Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2020-96s2

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Adopting Amendments to Title 19A of the Pierce County Code, "Pierce County Comprehensive Plan"; Amending Chapter 14, Appendix I: Parkland-Spanaway-Midland Communities Plan; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Setting an Effective Date. (Parkland-Spanaway-Midland Communities Plan - Amendments)

Effective: February 1, 2021

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Dave Morell, Douglas G. Richardson

Final votes

October 29, 2020
Aye Excused Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Elly Claus-McGahan 9/23/20 1:40 PM I also represent Climate Pierce County and I wish to share my frustration with you on the difficulty of getting accurate information. I’ve gone through the Centers and Corridors proposal slides from the committee’s August 19 meeting, read the non-project EIS statement, have tried to read the two amendment statements for today, and just looked at the Centers and Corridors website. I’ve also looked at Populations Trends and Growth from 2016, and the Centers and Corridors framework proposal from 2016, plus some other bits here and there. There are a lot of bits to look at. Just on population alone, there’s a lack of clarity. One document says population growth for the UGA over the period 2010-2030 will be 60,000. Another says population growth will be over 200,000 by 2030. The amendments contain findings of fact statement that The total number of additional units expected between 2020-2040 in the 31 proposed Centers and Corridors zones is between 1,470 and 2,020 units. Hardly enough to deal with the expected growth by 2030 of either of the other documents. It’s not clear to me whether the proposed Centers and Corridors includes the whole Pierce County UGA area, but it is clear to me that there is no single clear statement of expected growth for the proposal that is in line with these other population growth numbers and the years they span. We’ve heard that the actual planned for growth is over 94,000 but can’t find that in these documents. I should not have to spend hours in front of my computer finding out the specifics of the proposal to then see if that tracks with the other documents. The basics should be easy to find: Population growth, expected construction to accommodate the growth, a transit plan and transportation infrastructure plan including for bicycles and pedestrians, how sewer and storm water systems will be modified, schools and fire departments, etc. Does it involve displacement of current residents? Will it lead to gentrification? Transit oriented development gets my vote when it’s done well but I can’t tell if it’s being done well. Planning for development that deliberately reduces GHG emissions also gets my vote, but none of these plans speak specifically to that. I appreciate the level of effort that has gone in to getting all these documents put together that you then need to study. I’m sure you can appreciate my frustration with trying to parse out the information that is in them to answer basic questions. Please take the time to ask for a plan that gives the specific numbers the county is planning for within the scope of the project and then everything that flows from there. Have it organized so that it’s relatively easy to find the information being sought. Connect it to the future we want that provides clean living spaces, clean air, clean water, robust clean energy grids, and minimizing Single vehicle transportation as well as distances traveled and have the EIS address all that. It is a complex project. Community input requires it’s transparent. Right now it’s opaque if you look even a little beyond the surface. Finally, I do applaud the philosophy behind the project. It’s intentional and has promise. It’s not ready for construction.
Elly Claus-McGahan 9/23/20 1:40 PM I also represent Climate Pierce County and I wish to share my frustration with you on the difficulty of getting accurate information. I’ve gone through the Centers and Corridors proposal slides from the committee’s August 19 meeting, read the non-project EIS statement, have tried to read the two amendment statements for today, and just looked at the Centers and Corridors website. I’ve also looked at Populations Trends and Growth from 2016, and the Centers and Corridors framework proposal from 2016, plus some other bits here and there. There are a lot of bits to look at. Just on population alone, there’s a lack of clarity. One document says population growth for the UGA over the period 2010-2030 will be 60,000. Another says population growth will be over 200,000 by 2030. The amendments contain findings of fact statement that The total number of additional units expected between 2020-2040 in the 31 proposed Centers and Corridors zones is between 1,470 and 2,020 units. Hardly enough to deal with the expected growth by 2030 of either of the other documents. It’s not clear to me whether the proposed Centers and Corridors includes the whole Pierce County UGA area, but it is clear to me that there is no single clear statement of expected growth for the proposal that is in line with these other population growth numbers and the years they span. We’ve heard that the actual planned for growth is over 94,000 but can’t find that in these documents. I should not have to spend hours in front of my computer finding out the specifics of the proposal to then see if that tracks with the other documents. The basics should be easy to find: Population growth, expected construction to accommodate the growth, a transit plan and transportation infrastructure plan including for bicycles and pedestrians, how sewer and storm water systems will be modified, schools and fire departments, etc. Does it involve displacement of current residents? Will it lead to gentrification? Transit oriented development gets my vote when it’s done well but I can’t tell if it’s being done well. Planning for development that deliberately reduces GHG emissions also gets my vote, but none of these plans speak specifically to that. I appreciate the level of effort that has gone in to getting all these documents put together that you then need to study. I’m sure you can appreciate my frustration with trying to parse out the information that is in them to answer basic questions. Please take the time to ask for a plan that gives the specific numbers the county is planning for within the scope of the project and then everything that flows from there. Have it organized so that it’s relatively easy to find the information being sought. Connect it to the future we want that provides clean living spaces, clean air, clean water, robust clean energy grids, and minimizing Single vehicle transportation as well as distances traveled and have the EIS address all that. It is a complex project. Community input requires it’s transparent. Right now it’s opaque if you look even a little beyond the surface. Finally, I do applaud the philosophy behind the project. It’s intentional and has promise. It’s not ready for construction.
James L Halmo 10/25/20 5:50 PM October 25, 2020 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Pierce County Council Ref: Proposal No. 2020-96s2, Parkland-Spanaway-Midland Communities Plan – Amendments Public Participation. Having reviewed this package of amendments to a major community plan in the County, I am first totally surprised by the serious lack of public participation before the Council’s Community Development Committee (CDC) on your draft Ordinance. The original community plan documents, as adopted on June 11, 2002, had the participation of many citizens, including those on three separate Planning Boards, as follows: Parkland (12); Spanaway (15); and Midland (14). Now, less than a dozen citizens testified on the proposed ordinance at the various ‘Zoom’ meetings of your committee. That shows an astonishing lack of public participation, which highlights how your meetings are advertised to the public. The County does the absolute minimum, and I mean absolute, to provide public notice to the local citizenry. It is time for a full review with recommendations on how the general public can be apprised of meetings affecting their lives. I saw recently a notice in The Tacoma News Tribune placed by the City of Puyallup, a notice on its comprehensive plan -- a notice which provided far more clarity than what has been provided to the public today. You can do better. Serious brainstorming is long overdue. Incomplete Redevelopment. The whole project, which involves obtaining monies for transportation projects, ends up being a new “redevelopment” project. Projected statistics on how you will achieve concurrency in the future is lacking. All I see are potential projects for developers, which ignore all of the necessary infrastructure needed to properly support a\significant population increase. This is not “urban planning,” which involves too many issues and problems which are addressed and documented here with little substance. And, as regards transportation planning, I do not find the word “concurrency” used once in the formal policies or the Action Items. One would expect some comment about how that would be maintained and achieved. Low Impact Development. Formal Policy PSM-ENV-29.4.7 (page I-160, electronic page 165) is being deleted. I question the deletion of a tool which is highlighted in the State’s planning documents, and urge you to retain it. Recommendation. You are not done with your evaluation. Until we can see better and more substantive work, your “urban planning” of these three communities remains incomplete. The Ordinance, as presented, should be rejected. Sincerely, James L. Halmo 9806 247th Street Ct. East Graham, WA 98338 (253) 875-1890 jimh1890@hotmail.com