Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We'll call the August meeting of the Pierce County Planning Commission to order. And before we get started, I just wanted to read a disclaimer. It says that I would like to remind everybody that the Planning Commission is principally an advisory board to the Pierce County Council. Actions taken by the Planning Commission are almost all agenda items that will be forwarded to the County Council as a recommendation for its consideration and final action. With that, Sarah, would you please call the roll?

Great. Thank you, Sarah. With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting. So moved. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll approve the minutes. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. All in favor of improvement in the minutes? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstained? Thank you. Staff updates, Sarah?

But I'll let you carry on with your agenda. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, we'll move on to agenda item five, which is the transportation improvement program and the 14 year ferry program.

I don't think that's working. And it's mainly for the people online that I'm concerned.

If need be, I'm not going to be saying anything. Just welcome to this.

Just would you prefer that we hold questions till the end or do you want us to go through it?

I know it's a big one, so go ahead. Okay. Go ahead.

So, Leticia, I have a question regarding that. Why would you say that relative to the FTEs, which is at a higher level than the total delivered bar chart showing, why are we short? If this is accurate, The way I'm seeing this, and correct me if I'm wrong, we had adequate budget to do more. We had FTE line here that indicates we could have possibly done more. Why is the delivery short by the bar?

And I appreciate the explanation, but I'm still a little confused if that's accurate. What that tells me when I look at this is that we have adequate funding to do more, we're delivering less, and we have a stable workforce that maybe needs to be increased because we have adequate funding to potentially bring on more FTEs, which would probably equate to a higher level of delivery.

And again, I don't want to take a lot of our time here, but this is really important and I think a core issue. If there are going to be recommendations made in relationship to this, might you consider a recommendation of adding additional staff to increase delivery relative to the budget?

So a quick question you made a comment about scheduling with other agencies and and how we interface or need to interface. And I've experienced that through my private sector career, that that seems to be a real challenge in many ways, not necessarily for the county, but just from my outside perspective looking in. How does that work when you're putting your master schedule together, when you're trying to coordinate with other agencies, their funding schedule, their priorities. How do you prioritize so that the taxpayers' money gets spent in the most efficient way so we're not putting in an im

That's part of what the team does. Is there a recommendation that can be made going forward that can improve that? And you don't have to answer it right now, but if there's something that your department could think about as far as a recommendation to try to make it better, try to make it more efficient and more cohesive, especially with the agencies or the departments within Pierce County that we have a little bit more control over.

Right. I got it. So before we go on, I just wanted to commend the work here. I think it's really important to have some kind of a scoring metrics that you guys can work from. And I heard a couple of different comments and I want to ask a couple of clarifying questions. Pierce Transit is not controlled by or owned by Pierce County, correct? And there is a large amount of the Pierce County area, the unincorporated Pierce County area specifically, that has no alternative transit means or methods. So when we talk about things that may be contrary to your concurrency evaluation or some of the activ

One question there. What's your priorities? One of the things I noticed is that the not-motorized investment falls off after 2028. Over the six years, you have $31.4 million, of which nearly 80% is spent for student. I'm just wondering why it drops off.

So what you're saying is that essentially that you can't predict to that time threshold. You remove the grant money from the expectations. That's correct. Place that when debt becomes available.

So that money actually will be hired, and hopefully through grants?

All right. So, Leticia, just another quick question. As it relates to your projection on the budget, my understanding that we are in a budget deficit in the county, that the projections that I've heard been pulled basically by members of the staff was that we are approaching a very challenging time financially. How does that relate to the probability of you maintaining your budget allocations?

On the budget, who pays the dock leases?

The majority of it's fares. It's not broken. Okay. All right. So there is a small income generation, though, it appeared from dock leases.

And do the folks that actually live on the islands, do they pay any kind of a special assessment?

One of the things mentioned was, are you still studying the possibility of electric fairies?

I live in Silicon Valley and I know, for example, still has its own utility, and I've heard it express interest in working with that. That would be something that the county wanted to do.

One of the biggest costs is fuel. And if we could reduce that, for example, that would be a significant benefit.

