Council Legislation

Proposed Resolution No. R2024-158s

Title: A Resolution of the Pierce County Council Approving Certain Council-Initiated Amendment Requests and Other Land Use and Policy Considerations as Part of a Preferred Alternative for the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update; and Providing Direction to the Department of Planning and Public Works.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Robyn Denson

Final votes

May 21, 2024
Aye Nay Aye Aye Excused Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Gary Bissonette 4/23/24 11:20 AM Dear Pierce County Council and Executive Dammeier, By way of introduction my name is Gary Bissonette and my family owns over 1000 contiguous acres in the Gig Harbor area. It is probably one of the largest, if not the largest undeveloped prime landholding in the Pacific Northwest. We have owned this property since 1998. For the preceding 26 years we have opened it up to our neighbors to enjoy the bountiful nature found on the property. Notwithstanding, we have given much thought to the development potential of the piece since the day we closed escrow. We are generational real estate owners. We are not in a hurry as indicated by our last 26 years of ownership. Nevertheless, we are businesspeople. We have been in the real estate business for over 100 years. Currently our holdings include 10,000 acres of development land in various states of which this 1000-acre piece is a part. We own over 8000 multi residential units, several large industrial properties, office etc. We own other businesses not related to real estate. Five generations of our family have been involved in this accumulation. Three generations are still involved in running our day-to-day operations. It is how we feed our families. Of note, we have no outside partners or investors. We own it all and make every decision based on long term responsible business judgment. Our patience in NOT developing this piece in Gig Harbor is a testament to our long-term thinking. We still don’t think it is the right time for our interests and those of the community. However, we do not want to be punished by a down-zoning for being patient and thoughtful. You might think that we are real estate rich and cash poor and the motive for not developing the property is that we can’t afford to do it. You would be wrong in that assumption. Dead wrong. We have the liquidity to do anything our board approves. We can fully fund a complete development of the Gig Harbor piece tomorrow without the necessity of ANY outside capital, lenders, or partners. I will be happy to provide you with our bankers’ contact information so you can verify what I am telling you. For the past 26 years we have paid our taxes and maintenance costs while leaving the land pristine, only conducting those forest practices that were vital to the health of the forest whether that be cutting salal or cedar boughs or thinning. We have kept the forest and the forest floor healthy and flourishing. We have been the best of neighbors allowing people to hike and birdwatch. We encourage meditation and communing with nature, only asking for the property to be left as found so others may enjoy it. At times, this open policy has been a source of problems over the years as vandalism, encroachment and theft have at times made securing the property the better choice. However, we have believed and continue to believe that the benefit to many trumps the actions of the few. Our dream for this property is and always has been something like a Canterwood, with or without a golf course. We envision very high-end homes and retirement housing set in a beautiful, wooded setting along with some neighborhood retail to serve the residents of the surrounding area. But, as I said, we are not quite ready to make solid plans. It may take a few years or another generation. Our reality always remains a mix of business and aesthetics. We are very conscious of green space, trees, natural beauty, nature etc. Our apartment portfolio is geared to garden apartment living rather than high rise density. Other businesses we own are built on very durable product design. Beauty and especially natural beauty looms large in our decision making in everything we touch. As to our Gig Harbor piece, we don’t want to be forced by the Council to engage our local counsel and reconsider our short- and long-term plans. If the proposal passes to remove bonus density, that will initiate a drastic change in our plans and attitude for our 1000 acres. Our Canterwood dream would be over. We would probably log the asset and sell the land to developers to recoup our lost profits. The property would have restricted access to the neighboring community for obvious safety reasons and 1000 acres of nature would be destroyed in a heartbeat. Clearly, we do not want to see that happen and hopefully you also don’t want that result. We have seen generational potential for this land for the past 26 years. Please don’t take that away and deprive us of our property rights and the Gig Harbor community of a future development that literally can be the crown jewel of the Pacific Northwest. This piece is not 10 acres or 50 or 300. This is 1000 acres and at that size, things can happen in a way that allows for great thinking and planning. Please take that into consideration as you are making your decisions. Most Respectfully, G W Bissonette Operations Executive Gaines Investment Trust
Ryan Holland 4/24/24 12:37 PM The listed planning of this statuted requirement under RCW 36.70A.130 is well written yet has plenty of language in it that identifies areas that will cause harm and disruption to the quality of life for those living in Pierce County. I see 45 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions meaning clearing a good area of vegetation to build more development causing a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions which trees emit oxygen. Next, risk of climate change and wildfires, trees create shade and absorb ground moisture to thrive creating a protection from being consumed by heat and fire. clean up fallen branches and loose debris in natural lands if you want to prevent forest fires, like they do in Europe. Next, Transportation and land use approaches, sounds like more transit, more affordable housing and less motor vehicles, yet more EVs. EVs are more of a risk of community danger with the lithium batteries, and they are poorly designed for efficiency. Next, affordable housing and accessory dwelling units. This is where equity is a dangerous word. All tenants are responsible for cost increases which is a global policy and does not give individuals the freedom to mitigate on affordability. Next, are the stakeholders the residents of Pierce County or those who submitted the proposals for the Comprehensive Planning? Next, I like to know is how is it that the Department of Commerce became involved in the Comprehensive Plan. Commerce is the profession of imports, exports and trades, not growth management. Transfer of development rights is concerning. The language written on this transfer sounds like ensuring the county will be the caretakers of property under proclamation of request of the original titleholder, yet it is not ensured giving rights to the county to do as they see fit. Example of this is The Ryan House in Sumner. It's owned by the Historical society which is government funded and the society is unable to plan a budget to preserve it, so it's gonna be torn down to build a park. Next, access to high-speed internet meaning more 5G coverage areas. The radiation emitted by network towers creates disruption to wildlife and also emits radiation that interferes with electro neurons in the central nervous system of people. This could potentially impact health issues for those living in Pierce County. Next is regulation of critical areas. I'm seeing more regulations and follow ups to ensure regulations are being enforced, that's showing that the County does not put trust in the people or their decisions. Next is reclaimed water to reduce environmental impacts. What are the environmental impacts? I drank water from a garden hose as a kid and I turned out just fine. Next I see is capacity designations for roadways and expansion. Are the designations trails and bicycle paths for interurban travel? Last thing to cover is more transit. More transit means need for more money. This is what you would call a process, not progress. Process means to improve and to improve means to find the next best thing. All the language for this Comprehensive Plan policy, over a period of time is gonna create problems, not solutions or improvements. I'm asking the County to NOT continue on with this Comprehensive Plan. Its gonna make things harder for citizens in many areas of society. Please vote NO on this resolution. Thank you for your time.
Jeneen Breshears 4/28/24 2:43 PM The Breshears family oppose this plan. Think back to the days you were publishing your political bios and said things like "I'm going to fight for my constituents" and "I'll work for the people". Now do that.
John Leslie 4/28/24 9:54 PM My objection to R2024-158 is the underlying premise of private property. The central planning model has always produced a taking and never with just compensation. Land use by definition is a control of someone’s land. Uses are limited to what is allowed by others. This in itself is a taking for public use and without just compensation. A violation of the US constitution and a moral corruption. Much of the proposals are aimed at accommodating people who do not currently reside in Pierce County. Asking current residents to make sacrifices for people who do not even live here is not equitable.
John Leslie 4/28/24 9:57 PM Transit *** I object to the proliferation and prioritization of transit and “active transportation” at the detriment for auto transportation. By the proposals own language, congestion will get worse with Options 2 and 3. I note that even those who have commented on this aspect in other areas are supporting these options in the misguided hope that congestion will be reduced. . Congestion literally robs life from Pierce County citizens. Time spent sitting in gridlocked traffic can never be redeemed or redressed. Those hours of life are gone forever. The planned robbery of peoples lives and quality of life should not be overlooked. These propositions also have a very hazardous component. The 80,000 predicted new residents will not be riding bicycles or riding the bus. The lack of road capacity that already exists, exacerbated by more cars will force traffic even more into residential areas threatening the safety of everyone. . Transit also drastically limits opportunity. 100% of jobs and opportunity is available to auto. Jobs and opportunity is a very small fraction of that to transit. Freedom of movement is also highly restricted by transit compared to 100% freedom by auto. . Lack of road capacity as a result of these options also impact freight mobility and increase costs to business which is always ultimately borne by consumers. The most impacted is always low income. . I am very curious how many on this council and all the others who are contributing to the ultimate decisions on transit actually walk, bike or take a bus. Do you? . Please do not do this to us. Reject Committee Amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19
John Leslie 4/28/24 9:58 PM Housing *** The underlying principal that government should be the provider of housing is flawed. Government funded, dictated or controlled housing has historically been a complete failure. The more that government gets involved in housing decisions, innovation, value, variety and freedoms are always sacrificed. Costs are already inflated by government regulation and compound the issue of affordability. More heavy hand of government in the proposed Options 2 and 3 move us farther from competitive free markets to expensive wasteful central planned housing. . . The American dream is for that house with the white picket fence (estate living) not communal living (apartments and high density). Human nature will always strive for the former, not the latter.
Kathryn Sheldon 4/29/24 8:05 AM we can talk about conserving trees, but unless the county takes a different route with homeowners to retain trees, this is for naught. Currently policy allows for the removal of trees at will. In my older neighborhood, where trees were cleared just enought to make room for the residence, since 2006 I would conservatively estimate that we've had a loss of 50% plus of the tree canopy. This is naturally regenerated second growth. WE also need to include a new category/definition for trees, which recognizes the significance of naturally regenerated second growth trees, they are our "new" old growth forest and needs preserving
Judi Moody 4/29/24 9:26 AM Vehemently oppose this draconian measure to rob our citizens of their freedoms...Please oppose and bury this disaster once and for all. Violates our Constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment, for starters.
Martha Reynolds Derr 4/29/24 10:57 AM My AIRBNB is in the home I live in. It provides my husband and me with extra income so that we can continue to live in our home. We are already being taxed significantly in property taxes.
