Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-570s

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Related to the Pierce County Shoreline Master Program; Amending Title 18S of the Pierce County Code, "Development Policies and Regulations - Shorelines," to Update the County's Critical Areas Protections Specific to Shoreline Jurisdiction; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Setting an Effective Date.

Effective: November 4, 2025

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Robyn Denson

Final votes

December 10, 2024
Excused Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Pete Weymiller 11/24/24 11:10 AM Pierce County Council 930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1046 Tacoma, WA 98402 Dear Members of the Pierce County Council, I am writing to strongly urge you to reject Amendment 12, which proposes allowing bonus density housing in Pierce County. While the intent of providing more affordable housing is commendable, this amendment comes with serious environmental risks that could undermine the long-term sustainability and health of our communities. As an advocate for the environment, I believe that we must prioritize sound environmental stewardship alongside housing needs to ensure a healthy future for all residents. Allowing bonus density housing in areas without fully considering the cumulative environmental impact would be detrimental to Pierce County’s ecosystems. A wealth of recent scientific studies underscores the importance of preserving our natural landscapes, wetlands, and critical habitats. These areas are vital for maintaining biodiversity, regulating water cycles, and reducing the risks associated with flooding and climate change. Many of these functions would be jeopardized by unchecked development in sensitive areas. For example, a 2020 study published by the Washington Department of Ecology emphasizes the importance of wetlands and riparian zones in mitigating flood risks, particularly in areas like the Puyallup River Basin. Increasing impervious surfaces in these zones could exacerbate flooding, reduce water quality, and threaten local species that rely on these ecosystems for survival. Additionally, researchers have shown that development in critical habitats for salmon, such as those near the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers, can significantly disrupt local fish populations, which are already at risk from climate change and human activity (Science of the Total Environment, 2020). Bonus density housing in such areas also poses a significant challenge to our efforts to mitigate climate change. Studies from the University of Washington (2021) show that sprawl development leads to increased carbon emissions through higher car dependency, contributing to air pollution and exacerbating climate change. The expansion of urban areas without sufficient infrastructure and planning for green spaces exacerbates heat island effects, which can disproportionately affect low-income communities and people of color. It is essential that we base our decisions on the best available science, as outlined in the Washington State Growth Management Act. Research from 2022 conducted by the Puget Sound Partnership underscores that zoning decisions must prioritize ecological functions in order to build resilient communities. Informed decisions about development must include a rigorous analysis of environmental carrying capacity, taking into account future climate projections, flood risks, and habitat preservation. I also urge you to consider the economic implications of environmentally irresponsible development. Once critical environmental resources are lost, they cannot be easily restored. Investing in green infrastructure and focusing on sustainable, high-density housing development near existing urban centers is a far more prudent long-term strategy. Several studies in recent years, including a 2023 report from Seattle-based Futurewise, show that promoting smart growth in urban areas where infrastructure already exists offers a cost-effective alternative to sprawling development. Rejecting Amendment 12 is not only a choice to protect our environment but also a choice to safeguard the long-term health, resilience, and well-being of Pierce County's residents. By prioritizing sustainable housing policies that align with the latest environmental research, we can build a more equitable, livable future for all. I respectfully ask you to consider these points and vote against Amendment 12. I believe that, together, we can find a balance between housing needs and environmental protection that will ensure a sustainable future for Pierce County. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, [Pete Weymiller] [Pierce County Resident]
John Leslie 12/10/24 9:13 AM Once again, this council comes to take personal property from the citizens of Pierce County with this ordinance. The removal of Type III and IV wetland exemptions as just one example. This legislation is a good example of the disconnect between county governance and the people. As a retiree I have the luxury of dedicating time to reading through the myriad of implications that both the Ordinance and the associated RCW and WAC laws have on citizens. Fully understanding all the impacts remains elusive. How much less the average citizen that cannot commit hours of research to understand just this one piece of legislation in a continuous wave of laws being poured out from this council. On the subject of public engagement, the touting of a “robust” public engagement is a sham. The most simple public engagement would be to send notification to all property owners impacted. Not only has that not been done with those that are known, but also by the admission of Pierce County and also the state, the breadth of those impacted is not fully known. How can legislation be put into law without knowing exactly who will be impacted, how, and to what degree? The lack of comment and public response is a clear example of this disconnect as this legislation reaches far inland beyond just shorelines to include Lake Tapps, Alder and American lakes as well as the Puyallup, Nisqually and White rivers. Do you think property owners affected have no concerns? They simply have no clue what is about to happen to them. As to the legislation itself, my objections remain the same as those offered on Ordinance 2024-553s2 which being passed represents a huge taking of private property without compensation. A clear violation of the US constitutions 5th Amendments takings clause. It is my hope that as the millions of dollars in property rights that are being stripped away are felt that public outrage will foment into class action lawsuits to reign in these unjust takings.
Ryan Holland 12/10/24 3:31 PM Please vote NO on this ordinance. It is an encroachment on property rights and zoning under the comprehensive plan update. It's more policy to ensure easier transition to local government.