The City of Pasco hearing examiner on Nov. 12, 2025 heard hours of public testimony opposing a request to rezone about 156 acres from Residential Transition to R‑1 (low‑density residential).

Planner Ivan Barragan, presenting the staff recommendation, said the rezone would align the site with the city's comprehensive plan and that the city has determined the proposal to be categorically exempt from further environmental review under Washington Administrative Code WAC 197‑11‑800 (number 6, letter c, 1–3). Barragan told the examiner staff recommends forwarding an R‑1 recommendation to City Council for a closed‑record decision.

Residents who spoke at the hearing raised multiple concerns. David Barber (11315 Easton Drive) said the change to R‑1 and a related subdivision could generate "nearly 8,700 new vehicle trips every day," and urged a "balanced mixed density design" with larger lots on the edges to preserve a semi‑rural buffer. Barber also said homeowners would "anticipate a 10% loss in home value" if the area shifts to smaller lots; that claim was presented as his research.

Several speakers linked density to safety and infrastructure problems. Kelsey Barber (11315 Easton Drive) said changing the land to R‑1 would be "devastating to all of our properties" because the neighborhood lacks sidewalks and street lighting. Jennifer Dorsett (7609 Pheasant Lane) told the examiner local elementary and middle schools are already over capacity and said adding hundreds of homes would strain classrooms. Amber Wade (1416 N. 1st Ave) described ongoing water‑pressure problems, pedestrian safety hazards and limited mental‑health and emergency services, and urged the city to fix existing infrastructure before approving large new developments.

Several residents asked for larger lots or a stepped transition from county lots to denser development. Juan Ochoa (4305 For Myra Drive) said he owns a one‑acre parcel adjacent to the proposed site and asked the city to "stick" with half‑acre or one‑acre lots on the edges. Multiple commenters expressed concern that the developer could maximize lot counts under R‑1 (up to six dwelling units per acre under that designation), while others raised transparency questions about local officials' ties to development.

Applicant representative Peter Harpster (Harpster Land Development) responded that the rezone request is intended to bring the property into conformance with the comprehensive plan and that R‑1 is an allowed zone within the low‑density land‑use designation. Harpster said project‑specific issues such as final lot sizes, street design and traffic mitigation will be addressed at a future preliminary plat hearing, and stated that "existing problems cannot be attributed to this proposal." He also pointed to the city's Transportation System Master Plan and traffic improvement planning as the venues where mitigation is coordinated.

No final action was taken at the hearing. Hearing Examiner Andy Cotkamp closed the public record on the rezone and said he will issue a written recommendation to City Council within 10 working days; the City Council will then consider the matter in a closed‑record hearing and make the final decision.