Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2023-24

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Repealing Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14 in Response to a Petition Filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board in Consolidated Case Number 23-3-0005c, Entitled "Futurewise, Spanaway Concerned Citizens; Angela Schick; Melody Atwood; and Dan Atwood v. Pierce County and Tacoma Rescue Mission"; Adopting Findings Fact; and Setting an Effective Date.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Robyn Denson, Amy Cruver

Final votes

July 25, 2023
Aye Aye Aye Aye Excused Aye Aye
August 22, 2023
Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Angela Schick 7/14/23 11:02 PM Council as one of the Petitioner for Review of the Hearings Board case, it is no secret I don't supported 2023-5s. It is very important to protect the RR zone in all districts as it acts as a buffer between Urban Growth Area and the sensitive areas - rural resources. It is also as important to put these villages in areas that will have the proper resources and infrastructure for the community members to be successful in healing themselves, moving out of poverty and living a successful and productive life with out the continued need of the village. While this does not stop to Community First Village we need to protect the rest of the critical areas and RR zones in Parkland Spanaway Midland community while planning these future villages in productive and successful areas. Please repeal the 2023-5s
James Overway 7/17/23 4:51 AM I am writing to document my full and enthusiastic support for Ordinance No 2023-24.
Matthew McCarthy 7/17/23 7:20 AM Please do not build on this location. There are so many abandond shopping centers in Lakewood. these should be repurposed and reclaimed before destroying more of our dwindling natural reasources.
Melody Atwood 7/17/23 7:42 AM Ordinance 2023-5s should never have been passed, so repealing it is a step in the right direction. The Village slated for Spanaway is a clear example of the way 2023-5s will be used to cram micro-cities into environmentally critical areas all over Pierce County while still pretending that builders are adhering to the RR Zone density of 1-3 dwelling units per acre. Shared housing villages should be built in areas that are close to the resources and infrastructure that are needed to support them, not isolated in remote areas. Repeal Ordinance 2023-5s and actually bring back “low density” as the real protection it was intended to be for our critically important RR Zones.
Kathy Warnke 7/17/23 8:03 AM I can't help but wonder how this site was even considered. This wetland has "miraculously" been determined suitable. Someone needs to look into how and why this site was chosen. Please be upfront on why this site was chosen. How in the world can this wetland site be chosen ? I question the speed and due diligence of a wetland variance. It looks like the county wants to spend the federal funds, pass the responsibility of the project on to the Tacoma Rescue Mission and then wash their hands on any future consequences to the community or village residents. I still can't help but wonder how this site was chosen. Did the property owner seek out the county because he couldn't build on it?... or ....?? suddenly
Keith Meredith 7/17/23 8:10 AM Ordinance 2023-5s was passed to suit the will of the council. It ignored the will of the people who reside in the RR zone. It ignored the environmental impact. Please repeal this mistake, and use common sense when looking for a solution, and location.
Docere Pharmakis 7/17/23 8:10 AM While it is of vital importance that we deali with the problem of houselessness, the tiny home village is not the answer. The solution cannot be to put people in tiny rooms surrounded by fences, cameras, guards and dogs and force them to farm to pay for it. This is not a way to lift people up, but rather a return to feudalism. This proposal is a good first step towards preventing such a violent regression.
Melissa Knott 7/17/23 8:12 AM I am in full support of ordinance 2023-24.
G Young 7/17/23 8:14 AM OPPOSED to disrupting critical wetland area with THREE HUNDRED people in such a confined area. With all of the claimed safety measures the Tacoma Mission and Pierce County think will help, this will eventually pose problems with this critical area and connecting water ways. Pierce County initially included Puyallup and amended to take Puyallup out of mix, leaving only Spanaway to deal with this project. PC acts like they didn't know this could not be amended a 2nd time to put Puyallup back in. This was planned ... they know exactly what they're doing. Bottom line, P.C. and Tacoma Mission doesn't care about the wetlands, the habitat or the neighbors, only their project, which is in the wrong location. We need a place for this project, but perhaps on a smaller scale as to not affect the wetlands or the neighborhood. VOTE NO and put this project in an area that would cause so many issues!!!!
Ing Steward 7/17/23 8:20 AM I am opposed to this location due to the wetlands. Also, this area needs help or it will end up like downtown Seattle. The is a better location that won't have so many challenges to the wetlands and community. PC is only thinking about getting this built so it looks like they are doing something about the homeless situation and haven't stopped to really think about the location and how it will affect the wetlands and already compromised community. Please do not put this "high density" housing in this critical area. Do the right thing PC and Tacoma Mission!!!
