Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Packet 03-19-2026AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2026 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 • Meeting Minutes from February 19, 2026, meeting VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS • Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan VIII. WORKSHOP • Missing Middle Housing Discussion IX. OTHER BUSINESS • Director Items X. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2026 6:30 PM Page 1 of 7 CALL TO ORDER The City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Vice-Chair Kim Lehrman. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chair Lehrman led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Dana Crutchfield, Brian Tungesvik, and Miguel Miranda a quorum was declared. Commissioners Excused: Rosa Torres, Austin Crawford, Rob Waites, and Jerry Cochran Staff Present: C&ED Director Haylie Matson, Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt, CDBG Administrator Kristin Webb, and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick DECLARATIONS Vice-Chair Lehrman asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda.  None  None Vice-Chair Lehrman asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda.  No declarations were heard. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 15, 2026. Commissioner Tungesvik seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS • 2025 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) by Kristin Webb Kristin Webb presented the 2025 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), a federally required report to HUD summarizing how CDBG and HOME funds were used during the program year and evaluating progress toward community development goals. The report represents the first year of the 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan and must be submitted to HUD within 90 days after the program year ends. Total CDBG expenditure was $600,919. Funding allocations included: • Section 108 Loan Repayment – 42% for prior large-scale community development projects. • Housing – 16% supporting affordable housing, rehabilitation, and homeownership programs. • Economic Development – 14% supporting job creation and business assistance. • Public Services – 5%, representing a draw for 2024 activities (no new public service funding in 2025). • Public Facilities/Improvements – 2% for design of Peanuts Park North and ADA equipment replacement in a city park. Page 2 of 7 • Administration/Planning – 22%, including oversight, reporting, and compliance; adjustments for prior-year draws brought the total within HUD’s 20% cap. Kristin Webb explained that funding priorities align with the City’s goals of supporting housing, economic development, and community infrastructure. Next steps include a public hearing for community input, followed by City Manager authorization and submission to HUD through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) by March 31, 2026. HUD will then have 60 days to review the report. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Jones asked since the repayment of Section 108 loans is by far the largest part of it. Could you just give us some examples of what projects Section 108 Loans supports? o Kristin Webb answered Section 108 funds support major infrastructure projects. The City of Pasco received $3.7 million, which helped fund improvements to Peanuts Park. The City recently chose to pay off the remaining loan, and CDBG funds will reimburse the City due to the variable interest rate on the loan. Vice-Chair Lehrman asked about the current year’s entitlement of $26,000, where it came from and about the city’s participating language line. o Kristin Webb stated it is program income from funds paid back from down payment assistance or a rehab in a house. The city is contracted with Language Line for any translation needed. She also confirmed that administrative costs were still at 20%. Vice-Chair Lehrman opened the meeting up to the public. No one came forward to speak, the public meeting was closed. Commissioner Jones moved that the Planning Commission recommend the City Manager approve the 2025 Consolidated Annual Plan Evaluation Report as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Miranda, motion passed unanimously. WORSHOP • Land Use Overview by Director Matson Director Matson provided a high-level overview of how land use planning functions in Pasco and in most cities across Washington State. The framework begins with the Comprehensive Plan, which serves as the city’s long-range vision and blueprint for future growth. The plan addresses major elements such as land use, utilities, transportation, infrastructure, and community development and typically looks ahead 20 years. More detailed guidance is provided through area-specific master plans, including the Broadmoor Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. These plans establish goals for development patterns, such as mixed- use areas, increased walkability, and economic development opportunities. Implementation occurs through zoning, which designates where residential, commercial, and industrial uses are allowed within the city. The municipal code then establishes the specific regulations—such as building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and parking requirements—that apply within each zoning district. She also noted that land use planning is guided by the Washington State Growth Management Act, which emphasizes compact, coordinated growth to support infrastructure efficiency, environmental protection, and balanced development. Finally, Director Matson explained that changes to zoning or municipal code require a formal public process Page 3 of 7 that includes public notice, Planning Commission review, and City Council approval. She added that the presentation was intended as a brief refresher. Additional training on specific topics can be scheduled in future meetings if the Planning Commission desires a deeper review. Questions/Comments from Commissioners All of the Commissioners commented on how pleased they were with how the presentation was presented. Commissioner Crutchfield asked how the city responds when a use occurs that is not permitted in the current zoning district, noting the limited role of code enforcement and asking how such situations are typically handled. Chair Matson noted that the zoning code provides flexibility, allowing development to respond to changing market conditions, and that new projects may utilize the code in creative ways. • Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) Comprehensive Plan Update Briefing by Director Matson Director Matson provided an overview of the land capacity analysis, which is the first step in updating the Comprehensive Plan and helps determine how much growth the city can accommodate. The process begins by evaluating existing land uses across the city and identifying parcels that are developed, vacant, underdeveloped, in the development pipeline, or not developable. Based on state requirements, Pasco is projected to grow from approximately 85,000 to 121,000 residents over the next 20 years, requiring the city to ensure its zoning can accommodate about 18,800 housing units across a range of income levels. The analysis evaluates available land, zoning capacity, and development potential to determine whether the city can accommodate this growth within existing boundaries, consistent with the Growth Management Act’s emphasis on compact development. Preliminary results indicate that Pasco has a surplus of single-family housing capacity but a shortage of approximately 6,200 units in higher-density housing types, such as apartments and accessory dwelling units. Staff noted that future policy discussions will focus on addressing this gap while maintaining a balanced housing supply. There are four options that we'd like the group to consider in order to accommodate this deficit. • Revise density limits.  Commissioner Tungesvik suggested that increasing allowable building heights and density in areas already planned for mixed-use development, such as the Broadmoor area, could help accommodate additional housing units without significantly impacting the surrounding character.  Commissioner Crutchfield agreed with like areas.  Vice-Chair Lehrman noted that concentrating housing in certain areas can help maximize existing infrastructure, such as parks, roads, and utilities, while supporting the City’s goal of creating more walkable neighborhoods.  