Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Meeting Packert 7-21-22AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2022 6:30 PM This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE III. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2022. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Block Grant 2023 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations (MF# BGAP2022-003) B. Block Grant 2023 HOME Investment Partnerships Program Allocation and Annual Work Plan (MF# BGAP2022-004) VIII. WORKSHOP None IX. OTHER BUSINESS None X. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2022 6:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 46 June 16, 2022 CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Jerry Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Jerry Cochran, Jay Hendler, Telephone: Tanya Bowers, Kim Lehrman, Paul Mendez, Abel Campos, Rachel Teel, and a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent: Isaac Myhrum, Kim Lehrman and Paul Mendez Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez, CDBG Administrator Kristin Webb and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Cochran explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. He further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was 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. Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. He stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco-wa.gov. Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening, when you are 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 the record. Chair Cochran reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State Law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only 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 may 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. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 46 June 16, 2022 He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. Declarations were made by Commissioner Hendler regarding CPA2022-012 and Commissioner Cochran regarding the CDBG Block Grants. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. Hearing none, let the record show there were no declarations. Chair Cochran stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City Council. Furthermore, in many cases, this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the official record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision. He encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hendler moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 19, 2022. Commissioner Bowers seconded, and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Block Grant 2023 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations (MF# BGAP2022-003) Kristin Webb stated good evening. Planning Commission. First, tonight I will be discussing BGAP 2022-003 CBG work plan. The outline for the grant program is HUD approves the five-year consolidated plan. Each year of the consolidated plan, we submit an annual action plan which carries out our annual goals and objectives for the program year. At the end of each fiscal year, we submit the CAPER, which is the Consolidated Annual Plan Evaluation Report, which evaluates all of our goals and objectives for the year. Throughout the process, system participation is mandatory and encouraged. The consolidated plan was approved in 2020, and it's for the year 2020 to 2024. The goals are increase and preserve affordable housing choices, community, neighborhood and economic development, and homeless intervention and public services. The estimated funds for this year will be the entitlement of $699,987. Prior year funds and program income come out to be $224 971, with available funds for 2023 coming to $924,958. With the estimated funds that we have, we received 18 proposals year, totaling $2,116,500. So, we have a deficit of $1,191,542. On the next slide you see we have broken down by percentages of the project type, and on the next slide is the timeline. On May 27 was the application deadline, on June 16, which is today, you will be hearing from the applicants. They will be giving a brief presentation. There is no action needed tonight as you will be making the action at the next meeting. Then it goes to a Council City workshop, then action, and then we will end our public comment period for the 2023 annual action plan, and then everything gets submitted to HUD. With that, we will start the presentations. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 46 June 16, 2022 Presenter: Jon Padvorac, City of Pasco Public Works regarding the Lewis Corridor 2nd to 5th. Good evening. My name is Jon Padvorac, home address, 108735 E. 228 PRSC in Kennewick. I'm with you here this evening to talk about the Lewis Corridor from 2nd to 5th project. This project is something our Department is very excited about. It's essentially connecting other investments that have already been made by the City to create a continuous, improved downtown core. As you can see on the plan and phase key, this corridor will serve to fill the gap between the new Lewis Street Overpass, which has bicycle facilities and the new roadway, to the Peanuts Park project. So really connect those two features that by themselves are great, but this relative to those small investment would help make sure that there's a continuous bicycle and pedestrian core downtown that's well lit, and really gotten a good facelift. We feel that this would be the boost that could really help downtown pick up after the construction of these projects. Our goal is to get adequate funding so that we can construct this during the timeline of those other projects, so that once the dust has settled, literally, then all of this work is done. And we don't have to go back and keep piecemealing work, but we can go through and basically from start to finish, started with Lewis Street Overpass, go down Lewis Street and work through Peanuts Park and have that work be done so businesses can get back to business. There's been a number of alternatives talked about. There's still some discussion ongoing with the Downtown Master Plan of which alternative we would pursue. There are alternatives for whether there'd be bike lanes on Lewis or not, and if not on Lewis, how we would route bikes through downtown. So, we actually have a separate process going on from this project of developing a bike and PED plan for downtown and figuring out really how we want downtown to be developed and grow. So, this project is really the fundamental ground for the next probably 50 years of downtown development. Here's another graphic, just different configuration of where pedestrians are and where bicycles are and how large sidewalks are. This is a graphic showing some of the discussions that are ongoing about circulation and bicycles. It's still very much in the works, nothing has been finalized yet, but we're taking a hard look at it to make sure that what we do is actually what downtown needs. Division is fairly broad in terms of what we've shouldered on ourselves to bring this to downtown through this project. We anticipate a lot of economic revitalization by a lot of improvements downtown that would fix a lot of problems people have which are really good lighting, improved streetscape that then encourages investments from businesses. It would honor the local cultural considerations and also the area that this would benefit is disadvantaged census tract. So, it would have the benefit of investing money in an area that would benefit a lot from our investment. Also, the design would take into consideration the liking of having festivals and events there and improve the area for those purposes as well. I believe our ask was for $650,000. We can make do with less if there wasn't enough to go around. We have a pretty big gap between current funds, we're pursuing other funding and the funds we would need to do the best thing for the community. So, we'd like to have as much as we could so that we could just ask what people want and do that and not have the restriction trying to carve back neat features because of budgetary considerations. And with that, I won't hold you guys any longer. Does anybody have any questions? Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commissioners Hendler asked is this in sync with the proposed master plan of downtown? Jon Padvorac stated we are. I'm actually working closely with Jacob as he goes through that process. So, I've attended some of their meetings where it's a balance because we essentially don't want to flavor their outcome with ours. We worked through at least early phase of the project, and there was a lot of different opinions about which direction the project should go that more planning level. So, I took a step back and he's taking the lead. But I've been coordinating closely with him to make sure that that process can use the knowledge that we acquired during our project. And then also we're working with our engineer to make sure that the outcome of that is physically constructable, so we don't go through a process that looks good on paper but then get stuck in the design phase. So, yeah, we're working very closely with them. Commissioner Cochran stated it sounds like you already thought of this, but given that $600,000 is like two thirds of our available money for the year, you thought out some more of a phased approach or modular approach, I guess, where you can say, hey, what if we only got $100,000 or $200,000? Jon Padvorac answered yes. Our biggest goal is to get from 2nd to 4th, because that connects the overpass to Peanuts Park. Our current budget request would take us all the way to 5th, and there's another capital project in the books to go from 5th to 10th. So, we're hoping to get that one block do we didn't have this cascading bureaucratic issue of projects that don't connect and having to fill that gap back up somehow. But yeah, we had looked at just going to 4th. Presenter: Brian Newberry, CEO Girl Scouts of Easter Washington, and Northern Idaho. Video can be viewed at (5) Go Getters 5 - YouTube Thank you, my name's Brian. I'm the CEO of Girl Scouts of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho, the proud CEO. Thank you for playing that video. I just wanted to say that's a snapshot of what we did since this time last year. We are centered out of Spokane, and we have 3000 girls across 65,000 sq mi. Our focus in the last year has been the Tri-Cities. In fact, we started a store across from Dust Devil Stadium here in the January timeframe. We have been working really hard, we've hired three bilingual speakers. But last July, Women Helping Women came on board and said, “you know what? Let's do this”. And they gave us a grant and we were able to go full start in Marie Curie Elementary and Vergie Robinson Elementary. And we were able to see what you saw there, a Go-Getter program where we provide after school programming for girls who want to come that no matter what socioeconomic conditions are out there, we allow them to learn how to be a girl of courage, confidence, and character and make a world a better place. So, I appreciate you all Pasco, to be able to help us, to help us have an opportunity. We do understand the CDBG grant process. We did a grant process with Richland here earlier this year. This is our second time through, but our home station for starting this Go-Getting program was Pasco. We honored the Pasco School District for allowing us to be community award partners here just recently, and we appreciate them making it all happen. And we're coming to the city to say if there's an opportunity for $15,000 to allow us to expand this program, to make it available for more girls out there and allow them to see how they can make the world a better place and more importantly, to have a girl voice, we would appreciate it. So, I'll just close by saying, I don't know all the other applicants out there, but we appreciate our youth and how they're so important to our world. And so, any applications out there that are youth related, we Girl Scouts will stand behind, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 46 June 16, 2022 whether it be ours or another. But again, thank you, Pasco, for helping our girls. We bridged last weekend across the cable bridge. It was a great sunny day, and it just shows all of us that when you have Girl Scouts in the picture, blue skies are ahead. Thank you, Pasco, for listening to our application. This is Commissioner Campos, if we do give you the grant $15,000, how much more girls will be able to participate in this program. And I know you mentioned two other schools. Would this money also be allocated to reach out to other of our Title I schools in our City? Yes, it would. We put in there for another 60 girls. We definitely are stabilizing, as you did see in that video. We have been doing this in Spokane since the 2014 timeframe, and we got this program built up to about 75% of what Spokane was in nine months. So, it was quite a surprise at the response that we had from the area. We definitely want to expand, and I do think picking up another school would be the right direction going, so that additional money would allow us that. We're also finalists again with Women Helping Women. Thanks again for giving us a shot, and the more girls we reach, the world is better for it. Thank you, commissioners, and thank you Mariana down there for representing us. And to all the applicants out there. We appreciate your community much. Presenter: Greg Cullen, Volunteer at Grace Kitchen Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Greg Cullen. I'm a volunteer helping out Grace Kitchen. Mr. Chairman, like you, I'm a friend, supporter, and fan of Grace Kitchen. My wife and I've really come to fall in love with what they do. My wife is now the Chairman of the Board of Directors, and I help out wherever I can. And I have with me tonight, Amanda Lorraine, the founder and executive Director. Who We Are: For those that don't know, a ministry that was founded in 2020, open doors open in 2020 that offers hope and lasting change to women, as we say here, are the most marginalized women in our society. And really what that means is we're talking about women who are survivors of trafficking, addiction, poverty, and homelessness. And the way we offer this change is through offering them employment, mentoring, job training, and community. This approach that we use is really leveraging experience around the country from programs that have been very successful in doing this. We've had the opportunity to benchmark them, understand how they do it, and model after what they've done. In just over two years since our doors opened, we've had over 130 women that have attended our weekly Thursday production day. Twelve women that have been employed, with nine women currently employed, and two women that have graduated out of our extensive program and are currently in permanent, full time living wage jobs. How We Do It: Really, it's a very structured program that works the applicants and employees through several phases. First of all, we require them to come and volunteer on these production days. They have to demonstrate a consistent attendance as a volunteer before they can be hired. Once they're hired, they're put into a formal program, a multi-phase program that includes things like specific job skills training, interviewing skills, self and employee management, leadership of others, the Microsoft Office Suite basics, career aptitude assessments, and as they finish each phase, they go through an assessment with themselves and the staff to kind of understand their Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 46 June 16, 2022 progress. When they're ready to graduate from the program, then they get assistance in finding a permanent job in the community. Our Building: If you don't know our building, is the old Union Gospel Mission men's shelter that we purchased and rehabilitated. If you've not seen what they have done to transform this building, I encourage you to do it. It's amazing what that building looks like today and what a difference it is in that area of the community. The building is owned debt free and has additional space that right now we're not able to use. Because of the age of the building, it does not have fire suppression system, sprinklers in particular, which limits our usage on the second floor of the building. It also does not have adequate HVAC on the second floor of the building to maintain habitable temperatures year-round for purposes up there as well. Some of the work that we do does require temperature controls, food production and things like that, so it does require good HVAC systems. This is limiting the opportunities we have and can provide to women and how many women we can hire. Our Needs: We are asking for some help with a one-time project. So, this application would not create any sort of ongoing dependence on these program or ongoing requests to fund what we do. It's a one-time request for a project to help us provide that fire suppression system for both the first and second floor. What the City has told us is that we have to sprinkle both the first and second floors to be able to use the second floor because the egress is on the first floor. And then the HVAC system for the second floor. As we say in our application, we estimate this would allow us to hire ten additional women in 2023 and admit them into our program, which is significant for us. Why This Project: There are several benefits this provides to the community. One being reducing the number of women that are trapped in this cycle of poverty, prison, and homelessness, help them break out of that cycle. Second of course we are changing lives. Thirdly, as we reduce the number of women in that cycle, we then also increase the number of women contributing positively to the community, as they are able to get out and take full time jobs. Often times now get into permanent housing, we see a lot of times where they are able to be restored with their children and families and get back to a normal life. Then finally provide a place for women to pay it forward. One of the things that's powerful about this is once women have been through the program, this is their family, this is their community of support, and they come back and give back to the women that are coming through later and provide that support for them as well. Commissioner Hendler commented you sound like you have your hands full of rehabilitating that building. Greg Cullen continues, yeah, there's a pretty credible story about that. I don't know if you ever heard that. Got a lot of publicity at the time, but early on in the pandemic, actually, we were ready to start rehabilitating that building and struggled to find workers that can come