Sarah Reid 7/17/23 8:44 AM Ordinance 2023-5s was a dangerous mis-step and I am glad that it is being reversed. You are the only city that boasts the last of an ancient species of trees that maintain a precious balance in our environment. The people have told you more than once that we value the environment and its' protection. Housing is a problem, but building on the proposed site is an expensive disaster narrowly avoided by reversing Ordinance 2023-5s.
Lynette Borcherding 7/17/23 9:14 AM 2023-5s was passed against the will of the people. You were elected to respresent the people, not your special interest groups or other elected officials. I remind you that you are respresentatives, not leaders. I fully support 2023-24 and expect you to respresent the people this time around.
LaDonna Robertson 7/17/23 9:19 AM I agree and support the Proposed Ordinance No. 2023-24.
Andrea Haug 7/17/23 9:20 AM Comment
Kyle 7/17/23 9:23 AM This will only hurt Spanaway and its residents, we all work hard to keep our town clean and crime free as possible and inviting more homeless to our area will be horrible for our society.
Patty Johnson 7/17/23 9:34 AM I am entirely in favor of 2023-24. Praying you will do the right thing and reject the site currently planned for tiny home development. Thank you for hearing me/us.
Michelle Ryder 7/17/23 9:40 AM I strongly urge you to put protections back in place for our environmentally sensitive areas. Thank you.
Susan D Turner 7/17/23 10:04 AM If you look into the past and even projects that are currently underway you will see that throwing money at this problem of homeless, drug addicted, mentally unfit, economically deprived in no way has ever solved the problem. Consider the cost that it will take to keep this place from turning into a city dump and a crime center.
SJ Thirtyacre 7/17/23 10:15 AM SUPPORT 2023-24. Elected officials are representatives of the people who elect them. We, these people, have told you we do not want this tiny home village on the wetlands here. A multitude of valid concerns and reasons have been presented to you relating why this is a terrible idea in his precious location. Support the will of the people who elected you. Do not build on this location. Support Ordinance 2023-24.
Judith Manetti 7/17/23 10:21 AM To the Members of the Pierce County Council: I believe the choice of the present location in Spanaway is ill-advised. While I appreciate the concerns for the unhoused people, I feel the need to join other concerned residents in reminding the committee of the endangered wildlife who will lose invaluable habitat, the small segment of the Earth whose natural value will be eradicated. If one views improper use of small pieces of land as being insignificant, the planet as whole is imperiled, because when added together countless small pieces constitutes massive irreparable harm to the environment for all who make Earth their one and only home. Those who propose the construction of the Tiny Home Village would do well to reconsider. There has been a considerable amount of publicity given to the vacancies of office buildings due to the surge of interest in work-from-home plans necessitated by Covid-19 restrictions. Those vacant buildings could be utilized to house the homeless. It would be an efficient and generous repurposing of space and materials already in place. Redirecting the focus to such established structures in uncontested space without ecological concerns would be logical and expeditious. The area specified for new construction has high ecological value in it present state. It is an irreplaceable. It is essential in the efforts for the preservation of wildlife and natural resources. Ultimately, many of such similar smaller projects to save clean, unimpaired, open spaces benefits the planet and mankind. We must sharpen our ability to recognize and value what we have left on Earth in its untainted state. I wish to add my voice to the protest against destruction of the land in the Spanaway area. At the same time, I support providing housing for the unfortunately unhoused persons who urgently need shelter. Repurposing commercial buildings seems to be a doable project. Such plans could be a saving grace in more than one way. Please think carefully of your actions regarding this matter – even in this small way, you personally are taking one step toward destiny. Thank you. J. Manetti, Lakewood, WA.
Joseph Colombo 7/17/23 10:22 AM I agree with and support the Proposed Ordinance No. 2023-24.