Joshua Hosford 4/29/24 11:55 AM April 29th, 2024 Community Development and Environment Committee My name is Joshua Hosford I live at 28812 Hinkleman Road in Buckley WA Ive lived in western wa for 46 years I have a Century 21 real estate license and own a development company called Hosford Construction which has provided 175 lots to builders of 1st time homebuyers in the past 24 months and have over 500 housing units in the pipeline in Pierce County. I am also the President of the Pierce County chapter of Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights. In addition to spending over 25 years in the real estate world Ive also spent 10 of those years in clean tech as a part owner of a company called World CNG that replaced thousands of medium duty diesel trucks and high mileage gasoline transportation vehicles all over the USA with cleaner natural gas technology. I mention this because because I need to point out some emissions statistics I learned along the way to this committee that seems to be lost …… Oh and just to be clear all of our customers converted because it saved them money on fuel costs not because it was easier or reduced emissions. China’s GHG emissions accounts for all of the world’s other countries combined. WA state accounts for 1.4% of the United State’s GHG emissions. Pierce County a fraction of that with Tacoma being the largest source. We have never decreased GHG emissions up to 2019 and the state is withholding the last 4 years I wonder why?? Could it be that no one would willing pay for something that’s supposed to reduce emissions that’s isn’t ? With that said the leadership of this council wants to skyrocket the cost of rent and home values all in the attempt to solve the worlds potential climate change crisis who even Elon Musk one of the biggest environment leaders says is less than a 1% possibility we melt down. Nothing we do in Pierce County will make a difference to global or even the United States GHG emissions so why should this be the focus of our comprehensive plan? It shouldn’t. Having this as the goal of our comprehensive plan is deeply misguided and shows a lack of understanding of simple supply / demand economics and also demonstrates how much influence the environmental special interests have over our council leadership. When this comprehensive plan process started 2 years ago the housing crisis was a clear and present danger. Many families were at risk of eviction, foreclosure or being stuck in a perpetual state of renting never seeing a path to homeownership. Homeownership is the main way to building wealth and retirement for the average person. When the EIS was made public January 10th quickly it became clear that environmental groups such as future wise and Seattle based consultants hired by the planning staff had made this about the environment and transit NOT increasing the housing supply and reducing red tape. The environmental, transit, and tribal special interest groups sat in a room with this councils leadership and said lets ignore the immediate housing crisis that is affecting everyday residents of Pierce County and instead take this opportunity to create a plan in an attempt to reduce our counties GHG emissions something that has never been done before. Even with this flawed strategy at the forefront of the comp plan VMTs are barely reduced under the extreme option 3 and setting a goal of preserving 150,000 acres most of which is private property would cost the residents of Pierce County $4.5B at $30,000 per acre which is what King County pays for 2nd growth timber acreage as of today. What’s even more ridiculous is that when staff was asked in February by a member of the planning commission if Pierce Transit was on board with this massive expansion and reliance on transit to support significantly higher densities in urban areas their answer was: Pierce Transit is a separate agency and we cannot dictate what they do. A follow up question was well did you attempt to coordinate ? Staffs answer was yes we had a few meetings A month later Pierce Transit gave their official answer to the plan worked on for nearly 2 years at a cost to taxpayers of over $1 million dollars. Im paraphrasing but suffice to say they cannot now or in the future support Option 3s massive increase in urban density based on transit without a major tax. Option 3 wasn’t even an option at all. It was an unfunded pipe dream sold to the public as something that could be done at no cost to the tax payers. What this committee has before you is a comprehensive plan written by the environmental ,transit and tribal lobby whose sole goal is to improve our air quality from already being the best in the country to bestest while driving up the cost of rents and home values and laying the ground work to double or even triple the existing .6 transit tax to support a minority of people who actually use transit in a world now where working from home is more common then ever and plans to be that way as AI and other technology become even more widespread. If those of us who actually build and develop housing were asked to write this plan or contribute in a meaningful way we could have made this very simple. Update environmental code to the state law minimum requirements. Leave the UGA boundaries as they are while removing barriers to build such as SEPA in urban zones and just increase densities across all zones to meet the housing targets and get out of the way and let those of us who know how to do this run our companies and build housing. Lastly the planning and ag commissions who are supposed to be the people’s expert representatives who have real world experience have provided this committee with detailed recommendations and many have been ignored. This is a slap in the face to all the hard working volunteers who give their time to participate in the process without compensation. These recommendations were made after hearing from many residents of pierce county who attended public hearings and submitted written statements. Why even have these commissions if they are ignored ? Im told over 60% of submitted comments supported option 3 however I propose a new poll. Resend to all those in favor the letter from Pierce Transit and say OOPS were sorry we should have asked first. Option 3 isn’t even a viable option but could be if everyone agrees to a annual ST3 type of transit tax at a cost of $500 to $1000 per year or tripling the existing transit sales tax rate. What would the poll say then ? I doubt you would receive resounding support. I ask this committee to not restrict any supply of potential housing, remove regulatory barriers and watch the market work.
cindy byers 4/29/24 3:54 PM completely oppose the country trying to take away rights of property owners in Pierce county! Respectfully leave our land alone!
Debby Herbert 5/5/24 11:29 AM Dear Council Members, Many STR's owners bought at higher price points where the rents won't cover their costs at the long-term rental rate and will be forced to sell. When they do, they will most likely be sold at much higher costs due to higher values and interest rates. So this Resolution will do nothing to help the supply of rentals and certainly not affordable ones. It also will eliminate many dollars brought into the area by travelers who spend on eating out, shopping, events, etc. And how is this resolution fair to the average small-time operator of a STR that is counting on this income to live on or help fund their retirement? Regarding limiting STRs in rural areas where will visitors stay as there are no hotels in most rural areas? STRs are a necessity throughout the County fulfilling an important need that hotels can't or won't do. Please consider all the consequences of this policy and vote no on this resolution. Respectfully, Debby Herbert
Michael Jane White 5/6/24 11:42 AM Congratulations! This is getting more and more like the Gaza Strip daily with the area between Mtn. Hey and Meridian becoming less like Pierce County and more like a refugee camp. Manufacturing in the essentially industries such as steel and chips not simply warehousing( of humans and their subsidiary trappings), no fishing or hunting or farming any more. Bill Gates and George Soros will run your voices. Lots of luck running equal voices. That is your challenge.
Michaelina Tenney 5/7/24 3:24 PM To council members of proposed resolution No. R2024-158 (STR restrictions) I am hoping. we the people, will have a voice on such restrictions that affect our livelihood. Please consider the population that these restrictions will affect. Single senior men and women (including myself) and many more who use STR avenues to supplement their income. These will be the community members most affected by these restrictions. We are not large corporations who buy houses and caucus to control rents for profits, we are not owners of second properties deciding on STR, rather than dealing with squatter rights, we are not multiple income families with partners who can support us. We are hardworking community members who are trying to survive. To survive is becoming much more difficult than many realize. My STR provides me enough to pay my property tax and house insurance, without it, me and my constituents (all legacy property owners or founder owners) will be in financial despair. What about retirees who are supplementing their meager retirement income? I (along with many legacy property owners) will never offer long-term renting. So, I am not seeing how restricting STRs will increase affordable long-term housing? Another concern is how far will this go? Will restrictions be placed on me when my extended family of 4 comes to stay the summer with me at the lake house? Will I have to say “no” because my septic is rated a 2 bedroom (4 person)? I have been doing Airbnb for 3 years now and am able to stay in and own my house because of the STR supplement. How will these “limited” licenses work? What if I am not selected or able to get a license, or able to afford the 900-1000 dollars for such a license? Do I just lose my home after 26 years? Without the STR supplement for property tax and house insurance, that is a real financial threat to me. I work as a teacher, under paid and over worked. I am 58 yrs. old, close to unemployable. Please realize that STRs is a benefit to the Key Peninsula. There are no hotels/motels on the KP and my less expensive STR brings money to the county with purchases of gas, restaurants, local wineries/pubs, movies, local attractions, food markets and more. Airbnb insures all STRs with a million-dollar policy which also covers neighbor damages, which I, nor my constituents, have ever used. The guests that stay in these STRs are Not just guests trying to afford a quiet get-away from life for just a few days, but also traveling nurses, victims of floods or fire and those who are between homes. Many of the guests who stay at my house can not afford the hotel prices for just a room. If STRs are restricted, where will these people go? Currently there are over 371,000 housing units in Pierce county. There are only 1,670 short term rental units. That’s .4% (point four) of the housing supply dedicated to short term rentals. Seems like waste of time and resources for less than 1%? Septic systems are already regulated by the health department and in most cases are getting less use when occupied by short term rentals. In addition, many of the KP short-term rentals are only offered for a portion of the year (spring, summer), certainly not a strain on any septic system, hence the word, short term. Most units are not rented at capacity. So, they are getting less use than if they were occupied by full-time tenants or owners. Is the county going to ensure that septic systems for long term housing units are within septic rated occupancy? These STR restrictions will be hurting many elderly people in the county, currently 12% (aged 50-59) and 22% (over 60) (piercecounty.gov). Let’s not hurt that age group who has worked their whole life for a decent retirement. Vote No. Thank you.
Laura McCarthy 5/8/24 12:32 PM Strongly oppose CPA7- Short Term Rentals! It is not sound research and why is Anderson Island-Ketron, Key Peninsula and Gig Harbor being targeted out of the county? The negative impact on passing this as is, is dire! Changing Anderson Island HOA regulations based on this policy going to effect would take years and potentially would wipe out 90% of the under 36 active STR on the island. Stop. Do not pass this wreckless and unfair amendment.
Jesse Routley 5/8/24 3:18 PM The Routley Family strongly opposes this plan specifically CPA 7. Limiting development on any land seems counter intuitive in resolving the current housing crisis in Washington State. How are we ever going to make houses more affordable if government continues to restrict development? New Storm Water Manual in conjunction with Washington State Energy Code adoption has done enough to cripple the future residential building industry. Limiting current land owners on future developments of their own property doesn't seem like its a answer for anything.
Kieth mccammant 5/10/24 4:46 AM This proposal is far to broad and vague to be voted on. All of these items are very complicated and need individual consideration not linked together in one document. Specifically the STR regulations are in no way fleshed out or described. There are also already STR regulations and any changes to regulations should be done within those regulations no in the comprehensive plan.
