HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1-
REGULAR MEETING November 16, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Tanya Bowers
No. 2 Joseph Campos
No. 3 Paul Mendez
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Ruben Alvarado
No. 7 Zahra Roach
No. 8 Pam Bykonen
No. 9 Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a
conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be
discussed. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law re quires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez that the
minutes dated October 19, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Replacement of Stevens Middle School (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 2017-013)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the
replacement of Stevens Middle School. There were no additional comments since the
-2-
previous meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City C ouncil
grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of a new Stevens
Middle School at 1120 22nd Avenue with conditions as contained in the November 16,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of Elementary School #17 (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 2017-014)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit for the location of Elementary School #17. There were no additional comments
since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Roach asked for clarification about the approval conditions concerning
no mid-block crosswalks.
Mr. White replied that mid-block crosswalks have proven to be dangerous and it is
safer to have crosswalks at intersections instead.
Commissioner Roach asked if there would be crosswalks at the intersection of Road
90.
Mr. White said yes.
There were no further questions or comments.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Pasco School District #1 for the location of an
elementary school at the 9100 block of Burns Road with conditions as contained in
the November 16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Special Permit Location of Middle School #4 (Pasco School
District) (MF# SP 2017-015)
-3-
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location
of Middle School #4. There were no additional comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit for the location of a middle school at the 9300
block of Burns Road (Parcel 115170085 and the west approximately 21.1 acres of
parcel 115170068) with conditions as listed in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Location of a Beauty School (Maria Avila) (MF#
SP 2017-016)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a beauty school. There were no additional
comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staff if the applicant had obtained a parking agreement
with the adjacent business, Tri-Cities Community Health, to borrow some parking
spaces that they were lacking.
Mr. White responded that he was unsure.
There were no further questions or comme nts.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Maria Avila for the location of a beauty school at
746 West Court Street, Suite B, with conditions as contained in the November 16,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
-4-
E. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1
(Low Density Residential) (Pahlisch Homes LLC)
(MF# Z 2017-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application rezoning the property
from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). There were no
additional comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Farm Unit 84, Irrigation Block 1 from RT to R-1. The motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Solid Waste Facility (2022
Commercial Avenue Inc) (MF# SP 2017-019)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated staff was approached months ago by the
operator of Basin Disposal, who is the applicant, with questions about the possibility
of locating a new solid waste transfer station within the community. At that time,
there weren’t many options or properties available that had access and utilities.
However, recently a piece of property has become available and happens to be
adjacent to the Basin Disposal main campus. The applicant recently approached the
City asking if a solid waste transfer station would be permitted on this property. The
applicant wasn’t keen on purchasing the property if he couldn’t some day in the future
use it for his intended use. Unfortunately, transfer stations and similar facilities
(garbage dumps) are unclassified uses so they are not permitted outright in any zone.
They require review through the special permit process. The applicant has submitted
his application to see if he could get an answer on whether or not that site would be
appropriate for a transfer station. All the Planning Commission needs to do is
consider a land use action. The applicant will still have to undergo further permitting
processes through various agencies, such as the Health District and Department of
Ecology in order to get a solid waste disposal license.
Mr. McDonald stated that the Planning Commission may hear discussion or testimony
related to competition between facilities. The competition issue is a business related
discussion and the Planning Commission should only be looking at the land use. The
Planning Commission is to gather information, facts and testimony as it relates to
land use decisions. He stated that there were 6 criteria that are found in the special
-5-
permit section of PMC 25.86 of the zoning code for the Commissioner’s to focus on
when making their decision.
He also stated that they may hear testimony regarding the County Solid Waste Plan.
Like most plans, they are not set in stone but rather a guide and can be updated or
amended. The City does not wait until the end of the Comprehensive Plan period to
start thinking about what to do with necessary facilities. Planning is ongoing and
design work moves forward so when the end date arrives there will be facilities ready
to take care of the population.
Staff received a number of letters of correspondence which were passed out to the
Commissioner’s prior to the meeting. He addressed a letter received from Miller
Mertens & Comfort PLLC, a law office in Kennewick dealing with the application.
Chairman Cruz commented that this application is much like that of an asphalt plant,
where the Planning Commission is there to solely determine land use but leave the
permitting to other agencies.
Mr. McDonald said that was correct. He also pointed out that transfer stations are
termed as an “essential public facility”. They are grouped with uses such as, prisons.