Amelia Escobedo 7/17/23 10:30 AM https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/1998/Caution-Building-in-a-Wetland-Can-Be-Hazardous-to-Your-House https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/9031.pdf “Only about 5 percent of the land area in the continental United States is composed of wetlands. But these transitional zones—neither completely dry nor entirely liquid—are enormously valuable, especially when it comes to controlling floods. Wetlands act like natural sponges on the landscape, absorbing and then gradually releasing storm waters and lessening flood damage.“ https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/1998/Caution-Building-in-a-Wetland-Can-Be-Hazardous-to-Your-House https://reduceflooding.com/2019/12/15/why-you-never-want-to-buy-a-home-built-over-wetlands/#:~:text=This%20article%20by%20the%20National,unstable%20wetlands%20soil%20can%20be. Scientifically it has shown that we must preserve our wetlands. Building on wetlands have far reaching consequences that are not easily reversed. I believe as a constituent in Pierce County that there are plenty of abandoned buildings in Pierce county that are not on wetlands. Please leave our wetlands for the future generations to enjoy and protect. I have attached information for you to read. Respectfully, AIE
Lori Uhler 7/17/23 10:33 AM I absolutely oppose putting in a homeless camp. There are no resources to support this. These drug addicts and mentally ill, need to be in a facility that can offer treatment. Try using all the money to open the ward up at Western State instead.
Marianne Edain 7/17/23 10:47 AM Because it is unclear whether "the proposal" is the action to rescind the enabling legislation or the underlying action, the development proposal, I have logged in as 'undecided.' As a restoration ecologist, I join the many voices objecting to the proposed "tiny home village." While housing is indeed important, retaining a functional ecosystem within which to live is more fundamentally important. It is my understanding that the move to rescind the original legislation is specifically in response to the appeal by Futurewise, and that unless you take the action to rescind, Futurewise will continue with its legal appeal. So perhaps this opportunity for comment is rather pro-forma. Please simply repeal the enabling legislation and move to provide the protection so desperately needed by the significant wetland proposed to be impacted and potentially destroyed. First we need to be able to breathe, drink, and eat. Once those are secured, then we can talk about housing.
Sherry Haviland 7/17/23 11:05 AM Proposed Ordinance 2023-24 2023-5s and 2023-14 needs to be repealed -- I may have the ordinances wrong but the county council should never have signed it to begin with. The citizens of the county are against the original ordinance, so repealing it is a great idea. So much of our county that is not built on is protected wetlands, and developers shouldn't be allowed to build on these protected lands no matter what. I was horrified to see the tiny villages proposal off Spanaway Lp Rd near 176th go as far as it did, I am horrified that the county would allow building on a protected wildlife area and a protected wetland. Who is to gain from this? It is so close to JBLM. Anyway, please repeal this horrible ordinance that was approved, and let's see what we can do about stopping this big mistake called the tiny home villages off spanaway lp rd and 176th!
Rich Jensen 7/17/23 11:27 AM Shared Housing Villages are a radical, high-density departure from the Residential Resource land use policies established under the 1990 Growth Managment Act and subsequent Comprhensive Plans. The expansion of the RR designation to include Shared Housing Villages constitutes a major threat to environmentally sensitive lands throughout the county. The expansion of the RR designation to include SHVs seems motivated primarily to open these lands to short term windfalls by real estate, development and construction interests while lowering the quality of life and land use management capacity for all other residents. Please support this Ordinance to Repeal the expansion of the RR designation to include Shared Housing Villages. With a truly inclusive, respectful and open community process Pierce County can meet public demands for emergency housing and increased density without upending decades of land use policy based on good science and environmental stewardship.
Bill Carver 7/17/23 11:29 AM I'm baffled at the selection of this location. This location has no link to public services. (Transit / Sewer). The county requires the developers nearby to extend the sewer system, but I seen a septic system in the design. Is this a healthly option for the ground water into Spanaway Lake. I know of many abandoned shops deserving a good home with support to fully get these people transitioned. Hiding them in a ecological corner isn't the option. Fort Lewis restricts recreation in this corner, but your building a tiny home community.
Joanne Babic 7/17/23 11:50 AM Ordinance 2023-24
Adam Schick 7/17/23 12:46 PM Maybe For Once During This Whole Process, Something Can Be Done Correctly By The County. Start Correcting Your Course Of Action, REPEAL This.
Denys 7/17/23 12:55 PM I support "reversing" what the county has done and encourage Pierce County counsel, the Tacoma Mission and anyone else reading this to watch National Geographic Documentary on conservationist Doug and Kris Tompkin, spending their fortune buying property to turn it into national parks to protect wildlife and our planet from the destruction of man. Every little patch of land, especially wetlands, big or small, has an impact on our planet. We need our wetlands to protect our environment. What man is doing to this planet is wrong on so many levels. Please reconsider the location of this village. Put it in Spanaway if you must, just get it away from the wetlands!!!!