Bob Sheehan 5/10/24 7:43 AM Do not limit rental times to a minimum of 30 days as stipulated in proposal.
Shannon N Carver 5/10/24 10:04 AM Commenting in support of short-term rentals with proper operation. STR's are a VALUE to the community and retail core.
Sampson Fletcher 5/10/24 5:29 PM Restricting landowner ability to build additional housing, while antithetical to the spirit of landownership rights, allows the community at large to take a thoughtful approach to development in the region by both slowing the encroachment of urban sprawl amd allowing the community to revisit the deciaion in a future proposal. It is much more difficult to reverse urban sprawl than it is to create it. Removing the bonus density requirement allows this community to retain its decision making ability in how properties are developed in the future while allowing us to continue gathering data and assessing impacts of current development on the broader environment and ecosystems in other communities. While I myself own 10 acres of land in the Roy area and would lose the ability to build additional wealth through the bonus density option, I am much more concerned with the environmental welfare of the area and the potentially devastating consequences of removing it. I am in full support of removing the bonus density option, especially as we could revisit reintroducing that ability in a future legislation amendment. We have a rare opportunity to choose how quickly we want to develop our region for long term welfare and environmental sustainability,and we can't afford to waste this opportunity. We much choose welfare over personal profit as landowners, in this instance.
Mickie Pinches 5/10/24 9:23 PM A couple questions: 1. How does the council define ADU? Accepted definition: An accessory dwelling unit, just called an ADU, is a secondary housing unit on a single-family residential lot. The term “accessory dwelling unit” might sound institutional, but it’s the most commonly-used term across the country to describe this type of housing. 2. What “problem” is this resolution resolving? (Resolution No. R2024-158 (STR restrictions) 3. Res states: New ADUs in the rural area would be prohibited from renting to guests for less than a 30-day time period. What about existing ADUs? 4. How will the PC council moderate dwellings of single home families who have more members than the septic allows? (Example: two bedroom septic -4 person, BUT family of 6 in home) 5. Why isn’t fox island included in this resolution? Currently 19 on that little island, just Airbnb and VRBO alone. You can most likely double that with the other STR platforms.
Sandra Kord 5/11/24 2:45 PM I oppose this. This is bad legislation and an infringement on citizens' rights to their own property and how they choose to divide it up. Please vote NO on this! Thank you.
Thomas L Mendenhall 5/11/24 11:28 PM I spent 26 years in our armed services, participated in three armed conflicts, and also spent 20 years as a firefighter/paramedic. Only retired two years ago. Due to my formal service, being active in politics has never been on my agenda. However, since my retirement, I have found myself not as restricted. You see, for my retirement, I decided to get away from the city, move to the country, on a small piece of land, and open a small Airbnb for some extra retirement funds. The county already has its fingers in my pockets for building permits and such. Now it wants to this Proposed Resolution No. R2024-158s. After reading in detail one will find CPA 7 that will require more restrictions and even licensing (I’m sure this will require a yearly fee). I truly believe in our government and memorized the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. As a service member, I swore an oath to them. An oath in my mind that I would lay down my life for. Why do I object to R2024-158? is the underlying premise of private property. This central planning model will restrict my freedom unless I pay. The underlying idea of this plan is to supply and make housing available to people. This works great in city limits, but when you get out into the country it is an entirely different thing. Oh, you could force such county laws and codes in the county, however the problem is accessibility. You make housing affordable for city folks in the county but the problem is they don’t have transportation to travel from the country to the city to work. As I said before, I believe in the American Dream. One works hard, saves, and makes their dreams come true. The Declaration of Independence promises “the pursuit of happiness” it does not promise happiness. The government (city, county, or federal) providing free or subsidized housing using tax dollars takes away from those taxpayers who work(ed) hard and save. Most parents have taught their children it is better to earn something rather than to be given it. This makes people have more respect for what they have. I do not like supporting(through taxes, and the government providing freebies) people who have no respect for what they are being given, and they demand it without restrictions. How can my Airbnb be considered for this short-term housing restriction/licensing? It will be because of the way it is written. You see my Airbnb is not a normal Airbnb short-term rental it is a native American Indian Tipi (currently fully permitted by Pierce County). So imagine when I hear that the county wants to restrict or license it because it falls into a short-term category according to this Plan (section CPA 7). Land use by definition is a control of someone’s land. I say again, ‘fine, make restrictions in City Limits, but leave the countryside alone. I consider such a proposal a violation of the US Constitution and a moral corruption. Much of the proposals are aimed at accommodating people who do not currently reside in Pierce County. Asking current residents to make sacrifices for people who do not even live here is not equitable.
Sally plumly 5/12/24 8:45 AM As a KP homeowner of 40 years on 25 acres I wholeheartedly support this resolution .We need it to preserve space ,resources and be better stewards of this beautiful land
Steve Floor 5/12/24 10:19 PM Owning two 10 acer parcels of land here on the Key Peninsula, I support R2024-158s. I think it is a sound proposal helping manage our lands and community into the future also ensuring that out land values stay strong. Having lived in this beautiful Peninsula since 1979 and seen what mismanagement has done elsewhere, I hope that this proposal can be passed. You have my support, Thank You.
Michael young 5/13/24 9:09 AM Hi my name is Michael Young and I own an AirBnB in University Place. We initially thought our short term rental would attract golfers a place to relax after playing at nearby Chambers Bay. It absolutely is not serving that group, they in fact only make up about 1% of our listing rentals. As a host I have instead found pleasure in serving our community with an alternative to a hotel off i5. About 60 % of our bookings are families visiting family in the area. 30% are for relocation such as military families, doctors, nurses, and other professionals moving to the area prior to finding long term housing. 10% are families relocating for repairs to their home in the area because of fire or water damage or remodeling but want to stay close to there homes and schools. Our alternative to hotel gives our guests a place to cook and relax after being with family or connecting with family being able to host at the AirBnB. For example, just this May we have hosted or will host an ambassador to Namibia reconnecting with her brother; a family visting their daughter on Mother’s Day; a family coming to town for a funeral of a family member; a military family relocating from Texas; a family coming for the state track meet; and a family coming to visit relatives in the area. So let me repeat that we are not here for golf tourism but are here for our community. I do not believe there should be additional restrictions on short term rentals.
Angela Mack 5/13/24 9:45 AM I oppose council resolution R2024-158. I live in a duplex and rent the other side as a STR. Our single rental provides a very comfortable option for families visiting or relocating to the area. I oppose any additional STR regulations in Pierce County.
Richard Moser 5/13/24 11:31 AM I want to express my opposition to R2024-158s, specifically to CPA 7 related to short term rentals. This seems to be a classic case of a solution looking for a problem. While I am not an attorney, my understanding is that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that short term rentals, which are defined as having a rental term of less than 30 days, are "residential use" which means they are already subject to all the regulations, restrictions and zoning that apply to any other residential property. It is not fair to single out these properties for additional regulation. The idea that a property that is rented for a period of 29 days is dramatically different from one that is rented for 30 days does not make sense. I would like to commend the county's planning department on their research into this issue and their "common sense" decision to recommend denial. As at least one other commenter has mentioned, it is not clear why the council would seek input from the planning department and then not follow their advice. One of the reasons given by the planning department for recommending denial, was that it was not clear what problem was being addressed by the proposed amendment. The planning department did point out the tremendous increase in tax revenue generated by short term rentals over the past several years. They also noted that complaints related to short term rentals have been almost non-existent. Arguments in favor of increased regulation of short term rentals are often based on the concept that these properties have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and existing infrastructure. While this sounds reasonable, it really is not logical, and cannot be supported with any data. Going back to the concept of "residential use", a 3 bedroom 1 bath house can only accommodate a certain number of people. Whether it is the same people occupying the property for a year, or different people every day, is immaterial. The impact on the neighborhood is the same. in fact, since most short term rentals do have 100% occupancy, the impact from short term rental is probably less than a continuously occupied property. In the interest of fairness and common sense, I urge the council to follow the planning department's recommendation and deny CPA 7. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Mark Harp 5/13/24 11:31 AM I, Mark Harp strongly oppose this plan. I do not believe this is the best plan for Pierce County. This plan will stunt the potential vibrant growth Pierce County residents deserve.
Richard Moser 5/13/24 12:06 PM I need to amend my previous comment. It should say “ since most short term rentals do not have 100% occupancy “
Toby Williams 5/13/24 1:14 PM Using our home as a STR allows us to maintain the home for future generations to enjoy. In doing so, we provide local residents with jobs that would otherwise not be available- making it impossible for them to live in Ashford. We have a housekeeper, a landscaper, a general repair man, a pest control man and a property manager who all rely on the income from our STR and the STR’s of others in the area. Changing the STR regulations to limit the existing rentals would force the sale of our home and the loss of these jobs. This town is 100% tourism based, there are no other jobs there. Our guests support the local businesses and restaurants- most of which are only open seasonally as is…
Lucinda and Joel Wingard 5/13/24 2:38 PM Globally and here in PC we have passed the era of Climate Change: We are entering the stage of Climate Chaos. “One-hundred-year storms” now occur regularly. We are unable to foresee extreme events and environmental damage due to CO2 buildup in our atmosphere. Given future radical changes in weather and certain large population increases, Business as Usual cannot continue. Wise land use policy is key. As the Executive report states, land use policy must be designed “to provide an excellent quality of life” for residents. We cannot continue to treat land simply as a commodity to be traded, exploited, and taxed. Undeveloped land is not “wasteland” but essential to our human quality of life. The indigenous plant and wildlife habitats are the most valuable “natural resource” we have to preserve our health and well-being. Placating a handful of property owners and vested interests at the expense of the wider community’s quality of life is not a good bargain. Planning appropriate housing density, creating wildlife conservation areas, offering property tax reduction incentives for open spaces, transferring development rights for agriculture and forestry, are essential to preserve the free ecosystem services we need for clean water sources, fresh air, fertile soils, salmon-filled rivers, and healthy saltwater reaches. My specific asks of this Council today are these: • Please support the suggestions in the Community Plan Conflict Report. • Please allow the City of Gig Harbor to retract the UGA area around Purdy. Providing city amenities in Purdy threatens the quality of life for rural residents on the Key and Gig Harbor peninsulas, and would drain city budgets for projects badly needed to serve a large majority of other city residents. • Please disallow bonus densities for rural development projects. That contradicts the County’s goals to reduce commuter travel miles and to conserve land for invaluable ecosystem services such as stormwater management, clean drinking water, and human health and recreation. • Please incentivize—not merely “support”—land conservation for carbon sequestration and restoring priceless native biodiversity.
