter 5. Comments and Responses
5.1. Comments and Responses for Final EIS
Table 14
Comments and Responses for Final EIS
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
1 Port of Pasco 2/18/2020 UGA
Exhibit #A
– CPA2020-
001 - UGA
Port of Pasco is primary economic development
organization within Franklin County. Strong support
for adding industrial land to the Urban Growth Area
to promote economic development and meet GMA
goals.
• Much of the industrial property available in
Pasco/Greater Tri-Cities does not meet
development requirements (20 acres or
greater), nearby utilities, access to
transportation (highway and rail) and for heavy
industry, a buffer from residential property.
• Certain large industrial tracts are unavailable or
very limited in their development. 220 acres of
industrial land at Tri-Cities Airport is in the
runway protection area. 640 acre tract of
industrial land east of the new AutoZone is
owned by the State Dept. of Natural Resources
• Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
recently purchased 165 acres of industrial land
located in the Commercial Avenue area. In
2016, Dept. of Natural Resources acquired 450
acres of industrial property within the UGA near
the Snake River, with no plans to pursue
industrial development.
• Additional industrial land proposed to the UGA
is north of existing industrial development. Land
is already in industrial land use designation
Noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 88
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
within Franklin County.
• Franklin County is net-exporter of talent,
exporting 6% of its workforce each day to
neighboring counties.
• Further reliance on industrial development
distant from workforce housing in Pasco will
further congest roadways. Companies will
locate closer to their workforce if the right land
is available.
2 Withers, Niel 4/3/2020 UGA
Exhibit #B –
CPA2020-
001 UGA
Opposed to the proposed urban growth area
boundary, specifically the area of 2,810 acres north
of Burns Road
The expansion further North will increase the
congestion on RD 68 and its arterial roads of Burden
RD, Sandifur Parkway, RD's 44 and 36, and the
corresponding interchanges of Rd 68 and 100 and
hwy182. The interchange already gets backed up
onto hwy 182 from exit 7 and 9 during evening
commute hours. The already planned expansion
west of RD 100 will further congest that traffic as
well.
Expansion north will also put a strain on city
services, police and fire and rescue. That can
remediated by hiring, buying and building more of
necessary components of personnel Equipment and
trucks. Additional Schools and teachers will be
needed as well. Again more Spending. More bonds,
more taxes to approve, more funding to secure.
Expansions that have already taken place have
brought in increasing number of real estate
Speculators that are building and buying homes to
rent, rather than being affordable for families to
purchase. The number of quick build storage units
The Washington State Office of Financial
Management has indicated that the City of Pasco
will add approximately 48,000 residents between
2018 and 2038. An expansion is necessary to
accommodate the necessary housing and
employment needs of the community. Without an
expansion, existing services, facilities and
neighborhoods would be diluted and/or be over
capacity risking Level of Service requirements.
As the city expands, facilities and utilities (streets,
sewer, water, Stormwater, etc) will be required as
development occurs. The City collects impact feels
for Parks, Schools and Transportation to assist with
the construction of necessary infrastructure.
The City is currently updating various elements of
the Land Use and Zoning/Development Standards
to increase housing density and options to
accommodate a wide-range of community housing
needs. The City was awarded funds for affordable
housing through House Bill 1923 and pursuing a
sales/tax credit through House Bill 1406.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 89
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
can confirm that.
3 TLP (Bob
Tippett)_1 4/9/2020 UGA
Exhibit #C –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• This letter is on behalf of the Thanksgiving
Limited Partnership (TLP). As Managing Partner,
I ask that staff and the planning commission,
reconsider the current Urban Growth Boundary
to include all of the TLP property, as previously
approved in Resolution 3845 dated June 18,
2018.
• TLP owns+/-140 acres of land immediately
adjacent to City limits, and immediately north
of 160 acres recently purchased by the
Confederate Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
The westerly property boundary (approximately
2,000 lineal feet) fronts Capital Avenue. The
land is currently zoned AP-20 and Rural
Residential 5 Acre Tracts.
• Per RCW 36.70A.110, the TLP property is
postured to utilize existing sewer and water
infrastructure available in Capital Avenue. To
include the sewer lift station installed for the
AutoZone project, which we understand, was
adequately sized to accommodate the TLP
property.
• Satisfies a City planning goal as defined in
Appendix Ill of the City's Comprehensive Plan,
under the heading Growth Management
Mandate, which states "Encourage
development of urban areas where adequate
public facilities and services exist or can be
• 2016 Industrial Zoned Land Assessment
indicated that the Tri-Cities region was well
served by existing industrial land supply,
although large parcels are limited.
• The TLP property is currently zoned AP-20 by
Franklin County, and is adjacent to existing
rural/residential development
• RCW 36.70A.110(2) requires the Urban Growth
Area to be based on reasonable assumptions
to accommodate twenty-years of growth
• Coordination with Franklin County necessary
to confirm proposed conversion of land use
and zoning for industrial or commercial use
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 90
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
provided in an efficient manner".
4
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
(Fickes)_1
5/14/2020 UGA
Exhibit #D
– CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• The Property currently is under contract to be
sold to Big Sky Developers, LLC for future
residential development contingent upon the
property being included in Pasco's UGA and
zoned for residential development.
• CPA 2018-03, a proposal to expand the City's
urban growth area, was originally submitted in
June of 2018. The City's original Future Land
Use Map included the Property within the City's
expanded UGA with a land use designation of
Low Density Residential consistent with all the
surrounding property in the area.
• The Olberding Property Should Remain
Designated Low Density Residential and The
City's Proposed Commercial Designation Cannot
be supported.
• Notice of the proposed map change has not
been properly given; The proposed draft,
October 2019 Future Land Use Map proposed
by the City was not properly published and
circulated to affected property owners as
required by applicable law; RCW 36.70A.035;
• Our clients' position is that the March 19
Planning Commission meeting did not meet the
public participation requirements of the Growth
Management Act and SEPA as applied to any
material modifications to the Future Land Use
Map.
• The City's proposed Commercial designation
cannot be supported; Our clients simply believe
that based on GMA goals, the as-built
• The City issued a Scoped EIS during the Fall of
2018 indicating an additional scenario for
evaluation (Compact Growth Target), now
known as Alternative #3; the Scoped EIS
followed SEPA regulations for public comment
• Public review of the Future Land Use (and
Comprehensive Plan) officially began at the
March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission Public
Hearing
• RCW 36.70A.020(2) Reduce Sprawl, the
inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land
into sprawling low-density development shall
be avoided and RCW 36.70A.020(3)
encourages multi-modal and efficient
transportation systems
• Providing lands for job growth, neighborhood
commercial services (retail, business, etc.)
provide existing residential communities
alternative opportunities for commerce
without overloading existing congested
corridors
• Creating neighborhood commercial areas to
accommodate new jobs was identified in the
SOMOS Pasco ((Economic Strategic Vision)
based on stakeholders including
representatives from the Port of Pasco, City of
Pasco, Franklin County, Columbia Basin
College, Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce and Pasco Chamber of Commerce
• Per established Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Policies, Growth Management Act
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 91
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
environment and practical considerations, that
an island of commercially-designated property
is not needed and cannot be supported along
Burns Road in the southwest portion of the
Property.
• First, there is absolutely no evidence in the
record that the City of Pasco's inventory of
commercially-designated and zoned property is
inadequate. As a practical and legal matter,
commercially-designated and zoned property
should be located in and along established
commercial corridors where commercial
property and development already exists, such
as along Road 68 or Broadmoor Boulevard. Our
clients believe that the commercial designation
proposed without notice to the owners or
without any support on the record, violates one
or more of the State's GMA planning goals
including but not limited to the following:
• It fails to encourage development in urban
areas where adequate public; facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient
manner. 36.70A.020(1)
• It fails to encourage efficient transportation
systems coordinated with County and City
Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3)
• It fails to promote the retention or expansion of
existing businesses and recruitment of new
businesses, and fails to encourage such growth
where public services and facilities are
available. RCW 36.70A.020 (5)
• It fails to protect the property rights of
landowners from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions. RCW 36.70A.020 (6).
• It fails to ensure that public facilities and
requirements, staff is not in violation of RCW
36.70A.020(6); providing commercial areas for
residential communities to access is
appropriate and responsible planning
• Public facilities, services, utilities and levels of
service have been identified within the
Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Facilities
Analysis for the Expansion of the Urban
Growth Area
• Specific zoning designations will not be applied
until a formal annexation process begins; The
City will not approve heavy/intensive
commercial zoning adjacent to residential and
public (school) sites
• Burns Road would require necessary
improvements to be completed as
development occurs, including capacity and
safety upgrades and right-of-way dedications
when properties are developed meeting
requirements of RCW 36.70A.110(13)
• Current commercial land allocations have
limited the city's ability to provide commercial
jobs, services and related activities. Added
commercial designations were recommended
by the SOMOS Pasco effort identified by the
Port of Pasco, City and Franklin County. The
commercial designation at this specific
property will provide nearby residential
housing with opportunities without forcing
additional and longer travel to existing
shopping areas adding additional congestion
onto Road 68, Sandifur and Burden Blvd.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 92
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
services necessary to support the commercial
development will be adequate. RCW
36.70A.020 (12).
• The 80-acres immediately east of the Property
recently has been sold to the Pasco School
District for a future high school site, which use
would be inconsistent with any type of more
intensive commercial use. Last and most
importantly, the entire area (north, south, east
and west) is designated Low Density Residential
and already supports significant low-density
residential development.
• Burns Road is not a commercial collector
arterial and is inadequate to handle any type of
commercial traffic. Burns Road does not even
have the needed right-of-way and is not
connected west, to Road 68. GMA mandates
recognize that urban growth should first occur
in areas already characterized by urban growth
that have adequate existing public facilities and
capacities to serve the development. RCW
36.70A.110(3).
• A simple review of the proposed Future Land
Use Map shows this small 30-acre Commercial
designation to be in effect an illegal spot zone
inconsistent with the surrounding community.
In north Pasco, commercially designated
properties should remain around established
commercial collector arterials such as
Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68 and should
not be located in isolated residential
communities.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 93
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
5 Futurewise
(Alison Cable) 5/19/2020 UGA
Exhibit #E –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• Urban growth areas help keep our existing cities
and towns vibrant and economically desirable;
This reduces the tendency to move out of
existing center cities such as the City of Pasco
• In our August 2018 letter, we concurred with
Franklin County and the Department of
Commerce, that the expansion was oversized.
Our recommendations were that the gross
acreage reflect a reasonable market supply
factor, incorporate an estimate of the
redevelopable land in the existing UGA, and
include the full capacity of the West
Pasco/Broadmoor Development Master Plan of
over 8,000 housing units in the capacity
calculations.
• Noted
• The proposed Alternative 3 reflects a revised
and reduced boundary based on 2018
comments from multiple agencies and a
detailed analysis by the City.
6 Futurewise
(Alison Cable) 5/19/2020 UGA
Exhibit #E –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
Support Pasco's work to explore opportunities to
expand development within the existing UGA,
including but not limited to, actions eligible for
support under HB 1923
• Allowing more homes in existing neighborhoods
through backyard cottages, duplexes, triplexes,
and courtyard apartments.
• Retrofitting existing neighborhoods to be more
walkable and have the densities and mix of
zoning to support local businesses and more
frequent transit in order to promote
environmental and community health benefits
and reduces traffic congestion.
• Making zoning changes, paired with proper
infrastructure like sidewalks, that facilitate
opportunities for restaurant and retail uses that
are comfortably and safely accessible by
walking and biking from nearby homes.
• Creating opportunities for townhouse and
apartment zoning integrated throughout the
• Noted
• House Bill 1923 efforts underway through the
Pasco Planning Commission
• Local Road Safety Plan conducted in 2020
evaluated transportation safety projects
including Complete Street opportunities
• Ongoing Transportation System Master Plan
will have emphasis on street connectivity,
standards and opportunities to increase
mobility opportunities
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 94
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
city on quiet, slow moving residential streets
that are safer for children rather than limiting
these uses to the edges of major arterials and
the area adjacent to the airport flight path.
• Identifying a path to annexation of the existing
'donut hole' of unincorporated areas inside the
city boundaries. We would like to offer our
support in advocacy with the state to address
barriers and costs related to annexing the
'donut hole' communities. These challenges are
similar to those faced by unincorporated urban
areas across the state.
• Reinvesting in historic downtown Pasco.
7 Futurewise
(Alison Cable) 5/19/2020 UGA
Exhibit #E –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• We are concerned about the loss of agricultural
land of long-term commercial significance and if
an expansion is needed, the city should
consider alternatives expanding onto rural, non-
agricultural land.
• We are concerned about the UGA expansion at
the end of in the airport and under the flight
path both because of its impact on airport
operations and future expansion capacity and
because of the impact on future residents living
below the flight path.
• If an urban growth expansion is needed,
determine how public facilities and services will
be provided and funded. Will they be addressed
in the updated transportation, capital facility,
and utility elements? Will taxpayers in existing
Pasco neighborhoods end up subsidizing the
public facilities and services in these new
neighborhoods?
Response to agricultural land of long-term
commercial significance is addressed in comment
response #68.
See response to comment # 63 for airport area
land use.
Refer to the Capital Facilities Plan for the UGA.
Financing of capital facilities includes various street
funds, utility fees, grants and LIDs - mostly to be
paid by the development.
8
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
Our office represents Big Sky Developers, LLC that
currently has under contract for purchase
and residential development approximately 100
• Resolution 3845 (approved June 2018) was not
formally submitted to Franklin County; the
Urban Growth Area Application was
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 95
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
(Fickes)_2 acres of prime residential development
property owned by Ms. Debra Kohler overlooking
the Columbia River. The Property originally was
slated for inclusion in Pasco's proposed UGA
expansion currently being considered by the City of
Pasco ("City" or Pasco") and its Planning
Commission as part of its required periodic review
of its Comprehensive Plan. The City's original
application that included the Kohler Property within
its UGA was submitted to Franklin County and its
Planning Commission under CPA 2018-03.
• Following limited public comment, the City
apparently withdrew or modified its original
UGA expansion application and has scoped
three alternative proposals in a draft
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) recently
issued for its proposed UGA expansion;
Alternative #3 was developed without specific
notice to our client and without the input of
affected property owners, and without
substantial input from the Pasco development
community.
• The Property owner Debra Kohler and the
developer, Big Sky both strongly support the
inclusion of the Property within the City's new
UGA. The Property is located immediately
adjacent to the City's existing UGA overlooking
the Columbia River, is designated primarily
Rural Shoreline Development under the
County's Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RC-1
and AP-20. Urban level residential development
already exists north and south of the proposed
Property.
withdrawn so that the City could conduct
additional analyses and evaluations, and
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
on the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth
Area impact
• Scoped EIS issued in the Fall of 2018 indicated
a third Alternative (#3) be created and
evaluated, focused on compact urban growth
• Public review of the Urban Growth Area began
at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission
Public Hearing, Revisions of the Urban Growth
Area through the Scoped EIS started in Fall
2019. The Urban Growth Area has been a
workshop item for the Pasco Planning
Commission and City Council nine separate
occasions referencing a reduced UGA was
likely
• Property is located one mile north of existing
Urban Growth Area Boundary, residential to
the north is rural development at less than 2
du/acre while residential development to the
south is higher at 2.7 du/acre
9 Halvorson
Northwest Law 5/20/2020 UGA Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
The Kohler Property Should be Included in Pasco's
UGA and Should be Designated Low Density
Per RCW 36.70A.020(2) Reduce the inappropriate
conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 96
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Group
(Fickes)_2
001 - UGA Residential Under its Comprehensive Plan. low-density development, the proposed expansion
of the Urban Growth Area to include the site would
be in violation. Expected population as determined
in the Land Capacity Analysis can be
accommodated within a reduced boundary as
shown in Alternative 3.
The Site is not within the study area for City of
Pasco Comprehensive Sewer Plan Addendum
(2020)
The Scoping notice of EIS, issued in Fall 2018
indicted a revised and reduced alternative (#3)
would be added to the boundaries considered.
10
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
(Fickes)_2
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• Notice of the new proposed map change and
draft EIS has not been properly given. The
proposed draft, October 2019 Future Land Use
Map proposed by the City (which provided the
basis for "Alternative #3" in the draft EIS) was
not properly published and circulated to
affected property owners as required by
applicable law. Washington law is clear that
county or city actions to change an amendment
to a comprehensive plan triggers a statutory
mandate for SEPA compliance, for public review
and comment and robust public participation.
RCW 36.70A.035.
• Our client's position is that prior Planning
Commission meetings, including the one that
occurred on March 19, did not meet the public
participation requirements of the Growth
Management Act and SEPA
• All maps have been identified as “Draft” as a
final map will not be available until formal
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and
Urban Growth Area Expansion
• Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and
Urban Growth Area were sent to property
owners in February, April and May 2020 and
published on the Public Notice of the City
Website meeting requirements of RCW
36.70A.035
11
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• As the City recognized when originally
submitting its UGA expansion application (now
Alternative #2), an expanded UGA of up to
• Alternative #2 did not include a Land Capacity
Analysis and did not incorporate
redevelopment, infill and updated zoning
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 97
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
(Fickes)_2 4,700 acres was warranted by OFM population
growth projections.
• Washington's GMA generally recognizes that
urban growth areas and urban growth should
encompass areas first already characterized by
urban growth that have adequate existing
public facilities and service capacities, and
second in areas already characterized by urban
growth that will be served by existing and
additional public facilities and services. RCW
36.70A.110(3)
• Most of the Property is not designated or
suitable as agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance, and the Property
owner is in the process of terminating all
agricultural operations due to economic
conditions.
regulations
• Urban Growth Area shall only include areas
and densities necessary to permit urban
growth for a twenty-year period
(RCW36.70A.110(2))
12
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
(Fickes)_2
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
Inclusion of the Kohler Property into the City's UGA
also is consistent with multiple state GMA planning
goals including but not limited to the following:
• It encourages development in urban areas
where adequate public facilities and services
exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
RCW 36.70A.020(1 )
• It encourages efficient transportation systems
coordinated with County and City
Comprehensive Plans. RCW 36.70A.020(3).
• It encourages economic developments
consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans
and encourages growth in areas already
experiencing economic growth where public
services and facilities can be provided. RCW
36.70A.020(5).
• It protects the property rights of landowners
from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. RCW
• Public facilities are not identified in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan, or ongoing Amendment
of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan
• Low-density residential development prohibits
the use of public transportation and does not
support multi-modal transportation or
efficient systems per RCW 36.70A0.020(3)
• Inclusion is not consistent with the draft
Comprehensive Plan or ongoing
studies/planning efforts
• The City is not in violation of
RCW36.70A.020(6) and is not proposing any
use of the property, the site would be under
the provisions of Franklin County
• RCW 36.70A.020(9)(10)(12) are not supported
or met with inclusion of the property within
the Urban Growth Area
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 98
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
36.70A.020(6).
• It would help protect and preserve open space
and the environment by limiting groundwater
use in hydraulic continuity with the Columbia
River and limiting onsite sewage disposal
systems. RCW 36.70A.020(9) and (10).
• It ensures public facilities and services
necessary to support development will be
adequate. RCW 36.70A.020(12).
13
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
(Fickes)_2
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• UGA inclusion increases the likelihood that it
will be done with City water and sewer which is
more protective of the environment and which
would allow infill development to occur.
The site is currently located one mile north of the
existing Urban Growth Area the Growth
Management Act
14
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
(Fickes)_2
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• Inclusion of the Kohler Property also is entirely
consistent with many specific goals and policies
of the Land Use elements of the City's draft
Comprehensive Plan (02-24-2020), especially
those in its housing element.
• Meets the proposed land use goal to plan for a
variety of compatible land uses within the City's
urban growth area which includes a specific
policy to ensure that adequate public services
are provided within a reasonable time frame.
LU-2-C
• Proposed policy LU-2-F discourages
developments dependent on septic systems
and at densities below minimums to sustain
urban level services.
Prior to meeting established goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan, the city must meet the
requirements of delineating an appropriate Urban
Growth Area per RCW 36.70A.110. Expected
population growth can be accommodated within a
reduced boundary as shown in Alternative 3.
15
Halvorson
Northwest Law
Group
(Fickes)_2
5/20/2020 UGA
Exhibit #F –
CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• The inclusion of the Kohler Property also is
consistent with the City's draft proposed Capital
Facilities and Water Comprehensive Plans.
• Extending City water one-half mile north along
Dent Road would provide access to City water
mains for perhaps as much as 420 acres of
adjacent undeveloped land
• The Capital Facilities Analysis for the Urban
Growth Area does not include this property
• RCW36.70A.020(9) and (10) both encourage
the preservation and conservation of the
natural environment including shorelines and
natural habitat areas
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 99
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
• Even if the City elects to reduce its proposed
UGA size, the Kohler Property because of its
location along the river and the availability of
public infrastructure should be included as a
unique 100- acre Property clearly slated for
urban level growth within the next 20 years.
16 TLP (Bob
Tippett)_2 5/21/2020 UGA
Exhibit #G
– CPA2020-
001 - UGA
• In June 2018, inclusion of the 120 TLP acres was
approved by resolution.
• In March TLP was notified with no prior
discussion that the UGB had been revised to
include only 40 aces of the 120 acres originally
approved in Resolution 3845.
• Noted; Resolution 3845 (June 2018) was
approved but a formal application to Franklin
County was withdrawn/postponed
• Scoping notice of EIS (Fall 2018) indicated an
additional UGA Alternative (#3) focused on a
Compact Growth Target in compliance with
the Growth Management Act and in response
to public comments received
17 TLP (Bob
Tippett)_2 5/21/2020 UGA
Exhibit #G
– CPA2020-
001 - UGA
TLP requests that the City re-consider including the
entire 80 acre tax parcel in the UGA for this reason.
• Noted
• Evaluation underway for potential impacts
associated with including additional AP-20
from the County into the Urban Growth Area
• Consideration of existing and planned
development of adjacent properties is
underway
19 Stromstad,
Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Public Comment period for 2018 UGA #2 not
sufficient for UGA #3
• Noted
• Public comment period included two Planning
Commission Public Hearings spanning over 115
days
20 Stromstad,
Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Requests PC to ask Council to consider comments
from developers
• Noted
• Public Hearings provided comment
opportunity for the public, and private
stakeholders
21 Stromstad,
Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Olberding Property; commercial allocated to
artificially manipulate traffic study
• Comprehensive Plans are required to include a
Transportation Element which addresses
Demand-Management Strategies (RCW
36.70A.070(6)(vi) and encouragement of
community access (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(vii)
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 100
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
• The Washington State Department of
Transportation identifies land-use zoning
supportive of transit/multi-modal travel as a
strategy of Transportation Demand
Management and Practical Solution via their
2019-2023 TDM Strategic Plan
• The Travel Demand Forecast must be
consistent with the Regional Travel Demand
Model assumptions (policy and land-use) of
the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(Benton-Franklin Council of Governments)
• Assumptions (inputs) for Regional Travel
Demand Modeling undergo rigorous
evaluations via the MPO Board and Technical
Advisory Committee and include stakeholders
from jurisdictions and public agencies
• Land Use diversity is generally regarded and
supported as a responsible, practical and
beneficial consideration as indicated by the US
Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration and Environmental
Protection Agency
22 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
20-30% of UGA properties do not want to sell
(develop)
• Noted
• Property owner reserve rights to sell and/or
develop
23 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Kohler Property should be included in UGA
• The site is currently located one mile north of
the existing Urban Growth Area and identified
as leap-frog development violating the Growth
Management Act (PSC/JG)
24 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Want to bring city water to Burns / Kohler Road /
Dent
• The site is currently located one mile north of
the existing Urban Growth Area violating the
Growth Management Act
25 Greeno, Dave 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Olberding Property should be residential, not
commercial
Request noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 101
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
26 Dockstader,
George 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Concerned about traffic on Road 68; Road 68 should
be 5 lanes to Clark Road
• Expansion and improvements of
infrastructure, including transportation
roadways will be required as development
occurs and as identified in PMC 12.36
(Concurrency)
• Capacity improvements on Road 68 are
planned via requirements ROW dedications as
development occurs
27 Dockstader,
George 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
BPA Power Line on Olberding Property
• Noted
• Applicants are required to obtain necessary
permits and or/permissions prior to
development of property
28 Dockstader,
George 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
20% of proposed UGA (both sides of RD 68 (farmer))
will not develop
Noted
29 Dockstader,
George 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Supports Alternative #2
Noted
30
Dockstader,
George 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Alterative #3 is too compact; Avg buyer wants 3 car
garage + RV/Boat, not small lots
RCW36.70A.020 (GMA Planning Goals) require
Comprehensive Plan to reduce sprawl, concentrate
urban growth and support multi-modal
transportation and efficient systems
A 1.95 (Autos per HH) per the 2015 American
Community Survey was utilized
The Comprehensive Plan aims to create housing
choices for all segments of population in Pasco.