in and do that. At the same time, The Lodge down in Columbia Point area of Richland received some of the funding to be able to pay their employees. But obviously they didn't have customers at The Lodge, and so they were able to pay their employees, but they didn't have work for them. So, their employees volunteered to come over and spend their paid hours helping rehabilitate that building. It's just an Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 46 June 16, 2022 incredible story of a community coming together to really do that. But again, you should come take a look, it's amazing what they did. Commissioner Cochran asked, obviously, the $225,000 is almost a third of our total years. Do you have an idea of your priorities? Would you do the fire suppression and then the HVAC or HVAC and then fire suppression? Greg Cullen answered as I mentioned, the challenge with the fire suppression is only doing one floor does it no good. It doesn't allow us to expand our work because if we do the first floor, we still can't use the second floor and we can't just do the second floor without doing the egress floor. So that's a challenge. Depending on the size of the award, we might prioritize the HVAC to just provide the steadier temperatures, but it would not allow us to get the benefit we're talking about because we still would not be able to use it for the expanded services. It would just allow us to have some meetings and training exercises up there, but with without the ability to expand the hiring. Presenter: Jet Richardson, Habitat for Humanity- North Wehe Affordable Homes Good evening. My name is Jet Richardson. I'm the Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity Tri County Partners. My address is 2021 Fairway Court in Richland, and our administrative office is at 313 Wellsian Way, in Richland. Although those addresses are in Richland, we do the bulk of our projects as Habitat in Pasco. Also, for the record, I would just like to say I too am a friend and supporter of Grace Kitchen and community partnerships with Grace Kitchen projects that the CBDG grants can help have a ripple effect and a much greater impact on your dollars across the community. So, north Wehe, this is the street screenshot of north Wehe, and this is where we are proposing our application take place. Last year, it became clear that our application is not for home construction. You're not providing the funds for the new construction homes. It's for materials costs and specifically for the streets and sidewalks for north Wehe to extend all the way up to Salt Lake Street. There are seven lots that we've purchased on the east side of Wehe where that will be extended up above Highland. And these are the homes that we anticipate starting construction early 2023 and end by spring 2024. Again, the CBDG funds will go towards the streets and sidewalks first, then towards material costs, lumber, and house trusses. Those are not the full cost of any of those projects, just a portion of it that we're hoping that the City of Pasco will support. We hope to have seven homes. This will impact 28 to 35 people. The reason that we don't have the exact number of people that will be living there is that we're still in the application process for those homes. We've approved two families so far, both of them have four and five family members, that tends to be the average of the size of family that we work with best. So, we hope to have up to 35 people living in those seven homes, but that's the reason for the range there. A little bit about Habitat I won't go into too much detail, but we serve households in the Tri-Cities that are in 30% to 80% Area Median Income (AMI) according to HUD designation. So, for a family of four at 30% AMI means they're earning around $27,000 a year; for a family of four at 50% AMI, about $43,000; and for a family of four at 80% AMI, that's almost $70,000. This is Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 46 June 16, 2022 important as you realize what the cost of housing is in our community right now. The last little bit about Habitat that I'll just mention and want to be very clear, it's often misconceived that we give homes away. We do not give homes away. In fact, each successful applicant in our program has to meet a minimum of three criteria. The second criteria is the ability to pay back a low interest mortgage. We partner with Yakima Federal Savings and Loans. They have a program exclusively for our Habitat families, and they provide an accessible mortgage package at an affordable rate for the family. Unmet Need in the Community: This goes back to what our families make, which is between 30 and 80% AMI. In May of this year, the average home price in Pasco was $436,000 which is $118,000 up from last year. Also, in May at the time that we were collecting the data for our application, there was only one home, and this was on May 6 that was listed under $300,000. So obviously a family in the low-income range will never be able to afford that. Moderate House Cost Burden: This is 42% of Pasco renters or 373 renters that are paying over 30% of their gross monthly income and housing. Severe House Cost Burden: This is 16% of Pasco renters that are paying over 50% of their income in housing. The average rent for two-bedroom home or apartment is just under $1,500 and a three-bedroom just under $1800 a month. A Pasco resident is at 80% AMI earns $5,821 per month. They're paying 43% of their monthly income on housing costs, which leaves only 57% for other important things like health and food. So, this is a moderately housing cost burden segment of the population. It's more impactful on the 50% that earn about $3,600 per month, they are paying 69% of their monthly income on housing, and 31% for food and other necessities. Why Habitat? We provide a responsible monthly mortgage payment. We don't create long term benefits for renters and their families. Rather, we are creating benefits for building wealth for these families and their next generation. Our Habitat affordable mortgage payments benefit the homeowner and their children by creating wealth. Again, we are looking to the first dollar that we get from this grant will go towards the streets and the sidewalks. I want to make sure that that's very clear. As we look back at the map, you can see there's a lot of need for some access between Salt Lake and Highland, between the different schools and just walkability for children going to and from. I will stop there because I think I've gone over all my time, but I welcome any questions. Hi, this is Commissioner Bowers, thank you so much, Jet, for this presentation. Can you talk a little bit more about the racial ethnic demographics of the individuals or families that go into the contract with you on these houses? Jet Richardson answered sure, I will be happy to follow up with the Commission with more exact percentages with the racial and ethnic background of our families. But the majority of our families recently have been recent immigrants from Myanmar. The last project that we just finished on Cedar Avenue in east Pasco was eleven homes. Six of them were families from Myanmar or Korean speaking, refugees that have been in the community for, on average, about five years at least. We have families from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, two families from Mexico and one family from New Jersey. So, if you're interested in where the most diverse neighborhood in Pasco might be, I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 46 June 16, 2022 would happily give you a tour of the Cedar Avenue area. But for the most part, we are not exclusively here to serve families of minority or colors, minority ethnic groups. It's just that's the nature of who our low-income residents are. This is Commissioner Campos, can you give us just an understanding of how many applications usually come through the process and what is your outreach strategy in just informing the community about this program? Jet Richardson responded, for the most part, because we're a staff of about eight full time people, our outreach regarding home ownership program has been largely word of mouth. It's been through volunteers who have come to help build our homes through their churches, through other organizations like World Relief and Elijah Family Homes, and Domestic Violence Center. We hope to help serve the women coming out of Grace Kitchen. But it's through those programs that we are able to let the people know that we're here and we can help support them in their next step. So, largely word of mouth, we're certainly open to suggestions on how to get more people aware of our program, but we are certainly not lacking in applicants right now. Presenter: Angie Pacheco, Pasco Domestic Violence Outreach Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Angie Pacheco. I'm the Executive Director of Domestic Violence Services in Benton and Franklin County. We're honored to come before you to present the opportunity to share possibilities of bringing domestic violence services to the residents of the City of Pasco. Domestic Violence Services of Benton and Franklin Counties was founded in 2003. It is the only domestic violence program in Benton and Franklin counties. Our services provide a 24-hour crisis line, an emergency shelter, and a wide range of services for youth in adults in English and Spanish, to promote survivors and their families of safety and wellbeing. This is the first time in over 20 years of services that we are reaching out to the City of Pasco for collaboration with the possibilities of a domestic violence satellite location for services outside Benton County. Our mission is to create a healthy community free from all forms of domestic violence. We envision an inclusive community, free from violence and oppression, where people are free to live and love as they choose by easing and accessing to housing options, financial assistance to get safe housing, social services for basic needs, and safety planning. It is culturally relevant and in the language of clients. Our program helps our families set up plans for future, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, and any other bias. In this way, we address health and financial and equity, racism, and discrimination. We are currently serving 269 students and prevention programs in nine Pasco schools, including elementary, middle schools, and high schools at this time. With a free summer program coming in the next few weeks, we are anticipating over 30 students participating from both counties. The annual clients from Franklin County average 811, with over 10,700 hours of advocacy services to them. We receive over 600 calls annually from Franklin County. We service over 3000 clients per year for domestic violence. Domestic violence offers effects of all races, cultures, genders, and cuts across socioeconomic lines. Yet people living in poverty are twice as likely to experience domestic violence. People of color are statistically more likely to live in poverty. People of color and those of LGBTQ population are two to three times more likely to experience domestic Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 46 June 16, 2022 violence. Over 50% of domestic violence services of Benton and Franklin County clients are Hispanic, multiracial, people of color, 90% are female, 95% of the people served live below the poverty levels. A person living in a domestic violence situation often finds themselves homeless with little or no income. Client safety is a priority, along with social and emotional well-being by finding them shelter or helping them stay in their own home with a safety strategy. Services are 24/7 free of charge, confidential and driven by the client. We're here to ask the CDBG grant, as an applicant for $70,000 for two advocates that are of low-income population to help us service 800 families throughout the year for domestic violence services, including services in schools for our youth prevention programs. Commissioner Cochran asked, the two advocates, those will be dedicated to Pasco in the satellite office, is that correct? Angie Pacheco answered yes, it would be for the whole City of Pasco, and it would be too low-income population for that and to service up to 800 more clients. Presenter: Steve Howland-Pasco YMCA at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center I'm Steve Howland and I am with YMCA. I reside in Kennewick at 8617 W 3rd Avenue. We have been in partnership with the City of Pasco for about the past 40 years, running the Martin Luther King Center as an after-school program and weekend and summer activity center for the kids in that community. Obviously, COVID took us down quite a bit, but the kids are bouncing back. One of our largest single programs is the indoor and outdoor soccer program that we run about 44 weeks out of the year. This is a competitive program that we offer in addition to the Drop-In center at the King Center. King center serves about 2,300 students throughout the year that come in to drop into the facility, participate in activities, and various things that we do over there. We also provide the weight room. We have a computer lab, game room in addition to the gymnasium. It's one of the few indoor gyms in this community, and it is used year-round by our programs as well as City of Pasco programs on evenings and weekends. A couple of days ago, we engaged our summer school activity hours, so we're open in the afternoon to the kids and the families to be able to come in and drop in. One of the key differences between us and some other programs is the families welcome to participate as well. So, it's very common to see parents and kids come in to play pool, play some other activities, utilize the computer labs and things like that. The partnership and what the City provides is the facilities, the YMCA then provides the programming ongoing with that. All of our staff that have been with the center are averaging about 18 years. Some of the staff have been with us for 21 years. They grew up in the east Pasco neighborhood, they come from that neighborhood, they know the kids and the families, so it's a very tight knit group. One of the hallmarks of the program, besides that soccer program, which is a key thing, is the growth and develop the kids go through as they participate in that. Soccer is a game, but it's the life skills and the avenue for them to learn and to grow through that we try to provide. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 46 June 16, 2022 We're requesting $25,000 for grant money that helps us provide year-round programming in addition to leveraging the community donation dollars and the money that the YMCA dedicates back into the program. We've appreciated the ongoing funding to keep us open and keep those doors there for the kids. Presenter: Donna Tracey, The Arc of the Tri-Cities, Therapeutic Recreation Hi, I'm Donna Tracey with the Arc of the Cities, and I live at 9904 Winthrop Drive in Pasco, and this is my friend Jeff. You can say hi, Jeff. Jeff said “hi”. Jeff is soon to be a Pasco resident, and Jeff has been participating at the Arc, and his mother passed away a long time ago. Jeff has been living with his uncle, but his uncles on dialysis, and so Jeffs has been coming for years to the Arc and his uncle is out of town. So, we run a program that help families. We are serving 200 special needs kids this summer with 100 volunteer youth. We do summer camp’s; we serve all age up to 21. With some of the dollars you give help as scholarship for some of those kids. And then we run a year-round program for adults with development abilities, because childcare doesn't stop for us, and our families need support. Matter of fact, Jeff is going to be moving in with me while his uncle goes and gets a kidney transplant. But I could not offer that help if we didn't have the Arc program, because I need to still hold onto a job. So, Jeff's going to be hanging out with us for a while. But the Arcs dollars really help that go to these families. We have one program that people live in an adult family home. They only make $60 a month they can have to spend. That is their bus pass, their clothes, that's going out to McDonald's. That's all they get, $60 a month. So, the Arc offers these reduced programs where they have access to getting out. Donna asked Jeff what did he do today? Jeff replied he played basketball with Mike at the Pacific Clinic. Donna told the Commission that they also donate and allow us to play basketball there. The Arc benefits from lots of partnerships to be able to make opportunities for a group that needs help. We ask for your continued support. Commissioner Cochran asked Donna what $9000 would cover. Donna replied that it will help pay for reduced funding using our scholarship program. Presenter: Rick White, City of Pasco, Community and Economic Development Director Commissioners, I will be very brief, you've seen all these items before. The first four requests on your spreadsheet, the three recreational specialists, and the Youth Scholarship Program, with the exception of the Administration dollars, all involve services to low-moderate income families and or youth. And they are geared toward recreational programs for youth. And including the scholarship program, with the exception of the Senior Center Recreation Specialist, which, of course, is geared for senior citizens. The code enforcement item, number seven on your spreadsheet, is for additional code enforcement activities in low to moderate income census tracts. And the Code and Community program number eight on your spreadsheet is for an educational based program to actually try to reduce or at least Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 46 June 16, 2022 establish outreach for both building and code enforcement programs in a more proactive manner. Number twelve is the section 108 debt repayment program. This is the $200,000 per year that the city entered to a contract with HUD so that the Peanut Park Pavilions would be demolished and then rebuilt as they have been. So, unless the commissioners have any questions, I'll just pause there. B. Block Grant 2023 HOME Funds Allocations (MF# BGAP2022-004) Kristin Webb started; this is the HOME funds allocations. The three cities Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, or Home Consortium, each year get funds to help with down payment assistance and also tenant based rental assistance. This year, the estimated funds is $699,987. With that broken down, Pasco's estimated entitlement funds are $188,000. Plus, we receive program income, which is when a down payment assistance applicant has either sold or the transfer of their house has gone to somebody else, they have to pay those funds back. So, we're anticipating we're going to get $100,000 from