Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2016-34s

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Responding to the Final Decision and Order Issued by the Growth Management Hearings Board in Case No. 15-3-0010c; Amending Ordinance No. 2015-40; Responding to the Order Finding Continuing Noncompliance in Case No. 12-3-0002c Regarding Plan Amendment M-3; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Setting an Effective Date.

Effective: July 1, 2016

Status: Passed

Final votes

June 14, 2016
Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Neal Ossiander 6/3/16 12:45 PM Proposed Ordinance 2016-34 1. In plain language: Just what is this all about? I believe that EVERY document shall include a "plain language" introduction. 2. Where is the information contained upon Exhibits A through D. They are all blank.
David M Friscia 6/4/16 3:59 PM Regarding: Section 7. Findings that the Council adopt additional Findings as those contained in the Growth Management Act and an Order of Continuing Non-Compliance in Case No. 12-3-0002c. 2015-40 fails to provide 'sufficient capacity of land suitable for development … to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, including the accommodation of … educational … facilities related to such growth' per RCW 36.70A.115 in BOTH the URBAN and the RURAL areas. Specifically, Issue Eight and Compliance 12-3-0002c Lines 3 through 17 FINAL DECISION AND COMPLIANCE ORDER Case Nos. 15-3-0010c and 12-3-0002c May 9, 2016 Page 52 of 83 "The message of Vision 2040 and the MPPs is that counties cannot shift the burden of providing services to urban kids in the urban area to the school districts. The County must actively engage, as a requirement of accommodating urban growth, in ensuring that urban sites are available – whether through UGA boundary adjustments, rezoning available urban land, or other authority. Pierce County’s plan policies are missing the step where the County works collaboratively with the district to site urban-serving schools in the urban area before considering conditional uses in the rural area. Allowing schools that serve urban populations to be sited in rural areas does not comply with the GMA requirement that growth can occur outside of Urban Growth Areas “only if it is not urban in nature.” Similarly, siting urban-serving schools in rural areas is incompatible with GMA requirements to protect the rural character and reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped rural land into sprawling, low-density development.
David M Friscia 6/14/16 12:18 PM I urge the Council to vote against the half measures of compliance to GMHB Case No. 15-3-0010c & Order Finding Continuing Noncompliance in Case No. 12-3-0002c Regarding Plan Amendment M-3 in 2016-34s. RCW 36.70A.150 Identification of lands useful for public purposes clearly states, "Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall identify lands useful for public purposes such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, storm water management facilities, recreation, schools, and other public uses. The county shall work with the state and the cities within its borders to identify areas of shared need for public facilities. The jurisdictions within the county shall prepare a prioritized list of lands necessary for the identified public uses including an estimated date by which the acquisition will be needed. The respective capital acquisition budgets for each jurisdiction shall reflect the jointly agreed upon priorities and time schedule." Bethel School District orthodoxy uses a 'land banking' schema that relies on urban sprawl to bring students to rural school site(s) in violation of Washington State statues. It is Pierce County's duty and responsibility to provide its citizens with the residential, commercial, and public infrastructure to support the increasing population ion a fixed land mass. The patrician orthodoxy of letting the developers' special interest make the decisions that are the duty and responsibility of County Government is not only condescending but the conflict with State law and the notion that the marketplace is best served by equal opportunity of the buyers and the sellers to set the product quality and price of that product quality.