Land uses will allow housing types ranging from
single family homes in a relatively lower density to
medium density. It will also allow other housing
types such as townhomes, condominiums,
apartments, etc. These will allow homes available
for purchase by first time home buyers, single
occupants, families, retirees, empty nesters etc.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 102
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
31 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Gave easement to Port of Pasco in UGA #2, was not
notified on UGA #3
• Noted
• Scoping notice of the EIS (Fall 2018) indicated
an additional UGA Alternative (#3) focused on
a Compact Growth Target in compliance with
the Growth Management Act
32 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Sold land to PSD; commercial land will not be
supported; Kau Trail Road is not up to standard
• Noted
• 38% of residential growth and housing is
expected to occur in the expanded Urban
Growth Area
• Additional Commercial Land Use is necessary
to accommodate job growth and services
required by added growth
• Improvements to the transportation system
are required as development occurs; Kau Trail
and any impacted existing or planned
roadways will be evaluated and improved to
not fall below established regional Level of
Service Standards
33 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Traffic implications; improvements needed
• Expansion and improvements of
infrastructure, including transportation
roadways will be required as development
occurs and as identified in PMC 12.36
(Concurrency)
34 Olberding, Fred 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
People will not travel to commercial designation on
Olberding property
• Noted
• Providing additional commercial land use
within closer proximity to existing residential
and planned residential growth will increase
opportunities for households to access goods
and services
• A mix of land-uses is also supportive of RCW
36.70A.108 (Transportation Element) which
requires Comprehensive Plans to include and
promote multi-modal transportation options
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 103
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
35 Mullen, Randy 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Owns property along RD 68, has a buyer ready to
develop to commercial (Health facility)
Noted; Staff updating Future Land Use designation
for this area
36 Bauman, Steve 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Who defines what is inappropriate conversion of ag
lands to sprawling low density development
See responses to comment # 68
37 Bauman, Steve 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Did EIS ask for public comment
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was
issued on May 15, 2020. The public comment
period was extended through July 31, 2020.
Bauman, Steve 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Developers/Real estate have a stake, and must be
included in process
Noted.
Members of the public, including private
developers and real-estate professionals are able
to participate and provide feedback and/or
comments via the normally scheduled public
hearings for all items related to the Comprehensive
Plan, Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact
Statement and Urban Growth Area application.
38 Laird, Charles 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Not informed about decision to remove partial
property out of the UGA
Scoping notice of the EIS (Fall 2018) indicated an
additional UGA Alternative (#3) focused on a
Compact Growth Target in compliance with the
Growth Management Act
Met with applicant in February 2020 and phone
discussion with applicant in April discussing UGA
revisions
39 Laird, Charles 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Requests all 120 acres from Alt #2 to be included in
Alt #3
Noted
40 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Alt #3 has not had adequate public participation in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.035
• Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and
Urban Growth Area were sent to property
owners in February, April and May 2020 and
published on the Public Notice of the City
Website meeting requirements of RCW
36.70A.035
• Public review of the Urban Growth Area began
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 104
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission
Public Hearing, the Urban Growth Area has
been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning
Commission and City Council nine separate
occasions referencing a reduced UGA was
likely
41 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
PC Hearing should not have occurred until after EIS
comment period ended
• Comprehensive Plan DEIS comment period
was extended through July 31, 2020. An action
by the Pasco City Council will not occur prior to
the issuance of a final EIS.
42 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Olberding Property; no evidence of 30 acres should
be commercial not residential; no demand for it;
Burns Road is not arterial; remove c-designation;
violates various GMA;
• Opportunities for commercial lands necessary
to provide access to future neighborhood
businesses, services, retail,
food/accommodation services
• 75% of residents living in Pasco travel to
employment outside of the City Limits (per
Census LODES 2017)
• Lack of commercial within the City may add to
congestion and vehicle miles/hours traveled
on arterials and Interstate Systems and would
not meet RCW 36.70A.020(3)
43 Fickes, Mark 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Kohler; 104 acres of "prime" residential; client
thought it was going to be included; property is
ready to be developed; owner does not to farm
See response to comment #42
44 Port of Pasco;
Randy Hayden 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Supports Alternative #3
Noted
45 Stromstad,
Caleb 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Kohler property, developer will extend water;
requests PC to review submitted letters
• Public facilities are not identified in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan, or ongoing Amendment
of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan
46 Dockstader,
George 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
No real-estate, HBA, developers/land owners
allowed to comment since 2018
• Public review of the Urban Growth Area began
at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission
Public Hearing. The Urban Growth Area has
been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning
Commission and City Council multiple times
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 105
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
(from 2018 to 2020) referencing a reduced
UGA was likely
• The City has not restricted comments from any
individuals, agencies, organizations or
associations
47 PC - Myhrum 5/21/2020 UGA
Verbal
Comment
@ 5/21 PC
Are tailored/custom modifications allowed to Land
Use, are they based on capacity?
• Modifications to the Land Use designations are
allowed and conducted annually through the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
outlined in PMC 25.215.020
48 Kenricks, Terri 6/8/2020 Comp
Plan
Social
Media
Comment
(FB) @ 6/8
Council WS
Update on cannabis sales
• Marijuana production, processing and retail
sales are prohibited per Ordinance 4166
passed by the Pasco City Council on July 21,
2014
49 Wright-
Mockler, Dylan 6/8/2020 Comp
Plan
Social
Media
Comment
(FB) @ 6/8
Council WS
What is being done to ensure commercial areas and
parks are within safe/walkable areas for residents?
• The Future Land Use Map has indicated
increased diversity of land use and
public/quasi-public spaces in the expanded
Urban Growth Area
• The City already has a complete street
standard in place that promotes walkability
• The City is evaluating ongoing and future
amendments to the zoning code and
development standards to increase walkable,
efficient and multi-modal opportunities safe
and accessible for all users and modes
50 Martin, Joni 6/8/2020 Comp
Plan
Social
Media
Comment
(FB) @ 6/8
Council WS
Please discuss planned city-owned parks that break
up the long wall lined corridors that are already
prevalent in the Broadmoor development area and
along Sandifur and Burden. Please break up large
tracts of single family homes with pockets of multi-
use mult-family and commercial spaces. Open
spaces with trees and parks and play spaces like
Volunteer Park and Chiawana Park are vital to
building community in these new areas
• The City has ongoing Code Amendments to the
Pasco Municipal Code to address comments
• Code Amendment: 2019-013 Street
Connectivity
• Code Amendment: 2020-001 and 2020-002 for
“missing middle” housing
• House Bill 1406 and House Bill 1923: City was
successful in applying and receiving funding to
address affordable housing and missing middle
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 106
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
housing to increase residential building
capacities
51
Confederated
Tribes of the
Colville
Reservation
6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H -
DEIS/UGA
Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 4 (page 54):
Please strike the following language: "Pasco is in the
traditional territory of the Yakama Nation, a
Sahaptin-speaking Plateau people (Walker 1998).
Wanapum and Walla Walla people also used the
area (Kersher 2008)." We offer the following
language as a substitute: "Pasco is in the traditional
territory of the Palus tribe, a constituent tribe of the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. It is
also in the 1855 ceded lands of the Yakama Nation,
additionally the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids and
the Walla Walla tribe also utilized the area
extensively. All are Sahaptin-speaking Plateau
people."
Update as suggested
52
Confederated
Tribes of the
Colville
Reservation
6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H -
DEIS/UGA
Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 8 (page 55):
Please strike the following language: "Fourteen
tribes and bands signed the Yakama Nation Treaty
of 1855 that established the Yakama Indian
Reservation (Yakima Nation Museum [YNM] 20 l l ).
The same year, the Wa1la Walla tribe signed the
Treaty of Walla Walla, which established the
Umati1la Indian Reservation in Oregon, and many
Walla Walla (and some Yakama) tribal members
moved to there."
Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 107
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
53
Confederated
Tribes of the
Colville
Reservation
6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H -
DEIS/UGA
Pasco Cultural History, Paragraph 10 (page 55):
Please amend the following sentence by adding the
language in italics: "The general Tri-Cities region as a
whole is within territory inhabited traditionally by
Native people represented today by the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, and the Wanapum Band of Priest
Rapids.
Update as suggested
54
Confederated
Tribes of the
Colville
Reservation
6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H -
DEIS/UGA
Recorded Cultural Resources (page 55): Please
amend the following sentence by adding the
language in italics: Many archaeological sites, Native
American traditional places, and historical structures
related to the area's cultural history have been
recorded in the City."
Update as suggested
55
Confederated
Tribes of the
Colville
Reservation
6/1/2020 DEIS Exhibit #H -
DEIS/UGA
Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Review,
Paragraph 3 (page 56): Please strike the following
sentence "The 13 sites within the one-mile radius
contain an array of litchis, shell, burials, irrigation
pipes, and one was designated as a field camp". We
offer the following language as a replacement:
"Native American burials are identified within this
radius." There are also archaeological shell deposits,
irrigation features, and an archaeological camp.
Update as suggested
56 Halverson_Fick
esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I -
DEIS/UGA
• From comments made at the last Planning
Commission hearing on May 21, 2020 (in which
this office and client representatives actively
participated), it is clear that City Staff is
advocating for the adoption of Alternative #3
summarized in the DEIS without change.
• Our clients are and continue to be opposed to
the suggestion by City Staff and its consultants
that there should be a 30-acre commercial
development in the middle of a low-density
• Requested (Land Use) change noted
• Providing lands for job growth, neighborhood
commercial services (retail, business, etc)
provide existing residential communities
alternative opportunities for commerce
without overloading existing congested
corridors
• Creating neighborhood commercial areas to
accommodate new jobs was identified in the
SOMOS Pasco ((Economic Strategic Vision)
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 108
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
residential area next to a future school site.
• Our clients continue to request that the entire
80-acre parcel of property within the City's
proposed UGA remain designated Low Density
Residential and not Commercial as proposed by
Staff.
based on stakeholders including
representatives from the Port of Pasco, City of
Pasco, Franklin County, Columbia Basin
College, Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce and Pasco Chamber of Commerce
• Per established Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Policies, Growth Management Act
requirements, staff is not in violation of RCW
36.70A.020(6); providing commercial areas for
residential communities to access is
appropriate and responsible planning
57 Halverson_Fick
esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I -
DEIS/UGA
• As an initial matter, this office and our client is
concerned about the Planning Commission's
practice of limiting public comments on the
City's UGA to 3 minutes. We believe this
violates the spirit and intent of the GMA which
is "early and continuous" public participation in
the process. RCW 36.70A.140.
• The Planning Commission and City as a legal
matter should not have held hearings on
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Alternative #3
until the comment period on the DEIS had
expired.
• It is axiomatic under SEPA that governmental
action should not be taken or finalized until the
impacts of any proposal are complete.
• Alternative #3, which included a smaller UGA
boundary and different designations was not
finally developed until the DEIS was published
on May 15, 2020.
• The Washington State Open Public Meetings
Act (RCW 42.30) allows the authority (Planning
Commission) to limit the time of speakers to a
uniform amount
• Concerns Noted
• Council Action on the urban growth area
change has been revised to follow after the
issuance of the Final EIS of the Comprehensive
Plan
58 Halverson_Fick
esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I -
DEIS/UGA
• This office and numerous client representatives
credibly testified that the Property owner or
builder/developer associations were not
contacted about the significant changes
between Alternative #2 and #3
• Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and
Urban Growth Area were sent to property
owners in February, April and May 2020 and
published on the Public Notice of the City
Website meeting requirements of RCW
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 109
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
36.70A.035
59 Halverson_Fick
esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I -
DEIS/UGA
• There is no demand or support for a
commercial island on 30 acres of our clients'
property
• The Property could not be economically
developed for commercial use
• Commercial designation is inconsistent with
GMA goals
• Property is surrounded by existing residential
and planned increased residential growth
• Opportunities for commercial lands necessary
to provide access to future neighborhood
businesses, services, retail,
food/accommodation services
• Growth Management Goals (RCW 36.70A.020)
require Concentrated Urban Growth and the
Reduction of Sprawl, particularly reducing the
conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, low-density development
• SOMOS Pasco, the Greater Pasco Area
Economic Strategic Vision (2017) indicated an
interest and priority to increase consumer
services by creating planned retail and
specialty services/centers accessible to
residential neighborhoods and communities
60 Halverson_Fick
esM_Olberding 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I -
DEIS/UGA
• Notice of the New Commercial Designation
Affecting Only the Olberding Property was not
Properly Given.
• Our clients were not provided the legal notices
required by due process and the GMA. Under
the GMA, local governments are required to
provide both "early and continuous public
participation in the development and
amendment of comprehensive land use pans"
(RCW 36.70A.140)
• The notice provided must be "reasonably
calculated to provide notice to property owners
and others affected (RCW 36.70A.035).
• Notices of the Draft Future Land Use Map and
Urban Growth Area were sent to property
owners in February, April and May 2020 and
published on the Public Notice of the City
Website meeting requirements of RCW
36.70A.035
• Public review of the Urban Growth Area began
at the March 19th, 2020 Planning Commission
Public Hearing. The Urban Growth Area has
been a workshop item for the Pasco Planning
Commission and City Council multiple times
(from 2018 to 2019) referencing a reduced
UGA was likely
61
• The Proposed Commercial Designation is Illegal
and Violates GMA
• On our client's property, there is only a demand
Comprehensive Plan DEIS comment period
extended through July 31, 2020. An action by the
Pasco City Council will not occur prior to the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 110
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
and potential for residential development, not
commercial development.
comment period ends
62
• The Planning Commission, and Other GMA
Decision Makers Clearly Have the Power to
Modify Alternative #3
• At the Planning Commission hearing, our office
was concerned with Planning Staff suggestions
that changes to proposed Alternative #3 should
not (or cannot) be made or considered. This
simply is incorrect.
• Noted
• PMC 2.45.040 provides powers and duties of
the Pasco Planning Commission (PSC/JG)
63 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Do not plan increased residential around Tri-Cities
Airport; Limits future expansion of airport runway;
new residential will be impacted by airport
noise/flights; long range airport operations will
become difficult with adjacent residential
development
The City is proposing the site in question (Parcel
#114250016) to have two Land Uses – Low Density
Residential (approx. 80%) and Airport Reserve
(approx. 20%). The City is working with the
property owner to preserve the Airport Reserve
Area to be in strict compliance with the Airport
Overlay Zones per Pasco Municipal Code
25.190.090
The Site will be regulated by Zone 2 and Zone 4
standards which limit residential densities and
permitted uses. The Low Density Residential Land
Use can be applied with a Planned Unit
Development which requires 15% open space.
The City intends to coordinate any development of
this site with the Port of Pasco, the Washington
State Department of Transportation and other
stakeholders of aviation.
64 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Include compact urban growth areas with amenities,
natural resource lands
• Noted
• Alternative #3 increased residential and
commercial land mix, specifically
accommodating appropriate residential
densities
• The agricultural lands within the identified
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 111
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
UGA areas, while not of long-term commercial
significance, can remain under cultivation until
such time that they are brought into the City.
65 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Design walkable neighborhoods with densities and
mix of zoning to support local businesses and safe
streets, bike lanes and frequent transit supporting
environmental and community health, reduce traffic
congestion
• Noted
• Planning Department has numerous code
amendments underway and planned to
address increased residential densities,
creating additional mixed-use areas and
corridors to support multi-modal
transportation and walkable communities
• The Transportation System Master Plan is
expected to be completed by Spring 2021
• See response to comment #49 above. Traffic
has been analyzed and improvements have
been proposed. See Transportation Element of
the Comprehensive Plan and maps T-1 through
T-11 in Appendix A of the Comprehensive Plan.
66 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Provide long-term capital facilities plan to ensure
that existing tax payers in Pasco do not subsidize
new neighborhoods
• See response to comment # 7 above
• The Capital Facilities Plan for the Urban
Growth Area Expansion also included an
Expanded Infrastructure Evaluation identifying
projects, costs and sources of funding for
associated facility improvements
• The Comprehensive Plan includes the Capital
Facilities Element identifying a short and long-
range project lists with costs, sources of
revenue, funding and fees
67 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Reinvestment in neighborhoods and businesses;
Downtown Pasco
• The City continues to work with and provide
monetary support to the Downtown Pasco
Development Authority
• The City coordinates economic development
efforts with the Port of Pasco
• The SOMOS Pasco effort was included in the
Comprehensive Plan to reference identified
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 112
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
priorities and strategies to increase economic
development opportunities, investments and
support to Downtown Pasco and the general
Pasco area
68 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Proposed UGA expansion paves over working farms
designated by Franklin County as agricultural lands
of long-term commercial significance
• Both alternatives 2 and 3 would impact
existing lands under cultivation, however
neither alternative 2 or 3 UGA areas would
affect Franklin County-designated agricultural
lands of long-term significance.
• The areas identified are classified by the
County as Rural Residential, Rural Shoreline or
Agriculture, a more general designation that
includes both lands of long-term commercial
significance and those that are not.
• In the area identified for alternatives 2 and 3,
the County map does not show the County-
designated prime irrigated, prime dryland or
Fields with Quincy soils (i.e., agricultural lands
of long-term commercial significance). We
have also confirmed this understanding with
the County that the alternatives do not impact
County-designated agricultural lands of long-
term commercial significance.
69 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Proposed UGA expansions will interfere with future
expansions of the Tri-Cities Airport and bring
residences closer to the airport, making operations
more difficult and adversely impacting new
residents
See response to comment # 63.
70 Futurewise 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #J -
UGA
Draft EIS does not comply with SEPA and the City
cannot amend the Comprehensive Plan to select a
UGA expansion until a SEPA compliant Final EIS is
prepared (WAC197-11-070(1))
• The Public Comment period for the Draft EIS
was extended through July 31, 2020
• Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and
Urban Growth Area have been revised to meet
requirements of WAC 197-11-070(1)
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 113
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
71 Saget, Pierre 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #K -
UGA
• Protect agricultural lands and do not expand
into farmlands;
• Do not plan for increased residential
development around the Tri-Cities Airport;
• Ensure compact UGA that are well designed and
well furnished with amenities;
• Design walkable neighborhoods, with densities
and a mix of zoning to support local businesses
and safe streets with bike lanes and frequent
transit to promote environmental/community
health and reduce congestion;
• Provide long-term Capital Facilities Plan that
will ensure that existing tax payers do not
subsidize new development;
• Reinvest in existing neighborhoods and
business; Downtown Pasco
• Noted
• The Implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan will identify a series of existing, planned
and future development regulation
modifications to ensure compliance with the
Growth Management Acts Planning Goals
including the protection of public facilities,
environment, land use and zoning and multi-
modal transportation impacts.
• Farmland – Farmlands are not designated as
agricultural lands of long term commercial
significance. Some farmlands would be
impacted to accommodate future growth.
However, development will not occur in the
immediate future, and property owners will be
able to continue farming until such land is
annexed to the City.
• Airport – See response to Comment 63
• Compact UGA – Alternative 3 has been
developed to provide a compact development
scenario. Also the Capital Facilities Plan for the
UGA indicates public facilities and
improvements needed.
• Walkable neighborhood – see comment
response # 49
• Existing tax payers – see comment response #
7
• The Economic Development Element of the
Comprehensive Plan focusses on improving
existing businesses including downtown
businesses.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 114
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
72 Nelson, Lisa 6/18/2020 UGA Exhibit #L -
UGA
Protect agricultural lands and do not expand into
farmlands; Do not plan for increased residential
development around the Tri-Cities Airport; Ensure
compact UGA that are well designed and well
furnished with amenities; Design walkable
neighborhoods, with densities and a mix of zoning
to support local businesses and safe streets with
bike lanes and frequent transit to promote
environmental/community health and reduce
congestion; Provide long-term Capital Facilities Plan
that will ensure that existing tax payers do not
subsidize new development; Reinvest in existing
neighborhoods and business; Downtown Pasco
See comment response #71 above
73 Sanchez, M 6/18/2020 UGA Exhibit #M
- UGA
Please plan for complete, connected and walkable
neighborhoods
• Planning Department has numerous code
amendments underway and planned to
address increased residential densities,
creating additional mixed-use areas and
corridors to support multi-modal
transportation and walkable communities
• The Transportation System Master Plan is
expected to be completed by Spring 2021
• Street Connectivity Code Amendment is
currently going through the public hearing
process, anticipated Council action in the Fall
2020
74 Spokkeland,
Jon 6/17/2020 UGA Exhibit #N -
UGA
Too much commercial lands designated in
Alternative #3; Current market requires 15 acres of
commercial for every 1k households; Future
demand for commercial space may be lower due to
shirt to online retail; Favors Alt #3 with reduced
commercial
• Noted
• Franklin County has significantly smaller Jobs
to Households balance, which has increased
the need for workers to commute outside of
Pasco for work. This has increased commute
times and congestion on local and interstate
systems
• Increasing commercial opportunities may
mitigation future lack of jobs and services
necessary for residential growth
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 115
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
75 Wilson, Dave 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #A -
DEIS
Owns property SW of Road 100/Chapel Hill Blvd;
Property is currently developed with commercial
(banks, credit union); Future Land Use designates as
MHDR; Requests change to Commercial
City to update the map and related tables/land use
inventory
76 TLP (Bob
Tippett) 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #B -
DEIS
Clarify discrepancies in Industrial totals on table 4
and table 5
• Noted
• Tables will be adjusted and corrected
77 TLP (Bob
Tippett) 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #B -
DEIS
Requesting the inclusion of 120 acres of TLP
property in Alt #3 to meet GMA Goals
• Request noted
• City has held discussions with
applicant/property owner
78 Carosino,
Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C -
DEIS
DEIS does not adequately analyze additional
scenarios to Alt #2 or Alt #3; DEIS does not
adequately address environmental/socioeconomic
impacts of proposed actions
SEPA is different from NEPA, in the scope of items
that need to be considered. The EIS will be
reviewed to see if there are areas to supplement
the evaluation of environmental impacts but
socioeconomic impacts evaluation is not required.
In WAC 197-11-448 …SEPA contemplates that the
general welfare, social, economic, and other
requirements and essential considerations of state
policy will be taken into account in weighing and
balancing alternatives and in making final
decisions. However, the environmental impact
statement is not required to evaluate and
document all of the possible effects and
considerations of a decision or to contain the
balancing judgments that must ultimately be made
by the decision makers. Rather, an environmental
impact statement analyzes environmental impacts
and must be used by agency decision makers,
along with other relevant considerations or
documents, in making final decisions on a proposal.
The EIS provides a basis upon which the
responsible agency and officials can make the
balancing judgment mandated by SEPA, because it
provides information on the environmental costs
and impacts. SEPA does not require that an EIS be
an agency's only decision making document. (2)
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 116
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
The term "socioeconomic" is not used in the
statute or in these rules because the term does not
have a uniform meaning and has caused a great
deal of uncertainty. Areas of urban environmental
concern which must be considered are specified in
RCW 43.21C.110 (1)(f), the environmental checklist
(WAC 197-11-960) and WAC 197-11-440 and 197-
11-444. (3) Examples of information that are not
required to be discussed in an EIS are: Methods of
financing proposals, economic competition, profits
and personal income and wages, and social policy
analysis (such as fiscal and welfare policies and
nonconstruction aspects of education and
communications). EISs may include whether
housing is low, middle, or high income.
Definition of terms … The list of elements of the
environment shall consist of the "natural" and
"built" environment. The elements of the built
environment shall consist of public services and
utilities (such as water, sewer, schools, fire and
police protection), transportation, environmental
health (such as explosive materials and toxic
waste), and land and shoreline use (including
housing, and a description of the relationships with
land use and shoreline plans and designations,
including population).
79 Carosino,
Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C -
DEIS
Requests DEIS comment period be extended
additional 60 days
The Draft EIS Comment period was extended
through July 31, 2020. The DEIS was issued on May
15, 2020 for a total public comment period of 77
days.
Per WAC-197-11-455(6): Any person or agency
shall have thirty days from the date of issue in
which to review and comment upon the DEIS
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 117
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
80 Carosino,
Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C -
DEIS
Section 3.1.2; Traffic Analysis is not complete, no
discussion of traffic impacts presented with facts
and/or figures; no discussion of future projects
• Traffic analysis is discussed in the
Transportation Element of the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation
Element includes proposed improvement
projects for both the short and long-range
periods.
• Comprehensive Plan Map Folio Transportation
Maps T1-T12 contain existing conditions and
transportation forecasts.
• Analysis of deficiencies is in Volume II, pages
104-117 and includes Table 10 and Table 11.
81 Carosino,
Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C -
DEIS
Encourage development/change zoning in Central
Pasco
• Noted
• City will evaluate any proposed or identified
changes to development and growth strategies
with the Downtown Pasco Development
Authority and neighborhood community
members
82 Carosino,
Robert 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #C -
DEIS
DEIS does not discuss recreational needs, and park
planning
SEPA requires evaluation of alternatives related to
environmental effects. However the EIS does
address recreation and parks through: 1)
identifying existing park and open space lands and
how each alternatives would modify or increase
additional park and open space area (see Sections
3.2 and 4.1.1 and others and; 2) affected
environment descriptions and mitigation measures
(see Sections 4.4.3, 4.7 and 4.8)
83 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
DEIS is not adequate and violates SEPA and WAC
197-11-070; Until the Final EIS is issued, the City
cannot choose an expanded UGA request to Franklin
County
• Council action on the Urban Growth Area will
not occur until after the issuance of the Final
EIS of the Comprehensive Plan is made
available
84 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
Page b of the factsheet includes information on the
availability of the Draft EIS. Hispanic or Latino
persons make up 55.1 percent of the City of Pasco's
population. Of the population over five years of age,
50.4 percent speak a language other than English at
• Noted
• Staff evaluating appropriate measures to
address and provide information on the
Comprehensive Plan for Spanish only speakers
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 118
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
home.
So we appreciate and support that the Public
Participation Plan for the City of Pasco 2018
Comprehensive Plan provides on page 5 that
"efforts will be made to provide notices in English
and Spanish."
Also, given the high percentage of the population in
the City of Pasco speaking a language other than
English at home, we recommend that versions of
the draft comprehensive plan and the final EIS be
made available in Spanish and the public
participation efforts should reach out to the
Hispanic and Latinx population in addition to the
population as a whole.
85 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
Last Sentence, Page 2: Pasco and Franklin County
are required to update Comp Plans/Dev Regulations
every eight years
Will be updated as suggested
86 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
Table 2 Existing Residential Capacity (page 5) It
would helpful to include a reference to a more
detailed description of how the existing residential
capacity in Table 2 was determined. The City of
Pasco is also considering the adoption of legislation
to allow more "Missing Middle" housing in the city
which Futurewise strongly supports. We
recommend that the EIS include an estimate of the
increased housing capacity this legislation will
create.
