Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-559s2

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Amending Title 19A of the Pierce County Code (PCC), "Pierce County Comprehensive Plan"; Incorporating Pierce County's 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update as Required by RCW 36.70A.130; Amending Title 19E PCC, "Capital Facilities Planning"; Incorporating Pierce County's 2024-2044 Capital Facilities Plan as Required by RCW 36.70A.070(3); Setting Forth an Effective Date; and Adopting Findings of Fact.

Effective: February 15, 2025

Status: Completed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Robyn Denson, Ryan Mello

Final votes

December 3, 2024
Aye Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
John Leslie 10/31/24 3:54 PM Because of the Democrat majority on this council and at the state level, these actions will undoubtedly be forced upon us. Even though, this cannot go without comment. The underlying motives and flawed goals are egregious and damaging to everyone in Pierce County, even those who believe this will somehow make their lives better. Managing growth rather than accommodating it by nature requires brute legislative force to ensure compliance. Eminent domain and the 5th Amendment seem to be completely ignored as no one is made whole with these takings and those who might struggle against these intrusions and takings will find themselves fighting against their own tax dollars. Additionally, the utopian dream of saving the planet which the vast majority of this legislation hinges on represents the ultimate vanity. Man cannot control the climate. Quality of life we be greatly impacted. Traffic congestion and all the associated impacts are not only accepted but embraced as a mechanism to motivate compliance. The top down hierarchy of the GMA ensconces unelected leaders to carry out the will of the ruling party. Right by might is no way to conduct a free country and is doomed to failure.
Steve Nixon 11/3/24 4:18 PM I am writing in support of Proposed Amendments to Exhibit B of Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-559: Parks and Recreation Element. I support the goal of Pierce County being able to partner with, and support other agencies in delivering parks and recreation services to the citizens of unincorporated Pierce County. I think the amendments draw an important distinction to allow Pierce County to support jurisdictions that have limited authority to mitigate the impacts of growth and development within certain areas of Pierce County. Thank you for proposing the amendment and the opportunity to voice my support. Steve Nixon, Commissioner PenMet Parks.
Nancy shaw 11/4/24 1:38 PM There are over 214 empty warehouses in pierce county. Each of which have multiple units currently listed as being for rent. That's over 50 million sq. Ft. Of warehouse space that is not being used. It is insane to allow more warehouses to be built when we are not using even 1/2 of the ones we already have
Commissioner Billy Sehmel 11/4/24 3:02 PM My name is Commissioner Billy Sehmel and I am representing Peninsula Metropolitan Park District. PenMet Parks supports the proposed amendments to Exhibit B of Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-559: Parks and Recreation Element addressing the transfer of park properties to Park Districts and adding a policy related to the distribution of park impact fee and real estate excise tax revenue collected within a Park District’s service areas. PenMet Parks is a metropolitan park district in unincorporated Pierce County. Like other areas of the County, our district has experienced significant growth and development with an approximate population increase of 30% since the year 2000. Today, PenMet Parks serves approximately 40,000 residents of unincorporated Pierce County. We steward 22 parks and properties and provide hundreds of recreation programs every year to deliver diverse park and recreation opportunities for all ages and abilities. PenMet Parks supports the proposed amendment, particularly the addition of a policy to distribute a percentage of park impact fee and real estate excise tax revenues collected within park district service areas to park districts for development of capital projects that are available to all County residents. As is common for metropolitan park districts, PenMet Parks is funded almost entirely through a property tax levy. In 2024, levy funds are anticipated to make up well over 80% of the District’s general fund revenue. Park impact fee and real estate excise tax revenues can meaningfully impact PenMet Parks’ ability to add capacity to mitigate the impact of new growth and development and to implement important capital improvements necessary to steward and care for public assets that are available to all County residents. Distributing a percentage of park impact fee and real estate excise tax revenues creates opportunities for Pierce County and park districts to partner to effectively deliver park and recreation opportunities for our shared constituencies. Thank you for the opportunity to express our support for Amendment #9. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to continued partnership.
Ryan Holland 11/15/24 2:03 PM The definitions to modify the language in order to allow a mechanics policy to smoothly transition out the passage of desired modifications to the comprehensive plan update under the growth management act has the potential to complicate the social, economic, residential and industrial infrastructure among urban, suburban and rural communities all around Pierce County and the municipalities that lie therein. Continuation with moving forward with passage of this ordinance can have possible implications of disturbance of the infrastructure that allows communities to thrive. The recommendations presented to all members of the Pierce County Council and to the communities that have a visual of the data presented, the recommendations are for a vote of NO on Ordinance O2024-559s as well as to the recommendation to have it tabled. Thank you.