Tichomír Dunlop 7/17/23 1:05 PM To the Pierce County Council: I SUPPORT the repeal of the Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14 that allowed for the rezoning that made possible the tiny home village development on the critical areas in Spanaway -- a category 1 national wetland and Garry oak woodland. Wetlands are incredibly important both from a water quality perspective and because of their habitat value to fish and wildlife. The area is also known to be home to the endangered Western gray squirrel, which also must be protected. It is hard to believe that a jurisdiction would allow such a development to happen in such an environmentally sensitive and important area. In addition to the destruction or degradation of wetlands and Garry oak habitat, there will also be the damaging effects of masses of impervious surfaces on water quality, but also on the urban heat effect. We need in this age of climate crisis and heat domes the cooling effect of the water in our cities -- not more concrete. Finally, the very concept of the tiny home village is profoundly flawed -- it is obviously a bad idea to amass almost three hundred chronically houseless people in one place, under guard 24/7 and behind fences. You must find more humane solutions to this humanitarian crisis. Most importantly, however -- we have only one Earth and it must be protected. No matter what the solution will be for the chronically houseless, it has to be an environmentally safe and intelligent one. Please repeal Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14 and revoke the permits that have been issued for this project as a matter of utmost urgency. Sincerely, Tichomír Dunlop
Judith Manetti 7/17/23 1:06 PM To the Members of the Pierce County Council: I believe the choice of the present location in Spanaway is ill-advised. While I appreciate the concerns for the unhoused people, I feel the need to join other concerned residents in reminding the committee of the endangered wildlife who will lose invaluable habitat, the small segment of the Earth whose natural value will be eradicated. If one views improper use of small pieces of land as being insignificant, the planet as whole is imperiled, because when added together countless small pieces constitutes massive irreparable harm to the environment for all who make Earth their one and only home. Those who propose the construction of the Tiny Home Village would do well to reconsider. There has been a considerable amount of publicity given to the vacancies of office buildings due to the surge of interest in work-from-home plans necessitated by Covid-19 restrictions. Those vacant buildings could be utilized to house the homeless. It would be an efficient and generous repurposing of space and materials already in place. Redirecting the focus to such established structures in uncontested space without ecological concerns would be logical and expeditious. The area specified for new construction has high ecological value in it present state. It is an irreplaceable. It is essential in the efforts for the preservation of wildlife and natural resources. Ultimately, many of such similar smaller projects to save clean, unimpaired, open spaces benefits the planet and mankind. We must sharpen our ability to recognize and value what we have left on Earth in its untainted state. I wish to add my voice to the protest against destruction of the land in the Spanaway area. At the same time, I support providing housing for the unfortunately unhoused persons who urgently need shelter. Repurposing commercial buildings seems to be a doable project. Such plans could be a saving grace in more than one way. Please think carefully of your actions regarding this matter – even in this small way, you personally are taking one step toward destiny. Thank you. J. Manetti, Lakewood, WA.
Christina Manetti 7/17/23 1:07 PM To the Pierce County Council: I SUPPORT the repeal of the Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14 that allowed for the rezoning that made possible the tiny home village development on the critical areas in Spanaway -- a category 1 national wetland and Garry oak woodland, which has been recognized by WDFW as priority habitat. Wetlands are incredibly important both from a water quality perspective and because of their habitat value to fish and wildlife. The area is also known to be home to the endangered Western gray squirrel, which also must be protected. It is hard to believe that a jurisdiction would allow such a development to happen in such an environmentally sensitive and important area. In addition to the destruction or degradation of wetlands and Garry oak habitat, there will also be the damaging effects of masses of impervious surfaces on water quality, but also on the urban heat effect. We need in this age of climate crisis and heat domes the cooling effect of the water in our cities -- not more concrete. Finally, the very concept of the tiny home village is profoundly flawed -- it is obviously a bad idea to amass almost three hundred chronically houseless people in one place, under guard 24/7 and behind fences. You must find more humane solutions to this humanitarian crisis. Most importantly, however -- we have only one Earth and it must be protected. No matter what the solution will be for the chronically houseless, it has to be an environmentally safe and intelligent one. Please repeal Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14 and revoke the permits that have been issued for this project as a matter of utmost urgency. Sincerely, Christina Manetti, Ph.D.