References to the Land Capacity Analysis will be
added before table 2
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 119
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
87 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
3.2. Comparison of Alternatives to GMA Goals
(pages 13 - 16)
The GMA transportation goal discussion on page 14
does not disclose that Alternatives 2 and 3 do not
have densities sufficient to support transit citywide,
an important element of a multimodal
transportation system. While transit is especially
important to the three percent of Pasco's occupied
housing units that do not have access to a vehicle
and residents of other households that are too
young or otherwise do not drive, all Pasco residents
and businesses benefit from increased
transportation choices. Parts of the City of Pasco
have a very high proportion of households that lack
access to private vehicles compared to Washington
State as a whole. Public transit is particularly
important in those parts of the city.
The GMA housing goal discussion on page 14 does
not disclose the impacts of allowing residential uses
so close to the Tri-Cities Airport and the adverse
impacts this will have on the planned housing.
The Draft EIS does not disclose the economic
impacts of the loss of this agricultural land of long-
term commercial significance. The economic
development goal discussion on page 14 does not
disclose the impacts of allowing residential uses so
close to the Tri-Cities Airport and the impacts of the
limited expansion opportunities created by the UGA
expansion and residential zoning in the vicinity of
the airport.11 These impacts are inconsistent with
RCW
36.70A.020(5).
Alternative 3 was developed to accommodate a
higher density. The land use in this alternative was
developed to have higher density and clusters to
be better served by a multi modal system. Also, the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element goals
aim to achieve a multimodal transportation
system.
For airport land use, see comment response # 63
None of the alternatives would result in loss of
agricultural land of long term commercial
significance. See comment response # 68 above
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 120
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
88 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
There is no analysis as to the consistency of the
proposed comprehensive plan with RCW
36.70A.020(8), the GMA natural resource industries
goal. RCW 36.70A.020(8) requires the City of Pasco
to "maintain and enhance natural resource-based
industries, including productive timber, agricultural,
and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation
of productive forestlands and productive
agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible
uses." Since most of the land proposed for the UGA
expansions is designated as agricultural resource
lands of long-term commercial significance the
comprehensive plan update is inconsistent with
RCW 36.70A.020(8). The failure to disclose this
inconsistency anywhere in the Draft EIS is a serious
SEP A violation.
See response above in comment #s 68 and 87
89 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The GMA open space and recreation goal discussion
on page 15 does not disclose the impacts of
converting agricultural and rural land to relatively
low-density residential uses. The GMA environment
goal discussion on page 15 also does not disclose
the environmental impacts of converting
agricultural and rural land to relatively low-density
residential uses. These impacts include a loss of
farmland, reduced storm water recharge to ground
water, increased storm water runoff, increased
greenhouse pollution, and loss of wildlife habitat on
rural and agricultural land. These impacts are
inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.020(9) and (10).
Update description of Alternative 3 to note the
open space and park area identified in the
Broadmoor area; also update environment goal
discussion on page 15 to note this open space area
for alternatives 2 and 3. See also footnote 1 to
Table 5 (1. About 40 acres of parks, 160 acres of
land for school facilities and additional public lands
are included in the Low Density Residential land
use acres. Locations to be identified at a later
phase with the land use changes.)
Additionally, note farmland will be converted to
several different types of uses – residential,
commercial, industrial land, parks and public lands.
And that development will be phased with
agricultural land available to remain in production
until the time of development. Also see comment
response #68.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 121
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Discussion of stormwater recharge and stormwater
runoff effects is characterized in the EIS in sections
4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.3.3 and 4.10.1; greenhouse pollution
discussion will be added in the final EIS, and
measures for conserving fish and wildlife habitat
effects are characterized in Sections 4.2.3 and
4.3.3.
City of Pasco Resolution 3853 adopted Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Policy (2018)
90 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The GMA historic preservation goal discussion on
page 16 does not disclose that the city's planning
and regulations focus on known archaeological and
cultural sites. The Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation has
developed an archaeological predictive model that
can predict where archaeological resources, a type
of cultural resource, are likely to be located and
where the department recommends archaeological
surveys should be completed before earth
disturbing activities and other uses and activities
that can damage archaeological sites are
undertaken.
The predictive model shows that Pasco and the UGA
expansion areas have a "high risk" and "very high
risk" of cultural resources in these areas. H Land
development can adversely impact these resources
and this adverse impact on actual but currently
unidentified cultural resources is not disclosed. This
impact is inconsistent with RCW 36.70A.020(13).
City regulations are protective of both known and
unidentified archaeological and cultural sites. If
during construction a site is encountered, the City
has. In summary, the City believes its efforts are
consistent with the GMA historic preservation goal.
91 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
DEIS does not mention probable environmental
impacts or consequences of agency actions, and is
inconsistent with GMA Goals, DEIS is not adequate
Headings in Section 4 and associated discussion for
the various environmental elements will be
clarified to identify that the effect being discussed
are probable environmental impacts.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 122
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
92 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
DEIS does not disclose UGA Land expansion includes
prime farmland; DEIS does not disclose that UGA
expansion includes 2,209 acres of farmland of
statewide significance; UGA includes 83.5% of prime
/ farmland; No Mitigation was disclosed in the DEIS;
DEIS is not adequate
See comment responses above in # 68.
Additionally, Section 4.4.2 characterizes that for
alternatives 2 and 3, there will be impacts to
agricultural lands from land conversion, as
development would occur in the two different UGA
areas described. Because this land is not
agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance, and because more specific analysis of
lands would occur at the time of development, a
more detailed characterization of these lands was
not deemed necessary.
Alternative 3 reduces lands included in the UGA
and includes more redevelopment and infill
development within the existing city limits.
Additionally, the bringing in of lands within the
UGA into the City limits will occur through a phased
approach. The agricultural lands impacted, while
not of long-term commercial significance, can
remain under cultivation until such time that they
are brought into the City. Discussion of mitigation
in the EIS will be updated to more clearly reflect
these mitigation measures in appropriate locations.
City intends to work with the County on
development phasing that would protect land
currently being used for farming from immediate
development. City has removed approximately 137
acres of ag land from the UGA expansion proposal
in Alternative 3. These mitigation measures will be
added in the Final EIS.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 123
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
93
4.1. Earth (pages 17 to 20) and Summary of Impacts
by
Alternative 4.2.1. Earth (page 58) Two letters
commenting on the scope of the EIS requested that
the EIS examine impacts on agricultural land.
However, the Draft EIS does not disclose that the
land proposed for the UGA expansions includes
694.7 acres of prime farmland. This is 20 percent of
the UGA. expansions. The Draft EIS also does not
disclose that UGA expansions also include 2,203.9
acres of farmland of statewide importance. This is
another 63.5 percent of the UGA expansion?
Together the prime farmland and farmland of
statewide importance cover 2,898.6 acres and 83.5
percent of the proposed UGA expansions. Franklin
County designates prime farmland and farmland of
statewide importance as agricultural lands of long-
term commercial significance. This was also not
disclosed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS also does not
disclose that the prime farmland and farmland of
statewide importance will be converted to urban
uses by Alternatives 2 and 3. No mitigation is
proposed for these undisclosed adverse impacts.
The adequacy of an EIS "is assessed under the 'rule
of reason' ... which requires a reasonably thorough
discussion of the significant aspects of the probable
environmental consequences of the agency's
decision. The failure to even mention these
significant adverse impacts on agricultural soils
means that the Draft EIS is not adequate.
See responses to comments #s 68 and 92 above.
The county conducted a County-wide agricultural
lands of long-term commercial significance review
as part of the 2008 update and the lands included
in Alternatives 2 and 3 are not designated resource
lands of long-term commercial significance. See
Map 8 of the County’s existing Comprehensive
Plan.
Section 4.4.2 characterizes that for alternatives 2
and 3, there will be impacts to agricultural lands
from land conversion as development would occur
in the two different UGA areas described.
Section 4.10.2 also describes for alternatives 2 and
3, increase in intensity from the current
agricultural land uses to various other uses.
Additional description to be added in Section 4.4
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 124
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
94 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.2 Surface Water: 4.2.2. Impacts, Alternative 1: No
Action
Alternative (page 23) The Draft EIS claims on page
23, without any citation to evidence or analysis, that
"since the additional and projected future growth
won't be occurring within the City limits, sprawled
development will take place in the areas
surrounding the City." While there are some rural
lands near Pasco, most of the land adjacent to Pasco
and the existing UGA is designated as agricultural
lands of long-term commercial significance and are
protected from sprawling development.
Most of the land in the western UGA expansion is
also agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance. The proposed western UGA expansion
avoids the Rural lands north of Pasco between
North Road 36 and Road 52. It also does not include
the Rural land north of the existing UGA along the
Columbia River. Given this evidence and the
relatively low densities proposed for most of the
UGA expansions, it is incorrect to assume, as the
Draft EIS apparently does, that Alternative 1 will
lead to more sprawl and greater impacts on surface
and ground water quality.
This sentence must be deleted to comply with SEPA.
See comment response #s 68 and 92 above on ag
lands of long-term commercial significance. The
densities for the areas in the UGAs and
surrounding lands ranges from one DU per 5 acres
to one DU for 20 or 40 acres.
In Alternative 1, developments have been
anticipated in all vacant and under-utilized land at
the current zoning densities. If fully buildout, the
current UGA does not have adequate land to
accommodate projected population. There is a
shortage of land to accommodate 18,625 persons
in the 20-year timeframe. It is therefore, assumed,
that the projected population for Pasco UGA will
occur, if not within the City limits, it is most likely
to occur in the nearby rural areas where land is
available and land that are not Ag land of long-
term commercial significance.
95 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.2 Surface Water: 4.2.3. Mitigation Measures (page
24) and
Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.2. Surface
Water (page 59) Compact UGAs also help conserve
water long-term. Large lots and low densities
increase water demand, increase leakage from
water systems, and increase costs to water system
customers.3 So accommodating the same
Alternative 3 will help conserve water long-term.
See above for discussion of ag lands in comment #
68.
The City requires specific design standards, such as
landscaping, trees etc in the areas identified in
PMC 25.180.060. Amendments to the design
standards can be revisited through the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 125
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
population in a right-sized UGA can reduce future
water demands and costs. One of the mitigation
measures for water quantity should be a smaller
UGA expansion that conserves agricultural lands of
long-term commercial significance.
Additional mitigation measures that should be
included in the EIS include:
• Requiring street trees between streets and
sidewalks. This will both reduce storm water runoff
and making walking more inviting by helping to
shade sidewalks and give a sense of protection from
cars to pedestrians. Street trees can also help
moderate temperatures.
• Assessing storm water fees based in part
on impervious surfaces. The current storm water
fees only consider impervious surfaces for uses
other than single-family dwellings. This tends to
encourage single-family homes to have large areas
of impervious surfaces, increasing storm water
runoff and water pollution.
implementation of the Comprehensive Plans Goals
and Policies. Specifically, adjacent to transit
corridors, parks and public facilities and other
areas where pedestrian movements may occur.
The City requires specific features as part of the
Stormwater System Plan for every development.
These are indicated in the City Design and
Construction Standards and Specifications.
Stormwater Utility Fees are identified in PMC
3.35.200 and were last updated in 2017 via
Ordinance #4369 after completion of a rate study
to determine the impacts of needed improvements
and system expansion for regulatory compliance
and service to customers, including stormwater
and irrigation.
96 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.3. Plants and Animals: 4.3.1. Affected
Environment (pages 25 -27) and Summary of
Impacts by Alternative 4.2.3. Plants and Animals
(page 60)
Futurewise appreciates that the Draft EIS includes
information on priority habitats and species
identified the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WSFW). This is helpful to decision
makers and the public. Page 25 includes the
following statement "WDFW designation of priority
habitat types is advisory only and carries no legal
protection; although, such designation may increase
the significance of impacts as evaluated through the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
SEPA process." While the Washington State
Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 126
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Department of Fish and Wildlife does not have the
authority to regulate most of the upland habitats
identified by the priority habitats and species
program, counties and cities are required to
designate and conserve priority species and habitats
through their GMA critical areas regulations. Does
have regulatory authority over projects within the
wetted perimeter of rivers, streams, and lakes. We
recommend that sentences to that effect be
included in the Final EIS.
97 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The proposed UGA expansions are inconsistent with
the Southern Resident Orca Task Force
recommendations and the EIS needs to disclose this
impact. Further, a potential mitigating measure
should be reducing or eliminating the UGA
expansions.
The EIS should also analyze excluding Priority
Habitats and Species including Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife identified sandy
shrub steppe habitats and potential breeding sites
for burrowing owls from the UGA expansions. This
will better conserve wildlife habitats, as the GMA
requires.
The Draft EIS on page 27 lists Townsend's Ground
Squirrel as one of the species listed as threatened or
candidate species associated with shrub steppe
habitat. While this is true generally, Townsend's
Ground Squirrel is not known to be found in Franklin
County. We recommend instead that the
Washington Ground Squirrel, which is found in
Franklin County, be substituted:'°
Alternative 3 will result in reduced UGA boundary
compared to Alternative 2, and increased
development densities, in comparison to
Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 3 provides
open space and park area near the Broadmoor
location in the City.
Site specific critical areas evaluations will occur at
the time of development for specific proposals and
at this time, more detailed critical areas reviews
and site investigations will occur, and through this
process the City will protect applicable critical
areas, including fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, verified to be present.
Updated the name of Ground Squirrel as
suggested.
98 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
Futurewise supports adopting and implementing
low-impact development (LID) requirements and
retaining native plants and native soils which the
Section 4.3.3 includes LID and native landscaping as
mitigation actions. Additionally, landowners can
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 127
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Draft EIS identifies as mitigating measures the City
may implement. LID and retaining native plants and
native soils can protect fish and wildlife habitat and
water quality. We also support including the
Broadmoor area as a wildlife area and corridor
because this area includes significant areas of shrub-
steppe habitat.
In addition to the proposed mitigation measures
which Futurewise supports, we recommend that the
city consider requiring landscaping with native
plants to provide vegetation of habitat significance
in streetscapes, buffers for stormwater swales, rain
gardens, and other habitat features.
work on a voluntary basis with Franklin
Conservation District to provide native landscaping
Alternative 3 provides open space and park area
near the Broadmoor location in the City that would
preserve shrub steppe habitat.
99 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.4. Land Use (pages 30 - 34) and Summary of
Impacts by
Alternative 4.2.4. Land Use (page 61): Two letters
commenting on the scope of the EIS recommended
that the EIS examine impacts on agricultural land.
Franklin County designates most of the land in the
proposed UGA expansion as agricultural lands of
long-term commercial significance. This was not
disclosed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS also does not
disclose that the agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance will be converted to urban
uses by Alternatives 2 and 3. No mitigation is
proposed for these
undisclosed adverse impacts.
Additional characterization of agricultural lands will
be included in the final EIS. See response to
comment #s 68 and 92 above for discussion on
agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance and prescribed mitigation measures.
100 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The GMA prohibits including agricultural lands of
long-term commercial significance within an UGA
unless there is a purchase or transfer or
development rights program adopted and
implemented for those lands and they are protected
as agricultural lands of long-term commercial
significance. This inconsistency with the GMA was
See response to comment response #68 above for
discussion on agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 128
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
not disclosed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS does not
document that the agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance no longer meet the Franklin
County or GMA criteria for such designations.
101 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
In addition to these undisclosed impacts, the Draft
EIS does not disclose the impacts of allowing
residential uses so close to the Tri-Cities Airport on
airport operations, the impacts of the limited airport
expansion opportunities created by the UGA
expansion, and the impacts of airport operations on
residential uses in the vicinity of the airport.
The adequacy of an EIS "is assessed under the 'rule
of reason' ... which requires a reasonably thorough
discussion of the significant aspects of the probable
environmental consequences of the agency's
decision." The failure to even mention these
significant adverse impacts on agricultural lands of
long-term commercial significance means that the
Draft EIS is not adequate. It is the same with the
impacts on the airport and the impacts of locating
housing so close to the airport.
See Comment #63
102 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.5. Environmental Health: 4.5.1: Affected
Environment (page
35) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
documents that many areas of Pasco are in
proximity to Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities.
These are facilities that have potential chemical
accident management plans and are within five
kilometers (km) (or nearest one beyond 5 km) each
divided by distance in km. This map is calculated
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
RMP database. The UGA expansion areas are within
the 90 to 95 percentiles for Washington State.
Update discussion in Section 4.5.1, Environmental
Health, to include additional information drawn
from the EPA EJ screening and mapping tool. Note
baseline conditions within the existing City limits
and also the UGA expansion areas. Mitigation
measures will be reviewed in Section 4.5.3 and
updated as appropriate. Air quality information
from the EJ screening tool will also be added to a
new air quality section in the final EIS, that will be
located after Section 4.5, Environmental Health.
[It should be noted that the Alternative 2 UGA area
has lower relative risk for Particulate Matter (PM)
2.5, Ozone, Diesel PM and Risk Management Plan
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 129
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Parts of Pasco and all of the UGA expansion areas
also have a higher proximity to hazardous waste
than other parts of Washington State We
recommend that the EIS disclose these potential
adverse impacts and identify potential mitigating
measures. Given this and other issues with the UGA
expansions planned for residential and commercial
uses, one mitigating measure should be not
including the area proposed for residential and
commercial development within the UGA.
(RMP) Facilities as it would locate future growth in
the City farther to the north compared to
Alternative 3. Alternative 3 also encourages
growth in relatively higher risk areas compared to
the UGA for these factors with the proposed in-
filling, as the higher urbanized areas show slightly
higher values, noting these values would likely
adjust during plan implementation as additional
development occurred within either of the UGA
areas. The only risk factor that increases within the
UGA areas is Hazardous Waste Facility proximity,
noting it is still below the 50th percentile
compared to the rest of the state average.]
The expansion of the Urban Growth Area towards
the North helps to mitigate existing Environmental
Justice challenges due to the increasing risk within
Central Pasco per the United States Department of
Housing & Urban Developments Environmental
Health Index. The areas north of the existing City
Limits / UGA rank 80 – 100 while Central Pasco
ranks 20-40. The higher the index value, the less
exposure to toxins harmful to human health.
Therefore, the higher the value, the better the
environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a
neighborhood is a census block-group.
103 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.7. Population, Housing, and Employment: 4.7.2.
Impacts (page 39) and Summary of Impacts by
Alternative 4.2.6. Population, Housing and
Employment (page 63) Futurewise’ s scoping
comment letter recommended that the EIS should
analyze impacts on affordable housing. Housing is
an element of the environment. There is a
significant need for more affordable housing in
Pasco. A quarter of the homeowners with
City is currently evaluating potential impacts to
increased density and permitted housing through
House Bill 1923 code amendments
• The Land Capacity Analysis indicated that
approximately 9,581 dwelling units will be
accommodated within existing
zoning/development standards. Staff will
evaluate added dwelling potential with HB
1923 amendments however until a market
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 130
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
mortgages are paying 30 percent or more of their
incomes for housing, the standard for cost
overburdened housing. For renter-occupied housing
units, 41.2 percent are paying 30 percent or more of
their incomes for housing.
Overcrowding is related to housing affordability. Of
the occupied housing units, 8.4 percent have 1.01 to
1.50 occupants per room. Nearly four percent of the
occupied housing units (3.9 percent) have 1.51 or
more occupants per room. There are early
inrncations that overcrowding increases the risk of
acquiring infectious diseases including Covid-19.
Providing more opportunities for affordable housing
by zoning for more affordable densities can reduce
overcrowding.
Different alternatives may have rnfferent impacts
on the affordable housing. However the Draft EIS
does not analyze displacement impacts or whether
each of the alternatives allow densities that would
allow the construction of housing affordable to all
income groups. This analysis is still needed.
The City of Pasco is considering the adoption of
legislation to allow more "Missing Middle" housing
in the City which Futurewise strongly supports. We
recommend that the EIS include an estimate of the
increased housing capacity this legislation will
create and an analysis of the potential impacts of
the legislation.
analysis is conducted true potential will be
difficult to calculate and depend upon.
• Approval of each or all of the proposed code
amendments (Accessory Dwelling Units,
Missing Middle and Lot Size Averaging) would
permit increased densities and housing units in
all residential zoning districts raising capacities
by right
• Land use in Alternative 3 includes varied
densities, thereby allowing different housing
types. Final EIS will add further discussion on
densities and different housing types.
• Increased housing capacity based on new
regulations will be performed and added in
FEIS
104 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.8. Parks and Recreation: 4.8.3. Mitigation
Measures (pages 42 - 43)
Figure 4-5, Proposed and Existing Parks, Schools and
Open Space on page 43, includes the note "Urban
The City’s development regulations currently
includes park impact fee, park land dedication
and/or in lieu park fee. Final EIS will add these in
the mitigation measures.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 131
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Growth Area: Park/Open Space Area build as area
develops." It is unclear if this is a mitigation measure
or something else. We recommend that the
mitigation measures include a requirement that
developers dedicate and construct neighborhood
serving parks as development occurs. Where a park
will serve more than one development, latecomer
agreements could be used to share the costs with
the other developments.
In addition, Figure 4-4 shows significant areas of the
City that lack a neighborhood serving park or a
school that can also function as a neighborhood
park within a 15-minute walk of all homes. Figure 4-
5 shows that this need will not be met in all areas of
the City. We recommend as a mitigating measure
that the parks and recreation plan should identify
neighborhood park opportunities and funding to
provide neighborhood parks within a 15-minute
walk in all neighborhoods.
The Trust for Public Lands Park Score indicates that
67% of Pasco residents live within a 10-minute
walk of a park. 68% of residents aged 0-19, 67% of
those aged 20-64 and 63% of those 65+ of age are
within 10-minute walking distance of a park in
Pasco.
In reference to Fig 4-4, much of the northeast
southeast parts of the City consist of industrial and
port lands, therefore, no neighborhood parks
would be appropriate there.
105 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4. 9. Transportation (pages 44 - 48) and Summary of
Impacts by Alternative 4.2.8. Transportation (page
64)We appreciate that the EIS, Volume 2 of the
comprehensive plan, and the map folio have
analyzed traffic impacts including traffic impacts on
state highways. We appreciate the planned
transportation projects. We also applaud and
support the City's complete streets policy.
However, the comprehensive plan and the UGA
expansions have the potential to increase vehicle
miles traveled and to increase traffic hazards. It
does not appear that vehicle miles traveled and
increased traffic hazards were analyzed and
measures to reduce them were considered.
The combination of revised land-use for the
expanded UGA and Broadmoor result in a total
overall decrease in vehicle miles and hours
travelled (VMT/VHT) than the existing
Comprehensive Plan (and No-Action) land-uses call
for. Projects addressing the Broadmoor Masterplan
are incorporated into the updated Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
See Comment #63 for Airport Discussions
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 132
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
The UGA expansions and planned residential uses
close to the airport will adversely impact the
operations and expansion potential of the Tri-Cities
Airport, an important regional transportation and
economic development asset. While the Draft EIS
points to policy LU-2-E which discourages the siting
of incompatible uses adjacent to the Pasco airport,
the location of Low Density Residential and Medium
Density Residential comprehensive plan
designations adjacent to and at the northwest end
of the runway is inconsistent with this policy.
The EIS does not analyze the adverse impacts of
these designations on the airport, particularly the
residential designations at the north end of the
runaway that preclude future expansion
opportunities.58 Nor does it analyze the impacts of
the airport on the housing to be built in these
areas.59
106 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The draft EIS mentions recreational and commute
bicycling and walking, but not walking and bicycling
to access stores and services or the relevance of the
placement of commercial zoning to allow for more
convenient access by pedestrians and bicyclists.
There also does not appear to be plans to address
the need for transit, walking, and bicycling within
the city and within the urban growth area. Parts of
the City of Pasco have a high proportion of
households that lack access to private vehicles
compared to Washington State as a whole Public
transit is particularly important in those parts of the
city but is also beneficial citywide. Walking and
bicycling are important citywide.
The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Plan includes a
proposed trail along the FCID irrigation canal right-
of-way. For more discussion about this, see
Comprehensive Plan transportation inventory,
Active Transportation (non-motorized). For
improvements, see Deficiencies and Improvement
section in Transportation Element.
The Pasco City Council adopted the 2011 Bicycle &
Pedestrian Plan which was a follow up effort of
Resolution 3021.
The 2020 Local Road Safety Plan analyzed non-
motorized (pedestrian and bicycle) along with
vehicle crashes and incidents and indicated a
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 133
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
We were unable to find a long-range citywide plan
for bicycle facilities, trails, sidewalks, and safe
pedestrian crossings of major arterials. The levels of
fatal and serious crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists in parts of the City of Pasco underline the
need for such a plan. The Draft EIS also did not
analyze the need for these facilities. This analysis
should be added to the EIS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
documents that many areas of Pasco suffer traffic
proximity compared to other areas of Washington
State. Many of these areas are proposed to be
designated for residential uses.
We recommend that the EIS analyze whether noise
walls, tree plantings, or other mitigation measures
should be implemented to protect existing and
proposed neighborhoods.
preliminary list of proposed projects.
The ongoing Transportation System Master Plan
will have a focus on non-motorized travel that will
refine strategies, issues, constraints and solutions.
The US Department of Housing & Urban
Developments Environmental Health Index
indicates that the City of Pasco has a mean index of
67.55. The higher the score, the less hazard. Areas
of the city with the most hazards are Central Pasco
(31) and between the Tri-Cities Airport, I-182 and
south of Sandifur Parkway (47)
107 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.10. Public Services and Utilities (pages 48 - 54 and
4.2. 9. Public Services and Utilities (page 65)
Residential growth in the City of Pasco has increased
the exposure of residences on the Wildland Urban
Interface to wildfires.6-1 Expanding the city onto
agricultural and rural lands will increase this
exposure.
Fire services are an element of the environment.
The impacts of the alternatives and UGA expansions
on community fire safety must be analyzed in the
EIS and mitigation measures identified such as
directing growth away from areas with a moderate
to high wildfire threat levels. Another potential
mitigating measure would be to require new
Comprehensives plan Public Services Element
indicates existing and future fire service areas.
