More controversy over big Pierce County homeless village as zoning decision challenged
The Pierce County Council is considering repealing two zoning ordinances that paved the way for a 285-unit micro-home village for people experiencing chronic homelessness to be built on a 86-acre site near Spanaway.
Two petitions for review submitted by Futurewise and Spanaway Concerned Citizens argue Pierce County should not have approved zoning ordinances in March that allowed the village to be built in a low-density residential housing zone because doing so is inconsistent with the Growth Management Act. The Growth Management Act is a series of Washington statutes that require fast-growing cities and counties to develop a comprehensive plan to manage population growth.
Since the petitions were filed, Futurewise and Spanaway Concerned Citizens’ cases have been consolidated into one before the Growth Management Board.
The land in question was originally zoned as “residential resource,” a classification that allows for low-density, single-family homes in open or environmentally sensitive areas.
Council member Robyn Denson, who co-authored the motion to repeal those ordinances alongside council member Amy Cruver, said the original zoning should be honored as the site is environmentally sensitive and wasn’t designed for use as a homeless village.
According to the ordinance sponsored by Denson and Cruver, on May 25 Futurewise offered to dismiss its case if Pierce County agreed to repeal the amendment that allowed the site to be built with a conditional-use permit. Denson said she believes both cases would be dropped if the zoning ordinances were repealed.
It isn’t the first time the micro-home village has faced hurtles. In October it was discovered the site didn’t meet land-use rules, but wetlands, habitat and soil studies conducted in December concluded the village could be built in full compliance with environmental regulations.
Even if the ordinances are repealed, the micro-home village could still be built, pending approval of all its permits.
Bryan Dominique, communications manager with the Pierce County Council, said Tacoma Rescue Mission could continue moving forward as its permits applications are vested based on the law at the time they were applied for.
Repealing the ordinances could limit future land-use development in the area, which the county executive’s counsel said would have a “dampening effect” on similar development in the future. Discussion about repealing the ordinances is also harming the Tacoma Rescue Mission’s fundraising efforts for the village, said executive director Duke Paulson.
Habitat protections, lawsuits cited as reason for repeals
The master plan of the Shared Housing Village is modeled after Community First! Village in Austin, Texas. Owned and operated by Tacoma Rescue Mission, the Spanaway site includes an East Village and a West Village, with an organic farm, farmer’s market, visitor’s center, behavioral health clinic, resident volunteer living quarters and village commons. The space would also house about 285 smaller living units with communal kitchens, showers and laundry buildings. Construction is planned to be complete in fall 2028.
Denson said she and Cruver both voted against the zoning changes in a lengthy discussion and public hearing in March.
“I was not in favor of what I see as a higher impact use in a residential resource zone. It had not been allowed in the past,” Denson said. “When the council looked at where shared housing villages should be allowed back last fall before I took office, residential resource zones were not included, and I thought that that was a wise decision because of their impact and the environmental sensitivity there.”
In a May pre-trial conference a lawyer for Seattle-based nonprofit Futurewise said some of the main issues are related to the location of the site, “allowed capacity, and how that affects the growth allocations for the county,” as well as “an issue of whether or not the county gave adequate notice” to Joint Base Lewis-McChord for plans to build the village near the base.
Representatives with petitioner Spanaway Concerned Citizens were not available for comment for this story.
“We use a lot of state funding for a lot of our projects. And if we’re not in compliance with the Growth Management Act, that puts that state funding at risk,” Denson said. “We also want to preserve the right to do shared housing villages in the areas that they are appropriate in. I think we have a huge homeless issue in Pierce County, and we need a lot of different solutions. I think the shared housing village model is one of those solutions. It’s really important that we have that tool in our toolbox and we need to be able to implement that solution in areas where it is appropriate.”
Denson said the residential resource zones are also environmentally sensitive areas with wetlands and critical habitat.
“These are designations that were made a long time ago by land use professionals, environmental professionals, in areas where there is supposed to be the lowest impact development. Not high density housing, for example,” she said. “That’s why I thought this sets a really poor precedent that we might allow a higher impact use in this area. It’s just one area for now, but it sets a precedent for opening up types of development that are not appropriate for the land elsewhere in the county as well.”
Supporters of village say repeals send ‘confusing message’
Duke Paulson, the executive director of Tacoma Rescue Mission, said he was surprised the council is considering repealing the ordinances when Tacoma Rescue Mission has already submitted its permits to build.
Tacoma Rescue Mission has joined Pierce County as an intervener in its defense against petitions from Futurewise and Spanaway Concerned Citizens. Paulson said the mission’s lawyers think “there’s a very low likelihood of the case having any merits that we need to be concerned about.”
If the ordinances are repealed, it leaves Tacoma Rescue Mission in an awkward position where it would be operating in a zone that doesn’t fit its use, he said.
“We’re basically locked into everything we plan right now,” Paulson said. “We kind of lose our ability to change or adapt.”
Paulson said, “It also puts us in a really awkward spot” as the organization that stepped forward to take on this shared housing project to have the council consider repealing the ordinances.
As for environmental concerns, “We’re completely in line with all the county codes and regulations and ordinances,” he said.
Steve O’Ban, senior counsel to the Pierce County Executive’s Office, said it would be unwise for the county to repeal the two ordinances because it “sends a real mixed message” that the county doesn’t want to build shared housing villages and “certainly has a dampening effect on other projects that could be well-suited for low-income people like the chronically homeless.”
“It’s a confusing message, and makes it more difficult for the [Tacoma Rescue] Mission, and it has to raise a lot of money to make this actually happen,” O’Ban said. “The concern that I have is that it will be more challenging for the Mission to explain to potential funders. ... It’s a real strait-jacket on permission to be able to operate this village in perpetuity for 10 to 20 years.”
The Community First! Village model is one that has proven to work in Texas, O’Ban said. Having employment on-site, as well as mental health and addiction recovery treatment will be helpful to foster social and community connections among people who have often exhausted other options, he said.
If the Tacoma Rescue Mission didn’t build on this site, another developer could have come in and built 185 single-family homes, which would have a much greater environmental and density impact than the tiny-home village, O’Ban said.
Next Monday the issue will go before the Community Development Committee, which will make a recommendation to the Pierce County Council. The council will discuss whether or not to repeal the ordinances on July 25.