Donald Peterson 5/13/24 10:10 PM May 6,2024 To: Pierce County Council RE: Urban Growth Management Plan Amendment #3 (Resolution R2024-158S) As a resident in the Purdy area since 1950, I have witnessed many environmental changes such as: Increased noise levels Increased traffic volumes, especially in the Purdy area Decreased air quality Loss of tree canopy Water quality issues in Burley Lagoon due to untreated storm water discharge Flooding of existing structures during super tides The existing Urban designation was short sighted and will only continue to degrade the environment to the detriment of the public in this environmentally sensitive area. Upon listening to the comments at the recent public hearing, the only dissents to the proposed amendment was about not being able to make as much money if the existing classification is changed. This amendment should not be about money, rather, it should be about slowing future development to protect the fragile environment. Pierce County, the City of Gig Harbor and many citizens are supporting Amendment #3. Please listen to the people who live in this area and adopt Amendment #3 to change the classification from Urban to Rural. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Don Peterson 15114 Sherman Dr NW Gig Harbor, Wa 98332 donaldraypeterson@gmail.com
Kim Quon 5/14/24 10:33 AM Regarding Proposed Resolution No. R2024-158s Re: Rural Zone Density Bonuses - It doesn’t appear that Staff or Council has considered that Ordinance 18A.15.020 E.2 requires that, when taking advantage of the density bonus, 50% or more of the property must be designated as open space. In R10, one residence requires NO open space. With the density bonus 5 acres would be designated as open space. R20, 10 acres open space, R40, 20 acres open space and so on. Please reject Councilmember Morrell’s proposed amendment: Why single out Gig Harbor and the Key Peninsula for this penalty? Re: CPA 7 - Please support Councilmember Morell’s proposed amendment 2 – Please know that Ordinance 18A.37.120 A.2 and D.2 requires owner occupation of either the primary unit or the ADU to develop the ADU. Re: Eliminate Rural Five Designation – Please note that Ordinance 18A.10.090 B.2.c states that R5 was created to “provide a buffer between urban zone classifications and other lower density rural areas.” Without it you could have R10, R20, R40, etc. right up against urban zones. You don’t want that.
David Toyer 5/14/24 11:06 AM Our land use consulting firm that works with several owners of real property in Pierce County to assist them in understanding proposed changes to their properties. In the case of Home Base Washington LLC which owns Parcel No. 2695005000 at 525 131st in Spanaway, they support inclusion of this parcel within the areas where densities will be increased as a result of HCT. Rezones like this are essential to providing additional housing opportunities. In the case of land owned by Jorgeson Timber, we strongly oppose the proposal to eliminate the rural density bonuses in the R10, R20, R40, ARL, RSR, and RF zones. Eliminating the rural density bonuses established in 18A.15.020.E.2 eliminates a local tool for managing sprawl in the rural area consistent with Goal 2 of the Growth Management Act (GMA) as it provides an incentive for rural development to cluster buildings and lots and provide for permanent preservation of significant amounts of open space (50% to 70%). We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, David Toyer, Toyer Strategic Advisors, Inc.
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 11:37 AM CPA -6 I do not fully understand the proposal and why it is a "no " vote recommendation. It would appear that the changes would preserve the single family neighborhood and how do I find the report dated March 1st that indicates the reasoning for /against
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 11:54 AM CPA-2 I oppose this request, not because I don't like children and not because I have never used daycare services. I appreciate that a no vote would seem like anti-family. Without childcare services I would not have been able to work. That being said, I think it is more productive to encourage smaller daycare centers within residences rather than the large franchise type experience, nothing wrong with them in the right place, but the footprint that they need to sustain a facility that large with no restrictions on size or number of children (other than what the state mandates)is not responsible or considerate of the neighborhood,lacks appreciation for the number of car trips that this type of facility will require and create. I lived across from one private daycare with 12 children and used another one within two block from my residence, she typically had 12 children at all times until she retired. I live between two large franchise type facilities. Firstly, the septic systems are not compatible and would require considerable resource, plus parking requirements, drive through traffic increases, delivery vehicles, idling vehicles,air pollution, and noise in residential zones. Allowing this type of scale of business model does not improve the neighborhood, provide value, and opens the door to the question of what /how we define cottage industries that are currently allowed. Lets focus on keeping the neighborhood as a residential neighborhood and current defined uses and support smaller scale daycare facilites. One thought though , is when a new school is built, can a small portion of land be reserved allow the district to sell for this type of facility? Currently PSDC utilizes a company to provide some after/before school care but this could give parents options for children that are not old enough for school but have siblings that are in the school system. But,with some restrictions ,just a thought.
Jennifer Zehrung 5/14/24 12:15 PM I strongly oppose this legislation. This takes away property rights. We have an ADU on our property that we use as a STR. The county’s proposal complete disregards our rights as property owners.
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 12:53 PM I will have some haters... I support this proposal and if it is not throughout the county it should be. The ongoing theme that keeps repeating itself in the comments, is "about me" about protecting "my" investment, "my" supplemental income, my generational legacy, and relating the positive personal experiences that the owners have had. Those experiences are encouraging, however it is not uncommon for the rentals to be over occupancy and unless the owner is onsite or neighbors close enough to want to go through the hassle of letting the owners know or filing a formal complaint, they don't know how many people are occupying the rental 100% of the time ,particularly if they are using and online booking provider like Abnb, Vrbo for example. They don't seem to consider the real impacts to potential homeownership market that this "new" investment opportunity has caused, nor to the impacts on long term rentals. Some touted the job opportunities that their investment(s) have created and even how much up to $30/per hour. Let's be real. These jobs are short term, the service providers have to work multiple jobs to get 40 hours, this is pre-tax, they do not have any benefits and work often two jobs to support their families and pay rent because of what the housing market is like, particularly impactful in desirable areas next /near recreational and shopping opportunities. They cannot afford to live where they work or make considerable commutes and dare, I say it, probably immigrant or first generation for these jobs of house cleaning, yard maintenance, for example. My apologies to those that may be offended. Some are forced to relocate from residences that they occupy during low rental/off season times when peak season occurs their contracts are cancelled and scramble to find housing, some share rooms and sleep in shifts,during peak season, this is coming to us, if not already occurring. Short terms are desirable for some as they do not have to deal with the long-term tenancy occupancy rules and eviction processes, totally understandable. I personally live within the neighborhood that experienced that house party with over 100 party goers and had six shooting victims. All on septic and highly residential neighborhood. Buying a house on septic (which I own one) is like buying a car with the miles rolled back. We dont know how the previous occupants treated the septic system, so anything that we can do to protect the septic system and save costly repairs should be done and this applies to private owned/occupied homes and long-term rentals. I do have several homes in my neighborhood I suspect are over occupancy for the septic system. Dunedin Florida has resolved this by creating a zone that allows for short term/ADU rental because of how this economic model has disrupted the housing market. The units are barred from any other housing zones. This stabilized the housing market to some extent, it did cause the price of houses in the zone to jump substantially but took the pressure off of the rest of the residential zones and restored the concept of residential neighborhoods to those historically residential neighborhoods. Plus, if these want to be short term rentals, like hotel, then they can pay the same fees /collect the same as a hotel is compelled to do. ADU, were recently approved of by our state legislature to impact areas of the state that did not previously allow for the development of them, but the intent was to create more affordable, long-term living, not short-term rentals. But we read into this what "we want" to fit our financial goals, thus we now need this clarification to limit the ADU to 30 days or longer.
