Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, my name is Jerry Cochran and I'd like to call the City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting to order. I'd like to welcome all those in attendance this evening and ask you to join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. To begin tonight's meeting, I'd like to ask the clerk to call the roll.

Rosa Torres. Present. Pat Jones. Present. Kim Lehrman. Present. Dana Crutchfield. Present. Rachel Thiel. Excused. Jay Hendler.

Present.

Jerry Cochran. Present. Mr. Chair, there are six members. We do have a query.

Thank you very much. The Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. The purpose of the Planning Commission is to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the city's comprehensive plan, land use updates, block grant allocations, and zoning code. The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community, the impact of land use decisions on community, livability, economic opportunity, housing affordability, public services, and the environment. I'd like to remind the audience that tonight's proceedings are being broadcast live on the City of Pasco's Facebook page and on Charter Spectrum Cable PSE channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. The meeting is also being recorded and you can watch it at the City of Pasco's website which is pasco-wa.gov. Click on video on demand link and make your selection of the meeting there. There are copies of the meeting agenda available on the back table, so you may follow along with the meeting. Please go ahead and silence your cell phones to prevent any interruptions in our meeting. For those present this evening, if you are given the opportunity or when you're given the opportunity to address the Commission, please come to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone, and state your name and city of address for our records. Before we begin tonight's meeting, I need to remind the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only to be fair, but also appear to be fair. In addition, Washington State law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or maybe be either benefited or harmed by the Planning Commission's decision. An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight's agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. So first, are there any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the agenda's items on the agenda? Let the record show that there are none declared. Second, is there anyone in the audience this evening who would object to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda? Let the record show there were no declarations. We as the Planning Commission need and value your input. It helps us to understand the issues more clearly and to make better recommendations to City Council. Furthermore, in many cases, your input here at the Planning Commission meeting is your only opportunity to get your facts and opinions placed on the official record the City Council will use to make its decision. I encourage you to take full advantage of the opportunity. The first item on the agenda tonight is the approval of the meeting minutes. We actually have two meeting minutes. As many of you are aware, last month we did not have a quorum, so we have both December and January's meeting minutes. We'll start with December's meeting minutes. We're from December 19, 2024. At this time, I would entertain either discussion or a motion to approve the December 19, 2024 meeting minutes.

I move to approve December 19th, 2024.

Okay. Any seconds or discussion? I second. All right. All those in favor of approving the December 19th, 2024 meeting minutes, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The meeting minutes for December 19th passed unanimously. Next we'll turn to the January 16th, 2025 meeting minutes. If you have any comments or questions, or I would also entertain a motion to approve these meeting minutes.

I move to approve the January 16th, 2025 meeting minutes.

Do I have a second or any other comments? Questions?

I second.

All right, we have a second. Mr. Chair, I will not be voting as I was not at that meeting. That's fine. I don't know what the requirement is. I don't believe we have a requirement you can't vote if you weren't there. So you're welcome to vote if you want to, but you don't have to.

Just because.

Just because. There we go. All those in favor of approving the January 16, 2025 meeting minutes, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? So we'll show unanimous and one abstain. All right. We have one agenda on the old business section of the agenda. For those of you who weren't here last month, we did have a presentation on this but we didn't have a quorum to move it forward so we will redo that presentation and entertain questions and discussions and then if we so desire we will move it forward in the process. That is the 2025-2029 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan and 2025 action plan and this is for the community development block grant program and the home investment partnership funds and i'll turn it over to ms well