Also the city is discussing a fire mitigation fee.
Information related to wildlife protection and fire
risk areas information will be made info available
at time of application and on website. Final EIS
updated to add these as mitigation measures.
City will also follow up with the Fire Districts and
Franklin Co Emergency Management to identify
risks and include mitigation measures
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 134
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
developments to meet Firewise Communities
Program standards or the equivalent. Unfortunately,
the Draft EIS did not include this analysis and
mitigating measures despite the fact that
Futurewise's scoping letter included this
information.
The changing climate will also increase wildfires in
the west including the City of Pasco. A recent peer -
reviewed study showed that human caused global
warming has made wildfire fuels drier and caused
an increase in the area burnt by wildfires between
1984 and 2015.68 Global warming's drying of
wildfire fuels is projected to increasingly promote
wildfire potential across the western US. The area of
this increase in drying fuels includes the City of
Pasco.
108 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The Draft EIS noted that "irrigation exists
surrounding the City, and this significantly reduces
wildfire risk." But this ignores the Franklin County,
Washington Community Wildfire Protection Plan
which states three times that "[m]any irrigation
systems and wells rely on above ground power lines
for electricity. These power poles pass through
areas of dense wildland fuels that could be
destroyed or compromised in the event of a
wildfire." One of the purposes of an EIS is to provide
accurate information to the public and decisions
makers not to shoot from the hip. This statement in
the Draft EIS also ignores the fact that the
comprehensive plan update proposes to pave over
thousands of acres of irrigated farmland and replace
them with flammable homes.
The Draft EIS states that "the City conducted an
The City of Pasco acquires water rights in several
ways to accommodate new developments within
the city and within the UGA areas.
• The first and most preferred way is in
accordance with the PMC whereby land
owners are required to transfer existing water
rights on their properties to the City in a
quantity sufficient for the proposed
development. This includes water rights for
potable and irrigation uses.
• The second way, also in accordance with the
PMC, is for the property owner/developer to
pay a fee ‘in-lieu’ of transferring existing water
rights. This fee is a pre-determined amount
based on the current market price per acre-
foot of water sufficient for the proposed
development. Funds collected from the ‘in-
lieu’ fee are used to purchase additional water
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 135
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation, which
evaluated the impact of the anticipated growth,
UGA expansion, and land use changes. As a result, in
order to accommodate future growth, the City will
need to make additional improvements to the West
Pasco WTP, Zone 3 Reservoir, and acquire additional
water rights to meet the 2038 demands." But the
Draft EIS does not indicate whether it is possible to
acquire the water rights or whether the water rights
will be acquired at the expense irrigated farms. This
requires further analysis and disclosure.
rights from other sources.
• The City also acquires water rights from other
city, county, state and federal agencies as they
may become available. For example, Pasco
recently acquired a block of 5,000 acre-feet of
water from the Department of Ecology related
to water releases from Lake Roosevelt into the
Columbia River. Pasco is also in the process of
acquiring a second block of 5,000 acre-feet of
water right from Ecology from Lake Roosevelt.
• The City is also in the process of purchasing
320 acre-feet of unused water rights from the
Burbank Irrigation District.
The City is exploring options to acquire water from
local Irrigation Districts that will supplement the
City’s irrigation system and allow for expansion.
An example of this is recent coordination with the
South Columbia Basin Irrigation District and the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on a request to acquire
2,500 acre-feet of water from their irrigation
system via an M&I contract.
The Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation
referenced in the EIS took all the above
information into consideration and determined
there are/will be sufficient water rights available to
support growth in the proposed UGA
109 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
4.11. Heritage Conservation (pages 54 - 57) and
Summary of Impacts by Alternative 4.2.10. Heritage
Conservation (page 66) We appreciate this section
of the Draft EIS and particularly appreciate the
disclosure that construction allowed under the
alternatives could potentially impact cultural
resources including recorded and unrecorded
City works closely with DAHP. The City uses SEPA
to require survey if risk area is identified. If
development is located in a lower risk area, then
the City uses an inadvertent discovery protocol,
where work is stopped if a resource is
encountered, and then a work plan is followed to
protect the resources in coordination with DAHP
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 136
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
archaeological sites.
The Washington State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation has developed an
archaeological predictive model that can predict
where archaeological resources, a type of cultural
resource, are likely to be located and where the
department recommends archaeological surveys
should be completed before earth disturbing
activities and other uses and activities that can
damage archaeological sites are undertaken. The
predictive model shows that the City of Pasco and
the UGA expansion areas have a "high risk" and
"very high risk" of cultural resources.
The Draft EIS should include as a mitigating measure
adopting regulations that require consultation with
Native American Tribes and Nations and site
investigations by archaeological professionals
before allowing ground disturbing activities in the
city and UGA.
and other agencies, including tribes.
City will evaluate additional clarifications to
requirements in PMC 23.35
110 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
The EIS should analyze the impacts on air quality
and greenhouse gas emissions: Futurewise's scoping
comment letter requested that the EIS analyze
impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas pollution.
Air quality is an element of the environment.77
Elevated ozone level averages in the Tri-Cities for
2015 through 2017 exceeded the federal regulatory
limit which could trigger sanctions from the
Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, a joint
study was conducted with the Department of
Ecology, Washington State University, and Benton
Clean Air Agency, the Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor
Study (T-COPS). The study found that elevated
ozone levels are not caused by one source and that
An air quality qualitative analysis to include
greenhouse gas emissions will be included in the
final EIS
City of Pasco Resolution 3853 adopted Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Policy (2018)
City of Pasco is a participating member of the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG).
BFCG is leading Ozone related transportation
discussions in Benton and Franklin Counties.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 137
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
traffic emissions are a major source of air pollutants
in the Tri-Cities.
Particulate matter from vehicle emissions, fires, and
blowing dust contribute to unhealthy air quality that
increase symptoms of asthma and heart disease.
Weather, topography and wind directions
contribute to high-levels of ozone in the Tri-Cities.
Expanding the UGA will increase vehicle miles
travelled and emissions. These are all probable
adverse impacts on elements of the environment
and should have been but were not analyzed in the
EIS.
111 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
Climate is also an element of the environment.
Washington State enacted limits on greenhouse gas
emissions and a statewide goal to reduce annual per
capita vehicle miles traveled for light-duty vehicles.
Comprehensive planning is one way to reduce
greenhouse gas pollution and vehicle miles traveled.
Almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in our
state result from the transportation sector.
Land use and transportation strategies that promote
compact and mixed-use development and infill
reduce the need to drive and greenhouse gas
emissions. Expanding the UGA will increase vehicle
miles travelled and emissions. These are all probable
adverse impacts on climate, an element of the
environment, and should have been analyzed in the
Draft EIS, but were not.
See response to comment #110
The expansion of the Urban Growth Area, Draft
Future Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan along
with ongoing and planned code amendments are
intended to reduce single occupant vehicle
reliance. The addition of increased residential and
commercial activity centers, densities accompanied
with an efficient transportation “grid” pattern are
aimed at reducing vehicle dependency and
increasing travel options for non-motorized users.
112 Futurewise 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #D -
DEIS
SEPA EISs are required to analyze greenhouse gas
pollution. As the Shorelines Hearings Board
concluded, "because it failed to fully analyze the
impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the
Project and to consider whether additional
See response to comment #110
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 138
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
mitigation is required, the Final EIS is remanded to
Cowlitz County and the Port for further SEPA
analysis consistent with this opinion.
113
Washington
State
Department of
Commerce
06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G -
DEIS
Development Phasing and Growth Monitoring - We
are pleased to hear that the Community and
Economic Development Department recognizes that
additional work is critical in upcoming years to
implement the Comprehensive Plan and to ensure
development occurs as envisioned. This work
requires close collaboration and partnership with
Franklin County. It also requires a divergence from
past practices, but one that is critical for the
long-term fiscal sustainability of Franklin County and
the Pasco community. There is a trend in the
unincorporated Pasco UGA of allowing large-lot
development on septic systems. These development
patterns create long-term financial liabilities for the
City and County, and undermine GMA
requirements.
• City will coordinate discussion and
implementation of phasing for the expanded
Urban Growth Area with the Washington State
Department of Commerce and Franklin County
• Added language will be included in the
Implementation Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan
114
Washington
State
Department of
Commerce
06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G -
DEIS
As the City and County move forward with the UGA
review and adoption, our core recommendation is
to commit to adopting policies, agreements, and
regulations on how development occurs in the
unincorporated UGA. Development phasing is a
critical tool to prevent a pattern of sprawling
low-density development from occurring or vesting
in areas prior to the ability to support urban
densities.
Development phasing can also lower or delay the
need for new infrastructure, allour administrative
rule, WAC 365-196-330, provides guidance on
phasing development in the unincorporated UGA.
We understand that the County needs to take a lead
role in addressing this problem, and we are
See response to Comment #113
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 139
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
committed to partnering with you as you continue
working to ensure that development actually occurs
as envisioned in the Draft EIS and Comprehensive
Plan.
115
Washington
State
Department of
Commerce
06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G -
DEIS
In addition to development phasing, we also
recommend a growth monitoring program so that
the City and County have a clear picture of where
growth is occurring and whether you are achieving
your assumed densities. Changes to Pasco's
development regulations through our HB 1923
housing grant should allow more density and
housing options over the next twenty years. With
development phasing and new development
regulations, the City may be able to provide
necessary housing for its projected growth that
limits the need to commit to the capital facilities
and services at the periphery of the proposed UGA.
We recommend that you include development
phasing, growth monitoring, and code amendments
(associated with the HB 1923 grant) as
implementation strategies in the Final EIS and your
Comprehensive Plan.
• Growth Monitoring Program will be added
to the Implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan
• Added to the PMC
116
Washington
State
Department of
Commerce
06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G -
DEIS
After discussions with City staff, we do not have
specific concerns about the proposed UGA
expansion to the existing industrial LAMIRD. The
LAMIRD was considered as part of the existing land
base available for development in Kennewick's
Industrial Zoned Land Assessment. As the City
moves forward with the adoption process, we
strongly encourage you to work with the Port of
Pasco to develop an overlay zone or regulatory
protections to preserve large, contiguous parcels in
the proposed expansion area.
• Noted
• City staff will begin evaluation of existing
heavy commercial and all industrial land use
and zoning categories
• City will conduct analysis and comparison of
current city site requirement and
improvement standards for commercial and
industrial lands to ensure appropriate
development of sites
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 140
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
The City should also use the periodic update process
to review the development regulations in your
industrial zones to ensure that you are not allowing
uses that undermine industrial development. The
City must also continue to work with WSDOT to
improve transportation access and local connections
to the subject area.
117
Washington
State
Department of
Commerce
06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G -
DEIS
Tri-Cities Regional Airport
One fundamental concern we have with the
proposed alternatives are the likely impacts on the
Tri-Cities Regional Airport. According to the
Washington State Department of Transportation,
(WSDOT}, the number of enplanements has
increased by nearly 100,000 over the last five years.
The limited airspace in Eastern Washington is under
increasing demand. It is critical that Franklin County
and Pasco support land use decisions that allow the
airport to operate as an essential public facility.
We expressed concerns about this issue in 2015 and
2017 in regards to smaller UGA expansions
proposed directly adjacent to the Airport. In 2015,
the Board of County Commissioners denied the
proposal and said, "there is not merit and value in
the proposal for the community as a whole" which is
an appropriate response considering the importance
this airport has for the region's economic future.
We provided specific recommendations regarding
this issue in our comments on the EIS scope. The
City's EIS states, "Under all alternatives, rail and
airport use could also increase. In general, as
employment and population increase, the use of
these facilities also increases ... Airport activity
See response to comment #63
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 141
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
would also increase as recreational activities and
employment increases." There appears to be a
significant gap in the analysis in the draft EIS
regarding impacts to the Airport, and we encourage
you to remedy that gap in the Final EIS.
The mandatory formal consultation with airport
owners, managers, private airport operators,
general aviation pilots, ports, and the Aviation
Division of WSDOT should provide supplemental
information regarding potential impacts on the
Airport.
Currently, the City and County have a variety of
choices in how you will accommodate future
growth. We strongly encourage you to choose an
option that will not undermine the long-term
economic growth for the region, while
simultaneously creating public health concerns for
future community members.
The City could meet its growth allocation without
expanding the UGA in a manner that precludes a
future runway expansion by increasing densities
elsewhere in the proposed expansion area, or
changing some of the commercial land use
designations to mixed-use designations.
118
Washington
State
Department of
Commerce
06/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #G -
DEIS
After reviewing some of the public comments and
testimony at the Planning Commission hearing on
May 20, 2020, we understand that elected and
appointed officials are grappling with challenging
decisions about whose property should be included
in the Pasco UGA.
The City of Pasco has clearly met GMA public
participation requirements by adopting a Public
Noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 142
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Participation Plan in accordance with our agency's
recommendations, holding numerous public
meetings and workshops on the periodic update,
and disseminating notice through the paper of
record and online communications.
As appointed and elected officials consider the
proposed alternatives, we encourage Franklin
County and the City of Pasco to recognize that
decisions about where and how growth occur
should be based on the overriding public interest.
The compact growth alternative appears to best
meet that standard.
119
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Page A: Where “Required permits and approvals”
are listed, the text should be updated to note that
any approval of the Urban Growth Area expansion
would be granted by the Franklin County Board of
County Commissioners. Also, discuss any review of
your transportation element that would be
conducted by the Benton-Franklin Council of
Governments, such as certification.
Update as suggested
120
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Page b: It appears that The City of Pasco Urban
Growth Area Expansion Capital Facilities
Analysis (May 21, 2020) and its appendix Expanded
UGA Infrastructure Evaluation by Murray Smith and
Associates (November 18, 2019) should be added as
"Related Plans and Documents."
Update as suggested
121
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 1.1 Introduction: The periodic update was
due to be completed by June 30, 2018 (not 2019).
Update as suggested
122
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Table 1: It appears that the population in Franklin
County, 10 Year increase should list 28,251 (not
30,493); it looks as though there was a
computational error. (Also see Table LU-4 in the
Noted, correct as applicable
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 143
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
draft Comprehensive Plan update which shows the
same figures). Next, where it says "Residential units
needed in Pasco in 10 years, ... 20 years" the label
should instead say "Additional Residential units
needed in Pasco in ..... "; it would also be a good
idea to put the topic in a different column, as the
column is labeled "Population" in the heading.
123
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Table 2: Add the sum of residential units (9,580) for
existing capacity. Also, the related text does not
describe where Broadmoor is or provide a map;
which would help readers unfamiliar with the area.
In addition, Table 2 does not seem to correspond
with later discussion of the Broadmoor area, that
describes different density scenarios between
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Which alternative
does the table reference, and should the table be
expanded to list capacity at Broadmoor under both
Alternatives?
Add Broadmoor boundary in the map
124
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Chapter 2 Alternatives: Alternatives 2 and 3 both
involve adding industrial lands into the
City's UGA. It would be helpful to emphasize that
the land being brought inside the UGA is
already classified as industrial by Franklin County( as
a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development
or "LAMIRD"). There is no net increase in the
amount of land designated for
industrial purposes, rather it is a jurisdictional
change. Switching the land from industrial in the
county to industrial in the city makes sense so that
urban-level services can be provided.
Update as suggested
125
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Table 3: The information in the table does not
correspond with the referenced figure (for
example, there are no airport reserve lands or DNR
reserve lands on the map).
Update as suggested
126 Franklin County 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Tables 4 and 5: These tables should be better Final EIS will add further clarifications
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 144
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
– Planning &
Building
Department
labeled to detail that they are referencing
increased UGA totals. For Table 4, why not include a
full table that shows the changes in land uses from
Alternative 1 to Alternative 2?
Comparing Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 does not
only involve additional land in the UGA, but it also
involves the re-designation of some land within
existing city limits and UGA. Additionally, it is
unclear how land uses in the Broadmoor area differ
between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. (Table 5
and Table 6 both show sufficient detail for
Alternative 3).
127
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 3.1.1 Increased Density and Development:
The first sentence says "Densities will be increased
under the preferred alternatives" yet there is only
one stated "preferred alternative" -Alternative 3.
This should be corrected.
Next, the text includes a reference to the Riverview
area, and is the first mention of Riverview. We
suggest defining the area, showing it on a map, or
including a footnote with a description. Additionally,
a reference is made to City of Pasco Ordinance
4221. Since the time period under which the
Ordinance take effect has lapsed it is not clear how
this is important. Did/ will the city extend the time
period?
If the Ordinance no longer applies it may be best to
exclude the reference and related discussion from
the EIS.
Final EIS will add further clarifications
128
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 3.1.2 Traffic: Are there any figures or
forecasts to support the information provided in the
section? When "increases" in traffic are discussed,
See response to comment #80
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 145
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Department what is the magnitude? Consider
referencing supporting documents or including data
from your studies.
129
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Table 7: In the row for "Urban Growth", column for
Alternative 1, we suggest changing the
statement to say that the alternative would
accommodate the least amount of projected
growth.
In the row for "Transportation," column for
Alternative 3, we suggest noting the
alternative could result in shorter trips due to more
compact development patterns
(this could also include mode split shifts-i.e. more
kids walking to school).
For the row for "Economic Development," column
for Alternative 3, consider noting that the
alternative results in conversion of less land than
Alternative 2 which is currently in agricultural
production, which relates to production of
commodities, food processing
jobs, etc.
For the row for "Open Space ... ," column for
Alternative 3, consider adding that with a
smaller growth area "footprint" there will be less
affected fish and wildlife habitat.
Update as suggested
130
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3: Specify that the referenced
"proposed UGA" is Alternative 3. None of the maps
show the mapped features which are present
farther north, and which would be included in the
Alternative 2 scenarios. These maps should all be
updated in order for Alternative 2 to be fully
presented/ examined in the document
Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 146
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
131
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Table 8: There is a reference to one mine site and a
reference to "both" which is confusing.
Verify the correct number of mine sites. It would be
helpful to show the mine(s) on a map or at least,
describe the general location. In Vol. II of the draft
Comprehensive Plan update, two mineral resource
sites are referenced.
Update table as suggested. Clarify map CA-1
132
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
4.1 Earth
Figure 4-1: Consider showing and labeling the
location of the liquefaction susceptibility zone as
referenced in Table 8. (Perhaps consider cross-
referencing to the draft Comprehensive Plan map
folio.)
Section 4.1.2 Impacts: The Alternative 3 discussion
says that Broadmoor will be developed with more
density in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, but there
is little detail or information on that. It would be
helpful if more information was provided.
• Cross reference to Comprehensive Plan
mapfolio map CA-1
• Add discussion about the total number of units
anticipated in Broadmoor in Alternative 3
133
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2 Surface Water: Consider re-naming the
section "Surface and Ground Water."
Update as suggested
134
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.2.1 Affected Environment: We suggest
changing the description that currently states the
Columbia River is to the south of the City, to instead
describe that the river lies to the west and south of
the City.
Update as suggested
135
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.2.1 Affected Environment: The final
paragraph discusses City of Pasco Water Rights. It is
unclear in the document if the City has sufficient
water rights to accommodate the considered
alternatives. Please indicate if this is an issue or not
(or reference supporting documents). Mitigation
measures should be listed, if relevant.
See Comment #108
136 Franklin County 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.2.2 Impacts: We recommend adding an Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 147
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
– Planning &
Building
Department
observation that expansion of the city's UGA and
subsequent annexation and extension of sewer can
limit the trend of homes that are built with septic
systems, which can benefit groundwater and lessen
impacts on it We also noticed that "Alberti et. al." is
referenced, but the reference does not appear in
the bibliography. There may be other instances
where references are not included in the
bibliography.
137
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures: We recommend
adding a mitigation measure about low-impact
development (LID), which appears later in the
document (section 4.3.3), to this section on
stormwater. It would be appropriate to discuss LID
in the stormwater mitigation section.
Update as suggested
138
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.3 Plants and Animals: We noticed there is
no reference to bird migration routes.
This information will be added
139
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.3.2 Impacts: First, this section could be
improved by mentioning that development can
cause displacement of habitat. Next, under the
"Alternative 1: No Action Alternative" subsection,
there is a statement that reads "the least amount of
development would occur as it [the alternative] has
the least projected population growth." This is not a
true statement; the population growth projection
does not change between the scenarios, only the
amount of development to accommodate such
growth does.
Update to make more accurate
140
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.4.1 Affected Environment: We
recommend broadening this section to answer the
SEPA checklist question "Has the project site been
used as working farmlands or working forest lands?
If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land
Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 148
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
of long-term commercial significance will be
converted to other uses as a result 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?
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?" Please discuss compatibility of the new
development under the proposed alternatives with
existing farming practices in the area.
141
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Table 9: The table shows existing land use
designations, and not necessarily existing uses as
developed (if that were truly the case, you would
have a vacant land category, among others). We
suggest re-naming the table for better
understanding. Also, airport reserve lands and DNR
Reserve lands are going to be newly introduced in
the comprehensive plan update, and therefore
appear out of place here for a discussion of"existing
land uses." Likewise, Table 10 should also be re-
titled.
Update the title to add Existing Comprehensive
Plan land use. Also change DNR and Airport
reserves in all relevant tables (e.g. Table 3) based
on the decision on those land uses
142
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.4.1 Affected Environment: The text
included after Table 9 should be corrected to discuss
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (not Corp). Also, it
appears that there should be more discussion /
mention of DNR land holdings in this section.
Update as suggested
143
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.4.1 Affected Environment: At the top of
page 3 2 there is a list of Comprehensive Plan
designations. Please specify that this list is from the
draft updated comprehensive plan, and not from
the current plan.
Update as suggested
144 Franklin County 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I Section 4.4.2 Impacts: Discuss existing airport and Update as suggested, also update in the Comp Plan
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 149
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
– Planning &
Building
Department
land use compatibility issues, and how the
Comprehensive Plan addresses them.
under Land Use Areas and Compatibility
145
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.4.3 Mitigation Measures: The last two
paragraphs at the end of the section are
unclear. In addition, include a mention of the new
avigation easement(s) that will be in place near the
airport.
The section should also discuss existing zoning code
provisions (for both Franklin County and the City of
Pasco) for the Airport Overlay District -which
provides for safety compatibility zones, use
restrictions, and height limitations -as mitigation
measures to address development proximate to the
Tri-Cities Airport.
These paragraphs are discussing development
regulations as added mitigation measures.
Airport navigation - update as suggested
146
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.5.1 Affected Environment: Change the last
paragraph to "During construction and operation of
some industrial developments ....
Update as suggested
147
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.5.2 Impacts: Consider adding some
language referencing that open burning is not
allowed within the UGA -expanding the UGA will
limit the ability for existing and future
residents in the subject area from being able to
burn, which may lead to air quality
enhancements.
Update as suggested
148
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.5.3 Mitigation Measures: ED-1-C Policy
does not appear to really fit in with the
section's subject.
Replace ED-1-C with ED-2 GOAL
149
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.6.2 Impacts: Shoreline uses are already
regulated by the County, and shoreline
functions are protected through mitigation to
ensure a no net loss standard. If the UGA is
Noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 150
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
expanded north (and specify the linear miles) and
the land is annexed, then regulation of
shoreline uses transfers to the City.
150
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.6.2 Impacts: It would be helpful if the
document would quantify the different linear length
of shoreline area included in the different
alternatives.
Update as suggested
The 2016 Shoreline Master Program indicated that
there are 17 miles of river shoreline, which
includes the Columbia and Snake Rivers within the
Pasco City Limits.
151
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Section 4.7.1 Affected Environment: The figures
included in the first paragraph are not
consistent with the data shown in Table 1 and Table
2. Table 1 shows that 7,522 additional
residential units will be needed in 10 years and
15,217 additional units will be needed in 20
years.
Update the documents
152
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
4.9.3 Mitigation Measures: The draft
Comprehensive Plan update document says, "The
City of Pasco adopted Ordinance No. 3821
establishing concurrency procedures for
transportation facilities in conjunction with new
development." Consider adding this measure as a
mitigation.
Update as suggested
153
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
4.10.2 Impacts: Will infrastructure projects and
improvements result in any business
displacement?
• Business displacement is not expected and will
be avoided
154
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
4.10.3 Mitigation Measures: The total cost for
capital improvements for 2020-2025 is $249M (of
which $57M would be spent on Sewer System
Improvements and $48M would be spent on
transportation improvements), as identified in Table
CF-1 in the draft Comprehensive Plan Vol. 2. It
would be prudent to call out the planned
investment in Capital Facilities in this section, or
elsewhere in the document.
• Update as suggested
• Add table CF-1 from Comp Plan to EIS as
mitigation measures
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 151
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
155
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Consider Discussing Impact Fees: While impact fees
are not discussed in the EIS
document, they are clearly an important part of the
scheme for funding improvements
related to future growth. For example, City
representatives have been very forthright in
their support for impact fees to fund schools. Some
mention or reference to these
mitigation measures should be incorporated into
the EIS, unless the City Council intends to
discontinue the fees.
• Update as suggested
• Impact fees will be added as Mitigation
Measures
156
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Document Choices Made when Determining UGA
Alternatives: When the City's updated UGA
application is provided to the County for processing,
it would be very helpful if an
explanation or documentation is provided with your
submittal, identifying how certain
properties were selected ( or not selected) to be
included in Alternative 3.
• Noted
• Additional information to be added
157
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
We are aware that some landowners and other
stakeholders have voiced concerns about
this issue, and it would be helpful to have a record
to refer to regarding these choices, for
reference when the UGA application is considered
by the County for legislative processing. For
example, it would be important for the city staff to
provide the rationale used to
propose extending its UGA into areas which are
currently designated as "Agricultural
Lands" in some of the most northerly locations, as
opposed to taking in the areas designated as rural
(the LAMIRDs).