Commissioner Jones stated that areas with existing infrastructure capacity—such as larger water and sewer lines—may be better suited to accommodate increased building height or density, making future adjustments easier to support. • Increase assumed % residential in mixed-use/commercial zones.  Commissioner Jones stated that increasing density in certain areas could be feasible but may carry risks and should be approached gradually and strategically, with careful planning and Page 4 of 7 consideration of potential impacts.  Commissioner Crutchfield agreed to proceed cautiously slowly, with the idea in mind of what developments are adjacent to it.  Vice-Chair Lehrman noted that Pasco has examples of higher-density housing integrated with community amenities and emphasized that future housing development should be implemented gradually and thoughtfully. • Assume some moderate density residential zones will add middle housing infill.  Commissioner Jones supported allowing loft housing above downtown commercial buildings, noting a similar approach in Rapid City successfully increased housing and downtown activity.  Commissioner Miranda asked if the higher levels were currently allowed in the city, Director Matson answered yes.  Commissioner Crutchfield stated that mixed-use development with commercial on the ground floor and residential above can work well, citing examples from Pine Lake and Mercer Island, but emphasized that success depends on the specific location.  Vice-Chair Lehrman noted there may be only one building downtown with residential above commercial but that there is interest in this type of development. They supported walkable, mixed-use areas with nearby services but expressed concern that adding it downtown could require significant changes to existing or historic buildings, making placement an important consideration. • Zoning changes. (Mixed-use zoning in targeted areas.)  Commissioner Crutchfield stated it sounds really complicated, but not really.  Commissioner Jones stated they do not support removing existing residential neighborhoods for new development, emphasizing that Pasco’s neighborhoods should be preserved and protected.  Vice-Chair Lehrman asked if the city has a healthy lot of commercial zoning acreage. Director Matson expressed concern about converting commercial land to residential, noting that once commercial uses are lost they are rarely regained, and emphasized the importance of maintaining commercial capacity for a healthy city. Director Matson summarized feedback for consultants, noting mixed reactions to “missing middle” housing and suggesting a strategic, gradual approach rather than a citywide change. Increasing height in commercial and mixed-use areas received more support. Overall feedback favored a combination of increasing heights in commercial zones and thoughtfully increasing density where multifamily is already allowed, with missing middle housing considered later if additional capacity is needed. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commission Jones asked if this could be developed based on the way it is now? o Director Matson answered yes. This is actually just showing this is the capacity right now for housing in these zones based on the current regulations. Commissioner Crutchfield asked how the City determines appropriate limits for accommodating projected housing growth, noting that current population levels remain below earlier projections and questioning how far the City should go in planning for additional capacity. o Director Matson stated that the city has planned infrastructure and transportation systems to accommodate anticipated growth, which helps reduce impacts as the community expands. While water rights remain an ongoing challenge, the overall population projection remains similar to prior planning efforts. The key difference in the current update is that the state now requires planning for a broader mix of housing types, rather than focusing only on total population growth. Page 5 of 7 Vice-Chair Lehrman asked if you keep getting permit proposals for a certain ban that's overdeveloped. Do you guys start denying those permits? o Director Matson explained that the City generally cannot deny development if it is allowed under existing zoning regulations. For state planning purposes, the City must demonstrate that sufficient zoning capacity exists to accommodate housing needs. While some jurisdictions have created zones specifically requiring affordable housing, implementing such policies would be a local policy decision and is not currently recommended. Staff noted that maintaining additional zoning capacity can help ensure housing needs are accommodated as the market evolves. Commissioner Tungesvik asked whether the identified 6,200-unit deficit in higher-density housing is tied to the population projections through the planning horizon and questioned whether those targets could be adjusted if the city does not reach the projected population, in order to avoid an imbalance in housing types. o Director Matson explained that housing capacity targets are recalibrated during periodic Comprehensive Plan updates, with state-required check-ins now occurring every five years. The City must demonstrate through its zoning that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate projected housing needs, even if the units are not ultimately built. Staff noted that actual development depends on many factors and may differ from long-range projections. Commissioner Jones asked whether cities require mixed-income housing within developments—such as dedicating certain floors in a building to lower-income units—and whether similar requirements are used in Washington or by the City of Pasco when working with developers. o Director Matson stated that this is not a mandate yet. She noted that requirements for affordable housing are generally determined by the local jurisdiction. In Washington, affordable housing is typically incentivized rather than mandated, with the closest state-level requirement being the middle housing provisions. • Housing Policy Update Presentation by Director Matson Director Hatson explained that the land capacity discussion is intended to inform future housing policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Pasco currently has a high percentage of single-family homes (77%), and many renters are cost-burdened (64%), highlighting the need for more diverse housing options. The city has experienced rapid growth since 2000 and expects demographic changes such as aging residents and smaller households. Staff noted that existing housing policies will need to be reviewed and updated to align with current conditions, state law, and the Growth Management Act. Future meetings will present revised policies focused on flexibility, compliance, and defensibility. Once policy updates are developed, they will guide updates to the Comprehensive Plan, land use map, zoning, and municipal code before submission to the state for review. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Tungesvik expressed concern about houses being built very close together in newer developments and asked how fire safety is addressed. They questioned how fire regulations, setbacks, and building requirements are considered to prevent fire from spreading between closely spaced homes, and how the fire department is involved in evaluating these issues. o Director Matson explained that fire safety for closely spaced homes is addressed through the International Fire Code and International Residential Code, which regulate building separation and fire-resistant construction. While homes may appear very close, they are typically about 10 feet apart (about 5 feet from each property line). If buildings are closer than that, fire-resistant wall assemblies or firewalls are required. These assemblies are designed to provide approximately two hours of fire resistance, helping slow the spread of fire and allowing time for emergency response. Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Crutchfield emphasized the need to ensure adequate hydrant and water system capacity as the city grows and annexes new areas to support effective firefighting. o Director Matson noted that all new developments undergo a development review process, including review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal and Fire Chief, and must comply with international building and fire codes. While requirements can be costly and flexibility is sometimes requested, the city works to balance development with life safety. Newly annexed areas are also subject to current regulations for new development. Vice-Chair Lehrman asked when the last donut holes will be absorbed into the city, and if there was a timeline. o Director Matson noted there is currently no timeline for annexing county “donut hole” areas. The city is cautious about annexing areas built to county standards because it would assume responsibility for older infrastructure and increased service demands. While the city ultimately intends to incorporate these areas, there is currently limited economic incentive to do so immediately. Commissioner Tungesvik raised concerns about roadway infrastructure as Pasco’s population grows, noting the city relies heavily on interstate access points. They emphasized the need to begin planning for additional capacity, particularly in areas like Broadmoor, as the city approaches a population of around 120,000. Vice-Chair Lehrman asked whether there are any current state House or Senate bills that the Planning Commission should be aware of or research to determine whether to support or oppose. o Director Matson noted that the city is actively tracking state legislation related to zoning and housing and has submitted comments on several proposals through its legislative representative. Staff indicated some proposals were considered too extreme, such as allowing housing in nearly all zones, and the city emphasized maintaining commercial areas. Overall, the state’s legislative focus on housing has resulted in a large volume of changes, and staff can provide a more detailed update to the Planning Commission in the future if desired. Commissioner Tungesvik suggested having a resource on the city website so people can educate themselves, Director Matson stated we do have a dedication comprehensive plan landing page. Vice-Chair Lehrman emphasized the importance of educating the public about planning issues through accessible materials, including multiple languages and graphics. They also stressed maintaining a nonpartisan approach, ensuring residents feel their voices are heard and valued, and welcomed new commissioners to the board. o Director Matson stated while outreach is important, engaging the public on comprehensive planning topics can be challenging. Participation is often limited until residents are directly affected by a nearby development, at which point interest increases significantly. OTHER BUSINESS Director Matson Staff reminded the commission about the public records training scheduled for Monday at 6:00 PM, encouraging members to attend. The training will be part of a regular meeting and may include council members. Staff thanked the commissioners for their volunteer. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Tungesvik, and the motion passed unanimously. Page 7 of 7 Meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. YouTube link to watch full meeting: Pasco Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue March 19, 2026 6:30 PM 1 To: Planning Commission From: Kristin Webb, Block Grant Administrator Subject: Updated Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan Overview The Tri-Cities HOME Consortium, consisting of the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland (Lead Entity), maintains a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) to guide public involvement in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of federally funded housing and community development programs, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. The purpose of the Citizen Participation Plan is to ensure residents, community organizations, and stakeholders have meaningful opportunities to participate in the development of key planning documents, including the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Assessment of Fair Housing, and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Federal regulations under 24 CFR Part 91.105 require jurisdictions receiving HUD funding to maintain and periodically update a Citizen Participation Plan to reflect regulatory changes and ensure transparency in program administration. The Tri-Cities HOME Consortium has prepared an updated version of the Citizen Participation Plan to incorporate regulatory updates, improve clarity, and reflect current practices for public engagement. Updates to the Citizen Participation Plan Several updates were made to the Citizen Participation Plan to ensure compliance with current HUD regulations and improve the clarity of the public participation process. Key updates include: Removal of Outdated COVID-19 Provisions Language related to temporary COVID-19 regulatory waivers, including references to the HUD “Mega Waiver,” has been removed as these provisions are no longer applicable. Clarification of Plan Approval and Implementation Additional language was added to clarify the process for adoption and implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan by the participating cities. Public Notification and Outreach Enhancements The Plan now includes updated language acknowledging the use of social media and digital platforms to notify residents and stakeholders of public hearings, comment periods, and planning activities. Conflict-of-Interest Policy Added A new section was added outlining federal conflict-of-interest requirements applicable to 2 individuals involved in CDBG and HOME funded activities to ensure transparency and compliance with federal regulations. Updated Amendment Procedures Language regarding substantial and minor amendments to plans was revised to align with HUD regulations in 24 CFR 91.505(a) and to clarify when public notice and comment periods are required. Updated Contact Information Contact information and department references for each member city were updated to ensure residents can easily access program information and request assistance. These updates strengthen transparency, ensure regulatory compliance, and improve access for community members participating in the planning process. Public Participation In accordance with HUD regulations and the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan, the proposed amendments were made available for public review and comment for a 30-day public comment period. The public comment period began February 5, 2026, and will close at 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2026. During this period, residents and stakeholders were provided the opportunity to review the proposed amendments and submit written or oral comments. A public hearing will be held before the Pasco Planning Commission on March 19, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in the Pasco City Council Chambers located at 525 N. Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington, to receive public testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan. The proposed amendments were made available for public review during the comment period at the following locations: • City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department, 525 N. Third Avenue • Pasco branches of the Mid-Columbia Libraries • City of Pasco website Planning Commission Role The Planning Commission plays an advisory role in reviewing updates to planning documents associated with the CDBG and HOME programs. The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council approve the updated Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan as presented. Attachments: 1. Updated Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan 2. Memorandum- Updates to the Citizen Participation Plan CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 1 of 8 Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs The purpose of this Citizen Participation Plan is to provide a framework to guide the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium (Consortium) and its members (the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland, as Lead) in their efforts to encourage citizen participation in the planning, implementation and assessment in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs. Specifically, in the Assessment of Fair Housing, Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation Plan, and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). This Citizen Participation Plan is prepared and implemented in accordance with the guidance provided in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regulations 24 CFR Part 