G Young 7/17/23 1:14 PM Just changing the option to support the proposal for the county to reverse their decision of turning Spanaway into high density so they can put the village in the wetlands. I was a little confused and put opposed, but I oppose to putting this many people in and around the wetlands. This is modeled after the one in Austin, which may work in Austin, TX, but this is different ... NOT IN WETLANDS!!! It appears the county has been planning this for many years and has so much invested that they don't care about doing the right thing in moving this to a location that is will consider issues with the wetlands, the homeless and the community. We need to look at the long term ramifications here. This is the first of it's kind in our area, so lets get this right before we start building. There are just way too may challenges with this location.
James Dunlop 7/17/23 1:18 PM Dear Councilmembers, I am relieved that you are considering the repeal of Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14. We should remember that the tiny home village development is planned to take place on critical areas - a category 1 national wetland and Garry oak woodland. Wetlands are incredibly important both from a water quality perspective and because of their habitat value to fish and wildlife. The area is also known to be home to the endangered Western gray squirrel, which also must be protected. It is hard to believe that a jurisdiction would allow such a development to happen in such an environmentally sensitive and important area. In addition to the destruction or degradation of wetlands and Garry oak habitat, there will also be the damaging effects of masses of impervious surfaces on water quality, but also on the urban heat effect. We need in this age of climate crisis and heat domes the cooling effect of the water in our cities - not more concrete. At the same time, the tiny home village is an inappropriate response to the issue of houselessness. It is like using a Bandaid to try to fix a wider, systemic problem. Trashing the environment to address a tiny, symptomatic part of the problem strikes me as being unacceptable. There is also the question of the impact the village would have on existing residents. While I am not personally impacted, I have talked to some of the residents and seen how distressed they are. They are your constituents, and you should not be doing something that causes them and their environment so much harm, for little or no benefit. No matter what the solution will be for the chronically houseless, it has to be environmentally safe, as well as respectful to the interests of existing residents. Please repeal Ordinance No. 2023-5s and Ordinance No. 2023-14 and revoke the permits that have been issued for this project as a matter of utmost urgency. Yours sincerely, James Dunlop
Kim Underwood 7/17/23 1:22 PM As your constituent, I’d like to interject once again, Pierce County does not have a housing crisis, Pierce County has a drug crisis. The decision to place a Micro Home Village within one of the most sensitive areas within Pierce County was political, an extremely well-orchestrated spot zone, for which the community and most importantly our environment will pick up the price tag. Hundreds of thousands of State/Federal funding have been allocated towards improving and protecting the water within Spanaway Lake and the surrounding environment. 2023-5’s should not have been passed. Therefore, I support this repeal.
Ovunayo X 7/17/23 2:11 PM Point 10: We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice And Peace. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Noell Pacho 7/17/23 2:12 PM Repeal, Repeal, repeal!
Claudia Finseth 7/17/23 3:09 PM Please do not build on the Spanaway Marsh wetlands, which feed our waterways and lakes all the way to Puget Sound. Please protect these vital lands. Thank you.
Eva Robinett 7/17/23 3:16 PM Dear Council Members, I echo the statements of many of my neighbors that have commented here opposing this community. It is ill advised for both our community in nature and services. While I appreciate the effort that is being put into this, it will destroy the area. Thank you.
Jill Bruun 7/17/23 3:29 PM Please do not build on this location. There are many other suitable locations in the Lakewood and Tacoma areas closer to services for these people. My understanding is that this area is wetlands anyways, so why is it even being considered?
Elizabeth Taunt 7/17/23 4:50 PM Repeal this proposal !
Lynsie Holt 7/17/23 6:24 PM Absolutely NO to a homeless camp in spanaway. We do not want to see spanaway turned into a haven for drug use, crime and zero accountability. Please vote no
Rose Johnson 7/17/23 6:45 PM I’m opposed to the location of this tiny village. There are too many wetlands around it and if the cross base highway could not go through why is this tiny village allowed? Please find a different location that is more suited there are NO support services locally for those people. This locations is not acceptable
Ashley hanson 7/17/23 7:43 PM Absolutely NOT!!!’ This is a huge safety concern for many and all people in the area!!! We do not need to support this in anyway! It will bring more drugs and crime to this area! Let alone a huge health hazard!! No No No!!!