Christopher Karnes 11/15/24 11:45 PM I am writing to express my support for the proposed update to the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. This plan demonstrates a forward-thinking and responsible approach to growth management that will benefit Pierce County for years to come. It matches a similar approach in the City of Tacoma to advance Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), walkable communities, and physical accessibility for people with disabilities. I commend Pierce County for prioritizing directed growth strategies by focusing higher intensity development and growth within existing urban areas. This approach minimizes sprawl and helps preserve valuable rural farmland and forests, crucial components of our region's natural beauty and economic vitality. Specifically, I applaud the plan's redesignation of High Capacity Transit (HCT) corridor areas within a 1/2 mile radius as Compact Urban zones. This strategy fosters high-density, mixed-use development centered around transit hubs, promoting walkability, reducing reliance on personal vehicles, and ultimately lowering Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The plan's commitment to creating a balanced supply of affordable housing options and local job opportunities within these Compact Urban areas is also commendable. By fostering vibrant and inclusive communities with access to essential amenities, we can ensure a higher quality of life for all Pierce County residents. I strongly support the prioritization of high-capacity transit routes, frequent transit stops, and compact urban development as key infrastructure prioritization criteria outlined in the plan. Investments in these area will help to manage the impacts of increased growth, improve safety for roadway users not in vehicles and contribute to a more sustainable transportation system. While reviewing the plan, I did identify a minor technical error on page 13-67 relating to Transit Standards and Priority Network. Pierce Transit BRT Corridor A mapped in Figure 13-32 corresponds to the existing Pierce Transit Route 2. The text on page 13-67 refers to this as "Route 3." (Source: 'Bus Rapid Transit System Expansion Study' https://piercetransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/SESS-Fact-Sheet-021622.pdf) A minor update is in order on that page as Route 2 services Tacoma Community College versus Route 3, which provides transit service to Tacoma Mall. Corridor A is the corridor that performed the best out of the evaluated corridors by Pierce Transit's Stream System Expansion Study. Overall, the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan update presents a clear vision for sustainable growth that balances economic development with environmental protection. I urge the Pierce County Council and County Executive to adopt this plan and move forward with its implementation.
Anne Allard-Wainwright 11/18/24 10:40 AM Our family has been living and farming on a large parcel in the unincorporated area of North Rosedale/Sehmel park for 60 years. It is part of an original larger heritage farm similar to Sehmel. We are very concerned with efforts to limit our land use rights by restricting the use of our land that would hinder our ability to have agritourism STRs on the property to preserve it's rural nature and character. We also want to continue our plan to construct retirement home/family dwellings on our family farm. Thank you to Marty Campbell for being an advocate for our views. We have been concerned by the dubious actions of other council members that we have observed in earlier council meetings and hope that other representatives and the public will continue to advocate for our views on adding/changing the use of our private property
Kathryn Sheldon 12/2/24 3:20 PM Dear Members, I respect everyone's input, research and diligence on this massive proposal. I am a resident of the South Hill Community and I have a lot of concerns. Firstly, the county has done well at communicating by e-mail, therein lies the problem. I do not perceive that the public has been fully informed on these changes as compared to the previous updates to the county planning as mandated by the need and the Growth Management Act. In the previous 10 year implementation, we the public were notified by mail of the changes directly affecting our property, invitations to several public meetings held at the Pierce County facility off of Canyon Road. Our South Hill Land Use Committee held two public meetings inviting the public and included a presentation of the changes. The meetings were held at Emerald Ridge High School. For this case, none of that has happened. For full transparency, education of the public, and a more robust participation this should have happened. I am asking that this Proposal , while burdensome be rolled back from vote again, in order for the LUAC and the county to be directed to engage with the public in a meaningful manner. The only engagement has been with those individuals that have been able to have their e-mails added to the lists of the various parties that have been involved in this process. The public deserves to be fully or as much as possible advised at the massive changes coming their way. I am disappointed that I have not been able to attend any of the council meetings or the one LUAC meeting either in person or via Zoom From what I can determine, most of the entire area that is South Hill will be rezoned and redescribed from SMH to Middle Housing and Compact Urban housing. There is about 402 acres left in South Hill and most of those are pocket lots, rather than large swathes of undeveloped acreage. A large portion of South Hill is on septic and what dry lines are there are most likely in need of replacement, thus increase of density under Micro Urban is not achievable without a hugely significant expenditure of funds for upgrades to the infrastructure for Pierce County Sewer and roads. Most all of South Hill is developed and thus in order to achieve this density to crunch the numbers, existing homes would have to be torn down and the lots subdivided. Not a good use of existing materials. With this density, there is no way that we can maintain a tree canopy of 40% or more, not achievable. Further in order for the canopy to exist we need more conservative and stringent rules regarding tree removal including trees on existing built lots. For South Hill with the density proposed our housing pricing will increase above (speculate) and beyond already existing pricing. If the county wants to get serious about housing, limit the number of short-term rentals. Limit how many homes can be purchased by a single business entity /corporation or its LLC. Further based on this proposed increase in density, how are our watersheds, underground reservoirs and wellheads being protected? They are not, because of the added impervious