Pasco council leans toward preserving right‑of‑way, not blanket frontage waiver for Riverview

Pasco city staff opened a workshop discussion about whether to restore pre‑2019 exemptions for frontage improvements in the RS‑20 (soon‑to‑be RS‑15) and RS‑12 residential zones, noting the choice affects about 35% of the city’s residential land.

"This is ultimately a policy decision," said Miss Matson, the staff presenter, who summarized technical and policy tradeoffs: waiving frontage requirements would lower development costs and preserve the area’s semi‑rural character, but would create gaps in the pedestrian network, reduce eligibility for some grants and likely raise long‑term retrofit costs for the city.

Council members and residents debated that tradeoff. Council member Perales described driving the area and seeing frequent sidewalk segments that end abruptly, and urged data on safety before reducing standards. Council member Figueroa said the council should look for middle‑ground solutions that protect pedestrian safety without adding prohibitive costs for developers.

Several developers who spoke during the public‑comment period urged a narrower approach. "I think alternative No. 2 is the most reasonable," developer Stephen Baumann told the council, recommending that developers be required to dedicate right‑of‑way while avoiding the immediate cost of constructing sidewalks and lights.

Residents countered that postponing improvements can be disruptive and expensive for homeowners later. "When they installed the sidewalks later, it made living a nightmare," said Amber, a Pasco resident who described construction impacts on day‑to‑day life.

After discussion, council members signaled support for keeping right‑of‑way dedication as a minimum requirement and exploring fee‑in‑lieu or local improvement districts (LIDs) as tools to pay for future construction, rather than approving a blanket citywide exemption. Deputy City Manager Miss Sigdell told the council staff would research whether developers could sign no‑protest agreements for future LIDs and how those options would work legally and administratively.

Staff will return with more detailed recommendations, including how to preserve development rights while protecting long‑term pedestrian and utility needs and grant eligibility.