• Noted
• Additional information to be added
158
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
The Kohler properties (which are included in the
County's Columbia River West Area LAMIRD) are
excluded from the UGA in Alternative 3, but the City
• The 2014 Comprehensive Sewer Plan is
currently being amended; the amended Sewer
Plan does not include this specific property
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 152
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Department of Pasco 2014 Sewer Comprehensive Plan shows
that the city public works department plans to
extend sewer infrastructure to these locations by
2026. (We understand that the city's Public Works
Department is currently updating the 2014
Comprehensive Sewer Plan with an addendum that
incorporates proposed expansion of the Urban
Growth Area, however it is unclear if that document
should be relied upon for this analysis.) Likewise,
the property is proximate to a proposed future lift
station and proposed sewer pipes are drawn
extending to the property line in Exhibit CF-2 of the
draft Comprehensive Plan update map folio.
• City Planning and Public Works staff has
coordinated Comprehensive Plan draft Land
Use, UGA and Sewer analysis
159
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Only part of the Thanksgiving Partnership (TLP)
property (which is included in the County's East
Foster Wells Road Area LAMIRD) is included in the
UGA under Alternative 3, but sewer is projected to
run up Capitol Ave. to E. Foster Wells Rd. by 2031.
• Noted
• City staff discussing options with property
owner
160
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Document Choices Made when Determining Future
Land Use Designations: When the updated UGA
application is provided to the County for processing,
it would be very helpful if an explanation or
documentation is provided with your submittal. We
will be comparing
the areas selected for more intensive uses with the
existing development patterns of the
LAMIRDs.
• Noted
• Additional information to be added
161
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Discuss Annexation Plans and Policies: We
recommend adding a discussion to address how City
staff foresees annexation would take place. It
appears that the documents do not shown any
proposed phasing" approach to the UGA expansion;
rather, it appears that the UGA expansion would
occur at one time. This is unfortunate, particularly
since materials
Add phasing discussion
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 153
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
presented during the August 15, 2019 Planning
Commission workshop included "10 year
and 20 year boundaries." Has the City staff changed
their approach in this regard?
162
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
We recommend adding more discussion describing
phasing, and how annexation could be used as a
tool to prevent land entitlements from being
possibly granted before services are in place.
Furthermore, if there are other mechanisms that
City staff has in mind to phase expansion into the
UGA, those should be detailed as well. The
Department of Commerce's Urban
Growth Area Guidebook (Page 19) could be
consulted for suggestions. Absent any
mechanisms or stated preference or intentions, the
County staff will likely include proposed "future UGA
reserve areas" or UGA phasing in their
recommendation to the County Planning
Commission and County Commissioners for
consideration.
Add phasing discussion. Coordinate with County on
designating future UGA reserve areas by the
County. See response # 113.
163
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
Expand and Clarify the Discussion of the Broadmoor
Area: The discussion of the Broadmoor area and the
future development is rather limited in some topics,
and could be broadened, particularly since the bulk
of development to occur within the current city
limits will be at Broadmoor.
Since mining is occurring on the site, we paid
particular attention to the discussion about mining
in Vol. II of the draft Comprehensive Plan update,
which says on page 138 (emphasis added):
Presently, American Rock Products is mining the
lands and producing various types of crushed rock.
American Rock Products also produces ready mix
concrete utilizing gravel the company mines. The
Broadmoor area is discussed under Land Use Areas
and Compatibility in the Land Use Element. Add
further discussion on Broadmoor area in the FEIS
Add clarification on mineral resource lands
Add note on annexation requiring Zoning
Designations indicated by City/Broadmoor Master
Plan
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 154
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
crushed rock and sand that are derived from the
American Rock pit are used throughout the region in
the construction industry. ecause of the importance
of gravel for construction activities and the lack of
other known mineable sites, there is a need to
orotect the lands located in Section 12 [T. 9N R 28E]
and Section 7 [T. 9N R 29E] for mineral extraction.
With the Pasco UGA population project to increase
by about 50,148 over the next 20 years, there will
be an ever-increasing need for mineral resources for
new infrastructure, and residential, commercial, and
industrial development American Rock estimates
that there are enough resource materials in these
lands that mining could continue for another 20 to
25 vears ...The above text appears to conflict with
the following statement, on the same page: ... While
the lands described above have been designated for
mineral extraction, such use designation is
considered an overlay use only. Upon completion of
the mineral extraction, the intended and ultimate
use of the land is as shown on the land use map ...
Furthermore, the rock mine location is shown to
carry a proposed medium density
residential designation. Please provide further
discussion on what portions of the
Broadmoor area are encumbered by mining verses
what areas are going to be developed in the next 20
years.
Please elaborate further on what mitigation
measures will be needed, or what policies the City
Council may put into place to assure compatibility
between on-going rock extraction operations and
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 155
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
proposed new development within a close
proximity.
Additionally, when the City staff provides a formal
UGA re-application, it will also be
important for the package to include information
regarding the phasing or development
timeline intended for the Broadmoor area,
particularly for annexation. One of the mixed-use,
land use classifications in alternative 3 (Mixed Use
Neighborhood) is located mostly outside of city
limits in the proposed UGA. Table LU-1 in the draft
City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan - Vol. II shows that a zoning
district known as "MU-N" will be used in the
development regulations to implement the Mixed
Use Neighborhood designation. The City staff should
coordinate with the County staff so it can be
determined if a similar zoning district will be needed
in the County's zoning code. (See County-Wide
Planning Policy
Section II, no. 9 and Section VII, no. 28 and 29.)
164
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
6.Identify and Discuss Zoning Code Modifications: It
is clear that Pasco's zoning regulations will need to
be revised, and several new chapters added for new
zoning designations. What will be the process for
this work? Is that work already underway? In Sec.
4.4.3 there is a statement that "The City of Pasco
Zoning Regulations in PMC Title 25 regulate
development in various zoning districts, and a
zoning change could be made to further restrict the
type and density of development in the planning
area." It appears that more attention and discussion
should be granted on this topic, within the context
of the EIS, to properly identify mitigation measures,
• Noted
• Additional information to be added in the
Implementation Chapter of the
Comprehensive plan
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 156
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
and measures to address impacts.
165
Franklin County
– Planning &
Building
Department
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #I
To summarize, we have found areas where the DEIS
should be further revised or amended prior to the
issuance of a final EIS, to clarify and document
plans, their impacts, and mitigation strategies. We
have also identified some areas of concern related
to an Urban Growth Area expansion request and
have provided some early feedback in anticipation
of the application, based on the EIS. As
always, we welcome a meeting to coordinate and
collaborate on these important issues.
Noted
166
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
The Draft EIS, section 4.9.1 on page 44, states: “The
Washington State Department of Transportation is
responsible for maintaining an adequate level of
service on these highways.” We believe this
statement is misleading or inaccurate. With no
development in the Tri-Cities, the I-182 bridge could
expect to function within acceptable standards for
many years to come. The US 395 bridge could be
more easily managed. Development is driving the
need for transportation management and the
proposed development in the UGA expansion area
will certainly contribute to the need for improved
management. It is the responsibility of the whole
region to address impacts to the state system.
• RCW 36.70A.110(2) requires each city to
designate an urban growth area based on
population projected made for each county by
the WA Office of Financial Management.
• Projected population for the City of Pasco as
allocated by Franklin County is 121,828 by the
year 2038, an increase of over 45,000 people
• Not expanding the UGA would severely limit
the location of housing, possible increasing
affordable housing challenges and decreasing
level of service operations on city facilities and
services
• Existing V/C Ratio for I-182 shows signs of
congestion (0.80 – 0.90) with a V/C above 1.0
on US 395/Blue Bridge. Congestion challenges
are also identified in the BFCOG M/RTP
• With expected population and employment
growth, the City of Pasco is implementing a
variety of land use strategies and policies to
encourage less car dependent travel including
increased densities, additional neighborhood,
regional and office space land uses in NW
Pasco and the proposed UGA. Additionally, the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 157
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
proposed (ongoing) code amendment address
street connectivity will help provide a
foundation for a connected transportation
network with shorter block lengths that may
encourage alternative modes of travel.
• The City of Pasco is in the process of
conducting the Transportation System Master
Plan which will also address updates to our
Transportation Impact Analysis methodology
and Transportation Impact/Mitigation Fees for
private developments to ensure proper
compensation and measures are in place.
167
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
The planned expansion of the industrial area along
US 395 north of I-182 does not include
transportation connection of residential (housing) to
industrial (jobs) without using the State system.
• Noted, coordination with Franklin County will
be necessary for any facilities operating with
Pasco City Limits, Urban Growth Area and
Franklin County
168
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
We encourage the City of Pasco to plan for the
future development and growth of the Tri-Cities
Regional Airport. The demand for commercial
passenger air service as well as air cargo are forecast
to increase as time goes on. Airports with existing
commercial service will play a vital role in trying to
meet the demand for air service. SeaTac
International Airport is reaching the limits of its
capacity and existing commercial service airports
will be needed to help meet the demand. The Tri-
Cities Regional Airport in Pasco is critical to the
region’s transportation system providing air
passenger and cargo service to southeast
Washington. It is Washington’s fourth largest
airport. Passenger traffic grew over 25% between
2015 and 2019.
The Airport Master Plan shows future plans to
• Noted
• City ongoing TSMP progress, WSDOT is
stakeholder/TAC member
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 158
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
potentially extend runway 12 – running southeast to
northwest – 1,850 feet to the northwest. In order
for the Tri-Cities Regional Airport to continue its
regional function, it is important to preserve the
ability to expand. We believe it is important for the
City of Pasco to work with the Tri-Cities Regional
Airport sponsors and management, aviation
businesses, general aviation pilots, ports, and the
Aviation Division of WSDOT, and convene formal
consultation between the stakeholders to discuss
the potential impacts to the Airport.
Suggested revised mitigation measure: The City will
prioritize and implement travel demand
methodologies identified in the City of Pasco Draft
Comprehensive Plan to limit and manage the
demand on and access to transportation network,
including the major facilities of I-182 and US 395,
and the river crossings. This will include identifying
funding sources and an implementation schedule.
169
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
There are a large number of dwellings between
Road 36 and Road 100 north of I-182 with many
more planned. We believe Powerline Road also
needs to be extended to Glade Road (about one
mile) and Foster Wells Road (another mile, but
probably requires grade-separation over the
railroad lines). Powerline Road is conveniently
placed for these large number of dwellings and
should be developed as a collector or arterial. This
corridor could extend from Shoreline Road in the
west to Pasco Kahlotus Road in the east, a distance
of more than 14 miles and improves local
transportation network connectivity.
• Comment Noted
• TSMP underway
170 Washington
State 6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J The Capital Facilities Plan Analysis includes Synchro
modeling results for the year 2024 for Rd 100 and
• Noted
• City believes we have met the requirement
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 159
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Department of
Transportation
Road 68 EB & WB off ramps. We understand the
City has results for 2038 for all of the
interstate/highway interchanges and river crossings.
We would like to see this information included in
the Comprehensive Plan.
and intent of RCW 36.70A.070(6)
171
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
The Benton Franklin Council of Governments’ model
shows severe problems with both the I-182 and US
395 bridges in 2038, but the draft materials do not
discuss these important transportation features. It is
most likely these impacts will need to be addressed
through reduction in demand. As stated above, the
City has plans to change Municipal Code and
implement TDM strategies with the hope of
reducing trips.
• Existing V/C Ratio for I-182 shows signs of
congestion (0.80 – 0.90) with a V/C above 1.0
on US 395/Blue Bridge. Congestion challenges
are also identified in the BFCOG M/RTP
• City has ongoing code amendment addressing
transportation connectivity and accessibility
for all modes, including creating walkable and
transit accessible / friendly communities
172
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
In Volume 2-Supporting Analysis, in the
Recommendations section on page 119, it states
that “Some projects will be the City’s responsibility;
others will be the responsibility of WSDOT, and in
many cases, developers will be required to construct
improvements associated with proposed
subdivisions or other developments.” WSDOT does
maintain and operate the state highway system.
However, as stated above, development is driving
the need for transportation management and it is
the responsibility of the whole region to address
impacts to the state system. We would like the
phrase “others will be the responsibility of WSDOT”
to be rephrased.
• Noted
• Add language clarifying that WSDOT
responsibilities only apply to WSDOT facilities
173
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
PMC 3.40.100 established the “I-182 Corridor
Impact Fund”. We understand that traffic impact fee
requirements, fees, and applicability are being
evaluated through the Transportation System
Master Plan.
We note that a number of projects could draw on it
• PMC 3.40.100 (1-182 Corridor Traffic Impact
Fund) was created to house/collect fees
associated with traffic impact (TIFs).
https://pasco.municipal.codes/PMC/3.40.100
• The Traffic Impact Fee requirements, fees and
applicability are being evaluated through the
TSMP
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 160
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
even if they are not on or do not intersect I-182. It
seems this would be an important sources of funds
to address impacts to I-182.
174
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020
Compreh
ensive
Plan Vol
2
Exhibit #J
A number of funding sources are described in the
Capital Facilities Plan Analysis on pages 34-40. In
Volume 2 – Supporting Analysis, Tables T-10 (pages
106-107) and T-11 (pages 110-117) list a number of
funding sources. It would be helpful to have similar
descriptions for these funding sources as well. These
could be included in the Capital Facilities Plan
Analysis, or it would be most convenient to have the
descriptions in the Finance section of Volume 2
beginning on page 119.
Add description as suggested
175
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J Please include funding sources for the planned TDM
measures.
Refined strategies for TDM including funding
sources will be specifically identified in the
upcoming Transportation System Master Plan,
expected in 2021.
176
Washington
State
Department of
Transportation
6/15/2020 DEIS Exhibit #J
We understand that you will add a map showing the
changes in land use designations in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Noted
177 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Concerned about an apparent lack of information
regarding outreach to Spanish speaking residents.
You may very well have conducted specific outreach
to the Spanish speaking community - but it was left
out of the public relations plan or primary
document. Please indicate what effort was made in
the final document, or delay the process until the
process can be more inclusive.
• The City reached out directly to stakeholders
and organizations throughout the public
review process of the Comprehensive Plan
(DEIS)
• The City also includes numerous media and
community orgs/agencies through it normal
Public Press Release notifications including the
following:
o Bustos Media; Cherry Creek Media;
KNDU, KEPR, KVEWTV, La Vox, La
Raza del Noreste, Tri-Cities Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, Tu Decides,
Univision, Latino Coalition and the
Downtown Pasco Development
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 161
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Authority
178 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Utilizing the EPA's Environmental Justice screen to
learn about Pasco ("user specified area" is depicted
in green), I confirmed what I already suspected.
Pasco residents are disproportionately burdened by
traffic noise, air pollution, and exposure to diesel
dust.
See response to comment #78
179 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Regarding the Broadmoor development, please
work with the developer and BFT to ensure that the
Mixed Use Regional includes a bus transfer station.
It is the most logical location for Delta HS kids as
well as commuters into Richland.
Noted
180 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
No mention of water supply. The Quad Cities water
right is finite and required the cities to take
conservation actions. Ironically at the time it was
negotiated the city forced a Desert Plateau resident
to rip out perfectly fine shrub steppe plants, and put
in irrigation and turf grass. There should be no
mandate that people put in lawns as they are a
notorious waste of water. Trees use less water and
are more beneficial by decreasing the heat island
effect and stormwater, and increasing property
values. They should be broadly encouraged and
even required in some cases.
Water rights existing conditions are covered in
Section 4.2.1. Section 4.10.3 includes a mitigation
measure to secure additional water rights to meet
the future demand.
Additionally Section 4.3.3 identifies promoting the
preservation of on-site native vegetation,
particularly riparian vegetation near surface waters
and upland shrub-steppe communities, as a
mitigation measure
181 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Promote ADUs, and remove requirements that only
a family member can live in them. Many people
might invest in them if they knew it was allowed,
and that would be a perfect solution for 'thickening'
the areas from 40th west to Riverview without
having to build more city services.
• Noted
• City is working through House Bill 1923
amendments in 2020-2021 including an
amendment to the existing accessory dwelling
unit regulations
182 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Please add bike racks and a safe path from the
sidewalk to the entrance as bulleted items in this
section, as you have LID in the water section. (I live
near Steptoe and Gage and there is no safe access
by foot or bike to Dairy Queen without crossing the
The City recognizes the need to bike facilities
improvements. The Complete Streets policies will
implement safer bike lanes.
Improvements are identified in Volume II
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 162
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
parking lot or riding in a traffic lane. They had no
bike rack for many years, but I believe they do now.)
Please don't leave the old neighborhoods behind,
but rather incorporate appropriate street speeds
(reducing if necessary) and implementing road diets.
The entire length of Sylvester, for example, does not
warrant such wide lanes or high speeds and could
serve the central and historic Pasco neighborhoods
better with protected
bike lanes, and shaded park strips east of 395.
183 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Additional measures to suggest: Require trees in all
new developments to absorb rain, help ameliorate
some stormwater issues and combat the urban heat
island effect. Consider levying stormwater
assessments based on the amount of impervious
surfaces - three car driveways impact stormwater
more than two car driveways. Keeping water on the
lots minimizes the need for stormwater detention
basins which sometimes don't perk, and can harbor
mesquites. Require a percentage of pervious paving
and onsite swales for commercial establishments.
Noted. See response to comment #s 89, 98 and 137
All stormwater is required to be retained on site
within the development.
184 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K Low-impact development should go in 4.2.3. Update as suggested
185 Wireman,
Ginger 6/10/2020 DEIS Exhibit #K
Concerned that the highest density zoning is only
near the railroad and airport. Surely, there can be
some denser pockets distributed across the
community?
• The Urban Growth Area has increased
medium-density and high-density residential
distributed widely through the proposed
expansion area. Approximately 15% of the
UGA reserved for medium to high density
residential
• The Draft Future Land Use Map indicates
increased densities in the expanded Urban
Growth Area, Broadmoor, Road 68 and near
Osprey Point
• Ongoing code amendments (House Bill 1923)
will increase the minimum densities and
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 163
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
building capacity of the Low Density
Residential Land Use across the entire city
186 Burns, Max &
Diana 07/12/2020
Compreh
ensive
Plan
Exhibit #M
One of our main concerns is the current lack of
sidewalks going from Burns Rd and Broadmoore
down to Dent and Kohler Roads. As you know two
schools are scheduled to open this fall which will
result in students walking home after school or even
later after sports practices and other after school
activities. Many families live in the developments off
of both Dent and Kohler Roads but there are no
sidewalks for these students to safely walk home.
As a former middle school principal my school faced
a similar problem as students were often walking in
the middle of the road due to the lack of a side walk.
I trust the council members have driven around
these areas of development and understand our
concern. Especially when walking west on Burns
from Broadmoore where there is a steep hill and
basically no edge to walk safely out of the traffic
lanes.
Likewise there are no sidewalks on Dent resulting in
folks walking in the road. I witness this on many
evenings as neighbors are out for an evening walk
but must walk in the road due to a lack of sidewalks.
Is there a plan to resolve this safety issue?
• The City previously left sidewalk constructions
(and full-street) construction as a developer
option in Low-Density Residential areas. In
2019, Ordinance 4454 was adopted by the
Pasco City Council requiring sidewalk
construction in all/every residential zone
• The current Transportation Improvement
Program has identified a pedestrian
connection on Burns Road to assist non-
motorized users with accessing the new school
sites (funding is pending)
187 Burns, Max &
Diana 07/12/2020
Compreh
ensive
Plan
Exhibit #M
We would also like to see more parks and walking
trails as the city expands out into the rural areas.
We have lived at our current residence for 40 years
and as the growth has moved north areas to safely
walk and enjoy nature have decreased. There are
several areas that are a natural fit for such trails but
I assume the city must designate them as such to
keep houses from taking over these areas? Will the
• The Comprehensive Plan includes a Parks and
Open Space Element that describes the
expected level of service to be maintained to
adequate provide service to the growing
population
• Level of Service estimates were identified in
the 2016 Parks & Forestry Plan
• The Administrative and Community Services
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 164
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
council be speaking about the number and types of
parks to be included in the plan? Whose
responsibility is it to see that these plans come to
fruition?
Department is responsible for park planning
188 Burns, Max &
Diana 07/12/2020
Compreh
ensive
Plan
Exhibit #M
The current plans talks about keeping developments
aesthetically pleasing but our concern is that most
of the recent developments look like clones of each
other due to the large brown brick fences
surrounding them.
When some of the first developments-Quail Run,
Pelican Point-were developed they did not have to
put up fences leaving the beauty of open space.
Driving north and south on Dent Rd is like driving
through a brown brick tunnel.
Is the fencing requirement a decision of the
property developer or can the council set standards
for fencing types or no fencing at all?
• Landscaping and Screening, including fencing
are regulated in PMC 25.180 and are the
responsibility of the property
developer/owner.
• Regulations and standards in Title 25 (Zoning)
are recommended by the Planning
Commission with final decisions made by the
Pasco City Council
• Amendments (changes/revisions) to the
municipal code can be initiated by any person,
firm, group of individuals or municipal
department as indicated in PMC 25.210.020
189 Burns, Max &
Diana 07/12/2020
Compreh
ensive
Plan
Exhibit #M
We agree with the idea of walking communities but
wonder who will be setting the codes for these
communities. Will it be a decision of the property
developer, the council or combined decision?
• Standards and regulations in Title 21
(Subdivision Regulations) and Title 25 (Zoning)
are recommended by the Planning
Commission and final decisions are made by
the Pasco City Council.
190 What is mixed-use property on River Shore Drive
and Burns Rd. defined as?
• The City will create a series of new Mixed-Use
Designations through the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan.
• Mixed-Use-Neighborhood (MU-N) is draft Land
Use created out of the Broadmoor Master
Planning effort (ongoing). This Land Use is
characterized as including a variety of housing
types and commercial/office space.
191 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
In future comprehensive planning efforts, BFT
recommends that two different firms or teams of
firms be considered for plan development and
Noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 165
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
subsequent environmental reviews.
192 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
BFT appreciates participating in the review of the
EIS, but it may have been appropriate to include
BFT, as the region's transit agency, in an earlier
stage of the plan development process. BFT's late
inclusion in the consultation process appears to
have inhibited meaningful consideration of transit
into Pasco's planning framework.
Noted
193 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
BFT noted that the Plan forecasts housing needs as a
function of long-range population growth within a
static and unchanging average household size of
3.17 (e.g. Table 1 related text in the EIS). The data
tables are not sufficiently detailed in that household
size is applied across all housing types, but the
average household size does appear to remain static
even as the City changes the housing mix.
Nationally, average household size has declined
steadily and consistently for 160 years; only since
2010 has household size seen a slight increase.
These long-term trends reflect both a declining birth
rate and a reduction in extended
(multigenerational) family living.
It seems unlikely that household size in Pasco will
remain as a constant in the face of changing
national trends, economic uncertainty, and
demographic change. It is highly probable that
household size will change, reflecting long-standing
shifts in the composition of households and
demographic trends, and this is especially true if the
City adds smaller, higher density, and mixed-use
housing as proposed in the Plan.
The assumption that household size is static over
• Noted, the city recognizes that household sizes
vary by unit type
• Average household size is derived from the
existing housing units and existing total
population. This gives an average/base
number to work with for future need. It is
understandable that this numbers can vary
and can also change over time.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 166
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
time may be unrealistic, and it may lead the City to
plan for today's families, leaving fewer options that
respond to the needs of future generations.
194 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Table 2 and related text identifies the available land
capacity as land that is currently vacant and
developable, while the number of housing units that
can be accommodated on that land consists almost
exclusively of larger lot single-family houses.
Within the existing city limits, density is less than 3.5
dwelling units per acre. Within the urban growth
area (UGA), the density target is just under 5.5
dwelling units per acre. The target density for the
Broad moor area is unclear, given the data
presented (and still uncertain, given the lack of an
approved development plan).
The implication of the density target, however, is
that most higher density land uses will be located
along the fringes in new development areas. This
may avoid conflict with existing residential areas,
but it does not lead to walking, cycling, or transit to
become viable transportation options.
• In addition to the increased density target, the
City is working through a major code
amendment (CA2019-013) Street Connectivity
to ensure that new developments result in
smaller, more walkable blocks with connected
streets, pathways and corridors within the City
limits and in the proposed UGA.
195 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Table 3 and related text presents the acreage of
existing municipal, UGA, and proposed UGA land
areas by land use type. Residential is characterized
as low, medium, medium-high, and high density,
with the vast majority of land zoned as low density
residential. Commercial areas include single-use
categories of commercial and office, as well as a
number of mixed-use categories with labels that are
more indicative of where the development is than
what urban form it takes (e.g. "mixed-use
interchange").
• Noted. As already mentioned in response #65,
Planning Department has numerous code
amendments underway and planned to
address increased residential densities,
creating additional mixed-use areas and
corridors to support multi-modal
transportation and walkable communities
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 167
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
This table-and every discussion of density-needs to
incorporate the measures of density if it is to be
useful in the analysis of transit or active
transportation modes. Density is the most
important factor that increases utilization of transit,
walking, and cycling (coequal with street network
connectivity in importance). The number of dwelling
units per acre is the common measure for
residential density, while total acreage and floor-
area ratio (FAR) provides the density measures for
commercial and industrial development. Both
measures should be provided for mixed
residential/commercial zones.
196 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Chapter 3 begins by saying that "Densities will be
increased under the preferred alternatives, which
may significantly impact the character of the City,
especially in the Broad moor area and the area to
the north proposed for future UGA expansion. Some
areas in existing single-family neighborhoods may
have increased densities and infill developments in
both action alternatives 2 and 3."