Sara Mossman 5/14/24 1:18 PM Dear Pierce County Council and Executive Dammeier, By way of introduction my name is Sara Mossman and my family owns about 30 acres on Anderson Island which includes a vineyard under restoration, orchards, food growing areas, and native habitat including wetland and forest under Open Space use. Since purchasing this acreage in two separate parcels, we have paid our taxes and maintenance costs while leaving the land pristine, only conducting those forest and agricultural practices that are vital to the health of the native landscape and existing agricultural aspects. We work to benefit pollinators while providing organically grown food and fruit to our family, friends and neighbors. We use no sprays, we compost all our organic waste, we use drip irrigation and only where necessary. We have kept the forest and the forest floor healthy and flourishing. We have been good neighbors allowing people to enjoy our land and animals. We value communing with nature for all generations. We are responsibly stewarding this land to be as healthy as possible so that future generations, including our daughter, have a chance to benefit and further this way of life that honors the earth. Our vision for this land is a place where people can come gather to learn, create and connect in a way that values wellness for people, land and animals. However, it is ALOT of work for one small family to keep up. We would like the option to invite another small family, with similar land-based values, to come live on and own a small piece of our land, to share the work load and the bounty, and to further the vision. We are in our 50's and need the support and longevity of a family that is slightly younger. The previous owners here before us chose to sell when they reached their 60’s partially because they couldn't handle all the work themselves all the time. Their dream of growing grapes and winemaking led to burn out. Our hope was always to have a collaborative approach by inviting some friends to take part in the vision. If the proposal passes to remove bonus density, that would kill our dream to have a sense of community collaboration on our land, to have another family own a small piece of our land. We would never dream of any development here that would chop up the land, or represent an unaesthetic and irresponsible approach. That type of development is occurring in other areas of our island. It's concerning what a business development can do with furthering maximum density, without any emphasis on responsible land use or building. If you want to address maximum density then please look at what is happening via the Riviera’s development on Anderson Island. With all due respect, it seems absurd to penalize and reject landowners from dividing off a 5 acre parcel, while allowing a business to benefit from chopping up this rural island as if it were a city suburb. The proposal hurts individual owners who have been able to secure and protect large pieces of land. We are currently permitted to parcel off 5 acres for a small (1100') home. That type of responsible development decision certainly does NOT create density and our neighbors would not even see the additional small home. The driveway to it would take place on an existing gravel road that was already put in by previous owners. Please don’t take away our right to make a decision like this that could keep us on our land sustainably. Please do not deprive us of our property rights and the ability to continue to be landowners who can live and grow here while caring for the native habitat. If our land had ended up in other people’s hands, the knowledge of how to protect important (and rare) plant life, animal life, and historic buildings, would likely not be part of their skill sets as it is ours. Others might have chosen to tear down versus restore or build newer large and unsightly buildings on the land. We feel that our land was gifted by owners like us who care and value things that many people do not this day and age. I hope you will consider our situation in your decision. Respectfully, Sara Mossman
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 1:19 PM Urban tree growth. I support but I voted to oppose because it is insufficient for future needs and protection. Existing tree canopy at 37% is not acceptable and target by using deciduous trees to 40% will never happen and I dont think that the number is accurate as we dont fully understand climate change and what is possibly coming we should have a higher target than that. I can state that my neighborhood has lost 50 % since 2006. Not because of development but because the owners got offers to log off and for other reasons. Our best bet is to protect the most productive tree stands that we have and those are in the already developed neighborhoods with naturally regenerated second growth trees. The regulations allow for the trees on private property to be removed with little regulation except for over 5000 linear feet. I am speaking about properties that are less than 2 acres. The replacement of the highly carbon sequestering fir trees by small deciduous trees is not equitable replacement at full maturity, they will never be capable of the air quality, water quality and carbon sequestering. Plus, we do not have regulations in place that dictate that when one of these replacement trees dies or is removed has to be replaced. Plus, current pruning practices by really ignorant and untrained landscaping companies is reducing the capabilities of the deciduous trees to be fully capable of what they can do for the environment. These harmful practices are like the plague, just keeps happening and has serious consequences and I have already seen trees dying because of these reckless and ignorant pruning practices. Next we allow for clear cutting of housing developments because of densit requirements, even trees in the open space areas are allowed to be removed. No reason for trees in the open space to be removed and that should be dictated and spelled out for future planning.
Joan Larcom 5/14/24 1:20 PM Dear Pierce County Council and Executive Dammeier, By way of introduction my name is Joan Larcom and my family owns about 30 acres on Anderson Island which includes a vineyard under restoration, orchards, food growing areas, and native habitat including wetland and forest under Open Space use. I'm writing to reiterate the views of my other family members. Since purchasing this acreage in two separate parcels, we have paid our taxes and maintenance costs while leaving the land pristine, only conducting those forest and agricultural practices that are vital to the health of the native landscape and existing agricultural aspects. We work to benefit pollinators while providing organically grown food and fruit to our family, friends and neighbors. We use no sprays, we compost all our organic waste, we use drip irrigation and only where necessary. We have kept the forest and the forest floor healthy and flourishing. We have been good neighbors allowing people to enjoy our land and animals. We value communing with nature for all generations. We are responsibly stewarding this land to be as healthy as possible so that future generations, including our daughter, have a chance to benefit and further this way of life that honors the earth. Our vision for this land is a place where people can come gather to learn, create and connect in a way that values wellness for people, land and animals. However, it is ALOT of work for one small family to keep up. We would like the option to invite another small family, with similar land-based values, to come live on and own a small piece of our land, to share the work load and the bounty, and to further the vision. We are in our 50's and need the support and longevity of a family that is slightly younger. The previous owners here before us chose to sell when they reached their 60’s partially because they couldn't handle all the work themselves all the time. Their dream of growing grapes and winemaking led to burn out. Our hope was always to have a collaborative approach by inviting some friends to take part in the vision. If the proposal passes to remove bonus density, that would kill our dream to have a sense of community collaboration on our land, to have another family own a small piece of our land. We would never dream of any development here that would chop up the land, or represent an unaesthetic and irresponsible approach. That type of development is occurring in other areas of our island. It's concerning what a business development can do with furthering maximum density, without any emphasis on responsible land use or building. If you want to address maximum density then please look at what is happening via the Riviera’s development on Anderson Island. With all due respect, it seems absurd to penalize and reject landowners from dividing off a 5 acre parcel, while allowing a business to benefit from chopping up this rural island as if it were a city suburb. The proposal hurts individual owners who have been able to secure and protect large pieces of land. We are currently permitted to parcel off 5 acres for a small (1100') home. That type of responsible development decision certainly does NOT create density and our neighbors would not even see the additional small home. The driveway to it would take place on an existing gravel road that was already put in by previous owners. Please don’t take away our right to make a decision like this that could keep us on our land sustainably. Please do not deprive us of our property rights and the ability to continue to be landowners who can live and grow here while caring for the native habitat. If our land had ended up in other people’s hands, the knowledge of how to protect important (and rare) plant life, animal life, and historic buildings, would likely not be part of their skill sets as it is ours. Others might have chosen to tear down versus restore or build newer large and unsightly buildings on the land. We feel that our land was gifted by owners like us who care and value things that many people do not this day and age. I hope you will consider our situation in your decision. Respectfully, Joan Larcom
Michael Herkert 5/14/24 1:21 PM Dear Pierce County Council and Executive Dammeier, By way of introduction my name is Michael Herkert and my family owns about 30 acres on Anderson Island which includes a vineyard under restoration, orchards, food growing areas, and native habitat including wetland and forest under Open Space use. I am writing to reiterate the views of my other family members. Since purchasing this acreage in two separate parcels, we have paid our taxes and maintenance costs while leaving the land pristine, only conducting those forest and agricultural practices that are vital to the health of the native landscape and existing agricultural aspects. We work to benefit pollinators while providing organically grown food and fruit to our family, friends and neighbors. We use no sprays, we compost all our organic waste, we use drip irrigation and only where necessary. We have kept the forest and the forest floor healthy and flourishing. We have been good neighbors allowing people to enjoy our land and animals. We value communing with nature for all generations. We are responsibly stewarding this land to be as healthy as possible so that future generations, including our daughter, have a chance to benefit and further this way of life that honors the earth. Our vision for this land is a place where people can come gather to learn, create and connect in a way that values wellness for people, land and animals. However, it is ALOT of work for one small family to keep up. We would like the option to invite another small family, with similar land-based values, to come live on and own a small piece of our land, to share the work load and the bounty, and to further the vision. We are in our 50's and need the support and longevity of a family that is slightly younger. The previous owners here before us chose to sell when they reached their 60’s partially because they couldn't handle all the work themselves all the time. Their dream of growing grapes and winemaking led to burn out. Our hope was always to have a collaborative approach by inviting some friends to take part in the vision. If the proposal passes to remove bonus density, that would kill our dream to have a sense of community collaboration on our land, to have another family own a small piece of our land. We would never dream of any development here that would chop up the land, or represent an unaesthetic and irresponsible approach. That type of development is occurring in other areas of our island. It's concerning what a business development can do with furthering maximum density, without any emphasis on responsible land use or building. If you want to address maximum density then please look at what is happening via the Riviera’s development on Anderson Island. With all due respect, it seems absurd to penalize and reject landowners from dividing off a 5 acre parcel, while allowing a business to benefit from chopping up this rural island as if it were a city suburb. The proposal hurts individual owners who have been able to secure and protect large pieces of land. We are currently permitted to parcel off 5 acres for a small (1100') home. That type of responsible development decision certainly does NOT create density and our neighbors would not even see the additional small home. The driveway to it would take place on an existing gravel road that was already put in by previous owners. Please don’t take away our right to make a decision like this that could keep us on our land sustainably. Please do not deprive us of our property rights and the ability to continue to be landowners who can live and grow here while caring for the native habitat. If our land had ended up in other people’s hands, the knowledge of how to protect important (and rare) plant life, animal life, and historic buildings, would likely not be part of their skill sets as it is ours. Others might have chosen to tear down versus restore or build newer large and unsightly buildings on the land. We feel that our land was gifted by owners like us who care and value things that many people do not this day and age. I hope you will consider our situation in your decision. Respectfully, Michael Herkert
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 1:31 PM Open space and parks planning ,not sure what the recommendation means. Does this mean the county is trying to get out of the parks business? Something else to comment on is that we don't have enough open spaces/parks. Next, PC has an agreement/arrangement with the Puyallup School district that allows for the school yard to be considered as an open space and for general public use. Thus, when a development is large enough that it is required to have open space,thus slightly reduceing the square footage that they can build on , they can absolve themselves of this requirement if school or park is within 1 mile. Using the school grounds as a public resource is odd, firstly the county does not own the property, it belongs to the school district. Thus the burden of litigation in the even that someone /something happens on the school grounds the liability will fall to the district. Next unlike a reasonable person definition of a park and public access, the school ground can only be used when the school is not operating, and dogs are prohibited and playing fields are supposed to be reserved. Schoolgrounds are not public parks, by reasonable person definition. If the school is vandalized during off hours, does the county compensate the school for the loss, not that I've been able to confirm. Further as we are all aware, there are school districts experiencing declining attendance (including Puyallup) and in some cases some districts are trying to or closing schools and thus the ground become surplus, when those grounds are sold, then that acreage is no longe able to be used by the public as open space, so the county needs to remove the school grounds from the "usage " of open space and find a way to supply the public and the environment with open space some other way.
Z Dunning 5/14/24 1:31 PM I oppose R158s based on the following: We, the citizens of Pierce County, were given three choices by the county staff for the 2024 Comp Plan; 1. Stay with our current Comp Plan. 2. Increase physical and financial restrictions and burdens on the citizens. 3. Dramatically increase physical and financial restrictions and burdens on the citizens The only correct choice here is #1. Stay with the current comp plan. However, County Council has chosen, by proof of R158, to burden and greatly burden the citizens of Pierce County. Without regard to our wellbeing; physically or financially. 75% of the entries opposed to R158s. This should be an easy choice no brained vote for the Council, reject R158s. If not then what happened to “Democracy”? Are not elected’s supposed to represent us? We will see. What will they choose? The people, which may or may not elect them again, or special interest groups that will make $$$ off of these elaborate schemes? Evidence of intent, they tried to pass a bill this year to increase our property taxes above the already doubled taxes since 2020. SB 5770 was going to give the county council the ability to triple, year over year, the property taxes collected by the county. This Democrat bill was pulled because of the opposition, over 9,000 people called into the Way and Means Committee to oppose this. The people for SB 5770 were mayors, commissioners, council members and union reps all drooling over burdening the people with more taxes. People cannot afford this, land owners and renters. R158s is also evidence that a bill or bills similar to SB 5770 will appear in 2025. The vote today will tell all of us who the electeds care about.