Well, they're going to have to replace the vessels anyway. So what you replace them with is... So the cost of the vessels is inherent already. It's just, what do we use as a fuel source for the vessel? And if there's a differential in the cost, we can look at that. But towns like Stilicum, who will produce their own electricity, could partner with you on that.

What if you had the charging charge right at the dock when you went in there and you charged every time? You could exchange vehicles with, you know, before that.

And this includes the private sector as well?

But you don't get it from any other source?

That's a very sensitive matter. Will you be adding roundabouts to that calculation at some point?

Is your Street lighting part of the active transportation improvements. Is that a plan?

Just as a consideration, might you consider adding that street lighting as a line item for the presentation?

I know there is. I'm just saying, to me, that looks like it's a complete package then. When you're putting more pedestrians on the street, it just may feel better for someone reading the report.

I see. Was this Were these areas targeted in conjunction with that connectivity concept that you talked about earlier?

Did the Transportation Commission chime in on this at all?

Question. Please. I want to put feedbacks on the record. First, the House Bill 1181 requires this county to adopt a climate. One part reduces greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. Another addresses hazards. made worse by changing climate, sea level, rise, landslide, flooding, heat, and wildfire. We must adopt it and update our transportation element by 2029. So we're not out of compliance today, but I want to be clear about this. But this program spends money through 2032. Projects entering preliminary engineering next year will be under construction after that element exists. S

I guess what I'm saying is that we have the climate vulnerability study. I would have been interested to see it referred to in some of the documentation that we're doing now. That exists already.

When was the climate probability study done?

But you're not done yet. So at this point, we're going to open this up for public comment. And we'll start with anyone in the room. There's anyone here that wants to give public comment, please come forward, state your name and your address and you would have three minutes to speak.

Okay, is there anyone in the room? Seeing none, we'll move to online. Is there anyone online that would wish to speak? And Sarah, if you'd give them the protocol for that.

Okay. With no one online and no one in the room, we're going to close public comment and bring it back to the Commission. And at this point, is there any further discussion or questions? Robert and Kimber, want to make sure you're able to engage here?

Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'd entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the County Council approve the 2027 to 2032 Transportation Improvement Plan and the 2027 to 2040 14-Year Ferry Program.

I'll second. Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

Yeah, and that's a great point. And I do sign those, by the way, or approve them before an electronic signature is applied. So if I'm understanding you're point, it would be to have the letter incorporate some of the recommendations made by the Planning Commission for consideration of the Council. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And I have just a point of clarification on your motion. And I believe you were saying that you want the letter to read that you want the Council to approve this. Right. And I wonder if that's appropriate, or should we just say that we approve this for the council to review

Okay. All right. So it's a do pass kind of thing. Okay. So that was right. Yeah.

Okay. At this point, Sarah, would you call the roll for a vote, please?

With, excuse me. Yes. With our noted comments.

Thank you very much, and thanks to your whole department.

Yeah, and this time I'd like to request a 10-minute recess.

All right, we're going to reconvene and get started with our next agenda item, which is a unified sewer plan update and we'll turn it over to staff. Thank you.

Do you want us to ask questions as we get to sections or hold our questions to the end? mind if you want to do it that way well thank you for recognizing that limitation um on the general sewer plan uh regulatory requirements we've had presentations here about areas that are proposed for higher densities uh specifically along the pacific avenue corridor the meridian corridor And those are in areas where there may be sewer that exists, but I'm not sure the size of the lines they're in together with gaps in sewer opportunities, for instance, along the Meridian corridor, where there's a substanti

So, excuse me, regarding some of the other jurisdictions that may have their own sewage treatment systems and so forth, do you ever foresee a time when we could incorporate and work collectively for collection of and processing of sewage coming from a county element into an incorporated area? I'm thinking specifically, let's say Sumner or something of that nature. Is there any consideration for collaboration to where we would have better use of funding, stretch the dollar of the taxpayer, if you will?

Even Orting, for instance, Orting has it, and they've had their challenges, but I'm just saying some of these plants are, I'm sure, extraordinarily expensive to build, rather than just to expand and connect to if there's ability to collaborate in cross jurisdiction?

Yes, this plan guides us to 2050 and carries an environmental impact statement meant to be relied on to 25 years. Are we sizing the system for rainfall and tide levels we have had or for ones we are expecting?

