Council Legislation

Ordinance No. 2013-45s4

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Relating to the Pierce County Shoreline Master Program; Amending Chapter 1.22 of the Pierce County Code (PCC), "Pierce County Hearing Examiner Code"; Title 18 PCC, "Development Regulations - General Provisions"; Title 18A PCC, "Development Regulations - Zoning"; Title 18E PCC, "Development Regulations - Critical Areas"; Title 18H PCC, "Development Regulations - Forest Practices"; Title 18J PCC, "Development Regulations - Design Standards and Guidelines"; Adopting a New Title 18S PCC, "Development Policies and Regulations - Shorelines"; Repealing Title 20 PCC, "Shoreline Management Use Regulations" and the Shoreline Master Program for Pierce County as Originally Adopted on March 4, 1974; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Setting an Effective Date.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Stan Flemming, Derek Young

Final votes

March 10, 2015
Aye Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye

Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Michael Gilbert 3/1/14 3:16 PM As a waterfront land owner in this county I request that you clarify "aquaculture" definition to exclude, those of us who grow oysters on our tidelands for personal consumption. We do this to improve water quality and to enjoy them. As drafted your proposal appears to require permitting just to grow 500 oysters in two grow bags. I suggest you exclude residential tideland owners who grow clams and oyster on their tidelands from the permitting requirements. This make more tideland owners consider small bivalve (e.g. no geoduck tubes) placement on their tidelands which will create net gain in sound water quality. Thank you. Michael Gilbert
Ned Quistorff 3/26/14 8:46 PM As do many of the speakers at the past public meetings discussing the SMP, I also believe that the Council should seek a delay in preparing this proposal, since it is clearly unsatisfactory to so many County residents. Has there been any consideration given to asking the Department of Ecology to participate in public meetings to respond to the concerns of the citizens? If the Ecology Department is uncomfortable with responding directly to the public, perhaps the State Legislature personnel who are pressing for this plan to be completed could come to respond to the public.
Ken Sandell 4/3/14 8:34 AM The current proposal to modify the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is based on one man’s premise that a 1/2°F change in the temperature of water changes the environment for sea life. This is not “the best available science” as purported. This is VERY BAD SCIENCE. We have lived on the waterfront of the east side of Gig Harbor bay for over 20 years. During that time, we have seen the bay freeze over at least twice. From 50°F to 30°F is a 20°F temperature change. Even with this dramatic temperature change, the fish still keep coming back to Donkey Creek to spawn. We have also noticed that the barnacles grow faster and bigger in the summertime when the water is warmed by the sun. The premise of a 1/2°F temperature change overlooks the fact that sea life (including the fish that spawn in Donkey Creek) is very adaptable to its environment, including changes in temperature. That is why fish are able to be transplanted, something the State Fisheries Department does every year. Why is the modif
Bill Trandum 4/4/14 2:27 PM No commercial activities, aquaculture or otherwise should be permitted on property or tidelands designated as Residential. The County would not allow a factory, warehouse, or convenience store to be located adjacent to any other class of residential properties. Virtually all rural Pierce County waterfront homes are residential in nature and should be protected from commercial incursions. To allow commercial aquaculture on property within 100 feet of residential property would constitute a "taking" of property in the sense that such property would be devalued when used for its expressed residential purpose.
Robert Wenman 4/7/14 6:25 AM I support the recommendations of the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound. My Comments below (as a submitted at our Apr 3rd Council Meeting) reflect the interest of most shoreline property owners that we want specific standards to insure that the ecological conditions of our puget sound are not furhter degraded, but enhanced over time. We specifically request that the Council draft an amendment to provide for the minimum following items: This is what we are requesting: That the Plan be Placed On-hold… to: 1. Allow staff sufficient time to revise the Shoreline Policy, Environments, and Development Regulations to include an Aquatic Conservancy, and Aquatic Natural designation to reflect the unique and most fragile aquatic areas. The Conservancy Aquatic designation would provide for sustained use of aquatic resource waters and adjacent other relatively undeveloped shorelines while protecting ecological functions, conserving natural, historic and cultural resources, and providing recreational opportunities.
Doug Thain 4/12/14 5:35 PM I agree with most of the unaddressed concerns expressed by Mr. McCune in an article in the Dispatch.
Ned Quistorff 4/13/14 10:43 PM Concerns with the aquaculture of geoduck clams. Geoduck clams should be differentiated from other shellfish, and thus should be monitored and regulated under a set of rules different from those applying to other shellfish, for the following reasons: Industrial farming of geoduck clams is extremely intense. The present method of growing geoduck clams in farms as seen today is at an intensity level far in excess of how geoduck are found in nature, and substantially in excess of how oysters, manila clams or native little neck clams are raised. For an acre of tidelands to be planted with 30,000 to 40,000 geoduck clams, a tremendous volume of waste product is put into the water by those clams, which hadn’t previously been put there. Current geoduck farming requires the use of two foot lengths of 4 inch plastic pipe sunk into the sand or mud, at a rate of between 30,000 to 40,000 per acre. The pipes are intended as predator protection of the infant clams, but the pipes, and the nets and rubber bands to