The way the law and the Comprehensive Plan is structured, cities and counties cannot
create regulations that would prohibit the location of essential public facilities. The
City cannot have laws that would not allow these types of facilities.
The site is located on Commercial Avenue just directly west of the existing Basin
Disposal office and business campus where they store their trucks, service the trucks .
The site has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for over 35 years for industrial
uses and zoned for industrial uses for about that same amount of time. This site is
quite different from the Waste Management transfer station in Kennewick. That
transfer station is located in a residential area. This site is totally located within an
industrial area with industrial businesses surrounding it.
Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed of the 6 special permit review criteria. He pointed out
that since the existing station was built in the 1990’s, a number of businesses have
located in the vicinity. The transfer station didn’t appear to discourage development of
those facilities.
Mr. McDonald recommended the Planning Commission hold the hearing and then
continue it to allow the Commission more time to process the testimony and items
submitted into the record.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staff about the County Solid Waste Plan and how much
impact does that plan have on the City of Pasco’s planning decisions.
Mr. McDonald responded that the Solid Waste Plan is not a part of Pasco’s
Comprehensive Plan. Pasco doesn’t have anything in its Comprehensive Plan that
would prohibit another transfer station. It is not to the point yet where the Solid
-6-
Waste Plan would come into play because all the applicant is asking for is land use
approval. If or when he moves through the process with the Health District and the
State, it may come into play at that time. The applicant has the opportunity between
now and then to work with the County to update the plan. The plan is out of date and
the plan itself states that it should be updated every 5 years and it is 2 years beyond
that.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that it should be
noted that the County’s Solid Waste Plan is used by the agencies that Mr. McDonald
referenced, such as the Benton Franklin Health District and the Department of
Ecology.
Chairman Cruz said the main thing for the Commissions to be concerned about
reviewing are the 6 criteria items in the staff report.
Commissioner Bowers asked how far the current BDI Transfer Station is from the
proposed transfer station.
Mr. McDonald said that it is directly east about a mile and a half.
Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification on the motion to continue the hearing
due to needing to collect more tonnage information and asked if staff was working
with the applicant.
Mr. McDonald replied that he was working with the applicant and likely those who
oppose the application. He has received some of the tonnage information from the
applicant that wasn’t included in the staff report but will be made available to the
Commission, which is one of the reasons to continue the hearing.
Darrick Dietrich, of Basin Disposal, Inc., 2021 N. Commercial Avenue, spoke on behalf
of his application. He explained that his testimony and discussion was going to focus
on the demand for more transfer capacity in the community and integration into the
Solid Waste Plan Agreement. Basin Disposal has been contracted by the City for
many years and his job is to ensure efficient capacity for the future. The site on
Commercial Avenue has sizable investment in it and recently $1 million plus dollars’
worth of natural gas invested into it. He noted that it is not just for Pasco but for the
region. His business operates in many cities, several counties and the infrastructure
that is being proposed is integral in the operations of his company and control of that
is vital in order to be competitive.
Mr. Dietrich presented a Power Point presentation highlighting the proposed use for
the site, the need for a new transfer station, the site selection process, the contractual
provisions which he believed were key to this decision and an overview of his
company. He stressed that there was a demand for future capacity and while it can
be debated, but he felt that was a false debate. The growth has been great in the last
several years and now is the time to plan for this. Colocation of the transfer station
next to the existing BDI facility would increase efficiency. He clarified that Basin
-7-
Disposal does not own the current transfer station, which he felt was integral in
running a facility and collection operation to have control over transfer station. He
said that there were constraints at the current facility; it i s bounded by a roadway, it’s
bound to the north by a super fund site, it’s bounded to the east by land that has
conditional restrictive covenants on it and land to the south was recently purchased
by the owners of the transfer station. There is also pipeline that runs through that
facility with a 50’ easement which is why the facilities on that site are located the way
they are – not for easy expansion which will have to be to the south coming closer to
Grimmway Farms. The viability of that expansion cannot be assumed. He stated that
the current transfer station site will not be able to handle the growth. He went on to
discuss the contractual aspect and costs to the City.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the new facility were to be opened if Pasco residents
would have access to curbside recycling services.