Dennis Rogers 7/17/23 8:06 PM Dear Council member Amy Cruver, I oppose Ordinances 2023-5s and 2023-14 and support Ordinance 2023-24, repealing the aforementioned ordinances. My vote for your council member position will reflect your vote on this ordinance. If you chose to oppose 2023-24, I will vote for your opponent.
Lee Ann Westwood 7/17/23 10:49 PM If we cant have a cross base highway because of wetlands why can we have a 300+ micro home village for the chronically drug-addicted, with NO REQUIREMENT that they don't do drugs? What is wrong with you people? The residents of Spanaway don't want this village so who are you representing exactly?
Esther Kronenberg 7/18/23 7:51 PM I support repealing Ordinance 2023-5s. This will put protections back in place for our environmentally sensitive areas. Bough the goal of housing for those who desperately need it is laudable, this proposal places these less fortunate neighbors on land that is prone to flooding and separated from the general community. There are many other already paved areas in the County that are more suitable for creating communities that are integrated with the rest of society. This land is designated wetlands. It should not be built on. We need wetlands to preserve water quantity and quality which is threatened by excessive developments like this in the wrong place, and also by climate change which threatens our water resources more. Democratic institutions should follow the will of the people. It is clear from the comments received that this project is not supported based on solid scientific data and good sense.
April Doidge 7/20/23 12:21 PM Please don’t build on this land. It’s important to the Spanaway lake and others. I have seen multiple areas for sale in this surrounding area. Or better yet give them many of the empty warehouses or apartment buildings that are being allowed to be built. It really makes me wonder what Pierce County is getting in return for this. This area is already struggling with many of todays issues and we really don’t need anymore.
Harry A. Cook 7/21/23 9:30 AM I don't support the idea of your village proposal. I object to your village being built. I am a home owner since 1989. Please build it somewhere else. We don't agree with this project and the crime that will happen if you go against our rights to follow thru.
Bryan Anderson 7/24/23 11:40 AM I oppose this proposal because I support the original ordinance authorizing a Community First! Village. Please look at the facts. 1. If the Community First! Village is not built here, the land will be used for full-price housing, at a higher density than the Village. 2. Community First! Village is following every environmental law on the books. Again, if the Village can't be built, developers will build even more housing on the site than the Village is proposing. No wetlands are being disturbed, period. 3. The Martin v. Boise Federal Court decision requires housing for homeless individuals. The status quo--unsanitary homeless encampments in Spanaway that dump raw sewage into the waterways--is not environmentally friendly at all. Permanent housing, such as the Village, is desperately needed.
Claudia finseth 7/24/23 6:50 PM Please do not build anything on the critical Spanaway wetlands; instead, please use Conservation Futures to buy those parcels and create permanent open space.
Kathy Woods 7/24/23 7:21 PM Please repeal 2023. It should never have been passed in the first place. This pristine sight is home for many wildlife and needs to be protected. There are many other locations to build this homesless village that will not be so damaging to other people and the environment. Repeal
GD Young 7/24/23 8:00 PM I SUPPORT "repealing" this ordinance, which wrongly allows shared housing in our sensitive wetlands. Little by little, we are destroying our natural resources and these sensitive areas. We need to protect our wetlands. Pierce County and Tacoma Mission, please, please, find another location without so many challenges and threats to wildlife and habitat. The original zoning was put in place to protect these areas and now you decide to change it to high density housing, specifically, and obviously, for your project at the wrong location? I don't understand why we can't build something for the homeless that won't impact these environmentally sensitive areas. Who thought of this? The county and Mission already have so much invested in this that they don't care about doing the right thing. Tacoma Mission just purchased more property, now making this project even larger than expected. They're now building a large parking lot. Like the song, "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot." It's only a matter of time before they approach other landowners and make this even bigger than ever, making it an even bigger threat to the wetlands. PC council members wrote to the WA State Dept. of Transportation opposing the Graham airport because they are concerned about the environment and habitat and yet, they are doing the same thing in Spanaway. Politics. Tacoma Mission and Pierce County DON'T CARE ABOUT THE WETLANDS. Let's absolutely help the homeless, just not at nature's expense.