So I didn't, um, that's a real serious interest, uh, on my part as well, um, for all departments, not just yours and for all projects. I didn't see that notation identified anywhere. Is there, uh, is there a consideration of, of incorporating that, that that would be, um, a goal or not a requirement, but something just so that it's in it's part of the proposal. Um,

If it was just maybe a goal, maybe just unawareness, you know, if a statement like that could be added that in an effort to maximize the expenditures, minimize the impact that... I think we do have that in our... Work hard to... coordinate not just with internal departments, but with other jurisdictions and municipalities.

It just creates good optics and it's nice to have it someday when we're not all here. If it's still written in there, people will know what the idea was.

Kimber, did you have anything you wanted to ask before I go to public comment? Yeah, she dropped out. Okay. So that would be a no. And with that, we're going to open it up for public comment here in the room first. Is there anyone in the room that would like to make a comment? on this agenda item. Okay, seeing none, we're going to go online.

Okay, seeing no one online or in the room, we're going to close public comment at this time, bring it back to the commission. And are there any further questions or comments?

Okay, thank you for that any other comments. Okay, seeing none I entertain a motion on this agenda item.

For approval. There's been a motion and a second any discussion. Okay, seeing none Sarah would you call the roll for the work.

Thank you Steve appreciate the presentation. Thank you. So with that we're going to move on to agenda item 7 multiple unit housing incentive areas regulations.

Could you, excuse me, Ben, could you please give us the north and south boundaries for where we're at? Yes. So for that, do you mean for the map as a whole?

Yeah. It'd be south of 176. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

I have a question about that. Are part of plan already mapped to counties most peak vulnerable, low canopy neighborhoods, Parkland, Spanaway, Midland? No. Are any of the incentive areas

Well, our parks plan mapped the county's most heat vulnerable areas. Are any of these areas overlap?

No canopy or shading standards? Are we not setting any standards?

And since the county doesn't directly control Pierce Transit, what kind of confirmation do you have that these kind of expansions are going to happen? And what's the timeline relative to this change?

Yeah, again, if you could give us the North and South, I can't read those, and I just think it's good for everybody to know the boundaries. Absolutely. If there's anyone online that can't read what's there.

Which is the city line? I believe so. Very close, if not the city line.

Yeah, and before you go there, I just want to make sure we're clearly understanding how these three columns line up and the purpose of them. Yeah, so Council made the initial proposal. Staff recommendations may or may not directly correspond with that. It may actually be in conflict with that in some of these And then there's reasoning for the change. So as we evaluate this, which column are we evaluating as it relates to what potentially could be submitted? Is it staff recommendations or is it council proposal?

Got it. And Ben, a question about that. Was there any consultation gained from the private sector as to the functionality of this kind of a requirement?

And my concern on this is, I think we voiced this earlier, but that there be some kind of an incentive base to this. as opposed to just more regulatory issues. I've seen other jurisdictions do this where the standard of construction was to be such that it would allow for commercial use when the demand came, but the flexibility of having that occupied for residential use eliminated the possibility of an entire vacant level that has to be subsidized by the rent attained by the levels above it to make any kind of economic sense of the development, which in fact could prohibit the development from

And just a source for you, you might want to check Sumner's code for their Main Street corridor and some of their multifamily development there.

Could we go back to the parking place? Sure. Because I'm not understanding the verbiage. Sure. So council proposal removes parking reduction and increased siting flexibility for mixed use development. So was the council proposing that the parking requirement actually be increased?

It does, but I want to take it one step further, please, where staff recommendation says retain current coding for mixed use development. So in doing that, I haven't gone back and read the codes, but can these higher density multifamily applications developments be built with little or no parking requirements? I guess that's my question.

So is a developer required to have more parking or less parking under staff's recommendation? Less. But they're not capped. They can have more parking if they choose. They're not limited.

And we're going to have public comment as well. So is there any questions at this point from any of the Commission? I'll retain my questions until after. Okay. Robert, is there anything specific you want to ask right now? Or do you wait until after public comment?