Mr. Dietrich said that it wouldn’t be excluded but in order to have equipment to
process recycling material, the minimum cost would be $300,000-$500,000 in
equipment plus a building. Land is needed to do that which is part of what this
proposal would be – to have a facility that could handle both solid waste and
recyclable material. The current facility is not viable – it was built in 1974 as is the
equipment and the current facility could not handle recycling. With the new facility,
the goal would be to have enough tonnage from solid waste to be able to spread the
cost out for the recycling.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the current facility once the new
facility opens.
Mr. Dietrich replied that he wanted to refrain from speculation since he doesn’t own
that facility but he would only handle all of his commercial trucks that he owns and
operates. He is not soliciting for customers.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that they are to look at the land use action.
The competitiveness and benefit to the City is important but not for the Planning
Commission. It is about whether it fits with the surrounding community.
Commissioner Portugal asked if this proposal was shared with any of the neighbors or
if he was planning to have a session or time to answer local questions.
Mr. Dietrich said he certainly could and would be willing to but prior to this public
hearing he had not since the City has a notification process and he felt this was the
correct form to bring this to the community.
Commissioner Portugal asked if he had been approached by any of the neighbors yet
on this matter with any concerns or support.
Mr. Dietrich replied that he had verbal with one neighbor who just wanted to know
what was going on and they felt comfortable with it. The rest of the communication
-8-
has come through the City through letters from neighbors, primarily in opposition.
Commissioner Alvarado discussed a comment Mr. Dietrich made pertaining to an
enclosed facility to mitigate possibly negative impacts and asked if smell was one of
those impacts.
Mr. Dietrich answered that the enclosed facility would certainly help with odor,
although he didn’t believe it smelled all that bad in reality – but having it enclosed
certainly would help with the odor.
Chairman Cruz added that these are things the Planning Commission can consider;
standoff distance from surrounding properties, block wall, enclosed facility, etc. They
have a few tools at their disposal to ensure protecting the neighborhood.
Ken Miller, attorney with Miller Mertens & Comfort PLLC, 1020 N. Center Parkway,
Ste. B, Kennewick, WA, represented one of the opponents of the application, Columbia
Basin LLC. With him was Leonard Dietrich, the owner of the current waste transfer
station and Steve Wheatley, a manager of the station, as well as Chuck Anderson who
is also an employee who works regularly at the facility. When he first got involved in
this application he was given the project number of SP2017-018. He did a public
records request for any application that had been filed by Basin Disposal or by the
applicant. He received only one application that wasn’t signed. He asked the City
when there was a signed application submitted to the City.
Mr. McDonald responded that it was submitted two days later.
Mr. Miller asked why it was not provided as a part of the public records request.
Mr. McDonald responded that he was not involved with that but the department
secretary said that she was unaware that there were two files. One was set up initially
and then two days later the person who set the second one up was not aware of the
first one.
Mr. Miller said concerned if the application was handled in a proper fashion by law.
He also asked who the applicant was.
Mr. McDonald said the current applicant is Commercial Avenue LLC.
Chairman Cruz pointed out to Mr. Miller’s point that is different than what is on the
agenda.
Mr. Miller asked who signed the application.
Mr. McDonald said that property owner signed the application as well as Mr. Dietrich.
-9-
Mr. Miller asked who is indicated as the property owner.
Mr. McDonald responded, Mr. Tiegs.
Mr. Miller asked if it was Mr. Tiegs individually.
Mr. McDonald said he signed it individually.
Mr. Miller said the public record has the owner of the property is not Frank Tiegs
individually, it is an entity.
Mr. McDonald replied that he apparently signed it as a representative of that entity.
Mr. Miller asked which entity.
Mr. McDonald said he hadn’t looked up the entity.
Mr. Miller responded that one of the findings that they are making is that the
application was executed by the owner of the land.
Mr. McDonald replied that is not one of the findings that is required.
Chairman Cruz added that there are often times purchasers that make applications
for the land use prior to buying the land.
Mr. Miller said that it is usually executed by the land owner at the same time.
Chairman Cruz replied that he didn’t agree with that but asked the City Staff to
research that. He said the process questions could be looked into and addressed but
he would like to focus on the land use issues.
Mr. Miller asked at this point in time if the hearing going to be left open so they could
have the opportunity to get further testimony when it reconvenes.
Chairman Cruz said absolutely. First they will establish if this is a valid application
and that proper notification was made and then based on that they will have to chart
a new path forward. Something like this could be resolved with a resubmittal and re -
notification if there is that much incongruence.
