Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-553s2

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Related to Critical Areas; Adopting Amendments to Pierce County Code Chapter 18.25 "Definitions", and Title 18E, "Development Regulations - Critical Areas" to Update the County's Critical Area Regulations Using Best Available Science Consistent with the Growth Management Act; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Setting an Effective Date.

Effective: February 1, 2025

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Robyn Denson

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
James Halmo 9/27/24 8:23 AM September 27, 2024 Members of the Community Development and Environment Committee Pierce County Council Ref: Proposed Ordinance 02024- 355 (sic) I trust that the Ordinance Title may be changed from that available to the public. I find this Proposed Ordinance almost too long and detailed to be absorbed properly. Thus a few comments now. Exhibit B. 18E.10.050 Applicability, Item G, pp. 3-4. I object to the proposed deletion of the 11 Pierce County Critical Area maps. Maps are visual reminders of the actual written regulations. “Revision” of maps is always the best approach and should be carried out here. The further deletions of ‘Items H-J’ do not seem to be justified. There is no comment about why the deletions are necessary. 18E.10.080 Critical Area Protective Measures, pp. 10-11. Why is the Planning and Public Works staff calling for the deletion of Title Notifications to the County’s Auditor’s Office? 18E.10.140 Appendix A Mapping Sources., pp. 24-27. A number of sources relevant to issues being deleted. Why are not updated similar and relevant references given? 18E.20.050 Reasonable Use Exceptions, Item C. 7 Clearing in Active Landslide Areas, pp.30-31. Remembering the Oso catastrophe in Snohomish County, I do question the possible permission given to serious logging in our active landslide area, as well as lahar zones. How does this mesh with regulatory changes made in Snohomish County as a result of that County’s experience? We have a lahar zone in Graham (our Rural 20 zone). 18E.20.060 Variances, Item D.5, Variance to Landslide Hazard Area, pp. 46-47. My comments above should be considered in reviewing this particular Variance. Table 18E.50.040-A. Aquifer Recharge Area Impervious Surface Limitations, pp. 126-128.The planning staff is recommending that all references to the normal Rural Land Use Classifications be deleted. This is part of the ongoing policy and regulatory review by community commissions and the County’s Planning Commission. So far, all of the Land Use Advisory Commissions with rural areas have voted against the new proposed system. This Committee should delay any formal recommendation to the full Council on the Proposed Ordinance until it has an opportunity to examine, in detail, what is wrong with PPW’s sponsorship of unacceptable major changes. These changes for the rural areas are not mandated by recent State law or even VISION 2050. Sincerely, James L. Halmo 9806 247th Street Ct East Graham, WA 98338 (253) 875-1890 jimh1890@hotmail.com
Ryan Holland 10/2/24 2:12 PM Being i live in a rural community in Pierce County, i am concerned about these changes to the definitions that are within the Pierce County Code. When policies are being changed with development planning and growth management, it brings concern that the Code is being interpreted to reduce protections on land management and conservation. Every change that is presented to the Pierce County Code affects the accountability and transparency of County operations and planning. The additions to language as well as alterations to the Code make it more confusing and less understandable to the public and this I have a concern about. Im also concerned about how the planning development under the comprehensive plan update with these Code changes will affect the safety and structure of the communities of Pierce County. Every input from all the Commissioners on all the boards and commissions related to the Growth management act, can be either relatable or they can be in non-agreement with either each other or the staff that is charged with the presentations and proposals of planning of the comprehensive plan update. I ask that these changes be voted NO on this ordinance. Thank you.
Judi Moody 10/2/24 2:27 PM No, No, and No. Total violation of private property rights without just compensation under the 5th Amendment...This war against landowners has been going on since the 90's....Enough Constitutional violations already. You nearly succeeded in de-laking Lake Tapps by removing all the water...Vote No. It's the only honorable thing to do.
Karen Nickey 10/6/24 7:25 PM As the saying goes, give them an inch and they will take a mile. Therefore I am not in favor of thhis ordinance which permits altering existing certain wetlands. Officials and land developers find loop holes to weasel their way to getting what they want. Thank you for listening.
nancy 10/7/24 1:00 PM We need to focus on ensuring that the few trees we still have are preserved, that we are improving our water sources, and not removing any more forestayion. Especially near what used to be rivers, like swan Creek. When I was a kid, you could swim in swan Creek. Now, you're lucky if you see any water down there. we need to prevent developers from removing trees and native vegetation. There is plenty of land that has already been cleared and is unused. Use that to build. There's no need to remove more habitat when we have plenty of vacant, cleared land not being used and even more that has been developed, and is unused. According to loopnet, pierce county has 96 warehouses sitting empty, waiting to be rented 43 of which are in Tacoma. According to redfin & zillow, there are 3975 (redfin) & 4225 (Zillow) homes for rent in pierce county. That's 4,000+ homes sitting vacant because noone can afford to rent them. We don't need more buildings, We need more trees, water, and protected nature areas.
John Leslie 12/1/24 10:14 AM The existing regulations this ordinance proposes to revise are already onerous and burdensome to private property and have created takings without compensation. This ordinance greatly increases those takings. The right of private property is not granted by Pierce County, it is protected by the US constitution which this ordinance completely ignores. Through this ordinance private property use will be even more determined by unelected bureaucrats rather than the property owner. Section 18E.10.067 is proposed to read “The burden of achieving and demonstrating No Net Loss is on the project proponent” as if to say property rights reside with Pierce County and the owner must prove worthiness in order to exercise any rights. Private property rights have value as admitted within Pierce County code 18G.10 “Transfer of Development Rights” and valuing them: “Pierce County's TDR Bank currently has 67 Development Rights for sale, with an established base price of $14,179 each.” How is it that these defined rights can be arbitrarily confiscated by this ordinance and the property owner not be compensated for the loss? This ordinance is a gross violation of the 5th Amendment of the US constitution and must be rejected.
Erik Schneider 12/2/24 11:50 AM I am a resident of Graham, and I urge the Council to support the Critical Areas Ordinance and to reject any reconsideration of two amendments that were withdrawn on November 12th, 2024. Amendment #5 would weaken protections for wetlands under the Ordinance by exempting certain Category 3 and 4 wetlands from the need to avoid or minimize impacts, while Amendment #9 would weaken protections for riparian buffer areas on Type F streams under the Ordinance. Pierce County's wetlands and streams are some of our most precious resources, yet they have been severely degraded over many decades. In the Muck Creek watershed alone, we have lost half of our wetlands. Wetlands and fish-bearing streams are essential for the health of our communities, and provide necessary habitat for wildlife that have faced significant declines. Numerous species of wildlife simply cannot survive without wetland habitat and healthy streams and buffer areas. The Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance provide a generational opportunity to help reverse the harms of the past and create a more sustainable future for the county. Please reject these amendments and any other amendments that would jeopardize the critical, science-based, and reasonable provisions under this Ordinance.
Breshears 12/3/24 5:12 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.
Emily Anderson 12/3/24 1:55 PM My 1-acre property is 324ft long. I can currently build on half of it with the current wetland buffer of 150ft. If the buffer changes to 300ft I will no longer be obtain a building permit to build on my property. This is a violation of the 5th amendment.
Brandon Kroh 12/3/24 3:05 PM Because I have a farm with a wetland and aquifer on it. It would impact my rights and quality of life.