Cristina L. Stuart 7/24/23 8:41 PM I support the proposal to repeal the allowance of this microvillage in this sensitive area. I have two reasons. First, it could be an environment disaster for Spanaway Lake if wastewater and contaminants are not managed. We all know too well how unhoused communities, even if attempted to be organized, can be breeding grounds for overflow activities that pollute. This is a thriving Lake with many uses. It developed a toxic algae bloom at the end of last summer, probably due to fertilizer runoff and it took over 6 months to clear up, endangering the wildlife. How much more would an upstream community contribute to Future algae blooms and worse. Secondly, we all know that unhoused communities can become magnets for criminal behavior and mental health crisis behavior that bleeds out into the surrounding neighborhoods. I live in a community of 55 plus citizens and it is a fragile population, a low-income and elderly population. If we start to have problems with the village then the rental rate will go down and this park would probably be sold and closed. This would be an extreme hardship for most of the residents here. It is unfair to house and housed while displacing another fragile community of at least 100 low income adults. The microvillage is a right idea at the wrong place.
Alicia Netter 7/24/23 9:26 PM I SUPPORT Ordinance 2023-24 which repeals Ordinance 2023-5s. Wetlands are an important part of the ecosystem that support biodiversity and help combat climate change. Regulations around wetland buffers are not sufficient enough to protect our waterways from toxic runoff and are often neglected after a few years. The areas in question were deemed as candidates for "Priority Habitat/Species Areas" by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Cross Base Highway was stopped for this exact reason. There are plenty of already disturbed areas that have little to no ecological benefit (such as decades old, vacant parking lots) within the county that can better serve development needs.
Russell L Netter 7/24/23 9:43 PM I SUPPORT Ordinance 2023-24 which repeals Ordinance 2023-5s.We have a responsibility to recognize the importance of protecting our wetlands. As our county grows our wetlands shrink. The few untouched wetlands we have remaining are vital to our water system and vital for habitat for our wildlife. Developing on wetlands is unconscionable, especially when there are alternatives. Do not let the greed of contractors and developers destroy our wetlands and the future of our county.
Sharon Netter 7/24/23 10:11 PM I SUPPORT Ordinance 2023-24 which repeals Ordinance 2023-5s. As responsible citizens, we are supposed to care for our environment. Wetlands store and sequester large amounts of carbon, helping to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Citizens have worked very hard to clean up the waterways around Spanaway Lake. Why undo all of that?
Winfield Giddings 7/25/23 1:25 AM So, if you have property you want to have the zoning changed - there is a process - It is kind of a pain, takes time, and you might not get it. (More often than not you will anyway.) It is a bad precedent to for the council to change the law county wide, or even within a sub-area plan for one project. It is really bad form to drastically increase the density in one zoning class in response to one project. This ordinance rectifies the mistake of legalizing unsustainable density in the RR zone and returns the low-density intent of the RR zone.
Judith Manetti 7/25/23 9:17 AM Please deny construction permits for proposed "shared housing" village in the Parkland-Spanaway-Midland RR zones. These environmentally sensitive areas need your responsible efforts to protect them. Thank you for serving the best interests of the entire Pierce County community and environment. - J. Manetti
Penny Cooper Howard 7/25/23 9:45 AM Council, please do the right thing and repeal the zoning changes you voted in against strong public opposition
Matthew McCarthy 7/25/23 11:32 AM Please do not allow more homes to be built on our dwindiling natual resources. There is so mach industrial wasteland and abandond shopping malls in Lakewood. Repourpose these spaces before creating more suburban sprawl
Zenna 7/25/23 12:02 PM Support 2023-24. Please listen to the voters not special interest groups. Voters will remember
Marianne Lincoln 7/25/23 1:00 PM I support backing away from the Spanaway Marsh site for the shared housing village. Not a single person in the community sees this location as a good idea. The Chambers Clover Creek Watershed, and Friends of Spanaway Lake do not support u sing this wetland area either. Personally, I have been there hiking in March when it is rainy and flooding. Loos of the tree cover would make more rain hitting the ground which could slide downhill, God forbid the marsh drain into Spanaway Lake on a serious gullywasher. It has wiped out the road on several occasions. Our headwaters wetlands are FEMA mapped and need the respect of having very little development. I also still think the site in Summit across from the library was far richer in resources for a shared housing village.
Christina Manetti 7/25/23 2:00 PM Please repeal this ordinance in order to reinstate urgently needed protections for our environmentally sensitive areas -- something that should be a priority for everyone in Pierce County.
Sean Arent 7/25/23 2:00 PM I cannot support paving over yet another wetland in the beleaguered Clover/Chambers Creek watershed. These vital habitats are too few.