Good evening Planning Commission. Tonight I'll be giving a synopsis of the Consolidated Plan presentation that was done last month. The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan is a federally required strategic plan that guides how we allocate HUD funding for housing, infrastructure, and community development to best meet PASCO's needs. Our goal with this plan is to ensure that federal funds are directed toward projects that enhance affordable housing, economic opportunities, and essential services for low to moderate income residents. This plan has been developed through data analysis, community input, and stakeholder engagement, along with the collaboration of the cities of Kennewick and Richland and assisted by the Cloudburst Group, who is the consultant that the consortium hired. And after this step, they will move to the City Council for final approval before submission to HUD. Public participation has been a crucial part of this process, with feedback from residents, local organizations, and businesses helping shape funding priorities that reflect our community's most pressing needs. Next. The primary goal of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan is to strategically invest in housing, infrastructure, and community services to improve quality of life, particularly for low to income moderate. income residents. This includes expanding affordable housing, addressing homelessness, supporting economic opportunities, and enhancing public facilities. To achieve these goals, we allocate federal funding primarily from HUD programs like CDBG and HOME towards projects that address identified community needs. These funds are distributed based on priorities set through data analysis and community input, ensuring they have the greatest impact on the community and residents. The consolidated plan addresses key challenges in our community, including housing affordability, gaps in public infrastructure and services, and climate resilience. With low vacancy rates and aging housing stock, affordability remains a pressing issue. There is also a significant need for improved public infrastructure such as mental health services, sidewalks, and shelters. Additionally, climate-related risks like flooding and wildfires disproportionately affect low-income residents, making resilient housing and infrastructure a top priority. As we move forward, the plan will go before the City of Council for adoption with a workshop scheduled for February 24th and formal approval on March 3rd. Once approved, it will be submitted to HUD for final authorization, guiding funding and programs for the next five years. Implementation and oversight will ensure that these funds are used effectively and after adoption, we will also begin updating fair housing plan to align with the new priorities of course this is just a plan it is not a commitment for any kind of funding as we never know what funding we will receive until later in the year and if you guys have any questions i will try and answer them

I would note that both myself and Commissioner Lehrman had some guidance from last month and I think it probably still applies so the things we put in the minutes from last month would probably be great but for those of you who were there or even if you weren't there or even if you were there if you have questions or feedback please chime in.

I have a question. In regard to the The monies received and the affordable housing, if there are rentals in that, would that be included in this? Yes. Okay. Would they have any, to receive some of these funding and that, would they have specific guidelines about making sure these rentals are safe and things are maintained properly and so forth. I know the council recently got rid of the rental fee for being a landlord and also with that, there was an inspection. It was only every two years, I believe, but now that that is completely disbanded, I have some concern over that in order to make the facilities for these people that need housing affordable in good repair, safe, and I'm just wondering if these different entities require that and

So if I was to do a rehab on a rental, the tenants have to at least be 51% low income. If we go in there and say we replace all the HVAC units or whatever, any health or safety issues there are, every six months it does get monitored. It does get monitored by code enforcement, though. then yearly I monitor it just to make sure that the tenants that are still in there are still low income because if not then they could be subject to having to pay the funds back because that's really the only kind of rental rehabs that we can do is the tenants have to be low income. Yes, thank you for that.

I wasn't as concerned much about the tenant, the low income part, although I know it's important, more or less just the status of the unit, how it used to be monitored when you had a rental unit, you wanted to maintain it in a fashion that it would be safe, working fire alarms, you know, hot water and all that, and now that that portion has kind of been disbanded, is there any Is there any requirement in order to receive some of these funds that that be done?

Yes, there is. And also if it turns out that, you know, say we went in there and replaced all the fire alarms and then, or, you know, fire alarms or CO alarms and then they weren't working, that would then turn into a code enforcement case. So they would be able to call code enforcement and get them to go there. So there's still... Yeah, there is some recourse. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Okay. Thank you very much. You alluded to the uncertainty or possibility of uncertainty with funding. Is the funding for these two bulletin items here, is this state money or federal money or federal money that goes to the state and then comes to us?

No, it's federal money. We get it from HUD. All federal? Yeah.

The CBDG?

Yep.

Okay.

And home funds are both federal.

Okay, the home entitlement is, so that's all federal?

All federal, yep.

and we know things could change if If things do change, is there a process where you say, okay, we may not do this, but we'll keep this?

Or is it all just based on the funds available? So what's in your packet last month had the 2025 annual action plan. So those are already projects that were already allocated for this coming year. If for some reason our funding is less than yes, we basically do a disproportionate increase. decrease to all the funds for all of the activities.

Then does that come back to any group for review or is that a decision made within the government of the city?