91.105. Prior to implementation, the Citizen Participation Plan will be available for a period of 30 days for public comment. Any amendment to the Plan will be made available for a period of 30 days advising citizens of an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. A summary of the comments or views and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why it was not accepted will be attached to the plan submitted to HUD for final approval. Each city has established individual citizen advisory committees to serve as a link between the public, city staff and City Council. In the City of Kennewick, the committee only assists in making funding recommendations for the Annual Action Plan; while in Pasco and Richland the committees aid in providing advice during the development of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, CAPER review, and to advise in the administration and utilization of HUD grants. Each advisory position is selected based upon providing a balance of specific community interests or expertise to the committee. Low and moderate-income people are encouraged to participate when a position becomes vacant. In Kennewick this is accomplished by the city clerk’s office, while in Pasco and Richland this is accomplished through public solicitations as well as direct communication with residents and participants in various social service organizations. Each advisory committee will meet as necessary to review and make decisions regarding CDBG and HOME. These meetings are open to the public. The advisory committees review written funding requests, attend oral presentations by applicants, and make funding recommendations to the respective City Council to aid in the development of the Annual Action Plan. It is the intent of Tri-Cities HOME Consortium to encourage and facilitate the participation of all citizens in the development of the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, any substantial amendments to the plans and the performance report through public hearings and meetings. Additionally, the Consortium encourages involvement of protected classes, low- and moderate-income people, particularly neighborhoods where 51 percent or an amount determined by HUD as an exception criteria service area, where federal funding is proposed to be used. The Consortium also welcomes the participation of minority populations, non-English speaking persons and persons with disabilities. Consultations, with direct mailings/emails and other contact will be made with local and regional organizations and through other publications that serve those in protected classes, or that provide assisted housing, health services, and social services, including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities and their families, and homeless persons. Introduction Citizen Advisory Committee Encouraging Public Participation Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 2 of 8 The Consolidated Plan The development of the Consolidated Plan is a cooperative effort between the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland as members of a Consortium, businesses, developers, nonprofit organization, philanthropic organizations, and community-based and faith-based organizations that serve low and moderate-income people. This document provides the planning framework, strategies, goals and performance benchmarks to be achieved over a five-year period by the CDBG and HOME Programs. HUD will evaluate the performance of each City and the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium through the accomplishments of community development and housing program goals established in the Consolidated Plan. Note that each City will be responsible for taking their CDBG Consolidated Plan’s to their respective Councils for approval and the Lead Entity will be responsible for the HOME Consolidated Plan on behalf of all member cities. At least two public hearings will be held by the Consortium throughout the development of the Consolidated Plan to allow participation from the public on this planning document. At least one of the public hearings will be held before the Consolidated Plan is published for comment. The draft Consolidated Plan will be made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days to allow for interested people and organizations to comment prior to completion and submission of the final plan to HUD. A summary of the comments or views and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why it was not accepted will be included in the final plan submitted to HUD for final approval. Assessment of Fair Housing Plan The Tri-Cities HOME Consortium and the two local housing authorities, Kennewick Public Housing Authority (KHA) and City of Pasco & Franklin Housing Authority (HACPFC) operating within the Consortium jurisdiction will work to align their consolidated planning cycle(s) in accordance with regulations at 24 CFR Part 91 for consolidated plan program participants, and 24 CFR Part 903, for Public Housing Authorities. PHAs are anticipated to collaborate with the Tri Cities HOME Consortium to prepare the Assessment of Fair Housing. The Tri-Cities HOME Consortium and the Kennewick and Pasco Housing Authorities will work together by establishing comprehensive community development goals and ensure strategies and actions are taken to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Moreover, local and regional fair housing organizations and enforcement agencies will be consulted with. The Consortium members will report progress on those goals to HUD through the consolidated annual performance reports (CAPER) that are posted on each Cities website and in a HUD database. The Fair Housing Act sets out the following four clear fair housing goals for all communities to ensure greater opportunities for all Americans: 1. Reduce segregation, and build on the nation’s increasing racial, geographic and economic diversity. 2. Eliminate racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty 3. Reduce disparities in access to important community assets such as quality schools, job centers, and transit 4. Narrow the gaps that leave families with children, people with disabilities, and people of different races, colors and national origins with more severe housing problems (disproportionate housing needs) The Public, residents, public agencies and other interested parties will have access to any HUD provided data and other supplemental information the HOME Consortium plans to incorporate into its Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) at the start of the public participation process or as soon as feasible after. The HOME Consortium may make HUD provided data available to the public by referencing the data on the HUD website. Consortium staff will hold at least one public hearing and meet with community groups, reviews HUD data tables and HUD maps to develop the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Plan goals. Through collaboration with the Housing Authorities of Kennewick and Pasco, staff may consult with HA Resident Boards in Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 3 of 8 accordance with procedures described in 24 CFR 903.13, 903.15, 903.17 and 903.19 in the process of conducting the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), obtaining Resident Advisory Board and community feedback, and addressing complaints. The draft AFH Plan will be made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days as a Consortium plan. A summary of the comments or views and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why it was not accepted will be included in the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) Plan, submitted to HUD for final approval. Annual Action Plan (AAP) The AAP is a document that serves as the application for annual funding to HUD under the CDBG and HOME Programs and identifies federal and other funding resources that are expected to be used to address the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. This plan represents programs and activities that will be undertaken from January 1 through December 31 of each program year. It identifies the amount of grant funds and program income each city anticipates receiving each year, gives a specific description of the programs and activities that will be used to address the priority needs established in the Consolidated Plan, and provides benchmarks and goals to benefit low and moderate-income people in which to measure program performance. At least two public hearings will be held by each individual City each year at separate stages of development of the plan. The first public hearing will occur to obtain public comments on community and development needs. The draft AAP Plan will then be made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days to allow for interested people and organizations to comment prior to completion and submission of the final plan to HUD. A summary of the comments or views and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why it was not accepted will be included in the final plan. The Annual Action Plan is submitted to HUD once grant formula allocations have been announced each program year and approved by all three city councils. Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides for a loan guarantee component specific to the CDBG Program. If applicable, and a member Grantee (Kennewick, Pasco or Richland) moves forward with a program application to HUD the Grantee will comply with requirements in 24 CFR 570.704(a)(2). In addition, the following would apply: • Prior to submission of an application for loan guarantee assistance to HUD the Grantee must publish the proposed application community wide to allow the public to examine the application and to provide comments on the proposed application. • The public will be given timely notification of public hearings, reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and records relating to the proposed and actual use of guaranteed loan funds, including, but not limited to the amount of funds expected to be made available, including anticipated program income generated from activities carried out with guaranteed loan funds, range of eligible activities to be undertaken, proposed low-moderate beneficiaries, etc. Technical assistance may be provided to representative groups at the discretion of the Grantee. • The public will be provided with reasonable advance notice of, and opportunity to comment on, proposed activities not previously included in the application and activities, which are proposed to be deleted or substantially changed in terms of purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries in accordance with requirement for a significant amendment. • Grantee policies and procedures will provide for timely written answers to written complaints and grievances within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint, where practicable. Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 4 of 8 This report describes the accomplishments of each activity undertaken during the previous year, identifies how funds were actually used versus how the funds were proposed to be used, what impacts the activity realized, and to what extent the funds benefited low and moderate-income people. The draft CAPER will be made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 15 days to allow for interested people and organizations to comment prior to completion. A summary of the comments or views and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why it was not accepted will be included in the final plan submitted to HUD for final approval. The CAPER is due no later than 90 days following the end of the program year, or by March 31 of each year. Public hearings and meetings will be posted on the respective web sites of each city. All required elements of the Notice will be provided, including the specific date when the document is available for comment and the date when the comment period will close. Screen shots of the posting will be provided to show the availability of the document to the public for comment. Public notices will be available on each respective member city’s website for at least 14 days prior to the hearing. The Lead Entity will conduct the public hearing for the use of HOME funds. Each city will conduct their own public hearing for use of their own respective CDBG funds. Public hearing notices will also be made available to one bilingual publication. The notice will include some or all of the following information as appropriate to the particular event: • The date, time and place. • Estimated amount of funds that will be available for distribution, and the amount that will benefit low and moderate-income people. • Topic(s) to be discussed including, but not limited to, housing and community development needs, development of proposed activities, and review of program performance. • Proposed strategies and actions for AFH. • Basic information about the program(s). • Timing and procedures followed in the development and approval of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Substantial Amendments, or CAPER. • Contact name and phone number for requesting additional information or any special accommodations. • Contingency language will be included in the notice to clarify how the Lead Entity and each respective city will adjust its proposed Plan to match its actual allocation once actual amounts become known. Public hearings and meetings will be held at times and in locations convenient to potential or actual beneficiaries, and that are easily accessible to persons with disabilities. All comments and views of residents of the community in writing or orally during a public hearing or meeting will be considered and attached to the plan. The draft or substantial amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan, Assessment of Fair Housing, Consolidated Plan, and Annual Action Plan will be made available to the public for public comment for a minimum of 30 days as required, while the CAPER will be available for a minimum of 15 days for public comment. The Notice shall contain the public comment period, the locations where the plan is available for review, and a summary of the plan. The Notice will be published on each city’s respective website. In addition, the cities may publish announcements through their social media accounts, bilingual publication/online, and in other places frequented by the public. Additionally, direct outreach to local and regional organizations that serve those in protected classes, assisted housing providers, public housing agencies, social service agencies, and advocacy groups, as well as their beneficiaries, will be utilized to broaden the efforts to notify all. All comments and views of residents of the community in writing during a public comment period will be Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Public Hearing Notice Public Comment Period Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 5 of 8 considered and attached to the plan. The following table provides a summary of the public comment period for each document. Plan Public Comment Period 5-year AFH Plan Consortium only 30-Day 5-year Consolidated Plan 30-Day Annual Action Plan 30-Day Citizen Participation Plan 30-Day Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) 15-Day A reasonable number of free copies of the draft plan will be available upon request by calling or visiting the respective City’s Office during regular business hours. The draft plan may be made available in an alternative format with a three-day notice for a request to the respective city member. The Consortium has elected to address the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) need as a reasonable accommodation. Language assistance will be given to ensure meaningful access to participation by non- English-speaking residents of the community. Given a minimum of three-day notice, during regular business hours, the following accommodation may be requested: 1. Interpretation services for clients, at no cost to the clients, 2. Documents may be translated for clients who do not communicate in English, 3. A language line shall be provided for clients 4. Consortium members shall provide printed materials in alternate formats for clients, or 5. Consortium members shall make whatever reasonable accommodations are needed to improve accessibility to programs, activities and services. Request assistance by contacting the respective City Members: • City of Richland, Development Services Office, 509.942.7580 • City of Kennewick, Community Planning Department, (509)585-4432 • City of Pasco, Community and Economic Development Department, (509)545-3441 Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, within reason, any individual with an impairment or disability who requires reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in a meeting or public hearing may request assistance. Assistance may be requested 3 working days prior to the meeting, during regular business hours. Request assistance by contacting the respective City Members: • City of Richland, Development Services Office, 509.942.7580 • City of Kennewick, City Clerk’s Office, (509) 585-4273 • City of Pasco, Community and Economic Development Department, (509) 545-3441 The Citizen Participation Plan recognizes Kennewick, Pasco and Richland City Councils as the elected governing body for each City. The draft Assessment of Fair Housing, Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Non-English Speakers Reasonable Accommodation Plan Approval Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 6 of 8 Action Plan as well as Substantial Amendments to the Plans will be presented to the respective member City Council for approval before submitting to HUD. These are regularly scheduled Council meetings that are open public meetings, broadcast live and/or recorded. A “substantial amendment” is an amendment to the Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan that requires 30 days of public comment. Prior to submitting substantial amendments to HUD, the cities will provide citizens with a 30-day notice of an opportunity to comment whenever a substantial amendment is being proposed. The cities shall consider any comments received in preparing substantial amendments. A summary of all comments received shall be attached to any substantial amendment of the plan. Any comments that are not accepted shall be included in this summary along with the reason they were not accepted. A substantial amendment is defined, in accordance with 24 CFR 91.505(a), as: 1. A change in allocation priorities (any change greater than 25 percent in an individual project budget) or a change in the method of distribution of funds. 2. Carrying out an activity (including those funded exclusively with program income) not previously described in the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 3. A change in the purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries of an activity. Changes that are not considered substantial amendments: 1. Changes to the CDBG or HOME budget for a project by an amount that is less than 25 percent. 2. Consolidated Plan data updates such as census data, income limits, fair market rents, HOME high and low rent limits, HOME subsidy limits, and similar types of data. 3. A minor change in location if the purpose, scope, and intended beneficiaries remain essentially the same; or 4. The transfer of funds within a project from one approved budget line item to another approved budget line item (e.g., construction rather than engineering). Responding to Complaints Each city will consider written complaints from the public regarding the citizen participation process, the Consolidated Plan, the Assessment of Fair Housing Plan, the Annual Action Plan, any amendments and the CAPER and provide a written response within 15 working days. If the complainant is unable to file a complaint due to disability, alternative filing methods will be allowed by contacting the respective city. Access to Records If citizens are interested in access to information and records relating to each city’s CDBG and HOME programs they shall submit a public records request to the respective city’s Public Records Office or City Clerk’s Office. Conflict-of-Interest Policy The federal government’s general rule is that no persons who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG or HOME activities, or who are in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from a CDBG/HOME assisted activity, or have a financial interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect to a CDBG/ HOME assisted activity, or with respect to the proceeds of the CDBG/HOME assisted activity, either for themselves or those with whom they have business or immediate family ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter. If a member of any of the three city council members or advisory committees or staff member has a conflict of interest with a proposed project or an approved project, they will notify the respective city of the conflict of interest and the specifics of the conflict. At a minimum, the individual with the conflict of interest will recuse themselves during any discussions or actions concerning that project and will refrain from any discussions concerning the project or the project’s host organization with all board members. Other actions may be necessary depending upon Amendments or Substantial Amendments to the Plan Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 7 of 8 the nature of the conflict-of-interest situation. Each department will review, and research all reported conflicts and will advise the city of appropriate actions in each case. Staff Support and Technical Assistance Staff from each city will be responsible and will make every reasonable effort to provide access and technical assistance to citizens, and agencies representing low- and moderate-income people, in order that they may participate in the planning process. Staff from each city will also respond to those who request assistance in developing proposals for CDBG or HOME funding and will provide technical assistance to assist in the implementation of the project. Relocation and Displacement Policy The Cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland intend to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the permanent displacement of any low and moderate-income person that might result from the use of CDBG or HOME funds. This will be achieved through the design and evaluation of each project for potential displacement, by measuring and comparing such potential among alternative proposals and designs, and by considering alternatives when selecting projects for funding, prior to a final commitment of funds. While there is no intent to directly displace individuals, families, businesses, or nonprofit organizations because of projects, the respective City will assist any individual, family, business, or nonprofit organization displaced by projects funded with CDBG or HOME funds as authorized under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, or under Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The Cities reserve the right to reject a project or require that any sub-recipient provide non-federal financial relocation assistance to people or organizations affected by the project, if the project causes permanent displacement. Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan-Updated (09/26/2025) Page 8 of 8 Availability of Documents Citizens are encouraged to review draft plans on the respective City’s website and at the following locations: Richland https://www.ci.richland.wa.us/CDBG • Richland City Hall, 625 Swift Blvd. • Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate Dr. • Richland Community Center, 500 Amon Park Dr. Kennewick https://www.go2kennewick.com/620/Community-Development-Block-Grant • City of Kennewick City Hall, Community Planning Department, 210 W. 6th Ave. • Mid-Columbia Library, 1620 S. Union and 405 S. Dayton St. • Kennewick Housing Authority, 1915 W. 4th Pl. Pasco https://www.pasco-wa.gov/188/Five-Year-Consolidated-Plan • City of Pasco, Community and Economic Development Department, 525 N. 3rd Ave. • Pasco Public Library, 1320 W. Hopkins St. • Pasco and Franklin County Housing Authority, 2505 W. Lewis St. Approved plans will be available on the respective City’s website. The City of Pasco will make documents available at the city office in addition to its website. Given three working days’ notice, individual, electronic or copies in a format accessible to non- English-speaking persons and persons with disabilities will be made available by calling, emailing or visiting the respective Member City’s Office during regular business hours. Memo Updates to the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) September 26, 2025 Overview The following is a summary of the primary updates made to the CPP to comply with HUD requirements at 24 CFR Part 91.105: • COVID-19 language was removed, including references to the Mega waiver (previously located on pages 1-2). • Added language concerning the approval process and implementation of the CPP (Page 1). • Added contingency language under the public notice heading updated language to reflect the use of social media for public notification and outreach (Page 4). • Added a Conflict-of-Interest section (Page 6). • Updated the language for the substantial and minor amendments per 24 CFR 91.505(a) (Page 6). Additional updates were made to clarify the contact information for each respective city, including addresses and department information. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, March 19, 2026 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Haylie Matson, CED Director SUBJECT: Missing Middle Housing - Discussion File Numbers: CPA2026-001 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Applicant: City of Pasco Description: No formal action is requested. This is an informational workshop to provide the Planning Commission with an overview of Washington State’s missing middle housing requirements, what they mean for Pasco, and the City’s current code framework. Environmental Determination N/A Exhibits: 1. PowerPoint Background In 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted House Bill 1110 (HB 1110), which requires cities planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and with populations greater than 25,000 to allow a broader range of housing types in areas historically limited to detached single- family housing. HB 1110 mandates that cities permit middle housing on all lots zoned for predominantly residential use. Compliance is achieved by regulating both the minimum number of housing units allowed per lot; and requiring that cities allow at least six of the nine state-defined middle housing types. HB 1110 establishes three tiers of applicability based on population. Pasco qualifies as Tier 1 (population over 75,000). As a Tier 1 city, Pasco must: • Allow at least four housing units per residential lot; • Allow at least six units per lot if located within a quarter-mile walking distance of a major transit stop; • Allow at least six units per lot if at least two of the units are affordable. The four- or six-unit minimum allowance may be achieved through any combination of housing types. For example: • Four middle housing units REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, March 19, 2026 6:30 PM • Three middle housing units + one ADU • Two middle housing units + two ADUs • Other equivalent combinations Jurisdictions were required to adopt compliant development regulations by June 30, 2025, or state model code provisions apply by default. What Is “Missing Middle Housing”? Missing middle housing includes smaller-scale, multi-unit housing types compatible in scale and form with traditional neighborhoods, such as: • Duplexes • Triplexes • Fourplexes • Townhouses • Cottage housing • Courtyard apartments These housing types help provide additional housing choices at a range of price points while maintaining neighborhood scale. Existing Pasco Regulations Pasco’s municipal code already allows several middle housing types in certain zoning districts, including: • Duplexes permitted in multiple residential zoning districts • Townhouses (single-family attached) permitted in medium- and high-density residential zones • Multifamily housing permitted in medium- and high-density zones • Cottage housing (multifamily detached) allowed through Planned Unit Developments and certain zoning districts • Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including detached units, permitted in residential zones Middle housing is already allowed in one form or another across most of the city. However, allowed housing types vary across zoning districts for different reasons. Moving forward, the code must be updated so that middle housing types are permitted on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use, consistent with HB 1110. Some lower-density residential zones currently limit the number of units per lot. These limitations will require code amendments to fully comply with state law. Pasco also allows higher density housing in designated growth areas, mixed-use districts, and master-planned developments such as Broadmoor. Comprehensive Plan Policies Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan housing policies are generally aligned with state direction and are on solid footing. Relevant policies include: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, March 19, 2026 6:30 PM • H-1-A: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line, and planned unit developments. • H-1-B: Higher intensity housing should be located near arterials, neighborhood or community shopping facilities, and employment areas. • H-3-A: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed-use areas to provide character and variety. • H-3-B: Maintain development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of residential housing to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. • H-3-C: Utilize design and landscaping standards to ensure all residential development exhibits a consistent level of access, quality, and appearance. While these policies already support a range of housing types, minor updates may be necessary to explicitly reference middle housing and ensure no policies inadvertently restrict middle housing or infill beyond what is allowed for single-family residential development. Gaps Identified • Some zoning districts limit units per lot below HB 1110 minimum requirements. • Housing types are not uniformly permitted across all predominantly residential zones. • Comprehensive Plan language may require clarification to explicitly support middle housing implementation. Alternative Compliance and Riverview Considerations HB 1110 allows for “alternative compliance,” which permits cities to exempt up to 25% of single-family lots from middle housing requirements under limited circumstances. Eligible exemptions include lots that: • Have a demonstrated risk of displacement; • Have a demonstrated lack of infrastructure capacity; • Are located within a critical area or buffer; • Are within a one-mile radius of an airport with 9 million annual enplanements; • Are subject to projected sea level rise, increased flooding, wildfire susceptibility, or geological hazards over the next 100 years. Exemptions based on displacement risk or infrastructure capacity are time-limited and allow delay, not permanent exemption. Alternative compliance cannot be used in areas: • Where exclusion would further racially disparate impacts or result in discriminatory zoning effects; • Within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop; • Historically covered by a covenant or deed restriction excluding racial minorities from owning property or living in the area, as known at the time of comprehensive plan updates. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, March 19, 2026 6:30 PM With respect to Riverview, preliminary review indicates the area does not appear to qualify for permanent exemption under HB 1110. While further study could be conducted, it is unlikely to significantly change this conclusion. A key limiting factor is the historical exclusion of racial minorities in western Pasco. Pasco was legally racially segregated for much of its history, and racial minorities were prevented from settling west of the train tracks, which includes modern-day Riverview. As a result, this area falls under the statutory limitation preventing exemption in historically exclusionary areas. Impact (other than fiscal) Expanding housing options may increase housing supply and provide more attainable ownership and rental opportunities. Missing middle housing is typically similar in scale to single-family homes and designed to integrate into existing neighborhoods. Additional housing density may increase long-term demand on transportation, utilities, parks, and schools. These impacts will be addressed through existing development standards, impact fees, concurrency requirements, and capital planning. While the state mandates minimum allowances, cities retain authority over: • Design standards • Setbacks • Height limits • Parking standards • Infrastructure requirements Discussion Pasco is projected to continue experiencing significant population growth over the next 20 years. State legislation is intended to ensure cities accommodate projected population growth and housing demand by allowing a broader range of housing types. Pasco already accommodates a range of housing types across multiple zoning districts and master-planned developments. However, HB 1110 requires that additional housing types and minimum unit allowances be permitted in areas historically limited to detached single-family housing. Staff and consultants have been evaluating: • Current zoning capacity • Infrastructure availability • Compatibility