that, which brings our total to $288,000. So, we're proposing to do ten Down Payment Assistance loans at $139,000. The City of Pasco last year was the only City that actually did a down payment assistant loan, and this year, we're already working on number two. Then $139,000 goes to Tenant Based Rental Assistance, and then $7000 to Program Administration. After discussion and staffed evaluation, it is recommended that the anticipated 2023 HOME entitlement funds be allocated to the First Time Home Buyer Down Payment Assistant Program. A contingent project for new construction infill or tenant based rental assistance may also be added as needed to meet timelessness. The activity set forth above would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in 2023. If conditions of the housing market make it difficult to use the funds as planned, Pasco may consider joining forces with Kennewick and Richland to allocate unused funds for CHDO (Community Housing Development Organizations) acquisition and or infrastructure for low- income rental housing projects, as permitted in the interlocal agreement. Your review and recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated. No commissioners had any questions or comments. Next, Commissioner Cochran stated, we've got two more items and lots more paper to go through, so bear with us. This next part there are a lot of things to discuss with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Docket items, and there's lots of folks here to express their opinion. I'd ask you to be succinct and as brief as possible, because we have a lot of folks to get through on both sides of any issue. And so what we're going to do is we're going to kind of have Jacob kind of talk about the whole package, and then we'll kind of have folks come up on individual dockets and speak, if that's still agreeable to staff. Rich White stated, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a brief comment before Mr. Gonzalez starts. Tonight is not for the Planning Commission to consider the merits of a proposal. There are no projects proposed at this point. It is to set a dock at a schedule, because this process will take us well into summer and the fall season. There will be multiple opportunities for both Planning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commission and City Council input for the public and for applicants. But tonight is to set the docket for considering during the summer and fall season. Commissioner Cochran stated yes, and I think my intention is to have the Commissioners hear from applicants and then also set the docket by deciding which ones will be studied and won't be studied. So, what we'll do is we'll hear Jacob's presentation on the package, then we'll go through each docket item, and we'll have the presentations from Pros and Cons. We'll have the Commissioners ask questions, and then we'll make a decision at the end across all of them, whether Commissioners want to either study or not study, deciding. Good. All right. Go ahead, Jacob. C. 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Docket Jacob Gonzalez started, good evening members of the Planning Commission. As a reminder to the Commission and also for the audience members, the Washington State Growth Management Act limits amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to once per year, with very few exceptions, essentially an emergency amendment. The City of Pasco has established a process outlined in the Pasco Municipal Code that allows for proposed amendments to be considered concurrently and considered for the annual dockets. On the next slide, we detail how this occurs, and that considered concurrently, part means that all of these applications should be considered as a whole or with each other in mind. So, if we had, hypothetically, all of our applications were proposing to remove all of our residential lands and convert to industrial, that could be problematic. And so that's essentially what that means. Are we considering these concurrently? There are two components, as director Rick White mentioned, tonight is simply to establish and accept the annual docket, and the Planning Commission can make a recommendation for those that they choose to move forward with or not. The second component is the actual evaluation, the study of the merits of the applications themselves. There will be public hearing and public comments accepted throughout the entire process. The public hearings, obviously one tonight, and there will be a follow up public hearing with the City Council at that date to be determined. The Evaluation Criteria that the staff is asking the Planning Commission to use for tonight's recommendation or the Pasco Municipal Code, you may recall that we updated our code in 2020 to comply with the State Growth Management Act, and this is a result of that. Generally, the five questions or criteria are:  Is there sufficient time for Council to make an informed decision on an application?  Will the City be able to conduct sufficient analysis to develop policy and related development regulations associated with any potential land use amendment?  Has the proposed amendment been previously rejected for consideration?  Will the amendment implement and comply with the Comprehensive Plan in the Washington State Growth Management Act? So, does it generally align with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan?  Is the proposed amendment better addressed through another planning process? For example, Broadmoor, the City has determined that that we better address through a specific Broadmoor Master Plan. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 46 June 16, 2022 The next slide as a reminder on the Comprehensive Plan. It's been maybe a year or so since we've adopted our Comprehensive Plan, but it is a policy document. It is a statement of goals and policies that outline the community's vision for the future. And a part of that document is a requirement that we look at the next 20 years of growth in the community and we do a significant evaluation on land use, housing, transportation, economic development, parks, recreation and open space, capital facilities and public utilities. The summary of all the applications that we received this year, we received 18 total applications. Twelve of those were initiated by either citizens or private applications. Six of those are proposed by the City. No land use amendments have been processed since 2016, and a part of that was a development of our periodic update. And so, I think part of the reason for the significant number of applications is the six or so years since the last amendment cycle and obviously a reaction to the ongoing housing challenges our communities are facing. City applications are automatically placed on the docket. So, while there's a public hearing and we will certainly accept and welcome comments on City applications, they are automatically placed on the docket. They still need to be evaluated. Public notices were distributed on June 2 as of about 5:00 p.m. this evening we've received 65 phone calls, voicemails and or emails, written letters, and we've responded to about a third of them as of today. And obviously there's a significant amount of audience members here to speak about the proposals themselves, so I just wanted to make that clear. And they are a part of the public record as well. On this map you can see in pink, may be difficult for some of the proposals showing at a city-wide scale, but it sort of represents all of the proposals that we've received and they're kind of spread out throughout most of the community. Some are in the expanded Urban Growth Area. Obviously, the Broadmoor Master Plan, the Downtown and numerous others that could be considered as infill development are proposed as well. So, kind of a healthy distribution of proposals amongst the entire Urban Growth Area. So, with that, in terms of this evening, staff will go over a review of all the applications received and then we can do a question and discussion with the Planning Commission, a public hearing could be opened, and then we can go back to each application, and they can be discussed, reviewed, and recommended at that time as appropriate. 1. CPA2022-001 Kidwell Jacob Gonzales stated, you may recall, this was proposed to the Planning Commission during the periodic update process back in 2019 and 2020. And at that time, we asked the applicant to hold off while we completed our Comprehensive Planning effort, and they did. So, this is a proposal for a change in land use for approximately 3.8-acres located northwest of Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road from medium density residential to commercial. The environmental determination issued by the City early this month was of non-significance. And so, this is kind of where we get back that this is just a land use only proposal. There is no project associated or no permit that the City is entertaining or have received. This is just a land use proposal, and this applies to all of these applications this evening. All land use proposals will also require concurrent rezone as well, that goes through its own process. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commissioner Comments/Questions: Commissioner Teel stated I just had a question. For some reason, I recall it being high density and looking at a high density map. Did it change to medium density or am I recalling wrong? Jacob Gonzalez answered when we entertained this proposal back a year or two ago, it was tied with the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, but it was also tied with the Broadmoor Master Plan, which had preliminary identified this as high density residential. The Comp Plan had a medium density residential land use associated with it. And the Broadmoor Master Plan is still ongoing. That actually is an application that you'll hear about later this evening, but today's, current land use is medium density residential on this particular site. Commissioner Cochran stated, one of the questions would be, since this was or is part of the Broadmoor is the answer that this should be kept with the Broadmoor plan? Jacob Gonzalez responded, the Broadmoor Master Plan is a planning effort that is ongoing along with the concurrent Environmental Impact Statement associated with the planning effort. And after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, staff and also working with the property owners in that area, have decided to reduce the boundary or the general area of the Broadmoor Master Plan to accommodate and account for the fact that there's been a development already occurring and kind of superseded the plan, and so we've reduced it. So, this is no longer part of the Broadmoor Master Plan, although obviously being across from it, could be impacted by it. Public Hearing Comments: Deborah Parsons: My name is Deborah Parsons. I live on Silver Bright Drive, Pasco, Washington, which is right across the street from this parcel. I bought my home in 2018. I retired and moved to Pasco to be near my daughter, who's a teacher in the Pasco School District. At that time, we asked the real estate agent about the vacant land across Broadmoor Boulevard. He said it was zoned residential and more homes would be built there, and that we would be a part of a residential community. In 2020 this Kidwell proposal first came up, and at that time, Mr. Kidwell identified that he wanted to build a gas station/convenience store here on this land, and I believe he still wants to do that. In keeping with the integrity of the Pasco City zoning, I would like to see apartments, townhouses, duplexes, or single-family housing built here. I speak for many in the Columbia Terrace subdivision of which I'm a part, and respectfully ask that this committee deny the Kidwell application and many other land use application that seeks to commercialize land the City of Pasco has already zoned as residential use along Broadmoor Boulevard. We need more housing built, not another gas station. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Claude Oliver: Good evening, commissioners, Claude Oliver, Tri-Cities Realty Group, 1919 N 20th Avenue. As you look at the development of the community and how it is progressed, 3000 new homes back Road 68. 3000 new homes going in between 68 and Broadmoor. On the other side of the freeway another 3000 new homes going in, and you're about to have another 3000 out in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 46 June 16, 2022 development area there. One of the key things you need is the ability to have people to get service, a quick stop gasoline check out in that area. So, I'm in favor of the amendment to allow the convenience store. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Rick Simon: Good evening, commissioners, I'm speaking on behalf of Todd and Stacy Kidwell, the applicants for this proposal. My name is Rick Simon, resident of West Richland, and I'm going to focus more on placing this item on the docket. I just want to point out that we believe that we have a very complete and thorough application for your review, that it is consistent with many of the goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan, and I think it deserves your review in this year's amendment cycle. It's also a fairly minor amendment. It's less than 4-acres. It's not going to require a ton of analysis or further study. And finally, as Jacob had noted, this was not a proposal that had been rejected previously. It had been withdrawn because it was part of the larger Broadmoor sub area plan. So, I believe it meets all of the criteria for placement on the docket, and we would urge the commission to review it within this cycle. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 2. CPA2022-002 Jankelson/Tate The next proposal is for a land use amendment for approximately just over 2-acres located northwest of Argent Road and Road 68 south of Interstate 182. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from a low density residential to a mixed residential and commercial. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued earlier this month. I also want to point out that there have been rezones adopted and approved to the site to the south and I believe to the west of this particular site for medium density, or I believe in R-3. So, there are associated rezones adjacent to this site. This has not been a proposal that's been brought to the Planning Commission before. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: Debbie Tate: Hello. Debbie Tate, Tate Architecture, 70815 West River Boulevard, Pasco, Washington. I'm speaking because my clients too chicken to come up and talk. Mr. Jenkinson resides in Tacoma, but is quite a property owner over here. And one of the parcels he's owned for a long time, just north of, I wanted to say Heidi House, McGill’s. Anyway, it was recently rezoned, and he also owns these two parcels to the north. The one just north of the parcel that was just rezoned was erroneously double zoned. So, we had two zones in one parcel. In order to change that, we had to go through the Comp Plan because the left half or the part on the west was a higher density. So, with that in mind, we had to go through the Comp Plan, and the parcel to the north of that, right against the canal, is also his, and he wants to develop the entire parcel portions. And so, we had to go through the Comp Plan amendment for that. We included that so that we can rezone it the same as the zoning that's to the north to the south. So, we have met all of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 46 June 16, 2022 requirements of the Comp Plan Amendment. This is in compliance with the Comp Plan amendment, and we just need to go through that process in order to be able to develop the land which is already zoned what we want to zone it to the south. Any questions? Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: Commissioner Cochran asked staff is the reason it was mixed zone is because they just crossed, like, Argent and 68 boundaries? Is that how that ended up that way. Jacob Gonzalez answered there's probably several sites throughout the City where, more than anything, they may be mapping errors, where there's multiple zoning districts or multiple land uses on top of the same parcel. They zigzag, they meander, it essentially could be just be a mapping error, and this might be the result of that, a previous mapping error. So, this could almost be technically, at some point, considered a map correction as well, depending on the proposed use, obviously, but there's really no reason that I can recall why it's been given two separate zoning districts or land uses. Roland Jankelson: I'm Roland Jankelson, I live in Lakewood Washington, but I've kind of been very involved in property development, commercial for the most part, in Tri-Cities for 20 years. And I probably wouldn't have taken your time, except I didn't think I wanted the public record to state that I was chicken to address you. And mostly I felt that Debbie, who worked on the situation with Jacob for a long time, probably could explain the historical confusion that required us to, in order to, after accomplishing the rezone on the largest parcel, to just clean up these two other parcels. And that's the process. And I thank you for the opportunity to clarify the record with respect to my willingness to stand in front of a microphone, I've done that many times. So, thank you very much. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 3. CPA2022-003 Broetje Orchards/New Heritage This proposal is for a future land use amendment from industrial to mixed residential and commercial that affects various parcels at a total of approximately 197-acres. This site is located on A street in between recent industrial growth in east Pasco. Determination of Significance was issued by staff on June 7, 2022. And essentially what that means is the likely requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement, to identify the necessary mitigations associated with the proposed land use amendment. And like the others, this has not been proposed to the Planning Commission before. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Commissioner Cochran stated this one is a Determination of Significance. So, it is different than some of the others. One of the questions, is there time? Jacob Gonzalez answered it might be hard to answer that right now. But most Environmental Impact Statements, it might be difficult to accomplish that within the remaining time frame, at least in the rest of this update cycle. This is an annual amendment. Our next periodic update is due June 2026. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 46 June 16, 2022 Public Hearing Comments: Darral Moore: Good evening. My name is Darral Moore, JUB Engineers, 3611 S Zintel Way, Kennewick, and this was brought up, there was a concern about timing of this particular application, about completing an EIS. And we did prepare an EIS sort of version of a report and provided to staff. I'm not sure if it's been part of the application documents that Planning Commission has? Jacob Gonzalez answered no, we didn't include specific application materials with this, as this is just the docket establishment. But he is correct. No formal EIS has been completed. They did submit a supplemental report to the environmental checklist. Darral Moore continued, so that report really discusses the goals of Comprehensive Plan that meets those goals. So, I want to make sure from a timing standpoint, we get the opportunity to be able to complete if there's any specific further details needed to complete EIS. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Brad Peck: Good evening. Brad Peck, I live in West Pasco. I'll be here speaking on a few different issues this evening, but this particular one I'll be wearing my Franklin County Commissioner hat. Some of the others will be a personal hat, and I'll be sure and let you know which is which. On this one the 197-acres that Mr. Broetje is working on, it says mixed residential, but I've not heard anything tonight that articulates what the City is going to consider as mixed residential. Would that potentially include high density? Jacob Gonzalez commented the mixed residential commercial land use permits R-1 through R-4 is the most flexible land use we have available. Brad Peck continued okay, so then I would encourage, as we look at what I think is a short to medium term housing shortage and we look at adopting long term permanent solutions, semi-permanent, that we remember that there aren't just 16-acres being added for high density. There's potentially 200-acres of high density right there. And without getting into Mr. Broetje's business, I suspect that much of that will be high density. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Matt Adams: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Adams. I'm director of Real Estate Local Bounty, residence is in Liberty Lake, Washington. I just wanted to voice opposition and concern. We have the property adjacent to the west, Local Bounty. We, as you know, have tens of millions of dollars that we're investing in that corner of A street and Oregon, and are really concerned with how this near 200-acre change will affect traffic patterns to the east. I mean, we did an exhaustive search to find quality industrial land, and that is not easy to find in Pasco or the region, that captures all the necessities that a user like us requires. Our whole emphasis was to be a good neighbor in this industrial zone and assumed we'd be surrounded by Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 46 June 16, 2022 complementary industrial uses. And this really changes the nature of the neighborhood significantly. And we are concerned, as you know, we're breaking ground for the long-term impacts this will have to the area and our operations with this being potentially in someone's backyard. Though we're a very clean use we're very proud of how we treat the environment and our end product, we just feel this is not a conducive change to the Comprehensive Plan and have some concerns with how this could meet your strategic policy initiatives. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: Commissioner Cochran stated I don't think I'm familiar with what business or industrial use your process. Matt Adams continued, we're high-tech greenhouse operator headquartered in Hamilton, Montana. We're traded on the New York Stock Exchange. We have our sweet spot in site are 25 to 40-acres. I'm actively acquiring properties across the country. This is going to support the Pacific Northwest region. We have a facility in Hamilton, Montana that captures some of it, but this is going to augment serving Seattle, Spokane, all the major metropolitan areas. And we're here for the traffic pattern and the proximity to labor, abundant water, and the resources that the site has, and we're concerned with a high density residential use directly to the east of us. Commissioner Hendler asked have you got another project going on around there right now? Matt Adams answered no, we have nothing else slated in this vicinity. Alan Suarez: Good evening. My name is Alan Suarez, 251 Orchard Road, Pasco. I work for Broetje Family Trust in the Community Development area. And I think one of the things that I just wanted to bring up is there are some alternatives that have been presented in the supplemental report that it's not just multi housing, but we have single residential homes. And so, there's three alternatives, low intensity could be 500 single family unit; medium intensity would be 468; and high intensity could be 4014. That is single family, whereas opposed to apartments, if you're looking at low intensity, 252; medium, 480; and high would be 736. We are the developers of the adjacent community, Tierra Vida Community. We are long term developers. We've been there for 15 plus years. We've had several individuals that have sought out the community to live in. They really appreciate the community. One of the things that they talk about is the low crime rate in the area. And the City of Pasco has used it as an example, City officials, the police department. The other thing is that there's a high need for homes in the area, especially affordable homes. One of the things that we've come across is obviously we have Amazon that has broken ground. And actually, before they broke ground, we had several inquiries because they were bringing workers into the area, wanting to live in the area. Not to mention that we've had Dairygold, Reeser’s that's been three quarters built. Right? So not only Amazon is bringing in 1500 plus employees, we're having an additional 800 employees, perhaps altogether between Dairygold and Reeser’s. So housing is a big need. Live, work, play in the location. This would reduce transportation issues. They would declutter the transportation system. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 46 June 16, 2022 One of the things I wanted to comment on was that each dollar invested in affordable housing boost local economies by leveraging public and private resources to generate income, including resident earnings and additional local tax revenues, and supports job creation and retention. Rising rental costs with low vacancy rates and high levels of low-income residents, coupled with high home prices and overall high cost of living in the Tri-Cities region, is a recipe for mitigating factors such as job creation, the central business district to reduce overall commuting costs for low-income and minorities residents. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Stephen Bauman: My name is Stephen Bauman, I'm here speaking on behalf of the Broetje’s as well. I do live here in Pasco. A couple of things of note for this project, one thing that bring residential to this area will do is reduce traffic on our greater roadways. The trend seems to be to build north out of Pasco towards West Pasco, and by bringing residential units to this area of town, will reduce traffic on our local roads. Another area that I'd like to point out is this is somewhat of an L shaped project, I don't know, is there a way that I can put a pointer? So, this area right here, the City is in design and intends to go this fall, I believe, to construction on is to build a large soccer field complex and appreciate the concern of the Local Bounty folks. With this mixed use, there is the ability and the intention of providing separation. And some of your packet will reflect that. I've been in discussions with the school district. The school district has need for another elementary school and has expressed interest in some ground. And there's been ground intended to be set aside in the magnitude of approximately 15-acres for a school facility here. There's also been a lot of intention to make it a walkable and a bikeable community for a lot of green space. Don't have an exact number, but it's proposed to be possibly over 20-acres of green space. And so, with the large soccer complex, possibly 15-acre school facility with additional large green space, we believe that we can appreciate the concerns of the neighbor as far as there being separation from their facility, being in an industrial area. And we believe that consideration for not putting additional traffic on the highways with the idea of a kind of a new urbanism concept of live, eat, work, play in the same area and not create traffic, we think is something that should be taken into consideration. One more thing, if you don't mind, as Commissioner Peck pointed out, and that is correct, that there's a wide array possible of housing densities. The intention with this is to not have one, but to have a mix of all the different densities. The intention is to cover the spectrum of incomes from the lower incomes up to the higher incomes. A very good and well written article today in the Journal of Business in Pasco talked about this very area, and it would be worth reading and to talk about the rising value of homes in east Pasco. And this would certainly intend to complement the wide range of incomes. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Brad Peck: I'll be quick, as I realize, my second time, but I just want to clarify and make sure that I didn't give the wrong impression. The Broetje family and now the Broetje Trust have a long track Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 46 June 16, 2022 record of excellent service in this community, especially in the arena of building communities and housing. I think this is fantastic. I completely support it. I think what's especially noteworthy is its location. It's not abutting anything else that it has a significant conflict with. This is exactly the kind of place for these sort of planned communities, with a mix of housing, and I can't imagine anybody better than approaches to do it. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 4. CPA2022-004 Lavrentiev This proposal is for a land use amendment from low density residential to medium density residential. It is located north of Burns Road and west of Broadmoor Boulevard. It encompasses approximately 32.26-acres, and Determination of Non-Significance was issued on June 7, 2022. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: Paul Lavrentiev: My name is Paul Lavrentiev. I'm the applicant. I live on Henry Street in Pasco. So, we're just applying to switch the land use from low density residential to medium density residential. As you can see, there's a lot of low density residential area land in that area, both to the east and to the west. This just opens up opportunity to present different types of homes for the community and as well prevent from sprawling neighborhoods with low density. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Angelo Lavrentiev: Good evening. My name is Angelo Lavrentiev. I'm currently building my home on Lamb Court, which this property bumps up against. I just want to say that I am for this. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 5. CPA2022-005 Olberding 1/Stromstad This proposal actually takes place in our recently expanded Urban Growth Area, and I do want to mention that our Urban Growth Area is still under appeal. We are not sure about the results of that appeal but thought it would be important for the context of the overall discussion this evening. It is approximately 40-acres, and the amendment is from low density residential to medium density residential, and a Determination of Non-Significance was issued on June 7 of this year. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 46 June 16, 2022 Public Hearing Comments: Peter Harpster: Good evening Commission, my name is Peter Harpster. I'm with Aqtera Engineering here representing the applicant. And the applicant's actual representative, Caleb Stromstad, was unavailable and so kind of representing the representative. It's for both items five and six. So, everything that I say for item five is true to item six as well. Proposing land use change from low density residential to medium density residential for this one. The next one will be land use change from commercial to mixed residential commercial. We're in favor of this proposal and believe that it is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan as well as City Council goals. Both proposals meet the evaluation criteria. All five, I won't go through them one by one. Commissioner Cochran, you did ask about the two separate applications and like Mr. Gonzalez stated, just because of two different land uses that we're proposing. Would have been nice to do one of half the paperwork, but don't mind doing it. Yes, our ask tonight would just be for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to Council for inclusion on the official docket for consideration as we go out throughout the year. Happy to answer your question. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: Commissioner Cochran stated that items five and six will be grouped together. Hearing no further comment, we will continue to number seven. 6. CPA2022-006 Olberding 2/Stromstad This proposal is to the immediate south, and the proposal is for an amendment from commercial to mixed residential and commercial. The entire parcel is highlighted, but this particular proposal only covers that red area, which is approximately just under 13-acres. Again, from commercial to mixed residential, commercial land use and a Determination of Non-Significance was issued earlier this month. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Commissioner Cochran stated the reason these are separate from the same folks is they're separate parcels. It's mixed and medium? Jacob Gonzalez answered, yes, because of the amendment to go to each is a different land use, to go to two separate land uses. Public Hearing Comments: None. 7. CPA2022-007 Mullen This is a proposal that's located along Road 68, east of Road 68 north, in between Clemente on Wrigley, and it's a proposal to go from commercial land use to high density residential, approximately 2 ½-acres, and it received a Determination of Non-Significance on June 7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: None. 8. CPA2022-008 Blake This proposal is located on Chapel Hill Boulevard, south of Interstate 182, east of Road 100. It is a proposal to go from commercial land use to a mixed residential and commercial land use. It encompasses two parcels at approximately 4.6-acres, and it received a Determination of Non-Significance on June 7. I should probably also highlight that the mixed residential commercial land use is our most diverse, it's our most flexible land use. It permits our commercial zoning districts and also our residential districts from R-1 to R-4. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: None. 9. CPA2022-009 Alford This proposal is for an amendment on approximately 19.9-acres located in between two proposed land use amendments that we've heard about already this evening, north of Burns Road, west of Broadmoor Boulevard. And the proposal is for change from low density residential to mixed residential commercial, and it also received the Determination of Non-Significance on June 7. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: Kenton Alford: Good evening, my name is Kenton Alford, 8503 Nash Drive, Pasco. Just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today, and we just wanted to change the amendment from low density to mixed residential, basically to support the efforts of the City of Pasco with what it is that they're looking for. We know that the number of residents is increasing, and we want to be able to have the land use changed so that we can accommodate whatever the City's needs are at the time, whether that be low density, mixed residential, or commercial. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 10. CPA2022-010 McClory This proposal is for a land use amendment on about 8 ½-acres, located on north 28th Avenue and Court Street, just east of Highway US 395. The proposal is from commercial to high density residential. It also received a Determination of Non-Significance on June 7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: Scott Howell: My name is Scott Howell, live in Richland, Washington, and I am actually standing in for co- applicant Elliot Smith, and I'm also a commercial real estate broker. So, first off, thank you for being here to all members of the Commission. From 2010 to 2020, Franklin County was the fastest growing in the State, and Pasco anchored that as the main driver with close to 80,000 residents. I'm a Pasco resident, born and raised. I live in Pasco along with my wife Chrissy and our son Monty. I've watched growth firsthand. This growth hasn't come without some big challenges, with the main one being the housing that is affordable to the majority of residents that is not pushed to east Pasco. Housing for working families seems to be an afterthought. We have small families that have been dictating pricing, supply and type since 1990s, starting with Road 68. This is not like Road 40 to Road 100 where there are multiple small parcels owned by longtime residents, with not pushing infill growth we put our City in a tough spot. In this Comp Plan, high density residential zoning was once again pushed to Road 68, Road 100, and east Pasco. With the land in east Pasco, they have 90% housing structures on them. At this point, these properties are still more valuable for the owners to sell with the house than they are for infill redevelopment. This piece of property would be a huge step in the right direction to serve the missing middle residents of Pasco. With multiple access points to minimize traffic, two separate freeway access points, three schools, including CBC, and all less than a mile away. After going through the updated Comprehensive Plan multiple times, it's clear that this property hits on multiple goals. With the number one goal of this Commission to provide adequate and affordable housing and reduce urban sprawl, I believe this product pretty satisfies what everyone's trying to achieve. Let us be your partner in this to help move closer to having a City that is inclusive of all residents. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Rudd McClory: I'm Rudd McClory, Richland, Washington. I'm the co-applicant. Just to reiterate a few points that my co-applicant had to say. We want to take the vacant commercial infill property and fill it in with some multifamily housing to provide some support for the local growing jobs with Amazon, Reeser’s, Dairygold, and Local Bounty that we've all heard from. We also believe that the property provides some great walkable connections to the Court Street and the surrounding established retail establishments. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Carolyn Beck: My name is Carolyn Beck. I live at the corner of Pearl and 24th, right in the area where the only Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 46 June 16, 2022 entrance to this new housing, high density residential would be built along with Opal Street. I'd like to correct that there is not an entrance from Court Street that goes up 24th. You could take Opal there, or you could take Pearl Street. So that means we're going to open up two quiet residential areas to an amazing amount of traffic that we were just recently. We lived there 40 years, we love the neighborhood. We recently absorbed some duplexes on the end of the street. We have duplexes, many, many apartments, church, school, nursing home, retirement center, and we have a little residential area around it. And the traffic is increasing daily, and I cannot see that there's 100, it looks like to be 178 residents, probably two cars per person. I don't see how that area can absorb 400 more cars with the only entrance from Court Street and Pearl Street from those areas. The other access from Court Street goes through private property, highlight past the Costless carpets. And so, our objection is residents there who've lived there in our family homes for many years would be that is too much for one little community to absorb high density. I would say that we would be happy to absorb low density or a medium density, but high density is just a little too much for those few streets. I guess I should have counted how many little streets there are and how many hundreds of people live in that area. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 11. CPA2022-011 Lavrentiev/Fetterolf This proposal is further west on Court Street, just west of Road 68, and it is a proposal on approximately 6.7-acres, from commercial to mixed residential commercial. And it received a Determination of Non-Significance on June 7, 2022. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: Paul Lavrentiev: Good evening again. I'm the applicant on this parcel as well. Speaking as the applicant and as a resident in the immediate vicinity, I want to speak in support for this project. Currently what we have is commercial butting up against low density residential, especially up north and even to immediately to the west. There's already developed parcels there, people with half acre lots, one acre lots, and switching it to mixed residential, commercial, it gives flexibility to transition that area better from commercial to low density rather than having commercial, but upright up against low density. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Angelo Lavrentiev: Angelo Lavrentiev, 6927 Lamb Court. So, funny story, I jumped the gun and went up on the wrong amendment. Forget about the other one. So no, on this one my property does bump up against them low density. I would obviously rather have residential property butting up against my cul-de-sac other than commercial. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 12. CPA2022-012 Singleton/O’Neill This proposal is located just west US 395 on Hopkins Street and Road 36. It is a proposal from low density residential to high density residential, encompassing various parcels at approximately 5.78-acres, and it also received a Determination of Non-Significance on June 7 of this year. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: Laura Dinas: Good evening. My name is Laura Dinas and I live just one block west of this proposed change. Speaking for my husband and myself, we've lived in our home for 34 years. It was our American dream. You can do the math, I bought it when I went as 19. It's been the only home I've ever had and I'm very concerned. I'm adamantly opposed to this change. Vehemently opposed. How many more adjectives can I come up with? It's just going to change the whole nature of everything. I'm concerned about the high level of traffic. I'm concerned about the establishment of the way the single-family homes have been in this area however many long years. And along that line, if that property was to be used for single-family homes, I'd feel a lot better about it. Assuming making some guesses about home ownership, making long term residence and stability. That's what I have to say. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Jim Hill Gardner: Monday name is Jim Hill Gardner. I've lived in this area for about 20 years. My main concern about this proposal is lack of access to the property. If anybody has been through there, the only access to that property is between two houses. It's a narrow driveway between two of the houses on Hopkins Street. There's no way you could put a high density facility in there and have access to it without buying somebody's house to provide a way to get to it. Second, everything around there is rural. High density development in that area would not be harmonious at all. Plus, Moore Mansion, the historic Moore Mansion is right next door. Would not want to have an apartment building next to a historic building like that. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Alicia Greenway: My name is Alecia Greenway. I live on Road 34, five houses up from this property. First of all, I'd like to say, Commissioner’s Campos and Bowers, it's nice to see you again, even though you're not here. And the new Commissioners, thank you for serving. One thing that Jacob did not mention, this has come before this board before. All you new members do not know that. And it was shut down. It was shut down because as you know, as I've sat on this board, you Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 46 June 16, 2022 cannot put high density next to likeness. You have to put it next to likeness. This is old residential, half acre to acre lots. High density does not fit in this area. Next, you'd have to go to medium density. And you know this. It's in the codes, it's in your books. You can't put high density in this area. It just doesn't fit. These houses have been here in the 50s. It doesn't work. You have no access. This is landlocked piece of property. They have to figure out how to buy other people's homes to even put two accesses into it. That's their problem. So, you have to deny this to even get it before it can go to the City Council, it can't go past you guys. And they know this. It's been rejected before, it can't move further. And it would be foolish on your part to make it go any further when it has been denied. And you know your codes, you cannot stick high density in old low density area. Any questions? Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: Commissioner Cochran asked Jacob, the presenter discussed that it has been rejected, obviously not part of the recent cycle, but many cycles ago at some point. Jacob Gonzalez answered, it has not been proposed as a land use amendment. However, this predates my time. I believe in early 2018, there might have been a rezone that the commenter is referring to in front of the Planning Commission, but not an amendment that we've entertained. I'll clarify that. Commissioner Cochran continued okay, thank you. And keep in mind too, it's important that we're not making a decision now. Tonight. We're making a decision whether it goes on the docket, whether it gets studied, and any action on the land would actually go through the permitting and all those processes. So, there's lots of gates before this goes through. Alicia Greenway commented, oh I know, I sat right next to you for over ten years. Brad Peck: Good evening. I just wanted to note that it's rare these days when you have public servants, elected officials who are responsible and respectful enough to recuse themselves when they have a conflict on an issue. And I want to thank Mr. Hendler for doing that. As a County Commissioner, I've done it a couple of times. And sometimes it begs the question I get asked what's your conflict? So, respectfully, might I ask, what is your conflict that makes you feel uncomfortable or needing to be recused. I want to be respectful and knock it into areas that would conflict you. Commissioner Hendler answered basically Mr. Peck, I am doing work closely with Dennis Geese, John L. Scott and we're doing development work and we are intimately aware of this project. Brad Peck continued, and I have spoken Mr. Geese too, so I understand that the connection, and I would personally say it's a minor conflict. So, kudos to you for being so professional is to recuse yourself over something so minor. I promise to try and distinguish what hat I'm wearing this one, it's a little tough and apologies in advance if I run a little long, but I'll try to keep it concise. The Moore Mansion is a national Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 46 June 16, 2022 historic registered property, it is immediately adjacent. In 1908 when it was built, it was a 1200- acre farm, and the path to Pasco was literally a path about two to three miles away. Over time, this property has been subjected to what, I hate to use the term, but I would call it, development offense or abuse. First, it was a federal government coming in with an eminent domain taking and they took the shoreline away from this property and they built a massive levy. And then after that, the State came in and they wiped out Road 32 and put in 395 across the doorstep of the place and built the bridge. And really all that's left of the character of the place is the structure itself and the neighborhood surrounding it, which came to be probably in some of those houses were there in the 20’s, a lot of them came in the 40’s and 50’s, but they are largely three-quarter acre, what I would almost call horse properties. Many of the people have horses. They're large lots, single family. It is a highly constrained neighborhood. There's no way out to the south, you've got the river. There's really no way out to the east, you've got the highway. And as has been previously mentioned, this did come up, I was here in this room at the time that it came up for a rezone application, and there was a request to make it mixed use, commercial and residential, which is why earlier I asked what is the City considered mixed use and it clearly includes high density. I knew that, but I needed that to be part of the record as well. I think that the notion, as we weigh the various interests of the Growth Management Act and what the goals and objectives of the City are, we're all kind of leaning forward in this notion that we've got all the people coming in, we've got all the jobs, and we need places for people to live. And I'm telling you, with close to 300-acres identified just tonight, there can be various forms of housing, not to mention out of the 1200-acres upper Broadmoor, there's a massive complex of apartments scheduled to go in there. The Broetje one we already talked about, so I would urge you not to be taken in by the notion that under the Growth Management Act, we have to do infill. Infill has to be done responsibly, and you simply cannot go into and abuse the investment, financial and emotional, the decades of history of people who have lived in that area from the 40’s, and now simply come in and slap in what is potentially hundreds and hundreds of apartments. Under the high density those buildings can be 45 ft tall, which under our code would allow four stories to be developed. And there was a time when Paul Miles and I stood in this very room and in fact, it was the negotiation over the rezone request. And he acknowledged that the reason they wanted to rezone was because for the amount that they had paid for the dirt to build single family homes simply didn't pencil out. They needed high density. Well, I'm here to tell you, the Growth Management Act and this Comprehensive Plan in the rezone process do not exist to make profits for developers. And there's a lot of developers that I know, and I love them all and I respect them all, but that is not the function of the Planning Commission. It's not the function of the Growth Management Act or the zoning process. It's unfortunate that they got into it at a point where it's difficult to develop and have a pencil out. But I know that this is a lengthy process. This is just the first step, and this is when you will decide whether or not this warrants a study. And quickly I'll wrap up, I'll note that I'm curious to know if the DNS considered the possibility of federal funds being involved, which would kick in the National Historic Preservation Act, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 29 of 46 June 16, 2022 require section 108 consultation for, I think it's 108, might be 106, it's been a while. I bought the Moore mansion in 2004 when the City was about to demolish it. I invested well over a million dollars of my own input into it to save it, to restore it. And yes, I'm very passionate about this. You will see me many times. But if there's any place in the region for infill that is grossly inappropriate with high density development, it's that parcel. So, thank you very much for giving me just a little bit of extra time. And again, Mr. Hendler, thank you for your professionalism. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Sean Scarborough: Hello, I am Sean Scarborough, I live on Hopkins. I just want to say I oppose this. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Adan Schafer Medina: Hello, I am Adan Schafer Medina, and I live on Hopkins Street as well. First of all I would like to say nice to see a lot of my neighbors here. Good to see. I have a lot of respect for everyone in this room, especially my neighbors. I think that, I guess my view on this is this is just one of the gates it sounds like if this has been proposed before then it should be stricken but if it hasn’t been proposed before I think we should let it go so it can be stricken. I think there's a lot of analysis that can be done and will be interesting to see. I think just personally, I would really like to see some research done to back up some views of what this would be appropriate and what would not be appropriate. But like I said if this has grounds to be strict and then yeah, go ahead. Again, emphasizing the respect and appreciation I have for my neighbors and hope everyone has a great day. Thanks. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Raymond Salinas: My name is Raymond Salinas. I live at 3320 West Hopkins. As my neighbor said that in order for this to even happen, the City would have to buy somebody out and that house would be mine because I live on 34 and Hopkins. As Mr. Peck said, I bought Mr. Mill's house, Miles house. So that being said, I opposed what you guys put forth here, and I will not sell. So that being said, low density I don't mind, medium and high density, keep it out. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Pamela Griffin: Pamela Griffin, 3406 West Hopkins, right next to Ray and I would be right on the road that they would have to put in, and I opposed the project. We bought this house because of the tranquility of the area, and we came to from Japan to buy it, so I don't want an apartment complex right over my fence. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 30 of 46 June 16, 2022 Sandrine King: My name is Sandrine King, and I live at 200 Road 34. We are the new owners of the Moore Mansion. I obviously bought the mansion thinking we were going to have a nice neighborhood, quiet and not high density. So, I do not favor, obviously. I would be fine if it was low density, if it stays the way it is, but it's not favorable for us and for the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Shane O’Neil: Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Shane O'Neill, 6904 Rogue Drive with Clover Planning, prior City of Pasco Planner I. I am representing Lionel Singleton and World Builders on this application. I have a brief question; will the City Council hearing be open record? Thank you. Although some of my information here doesn't strictly adhere to the criteria that are necessary to place this item on the docket, I'll take the opportunity to run through them real quick. Since we have such a large audience. Excuse me. Tonight's hearings for a comprehensive plan amendment, not a rezone or specific development proposal. Our rezone application will be forthcoming. The rezone process will involve a public hearing where more detailed concerns can be addressed at that time. World Builders proposes to convert the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of six adjacent parcels totaling 5.8-acres, from low density to high density residential. Our site is vacant land immediately west of Moore Mansion, located on the south side of west Hopkins Street. The site is very near Sylvester Street and Highway 395. These are major transportation corridors, thereby satisfying Comprehensive Plan land use policies 2A and 4B, which explicitly encourage high density or higher density residential developments and land uses near major travel corridors. Our site lies 1400 ft. south of Sylvester Street and only 400 ft. west of highway 395. Site development with multistorey residential buildings will maximize river views experienced by future residents, whereas a single-family neighborhood only the riverfront properties benefit from those river views. Our development will increase the recreational opportunities by providing direct access to the Sacajawea Heritage Trail, which is a significant goal of the Washington Shoreline Management Act, providing increased residential densities without expanding the urban growth boundary satisfies urban infill goals of the Washington State Growth Management Act. Granting our Comprehensive Plan amendment will make future annexations in Pasco less vulnerable to denial if appealed on the basis of residential density. With Washington State House Bill 2437, likely to be enacted by the Legislature, approval of our request will foster compliance with directives therein by encouraging investment in affordable and supportive housing. RCW 8214 will be amended thereby. Our application is also in the spirit of House Bill 27 80 and Senate Bill 6536, which require cities to allow multifamily housing in what were previously single-family zones. You may be familiar. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 31 of 46 June 16, 2022 Some of the public comments responding to our application express concerns over site access or traffic. The detailed site-specific site access is outside the scope of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The necessary land use designations must be established before developers will be positioned to invest in site design. The City has codified access standards that will ensure site access is adequately developed. World Builders is not proposing a residential subdivision. This should be a relief to neighboring residents. A residential subdivision of our site would require construction of new public roads through the site, causing much more significant disruption to the neighborhood's existing character and traffic patterns of the vicinity. Instead, our development anticipates relying on a series of access easements, which are more flexible in their design and location than public roads. Commenters claims that if developed, our site development proposal will diminish the property values of homes in the vicinity. This claim is not supported by Franklin County assessment records. Property values of homes adjacent to residential apartments are consistent with the values of comparable homes surrounded only by other single-family homes. The crossings at Chapel Hill, for example. The accusation that people in apartments don't take care of their property the way balance of homeowners do is confusing. Residential apartment sites employ the service of professional groundskeepers and maintenance staff. It's not the responsibility of the residents to maintain a property like this. Instead, property managers ensure the site is maintained to high standards, which is rarely the case with owner-occupied single-family homes. Our development will ensure robust landscaping buffers with trees and shrubs installed adjacent to the rear yards of neighboring homes, which will vastly improve the backyard experience of the existing neighbors. Some commenters raised a series of questions. Those people are welcome to contact the applicant team using the contact information listed in our application. I understand that oftentimes residents or owners of properties adjacent to vacant land are upset by a development proposal of the vacant site. However, it is not reasonable to expect for vacant parcels within Washington's urban growth boundaries to remain vacant. This is partly because Washington's Growth Management Act somewhat forcibly encourages higher urban residential densities within cities. In my personal and professional experience as a City Planner, the initial disruption of site development, although emotional, is quickly forgotten once a project is complete, and that the adjacent neighbors end up appreciating the improvements associated with high quality development as compared to the once vacant site. For the point of the planning commission consideration, a quasi-judicial land use decision like this is not a popularity contest. It's strictly bound by the criteria that you pointed to tonight. We meet all of those criteria. I encourage you to review our application materials in detail as well as the public. These are public records available, to better understand the ways our application satisfies City and State criteria for this item to go forward. I'll save other information for the council hearing. I have with me tonight, Lionel Singleton. He is a representative or owner of World Builders, and he's your primary applicant on this item. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 32 of 46 June 16, 2022 Lionel Singleton: Like I said, I appreciate it. Again, my name is Lionel Singleton, 1148 Columbia Park Trail, Richland Washington. Just a little small story because I feel like it was a lot of negative energy coming in from me coming here, trying to develop a piece of property. I moved up here in 2009 and staying in Pasco for a long time. I started a whole bunch of after school programs for kids up in Pasco and Richland, Washington and Kennewick. There's a lot of different things that I kind of came here for, and one of the opportunities that I got was to play football. I was staying honestly homeless at one point, and I got a phone call to say, hey, we have an apartment for you to live up here and just come play football one more time. And so, me and my family has been developers for a long time. They build schools, they build apartments. I had an opportunity to come up here and with my after-school program, with me doing some things in Pasco and remodeling some homes, giving some families opportunity to go stay. We built some apartments in Richland, Washington. We did the 24 units on the water and actually it's 2.8-acres on the water and we could do a 120 units. And actually, we did our first 24 and we got five extra parking spaces. And also, the neighbors had come in and sitting here and kind of encouraged. I talked with every neighbor and just make sure, hey, what do you want? What do you want to sit here and kind of have here? All right, we don't want to do this many, but we could do this many. You want a wall here? We could put a wall here. You have a tree right here. You want to put a tree here? Because I'm just trying to bring opportunities. And just for that being said, I had one of my students that I have worked with back in at Pasco coming in, their family was struggling, and I actually got them approved to move into the apartment. I had some friends that came to move in town, and I just think these opportunities for this apartment to be built on the water, I'm actually from Florida, so I played everything on the water is really nice. And I understand that you have a significant piece that's there. I've been working on this opportunity for almost 18 months. I've been working on this opportunity just how to come over here on the water. But through things getting denied, you'll say not having the financials and everything like that, I finally got an opportunity for the old owners or whatever to pass this land on, to try to get something development. I don't know what happened between the old owners and the residential people or the people neighbors and things like that, but I just wanted to kind of come up here and say my piece of what we kind of plan on doing. We plan on bringing a great opportunity housing to the riverfront. And I think we're not trying to do mixed use. I think they said mixed use. I didn't even know what was going on even before they said mixed use. We're not trying to do mixed use and do commercial and residential. We're just trying to bring opportunity, say 120, 130 apartments. And we could do, like I said, in Richland, we have 2.8-acres, and we have 124 and it is zoned waterfront. Waterfront is zoning. I've been getting a lot of calls from the City of Pasco or other people that are trying to say, hey, what is this waterfront zoning in Richland Washington? And as you can see, some of the planning and stuff like that on the water, you have mixed use, and you want to kind of bring something some lively to the water. We just want to do something residential, give people opportunities to stay there, to have a beautiful view. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 33 of 46 June 16, 2022 And like Shane said, you can build something. You have the road, the highway there. You have the great views, whatever the neighbors and things when I talk to, I know I didn't come in and say something to the neighbors, which was my plan, but honestly, I didn't even know this deal was going to go through until last week. So, I kind of did it by faith to come out here and try to develop it. As you can see, I'm a person here and wanted to just kind of express myself and let everybody know that I think this is a great opportunity and even to have someone that's willing to invest into this property. Even to bring in $20 million, $30 million dollars to build something, to bring in maybe however many people that can kind of stay here, I think it's a great opportunity. And just kind of just looking at some of the layout, the site plan, it has a little piece that goes into, I guess, the next door neighbors, Moore Mansion. And I think that was said a long time ago that was supposed to be a piece to connect the roads for it to be an Eastman in there. And I don't know what happened with the previous owners or something like that, but now I don't know if that's out. I don't know if that's something that we need to dive deep into, see what that easement would be, but it could easily be like it's almost an acre in someone's yard, basically. So, I don't know what we would kind of do with that. And that's not something that I would have to kind of go out there and talk some more with the next door neighbors. But I just wanted to kind of, like I said, express myself, let her know that I'm a big part of this community. I'm doing some great things, I have some great activities, and if we can partner in some type of way, at least go and let it be go to the next level to kind of sit there and see what can we do with this, instead of just kind of like, hey, we don't want to talk to it no more. We don't want to say denied and not go because everybody saying it hasn't gone to the next level. We would like to see what can happen. And I would like to sit there and talk with every neighbor and see what is their ideas. So, I heard it from them. They want to be low density or whatever situation might be. But like I said, if we do single family, we're going to have big roles coming through there. We can add a little bit more, and it's going to give more people opportunities. So, I appreciate it. If any questions, let me know. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Brad Peck: I will, but it's on point. The historical reference to a piece of land extending into the Moore Mansion is not an acre it's actually .23. Adrian Bird, who previously owned the property that is under consideration and at the time owners of Moore Mansion had arranged for a short plat of the property for single family homes and that piece was to be a connector between the two lots and for a drive. But to be clear, and this is the point that I think needs to be heard, the plat was never approved. No streets, easements or roads were ever affirmed or committed, and there aren't any to this day. And then lastly, I'll just note that one of the requirements, as I understand from Jacob for this to move to the docket is that the City has to have the necessary policies and mitigation tools in place to implement the request. I respectfully submit you do not have the tools, mitigation and policies in place to deal with the only privately owned national historic registered property that is operating under City approved conditional use permits that will be impacted by this action. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 34 of 46 June 16, 2022 So, were you to put this on the docket, you would be impinging on the CUP’s that you've already approved for that property. So, I don't think you have the tools you'd have to work with the state historic preservation office, with Dr. Brooks in Olympia and probably very well may end up in an process. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Shane O’Neill Yes, Shane O'Neill, Clover Planning. The fact that the Moore Mansion has a special use permit approved to have an event center has no bearing on neighboring properties. Neither does the historic registration of the Moore Mansion. This development is proposed outside of the boundaries of the Moore Mansion, and it will not revoke the Moore Mansion's historic status or revoke or infringe upon their ability to operate their event center as approved by the City and their special use permit. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Lionel Singleton: And one more last thing. I know they have Columbia River Walk Apartments right on the other side, like right across on the other side of the bridge that just got doing apartments over there and I think they're already full and going to the next phase and everything like that. So, if you want to kind of look, hey, there's some apartments over there and we can have apartments right across from it as well. So, I just want to kind of throw that out as well. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: Commissioner Cochran stated I believe that is medium density. Brad Peck: Okay, thank you. His reference to 800 ft. reminded me I did forget to mention one thing. While the subject of number 12 may be just 400 ft. off of 395, you don't get there without driving all the way up Sylvester and then over the freeway and then onto the ramp. And the state indicates no plans to put a ramp or interchange there. The land has been sold around it. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 13. CPA2022-013 Downtown Pasco Land Use, City of Pasco This is a proposal that is running before, but concurrently with the development of our first ever Downtown Pasco Master Plan. And so, this is a future land use and text amendment, and it is to establish a specific land use for the Downtown Pasco area. It encompasses numerous parcels, approximately 153-acres. An environmental determination has not been issued, yet a Determination of Non-Significance is anticipated. On the next slide associated with this application, we highlight just kind of a few things that we discussed a little bit already with the Planning Commission about the Downtown Pasco Master Plan. Again, with this proposal, is to establish a land use custom to downtown Pasco. It will require us to update our land use and zoning standards and essentially provide for flexibility for Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 35 of 46 June 16, 2022 development, redevelopment, and infill opportunities, and also for business growth as well in the downtown area. And you can see a slide that's been shared with the Planning Commission at a previous report update, which is that map, which kind of designates potentially two areas that we can kind of begin to think of our downtown plan. One would be our downtown area, one being sort of a civic area, which we're at right now with the Amtrak Station, Pasco City Hall, pretty significant public parks, Central Park, Volunteer Park just to the west of us and the county courthouse. The Franklin County Historical Museum just to the south of us, and then with the immediate downtown core area that you can see kind of in the rectangular shape right there. So, this is a proposal to create a land use for downtown Pasco. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: None. 14. CPA2022-014 Broadmoor Master Plan, City of Pasco This next proposal, again from the City, is for a future land use map and text amendment to implement the Broadmoor Master Plan. Similar to the Downtown Master Plan, the Broadmoor Master Plan is being developed along with the Environmental Impact Statement. Both of those will be presented and hopefully likely receive recommendations from the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the final decision on land use amendments. The intent is for the plan to be adopted before the land use amendment. Again, covering various parcels of approximately 1200-acres. That's a reduction, the original area was roughly 1600 or so acres. It's bound by Burns Road, the Columbia River, Interstate 182, and Broadmoor Boulevard. A Determination of Significance was issued in March of 2017 and then revised in July of 2021. On the next slide, just a few details about this proposal. The intent is to accommodate the existing and permitted development. This is a different land use than what is in our current Comprehensive Plan. It rebalances the household and commercial areas, because of the existing and the ongoing development that's occurred both within and outside of the Broadmoor area. But also, a pretty big one, which is evaluation and the mitigation of the critical area habitat and shoreline and particularly shrub steppe habitat that covers a pretty significant portion of the Broadmoor area. You can see that new kind of teal color, which signifies kind of an open space transition area. Whereas in the existing Comprehensive Plan, I believe there's a medium density of residential applied that simply will likely not occur in the next 10-to-20-year time frame. And so, you can see kind of the direction with the Environmental Impact Statement complete, leading to the master plan being complete, and then to the land use amendment receiving a recommendation. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 36 of 46 June 16, 2022 Public Hearing Comments: Brad Peck: Brad Peck stated, so, this is right in my current neighborhood. I just had a question for staff. Do we have any recent understanding of the number of high density apartment units are programmed into this 1200-acre piece? I know there's an 80-acre lifestyle mall issue at play. I know there's Costco, but behind that I understand there's a large number of apartments. Do we know? Rich White replied no, I would be remiss if I offered any kind of speculation on that. There is a project near Burns Road, roughly 1800 ft. or so west of Broadmoor, although they have not submitted a permit application. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Cynthia Muse: Good evening, commissioners and administrative staff of Pasco, which I've been before many times, and I really appreciate your patience with me. My name is Cynthia Muse. I live at 260 Ridgeview Drive out in the county. For 65 years we've been out that way, and I also spend most of my time at 10816 W Court Street in Pasco, where my 98-year-old father lives, and I'm a caretaker for him. And because of him and his passion for open space, visual and physical access to the river and shoreline, he does live on the river. And his philanthropic efforts to obtain land and open space for all people. I am here and motivated as ever, as long as he lives for sure, to help promote this along, and thus the group SOS (Save Our Shorelines) was formed because of my dad's inspiration to us. And as we look at this Broadmoor plan, we're moving up river from the old Franklin County Irrigation District fight that we had one year ago, and still working on that one as a possibility, maybe, of still some open space there if someone turns back one of those lots. But at the Broadmoor development, you in the City of Pasco have done a world class job of making industrial and commercial sites just beyond description. And now you've raised the bar pretty high, and we are waiting for that in West Pasco, as far west as you can go especially when it includes wide open space like this. We only have one chance of this, and we got to be careful with it. And so, as we look at that area, I don't think we can apply any other kinds of river access or river use to that area because it's so unique. We've got the mighty Columbia River and the slowing of that velocity river around that bend in that habitat wildlife area and the old highway and the Horgan, Gallant and Burns people that are all very old pioneer ways and names and things out that way. And so, we got to really be careful about your mixed use, commercial mixed bag, which really worries me, too close to that habitat area and in your own plans here, and I go through things pretty thoroughly here and you've got your grid work and you've got it a bit mixed up. To me I think it should be open space which is that animal habitat area. We need the trails right next to that on the old shoreline road. Just abandon that for recreational use and reroute it back behind Gallants there. We need open space, then the trails next to that, then the gradient we need the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 37 of 46 June 16, 2022 greenways, we're moving from west to east, we need greenways, we need parks and then we need the playgrounds and then we get into the commercial development and housing where you have plazas and things. So, it should be a gradual parallel to the river, a gradual gradient that moves inward, transition zones, mitigation zones from the loss of that green, here we go. The loss of that green zone and that beautiful pond and everything that we're created by the Bureau of Reclamation and that tailwater is in the very end of the SEID and that has to be mitigated because the amount of wildlife and beautiful. The dunes are gone now, and that pond is gone. All of that needs to be mitigated somewhere and I'm sure that the Gallants and they're wonderful philanthropic people and I think with being able to work with City and County, federal and private monies that we can get something done there to save that huge quarter. It's going to have to be about 1200 ft. off the river into that development in order to meet the requirements of some of the habitat there and some of the creatures that live there that need that protection and space. So, to allow that development to come right up into mixed residential and that's wrong in my opinion and we're certainly going to do everything we can to try to change that. And I don't speak out of mouth or anything to the people that own the land there because I'm willing to put my own farm in the Columbia Basin into a conservancy and save it for the future as open space. So, I'm not just speaking through my hat on this because I could make millions on the property that I have out there in subdivision but I'm not going to do that. And my dad is philanthropic like this too, so I stand as concerned. We'll keep fighting for this. We'll keep working with the landowners that are there. Good old historic people. Kristin, did you want to speak to Kristen? That's very much an advocate for trails and bicycle, and she's about to go on the Pacific Crest Trail for a month. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Kristen Anderson: Sorry, Kristen Anderson. I live on Court Street. I've been there for 30 years and a 50-year resident in the Tri-Cities. And I think Cynthia summed it up pretty well. So, I don't really want to drag on. But I've looked at these plans and I've seen how in all of these applications there's a lot of talk about residential land, commercial, high density development. And I'm looking for the green spaces on here and the park space. And I see that it's a very small amount. When we first moved, Chiawana Park existed along the Columbia River, and that was the park that we went to. And we also went across the river to Richland at Columbia Point Park. And I'm seeing lots of development with very little accommodating park space to go with it. And we talk about live, work and play and the creation of homes and the access to work, but I'm not hearing a lot about the real stuff that helps to make a thriving, healthy, beautiful community, and that is park, open lands, recreational opportunities for our kids and our grandkids. And I really think that the officials who are in this position and the citizens who can band together as well, need to advocate and have that vision and dedication to create more recreational and park space. Along with this, we see a lot of people going down Court Street and using the Sacajawea Heritage Trail. There's a lot more Ebikes out with the price of gas, people are commuting more, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 38 of 46 June 16, 2022 and people that are not necessarily cyclists are enjoying Ebikes and other modes of battery-operated transportation and recreation. So, I would encourage you to be advocates for that type of use going forward in Pasco. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Shane O’Neill: Shane O'Neill, 6904 Rogue Drive. Pasco I'm speaking on just my personal behalf right now. I have a degree in Natural Resource Planning, Bachelor of Science Degree. It's a Biological Science Degree from Humboldt State University. I've been out here whether it's legal or not. This area right here, my comment is generally about the shape of that open space track. Jacob pointed out, or mention that that is sage brush step habitat. But I wanted to come up here and describe that. It's a more unique desert dune plant animal association. It's got succulents, it's got a variety of hawks and the swallows that nest in the embankment of the gravel pit. It they use this site. There's a lot of coyotes out there. It is much more than sage brush step habitat. I encourage you to try to take a walk out there on the north side of the gravel mine. It's unique, so I would like to see that open space area more circular and centralized. It would be a great park, or it's still somewhat intact and presents a good opportunity for public enjoyment. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Bridget Galant: Good evening and thank you to the City and the commission for having us. My name is Bridget Galant and I'm the president of Horrigan Farms, a family business that's existed for four generations. My family settled in Pasco 118 years ago, and we take a keen and personal interest in the success of the City and its community. We appreciate the City of Pasco's efforts in attempting to refine the Broadmoor Master Plan. The physical location of the property Horrigan Farms owns within the subject area, is on the westernmost periphery. Because we have a significant interest and concern that the infrastructure will support the eventual development of the property we own. However, because we lie at the periphery of the project, most development is not imminent. This has given us a concerning perspective on the impact of changes made within the regulatory document, which have had expensive impacts on developments that have already gone underway. Because of this, we encourage the City of Pasco to redouble its efforts in planning on the benefit of the City of Pasco while being mindful of those private entities for putting capital at risk, to be able to build a meaningful and complimentary development that our city and all of us would like. The landowners want to be involved in the process and should be given updates as the master plan is being made. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Marla Marvin: Hi, my name is Marla Marvin. I live just outside of the City limits, and I appreciate your patience tonight. You've covered an incredible amount of well, I've learned so much by being Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 39 of 46 June 16, 2022 here. Anyway, I'm also part of the Save Our Shorelines, and we are begging you to work with nonprofits, landowners, the government, Franklin County, and the City of Pasco to really focus on making this one of the best places to live in the Tri-Cities, with open land, access to the river, and just a partnership with everybody. So, thanks so much. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. Jason Mattox: Thank you for being here. Good evening. Jason Mattox. I live at 1006 Christopher Lane and Pasco Washington, work for PBS Engineering and Environmental and represent Broadmoor Properties. I'll keep it very brief in representation of Broadmoor Properties. We just want to lend our support to having this continue forward on the docket, and we want to find opportunities to partner with the City of Pasco and finding ways to support the Broadmoor Master Plan. So, thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 15. CPA2022-015 Ramgar Estates Map Correction, City of Pasco The next proposal from the City is a map correction, and it is from a commercial to mixed residential commercial. It might be hard to see here, but it's along Heritage Boulevard, just north of A street. You can see the parcels highlighted in that darker red. And essentially what we have here is a land use that designates this as commercial. However, there are actually existing residential dwellings in that land use. This is simply just a map correction, approximately 8.13-acres. A determination on the SEPA has not yet been determined yet. A Determination of Non-Significance is anticipated. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Hi, this is Commissioner Bowers, Jacob I'm a little I was confused by that picture because all those plats, have they all been filled already with residential. Jacob Gonzalez answered no. The ones that are highlighted in that darker red, those are existing dwelling units. So, this proposal is to provide the correct land use in the case that a resident or homeowner may want to redevelop their home or do something, or something happens to it, under the existing land use, there are some discrepancies because technically it's got a commercial land use. So, there should not be residential in there, although we know there's a home there today. So, this is what we would call just a map correction. We did receive a notice from the property owner to the east of this site that also suffers from the same error. So, staff will circle back up with the property owner to the east to make sure that if there is the same error taking place there, that we account for that in this correction as well. So, it's simply just a map correction. Public Hearing Comments: Stephen Bauman: Steven Bauman again, live here in Pasco. I spoke with Jacob earlier here and he indicated that we had discussed this, the intention, and I believe the packet reflects that if you follow the tip of my cursor here, that the intention was that this area here be a part of this map adjustment. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 40 of 46 June 16, 2022 And it showed as just this cul-de-sac. The acreage, I believe, reflects this area here and just hope that we can get that adjusted. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None. 16. CPA2022-016 Court Map Correction, City of Pasco This is another proposal for a map correction. This one takes place on Court Street between 14th Avenue and 19th Avenue. It's approximately 9.25-acres. Similar to the previous application, this is to amend the land use from commercial to mixed residential commercial. Today there's currently residential dwellings, a variety of housing types that are existing there today. So, this is a map correction application, and the SEPA determination has not yet been issued yet. A Determination of Non-Significance is anticipated. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: None. 17. CPA2022-017 South 10th Avenue Map Correction, City of Pasco Similar to the previous two, this one takes place on south 10th Avenue in between A Street and Washington Street, just north of the Cable Bridge. Here the map correction is to fix the land use. There are existing residential dwelling units and homes on these parcels, and they have an industrial land use. And our application is to amend the land use from industrial to mixed residential and commercial, roughly 4.3-acres. And again, no determination with a SEPA has been complete issued yet. The Determination of Non-Significance is anticipated. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: None. 18. CPA2022-018 Land Use Description and Criteria, City of Pasco This proposal is again from the City, and it's a text amendment to the land use description and criteria table that's in our Comprehensive Plan, it's also in our Pasco Municipal Code. The intent is to amend a few of the descriptions and the minimum density on the low density residential and a few other residential categories. This will account for the recent code amendments that have been adopted by City Council, to address housing in our community. So, the low density residential change is to increase the minimum density from two to five units an acre, to three to six dwelling units per acre. We've allowed various dwelling units to be permitted in the R-1, RS-12, RS-1 zoning districts, so we believe that this kind of accommodates that change at a practical level. It also removes the strict inclusion of the single-family dwelling in it, since we do allow duplexes in some of the low density land use zoning districts, if they can conform to the minimum density standards and the maximum density standards. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 41 of 46 June 16, 2022 There were a few other changes on the previous one. On medium density and high density residential, there was a removal of a specific housing types. Currently there's a variety in a long, lengthy list of housing types listed, rather than call them out specifically, we intend to just list a variety of residential dwelling units, they must conform to the density standards. The same for the mixed residential commercial. There's a variety of business types and uses that are listed in the land use code, although those are actually regulated by the underlying zoning codes. So, we don't want to put too much where it's not necessary. So, it's kind of an effort to simplify and emphasize the allowance of a compatible mix of commercial, retail service and residential uses. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Comments: None. Planning Commission – Discussion Points So, again, just a reminder, some discussion points that these are land use proposals only. There are no projects, permits, or associated developments that are pending with any of these land use commitments. If they are approved, they will require a rezone. A rezone is a process that requires a public hearing with the Pasco Hearing Examiner and rezones are authorized by the Pasco City Council. Beyond the rezone, there's still the project level evaluation that happens when an applicant submits a permit to the City of Pasco, and staff evaluates that for mitigation, traffic, environmental impacts, etc. This table demonstrates the proposed changes overall to our land use in the City of Pasco based on these changes. Those in green represent increases, those in that red color are decreases. You can see the significant increase on the Medium Density Residential, and the Mixed Residential & Commercial land uses. You can see the incorporation of Downtown. You can also see the decrease in Commercial, a fairly significant decrease in Industrial land use, and that Public Quasi Public, which is the Broadmoor area, we're changing some of the land uses there. The next slide is the Evaluation Criteria (mentioned earlier) for the Planning Commission to have in their minds as we go through the individual proposals themselves. Happy to answer any questions I can from the members of the Planning Commission. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions: None. Public Hearing Closed. Roll Call: The clerk called on the Commissioners on each item and took their vote. Below shows the result for each item. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 42 of 46 June 16, 2022 1. CPA2022-001 Kidwell Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: No; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 2. CPA2022-002 Jankelson/Tate Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes- On Docket 3. CPA2022-003 Broetje Orchards/New Heritage Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes- On Docket 4. CPA2022-004 Lavrentiev Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 5. CPA2022-005 Olberding 1/Stromstad Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 6. CPA2022-006 Olberding 2/Stromstad Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 7. CPA2022-007 Mullen Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 8. CPA2022-008 Blake Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 9. CPA2022-009 Alford Commissioner comments: None Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 10. CPA2022-010 McClory Voting: Commissioner comments: Commissioner Cochran stated I do have a concern about this one. This is the one that kind of bothered me a little bit, because I do think there's an overemphasis on infilling. And one of the concerns I have about this whole thing is there's a lot of loss of industrial commercial, and obviously there's goals around adding more housing. But I think we have lots of places to add housing and low-income housing, and even that mixed and high density housing. So, this one, I was a little bit concerned about this one because I just felt like this is a spot that so I will be voting no on this one. But I wanted to just express it. I didn't feel like this one kind of fit the bill for me. Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: No; Teel: Yes; Hendler: No; Cochran: No – Not On Docket Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 43 of 46 June 16, 2022 11. CPA2022-011 Lavrentiev/Fetterolf Commissioner comments: None Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: Yes; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Yes; Cochran: Yes – On Docket 12. CPA2022-012 Singleton/O’Neill Commissioner comments: Commissioner Bowers stated I just had a question that one of the applicants had, or statement one of the applicants had made is the residential, medium density residential that has just gone in, is that immediately to the east of the Moore Mansion? Rick White answered its roughly 8th Steet and 20th. Voting: Bowers: Yes; Campos: No; Teel: Yes; Hendler: Recused; Cochran: No – Tie, No Recommendation. Note: Commissioner Hendler had voted, but then realized he had recused himself, so his vote was taken out which resulted in a tie. It will still move forward to the docket. **All other items are City requests and will go on the docket. D. Transportation System Master Plan Jacob Gonzalez stated this is the City's first attempt at developing our very first comprehensive approach to transportation planning in the community. It's been a fairly lengthy process that began with the scope in late 2018 and we are nearing completion. And with the final version of it for you this evening, it was attached to your agenda packet for review. So essentially, this Transportation Master Plan serves as a sort of vision, a guide for future transportation investments to ensure that they align with the community's goals, values and vision for the future. It has numerous components of it. We've covered some of these certainly at the last public hearing, but definitely over the past few years as well. For public input, engagement, goals and policies are planned vision, evaluation of existing conditions and the recommended transportation improvement and standards that the city would use to actually have our standards in the municipal code to guide transportation planning with development in the future. On the next slide, a framework with how the plan fits within the rest of the regulatory or planning environment, sitting within the State Growth Management Act under our Comprehensive Plan, nesting within council goals and policies and associated with capital facilities, plans, etc. So, the goals remain to coordinate with regional partners on shared transportation investments, provide safe access to transportation for all of our users, preserve the existing facilities and prioritize a connected and efficient transportation system. This helps develop a transportation system that supports and accommodates business visitors and residents. It also supports healthy and livable neighborhoods in Pasco and helps develop a complete multimodal transportation system, which is a goal of the Pasco City Council that was recently adopted. So, these are the goals that I just covered. The next slide we wanted to remind because it's been some time, but there was some fairly significant public engagement involvement that took place with this effort. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, it all occurred online, but we still received well over 200 responses. You can see kind of an example that's in the appendices of the plan itself. We had a technical advisory committee made up of local stakeholders and agencies, along with the community themselves, part of the entire process. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 44 of 46 June 16, 2022 So, you've seen this before and it's a pie chart that breaks down the amount of recommended improvements. It's a fairly significant number. Total of $665,000,000. 56% for new streets, 6% for bike/ped projects, 31% for expansions and riding of roadways, less than 1% on traffic studies, plan evaluations, etc., and 7% for expansions at intersections. So, the plan does have a lengthy list of proposed projects. Again, updates to the transportation system standards that vary from functional classification system to addressing our freight and goods, transportation routes, access management, street connectivity, mobility targets, and demand management policies. Implementation strategies to adopt is essentially securing the necessary funding for these improvements, implementing the transportation management tools for our neighborhoods, updating the vehicle mobility standards, updates to the engineering design standards and roadways, bikeways and walkways, and incorporating these changes into our subdivision regulations. So, it's Title 21 of the Pasco Municipal Code. Essentially with a recommendation of approval, the next steps would be to keep this document as up to date and current as it can, so to be reviewed and updated periodically, and tracking our progress of the implementation, keeping current with state federal regulations and potential funding opportunities, and aligning this document under the Washington State Growth Management Act, but also with our not too far away Comprehensive Plan update due in June of 2026. These are just some results of the recent National Citizen Survey that indicate the community still has an interest and concerns about mobility in Pasco. And on the next slide, you can see the community's response with regards to community design, with 20% indicating the design has been poor and 40% indicating it's been fair. We think this TSMP effort with the implementation can help mitigate some of these in the future. And that sums up this very brief presentation. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of our first Transportation System Master plan. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions: Commissioner Bowers and I just wanted to acknowledge all the hard work and vision that came out of this. Commissioner Cochran stated I had a question; I went right to page 31 where you had the tables of improvements, and these are all the costs. Are these just proposed or if this goes forward, all these things are locked in, and all this spend is locked in? Or as you put the plan together, these are the things that you're recommending at this time. Jacob Gonzalez answered recommended at the time. I think it's also worth mentioning that a significant portion of this was developed prior to the recent industrial expansion in the area. So, we've had to add quite a bit to the projected project. But the projects that are on this list will end up in some form or fashion on the annual six-year transportation improvement plan, and portion of those will also end up on the City's capital improvement plan. So, there will be some blending. What this does do provide us a little bit of a guide with regards to projects and the costs are going to change. Commissioner Cochran continued I guess my question was around are these a done deal, or are Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 45 of 46 June 16, 2022 there still multiple approvals and council processes that go through to make these a reality? Rick White answered yes, definitely. And not only that, but as you look at the extent of the projects, they won't all be wholly financed by the City. There'll be a combination of public, private coordination to achieve these concurrent with development as well. Commissioner Cochran stated I've noticed is that I think we even had a workshop on, like, the Broadmoor transportation, and there's a lot of different opinions about stop lights here and roundabouts here. And so, it sounds like this is the proposals and recommendations, but there's lots to do before the reality, then. Commissioners, any other questions before we open the public hearing? Okay, with that, we'll open the public hearing, and if there was anyone here to speak on this agenda item, please, now is the time to come forward. Or anyone on the phone. And again, please state your name and city. Jason Maddox: Jason Maddox, 1006 Christopher Lane, Pasco, Washington, PBS Engineering and Environmental. I would want to, just as a civil engineer by trade and somebody uses Transportation Master Plan documents on almost a daily basis, I definitely want to lend support to continuing to foster open and clear communication between City residents, engineering community, and all people involved in developing, really a robust and transportation system master plan that speaks to the needs of the community. And this sort of visioning document and guiding document is vitally important to a City maintaining good infrastructure throughout the community. So, we'd want to definitely lend support and see this continue to move forward and have great dialogue with the City on this. Thank you. Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None Stephen Bauman: Stephen Bauman, Developer here in Pasco I want to echo work for work, what Jason said. Thank you for the hard work from staff on putting this together. It really is helpful to have something to look down the road and kind of a template to work off of and would certainly encourage the fostering of dialogue between the community and staff. So, thank you very much for that hard work. Commissioner Cochran asked if there was anyone else wanting to speak on the matter, hearing none, he closed the public hearing for this item. Commissioner Cochran continued one of the things the action on this one is staff is looking for potential recommendations to the City Council on this, and so I entertain motions to that effect. Commissioner Campos, I moved to close a public hearing on the Transportation System Master Plan and recommend to the Pasco City Council's adoption of the Pasco Transportation System Master Plan as containing the June 16, 2022, Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Bowers seconded, passed unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 46 of 46 June 16, 2022 Commissioner Comments/Questions Regarding Speaker: None OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Hendler made the motion to close the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Bowers. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:02 pm. Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kristin Webb, Block Grant Administrator SUBJECT: 2023 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM ALLOCATION (MF# BGAP2022-003) Requests for Funding Attached for your review and consideration are the CDBG Fund and Proposal Summaries (Attachment 1) relating to our Community Development Block Grant Program for program year 2023. Eighteen (18) requests for funds were submitted totaling $2,116,500. The Applicants presented their proposals at the Planning Commission on June 16, 2022. Estimated Funds Available It is estimated that the 2023 annual entitlement grant will be $699,987 based on the award for program year 2022. Together with prior year funds and program income it is estimated there will be $924,958 available for 2023 activities. There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available funding for these FY 2023 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when the CDBG allocation is made by Congressional Resolution. If funding levels are lower than estimated or eliminated the city will need to consider several options, including a voluntary or proportionate reduction of allocation, possible inclusions in the 2023 city general fund budget requests. If funding levels are higher than estimated, activity funding will be reallocated in accordance with the contingency plan according to the greatest need. Public Service Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities may not exceed 15% of the combined total of the entitlement plus the prior year’s program income. Based on the estimated entitlement of $699,987 and prior year program income of $224,971, the maximum available for public service activities in 2023 is $138,743. Current requests for public services total $241,500. Planning & Administration Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support planning and administration activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the entitlement plus the current year’s program income. For 2023, the estimated entitlement of $699,897 and the current year program income estimated $100,000 makes the maximum available for planning and administration $159,987. Current requests for planning and administration total $155,000. Staff recommends a maximum of $155,000 for planning and administration (20%) due to the additional burden for HOME grant administration and project delivery. Recommendation After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities set forth in Attachment 1 would best meet the City’s Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in 2023. Your review and consideration for recommendations to the City Council would be appreciated. Motion: I move the Planning Commission close the public hearing on the use of funds for the 2023 Community Development Block Grant Program. I further move that the Planning Commission forward recommendations as presented (or as amended) to City Council Workshop for Consideration. Attachments: 1 2023 CDBG Fund Summary 2 2023 CDBG Projects and Proposal Requests 2023 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP2022-003 pc 7.21.22 Planning Commission Meeting Proposals-Recommendations Attachment 1 Page 1 PJID LOCI D RECIPIENT ACTIVITY / AGENCY NAME NonCDBG Match Agency Requested Staff Recommend PC Recommend 1 1 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development CDBG Program Administration 155,000.00 $155,000.00 2 2 City of Pasco-Administrative & Community Services Civic Center Recreation Specialist 44,500.00 37,500.00 $20,000.00 2 3 City of Pasco-Administrative & Community Services Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specia 104,199.00 37,500.00 $20,000.00 2 4 City of Pasco-Administrative & Community Services Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist 174,277.00 37,500.00 $20,000.00 2 5 YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation 105,000.00 25,000.00 $25,000.00 2 6 The Arc of the Tri-Cities Arc Theraputic Recreation Scholarship Fund 25,000.00 9,000.00 $9,000.00 2 7 Girl Scouts of Eastern WA & Northern Idaho Go-Getter Outreach Troops 15,000.00 2 8 Domestic Violence Services of Benton/Franklin County Pasco Domestic Violence Outreach 30,000.00 70,000.00 2 10 City of Pasco-Administrative & Community Services Pasco Youth Recreation Scholarship 2,000.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 8 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Pasco Specialty Kitchen Technical Assistance 60,000.00 175,000.00 $50,000.00 3 9 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Hood Expansion 25,000.00 80,000.00 4 9 Tri-County Partners Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity 100,000.00 4 10 Grace Kitchen Capital Improvements 40,000.00 225,000.00 7/12/2022 2023 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP2022-003 pc 7.21.22 Planning Commission Meeting Proposals-Recommendations Attachment 1 Page 2 PJID LOCI D RECIPIENT ACTIVITY / AGENCY NAME NonCDBG Match Agency Requested Staff Recommend PC Recommend 4 11 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development CHIP Minor Rehab Program 115,000.00 $121,008.00 6 7 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development Code Enforcement Officers 220,000.00 170,000.00 $87,000.00 6 8 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development Code & Community Program 5,000.00 7 8 City of Pasco-Public Works Neighborhood Business District Improvement 1,628,314.00 650,000.00 $207,950.00 8 12 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development Section 108-Debt Repayment 0.00 200,000.00 $200,000.00 ***City of Pasco- Administrative & Community Services Sylvester and Highland Park - Replacement $320,000 ***Contigency*** 2,458,290.00 2,116,500.00 924,958.00 0.00 2023 Estimated Entitlement 699,987$ $159,987 20% CAP ADMIN 2021 PSK Program Income Designated Hood 103,963$ $138,743 15% CAP PUBLIC SERVICES 2019 NSP Program Income Designated Rehab 121,008$ CDBG Funds Available (Entitlement, Prior Year & Program Income)924,958$ Proposals Received 2,116,500$ SURPLUS/DEFICIT (1,191,542)$ 2023 Proposals Recommended 924,958$ 7/12/2022 2023 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP2022-003 pc 7.21.22 Planning Commission Meeting Proposals-Recommendations Attachment 1 Page 3 GoalStrat Obj Risk Priority All 2-Low All 3 3-Low B2 3 3-Low B2 3 3-Low B2 3 3-Low B2 3 3-Low B2 3 10-High B2 3 10-High C2 2 3-Low B2 3 3-Low A2 3 7-Med A1 2 9-Med A1 3 13-High A1 7/12/2022 2023 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP2022-003 pc 7.21.22 Planning Commission Meeting Proposals-Recommendations Attachment 1 Page 4 GoalStrat Obj Risk Priority 2 11-High C1 1 0 B3 1 3-Low A1 1 4-Low A1 0 0 0 S 7/12/2022 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kristin Webb, CDBG Administrator SUBJECT: 2023 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM ALLOCATION AND ANNUAL WORK PLAN (MF# BGAP2023-004) Background Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. The Agreement was renewed through 2023. Each year an annual action plan is required to be prepared and submitted to HUD for use of estimated funds for the following program year. Estimated Funds Available It is estimated that the 2023 annual entitlement grant to the HOME Consortium will be $564,913. Each member city is allocated an equal share of the entitlement after 10% Set- Aside for Administration, and 15% Set-Aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). Pasco’s share of the entitlement is estimated to be $188,000 when the remaining funds are split equally between the three cities. HOME Program income estimated in 2023 is $100,000 and may be used for Down Payment Assistance, Tenant Based Rental Assistance, or an Eligible CHDO Project depending on need. These estimates are based on the 2022 HOME Allocation. There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available funding for these FY 2023 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when the HOME allocation is made by Congressional Resolution and an amendment to the Annual Action Plan may be necessary. If funding levels are lower then estimated, activity funding may need to be reallocated accordingly. Any program income received may be allocated for eligible down payment assistance projects. Planning & Administration HUD regulations state that the amount of HOME Funds obligated within a program year to support planning and administration activities may not exceed 10% of the entitlement. This is awarded to Richland annually as the Lead Agency of the HOME Consortium to manage all activities. Member cities are provided funds for planning and administration from 10% of program income received from completed projects within their jurisdiction. CHDO Set-Aside Each year a minimum of 15% of the entitlement grant must be set-aside to help Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) to add to the permanent affordable housing stock. The CHDO set-aside funds may be combined with program income for a development project that will be selected through a competitive RFP process. Proposed Activities HOME funds are based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits, however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council received first consideration. Funding is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low-moderate income census tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low-moderate income families. Funds may be reallocated between programs to meet community needs. 2023 Funding Source Budget Entitlement & Estimated Program Income $288,000 2023 Proposed Activities Program Administration $10,000 Down Payment Assistance Program $139,000 Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program $139,000 $288,000 Recommendations After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that anticipated 2023 HOME entitlement funds be allocated to the First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program. A contingent project for new construction infill or tenant based rental assistance may also be added if needed to meet timeliness. The activities set forth above would best meet the City’s Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in 2023. If conditions of the housing market make it difficult to use funds as planned, Pasco may consider joining forces with Kennewick and Richland to allocate unused funds for CHDO acquisition and/or infrastructure for low-income rental housing projects as permitted in the interlocal agreement. Your review and recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated.