PULLMAN, WA – The Vice Chair of the City of Pullman’s Planning Commission is explaining the “pressure” he felt when he helped pass an extensive zoning code update which includes controversial restrictions on short term rentals.
The commission spent most of last year crafting the overall update which contained the new rules restricting Airbnb and Vrbo rentals in Pullman. The controversial short term rental regulations were only a small part of the much larger zoning code update which was hundreds of pages. The commission unanimously recommended that council approve the code update and short term rental restrictions.
Pullman City Council narrowly approved the short term rental restrictions and zoning code update last May. Since then, city staff used one general complaint against non-compliant operators to crackdown on those enterprises. The city’s Assistant City Planner Ariel Medeiros recently sent letters to 57 illegal operators threatening them with 250 dollar daily fines starting next year if they fail to follow the new rules.
The issue of some planning commission members being pressured into approving the restrictions was brought to city council this week. The city’s senior most Councilmember Nathan Weller tried to explain that he was told by some commissioners that they were pressured into approving the rules. Councilman Weller struggled to fully explain what he was told because he was repeatedly interrupted by Mayor Francis Benjamin and City Attorney Thad O’Sullivan. The mayor and attorney claimed that Councilman Weller was attacking staff which violates the council’s code of conduct. Councilman Weller reiterated that he was simply trying to explain that there’s not a consensus when it comes to the short term rental issue.
In response to Tuesday night’s contentious council meeting the Planning Commission’s Vice Chair Brent Carper sent an email to the mayor, city attorney, Councilman Weller and City Planner RJ Lott. Carper has provided that email to Pullman Radio News for this story.
Carper explains the “pressure” he felt in approving the massive zoning code update and the short term rental restrictions. He describes a general pressure to complete the extensive assignment and only points to one instance involving a city staffer. Carper says that assistant planner Medeiros caused “some pressure” which led to conflicts. In February of this year Medeiros told the planning commission that she was taking the zoning code update to city council with or without their recommendation to meet a deadline involving a grant opportunity for the city. Carper describes that statement from Medeiros as causing “one of the more unpleasant planning commission meetings I have been in” and produced tension and damaged working relationships. He notes that there have been apologies since then and it’s in the past. Carper has been on the City of Pullman’s Planning Commission for eleven years.
You can read Carper’s email to the city officials below.
Gentlemen,
I’m writing to take ownership of the “some planning commissioners felt pressure” conflict that occurred on Tuesday night. I am the commissioner who expressed that sentiment to Nathan several months back over a coffee when we were shooting the breeze, trying to solve all the world’s problems, and especially trying to figure out what to do about the PAC-12 and Cougar Football.
It may be that other commissioners have expressed this “pressure” sentiment to Nathan or to other council members as well. I do not know. But I know I said it to Nathan.
However, I have never said that RJ applied pressure to the commission on how to vote.
And Nathan did not say that either. I have reviewed the meeting recording several times, listened to the words carefully, and even analyzed the body language to see if something may have been unintentionally implied. It did not happen. This was a misunderstanding of what Nathan was saying. What Nathan said (and what I have said, and what I stand behind) is that some commissioners felt pressure. There is a big difference.
Since I am the root cause, I will set the record straight. What I mean by pressure, where it came from, and what those comments are really all about. If this narrative does not clarify it, please reach out to me and we can meet in person. It’s important that this is cleaned up, because what happened Tuesday night painted a very poor picture of everyone, including the planning commission.
1. The most significant pressure was internal within myself as a planning commissioner. We worked on this for 9 months and for more hours than any other item that I have been involved with in my 11 years serving on the commission. We had more public testimony (both written and in-person in the public hearings) than any topic previous or since. I have had more people in the community talk to me about this code update than anything else we’ve ever done. With that much time and effort, there is always a desire (a pressure upon oneself) to reach a conclusion and complete the work. At the end of the day, I am a to-do list box checker. I like to complete things. And this is pressure, but it is a good and necessary pressure.
2. There was pressure in terms of a deadline due to the grant. The city council experienced some of this same deadline pressure and was told that they had do do an up or down vote, rather than continuing discussion or amending/editing what had been given them, or the city would forfeit the grant reimbursement for work that had already been done. Several of us on the commission, and several on the council, were less than thrilled about being put in this deadline situation and the pressure it created. But deadlines are a reality. And the pressure they create is a reality. Admittedly some of this could have been mitigated if we would have managed our timeline better. And I could have done without this pressure; I think we all could have.