Ned Quistorff 4/21/14 10:03 PM Reference: Proposed Committee Amendment No. 8, dated 7 April 2014 Proposed amendment to Exhibit G concerning Aquaculture To the Pierce County Council: We note with alarm the proposal to significantly extend the allowable time to permit discontinued use of nonconforming use rights before they expire, as contained in Proposed Amendment No. 8, item 1, which seeks to change the text at page 8 of 111 pages; line 33, of Exhibit G to Proposed Ordinance No. 2013-45s. We see that the Department of Ecology Handbook on SMP Updates (dated 8 August 2013), provides on page 12 the WAC 173-27-080 rules regarding nonconforming regulations. It states that if a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months or for twelve months of any two-year period, the nonconforming rights shall expire, and any subsequent use shall be conforming. The original SMP draft attempted to extend this period for two years of allowable discontinued use before the nonconforming rights would expire. Proposed Amendment No. 8, it
John Lear 4/28/14 9:18 AM I write to support the amendment that Debby Hyde drafted after we discussed my concerns about future expansion on my existing cabin, identified as Amendment to Exhibit G to Ordinance no.2013-45 and in its essence, under "5. Expansion of Existing Development within Standard Shoreline Buffer," allowing "Expansion of legally existing development within the standard Shoreline buffer is allowed without a Shoreline Variance in the following instances:" I am grateful to Councilman Richardson and Debby Hyde for working with me to clarify this concern. Sincerely, John Lear
John lear 4/28/14 9:31 AM I remain somewhat uneasy about the provision related to residential expansions in critical areas under "18E.20.030 Exemptions," which allows for (2b) "The expansion/reconstruction is no greater than 25%." As I understand it, this provision favors those who already have large residences that already have big environmental impacts by allowing them a much greater margin for expansion in critical areas than those with smaller footprints. I have discussed this with Debby Hyde and understand that it may not apply to my property and that any change could have broader implications, but I want to make sure that the council and technical staff consider both ecological and equity issues. Thank you for
Scott Davis 5/13/14 7:08 PM May 13, 2014 Community Development Committee Rick Talbert, Chair Douglas G.Richardson, Vice Chair Stan Flemming, Member Connie Ladenburg, Member Jim McCune, Member My comments specifically relate to the east side of Gig Harbor Bay but many comments will apply elsewhere as well. This side of Gg Harbor Bay is built out with most lots 60 - 80 feet wide. This is inside the Urban Growth Boundary of Gig Harbor. Many of the homes have been rebuilt and would not be impacted by the proposed regulation. Those that will be impacted may face disproportionate burdens with minimal benefit to the environment or others enjoyment of the shoreline. The following are specific issues. Table 18S.40.140-1 Dock length limits should at least allow extension to a line drawn between the neighbors docks. If the neighbors docks were permitted it shows necessity and very little would be gained by restricting the new dock but it may be a severe restriction to the property if no boats would be able to be moored impacting the own
Jeff Warkentin 6/23/14 10:30 PM I will preface my comments with the fact that I have the understanding that the changes to the Shoreline Management Plan for Pierce County is being mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology however it behooves Pierce County to represent the interest of the affected property owners in this matter so as to not negatively affect their property values and rights. As a property owner on Lake Tapps whose property rights and value are directly affected by this legislation, I would like to make it known that I am not supportive of more restrictive amendments to the current shoreline management plan including, but not limited to, the intent to implement a 50 foot buffer zone on shorefront property which will negatively affect our property rights and value. With any of the potentially affected property, it was purchased without these restrictions and to have these thrust upon the property owners after the fact should be illegal and comes across as nothing short of a form of Eminent domain without financia
Kay & Rick Johnson 7/15/14 3:54 PM HI Stan and/or Mike Kruger: would this be the proper place to comment about the county requiring both a SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT & a SHORELINE VARIANCE PERMIT (approximately $7,000 in permits) to merely put a fully self contained hottub (no building anything or any structural modifications at all) to simply buy a hottub and put it on the deck within the 50 foot setback (for example 44 feet away from the OHWM as the home is at the 50 foot setback. We realie an electrical permit is required. However it seems almost ridiculous to require both permits for 7,000 dollars for a 4,000 self contained hot tub and no construction whatsoever. WE do understand the need for the variance - definitely but the substantial development permit seems overkill when there is no construction. Not sure if the meeting on July 21st is the place or here in comments? Thank you! K
Bill Trandum 9/16/14 2:46 PM I believe the County leadership and staff will bow to the demands of the Taylor and Gibbons families who control all Western Washington Aquacultur and regulatory agencies through massive and constant lobbying. lf you are determined to let them have their way, limit them by limiting every aquaculture to one applicant and one haevest cycle of no more than five years. nAny change in control of any corporate applicant should automatically trigger a new permitting cycle. when Taylor and Seattlesell out to Chinese corporate buyers, the permits issued to the original applicants must be voided and new permits, recognizing new realities and evolving science must be sought, complete with public hearings and with non US citizens and entities blocked from applying,