And last question I have before we go to public comment. In your prior presentation, I brought up the issue of communication with Central Pierce Fire and the facilities they may be able to provide if we're going to be talking to 6 or 7 story building has there been any communication with them together with the water purveyors that are so fractured throughout Eastern Pierce County and also with the existing utilities for sewer primarily sanitary sewer not so much along the Pacific Avenue corridor as the notable break in service along the meridian corridor between about 128th and 144th. Have you

In terms of, let's see, I think I'm missing, what was the? The other was the sanitary sewer and a notable gap on Meridian.

I'd just like to note that these are huge expense items and coordination of the various water jurisdictions together with this extension of sanitary sewer to put that on the private sector and still try to gain affordable housing is a concern and in my opinion reduces probability and my My optimistic goal and vision is that something like this come together. My concern is that we've missed pieces of the puzzle to make it probable because the private sector can only bear so much. And then it ultimately gets passed on to the consumer in this case. people looking hopefully for affordable housing

Well that you're going to say something you had a very very important look on your face, OK is there any other comments at this point. I don't see anyone in the room, but I'm going to make a call out for anyone in the room for public comment. They seem that we're going to go online is there anyone online that would like to make public comment. Please state your name your address and you'd have 3 minutes.

Okay, seeing none we're going to close public comment bring it back to the commission are there any final comments or questions. I think that okay go ahead.

Thank you. I'd just like to make another comment specifically about Parkland. With the exception of this new multifamily higher density potential development, that area is relatively built out. So the open ditches that you're referencing for stormwater and things of that nature, there's not going to be an abundant amount of new construction where impact fees could be passed on to the private sector. So these improvements are going to fall on the back of the county. from a budgetary standpoint, whether it come from internal funding or grants or whatever. I mean, that's your world. But I could j

Okay with that I would entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion that we recommend to the County Council to approve the multi-unit housing incentive area regulations.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion to second. Any discussion?

Do you want to speak to the motion? Do you have anything specific as far as an endorsement?

So what if we did an amendment to the proposal that said something to the effect that we are proposing a recommendation of approval of the multi-unit housing incentive with the following consideration of these recommendations, of these issues. Yeah, I would support that. And then make those issues be clearly identified, Sarah, that would be What would what was the terminology use for sidewalks at a non motorized access non motorized access and connectivity. Sanitary sewer extensions. So do you want those individually should make an amendment to the current machine with findings of yeah, so do

Well, you're going to make an amendment to amend that.

The approval of the multi-unit housing incentive areas with the following considerations. How's that? Is that okay? Do you guys like that?

And I'll second that. I will call the vote on the hour voting on the amend the amendment.

So now. Sure. Go ahead, sir. Sure. Yeah, I just want to, we, we voted on the amendment. Now we have to vote on the, um, the motion as amended. Okay. And I'll just take a quick minute. So now, um, we're voting. I'd like, we're going to call a vote for the motion as amended.

And I'd like to take a five-minute recess, please.

Seconded. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Passes unanimously. We will continue. Thank you. So with this, we're going to move on to our next agenda item eight, which is essential light rail transit facilities.

So Tanner, I have a question for you. Do you prefer we hold our questions to the end or can we ask as we go along? Please, go ahead. Are we putting ourselves in a box potentially by saying that the use is allowed just in the MUD, SR, and RR. And I'm trying to think down the road a long ways. You know, if this actually gets expanded into other areas where it is basically a public benefit and meets some of the new transit requirements and goals and aspirations everybody has. Is there a way that we could say that this is allowed in all zones? So that we're not limited. As we get zoning changes, a

So. Would that be something to consider and take a look at. as far as eliminating a future step, potentially, if 10 years, 20 years from now, somebody was looking at this and said, we we would need a spur to go here or there. You know, I'm envisioning some of these higher density areas that we just talked about in our previous session. Why wouldn't we talk about giving the greatest latitude to the potential future infrastructure today rather than limit it?

Would it inhibit the probability of this moving forward in the short term?

Okay, we'll come back to him. At this point, we'll open it up for public comment. We don't need public comment because there's no action. Okay. Thank you very much, Tanner. Appreciate the presentation.

Okay. So now we're on to item nine, other business. I can see some of the folks are packing a ton of other business. Robert, if you're online, We'll ask if you have any comments. We see nothing there.

So at this point, then I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? You guys, thanks for a great long day. We're adjourned.