First, it is unclear what is meant by "character'' in
this context. Character encompasses a range of
physical components of the built environment
including building use and height, architectural style
and materials, building setbacks and density, street
width and layout, vegetation and landscape,
topography, and other factors. The term "character''
is widely used in plans throughout the United States
and beyond, but the term is also the subject of
controversy and criticism precisely because a
definition of "character" is highly subjective, almost
always a matter of individual taste and preference,
and rarely given a specific definition in planning
• Noted, and may be revised. Character should
be replaced with “built environment”. This
paragraph describes that future development
will occur in the proposed UGA and within the
City’s existing neighborhoods with infill
developments to increase densities.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 168
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
documents. In short, "character" is just a personal
opinion; yet, the term "character" (referring to
community aesthetic or environmental context) is
used approximately six times in the EIS. Each use of
the term "character" occurs in a different context
and with a potentially distinct meaning. If a common
definition of "character" does not exist, how can
anyone determine when "character" has been
significantly impacted or altered? Moreover, is
changing the City's character necessarily an
undesirable outcome?
Second, neither the data presented nor the
explanatory text support a finding that the City's
character (whatever that may mean to an individual)
may be "significantly" impacted by the plan
alternatives 2 or 3. Density (3.Sdu/acre) in areas
currently developed is not planned to change,
except through infill development at comparable
density of development; the development of
permitted lots that are currently vacant in existing
neighborhoods does not necessarily lead to a
change in neighborhood character. Density in
undeveloped areas (5.Sdu/acre) in future
development areas-areas that are not currently
developed-will not necessarily affect the character
of existing neighborhoods that are located in other
parts of the city. Even the text, as worded,
acknowledges that there may be no impact to
overall density in existing neighborhoods, except to
the extent that infill development at currently
allowable densities may take place.
197 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020
DEIS/
Comp
Plan
Exhibit #N
The EIS (p. 12) states that "Alternative 3 will have a
variety of housing styles, including cluster and
multi-family housing, and will impact less area in the
• Clarification added as suggested
• The City is in the process of various code
amendments intended to increase the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 169
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
unincorporated part of the County." We interpret
this to mean, using simplified language, that "the
plan provides for a variety of higher density housing
options, requiring less expansion of the urban
growth area (UGA)."
A diverse mix of housing may be desirable to attract
a more diverse population. Transit service thrives
when there is a mix of higher density housing,
ranging from small lot homes to accessory dwelling
units, condominiums and apartments, and
townhouses, especially where those housing types
are integrated with retail and office as mixed-use
developments. We encourage this approach to
development, as long as the higher density
development is located along major arterials where
transit operates and as long as the City improves
pedestrian access to development along these
arterials.
The data presented in Table 3 (and LU-2) and
elsewhere in the text (including the lack of data and
discussion) do not support this statement of finding
in the EIS. Table 3 indicates that 79% of Pasco's
residentially zoned land area will continue to be
devoted to low density (single-family detached)
housing. Medium density housing will occupy 17%
of the residentially zoned land area, while
medium-high and high-density housing will occupy a
combined 4% of residentially zoned land area. The
data in Table 3 reaffirms Pasco's commitment to
predominantly large lot, single-family housing. The
key takeaway from this is that it is possible that the
City has an aspirational goal to achieve greater
diversity in its housing stock, but it does not appear
permitted/allowed housing types across every
residential parcel and zoning designation.
Code Amendments are being conducted as
part of the House Bill 1923 Legislation to
create and increase residential building
capacities. As such, the City is continuing
efforts with the Planning Commission to
permit duplexes, triplexes, courtyard
apartments, accessory dwelling units and
utilizing lot size averaging to encourage
housing diversity and construction flexibility
• Table 3indicates existing land use in the City
limits and current UGA. The proposed land
uses are shown in Table 4 and Table 5 for
Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 170
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
the Comprehensive Plan as written will necessarily
enable that to occur.
198 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 3.2, Table 7 states, "Housing meets the 20-
year demand with a variety of housing types and
residential densities."
This statement is unsupported by the data
presented in the plan. Even alternative (3) maintains
large lot, single-family, low density housing (3.5-4.0
du/acre) as the dominant residential land use for
nearly 80% of the future land area. "Medium
density" housing (17% of residential land use) may
still include single-family detached and attached
housing on smaller lots (e.g. 6.0-10.0 du/acre). The
dominance of residential land area devoted to
single-family housing does not suggest or
accommodate a "variety" of housing types and
densities.
• See response #197 above
• See footnote #1 in Table 5, that the low
density residential land includes 40 acres of
parks, 160 acres of land for school facilities
and additional public lands.
199 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 3.1.2 states, "The additional traffic
generated by the increased housing densities, and
commercial, and public facilities land uses could
impact existing traffic patterns. Both action
alternatives would result in a substantial increase in
traffic volume ... "
The use of "could" in the first sentence appears to
be speculative and without basis in analysis.
The subsequent use of "would" in the next sentence
turns the speculation into a foregone conclusion.
We can reasonably deduce that any growth scenario
for Pasco will result in increased traffic, particularly
given that the status quo and both alternatives
largely maintain the current development approach
that has resulted in increasing traffic levels.
• Noted
• See Section 4.10 Transportation,
Transportation Element in Volume 2, and
Appendix A, mapfolio maps T-1 to T-12 for
detailed analysis.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 171
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
However, the Comprehensive Plan and
accompanying Transportation Master Plan should
not treat this outcome as a foregone conclusion;
they should envision a strategy where growth can
be accommodated in a way that minimizes
transportation system impacts.
200 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 3.1.2 states, "the Broad moor area in both
alternatives will retain more traffic internally due to
the increase of mixed land uses."
In stark contrast to the prior comment (in response
to the apparent conclusion that traffic will increase),
the plan proceeds to suggest that large-scale
expansion of development at Road 100/Broadmoor
will have little, or at least limited, impact on the
regional transportation network.
This statement is not supported by evidence, and it
is a highly unlikely outcome. It is unclear how the
City of Pasco or the developers of the Broadmoor
area will force "more traffic" to remain internal to
the area. Highly successful mixed-use developments
naturally attract traffic from other parts of a region.
Likewise, people who choose to live in a mixed-use
development may not necessarily work within the
mixed-use area; that is, they may still have to
commute to a job in another part of the region even
if many of their other activities take place within the
mixed-use area. This paradigm can be different for
transit-accessible development in regions with well-
developed rapid transit systems, but the statement
in the local context reflects an improbable outcome.
• Noted and text should be amended. The rate
of increased congestion in terms of VMT and
VHT will be slowed down due to the increased
land uses and densities along with associated
new street pattern and connectivity
requirements with the intent of fostering a
more hospitable environment for multi-modal
travel
201 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N Section 3.1.4 states, "The City's zoning code
currently allows mixed uses in certain zones with
• See response #6 above regarding House Bill
1923 and ongoing Street Connectivity Code
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 172
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Mixed-Residential/Commercial land use. Both
alternatives would promote mixed-use
developments as future development is anticipated
in the Broadmoor area."
Although this section is presented in the context of
health, a pedestrian-oriented city is also a precursor
to making transit accessible to a city's residents.
Mixed-use (residential/commercial) is apparently
focused only in the Broadmoor area, an area that
will likely be anchored by highway oriented
commercial development, dominated by higher
income single-family housing, and located within the
barriers of 1-182, the Columbia River, and the
northern urban growth area boundary.
Therefore, the Broadmoor area-the only
concentration of mixed-use development
represented in the Plan- is unlikely to benefit from a
quality, frequent transit service. Without effective
transit, the traffic impacts resulting from higher
density in the Broad moor area will be more
significant than would occur in an area with a well-
connected street network. In addition, the amount
of land dedicated to mixed residential/commercial
uses is minimal. That is, both the scale and location
of mixed-use and higher density residential
development is likely insufficient to have any
meaningful impact on non-single-occupant vehicle
mode share, thus contributing to mounting
congestion over time from the get-go.
Amendments; both will apply across all zoning
and new developments in the city
• City is also updating its Traffic Impact Analysis
procedures and Traffic Mitigation Fee process
to ensure appropriate improvements are
included in any/all developments
202 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 3.2, Table 7 indicates that "Growth within
the UGA, planned areas would reduce sprawl."
While the planned action may encourage infill at
Noted.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 173
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
prevailing residential densities and a slightly higher
greenfield development density along the fringes, it
is unclear that the proposed action would reduce
sprawl. The term "sprawl" (and its variations) is used
over 20 times in the EIS, but nowhere is it defined.
Sprawl is generally understood to mean geographic
expansion of a city with most development
occurring through a single-use, low density
development.
203 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 3.2, Table 7 states, "Adds new
transportation improvements to improve
connectivity and street design that supports urban
environment. Adds multi-modal travel options."
Although connectivity and multi-modal travel
options are indicated as aspirational goals in the
Comprehensive Plan, there is no plan or action that
would modify land development and infrastructure
design standards to achieve this goal. Policies under
Comprehensive Plan Goal TR-2 are encouraging, but
"policies to encourage" are not actionable against
competing (road) design standards that are
mandatory.
• See comments response #6 above regarding
House Bill 1923 and Street Connectivity Code
Amendment; The City Construction and Design
Standards would be updates in accordance
with the Pasco Municipal Code updates
204 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 3.2, Table 7 indicates that, "A higher density
development will involve less land, reduce vehicular
traffic, and will reduce impact to air quality and
ozone."
This statement is not supported by any presented
evidence. Higher density development, even high-
rise developments, whether commercial or
residential, located in areas without well-connected
streets and a minimum level of transit will still
generate high volumes of private vehicle traffic.
Absent any other viable mobility options, high
• Noted
• The City intends to adopt a major revision to
the PMC Title 21 that will require smaller block
lengths, perimeters with requirements for
pedestrian and non-motorized pathways to
provide maximum route and travel choices for
users
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 174
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
density developments will generate more traffic
than lower density developments in a geographic
area of comparable size.
205 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Section 4.4.1, Table 9 includes a footnote that says,
"The total includes 4,300 acres of street right of
way, which is about 17% of the total land area."
A well-connected urban street grid (similar to
downtown Pasco) that supports higher density
development typically results in street infrastructure
that covers 28% to 35% of total land area.
Disconnected street networks in areas that are not
characterized as walkable or transit accessible
typically have a street right-of-way coverage of less
than 20% of total land area. It is possible to
minimize the footprint occupied by roads while
maintaining a high level of access, but this approach
requires a greater emphasis on pedestrian access
than currently exists in most cities.
Noted
206 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Page 32, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories,
offers the first reference in the EIS to density
thresholds. This is a critical element of defining how
growth will occur in the Plan, and it seems
appropriate to discuss key definitions, including
density (along with "character" and "sprawl") early
in the document. The plan defines residential and
mixed-use density as follows:
• Low Density Residential means 2 to 5 single-
family dwelling units per acre (79% of
residential land area).
o As previously noted, this represents a
significant portion of the City's
residential land that remains devoted
to very low-density sprawl.
• Noted
• The City plans to develop a coordinated
approach to include Ben Franklin Transit,
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and
the Washington State Departments of
Transportation and Commerce in zoning
amendments
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 175
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
• Medium Density Residential means 6 to 20
dwelling units per acre (17% of residential land
area).
o This is a wide range of density, coupled
with a very permissive range of
allowable housing types (defined
elsewhere) that can easily be
maintained as single-family housing. It
is unclear how the City of Pasco seeks
to shape urban form in such an overly
broad land use category.
• Medium-High Density Residential {2% of
residential land area)
o This category of residential land
use is indicated in earlier data
tables but not defined, in terms of
dwelling units per acre, and not
consistently referenced
throughout the EIS.
• High Density Residential means 21 units per
acre or greater (2% of residential land
area).
• Mixed Residential/Commercial means 5 to
29 dwelling units per acre and Commercial
development, which lacks a density
measure.
o Measuring mixed-use density with
a residential density measure
absent a commercial density
measure (e.g. floor-to-area ratio,
or FAR, which allows the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 176
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
calculation of gross commercial
floor area) results in an
incomplete measure of density.
The lack of density measures for
commercial areas is a concern,
from a transit perspective.
• Commercial development densities are not
defined. Commercial development
densities should use FAR as the common
density measure.
As a general rule, for transit to be effective and
efficient (productive, in terms of service) and to be
useful and convenient as a mode of travel (frequent)
for the general population, urban development
needs to meet a minimum level of density and,
where viable, be incorporated into mixed-use
developments.
207 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
On frequent bus corridors (every 15 minutes or
better), it is generally desirable to achieve a floor-
area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 or greater for commercial
development and greater than 10 dwelling units per
acre in order to exceed a combined 15 residents,
visitors, students, and employees per acre within
one-quarter mile of the corridor.
In urban centers (or "hubs"} and locations near
transit centers (focal points with high levels of
connecting transit service), and on corridors
planned for bus rapid transit, it is generally desirable
to achieve a mixed-use FAR of 2.0 or greater and at
least 25 dwelling units per acre, or any combination
of commercial and residential development, to
exceed 40 residents, visitors, students, and
• Noted
• The Draft (proposed) future Land Use
incorporates higher concentrations of
residential and commercial densities and along
planned future corridors with ongoing code
amendments increasing housing
density/flexibility within existing zoning
districts.
• Code Amendment 2019-013 Street
Connectivity will require smaller block lengths,
perimeters and pedestrian/non-motorized
pathways
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 177
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
employees per acre within one-quarter mile of the
corridor.
Higher density should be focused within existing
urban arterial corridors where transit service
already exists. It should never be assumed that
transit will be extended to new areas (the lack of
street connectivity often precludes the extension of
transit into new development areas).
Major institutions, such as large schools (high
schools and colleges), should be planned along
transit arterials and not located in fringe areas or
within neighborhoods that cannot be served
effectively by transit. In contrast, smaller schools
serving younger students (e.g. elementary schools)
should be deliberately sized and located so that
safe, walkable routes to school can be offered
within a neighborhood; they should typically not be
located along major arterials.
In addition to increased development density,
serious consideration should be given to the current
levels of minimum parking required for
development projects. Free parking discourages the
use of transit by making it more convenient for
people to drive and by making it uncomfortable or
more difficult to walk (e.g. crossing a parking lot
adds to the trip length and discomfort for
pedestrians).
Where transit is not viable, including areas with
irregular or disconnected street patterns and low-
density areas, higher density developments should
not be allowed. Newly developing areas on the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 178
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
urban fringe are not typically suitable for transit-
oriented, high-density development.
208 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Access to Circulation Routes
Page 32, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories,
states that, "Higher density residential, mixed
residential/commercial, and commercial land
categories are required to be convenient to major
circulation routes."
What is a "circulation route?" Do "circulation
routes" have any relationship to the functional
classifications of the city's street network? What
does "convenient" mean, and how is it measured?
For example, Broadmoor Apartments and Silver
Creek Apartments both have frontages on Chapel
Hill Boulevard and are located along 1-182. It can be
said that they are higher density developments that
are "convenient to major circulation routes."
However, they are not easily served by transit, and
pedestrian access to any other land use from these
higher density residential developments is almost
non-existent. They may be convenient for some
residents, but they are not likely convenient for
people who want to walk, bike, or take public
transit.
• Noted
• See comments response #207 regarding Code
Amendment 2019-013
209 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Commute Trip Lengths
Section 4.8.2 Impacts (Alternative 3) states that" ...
the land use assumptions of Alternative 3 would
potentially decrease the amount [sic] of trips and
trip lengths resulting with less [sic] overall impacts
to the transportation network than Alternative 2.
Increased density in urban areas would most
efficiently support new or extended bus routes in
addition to more frequent service provided by
transit facilities. Similarly, non-motorized transit
• Noted
• Results from the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use / Traffic Forecast indicated decreased
rates of increasing congestion that were
mitigated by the added residential and
commercial densities and locations throughout
the proposed Urban Growth Area expansion
• The City intends to adopt Code Amendment
2019-013 addressing Street Connectivity
before the end of 2020 which would require
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 179
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
demand would also increase."
The most important statement that BFT could make
in response to this EIS is this: If increased density
requires new or extended bus routes. then the
locations proposed for increased density are
generally not appropriate for transit-supportive
development.
At the levels of density proposed, and especially
since all new higher density development is
proposed in areas along the fringes, it is unclear that
the Alternative 3 land use scenario could
"potentially decrease" the number of trips and trip
lengths or have fewer overall transportation
network impacts; this statement is speculative and
probably unreasonably optimistic. This is particularly
true for the Broadmoor area which will be isolated
between the Columbia River, 1-182, and the UGA
and only accessible to the region along Road 100.
For that reason, it is unclear whether the Broad
moor area could ever support a convenient level of
cost-effective transit service within or to the
development.
any/all new developments to conform to a
more conducive land development pattern
suited for multi-modal transportation
210 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020
DEIS/
Comp
Plan Vol
1
Exhibit #N
Pages 47-48, Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
LU-1-A Policy: Maintain and apply current design
standards for major public investments, particularly
streets.
TRl-J Policy: Encourage developments to meet the
mission of the Pasco Complete Street Policy
Unless the current street design standard is a
complete street standard, these two policies
• Noted
• Policy TRI-J will be revised to state ”require”
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 180
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
contradict one another. The policy that
"encourages" an action is unenforceable; thus, the
current street standard will apply and continue to
foster developments that can only be accessed by
car.
Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020 DEIS Exhibit #N
Page 48, Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
LU-4-A Policy: Reduce the dependency of vehicle
travel and encourage pedestrian and multi-modal
options by providing compatible land-uses in and
around residential neighborhoods.
It is unclear what a "compatible land use in and
around residential neighborhood" means in the
context of reducing vehicle travel and encouraging
multi-modal options.
• Noted
• Land use compatibility is already discussed in
Volume 2 of the Comp Plan. Final EIS will add
clarification on land uses compatibility suitable
for mitigation measures
211 Ben Franklin
Transit 07/13/2020
DEIS/
Comp
PLAN
Volume
1
Exhibit #N
Page 48, Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
TR-4-A Policy: Incorporate design and streetscape
into all major arterial and collector streets as they
are constructed.
All streets are designed before they are constructed,
and all streets have streetscapes (good or bad, as
the term merely references the appearance of a
street and its surroundings). What did the author
intend for this statement to mean?
• Noted
• Modify policy in the Comp Pan Vol 1 and
reference to DEIS to state: Incorporate design
and streetscape into all major arterial and
collector streets.
212 Misek, Lauren 07/27/2020 UGA Exhibit #P
Interested in more neighborhood parks, playground
constructions should be required as basic standards
in developments
Zoning and incentives for developing multiuse
spaces, instead of sprawling strip malls, encourages
density with forward thought into traffic/public
transport needs
• The City currently requires a Park Impact Fee
for each dwelling unit constructed
• An updated Parks & Forestry Plan will begin
after the completion of the Comprehensive
Plan
• The City is currently revising various sections
of the Pasco Municipal Zoning and Subdivision
Code including Development Standards to
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 181
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
incorporate/require more considerations for
non-motorized users/uses and creation of
walkable neighborhoods
213 Bachard, Tony 07/27/2020 UGA Exhibit #Q
I applaud the city's attempt to get ahead of the
population growth. I have lived in city limits, lived in
the "doughnut hole" and gone through annexation.
The problem with the development of urban growth
areas is the Franklin County Planning Commission
does not adhere to any planning requirements. I
have personally gone to several meetings and the
commission sides with the developers every single
time.
Roads are not improved. During the development of
Archer Estates and Spencer Estates along Bums and
Kohler Road, the planning reports stated the roads
are too narrow and not up to the standards the
current amount of traffic requires.
Even knowing this, the developers were not
required to improve the roads. Despite having gang
mailboxes on main arterial roads, no sidewalks were
put in. Fences and brick walls were put up as
development boundaries and no maintenance is
provided, leaving a garbage and weed strewn road.
Current county restrictions about access to arterial
roads and house fronting them are also ignored in
favor of maximizing developer's profits.
All of these issues become a problem down the road
when the urban growth area is eventually annexed
into the city. At the very least it puts undue burden
on homeowners. If these infrastructure problems
are to be fixed, the homeowners have to fund a lid
Noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 182
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
out of their own pockets despite having paid taxes
already.
When putting in these new urban growth areas I
urge you to go after the county and require them to
adhere to the minimum level of city developments
to avoid the problems the county keeps handing
you.
214 Williams,
Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O
I have reviewed the subject EIS and my concerns are
with basically dealing with growth in general, no
mater which plan is followed. My concerns mainly
with overall environmental issues impacting the
planet and quality of life in general.
• Noted
• The Draft EIS and FEIS will identify mitigation
measures addressing environmental concerns
215 Williams,
Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O
Traffic (Section 4-9)
Road 100 -Access to 1-182
Harris Rd to Sandifur road matchup. Harris needs to
be extended to match up with Sandifur and share
the signal that controlled access. Traffic from Harris
Rd, wanting to continue east on Sandifur, is locked
up when trying to turn left onto Broadmoor. At
times, this can be a long wait.
Road 36 and 44 Traffic Access to 1-182
This area needs access to 1-182 to allow for traffic
to enter directly the west bound lane. This would
mitigate morning traffic headed to Richland and
West Kennewick. An off ramp for eastbound traffic
on 1- 182 to exit onto Argent, before the Argent
underpass, would aid returning afternoon traffic.
This addition will off load the Road 68 exchange.
North Pasco to North Richland Bridge
This bridge would funnel traffic to the City of
• The City has plans to re-align Harris Road to
connect with Sandifur Parkway at Broadmoor
Blvd
• The City has preliminary funding through the
Transportation Improvement Plan to conduct a
I-182 Corridor Study identifying potential
solutions for connectivity and congestion
• The North Pasco to North Richland Bridge is
identified in the 2018 Long-Range
Metropolitan/Regional Transportation Plan
through the Benton-Franklin Council of
Governments. No Funding is secured.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 183
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Richland and the Hanford area. Richland is
presently working with expanding their Northern
area to provide spinoff growth relative to PNNL and
Hanford related technology industries.
216 Williams,
Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O
Utilities (Section 4.10)
Electric Power
Homes in the low density areas larger than 3500
square feet should be required to have solar power
systems. We live in an are where air condition is a
driver to high electrical loads. It only makes sense
that a home selling for $500-?00k, should have a
$40k power system. Homes in the high and low
density areas should have solar powered attic
ventilation to reduce summer air conditioning loads.
I have a solar powered fan in my attic and I have a
one-story 2300 square feet home. My electric yearly
electrical bill is divided by 12 and I have been paying
$75 per month or less
Noted
217 Williams,
Raymond 07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #O
Water
Landscaping should be controlled to have minimum
irrigation demand. Desert rockery and native steppe
vegetation should be required, not large lawns. This
would reduce the impact to City Water and Franklin
Irrigation systems. I see irrigation water running
down the gutter from homes north of me on my
street every day. We waste a lot of water. We need
to acknowledge that we live in a desert.
Noted
218
Department of
Natural
Resources
07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #P
The amendments, as proposed by the City, modify
all of DNR's land use designations from Industrial to
DNR Reserve Area. DNR is requesting that the land
use designation of Industrial remain on all of its
parcels in order to allow us to continue to prudently
manage these parcels for the benefit of our trust
The City kept the DNR Reserve Lands designation
for these lands but is reaching out to DNR to
evaluate future options with them. The City also
added a definition to the Land Use Classification
based on the State DNR’s Transition Lands Policy
Plan describing the criteria used to define both
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 184
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
beneficiaries as explained in further detail below. Urban and DNR Reserve Lands within the Urban
Growth Area
219
Department of
Natural
Resources
07/28/2020
DEIS/
Comp
Plan
Exhibit #P
DNR Reserve area is not defined. We have reviewed
the documents provided within the Draft EIS as well
as the documents listed on the City's comprehensive
plan page including Volumes I and 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Land Capacity
Analysis,. There is no definition of what DNR
Reserve Area means other than to state that it is
DNR land. This clearly doesn't articulate any
meaning related to long-term planning within the
comprehensive plan.
• Noted
• Specific language identifying lands will be
added to documents
220
Department of
Natural
Resources
07/28/2020
DEIS/
Comp
Plan
Exhibit #P
DNR Reserve area is an ambiguous designation. The
only information provided to us regarding the
justification for this new land use designation was
an excerpt from a Planning Commission meeting in
2018 in which city staff presented information to
the Planning Commission speculating on existing
and future use of DNR's land.
That excerpt is on Attachment B. The information
provided in that statement is inconsistent with how
DNR manages its lands and how we specifically
manage these transition parcels.
We cannot find anywhere in the supporting
documents listed on the City's comprehensive plan
web page, where the City justifies the land use
designation change.
The Land Capacity Analysis does not identify DNR
land nor does it discuss the reason for its exclusion
in the industrial land portion of the analysis. The
Land Capacity Analysis does include a reference to
RCW 36.70a.10(2) that states cities have discretion
• City is open to suggested designation form
DNR that suites the DNR ownership and use
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 185
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
to determine market factor (defined by Commerce
as a "deduction from net developable area to
account for lands assumed not to be developable in
the planning period") based on local circumstances.
If an assumption was made by city staff regarding
DNR's future use of its properties then we would
like to be provided with the documents that support
that assumption.
221
Department of
Natural
Resources
07/28/2020
DEIS/
Comp
Plan
Exhibit #P
DNR ownership is the only industrial property
impacted. The City has removed only DNR land from
its industrial land use classification. Purportedly, the
reasoning is due to its current agricultural use or
non-industrial use. If this is true, the same change
should apply to all other industrial land owners in
this area that are not currently developing their land
industrially.
However, it does not appear that any other non -
industrially developed state, federal, or private
properties with current industrial land use
designations have any proposed new land use
designations.
The GMA lists the protection of property rights as a
goal in the development of plans and regulations.
Government entities are required to consider the
impact of their actions upon property rights and
must refrain from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions-- RCW 36.70A.020(6). The failure to do so
constitutes noncompliance with the requirements of
the GMA-AGO 1992 No. 23, at 7.
Although this property is not privately owned, it is
trust property, which must be administered by the
• The Final EIS and Final Comprehensive Plan
(when approved/adopted) will include
additional revisions to existing lands
designated with the Industrial Land Use
affecting the Port of Pasco, the Tri-Cities
Airport and the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 186
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Department, as would a private trust-solely for the
benefit of the trust, not the public in general.
