Did Pierce County city pull housing density targets ‘out of the air’?
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Council debate centers on consultant density targets in Gig Harbor’s 2024 plan.
- Staff say targets derive from capital facilities analysis and housing best practices.
- Woock challenged data; majority defended staff and voted to adopt plan.
How do cities determine the allowable housing density for their different neighborhoods?
At their meeting Oct. 27, some Gig Harbor City Council members called out council member Jeni Woock for alleging that the city’s consultant had set residential density targets for different neighborhoods without data to support them.
These residential density targets are listed in the city’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan, a document that outlines the broad strokes of how the city plans to manage growth in the next 20 years under the state’s Growth Management Act. These targets dictate how many dwelling units per acre are allowed in different city zones, and are listed in the city’s Comprehensive Plan along with other guidance for increasing affordable and multifamily housing options in the city.
At the prior council meeting Oct. 13, Woock said there is “no data” to support these target densities.
“These numbers, I believe, came out of the air from our consultant, which is also the consultant for the Department of Commerce,” Woock said. She went on to say that she wouldn’t support a proposed ordinance to update the city’s development regulations to align with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which would increase the maximum housing densities allowed in certain parts of the city.
On Oct. 27, council members Le Rodenberg and Roger Henderson were among those who said Woock’s comments were inaccurate.
“I’d like to take the opportunity to suggest that all staff whenever they hear comments from us up here or the public to immediately correct us,” Rodenberg said at the meeting. “... I’d like to see us corrected whenever it was necessary because once that word gets out there, it just takes on a life of its own and becomes truth the more that it’s talked about.”
Council member Roger Henderson said at the meeting that Woock’s comments were an affront to city staff who worked to determine the density targets. Such comments erode the trust that residents have in their city, he said.
“Trust is easily lost by comments that pit residents against city staff who are invested in the good of this city and our residents,” Henderson said. “These comments do not meet that standard.”
The city’s consultant did not generate housing targets, city says
Asked by council member Rodenberg to speak to the accuracy of Woock’s comments, Gig Harbor Community Development Director Eric Baker told the council Oct. 27 he wouldn’t classify the residential density targets in the city’s documents as pulled “out of the air.”
“BERK (the city’s consultant), at the state level, didn’t establish targets,” said Baker. “That actually was established through the countywide planning policies. All the jurisdictions come together to determine those housing numbers.”
It is accurate to say that the same consulting firm worked with the city of Gig Harbor and came up with the methodology for jurisdictions to determine their housing targets, he said, and it’s not uncommon for the same firm to work with multiple clients.
“We have very strong conflict of interest language in our contracts and staff pays very close attention to ensure that those types of conflicts of interest don’t exist,” Baker said.
In a phone call Wednesday, Woock stood by her statement, saying that she has “never been presented with any factual data” to support the density targets. She cited recent examples of proposed developments in Gig Harbor North, saying that “this is the perfect storm of what can happen” when areas are zoned for higher-density.
Gig Harbor spokesperson Lori Maricle referred The News Tribune to the city’s Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Housing Calculations Appendix, when asked what data supports the new housing density numbers.
The appendix says that the city is required to plan for additional housing, broken down into different income bands, as established in county ordinances and under the state’s Growth Management Act. Housing density targets for specific zones were determined based on projected population growth, the number of housing units built per year historically, total acreage of vacant land left to develop and other numbers analyzed in the 2021 Pierce County Buildable Lands Report.
Speaking more generally about the city’s ability to accommodate growth, Baker noted that city staff developed a capital facilities plan as part of their Comprehensive Plan. The capital facilities plan looked into the expected growth of housing, jobs and people in the region, and how that growth would impact the local roads, water system, sewer system, schools, etc., said Baker.
Individual developers are further required when applying for permits to complete a traffic impact analysis and other assessments, and make necessary improvements to ensure that the surrounding infrastructure can support their proposed development, he said.
“So again, we’ve considered the impacts of development both on the front end of the Comprehensive Plan and also when projects come in to ensure that to the best of our ability growth is paying their share, which is what we can require, of growth,” Baker said.
City Council votes to accept new housing density numbers
Voting records for the Gig Harbor City Council members thus far this year show that Woock was the only council member to vote against the ordinance to adopt the city’s updated Comprehensive Plan in April.
A motion Oct. 27 to approve the ordinance that would update the city’s development code passed, 6-1, with Woock voting against the ordinance and the remaining council members voting in favor.
Council member Emily Stone, who is running against Woock in the Nov. 4 general election for council position 3, spoke in support of the ordinance at the meeting.
“I think it’s important to remind the public that as elected officials we did take an oath of office, and part of that oath is to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land, and whether you agree with it or not, part of that law is the Growth Management Act in our state,” Stone said. “And it is our duty as council members to make sure that our development code and regulations do comply with our Comprehensive Plan to stay in line with the state law.”
Woock also commented on the ordinance, saying that she’s hearing how residents are struggling with rising costs and economic uncertainty. She proposed an amendment that would add language stating that “new growth shall pay for new growth” and affirming that residents won’t have to pay for any fees, taxes or other charges resulting from new development.
That proposed amendment prompted some discussion with city staff who raised concerns about the wording and how it fits with existing laws, and clarified that no such proposal that would raise taxes or fees for residents — such as a multifamily tax exemption program — has yet been passed by the city council. Baker also noted that sales taxes and property taxes arising from development also feed the city’s revenues and should be considered as part of growth paying for itself in the city.
The motion to amend, seconded by council member Ben Coronado, failed 5-2 with Woock and Coronado voting in favor and the remaining council members voting against it.
This story was originally published November 1, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
