PC7 Central Pasco Employment Village comprehensive plan text amendment
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Aug 18, 2022
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Aug 18, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 11m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 74% of 87 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay. All right. So I'll I'll skip those and go to PC seven. Uh PC seven is a comprehensive plan amendment, CPL 2214, Central Pasco Employment Village. It's a proposed comprehensive plan text amendment to the Central Pasco Employment Village Sub-area Policy, Policy 7112. Um This comes with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Development Department. Um I I am requesting that the attachment of
the sub-area policy uh be revi pulled and revised from this item. and distributed to the Planning Commission. To discuss briefly the changes to provision A3 of the sub-area policy?
Okay.
Here we
have copies.
So have you received a file?
Who has them?
Uh
the clerk. Oh she has them already.
We need can you you're gonna distribute them? Oh okay, okay.
Okay. She's not gonna let us have them.
Do we have a motion to receive and file?
So moved.
Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay.
And so as the copies make their way across the dice, um the main purpose of the sub-area policy adjustment here is to remove the cap on the employment generating industrial entitlement within the Central Pasco employment village. And so we're looking specifically at provision A three to accomplish this. It's on the first page of this uh of the handout that's been given to you. And you'll notice that the minimum maximum language in uh
provision A three has been uh removed so that it reads Um the following levels of development within the Central Pasco employment village sub area are approved as the authorized intensities and densities. And the sentence goes on. And then there's uh subsequent changes to the table in the handout that you have, it's removing the language that was initially proposed for minimum required to read no maximum limit. Uh however,
uh subsequent conversation um with the county attorney's office. We're going to further revise that to read to delete any reference to 3.7 million square feet and instead say a maximum of 3.0 FAR per the Employment Center of Future Land Use, no maximum square footage. And that will be for the corporate business park targeted primary business and light industrial uses. Okay, so
those are the only changes. And then the only other uh adjustment would then be under support commercial office where it says 950,000 square feet, we would add the notation uh maximum. And then in parentheses, see exception in provision A eleven, which is Uh outlining Uh how to uh enable additional commercial entitlement. Without taking up
additional acreage using the incentive for fur vertically integrated mixed use buildings. In residential areas. That's it, Terry. That that'd be that'd be the extent of the revisions.
Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, I realize this is on consent, but Since Terry's making a couple of things. Changes at the diasp we probably should just open it up for public comment in case anybody wants to
All right. Is there anybody here that would like to comment on this for work on? Yes.
You'd state your name and address please, Joel? Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Joel. Two to an associates. I represent some of the stakeholders at CPEB. Um, I had I'm not here to object. Uh I had received the version yesterday from Terry, which I was okay with. So I just need to be sure I understand the markup that he and Mr. Goldstein are doing now. You're not inserting any minimum on the employment center items, right? You're just dealing with the max and you're using
the FAR as the max, not a square footage, is that my understanding? And you are inserting maximum under the support commercial office, just as we have the maximum under residential.
But with the exception, there's an exception for vertically integrated mixed.
Right in A eleven. So
that's
that remains.
Yes.
Okay. Then I I
the the main reason I raise the concern with Terry is I don't think I'm not sure if you're uh there's some case law suggesting you can't have an unlimited amount of something. So you need to at least have an FAR, which that's why I suggested that
Anybody in CPV is planning on exceeding the three point oh FAR?
I don't know if anyone in the county is gonna get there. We'd like to, but that's a lot.
So Yes, well we would like but to be unlimited, I don't think that would pass legal muster, so but the FAR will. So I think that's a good thing. That works.
Okay, and this will have no obviously I we we process through this board And did the prior MPUD approval. So the existing MPUDs, there's no question about them being deemed compliant. I don't want to now be in a non-compliant situation with the SWOP MPUD that we just spent a lot of time on. Getting approved.
I can't think of anything this would be And these changes that would make the SWAP M P D non compliant.
These
aren't these aren't reducing any correct square footages. They're only Increasing square footages. So I don't know how that could make anybody in compliance.
Well that was my conclusion too, but in an abundance of caution I thought it would be good if we said that.
Cap. in increasing the retail cap with if you meet certain criteria. But it doesn't It's not reducing the residential.
And we're not changing the phasing schedule at the end. Correct. The residential phasing versus which was the question.
I don't think you are right, Terry.
No chains there, right, Teering?
I don't think
so. Uh let me do.
Well he did put no I mean, so the
other changes under the E C site infrastructure to support building square feet. Instead of instead of listing up four point six five Four four point six five million square feet, which just says no maximum.
Right. And the only suggestion there to be consistent with David's concern is David, maybe in that last chart you also put Mm uh F A R three point O maximum. maximum.
That would make sense.
Yeah, to avoid that issue.
Just that Terry? Yeah.
The same way you did the first one, so you don't run into his legal concern about the caps. 'Cause we all know there's no objection to the industrial. Obviously the board wants as much of that as we can provide. Okay. Thank you. Sorry to just want to make sure we get it right since we're doing it on the fly. No unintended consequences.
Were you noticed that this was happening?
Uh Terry let me know a few days ago and I saw the early version. I was not otherwise aware because see this was staff initiated. Um which was a little concerning, but fortunately Terry caught that. and did let those of us know who are doing these MPDs out there. And uh
Well I know that not everybody was notified and so I have some concern over that. I actually am in favor of what's being proposed here, but I'm concerned that not all of the affected property owners were notified that this was happening.
And see that's one problem is there are 20 some odd stakeholders out there, and I only represent presently two of those. So I know that I know that Ms. Bidell, who represents Mr. Southworth, they they were noticed, but I'm not aware of anyone else.
I can tell you that it's not a good thing. pretty well known by word of mouth. among those property owners that the county was planning to increase the cap on the light industrial office employment.
Yeah.
So they knew that we were were studying the issue and preparing to make the changes that had been brought forward today. Uh the reason why I contacted um Mr. Two and Ms. Bidel is because um those two projects, the SWOP MPUD and the Eagle Two MPUD, were sort of interrelated with one another in terms of some of the exchanges, land use exchanges that were taking place per the sub-area policy rules. And also they were active MPUDs. Currently.
Okay, so this will remain on can on consent.
Can I ask a quick question?
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Just a quick question. Terry, have you refreshed my memory about floor area ratio?
F A R is that what that is, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
The floor area ratio basically measures uh the amount of square footage that you can build on your property based on the overall square footage of your site. So it's a it's a ratio.
Okay. So
a one point oh if you had a hundred square feet, a one point oh gives you a hundred square feet for a hundred square feet. And if you had point five you can only do point five of the hundred square feet, so fifty square feet.
Is it based on gross area or net area?
I believe that's probably defined in the land development code. Okay. So I don't wanna miss state that and I don't have the code in front of me.
Very good.
Any other questions?
I don't think we have any projects in the county that have exceeded a three point oh FAR, if we did it would be rare.
Do you know of any dreaming?
No, I don't know.
And the three point zero is is a reference out of the E C future land use. That's what the E C establishes. So
Okay.
All right. Hello. Mm. That this is gonna remain remain on. Consent. Even though we didn't discuss it. So Don't see any objections.
Okay.
Is it what's next? Okay. That'd be the end of the consent agenda. Okay.
I'll make an I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the discussed revisions to PC seven.
Second. And to be clear, we're talking about PC four and PC seven, correct?
That's
correct. Okay.
All right. So we have a motion in a couple of seconds. Double seconds.
Okay, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Like signed for the opposed. Motion carries.
Yeah.