County of Skamania v. State, 102 Wn.2d
127,133,685 P.2d 576 (1984). The fact that only DNR
land is singled out for a proposed land use
designation change is contrary to the intent of the
GMA.
222
Department of
Natural
Resources
07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #P
Comprehensive Plan Elements. An amendment
modifying the land use designation from industrial
to DNR Reserve Area is inconsistent with the
existing and proposed policies of the comprehensive
plan. The inclusion of DNR's property within city
limits and the UGA shows that the City recognizes
the relevance of DNR's land to the city's historical
and current growth patterns. Nothing has changed
with DNR's property other than the City needing to
justify its UGA expansion.
Goal LU-2-A under the Land Use Element chapter
requires that the City maintain an adequate amount
of industrial land (among other land uses) proximate
to appropriate transportation and utility
infrastructure. Removing DNR land from the
industrial land use designation in order to add
additional industrial land currently outside of city
limits skirts the intent of this goal. ED-2-C Policy
within the Economic Development Element chapter
provides direction to continue the pursuit and
preservation of industrial sites for development that
may be serviced by existing utilities. This policy
continues to remain true for the DNR properties as
most, if not all, of the properties have access to
existing or planned utility infrastructure. In addition,
as the City has previously determined in the land
use designation process, the DNR properties are
• The City proposed Urban Growth Area
Expansion does not include any lands
owned/operated by the Department of
Natural Resources
• All DNR Lands are within the existing City
Limits and Urban Growth Area
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 187
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
located directly adjacent to developed industrial
land along Highway 12 and Highway 395. Clustering
planned or future industrial development within
close proximity to other industrial developments is
good planning policy.
223
Department of
Natural
Resources
07/28/2020 DEIS Exhibit #P
Land Use Appeals. Although the underlying zoning
of Light Industrial would remain in place and would
continue to allow permitted industrial uses on DNR's
properties, the concern DNR has with the proposed
land use designation change relates to discretionary
reviews and capital facility projects both of which
would require the reviewing party to turn to the
comprehensive plan to ensure the proposal would
meet the goals and policies. The DNR Reserve Area
designation is not defined so discretionary review
would then turn to the public record to find the
intent of the land use designation.
In addition, most jurisdictions and funding agencies
require documentation that any major capital
facilities projects comply with the capital facilities
plan, but also with the intent of the comprehensive
plan. It seems that the intent by the City is to
remove DNR land from the industrial land base and
identify it as land that will not be developed. If that
is the case (it is unclear as DNR Reserve Area is not
defined), then the land use designation and zoning
conflict with one another and one could argue that
any development on the DNR properties is not
consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan.
• Language clarifying the intent/purpose of the
Department of Natural Resource Lands will be
incorporated into relevant documents
(EIS/Comprehensive Plan)
• Including the industrial zoning (I-1) within the
Department of natural Resources permitted
zoning would comply with the DNR Land Use
224 Marvin, Marla 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #Q
I have read the DEIS and am surprised at so few
alternatives. Given this limited choice, I definitely
agree that #3 is the preferred. But I request further
consideration of expansion of the UGB boundary to
• Noted; The Urban Growth alternatives were
derived from the Scoped EIS issued in the Fall
of 2018 which proposed three alternatives
• Expansion east of HWY 395 for residential
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 188
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
the east and shrinking it to a straight line along Clark
Road as its northern boundary. I was surprised to
see no justification or explanation of why specific
roads were chosen, so please add an explanation
whether you take my suggestion or not
growth is limited due to the existing industrial
and heavy commercial uses.
• Roads identified in the DEIS are prioritized
based on projected and growth and assumed
land uses.
225 Marvin, Marla 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #Q
My chief concern is traffic congestion, primarily in I-
182 interchanges. WSDOT shares my concern, based
on its comments. WDOT comments note Pasco
cannot assume improvements in state
transportation infrastructure without working with
and receiving commitments from WDOT, which
apparently we do not have.
Please seek and secure commitments from WDOT
for improvements on Rd 68 and Rd 100 interchanges
before approving this planned expansion north of
the city, which feeds directly onto these two
interchanges. Please take all care that Road
100/Broadmoor not become the abomination that is
Road 68. (Never again should there be mid -block
access to high-volume retailers [like Walmart] as
was done on Rd. 68.)
• Noted
• The City is coordinating with the Washington
State Department of Transportation, the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Ben
Franklin Transit and others for the upcoming
Transportation System Master Plan. The TSMP
will provide refined projections for
travel/congestion along with identifying future
needs and solutions with applicable funding
sources.
• Ongoing Code Amendment (CA2019-013) will
emphasize street connectivity and access
management
226 Marvin, Marla 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #Q
I was happy to see a green hatchmarked area along
the Columbia River (Figure 4-5 map) on #2 and #3
suggesting a proposed new park. Please confirm
that Pasco has purchased this area and will in fact
provide public access to this beautiful river.
Hopefully, it will be a mix of native
plants/wild/restored areas preferred by non-human
species, as well as manicured grasses preferred by
many humans.
• Noted
• These lands are currently owned and operated
by the US Army Corps of Engineers are also
identified in preliminary Broadmoor Master
Planning efforts for natural/recreational use
such as parks and open space.
227 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R
Failure to adequately analyze and discuss traffic and
transportation impacts that will result from the City
proposed Action Alternatives, including the
Preferred Alternative
• Transportation Impacts are identified on Page
44 Section 4.9
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 189
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
228 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R
Failure to consider and include analysis of
reasonable alternative geographic areas for the
expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries around the
city.
• The Scoped EIS included alternatives to be
considered was issued in Fall 2018
• Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a
Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant
and underutilized lands that significantly
reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30%
• Further redevelopment of lands within the city
along corridors will be evaluated during
updates to the Pasco Municipal Codes Zoning
and Subdivision Regulations
229 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R
Failure to include an analysis of an Alternative
providing for a substantially smaller northward
expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary in the
area northwest of Pasco .
• Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a
Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant
and underutilized lands that significantly
reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30%
• Increased Land Use densities and added
Commercial Land Use permitted the reduction
of Alternative #3’s UGA boundary
230 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R
Failure to include an Alternative providing for
redevelopment of lands already within city limits
under zoning rules providing for enhanced density.
• Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a
Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant
and underutilized lands that significantly
reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30%
• Further redevelopment of lands within the city
along corridors will be evaluated during
updates to the Pasco Municipal Codes Zoning
and Subdivision Regulations
231 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R
An alternative calling for reduced area of expansion
in Northwest Pasco combined with expansion of the
boundary in Northeast Pasco, or with
redevelopment of lands within existing city limits.
• The Scoped EIS included alternatives to be
considered was issued in Fall 2018
• Alternative #3 was conducted with the use of a
Land Capacity Analysis that identified vacant
and underutilized lands that significantly
reduced the expansion of the UGA by 30%
• Expansion east of HWY 395 for residential
growth is limited due to the existing industrial
and heavy commercial uses.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 190
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
• Further redevelopment of lands within the city
along corridors will be evaluated during
updates to the Pasco Municipal Codes Zoning
and Subdivision Regulations
232 Carosino, Bob 07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #R
Failure to adequately analyze and include planning
and discussion of parkland needs under any of the
alternatives, especially the need for an urban multi-
purpose riverfront park available to residents of
northwest Pasco in the future.
• SEPA requires evaluation of alternatives
related to environmental effects. However the
EIS does address recreation and parks through:
1) identifying existing park and open space
lands and how each alternatives would modify
or increase additional park and open space
area (see Sections 3.2 and 4.1.1 and others
and; 2) affected environment descriptions and
mitigation measures (see Sections 4.4.3, 4.7
and 4.9)
233
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S We note and support LU-8 on page 15 in the Land
Use Element.
Noted
234
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
In particular we note and support policy LU-8-C;
Pasco has adopted a comprehensive and proactive
Historic Preservation Plan (HPP). Although in need
of updating, the HPP provides the Pasco Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC), City agencies, and
Pasco citizens with sound guidance for leveraging
historic preservation programs to achieve planning
goals and implement other policies in land use,
housing, economic development, and capital
facilities planning.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that the HPP be
linked with text to other pertinent Land Use goals
(such as LU-1 and LU-3) as well as the other planning
goals and strategies, such as Economic
Development, Housing (such as H-2), and Capital
• Noted
• Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 191
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
Facilities.
Moreover, consider including the HPP as another
element of the plan with cross references to other
goals and strategies. Alternatively, include the HPP
in the appendices. We strongly support the stated
effort to monitor plus regularly report on how the
HPP is being implemented.
235
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
In regard to ED-4, we recommend adding language
to expand linkage to historic preservation.
Suggested language might read something like the
following:
ED-5-D Policy: Continue following the Main Street
Approach® in revitalization work in Downtown
Pasco.
• Noted
• Update as suggested
236
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
In regard to IM-4 Goal, we note and support IM-4-C
Policy. We strongly suggest including the
Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation in this policy as municipal ordinances
and regulations that pertain to ground-disturbing
projects and new construction have potential to
affect archaeological resources and historic
buildings and structures. See additional comments
below regarding the DEIS.
• Noted
• Update as suggested
237
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
4.11 Heritage Conservation
The DEIS needs additional narrative to establish the
cultural sensitivity of the city and its Urban Growth
Area (UGA). DAHP’s Statewide Predictive Model
categorizes the city and it’s UGA as “high to very
high risk” for encountering cultural resources.
Discussion of this point is important to provide
information upfront and early to property owners,
• Noted
• Add information/narrative regarding DAHP’s
Statewide Predictive Model results and
relevant guidance into EIS
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 192
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
developers, and consultants engaged in the
development process. All participants are benefitted
by including predictability in the design,
development, and construction process;
furthermore, it will help to avoid costly delays when
undiscovered resources are inadvertently damaged
or destroyed.
This additional narrative is important given Pasco’s
rapid development and growth rate plus high
potential for the presence of archaeological
resources in the region
238
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
DAHP appreciates that the City consistently provides
project documentation to the agency for review and
comment. However, concern is raised by what
appears to be frequent absence of consideration, let
alone implementation, of our comments and
recommendations. An example would be when
DAHP replies to a Notice of Application with a
request for a survey to be conducted prior to
construction taking place: To the best of our
knowledge, the City rarely makes conducting a s ite
survey a condition of a construction permit.
We understand that the lead agency makes the final
determination under SEPA. Nevertheless, DAHP
recommends establishing a dialogue with the City to
share our overall concerns and to better understand
how the City’s development regulations and
ordinances are interpreted and applied to cultural
and historic properties. In addition, we would like to
discuss how the Comprehensive Plan can be used as
a way to achieve greater protection for heritage
resources in the city and UGA (see comment 4
above).
• Noted
• Additional staff work will be necessary to
implement suggestions (thresholds)
• Additional guidance/examples from DAHP
jurisdictions
• Add information to the Implementation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 193
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
239
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
We do not see any discussion of thresholds and/or
requirements for cultural resource surveys. In what
situations will surveys be required by the City, both
for archaeological and built environment resources
that are over 50 years in age? Plus, will mitigation
be provided if a project threatens to damage, alter,
or destroy significant archaeological sites and/or
historic buildings/structures?
This would be a good place to refer to potential
preservation benefits mentioned in the HPP as well
as the tax incentives that the City makes available to
property owners as specified in Section 20 of the
Pasco Municipal Code.
• Noted
• Refer to HPP
• Additional staff work will be necessary to
implement suggestions
• Add information to the Implementation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
240
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
On Page 56, it is inaccurately stated that the Tri-
Cities Archaeological District “runs along the
Columbia River bank and does not extend inland.”
According to DAHP’s WISAARD database maps,
while the District boundary does closely follow the
Columbia River shoreline, it generally extends
upland by a few hundred feet on both sides of the
river.
Therefore, we recommend revising the statement to
read as follows:
“Eight of these sites fall with the National Register…,
which runs along the Columbia River bank including
adjoining uplands.”
This comment also applies to the Lower Snake River
Archaeological District, which extends into the city’s
Urban Growth Area (UGA). If the City does not have
a data-sharing agreement with DAHP, we
recommend exploring signing the agreement that
• Noted
• Update as suggested
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 194
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
would provide a designated City staff person with
access to sensitive cultural resource site
information. For more information about the data
sharing agreement, please contact Morgan
McLemore at Morgan.mclemore@dahp.wa.gov.
241
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
On page 54 under the heading “Pasco Cultural
History” we recommend including some narrative
about the impact of the construction and operation
of the nearby Hanford Site on Pasco’s history and
growth. A few sentences or paragraph should do
well to summarize the major impact that Hanford
has had on Pasco since the 1940s, including built
environment resources constructed as a result.
• Noted
• References to Hanford and the Department of
Energy are identified on Page 38 (4.7.1
Affected Environment), 4.8.1 in the Final EIS
242
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
Two previous cultural resources reviews are
mentioned on Pages 55-56 under
“Previously conducted cultural resources review:”
one for the Pasco Tri-Cities Airport and the other for
the Broadmoor area. While it is interesting to note
information about these two locations, there have
been many more cultural resource reviews
undertaken in Pasco and its vicinity.
We recommend prefacing this section by making it
clear that “the following are only two of many
examples of cultural resource reviews undertaken in
Pasco and Tri-Cities area.” Otherwise, it gives the
impression to readers that no other such reviews
have been undertaken, when they are, in-fact,
routine occurrences.
• Noted
• Update as suggested
243
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
On Page 56, historic farming activities are described
as having caused a great deal of ground disturbance
within the Broadmoor Area (and, presumably
elsewhere). DAHP frequently cautions against this
line of reasoning. Farming activities are not as
destructive to buried cultural resources as often
• Noted
• Refine or remove statement
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 195
# Commenter Date
Received Item Source Comment (Rephrased, if necessary) Response
assumed; the potential for intact cultural resources
on agricultural land (previous and current) remains
high.
244
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
This section also mentions, the Franklin County
Courthouse (Building #78002740, 1016 N. 4th St.,
Pasco) and the Pasco Carnegie Library (Building
#82004212, 305 N. 4th St., Pasco) as listed in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Please note that the James Moore House (Resource
ID: 674795) is also on the NRHP. We also
recommend mentioning that there are many other
buildings and structures that are 50 years of age and
older and that have been or should be inventoried
and could be evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
• Noted
• Update as suggested
• Refer to Pasco’s Historic Preservation Plan
(inventory)
245
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
This discussion on pages 55-56 would be a good
place to refer to the Historic Preservation Plan and
its recommendations for inventory and designation
of historic buildings, structures, sites, districts,
objects, and landscapes in the city.
• Noted
• Add reference to existing Historic Preservation
Plan
246
WA
Department of
Archaeology &
Historic
Preservation
07/31/2020 DEIS Exhibit #S
Finally, please note that in order to streamline our
responses, DAHP requires that Resource
documentation (HPI, Archaeology sites, TCP) and
reports be submitted electronically.
Correspondence must be emailed in PDF format to
sepa@dahp.wa.gov.
For more information about how to submit
documents to DAHP please visit:
https://dahp.wa.gov/project-review. To assist you in
conducting a cultural resource survey and inventory
effort, DAHP has developed Guidelines for Cultural
Resources Reporting. You can view or download a
copy from our website.
Noted
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 196
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 197
References
Ames, K.M., D.E. Dumond, J. Galm, and R. Minor, 1998. Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. In
Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 103-
119. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Anchor QEA, 2020. Email communication from Barbara Bundy dated February 20, 2020 regarding
cultural and historic resources in the proposed UGA boundaries.
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2013. City of Pasco Draft Shoreline Inventory, Analysis, and
Characterization Report. Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update. Prepared for the City of
Pasco. June 2013.
Anchor QEA, 2014. City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update. Prepared for the City of Pasco.
February 2014.
Franklin County, 2019. County-wide Planning Policies. Resolution dated October 22, 2019.
Benton-Franklin County of Governments, 2016. 2016-2021 Transportation Improvement Program.
Prepared for the Tri-Cities MPO and Benton-Franklin RTPO.
Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and R. Jackson, 2002. Forest Cover, Impervious Surface Area, and the
Mitigation of Stormwater Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
38:835-845.
Boyd, R. and Y. Hajda, 1987. Seasonal population movement along the lower Columbia River: the
social and ecological context. American Ethnologist 14(2):309-26.
Brum and Associates, 20143. City of Pasco Historic Preservation Work Plan 2014- 2019.
Chatters, J.C. and D.L. Pokotylo, 1998. Prehistory: Introduction. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 73-80. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
City of Pasco, 2015. City Ordinance 4221 establishing RS-20 Zoning designation, June 2015.
City of Pasco, 2016. City of Pasco Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan, 2016.
City of Pasco, 20182019. 2015 Comprehensive Water System Plan, as revised. Prepared by Murray
Smith & Associates. Revised January 2019.
City of Pasco, 20198. Comprehensive Sewer System Plan. Prepared by Murray Smith & Associates.
Revised January 2019.
City of Pasco, 2020 - 2025 Capital Improvement Plan. Prepared by Sandland, Buckley, Pashon,
Robins, Serra, Andaya.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 198
City of Pasco, City of Pasco Zoning GIS Map. December 2019.
City of Pasco, 2020a. Urban Growth Area Expansion Capital Facilities Analysis (May 21,2020) and
its appendix, Expanded UGA Infrastructure Evaluation by Murray Smith and Associates
(November 18, 2019)
City of Pasco, 2020b. City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan for 2018 – 2038, Volume I, Goals and
Policies, dated May 2020.
Cooper, Jason B., 2003. Cultural Resources Study of the Proposed Hanford Reach National Monument
Heritage & Visitors' Center. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia, Washington.
Dickson, Catherine, 2011. Inventory of Unsurveyed Lands within the McNary Project Area, Umatilla
County, Oregon, Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties, Washington. Report on file at
the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2004. Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington. Publication Number 04-10-076. September 2004.
Ecology, 2019. WRIA 36: Esquatzel Coulee Ecology Links. Accessed: November 21, 2019. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/riverwq/stationlistbywria.asp?wria=36
Ecology, 2016. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 303(d)/305(b) List Search Tool.
Updated: July 22, 2016. Cited: March 25, 2017. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/approvedwqa/ApprovedSearch.aspx.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. EJScreen Report (Version 2019) for the City of Pasco and
UGA areas accessed July 23, 2020.
Franklin County, 2008. Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive
Plan, adopted February 27, 2008.
Franklin County, 2019. County-wide Planning Policies. Resolution dated October 22, 2019.
Friedrichsen, G., 1998. Eel River water quality monitoring project. Final report. Submitted to State
Water Quality Control Board, for 205(J) Contract #5-029-250-2. Humboldt County
Resources Conservation District. Eureka, CA. 76 pp.
Gerber, Michelle Stenehjem. 1992. On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear
Site. University of Nebraska Press, Omaha.
Gilpin, Jennifer, 2008. Archaeological Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Hanford Reach
Interpretive Center Project Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia, Washington.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 199
Grolier, M.J. and J.W. Bingham, 1978. Bulletin No. 71: Geology of Parts of Grant, Adams, and Franklin
Counties, East-Central Washington. Washington State Division of Geology and Earth
Resources.
Hansen and Darby, 2018. Heather Hansen, MA and Darby Stapp, PhD. A Literature Review of the
1,600–2,000 Acre Area in the Northwest Portion of Pasco for the Broadmoor Area Non-
Project Environmental Impact Statement.
Hunn, E.S., 1981. On the relative contribution of men and women to subsistence among hunter-
gatherers of the Columbia Plateau: A comparison with Ethnographic Atlas summaries.
Journal of Ethnobiology 1(1):124-134.
Kerschner, J., 2008. Pasco – a thumbnail history. HistoryLink.org essay 8450. Accessed November
2012. Available from:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8450.
KNDU, 2012. Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam near Flood Stage. Available from:
http://www.kndu.com/story/18894666/columbia-river-below-priest-rapids-dam-near-
flood-stage.
Landreau, Christopher and Joel Geffen, 2009. An Archaeological Review and Inventory of the Barker
Ranch Canal Project Benton County, Washington Report on file at the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.
Link, S.O., W.H. Mast, and R.W. Hill, 2006. Shrub-steppe. Restoring the Pacific Northwest, D. Apostol
and M. Sinclair, editors, pp. 216-240. Island Press, Washington D.C.
May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Marr, and E.B. Welch, 1997. Effects of urbanization on small
streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques
2(4):483-494.
Nisbet, J., 2005. The Mapmakers Eye: David Thompson on the Columbia Plateau. Washington State
University Press, Pullman, WA.
OFM (Washington State Office of Financial Management), 2018. Population Forecast for Franklin
County and Cities and Towns.
Oneza & Associates, 2019. Oneza & Associates, 2020. City of Pasco Draft Comprehensive Plan,
Volume 2 - Supporting Analysis., May 201208.
Prendergast, Ellen, 2002. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Wanawish Horn
Rapids Fishing Camp. Form on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Olympia, Washington.
Sanger, S.L., 1995. Working on the Bomb: An Oral History of World War II. Portland State University,
Portland, Oregon.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 200
Schuster, H.H., 1998. Yakima and neighboring groups. In Handbook of North American Indians,
Volume 12, Plateau, edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 327-351. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Sharley, Ann, 2007. Cultural Resources Survey for the Washington State Department of
Transportation's SR 240, Beloit Road to Kingsgate Way Project, Benton County, Washington.
Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia,
Washington. Report on file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia, Washington.
Stinson, D.W., and M.A. Schroeder, 2012. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Columbian
Sharptailed Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
USBR, 2008. Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Final Planning
Report/Environmental Impact Statement. December 19, 2008.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. Green Communities: Land Use Impacts on
Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/toolwq.htm. Last Updated: February 6,
2012.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2011. Hydrogeologic framework and hydrologic budget components
of the Columbia Plateau Regional Aquifer System, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. USGS
Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5124.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2008. The Final Hanford Reach National Monument
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. September 24,
2008. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/hanfordreach/management.html.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2011. News Release, Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife
Refuges Celebrate International Migratory Bird Day. May 5, 2011. Available from:
https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=mid-columbia-river-national-wildlife-
refuges-celebrate-international-migrat&_ID=1479.
USFWS, 2012. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Final Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act Report. February 10, 2012.
USFWS, 2017. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory – v2. Updated: March 14, 2017. Cited: April 2,
2017. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
Vibert, E., 1997. Trader’s Tales: Narratives of Cultural Encounters in the Columbia Plateau, 1807-
1846. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
Walker, D.E., 1998. Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau,
edited by D. E. Walker, pp. 1-7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), 2020. Comment
letter to City of Pasco dated July 31, 2020
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 201
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List.
Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. August 2008.
Washington State University, 2017. The Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS), Final Report,
December 12, 2017. Prepared by Laboratory for Atmospheric Research, Department of
Civil & Environmental Engineering.
Weibull, A., Ö. Östman, and Å. Granqvist, 2003. Species richness in agroecosystems: The effect of
landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12(7):1335-1355.
Western Heritage, Inc., 1983 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Tri-Cities
Archaeological District. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia, WA.
Wilma, D., 2003. Stevens, Isaac Ingalls. HistoryLink.org Essay 5314. Available at:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=5314.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 202
Appendix A – Scoping Comments
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 203
City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update – EIS Scoping Comment Response Matrix
Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
EIS Alternatives
1 Futurewise We support the City of Pasco Determination of Significance and the
development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to consider the
impacts of the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area expansion on
the built and natural environment. We support Alternative 3 in the City of
Pasco Scoping Notice: “Compact Growth Target: This alternative would
allow for changes in the Plan to accommodate the twenty-year population
growth projection for Pasco allocated by the Office of Financial
Management (OFM), and to capitalize on other development
opportunities. In addition, alternative 3 will consider a growth pattern of
higher density. It includes considering land use and policy changes to gain
an increase in development capacity within the undeveloped and infill
areas of the City. Under this alternative, the Urban Growth Area would be
modified to the north of the City at a higher density/smaller area compared
to Alternative 2 to accommodate future growth. It will consider land use
and policy changes in order to maintain consistency with the GMA and the
Countywide Planning Policies, and to accommodate growth.”
Comment noted and Alternative 3 includes an evaluation of
higher density growth.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 204 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
We believe the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will show that this
alternative will accommodate projected population growth and result in
the least adverse impacts on the built and natural environment.
2 Will Simpson,
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
The City of Pasco is growing at a relatively high rate compared to other
municipalities in Washington. The alternatives the City considers as it
updates its Comprehensive Plan will have significant environmental and
fiscal impacts for Pasco and the larger metropolitan area in the immediate
future and beyond the twenty-year planning horizon. We support the City's
decision to complete an EIS based on State growth forecasts for Franklin
County and the City's allocated growth target from the County.
The City's EIS will include detailed analysis about the impacts associated
with new growth and potential UGA expansion areas to support that
growth. Many of the environmental considerations addressed in an EIS will
support Pasco's planning requirements under the GMA. The City may have
other GMA requirements, such as those related to specific financing
provisions, which may not be included in the EIS but that we recommend
you consider as you review the alternatives and update your
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. We have structured
our comments to address the EIS scope, and to offer general observations
Comments are noted and to be addressed in the EIS
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 205 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
regarding the GMA periodic update and statutory requirements. Based on
the descriptions in the seeping notice, we believe that the "Compact
Growth Target" alternative best meets the goals of the GMA and will allow
the City to maximize the investments made in public infrastructure and the
provision of public services.
3 Robert
Carosino
The range of alternatives is clearly inadequate as there clearly are other
reasonable alternatives which merit full and complete analysis in this DEIS.
The City of Pasco is already on notice from the State Dept. of
Transportation and other commenters, the expansion within the current
city limits that is already foreseeable will lead to traffic in excess of
interchange capacities at Roads 68 and Road 100 interchanges.
Unfortunately, there is simply no way to adequately mitigate the
horrendous traffic jams and unsafe traffic conditions which would be
created by the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary in the
area North of the existing City Limits in West Pasco as currently proposed
by the Pasco alternatives. The Freeway I-182 access points simply cannot
handle the proposed 55,000 additional residents which would be added to
that area by development of this area under the City's proposed
Comprehensive Plan updates and UGM boundary expansions in the area to
the North of the West Pasco city limits. Nor would the main city and county
feeder routes to these over-congested interchanges be able to be
adequately expanded to handle the additional traffic. This factor alone
Industrial lands are designated on the eastern side of the
City and also in the County, and future industrial growth is
also projected to occur in this area.
Existing vacant and underutilized lands within the City limits
will be considered in Alternative 3. The City believes the
three alternatives to be evaluated provide a range of
appropriate future growth choices for consideration.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 206 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
mandates that an adequate EIS will need to consider other alternatives that
do not provide for expansion of the UGA in the area to the North of the
West Pasco city limits.
Three additional alternative actions (a, b and c below), that would provide
appropriate and reasonable alternatives, are the following, and must be
fully analyzed in any DEIS meeting the requirements of SEPA:
a) Analyze in full detail an alternative providing for expansion of the city in
a different area from west Pasco. This alternative would provide for
expansion of the UGA and the city, to allow residential development in the
area to the EAST of the current city limits. This area is less valuable
farmland, it has potential to for access to main highways (Highway 395 to
the West, and highway 14 running east to west, that are more amenable to
access by thousands of more people, and therefore would not create as
excessive an adverse traffic impact on the interchanges in West Pasco. It
would also avoid the unreasonable intermixing of high - density growth with
low density growth which the city's proposed expansion of the UGA in the
area north of west Pasco would create.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 207 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
The area to the East of the city of Pasco has substantial undeveloped land
that could be easily used for residential development if the city provided
utilities, (just as the city would need to provide utilities to the area North of
west Pasco under its proposed alternatives). The East Pasco alternative
would have much better access to transportation corridors and the
transportation corridors in that area can be more easily the residential
expanded if required, as the land around the major roads are primarily
farmland and level ground. Expansion of development in that area east of
Pasco would also provide housing that is more closely located to the
employment hubs of the city of Pasco, thus reducing that transportation
impacts that would be created by any additional residential population in
the west Pasco area of the city, thereby also mitigating impacts on
transportation corridors.
b) The second full new alternative that should be considered in the DEIS is a
change in the city comprehensive plan to allow re-development of the
lands within the existing city limits of Pasco to allow for high density
residential development within the existing city limits. Many areas within
the central core of the city of Pasco are in need of redevelopment due to
age and condition, and a greater population could be easily accommodated
by redevelopment with increased density in the existing city limits of Pasco,
particularly in the area of the city to the south of Road 68 and West of I-182
, to the Columbia River on the south, comprising the old central core of
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 208 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
Pasco. By channeling development within that area, it would allow better
access to major transportation corridors by the 3 interchanges on I-182 to
the east of Rd 68, as well as access to other major transportation corridors
connecting Pasco its industrial center, highways 395, and to cities to the
south of Pasco. There are two bridges from this area of Pasco to Kennewick
that are available, and these provide access to the highway 240 freeway
running on the south side of the Columbia River through Kennewick. This
alternative would lead to much lower over-congestion on the Road 68 and
Rd 100 interchanges at I-182. It would also create the necessary density in
a compact which would allow greater use of mass transportation
alternatives.
Recall that the State Department of Transportation has already advised the
city, that with the reasonably foreseeable development of current lands
within the existing City limits in the west Pasco area, the two west Pasco I-
182 interchanges will be burdened far beyond capacity. It is unconscionable
to imposed upon the residents of west Pasco, and those of northwest
Franklin County in the area north of the current city limits, a proposal to
include in this area even more residents that would require access through
these two already over-congested freeway access points. Due to the
topography of west Pasco, and existing development of the areas around
the existing interchanges, there is no reasonable way to mitigate the
significant adverse transportation and quality of line impacts from
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 209 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
additional development in west Pasco. No reasonable person living in those
areas or moving into those areas, would be in favor of allowing such
additional excessive development in that area, except land owners and
developers, who have no concern for the long-term future adverse traffic
and socio-economic impacts that residents would have to endure. The
catastrophic traffic jams and unsafe traveling conditions that the city's
expansion proposals would create, are clearly unacceptable and
significantly adverse. It is clearly inadequate for the city to only propose
expansion in the west Pasco (and the county area to the north of west
Pasco) and not consider expansion in other areas of Franklin county. To
suggest, as city planners have done in previous public hearings, that other
cities and areas such as Seattle and King County have worse traffic
conditions, and traffic "really is not that bad by our numbers" is not an
acceptable response, nor one which gives any solace to residents of west
Pasco or the county lands to the north. It is not the desire of the residents
of west Pasco or west Franklin County to have roadway traffic congestion
become more and more like the horrible traffic faced in the Puget Sound
area. But it appears to be acceptable to the city.
Furthermore, it would be a catastrophe for the city of Pasco to effectively
take over land planning in the area of west Franklin county covered by the
city's proposed alternatives, as the residents would be effectively
disenfranchised from having the ability to control their own destiny. Due to
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 210 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
a poorly written state law, the county residents would in effect have land
use planned performed by the city, even though those residents remain
residents of the county.
c) The City's own proposed alternative growth target alternatives should be
modified to stop the northern expansion of the UGA and limit the
expansion of city limits under the city's current alternatives, to a northern
city and UGA boundary line being established that is based upon the East to
West leg of current Dent Road. This East to West line of Dent road would
be used to create a northern boundary line that would run to the Columbia
River on the west end, and Columbia River Road on the east end, using the
same east to west line followed by Dent road. This smaller expansion of the
UGA will minimize the area that can be developed for high density
residential use. Providing city utilities to the county lands to the north of
the proposed Dent road boundary line will only encourage excessive higher
density development, creating unreasonable traffic impacts, and should
not be allowed. High density development to the north of that boundary
line would also create significant adverse impacts to the human
environment and socio-economic impacts to current residents of the area
of Franklin county north the current city limits, who have built subu rban
residences on large (acre size or more) lots, as part of a desire for suburban
county living. The city plan would create a hop-scotch pattern of higher
density development contiguous to and within areas of west Franklin
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 211 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
county that under County standards require large lots and would adversely
impact current residents with all the detrimental environmental, socio-
economic, and traffic impacts which that higher density development
entails.
This alternative should also provide for a reduction in planned density in
the north one-half mile segment of the UGA expansion area running south
from the north end boundary created by the Dent road UGA line, such that
it would harmonize and blend into the acre+ lots sizes existing within the
County lands to the north of that point.
4 Laurie Ness Thank you for considering my choice of Alternative 3. It supports less
urban sprawl, less overall cost to the city and residents for services. Most
importantly infill with smaller lots will conserve important farmland and
preserve our important critical areas as required by the GMA.
Comment noted and addressed.
5 Michael
Brightman
We think that alternative 3 (high density urban growth) makes the most
sense for Pasco, the county and the State. Save prime agriculture land for
future generations. Thanks for asking. I am an Architect and former
planning commissioner
Comment noted and addressed.
Agriculture
6 Will Simpson, The City should consider how land use and UGA-sizing decisions could The preferred alternative proposes less acreage for UGA
I
_J
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 212 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
affect any designated resource lands of long-term commercial
significance, or lands currently farmed or irrigated. Agriculture is critical
to the local, regional, and State economy. We encourage efforts to limit
or minimize any impacts to productive agricultural lands, particularly
those formally designated by Franklin County or where public
investments in irrigation infrastructure exist.
expansion, which would protect more county/ Ag land, and
promote compact development within the City limits and
UGA.
7 Futurewise The relationship to existing land use plans is an element of the
environment. The area proposed to be included in the urban growth area
includes designated agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance
and rural lands. Converting these lands to urban development will be
significant adverse impacts that should be analyzed in the EIS.
The preferred alternative avoids prime designated
agricultural lands and is expected to have minimized
impacts to these lands.
Critical Areas
8 Will Simpson,
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
The City should consider how future growth and potential land use
changes would affect critical areas. The City may choose to limit the
inclusion of significant critical area ecosystems in potential UGA expansion
areas because these sites are not able to support urban densities and
provide important ecosystem functions in an undisturbed state. The
Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the
Department of Natural Resources each offer expert technical guidance on
environmentally sensitive areas in your region.
The proposed expansion area has very limited critical area
in existence.
-
I
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 213 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
9 Futurewise The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife lists priority species
and habitats and provides technical assistance on the designation and
protection of these habitats. Plants and animals, habitats for and numbers
or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife, unique species, and
fish or wildlife migration routes are all elements of the environment. The
conversion of agricultural and rural land to urban development will
adversely impact these habitats. The expansion of impervious surfaces will
also harm aquatic habitats. These adverse impacts on these elements of
the environment should be analyzed in the EIS.
The designation and conservation of priority habitats and species are
important to residents who hunt, fish, and view wildlife. Outdoor
recreation is estimated to contribute $81,959,000 to the Franklin County
economy, generating 1,114 jobs and paying $5,942,000 in state and local
taxes. Protecting fish and wildlife habitats and rivers and streams will help
maintain the economic benefits of outdoor recreation for Franklin County.
Comments are noted for the protection of priority species
and habitats to be addressed in the EIS.
10 Native plants of the Columbia Basin have ecological, aesthetic, and
historical value. The Benton-Franklin Conservation District Heritage
Gardens of the Columbia Basin and Washington Native Plant Society
educate the public on the value of native plants and help prevent the
conversion and degradation of these local resources and wildlife habitat.
“Unconverted areas are threatened by a negative feedback loop that
Will verify whether Natural Heritage Program identifies any
plant listings for this area. If they exist, identify ways to
protect resources/mitigate impacts.
-
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 214 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
combines disturbance, invasion of noxious weeds and more frequent fires.
When fragile soils are disturbed and cryptobiotic soil crusts are removed,
annual invasive species such as cheatgrass become established.” The
communities of native plants and wildlife that make up the iconic Columbia
Basin shrub-steppe have been severely diminished. Today, less than 50%
of Washington’s historic shrub-steppe remains, and much of it is degraded,
fragmented, and/or isolated from other similar habitats. For these reasons,
we support the protection of Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
designated in the Department of Natural Resources Washington Natural
Heritage Program for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species.
Plants and habitats for and numbers or diversity of species of plants and
unique species are all elements of the environment. The co nversion of
agricultural and rural land to urban development will adversely impact
these habitats. These adverse impacts on these elements of the
environment should be analyzed in the EIS.
Habitat preservation to be addressed in the EIS
Growth
11 Will Simpson,
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
One of the first steps in the development of an EIS is describing the
proposal. The proposal should be described in terms of an objective, or
purpose and need. For an EIS such as this, we recommend describing
purpose and need in terms of the amount of residential, commercial and
industrial growth anticipated based on the adopted growth target. Differing
alternatives should represent alternative strategies that accommodate the
Comment noted; this information will be accounted for.
I
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 215 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
same amount of growth.
12 Franklin County has already coordinated with the municipalities in the
County on the selection of an OFM population projection and allocations of
population growth to cities, including Pasco. The process utilized OFM's
medium series for Franklin County, which is the most likely population
projection based on current demographics, and the allocations are
supported in the County's record.5
Our administrative rule recommends the County adopt a twenty-year
countywide employment forecast for allocation between UGAs and the
rural area. 6 The countywide forecast and resulting employment allocations
to the Pasco UGA should establish the basis for projected commercial and
industrial lands in the region? In regards to industrial needs, we
recommend that the City and County consider industrial capacity in Be nton
County and Western Walla Walla County. The City of Kennewick recently
completed an industrial lands analysis, which considered capacity in both
Benton and Franklin County. This may represent a good starting point for
evaluating industrial capacity in Pasco and the region. Ultimately, this
approach ensures that UGAs are adequately sized, and that newly
designated industrial land does not saturate the existing market and
undercut public investments made in existing industrial areas.
This information will be considered along with existing
industrial land use.
A land capacity analysis to be performed.
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 216 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
13 The GMA requires internal and external consistency for locally adopted
plans and development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan must use the
same growth figures and planning timelines in each element. Plans adopted
reference, such as sewer or water system plans, that are necessary for
meeting capital facilities element requirements must also be consistent.
Comment noted.
Transportation
14 Will Simpson,
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
We encourage close coordination with staff at the South Central Region of
WSDOT as you consider alternative growth scenarios and potential UGA
amendments. Pasco's projected growth requires careful planning and
potential improvements for both the local and State systems. The City must
estimate traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting
from land use assumptions to assist WSDOT in monitoring performance,
and plan improvements for State facilities. Adequate transportation
systems are necessary for urban development. Impacts extend throughout
the metropolitan area, so development patterns in one area can create
traffic impacts several miles away. WAC 365-196-430 and RCW
36.70A.070(6} provide specific recommendations on meeting GMA
requirements and developing a transportation element that is consistent
with the land use element.
Comment noted and being followed up.
15 Proposed UGA changes may directly or indirectly affect operations or
plans for the Tri-Cities Regional Airport. This airport is a critical
component of the State and region's transportation infrastructure,
This information will be considered.
I
-
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 217 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
and significant for future economic growth in the region. According
to WSDOT, the number of enplanements has increased by nearly
100,000 over the last five years. The growth projected for Pasco, and
the larger metropolitan area, suggests increased demand is likely on
this facility. Land and Shoreline use is an element of the
environment evaluated in the SEPA analysis. This review should
include land use compatibility with the tri-cities regional airport for
any alternatives that would change the land use in the area
surrounding the airport. We encourage the City and County to
continue coordinating with the Washington State Department of
Transportation Aviation Division. Proposed UGA changes may
necessitate additional consultation required under RCW 36.70.547
prior to adopting plans or regulations that may affect property
adjacent to public use airports.
16 The projected growth will require significant investments in capital
facilities and public services. Any UGA changes require developing a
financially constrained capital facilities and transportation element
showing how proposed areas will be provided with adequate public
services. These amendments must address the required components
of the capital facilities and transportation elements described in
RCW 36.70A.070. The City should not merely rely on assurances of
availability from other service providers if relying on plans adopted
by reference or assurances from other service providers to meet
Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements, and an
updated Capital Facilities Plan for the UGA will address
this comment.
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 218 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
capital facilities requirements.
Our Capital Facilities and Transportation Guidebooks provides
recommendations on developing a detailed capital facilities and
transportation plans, along with a more general plan that extends to
the full twenty-year planning horizon. Our guidebook on Urban
Growth Areas also contains important information regarding the
relationship between UGA sizing decisions and infrastructure
investments.
17 Transportation systems, vehicular traffic, the movement and
circulation of people or goods, and traffic hazards are elements of
the environment. Air traffic is also an element of the environment.
The comprehensive plan and the urban growth area expansion has
the potential to increase vehicle miles traveled and to increase
traffic hazards. In addition, the urban growth area expansion will
adversely impact the operations and expansion potential of the Tri-
Cities Airport. The EIS should analyze the adverse impacts on the
transportation system, including motor vehicles, air transportation,
transit, walking, bicycling, and transportation safety. As required by
RCW 36.70A.070(6)(iii), impacts on the state highway system should
also be analyzed.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 219 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
18 Paul Gonseth,
WSDOT
WSDOT previously commented to Franklin County regarding the City
of Pasco proposal to expand approximately 4,800 acres to its UGA to
accommodate future growth projections. It is our conclusion that
buildout of the current vacant and re-developable lands within the
existing Pasco urban growth area will cause the interchanges on
interstate 182 (1-182) to fall below acceptable levels of service as
the local connections to the state system are already suffering. The
state highways are an integral part of the transportation network in
the Pasco area.
The Determination of Significance and SEPA Notice identifies three
alternatives and we conclude that all three alternatives will have
negative impacts to the state transportation system which includes
the Tri-Cities Airport. The Environmental Impact Statement will need
to complete a land capacity and traffic analysis for both the current
and future conditions for each alternative. The analysis needs to
include the state transportation system as part of the study. Special
attention should be focused on State Route (SR) 395 and 1-182. The
EIS should show what the proposed land use changes are and where
they are located. The current and future traffic analysis must not
include any improvements to the state system without agreement
from WSDOT.
Comments noted and followed up.
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 220 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
UGA Expansion
19 Will Simpson,
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
The City's EIS represents a non-project action and provides the basis
for future project decisions. It should address the cumulative
impacts of urban growth anticipated over the twenty -year planning
horizon - 2018 to 2038.
Comment noted
20 The City is required to include areas and densities sufficient to permit
projected urban growth. This includes residential growth associated with
population projections, along with the broad range of needs that
accompany the projected growth including (as appropriate) medical,
governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-
residential needs.3 RCW 36.70A.110(3} provides direction on how urban
growth should be prioritized
Comment noted
21 A land capacity analysis is critical step in determining whether Pasco is able
to accommodate future urban growth and whether UGA amendments are
necessary. One of the primary objectives of the periodic update is to ensure
that sufficient capacity of land suitable for development is available over
the twenty-year planning period to support necessary housing and
employment growth, along with the other broad range of needs and uses
that accompany urban growth.
The City should reevaluate the preliminary land capacity analysis conducted
County analysis had limitations, so City is conducting a
separate analysis.
I
-
-
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 221 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
by Franklin County and determine how much capacity is available within
the existing UGA. The final land capacity analysis should clearly identify
assumptions about development, redevelopment, partially developed
properties, lands needed for public purposes, and densities. After
identifying projected needs for population and employment growth, the
land capacity analysis will establish whether changes are needed to the
UGA boundary. At this point other factors such as the cost of capital
facilities or transportation infrastructure may require further consideration
of different UGA configurations. It is critical that the growth projections
and land capacity analysis establish the basis for any UGA amendments to
ensure consistency with the GMA.
22 Pasco and Franklin County are required to ensure that urban growth occurs
within Pasco's designated UGA. Based on historical development patterns
in the Pasco UGA, we have concerns that the City and County are not
meeting their GMA requirements to ensure urban densities through zoning,
adopted development regulations, and infrastructure investments. Urban
density is a density for which cost-effective urban services can be provided.
Higher densities generally lower the per capita cost to provide urban
governmental services.
Housing units inside the UGA allowed on half or one-acre lots, which may
rely on septic systems or private wells, create a long-term financial
Alternatives evaluation will include densities evaluation.
Alternative 3 increases densities. City sewer plans show
sewer extensions and lift stations for lower density areas in
west Pasco. Sewer has been a limitation in the past but
plans are being made to address this issue.
-
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 222 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
challenge in providing capital facilities and urban services. This is
particularly problematic when assessing the complete life cycle of
infrastructure costs, and ongoing operation and maintenance.
We recognize that coordinating development review in the unincorporated
UGA is challenging and may require collaboration not only with Franklin
County, but potentially with other
service providers as well. As part of the periodic update, we strongly
encourage the City and County to establish an inter-local agreement or
similar mechanism to ensure that future development occurs at urban
densities, and that permitted development does not limit the ability to
provide public services and infrastructure in a financially realistic manner.
23 Maria
Sanchez
As the city of Pasco faces a time of continued population growth, I strongly
recommend that you maintain the current Urban Growth Area and
optimize use of the existing infrastructure. Currently, Pasco is a sprawling
city of mostly one-story buildings with acres of asphalt devoted to parking.
It would be financially prudent for the city to concentrate on infill for new
housing and businesses to increase density and make the city more
walkable and to allow public transit to function more efficiently.
City has adopted a Complete Street Ordinance and has
focused on centers for multi-modal transportation. BFT
planning park and ride at Broadmoor.
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 223 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
Even if the new developments on the outskirts of town were to be built at a
higher density than the last iterations, residents would still find themselves
forced to drive to reach the downtown area or commercial areas like that
on road 68. This low-density density design produces less revenue for the
city as property tax per acre, and increases future financial liability by
committing the city to many more miles of roadway, sewer lines, electric
lines, traffic congestion, etc.
Pasco is in an excellent position right now to make sensible choices for the
financial future of the city by planning for better walkability, transit options,
and a vibrant downtown center filled with people and businesses rather
than parking lots. A dense, walkable city is the type of place that educated
young people, empty-nesters and corporate headquarters seek out. There
is vast potential for improvement within the current urban boundaries.
Build up, not out.
Water
24 Will Simpson,
WA State
Dept. of
Commerce
The City must ensure that they have sufficient water rights to support
new growth or UGA expansions. The analysis should clarify how much
inchoate water is available under the Quad City Water Right to support
additional growth, and what growth,if any,is supported by irr igation
water rights. Much of the residential water use in the semiarid west is for
City operates 14 irrigation circles to dispose of food
processing wastewater. Wastewater returns also reduce
water consumption.
I
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 224 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
lawn irrigation. This is especially true in the summer when water is most
scarce. The City should consider the water demands for different
development pattern alternatives. Large-lot development typically has
much higher water demands because of seasonal irrigation than small
lot,or multi-family development. It is important for the city to understand
how the zoning decisions will impact the long-term water budget and the
availability of water to support growth for the 20-year plan horizon and
beyond. Water-efficient land uses, including higher density zoning for
multifamily development, or limitations on irrigation-dependent
landscaping (xeriscaping), relate to density decisions and the ultimate
UGA configuration. The City and County may consider how promoting
efficient water use development patterns will save resources to support
more growth beyond the twenty-year planning horizon.
City also has code provision for xeriscape in commercial
areas.
25 Futurewise Water including surface water movement, quantity and quality, runoff and
absorption, groundwater movement, quantity, and quality, and public
water supplies are all elements of the environment. Water conservation
and focusing growth into existing cities and towns can stretch water
supplies and accommodate growth and it is important to reserve water for
agriculture and value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing to
maintain and enhance the county economy. The development authorized
by the comprehensive plan and the urban growth area expansions can
adversely affect water and increase water use and runoff. This is a probable
adverse impact on the elements of the environment s and should be
Water resources information and analysis, including
existing conservation plans, will be considered.
-
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 225 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
analyzed in the EIS.
Miscellaneous
26 Y Futurewise Housing is an element is an element of the environment. Different
alternatives may have different impacts on the affordable housing. For
example, different alternatives may displace existing affordable housing
which maybe a significant adverse impact that should be analyzed in the
EIS.
Alternatives will include consideration of a variety of
housing densities. ADU already allowed.
27 Residential growth in the City of Pasco has increased the exposure of
residents on the Wildland Urban Interface to wildfires. Expanding the city
onto agricultural and rural lands will increase this expose. Fire services are
an element of the environment. The impacts of the alternatives and UGA
expansion on community fire safety must be analyzed in the Draft EIS and
mitigation measures identified such as: directing growth away from areas
with a moderate to high wildfire threat level.4 Another potential mitigating
measure would be to require new developments to meet Firewise
Communities Program standards or the equivalent.
The changing climate will also increase wildfires in the West including the
Irrigation exists surrounding the City, and this significantly
reduces wildfire risk.
I
-
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 226 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
City of Pasco. A recent peer reviewed study showed that human caused
global warming has made wildfire fuels drier and caused an increase in the
area burnt by wildfires between 1984 and 2015.5 Global warming’s drying
of wildfire fuels is projected to increasingly promote wildfire potential
across the western US.6 The area of this increase in drying fuels includes
the City of Pasco.
28 Historic and cultural preservation are elements of the environment. The
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
has developed an archaeological predictive model that can predict where
archaeological resources, a type of cultural resource, are likely to be
located and where the department recommends archaeological surveys
should be completed before earth disturbing activities and other uses and
activities that can damage archaeological sites are undertaken. The
predictive model shows that Pasco and the urban growth expansion area
has a “high risk” and “very high risk” of cultural resources in these areas.
Land development can adverse impact these resources and the EIS should
analyze the impacts of development authorized by the comprehensive plan
and the UGA expansion on historic and cultural resources.
Cultural resources will be considered in the EIS evaluation.
29 Air quality is an element of the environment. Elevated ozone level
averages in the Tri-Cities for 2015 through 2017 exceeded the
federal regulatory limit which could trigger sanctions from the
Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, a joint study was
The preferred alternative is geared towards a pedestrian
friendly environment. City encourages walkability and bike
usage. City has regulations for dust control during
construction. Broadmoor Park and Ride will help too.
-
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 227 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
conducted with the Department of Ecology, Washington State
University, and Benton Air Authority, the Tri-Cities Ozone Precursor
Study (T-COPS). The study found that elevated ozone levels are not
caused by one source and that traffic emissions are a major source
of air pollutants in the TriCities. Particulate matter from vehicle
emissions, fires, and blowing dust contribute to unhealthy air quality
that increase symptoms of asthma and heart disease. Weather,
topography and wind directions contribute to high-levels of ozone in
the Tri-Cities. Expanding the urban growth boundary will likely
increase vehicle miles travelled and emissions. Development will
increase dust. These are all probable adverse impacts on elements
of the environment and should be analyzed in the EIS.
Climate is also an element of the environment. Washington State
enacted limits on greenhouse gas emissions and a statewide goal to
reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled for light-duty
vehicles. Comprehensive planning is one way to address both the
reduction of greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled. Almost
half of all greenhouse gas emissions in our state result from the
transportation sector. Land use and transportation strategies that
promote compact and mixed-use development and infill reduce the
Integrated Non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement Page 228 Comment No. Commenter Comment Response
need to drive, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
Expanding the urban growth boundary will likely increase vehicle
miles travelled and emissions. These are all probable adverse
impacts on climate, an element of the environment, and should be
analyzed in the EIS.
Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found
that state and local governments can significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions through land and materials management
practices such as materials efficiency, industrial ecology, green
design, land revitalization, sustainable consumption, smart growth,
pollution prevention and designed for environment. Land use
planning that encourages the use of transit, walking and cycling, and
the creation of mixed-use urban centers can improve air quality by
reducing automobile trips and congestion.