3. Most significantly, there was pressure to not hold a massive code update project hostage over one item that was less than perfection. The overall code updates were over 300 pages of redlines and edits. If we include meeting minutes, written public comment, and reference documents and materials, the total volume of material was close to 500 pages. In hindsight – and I believe RJ will support this statement – it was too large of a project and it should never have been packaged as a single effort. This is one of the lessons learned by all of us (city staff and planning commission both); code changes really should be done one section at a time so that it is manageable and can be completed in a reasonable time frame. Many people (commissioners, staff, and the public) grew weary and frustrated just trying to work through such a massive project, and sometimes that weariness becomes pressure, even if nobody comes right out and says it. In terms of code, STR represents literally 1% of our deliverable to city council (3-1/2 pages out of 300 pages = 1%). The other 99% of updates were important, overdue, and very much needed. Furthermore, the planning commission, staff, and the public were all in solid agreement on the 99%. Truly. And because of that, there was a natural and unavoidable pressure to not hold up progress in the pursuit of perfection.
Side note… This same 99% versus 1% statistic also plays into the “unanimous vote” that keeps being discussed. As you well know, a “yea” vote does not mean that you support something all the way and think that it is absolutely perfect and there is no room for improvement. It means you think it is reasonable overall, or that the good outweighs the bad. All votes are a compromise at some level.
I hope this helps explain what I meant about “pressure”. And what I believe Nathan was communicating during the city council meeting. There was pressure. It was not RJ dragging me into the alleyway behind city hall and threatening me to get on board or else. And at no time was RJ anything other that the complete professional he always is.
Just to be fully transparent, and because you may have heard about it anyway, there was one point where there was some pressure that caused conflicts. During the planning commission meeting of 2/26/2025, Ariel Medeiros stated that at the completion of that very meeting that night, she was going to take the code changes to the city council no matter what. With or without a recommendation from the planning commission. When pressed on this, she stated it again. She was taking it to council regardless of if the commission made a recommendation or not, which meant that very session was effectively our final opportunity to do anything as a commission unless the code came back to us from city council. Ariel drew this line in the sand because of the grant deadline, but the way in which it was stated certainly raised eyebrows within members of the public who were in attendance, and it did not sit well with several of us on the commission. It did put pressure on the commission because it became apparent that this was our final discussion and last opportunity to make any recommendations to the city council. The message was that the train was leaving the station, whether we were on board or not. It was a situation that could have been handled better; however, the pressure from Ariel was about a deadline and possibly her frustration at a process that had taken far longer than she had expected, but it was not pressure to “get on board” and vote one particular way or another. And I guarantee nobody took it that way. Overall this was one of the more unpleasant planning commission meetings I have been in, as there were other comments that caused tension and were detrimental to working relationships. But there have been apologies, and we are past that. It happened, but it’s done.
In summary…
Was there pressure? Of course there was. There always is.
Was the pressure on the code revisions higher than other more routine planning commission work? Yes. Because this was a massive and overwhelming project. Most planning commission work involves a single meeting or maybe two. This code revision was not typical of our usual level of effort and time commitment.
Were staff’s positions and opinions on aspects of the code revisions, especially STRs, strongly communicated and did they forcefully defend them? Yes. Staff did not take a neutral position, and they were heavily invested in the STR code. Perhaps more than usual, and for a variety of reasons. But so were the commissioners, and so was the public. And every one of the seven commissioners is a grown up, is professional, and takes the role of a commissioner very seriously. We can take it. I guarantee you that there is not a single commissioner that is a rubber-stamper. We can engage in difficult discussions and differences of opinion, we can agree to disagree, and nobody rolls over. Ever.
Did RJ or any staff person ever do or say anything that was along the lines “get on board” and support what the city had drafted for STRs? Of course not. No way. Never. That would have resulted in the biggest backfire ever, and it did not happen. To even imply that it could have happened is a huge disservice to everyone involved.
Do I stand behind my comment that I felt pressure on this issue? And pressure to wrap it up and send something to city council even if I didn’t believe it was absolutely perfect? Yes. I did. But understand what that “pressure” really was.
Were there aspects of how we approached the code update that could have been done differently? Of course. Lessons were learned. We don’t do 300-page code updates every day, and so we didn’t have the experience and knowledge ahead of time of the best way to do it and we made missteps along the way. Shouldn’t be a surprise there.
Does my “yea” vote on a package of over 300 pages of all kinds of code updates mean that I believe that every word and every item in that 300 pages is perfect, should never be questioned, and should never ever ever be revisited or looked at again? Of course not. Don’t be silly.
Regards,
–Brent Carper