with existing neighborhoods • State requirements and timelines • Land Capacity Analysis implications REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers THURSDAY, March 19, 2026 6:30 PM • Options that best align with Pasco’s long-term growth strategy Several implementation approaches are available, including: • Targeted zoning amendments • Broader citywide allowances • Application of the state model code • Limited use of alternative compliance where legally defensible This workshop provides the Planning Commission with an overview of requirements and potential approaches prior to formal code amendment consideration. Recommendation No action is requested. This workshop is intended to inform the Planning Commission and receive initial feedback prior to development of draft code amendments. Constraints (time or other considerations) • State law requires local compliance. • Failure to adopt compliant regulations results in automatic application of state model code. • Code amendments require Planning Commission review, public hearing, and Council adoption. • Changes must be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Capacity Analysis. Next Steps 1. Continued evaluation of zoning and land capacity 2. Prepare draft code amendments consistent with state requirements 3. Conduct Planning Commission workshops and public outreach 4. Bring to Council for formal review and adoption Middle Housing Legislation March 19, 2026 Pasco Planning Commission 1. Middle Housing Overview 2. Recent State Legislation: HB 1110 3. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies 4. Alternative Compliance 5. Next Steps Agenda 1. Middle Housing Overview 2. Recent State Legislation: HB 1110 3. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies 4. Alternative Compliance 5. Next Steps Middle Housing Overview What is Middle Housing? ◦Housing at a scale between single-family homes and large apartment complexes ◦Often appears similar in size to larger single-family homes ◦Nine types defined by the state: This six-plex resembles a large traditional single-family home ◦Townhouses ◦Cottages ◦Stacked flats ◦Courtyard buildings ◦Duplexes ◦Triplexes ◦Fourplexes ◦Fiveplexes ◦Sixplexes Middle Housing Overview Duplexes Middle Housing Overview Triplex / Fourplex / Sixplex Middle Housing Overview Townhouse Middle Housing Overview Cottage Cluster Middle Housing Overview Courtyard Building / Stacked Flats Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples Local Examples 1. Middle Housing Overview 2. Recent State Legislation: HB 1110 3. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies 4. Alternative Compliance 5. Next Steps Recent State Legislation Housing-related bills passed since 2023, applicable to Pasco: ◦HB 1110: Middle housing / minimum residential density ◦HB 1337: ADUs in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) ◦HB 1293: Streamlined Design Review ◦SB 5412: SEPA exemptions for infill / housing Example of a backyard ADU / garage conversion HB 1110 Requires cities to authorize minimum number of units (and other provisions) on “all lots zoned predominantly for residential use.” Pasco is a Tier 1 city (75,000+ population), which means it must require: ◦4+ units per lot citywide; and ◦6+ units per lot when either ◦located near major transit stops; or ◦if two units are affordable housing HB 1110 Additional provisions of the bill include: ◦Middle-housing standards cannot be more restrictive than standards governing single- family detached housing ◦Must allow zero-lot-line development ◦Limits parking minimums for middle housing ◦Design review must be “administrative” only ◦4 (or 6) unit minimum allowance can be met under any combination of units. 1. Middle Housing Overview 2. Recent State Legislation: HB 1110 3. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies 4. Alternative Compliance 5. Next Steps Pasco’s Current Code & Policies Current Comprehensive Plan Policies ◦H-1-A Policy: Allow for a full range of housing including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, zero lot line, planned unit developments etc. ◦H-1-B Policy: Higher intensity housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies Current Comprehensive Plan Policies ◦H-3-A Policy: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed- use areas to provide character and variety in the community. ◦H-3-B Policy: Maintain development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of residential housing to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. ◦H-3-C Policy: Utilize design and landscaping standards to ensure all residential development exhibits a consistent level of access, quality, and appearance. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies Current Development Regulations ◦Middle housing already allowed in some form across the city ◦Must be updated to explicitly allow six of the nine types identified by the state ◦Currently allow duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments, townhouses, cottages ◦Must be updated to permit middle housing types on “all lots zoned predominantly for residential use.” Gaps & Opportunities ◦Comprehensive Plan Policies already on good footing. May need tweaking to explicitly add middle housing ◦Some policies should be updated to clarify language, and not restrict middle housing / infill beyond requirements for single family residential City Policies Gaps & Opportunities ◦Code updates must explicitly allow six of nine types outlined by the state ◦Code updates must also permit these middle housing types on “all lots zoned predominantly for residential use” ◦For all updates, the net desired effect is to increase flexibility for property owners on how to use their property moving forward City Development Code 1. Middle Housing Overview 2. Recent State Legislation: HB 1110 3. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies 4. Alternative Compliance 5. Next Steps HB 1110 Alternative Compliance HB 1110 includes “alternative compliance,” allowing a city to effectively exempt up to 25% of single-family lots. Those exempted lots must have: ◦A demonstrated risk of displacement; or ◦A demonstrated lack of infrastructure capacity; or ◦Be located within a critical area or buffer; or ◦Be located within a one-mile radius of an airport with 9 million annual enplanements; or ◦Be subject to sea level rise, increased flooding, wildfire susceptibility, or geological hazards over the next 100 years. RCW 36.70A.635 (4)(b) HB 1110 Alternative Compliance Exempted lots must not include: ◦Any areas for which the exclusion would further racially disparate impacts or result in zoning with a discriminatory effect; ◦Any areas within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop; or ◦Any areas historically covered by a covenant or deed restriction excluding racial minorities from owning property or living in the area, as known to the city at the time of each comprehensive plan update. RCW 36.70A.635 (4)(c) HB 1110 Alternative Compliance Implications for Pasco ◦Developing neighborhoods, such as Broadmoor and Riverview, likely do not meet criteria for alternative compliance. ◦No significant flood, wildfire, or geologic hazard risk ◦Demonstrated history of racial segregation: Racial minorities, particularly Black families, prevented from living west of the train tracks 1,134 Black households Map at right: Legal segregation pushed Black households out of the west side to the area east of the train tracks 163 Black households 29 Black households Pasco, 1970 Census 1. Middle Housing Overview 2. Recent State Legislation: HB 1110 3. Pasco’s Current Code & Policies 4. Alternative Compliance 5. Next Steps Next Steps Comprehensive Plan Policies being reviewed to align with Pasco’s community and desires in light of new state requirements. Development Code also being updated for alignment with state requirements. ◦Simultaneously taking advantage of update to remove inconsistencies across the code and unify all development regulations under a single Title (Unified Development Code) Questions? PLANNING COMMISSION SEATING CHART March 2026 At the Dais: 0. Pat Jones 1. Miguel Miranda 2. Brian Tungesvik 3. Austin Crawford 4. Jerry Cochran-Chair 5. Kim Lehrman-Vice Chair 6. Rob Waites 7. Dana Crutchfield 8. OPEN Staff: 9. OPEN 10. OPEN 11. OPEN 12. CED Staff 13. Senior Planner 14. CED Director 15. Clerk 16. OPEN 1 2 8 7 6 5 4 3 9 17 10 11 12 *13 14 15 Lectern 19 Agendas/Public Comments Sign-in Sheet locates near the double doors on the back wall 16 0 • 18