Yeah, it's a decision made within the staff as we get all of our allocations processed through resolution through council and then in the resolution of death state that we will go back and do that.

And then would those be made public either through council or whatever the process is?

Yes, we do make them public.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Would it also be fair to say that, you know, not only the funding could change, but HUD could change the criteria for which funding is handed out too, right? So that's another thing.

Yes, and at the end of 2024, HUD actually made some changes to the home investment program. So we are actually being able to do a little bit more with those dollars to do more rehabs. So that was a good thing in our favor.

Excuse me. Do you have a summary kind of similar to what you had for the funding piece that maybe kind of summarizes in big buckets what aligned with the goals for the plan?

Yeah, so that actually is in the consolidated plan. Let me just pull that over here.

I was trying to find it in a packet. Yeah, last month's.

Yeah, no, I'm looking at last month's. There's one that's a project summary. And it's towards the back.

Okay, so in the annual action plan, so we have like for affordable housing, in the next five years we're hoping to spend $1,600,000. And then for community neighborhood and economic development, another $1,600,000. um and then for public service activities in the next well for next year we didn't fund anything so uh right now we're just looking at more of a housing and economic development for 2025. thank you all right any other questions or feedback

If not, there is a recommendation and there is a motion. If somebody cares to make the motion.

I move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 2025-2029 Trace City's Consolidated Plan and 2025 Annual Action Plan. Second.

Excellent. Commissioner Lehrman moved and Commissioner Jones seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passed unanimously. Excellent. We don't have any other business but in the old business section I was going to give the staff to give a quick update on the overnight truck habitation. I will let the commissioners know there's no action for us. We're not going to make any decisions. give all the feedback and complain, but there's no action for us. So it's more of an informational about here's what happened and should it come up for you again, you can give feedback. But at this point, we really don't have any action. So even if we don't like it, it's what the council decided.

Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Commissioner Larman did indicate by email prior to the meeting that she desired to kind of have some discussion on this. We weren't able to add it to the agenda in time. However, I decided to go ahead and add some informational meeting for you this evening. This is taken off of the city website, just some of the basic information about the ordinance that was passed and and some of the key attributes or highlights, dare I say, about the ordinance that was adopted by City Council recently. So if you have any particular questions or want to discuss further, that's fine. But as Mr. Chair did say, we don't really have any action for the Planning Commission at this point.

I have some concerns. I don't know. I read this. I don't know how they came up with some of these things. Like, for example, and again, I'm just going to go on record. I know we can't change anything, but I don't understand how they can just summarily allow for C3 to be included in potential sites. That is a good way to destroy a C3 district. If you've got several 15-acre districts truck stop in a successful C3 district, you're gonna have major serious problems, and I'm not gonna go down the list. The other question I have is, was there a study done on why 15 acres is the maximum size? In my mind, When you look at 80 foot long semis dragging these trailers into a 15 acre site and the amount of radius they need to make turns and to back up, I question why 15 acres was chosen. And if it's within the realm of reason, I would request a study I'd like to see the study that was done that came up with 15 acres. When you read about how many trucks they could potentially have in there, I'm reading in between the lines, but 60 trucks in there? No way. It ain't going to happen. So anyway, those are my comments. And just as a matter of record, at least they'll be in the minutes for whatever happens. So thank you. Appreciate it.

