The Vice Chair of the Planning Commission in Pullman, Brent Carper, recently addressed concerns about pressure felt by some commission members regarding the approval of a comprehensive zoning code update. This update includes new restrictions on short-term rentals, such as those listed on Airbnb and Vrbo.

The Planning Commission dedicated much of the previous year to developing this extensive update, which ultimately incorporates numerous changes beyond just short-term rental regulations. The commission unanimously recommended the update, which the Pullman City Council narrowly approved last May. Following this decision, the city has initiated enforcement actions against non-compliant short-term rental operators, sending letters to 57 individuals warning of potential fines starting next year.

During a recent city council meeting, Councilmember Nathan Weller expressed that some planning commission members had conveyed feelings of pressure in their decision-making process. Weller’s comments were met with interruptions from Mayor Francis Benjamin and City Attorney Thad O’Sullivan, who argued that Weller was attacking city staff, a claim that led to further tensions during the meeting.

In response, Carper issued an email to city officials clarifying his perspective on the issue of pressure. He acknowledged that he had previously discussed feelings of pressure with Weller, but emphasized that he had never accused staff members, including City Planner RJ Lott, of exerting undue influence on the commission’s voting process.

Carper outlined several sources of pressure he experienced:
1. **Internal Pressure**: He noted that as a commissioner, he felt a personal obligation to complete the extensive work on the zoning code update, which had involved significant public input and time commitment.
2. **Deadline Pressure**: The commission faced a time constraint related to a grant opportunity, which required timely action from both the commission and the city council. He acknowledged that this deadline created additional stress but recognized it as a reality of the planning process.
3. **Pressure to Not Delay Progress**: Carper highlighted the challenge of addressing a large project, indicating that the sheer volume of changes (over 300 pages) might have overshadowed the specific issue of short-term rental regulations. He suggested that the commission should consider handling such updates in smaller segments in the future.

Carper reiterated that while there was pressure to move forward with the code update, it was not due to any coercion from staff. He made it clear that his vote reflected a belief in the overall reasonableness of the proposal, even if individual components were not perfect.

In conclusion, Carper’s email aimed to clarify the dynamics at play during the planning commission’s decision-making process, asserting that while pressure existed, it was a normal aspect of handling significant legislative changes rather than a result of any inappropriate influence from city staff.