Dan Walker 5/14/24 1:34 PM Dan Walker May 14, 2024 Parcel Number 052035056 I am opposed to resolution 2024-158s. This amendment steals property rights from my family and my neighbors. To the west of our property, we are less than a mile away from Costco, Safeway, Home Depot and many other businesses. To the east we are getting significant light industrial warehouses just off 96th street (which is the street I live on). We have two houses on one 12.5-acre tax parcel (one serves as an ADU). Under the current Bonus Density rules our land can be changed and made into up to 3 tax parcels, which would be more consistent lot sizes with the parcels on three sides of us. This has been our plan since we purchased the property in 1998. Now that water and sewer have been brought into 96th street to service these new warehouses, we are able to cost effectively move forward on this original plan that will help supplement our retirement. Resolution 2024-158s could steal this retirement plan in our 11th hour. Whose agenda is the council following and where does your research come from? If it is to reduce traffic, putting light industrial and possibly multi-family down the south side of our street but limiting my ability to develop does not seem fair or correct. Having such a large parcel in the middle of this development could significantly impact the value of my residence in a negative way. If the goal is affordable housing, how is reducing the availability of building sights going to lower the cost of development? How does this address our homeless/underserved community, which is currently estimated at about 28,000 here in the State of Washington? The failing Seattle public School District proposal to close 20 elementary schools this year and next year can help us solve the underserved community needs. We can repurpose these schools to house these people. I am sure that other failing school districts will follow suit with Seattle so no has to sleep, live, or eat outside any longer. Failing Schools all have heat, restrooms and cafeterias. What is the goal here in Pierce County, is it to be like King County? Council Members, you can make a difference if you just step back and rethink about how to work with your constituents on these issues and vote to retain our current Maximum Density rules. Respectfully submitted, Dan Walker
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 1:37 PM Gross vs Net density why is this not applicable to Option 2, is that because it already is applied. Really, most of these properties in South Hill are already developed under septic and we have pocket lots left, or some properties that are considered under utilized because like mine , one house but 1.23 acres. Unless the county undertakes a MASSIVE commitment and funds for public sewer or the developers commit to engineered septic systems our septic systems are at risk of failure and a source of pollution, increasing density only contributes to the problem in these areas. Noted that one resolution is to increase the sewer infrastructure and move towards replacing private septic to public/Pierce county sewer, but who really bears the cost?
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 1:52 PM Gross vs Net density why is this not applicable to Option 2, is that because it already is applied. Really, most of these properties in South Hill are already developed under septic and we have pocket lots left, or some properties that are considered under utilized because like mine , one house but 1.23 acres. Unless the county undertakes a MASSIVE commitment and funds for public sewer or the developers commit to engineered septic systems our septic systems are at risk of failure and a source of pollution, increasing density only contributes to the problem in these areas. Noted that one resolution is to increase the sewer infrastructure and move towards replacing private septic to public/Pierce county sewer, but who really bears the cost?
Kathryn Sheldon 5/14/24 2:00 PM regarding for limitations on development of large warehouse units and storage facilities. Storage facilities are immense waste of usable space and provide, low taxes , few jobs. On Canyon Road for example in one two mile stretch there are more than 5 small and enormous storage facilites. Not good, we could have used that land for better purposes like housing or other more employment based businesses. With the large wharehouse, they under utilize the land, increase pollution because we dont require clean trucks certified vehicles, traffic volumes always seem to be under reported and under utlize the number of employed individuals per square footage and with more and more mechanization of inventory management, the jobs will be declining even more. We are better off creating small business parks to support small and mid-sized businesses that are better equipped to be flexible and nimble as business needs change. We need business parks that do not have dock height bay doors but bay doors that are at ground level. By providing this type of retail space perhaps more companies would relocate their businesses in the parks rather than at their residences and we then have safer residences due to reduced thefts, pollution and other environmental stresses.
Margaret Ellis 5/14/24 2:40 PM I'm particularly supportive of the choices in the proposed resolution that acknowledge that the future will be drier and hotter, and that water will be less available and provide some wise solutions. While there's no question that we need more housing, focusing on building the bulk of it in areas that are already built up and encouraging that it be built near transportation corridors that facilitate varied means of travel, will help decrease the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Maintaining more green space, both inside and outside of the Urban Growth Areas, and cutting down on impermeable surfaces will moderate temperatures and allow water runoff to return to the ground. Reuse of water will be necessary--Hard to believe in the Pacific Northwest, but that's the trajectory we are on. . The proposal does a fine job of addressing the needs of specific areas and providing sensible guidance for all of Pierce County. The future quality of life for Pierce county is in our hands. Time is running out.
Robert Myles 5/14/24 2:50 PM please WITHDRAW CPA 7: Short Term Rentals or REWRITE in more general terms to leave open further in depth study and community engagement about STR's in Pierce County.
Aaron 5/14/24 2:59 PM I OPPOSE the Milroy Bridge Replacement Amendment to the Pierce Comprehensive Plan as it is currently proposed. It must keep the whole extension from 72nd Avenue and Canyon down to the Port of Tacoma. If it does not, you must vote NO on it. Yes, I would love to have the bridge rebuilt but only if the whole Canyon Road extension is complete with it. Pierce County desperately needs Canyon extended all the way to the Port of Tacoma. I live out in the Frederickson area and all these big rigs a flying down Canyon and all the warehouses being built is great for the community with jobs and the economy but we must have a thoroughfare from Frederickson to the Port so our side roads to not get jammed with all the freight truck traffic. Plus, your reasonings to not finish the project is ludicrous. You can not expect commuters to bike 20 to 30 miles to work each day in rain or frigid or even hot weather. Plus there is no mass transit from the rural communities that the Frederickson community serves. Your are foolish in thinking that people will just comply with riding bikes to work. One last note of contention is I do not want my hard earned tax dollars ($5.8 million) to be repaid back to the Federal government because you did not follow through with your commitment of where those dollars are suppose to go towards. 5.4 million is a lot of money. Let Pierce County finish the whole project and have Pierce County flow easily to the Port and more jobs and dollars will most likely come to our county.
Jerry Block Jr. 5/14/24 3:08 PM Pierce County Council Re: Resolution 2024-158 this should not be passed. When Maximum Density was implemented it added value to the property, and now you want to take that value away. This is not right and should not be passed. Are the council members and the county prepared to reimburse property owners the percentage value of all taxes and levies paid since the maximum density was implemented and lower all future taxes? DO NOT pass this resolution we have paid for it, and it should stay. How and why did the council come up with the idea of taking away the property taxpayers right and then not informing them of doing this. If I hadn't received this postcard from CAPR I would not have known this was in the works.
JERRY BLOCK Jr. 5/14/24 3:19 PM I would also like to know who decides what is rural and not. We have lived on 224th for over thirty years and it is a two lane highway not rural by any means. There needs to be a serious makeover on the zoning areas.
Jeanette Raleigh 5/15/24 10:57 AM 1) I oppose any proposal that would bring emminent domain into effect for any resident of Pierce County. 2) I oppose ANY attempts at bringing an airport to the rural areas of Pierce County. 3) I oppose any government sponsorship of growth. If a private landowner wants to do build, that's one thing, but Pierce County should try to keep the county at a small population. 4) With the significant increase in violence in the past ten years, it would be better not to try bringing even more people into an unstable area.
Kelley 5/15/24 1:35 PM I dread the idea of the properties around us being subdivided. We moved here to be on and amongst large properties with animals and wildlife. People subdividing to make more money is ruining the small (and large) farming community. Keep properties large to increase wildlife habitat and the country feel.
John Leslie 5/16/24 8:27 PM There is a common denominator in the CPU and people who support it. Dictating what OTHER people do with their private property. "I want it to look like this" and "I want people to do this or that with their private property". Who really owns private property? Our constitution sure does not grant rights over others private property to government or neighbors. This is all ripe for class action law suits.
Sherry Haviland 5/17/24 10:25 AM Please don't mess with the comp plan 158s. I was on the community planning commission years ago when we worked really hard to put it together. We tried to make decisions that would help everyone. Keep it as it is. Don't force us have to connect to sewers. My driveway is 1/4 mile to spanaway lp rd. I have more than 12 homes on this property. I cannot afford to do this. Nor do I want to be forced to use reclaimed water that isn't safe. Come on. Think about what you are considering. These are terrible ideas. I'm a landlord. I try to keep my rents reasonable for regular people. If I have to hookup to sewers and manipulate our water system I will be forced to sell and give up what I've been living on for over 40 years. Again don't change our comp plan. Keep it as it is. Don't let planning department tell you 2 and 3 are where we need to be. I am 66 and have been on this earth and have lived life. They don't think about the consequences of their actions. Thank you.
Aaron James Ulrich 5/17/24 5:52 PM I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed comprehensive plan amendments and land use policy changes outlined in the R2023-41s resolution. As a resident and landowner in rural Pierce County, I have significant concerns about the potential negative impacts these changes will have on property rights, local economies, and community character. While increased densities near transit routes may benefit urban growth, they can lead to overdevelopment, congestion, and decreased quality of life for existing residents. Moreover, properties outside these high-capacity transit areas might see reduced interest and lower values. Policies aimed at increasing equity will lead to over-regulation and additional bureaucratic hurdles, potentially disenfranchising landowners by unfairly restricting property rights in the name of broader policy goals. Overall, these amendments limit the rights and opportunities of landowners, especially in rural areas, by imposing stricter regulations and reducing development potential and income generation. I urge you to reconsider these changes and their far-reaching implications on the property rights and livelihoods of rural Pierce County residents.