I have some comments, too. I agree with Commissioner Hendler, absolutely. I have some notes written, so I don't leave anything out. I was very surprised when I read what had been adopted. And the Planning Commission, we worked through several meetings, public hearings over the course of a year on an ordinance which would protect the residents from potential problems with this truck parking. And I think it's important to note that this is the first site in Washington state for overnight parking. So the Planning Commission invested really much time and forethought in this in order to, as the purpose of the ordinance states, develop standards and regulations which protect the health, safety, welfare, the residents of the city of Pascoe not to accommodate or draft or adopt an ordinance which will meet the needs of a certain applicant during in order to use a certain piece of property most of our recommendations were removed if not reduced drastically the 1,000 foot buffer down to 250 feet that is I believe for small city lots 60 feet each. no on-site management or waste disposal, no landscape buffer, and the parking, the gravel is kind of confusing because the new ordinance states, without clarification, it appears to allow gravel, but it doesn't require, it says it may allow gravel. Does that mean, in other words, the owner could simply have trucks parking on an unimproved site? That would lead to obvious problems for the street maintenance? The other part is the maximum stay, the onsite management that we discussed. The ordinance states that there's going to be a telephone number displayed so the user can contact an onsite manager. To me, that makes no sense. If he's onsite, I don't know if it was just an error in transcribing, but more importantly, if there's no onsite manager, how is compliance going to be achieved? Now the ordinance requires overnight truck habitation facilities to be approved by a special permit. So they've added the C3 instead of just the industrial. But I feel that there's little the hearing examiner can consider as that section specifies various site development requirements and the hearing examiner cannot deviate. In other words, he's powerless to require more than 250 feet separation from residential uses and zones. He can't require pavement at the site. So what's the purpose of the special permit? I'm almost done. So lastly... The staff presented a draft ordinance that was worked on by the Planning Commission, as well as the applicant's desired ordinance at a city council meeting in October of last year. I recognize we are an advisory board, but if our recommendations are being taken so lightly, this is my opinion, I'm not speaking for my fellow commissioners, mine, then I feel, why are we wasting our time? That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Good feedback. I will remind us as members, we didn't make recommendations to City Council. We voted it down. We said we're not going to pass it. I want to be correct. I think we did not move it forward to City Council, and that's why the applicant went to City Council direct with a different ordinance.

I'd have to go back and look at the record.

We didn't pass anything. That was the point. We disagreed with the whole notion, so we didn't pass it. So there were no recommendations to city council, which in some ways you could say another way that we could have approached it is we could have made our recommendations and let city council work on that. But the way we moved forward was city council started with nothing but what the applicant told them to. And so... A learning for us could be move it forward with what we recommend or city council is going to start with the applicant and what the applicant lobbies them to do. My point would be is that we didn't make any recommendations officially on record to the city council.

I would have to go back and look at the record, and you very well may be correct. The initial proposal that staff had presented to the city council, I think we did, to the best of our ability, try to capture the intent and the spirit of the planning commission, at least to the extent that we felt that we could. And then there was kind of an additional version that was also presented to the council and the rest is history.

I remember it differently. I thought it had passed and one put it down. And then when we finished with it, then we had a gentleman from... before development come forward and thank the hard work that the planning, your guys' department's done, the planning commission's done, but he specifically said that he was priced out of the opportunity.

We regulate the amount of existence, yeah.

Those are the words, yes. And so a question I have is...

Right, I think you're correct. I misremembered.

The question I have is, from the original applicant, what zone was it in, and as well as the size of the lot.

I would have to go and look. Off the top of my head, I'm not aware.

Oh, yeah, I was going to say, I think I agree with Commissioner Lerman. I think that was the case, and I think it wasn't so much the zone. I think it was the piece that you mentioned about the... The 1,500 feet or the 1,000 feet that we had mentioned, and so it was going to knock them out of that. And I think their lot was only like five acres, if I remember correctly. Yeah, and I think the only other thing I would like to, I guess, put on the record, because I know we're not doing anything, is if maybe we could have a summary of kind of what the differences were, because I know that the staff worked really diligently on trying to be very specific and gather information. you know, information from kind of best practices from other states and even going so far as I think talking to somebody over in Tennessee or somewhere in the Midwest. So maybe there was like a summary between what was presented and then what ended up getting actually passed would be great information in addition to this.

Thanks. I will. Thank you.

Again, one last statement on this. I think, you know, the important things that we're We're trying to accommodate what people may want to do with their properties, but we have to keep the foreground the most important for the whole community and how that's going to impact. Trucks that are passing through town, visiting our town for a relatively short period of time, important, but how it's going to affect the people that live here have invested and are residents here. This kind of parallels this in a way. We talked about the taco or the food truck that we were going to try out for the year, the different locations. You might remember that, don't you, what I'm talking about? That was agreed upon, but now also they passed where you can have food vendors in any vacant lot, in any C3. So it doesn't have to be an improved lot. It can be a weed patch of ground, not affiliated or associated with any business. You've got problems with waste, etc.,

A minute. Let's try to stay on topic because we're getting way off the truck.

That's true. It parallels the truck thing in my mind. Maybe you could address that at some time with us, but to me that is wrong for the community, and we're going to see the effects of it. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anything in the ordinance about the trucks running overnight and lights being on and that kind of thing? Because with that buffer being reduced from 1,000 to 250 feet, a lot of trucks running, exhaust all overnight. I mean, that's going to become a major pollution zone and other things. But especially with that minimal buffer, no landscaping, nothing to absorb it or catch it or anything. Is there anything in there about that?

There is not. In fact, part of the security features of the ordinance and the proposal is to make sure it's well lit and there's no dark zones. So it will be illuminated appropriately or well illuminated, I should say. But no, nothing as far as hours of trucks running or idling and things of that nature. Nothing in there.

Well, thank you for the explanation. You know, it's one of the caveats of the process doesn't always work the way we want. I will say the very first thing we mentioned is that we are an advisory body. Advisory bodies don't always get listened to. And so that's part of the game. And I think sometimes also is like, you know, maybe the city council will... You know, if we feel like we disagree, and I think most of us disagree with the way it ended, that maybe the city council will learn some hard listens and they'll be back to us with a tweak on the ordinance. And that's what we're here for. But it does get frustrating, and I understand. Go ahead.

So I appreciate that Commissioner Kutchfield looked up the definition of our role and how we participate in recommending onto the city council as advisory members. But I guess the question I have is, at what point is there... a kickstart to sending it back to Planning Commission if it's changed so much the integrity of the original code? Is there something that is a policy within our city or state laws about it?

I don't believe there's anything in the city's policies about a mandatory remand back to Planning Commission in this case. Certainly they have the power and the ability to do that. It's customary. And sometimes they'll do it.

In the old days, they did.

Sometimes in the interest of time, they'll skip that step. Okay.

So going back, I just want to see, and maybe you can help clarify to the next meeting or send out an email. So if we remember correctly, it passed. We recommended it to the city council. And then from there, that's when a lot of changes occurred. Yeah, where what you had shared, if it hadn't passed here, then they wouldn't have that advisory recommendation, and then there, that's when newly additions, because it hasn't been recommended, so it wouldn't even be called new. So I guess my clarification is that we went through the correct methods in order to be able to advise from our best capabilities. And I appreciate all you commissioners, because we did talk about your years of experience, Muffet's years experience as law enforcement, everyone's wealth of knowledge of being here in Pasco and throughout Tri-Cities and their professional jobs. I reached out to several former students who are now in their 30s and they're truck drivers or own truck driving companies and ask for their information and just survey them. What would they like to be able to see for the city of Pasco for their workers, their business, as well as their children. And I think they'd be disappointed.

Good feedback. Thank you all. I think we also, I think even if, regardless of whether we recommend it or not, the applicant could have still gone direct to city council and passed an ordinance.

Yeah, and that's important to note is, you know, each citizen has the right to appeal or to ask the council to you know amend zoning codes or municipal codes so they have that ability to to ask so they can go straight to them in that regard so and in the interest of due process they're allowed that so so if citizens were concerned about this and they would go directly to the city that's right gotcha

And those that are disappointed with this also have the right to go direct to their council member and complain and get action as well. All options are open because that's how it works.

I just have one last thing to add, Jerry. We just talked about the applicants may go forward and request information or that, but in Jacob's In the notes that we were provided, or I have here, on the meeting of October 28th, the staff, you all, presented the draft ordinance, planning commission, and the applicant's desired ordinance to the council. That's what it says here. It may not, I mean, it just... requesting to do something, you know, getting some ideas or saying, hey, I'd like to do this. This may stand in my way. I don't agree with that. This sounds a little different to me. So that, I think, is something to note. Thank you.

All right. Well, good discussion. Maybe we'll see it again. We have no other items on the agenda, and given there's no other items on the agenda, I would recommend a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

And seconded?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. The meeting is adjourned at 7.06 p.m. Thank you, everybody.