surface areas. In short the existing zoning for most of South Hill should remain as it is, with more robust and strict policies on tree removal, mandated usage of pervious surfaces. If a developer wishes to increase in density they can utilize the existing process and procedures to make these changes. yes, I know that there is a lot of hand wringing by influences parties that claim that this process is burdensome and continue to claim that it makes the house more expensive to build and that may have some truth to it, but the end cost of the house is determined by how much is one willing to pay? We can not compete with the major corporations that are offering cash for houses, buy up entire sections of condominium or townhouses for their investment, thus making it nearly impossible to compete for an existing house to buy. I have to question some of the accuracy of the information that has been provided to the council. Example pg. 2 PC Comprehensive Plan Housing Element information, they have Fredrickson is listed with the population of 2,011 people. Exhibit 1 , 2020. Pretty certain it is closer to 60,000 plus. I would further opine/question as to why under (this could be another proposal) 41.10.01 School impact fee, adding an additional bedroom would be excluded? E(s) new low income units would also be excluded 18A.65 , Why exclude an ADU unit? Families will be living in those, with children. There should be no exclusion, we have to support our schools, they lack funding as is. In addition, lower income qualified over 61 individuals , regarding their reduced property taxes, should still pay towards schools for a lot of reason, no exceptions. Speaking of schools, currently the existing policy/code is that when a park , public open space facility or school is within 1 mile of a housing development, that is large enough to require open space, they are exempted from having to provide open space. These developments should not be exempted with the sole exclusionary factor is a school. Why, because schools can be closed, schools can be physically enlarged, thus reducing the open space available to the public. By removing using schools from the options of open space consideration, Pierce County will be proactive and not reactive and also do not allow for the existing trees to be removed from those open space areas, this will help with the environment and help toward retaining/gaining on the 40 % tree canopy goal .
Breshears 12/3/24 5:19 AM My family and I oppose this proposal. The Pierce County Council needs to stop funding for all their socialist utopian ideas and start listening to their constituents. Yes, even democrats want safe neighborhoods. The disconnect between what the Council proposes and real life problems needing to be addressed is unreal. OPPOSED.
Garry Oak Coalition 12/3/24 3:14 PM Public comment on GMA updates. Christina Manetti, speaking on behalf of the Garry Oak Coalition, an environmental non-profit based in Lakewood. Please make me a party of record. The Critical Areas Ordinance as amended fails to meet GMA requirements in terms of its provisions related to Oregon white oaks (also known as Garry oaks). Of special concern is that Oregon white oaks can lose protections due to subdivision when stands of less than an acre may not be protected and flawed calculation of Oregon white oak woodland due to reliance on human-made delineations such as property lines or roads, rather than the true extent of the natural feature. Also concerning is that the new WDFW Oregon white oak recommendations published in January 2024 are not mentioned and should be added to the lists of reference materials on Best Available Science, as this publication has much clearer guidelines for identification of valuable Oregon white oaks and recommended mitigation should they be cut down. Mitigation, according to WDFW guidelines, which is best available science, should consist of Pierce County code should make it clear that single Garry oaks, especially in urban and urbanizing contexts, should be protected, as they represent a keystone species of our local ecosystem, supporting hundreds of different species. The code is to be commended for its mention elsewhere of the need to remove invasive ivy, but this should be explicitly stated in the code related to Oregon white oaks, as should regulations related to protection of their critical root zones, including a ban on paving over their critical root zones and within their driplines. In general, Pierce County needs to increase its protection of Oregon white oaks to bring its regulations in line with Best Available Science, which in the case of these oaks is WDFW recommendations from 1998 and 2024. Sincerely, Christina Manetti, Ph.D. President, Garry Oak Coalition
Garry Oak Coalition 12/3/24 3:44 PM Public comment on GMA updates. Christina Manetti, speaking on behalf of the Garry Oak Coalition, an environmental non-profit based in Lakewood. Please make me a party of record. I would like to add that the Pierce County code must ensure that there is no net loss of critical areas comprised of Oregon white oak. In order to do this, it must ensure that the critical areas of Oregon white oak are delineated properly, that impacts are avoided, and, if they cannot be avoided, must be truly mitigated according to recommendations from WDFW (see especially Oregon white oak recommendations from January 2024 regarding mitigation). Sincerely, Christina Manetti, Ph.D. President, Garry Oak Coalition
Troy Leiker 2/16/25 8:33 AM The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan does not address the lack of arterial routs in the greater Graham area. We only have from east to west 224th St E, a two-way road that is unable to support the current traffic congestion. In the event of a blockage, the next available route is nearly 50 blocks away. Additionally, industrial parks, currently under construction, will bring more traffic with the movement of freight on 224th. ORDINANCE NO. O2024-559s2, a 714-page plan, prioritizes DEI and reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV), but nothing for timing the lights, or increasing traffic flow capacity. The Pirce County Council complete lack of planning has left us with nothing more than cul-de-sac dead ends and lost time in our daily commutes. I would respectfully request the Pierce County Council to concentrate more on the quality of life for residents and less on DEI and SOV social engineering. Respectfully, Troy Leiker Graham, WA