Molly Hoghaug 5/17/24 8:07 PM My name is Molly Hoghaug, and while my STR is in nearby Thurston County, not Pierce County, I want to express my opposition to this measure, as similar legislation could be proposed in my county if this passes. Our STR is a lake cabin, a dream we always had-to own a lake cabin for our family to make memories. Unfortunately, lake properties are very expensive, so the cabin came with a sizeable mortgage. To help recoup some costs, we list it as a short term rental, as well as use it for our family. I doubt we are the only family with a situation like this. If legislation limiting short term rentals were to pass, it would severely impact us financially, possibly causing us to have to sell. I understand that this legislation is in support of more affordable long-term housing, but unfortunately, many short term rental properties are not "affordable," as desirable locations such as lakes and forests don't sell at affordable rates. Additionally, at least at our lakeside location, Thurston County already has very strict rules regarding septic systems, as I assume Pierce County does as well, so this would be introducing a redundancy in regulations. In addition, short term rentals are rarely occupied 100% of the time, placing less strain on septic systems than if the residence were occupied by long-term renters. I hope this measure can be shut down once and for all. It is poorly constructed and unnecessary. Thank you.
Linda Taylor 5/19/24 12:16 PM Short Term rentals are a Commercial Venture. This is all I should have to say. The laws are clear. Residential neighborhoods are NOT ZONED for commercial venture. The Original idea of Air BnB was renting out an extra room or ADU to people who wanted to visit and learn about the local culture. The owner is supposed to be in residence. Sadly, Americans have corrupted the idea entirely - buying up units in buildings or using their old residences to only make money. Local residents, who desperately need housing, are pushed out and those who got in are plagued by 24 hours of arrivals/departures/parties/noise, and overwhelmed garbage collection. We have found, in general, the people who use the short term rentals are people who the hotels have barred: troublesome people who host out of control parties, who can’t behave in public - like fighting in public areas, out of control children and pets, using weapons, tossing trash, disregarding local rules - like burn bans and water conservation. They usually show up with too many people for the rental. In Pierce County, that means failing septic systems. These situations have been in the news. Additionally, in this County, there are no inspections, no rules enforced and calls to 911 are not answered by a visit because it’s not a priority call. Owners offer their properties to house more than the septic permit allows, don’t maintain fencing or land to contain their “guests.” That means that “guests” spill onto neighboring property: their noise, trash, children, dogs. They knock on neighbor’s door at all hours day and night, trying to find a property. These “guests” keep us up all night - neighbors who have to go to work, who have to be rested. They say, “I’m entitled. I’m on vacation.” They treat the neighborhood like a commercial area. THIS IS THE PICTURE. The owners are NOT voters. They are not residents. They don’t care about the neighborhood, the schools, library, roads, water resources. Most Importantly: They are not held responsible for the bad behavior of their “guests.” They are untouched while everyone else in the neighborhood is suddenly responsible for the consequences of “the guests”. This county has a lack of affordable housing, safe & clean housing, housing for our nurses, teachers, fire fighters, police and our military families who already live in an unbelievably horrible apartments and homes - owned by investors who are remote and un-responsive. This situation makes it worse. The people who run these rentals think they’ll get rich quick, easily. In the end, most individual owners find it costly and finally give up but not before ruining a neighborhood and destroying a property. The “Investors” don’t care - they find a way to make a buck: no garbage collection, no maintenance or repairs, no response to anything. They leave in their wake more destruction, loss of housing. Since they offer no single responsible individual, they can hide behind unavailability. It’s not just the rich areas: Gig Harbor, etc. It’s a problem in all neighborhoods in this county. I find it interesting that only these more wealthy neighborhoods are mentioned for this “study.” 
I ask not only for a “investigation and report”. I hope that Pierce County Will Be The Leader, prohibiting - in the entire county - all short term rentals or reverting the situation back to ONLY an extra room in a home that can be used, where the owner is required to be in residence at all times, and each property required to be inspected for license annually (including a septic inspection and cleaning) with a requirement that the neighbors also be consulted yearly before the license is renewed. And any report of problems or calls to 911 requires the suspension of the license immediately, requires the owner to immediately suspend their listing and no further rentals can be honored, even if scheduled for the next day, (Red Tag the door). Re-inspection of the property must be done before reinstating such license. No license will be reinstated if too many guests are allowed, or there are out of control parties, gunfire, drug dealing or serious injury or a death reported. These requirements would be funded entirely by license and inspection fees paid by the owners, with an appropriate mark-up. “Investors” would be required to name a single “owner” for this purpose. All correspondence and payments of fees would be in that person’s name only. Sadly, only money talks, not ethics. There are thousands of under-employed people in the area. This would create new jobs for them and the less skilled could then move in the old jobs and thus be able to move from the streets into housing. The entire economy of the county improves - not just one sector. These are your voters. I want this county livable for the actual residents who vote, pay taxes and work towards a better quality of life. Keep commercial ventures in Commercial Districts, as zoning requires, and not in our residential neighborhoods. Short Term rentals are a commercial venture. Thank you.
Steven Bennett 5/20/24 7:53 PM Regarding R2024-158s. I am confused regarding motivation. I am told it is environmental but the Council Members supporting this have ignored other environmental issues recently brought to their attention. In addition, this proposal will prevent me from selling a portion of my land to a conservation group asking if I would sell my wooded wetlands. This proposal will likely cause environmental harm by preventing such a transfer. Research regarding this proposal recommended against it. Again, I have to question the true motive of those supporting this proposal. There appears to be no compensation or mandated property value reduction by this proposal despite the obvious loss in property value this will cause. Those supporting this proposal obviously do not support honest property taxation. Let voters be aware of representatives that engage in dishonest taxation by support this type of proposal. This provides an excellent example of where candidates stand.
Beryl Emberson - Nash 5/21/24 10:07 AM I object
Mark Welsh 5/21/24 10:08 AM Dear Esteemed Council Members, I am reaching out to express my firm opposition to R2024-158s; cp7, which addresses the regulation of short-term rentals in Pierce County. As a seasoned real estate agent in our county, I can offer insights into the landscape of our housing market. Short-term rentals represent a small portion of our housing stock, mainly serving as supplementary income sources for property owners. These properties are not typically categorized as affordable housing options, nor would they be reintegrated into the primary occupancy market. Instead, they often transform into sporadically used vacation homes. The issue of vacant homes extends beyond economic concerns. Neglected properties can pose environmental risks, as unnoticed maintenance issues may escalate into ecological problems. Moreover, vacant homes become attractive targets for criminal activities, contributing to safety concerns in our neighborhoods. Passing R2024-158s; cp7 would undoubtedly disrupt the real estate market dynamics in Pierce County, potentially leading to unintended consequences. I urge you to consider the broader implications of this regulation and to vote against its passage. Thank you sincerely for your attention and deliberation on this matter. Warm regards, Mark Welsh
Chris Camire 5/21/24 10:45 AM This resolution will only seek to achieve the following Intentionally increase traffic congestion Redirecting funding from roads to bicycle paths Eliminating the Canyon Road extension Strip development rights from rural land owners and Ban short term rentals
Robin Clark 5/21/24 11:38 AM I have owned a home in Elbe, WA since 2004 and I used this for long term rentals until recently. For nearly 20 years the renters disrespected, damaged my property, refused to pay rent. I will never use my property again for long term renters and they could not afford it anyway. I am now licensed to run my AirBnB in Elbe. My guests spend alot of money locally that in turn benefits Pierce County with the taxes they spend on lodging, restaurants, food, adventures, entrance fees into the park. If you restrict my land use what will you gain from it? Nothing? As I stated above I will never return my property to a long term rental, it is not my responsibility to care for the unhoused, those who destroy landlords properties. I oppose this proposal 100%. The STRs in Ashford, Mineral, Elbe and Packwood bring in revenue that Pierce County is benefiting from across the county,
Colleen Wise 5/21/24 1:07 PM I am supporting the amendment to the 2024-158 to restore the full project to complete the Canyon Road project. The jobs and the future cost of transportation to leave it as it is is to much. This project and this amendment needs to pass and finish what was started.
Susan C Anderson 5/21/24 1:23 PM The Canyon Rd project needs to be completed.
Devin Epp 5/21/24 1:38 PM My name is Devin Epp. I am a local attorney in Pierce County. I strongly oppose the short-term rental (STR) restrictions (CPA 7) because it presents significant drawbacks that will harm the local economies, infringe on property rights, unduly burden local homeowners, and create significant administrative challenges. This regulation does not make any sense from a logical or practical standpoint, and there are way too many holes in this policy to effectuate its goal of protecting the environment. Also, the slippery slope of this enactment would cause more taxpayer money attempting to remedy all the ramifications that this policy neglected to consider. Before I dive into my list of major issues, it is important to note that the planning department likewise is in opposition with this proposal and pointed out the tremendous increase in tax revenue generated by STRs over the past several years. Homeowners are already paying the price to provide an STR. The list below discusses only five major issues in this policy and why opposing Resolution No. R2024-158 is in the best interest of the people and local communities. (1) Economic Impact on Local Homeowners: Restricting the ability to rent out Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and limiting STRs significantly reduces the income potential for homeowners that they rely on to help cover mortgage payments, high property taxes, insurance, maintenance costs, etc. Also, if you could consider who are these homeowners, you will see out in the peninsula for instance, as others have commented, are local folks in the community who rely on STR income to stay financially afloat. To strip them of this revenue source due to a concern in septic targeting only STRs, is troubling. Because as Richard Moser (another commenter) put it “Whether it is the same people occupying the property for a year, or different people every day, is immaterial. The impact on the neighborhood is the same. in fact, since most short term rentals do [not] have 100% occupancy, the impact from short term rental is probably less than a continuously occupied property.” And to add to that logic, let’s not forget that each homeowner is already required to get building permits and go through all the bureaucratic steps to comply with regulations, including septic. (2) Local Economy: STRs attract visitors, boosting local economies by increasing spending at small and local businesses, restaurants, and attractions. Imposing strict limits and requiring additional permits reduces the number of available STRs, deterring visitors and negatively affecting local economic growth. Moreover, it will most definitely result in hotels increasing their prices as hotels avoid the “STR” label. Let’s take what happened in New York City as an example of what happens when this type of thoughtless legislation is approved: New York city essentially banned Airbnb in the city, and the prices of hotels skyrocketed to over 1K a night for a room! Obviously, we are not talking about NYC with dozens of hotels, but we are talking about remote, scenic, and beautiful areas with maybe a few hotels, do we want the hotels to unjustly profit off this ban? This is a slippery slope. So, hotels can now raise prices because visitors will have no choice but to stay in a hotel? Why are we limiting the economy? Do we want to encourage a monopoly for hotels? And back to visitors, why do we want to limit people’s access to these beautiful areas when landowners are offering a reasonable and affordable place to stay? Do we want to restrict these remote towns, many that have limited funds, without the opportunity to help their small businesses gain foot traffic in the area? Or do we want to encourage these towns to allow accessible short-term stays that increase local revenue and help support local infrastructure, schools, etc.? Short-term rentals provide a portion of the accommodation infrastructure in many communities. Reducing their availability leads to a shortage of lodging options for visitors, impacting local events, restaurants/small businesses, and other local attractions – and what again, is the goal of this arbitrary restriction somehow tied to the septic system? (3) Property Rights: Restricting homeowners' ability to use their properties as short-term rentals is arguably an infringement on property rights as these regulations are an overreach by local government, leading to potential legal challenges and community dissatisfaction. I.e., regulating STR is not rationally related to the county’s interests in protecting the environment via septic use when it only targets STRs. It also raises concerns with its vague language and arbitrary selection of targeting Anderson Island-Ketron, Key Peninsula, and Gig Harbor. (4) Rural Property Owners & Market Distortion: This policy neglects to consider that it disproportionately targets rural homeowners. This is about rural areas in Pierce County, not the City of Tacoma. This proposed regulation regarding ADUs in rural areas from being rented for less than 30 days disproportionately impacts rural property owners who rely more on the flexibility and income from STRs. Rural areas have fewer economic opportunities, and this restriction greatly hinders the financial viability of owning and maintaining rural properties. Limiting the number of short-term rental units and imposing strict regulations distorts the housing market, artificially reducing the supply of available rentals and making it harder for residents and travelers to find affordable housing options. (5) Administrative Burden & Logistical Concerns: Implementing, enforcing, and monitoring compliance with these STR regulations will be extremely difficult to manage, leading to inconsistent enforcement. Compliance will require frequent inspections, requiring additional administrative resources and expenses. Managing the licensing/permit process alone will greatly strain county resources, diverting attention and funds from other critical community needs. This policy also places another financial burden for homeowners requiring another costly permitting process. In the large scheme of policy, aren’t we trying to help more citizens become homeowners? Well, this will certainly deter folks as STRs are a legitimate way to pay the mortgage. Again, what is the purpose of this? We are talking about private land with owners that already abide by the local and state regulations and pay high property taxes to live on their property. In addition to the main five issues addressed above, I also address a few of the supporters who have commented below: One supporter commented, “We need it [this proposal] to preserve space, resources and be better stewards of this beautiful land.” The problem with this comment is that we are not talking about public land – this is not about local, state, or federal land. This is about PRIVATE property. These homeowners we are talking about pay taxes and have property rights. These homeowners are not squatters, they are not an impediment to society. They are providing housing for folks traveling through or needing a place to stay that is more affordable than a hotel. These homeowners ALEADY take care of their land. This is NOT about “preserving space, resources, and be better stewards” – this is about land that already has a home and land that is PRIVATE. This nonsensical approach is really going to bite us in the face if we do not think beyond the idealistic thought of “oh yes save the environment because we love our land” – that is not what is going on here. What is going on here is some advocates who are twisting an environmental argument to target STRs and shut down locals from offering an accommodation such as an ADU or Airbnb due to “septic concerns,” and to take more money from the local people by requiring some new bureaucratic permitting process in addition to the already existing processes. Another supporter complained about how people in opposition focused on “‘my’ investment” “’my’ supplemental income” yet when she goes onto her rant she focused on “her” experience: “I personally live within the neighborhood that experienced that house party with over 100 party goers and had six shooting victims.” Let me address it, yes, the shooting is horrendous, but that is not what this proposal really seeks to address as it is supposed to be for “environmental” issues. (I.e., switch the facts of this party from a STR to a homeowner who threw this party of 100+ people (again it is NOT be an STD) – same outcome, right? So why are we targeting STR?). Nevertheless, that issue is why we have nuisance laws, criminal statutes, and why Homeowner Associations “HOAs” exist. Those avenues protect and remedy situations like that from happening and are outside the scope of this proposal. Moreover, the planning department that is against this proposal noted that short-term rental complaints have been almost non-existent. The commenter continues to argue that “[w]e dont know how the previous occupants treated the septic system, so anything that we can do to protect the septic system and save costly repairs should be done and this applies to private owned/occupied homes and long-term rentals.” This argument relies on the assumption that STRs are more likely to misuse septic systems than long-term renters or homeowners, without providing evidence to support this claim. Moreover, this is not a sound argument because septic systems are already subject to maintenance and inspection regulations designed to ensure their proper functioning. If we are really concerned about how to avoid costly repairs of septic systems, then we should be educating property owners and enforcing maintenance requirements across all types of housing instead of imposing specific limitations on STRs alone. Further, if the concern is about the unknown treatment of the septic system by previous occupants, this logic should apply equally to all types of occupancy, not just STRs. Singling out STRs for stringent regulations while ignoring potential issues in privately owned homes and long-term rentals is arbitrary, inconsistent, and unfair. I will digress here, but this is why I oppose CPA 7 of Resolution NO. R2024-158s. Please remember that the county’s planning department also recommended that this policy be denied.
Donna ORAVEZ 5/21/24 1:53 PM The Canyon Rd project needs to be competed
Marilee Nelson 5/21/24 2:02 PM I support this Resolution.
John Leslie 5/21/24 2:49 PM I will be unable to attend the council meeting today and would like to have my views considered. Transit robs life Last week I testified to the negative impacts that Options 2 and 3 will bring regarding transit and congestion. We are already suffering from traffic congestion. Diverting funding from road capacity to multimodal transportation will without doubt increase congestion. Sitting in traffic robs the lives of all Pierce County residents and pushes traffic into residential areas creating unsafe conditions. Additionally, idling cars are inefficient and create even more pollution. Transit robs liberty The American dream is to own a home, not to live communally in an apartment or condo. Whether owned or rented, a home represents freedom. Same applies to transit. Having your own personal transportation represents freedom. 1oo% of available jobs can be reached by auto. Transit is a fraction of that. Personal freedoms are highly restricted by dependance on transit and apartment living. Human nature will always work toward freedom. Option 2 and 3 are counter to the American dream and the need for freedom. The thousands predicted to come to Pierce County will be striving for the American dream and will not comport to the utopian dream of transit centered living. The net result will be misery for all. To those who vote for Option 2 and 3, this misery will be your legacy.
Anne Allard-Wainwright 5/21/24 2:51 PM Dear council, We strongly oppose adding short term rentals to the comp plan! Please vote NO to the limitations on STRs. We ask the council to listen to the planning department and not include short term rental regulations to the comp plan. We are not happy that Robyn Denison is proposing these land use limitations! For 60+ years we have owned our family farm near Sehmel park in Gig Harbor. As generational stewards of this special land, we have been been farming it, planning our retirement home there, and intend to build an adu for our long term family use and support of the expense of maintaining this as a farm. The proposed limitations on STR's and ADU uses will detrimentally affect our the future use of our property and restrict the potential to promote agritourism on our farm for the benefit of our local community by providing farm stays. Please do not put these new limits and restrictions on ADU/STR use that will hinder our ability to provide hospitality at our farm to our community and visitors. Thank you, Dan & Anne Wainwright
Sheri HA 5/21/24 3:19 PM I only ask, on May 21, 2024, that each and every member of the Pierce County Council, answers for themselves after careful consideration the full complement of the content and context of the RESOLUTION NO. R2024-158s, the following few questions: 1.) What is the intention of spending the remaining money that was originally budgeted for the “Canyon Road Project”?; 2.) Who will oversee the remaining money?; 3.) If the “Canyon Road Project” is halted, and there is a provision for a density in regard to the future of Pierce County housing, how do the newly acquired homes residents go to and from their jobs? 4.) Where are the jobs located that it would take to sustain the livelihoods of these new home ownerships? 5.) Does this usurp a person’s land ownership, property rights as in will there be the “right of eminent domain”, clause included?; 6.) Have you considered the ramifications to yourself if in the advent that this passes, and it fails miserably? 7.) What is the hurry?; Why not do a better study and wait until next year?’ 8.) I hope you will consider that if you have a denser population, you need a larger roadway. How will people travel? In Tacoma, our TPU uses 80% hydroelectricity to produce electricity and only about 9% of wind power generates it. How will we even be able to sustain an electrical energy source if the hydroelectric dams are closed and we have no propane or natural gas as an energy source and most wood burning stoves were banned long ago. In short, our electrical grid as it is is almost tapped out and some of you are touting climate change as a reason either for or against. What is the reality? About climate change. Climate change is not going to stop either way. It takes 451 degrees Fahrenheit to make book paper burn. It takes about 572 degrees Fahrenheit to make the softest of wood burn. When were you last in either 451 or 472 degrees of Fahrenheit weather/ Forest fires are caused by: a lightening strike or a malicious behavior of an individual or an accidental and careless behavior of an individual and occasionally, a cow might knock over a lantern at a campsite. The solar cycle we are now in is affording those predators promoting the climate change theory know this is a maximus solar cycle and we are in the first part of an 11-year cycle from 2019. The solar maxiumus cycle is emitting solar flares that are far exceeding most of all our recordings of them. I am not saying there is no climate change. I am not saying we do not have a footprint on our earth’s environment. As far a carbon emission in the USA and around the world, we in the State of Washington are actually among the lowest. Therefore, I do not appreciate a climate change argument. Best regards, Sheri Hayes.