Mr. Miller asked if the materials supplied for SP2017-018 could be submitted for
SP2017-019.
Mr. McDonald said they already were and that they were supplied to the Planning
Commission on the bench.
-10-
Mr. Miller questioned whether or not the application could be conducted in harmony
with the character of the general vicinity of that particular area. He is aware that
there is already a Basin Disposal business and the current transfer facility but this
area is in a constant state of flux as to how it is developing. It is being developed and
proposed to be marketed by the City to be a new food processing area and also there
for another commercial avenue. This is now looking to be a regional facility for waste
and asked if that fit with the picture. He said there is currently already a waste
transfer station which is perfectly adequate and can take care of anything needed in
the near future without expanding. He noted to the Commission that the applicant is
requesting a special permit, meaning it is stepping out of the current permitted uses
and doing something special. So it needs to be looked at from the standpoint of need
and how it happens to be harmonized with what else is there. He provided the
Planning Commission with objections and briefly discussed those letters as well as a
petition. He said that he hasn’t seen any voice of support other than Basin Disposal
and he has also seen no numbers showing that this new facility would provide savings
for Pasco residents. He further went on to discuss the lack of plans or information
and didn’t feel the Commission could make a legal determination on what was
proposed and didn’t even think the application should be continued but denied
instead.
Leonard Dietrich, 1721 Dietrich Road, spoke in opposition of this application. He
stated that he sat on the Planning Commission for 18 years and loved it. He said that
he took over the Basin Disposal business in the 1980’s and sold part of it to Darrick
Dietrich about 7 years ago. A number of years ago the Pasco Sanitary Landfill was
classified as a super fund site. He made a determination along with the City of Pasco
to invest around $2.5 million in 1992 to expand their business. They now have 28
trailers and 15 trucks. They have been keeping up with the growth because he has a
responsibility to this community and every other community that he services. Just
this year he has invested almost $600,000 in new changing equipment to keep up
with the demand. They process around 650 tons per day/5 days a week and they can
handle far more. He asked the Planning Commission to consider whether or not they
want another solid waste transfer station within the city limits and if it fits in that
location. He suggested that it did not meet the character of the area. There is already
a station a mile away that meets and exceeds the needs so locating another station
right next to it is not the right location. Mr. Dietrich stated that he has spoken with
other property owners in that area and they don’t want the increased traffic. He
addressed access for Mr. Darrick Dietrich’s trucks into the transfer station and said
that they all have keys and have access 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Just this year
they put in an automatic weighing system that kicks out a slip. He stated the Solid
Waste Plan says there should only be one transfer station. He also addressed other
concerns that Mr. Darrick Dietrich had discussed.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the current transfer facility if the
special permit is granted for Mr. Darrick Dietrich.
Mr. Leonard Dietrich responded that it could close its doors because there’s not
enough volume for two transfer stations or they could stay in business but charge
residents more money when they come out with their garbage and lawn clippings. He
has tried to make the pricing credible. Mr. Darrick Dietrich had discussed the price
-11-
increase of garbage service during his presentation and he’s right. He is able to
manage the pricing at his facility. Mr. Leonard Dietrich on the other hand asked for 5
years for a rate increase as he himself has received rate increases from the landfill.
Mr. Darrick Dietrich denied the rate increases and the transfer station was going
broke because of that for the purpose of driving it into the ground.
Steve Wheatley, 1 Marigold Loop, spoke in support of Mr. Leonard Dietrich and
opposed the application for the special permit. He stated that Leonard bought the 10
acres to the south of his current property and they allow Mr. Darrick Dietrich to use
roughly an acre of that property to store his drop boxes. They also have all of their
existing trucks and trailers on the 10 acres. Those trucks and trailers can be moved
without the pipeline issue and expand the facility on that site. He also discussed the
automated system that Mr. Leonard Dietrich had mentioned. He stated the current
transfer station can handle future growth.
Chairman Cruz summarized the testimony heard during the public hearing and
wanted to make sure the Mr. Miller’s concerns were addressed. He asked Staff if there
was a limit to how many “essential” facilities were allowed in the City.
Mr. White responded no, there is no limit and that “essential” is a quantitative work
instead of quantity.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the two files that had been created for this application
would be reconciled into one for the next hearing.
Chairman Cruz said he wasn’t sure but the City will ensure that the proper process
has been followed, complete and accurate.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to continue the
hearing on the proposed solid waste transfer station to the December 21, 2017
Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 to R-4 (A.K. Sharma) (MF# Z
2017-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low
Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential). Mr. McDonald explained this
item was before the Planning Commission last year in the form of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. That process was completed and Mr. Sharma assumed the rezone
was also completed because he had submitted a rezone application with the Plan
amendment. Mr. McDonald reviewed the location of the property and discussed
difficulties of developing such a small site with single-family dwellings with extensive
infrastructure improvements required. The site borders two major streets and as a
result would be required to build block walls and install landscaping alon g both
streets.
-12-
Commissioner Greenaway asked if this item could be fast tracked since this is really
just a follow-up item from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the applicant did a
year ago.
Commissioner Roach said she would be in favor of fast-tracking.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, said unfortunately due to
the SEPA process and the way it was advertised it cannot be done.
Mr. McDonald added that it would be a procedural problem.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
hearing on the proposed rezone and set December 21, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
C. Code Amendment Creating a new Chapter 26.50 “GMA
Development Agreements” in the Pasco
Municipal Code (MF# CA 2017-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed
code amendment creating a new Chapter 26.50 “GMA Development Agreements” in
the Pasco Municipal Code. This item involves a tool for land use and was established
by the State in 1995. A related this item to how concomitant agreements are used
when zone changes occur and said that the GMA development agreements would be
similar except they wouldn’t require a rezone application to have a development
agreement. A development agreement is an agreement between a land owner and in
this case, the City, which would establish terms of development and expectations. It
would lock in development regulations for the period of time specified in the
agreement and then it would have the benefit of having a public hearing which is
proposed to be held by the Planning Commission. There would also be the ability to
offer an extension to the timeframe if appropriate. It is simply a contract to develop in
a certain way and lock in development regulations for a period of t ime. This tool is
used in both Kennewick and Richland. It would be particularly helpful in Pasco as we
are in the middle of working through a County plats that needs to have certain City
responsibilities. Currently it is being handled through an awkward SEPA process. It
would be particularly beneficial in instances where the City is able to extend water
and sewer services to County properties not yet incorporated but inside the Urban
Growth Area. Or, if a development is happening in a Master Plan Area, such as the
Broadmoor Area, where things become complex and you want to lay out the
expectations and the product you hope to achieve in a manner that’s more formal than
just a zone change or guidance from the Comprehensive Plan.
-13-
Chairman Cruz asked if the Planning Commission could have very broad terms to the
contract.
Mr. White responded that the Planning Commission could request anything in the
contract that is not prohibited by law.
Commissioner Roach asked if it would vary based on what type of development it was.
Mr. White said that it would be very likely.
Commissioner Roach asked if they would see the details of that text prior to the
municipal code and asked for clarification on the timeframe to lock in the dates of the
agreements.
Mr. White said yes and they could be anything from 10 to 15 years or 5 years with the
option for an extension.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the advantage would be to be able to take more things
into account.
Mr. White replied yes. For a typical subdivision there may not be much difference but
it would help with more complex developments.
Commissioner Alvarado asked if the benefit for the developer would be them knowing
better how to plan and budget.
Mr. White responded that they would have that benefit as well as knowing that they
have that agreement for the given time and the criteria will not change for them in that
timeframe.
Chairman Cruz gave the example if someone had 1,000 acres and took 20 years to
develop, things could change with City requirements but those changes would not
impact the developer if they have an agreement. And the Planning Commission could
work out whatever deal needed to protect both the City and the developer.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the City wants a consistent vision why would this
agreement be voluntary and not a requirement and why hasn’t this process been used
in the past or currently.
Mr. White said that it comes out of State law that it is not mandatory but provides the
option for municipalities to use in their code.
Commissioner Roach said she couldn’t find the allotted timeframe in the proposed
code.
-14-
Chairman Cruz said it would vary for each agreement unless the Commission wanted
to place a cap.
Mr. White replied that there was language addressed in the proposed code for
timeframes and extensions.
Chairman Cruz added that it also addressed that it would be valid up to the time of
annexation so in the case it takes a long time for the City to annex, the agreement
would still be enforceable.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the public
hearing and recommend to City Council that a new Chapter in the Pasco Municipal
Code 26.50 titled “GMA Development Agreements”, as contained in the November 16,
2017 staff report be adopted. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Block Grant Section 108 Loan Program Application - CDBG
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Section 108
Loan Program Application for block grant funds. The Planning Commission is the
City’s designated block grant advisory committee. Every year the Commission hears
the allocation process for CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds and
HOME funds – one is for physical improvements to the community and one is for
housing. The Section 108 Loan Program is a program available to entitlement
communities, such as Pasco. The City of Pasco is awarded annual block grant funds
without having to apply for them in a competitive environment. The Section 108 Loan
Program was formulated specifically for communities to take on large projects that
cannot be funded slowly over time. In the immediate case, over the past few years the
Planning Commission has made recommendations to City Council to invest into the
Pasco Downtown Core/Peanut Park area. The Section 108 Program allows a more
sizeable investment to occur and it is guaranteed through our annual entitlement,
meaning the City is able to borrow roughly 5 times our annual entitlement for the sum
of up to $3.5 million to be focused on a project that would improve an area that
benefits low-moderate income families, which is the case for Downtown
Pasco/Peanuts Park. The program would allow the payments to be made on that loan
from the annual entitlement so if the City chooses a project that may not return
revenue to the City, it can be paid back with general fund monies or the annual
entitlement. If the City chooses to invest in a program that provides revenue, the loan
can be paid back with revenue if applicable.
Staff has looked at this program very seriously as a way to fund Downtown Pasco
improvements, particularly in terms of timing as it relates to the Lewis Street
Overpass, the Farmer’s Market and the whole streetscape and connection issue with
-15-
the new Lewis Street, Clark Street and even Columbia. The City has had a public
input process that has lasted two years and the contract for the park renovation is
out. The City is trying to get this underway but it is going to take some time.
Michael Morales, Economic Development Program Manager, spoke on behalf of this
workshop item. The Section 108 Loan is CDBG in terms of the rules and regulations
and as such, the flexibility of the projects it can be used for. Cities often use it to
build public facilities, community centers and streetscaping improvements. It cannot
be for the general conduct of government or build a new police station and things like
that, however, public facilities and infrastructure is eligible, as well as housing and
economic development loans. The ultimate guarantee for a Section 108 Loan
repayment is the City’s entitlement revenue but that is only based upon the amount of
debt serviced, they won’t sweep the whole account. Mr. Morales gave examples of
options that other cities have done . The intention is that the City would apply for a
loan pool, which would basically put a marker on an overall amount of money and
money could be borrowed as each individual project is underwritten. A benefit to that
is if the City is anticipating potential cuts to annual CDBG funding. It will probably
be spring or summer by the time the City gets a full award from HUD and the project
would likely be written by next fall and starting payments a year later. It starts at a
variable rate and then every year or two HUD has a public offering and take out a
fixed rate at that time because these are all a series of treasury notes. The City is
hopeful in that making these public improvements then we may have a couple of
catalytic projects that could be recruited and incentivized to locate in the downtown
that would likely include a real estate deal and some building revitalization and
perhaps provide some financing.
Chairman Cruz clarified that many things that are paid for with CDBG funds could be
paid for with other funds. There is a limit on administrative expenses but those could
be picked up by general funds. This loan could be used for some of the City’s more
strategic investments that they have had to forgo in the past.
Mr. White added that if you look at the urban part of Downtown Pasco/Peanuts
Park/Farmer’s Market, it looks exactly as it did in 1982.
Commissioner Bowers asked who would ultimately be the panel that decides how to
allocate these monies to.
Mr. Morales replied that at this point there won’t be a panel because the City would be
establishing a loan pool. City’s used to apply for a specific project but about 15 years
ago they started going through pools to get though the HUD process quicker and then
you are individually underwriting locally. But an initial project must be identified
when applying for the pool, so to identify it as a public facilities project in the
downtown makes it easier. In the future if business loans were to be considered they
would come through the City.
Commissioner Portugal asked if these funds would be restricted just to the Downtown
Area.
-16-
Mr. Morales said yes.
Commissioner Portugal asked about the improvements to the Lewis Street Overpass
and if the funds would be used for that project or just for projects that would go in
support of that project.
Mr. Morales replied that the monies would go towards projects that would go in
support of that project and for the Peanuts Park/Farmer’s Market Renovation. The
Lewis Street Overpass has its own funding although it doesn’t have all of its funding
yet.
There was no further discussion.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other December 21, 2017 Meeting
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner