Controversial Pierce County homeless village is being challenged. Here’s what we know

A Seattle nonprofit has appealed construction of a 285-unit micro-home village for people experiencing chronic homelessness on a 86-acre site just west of Spanaway.

In March after a lengthy discussion and public hearing, the Pierce County Council approved a zoning ordinance that would allow the controversial village to be built in a low-density residential housing zone. Construction of the village is planned to be completed in fall 2028, after completion of required permits and associated appeal periods.

In a petition submitted to the Growth Management Hearings Board of the Central Puget Sound Region on April 17, Futurewise alleges the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with Pierce County planning policies and regional growth strategy.

Futurewise is a nonprofit that works to support land-use policies that “encourage healthy, equitable and opportunity-rich communities” and has members who are landowners and residents in Pierce County “adversely affected by the County’s adoption” of the ordinance, according to the petition.

At a virtual pre-hearing conference Thursday morning, an attorney for Futurewise agreed to withdraw the petition and submit a new petition to the Growth Management Hearing Board of Central Puget Sound Region by the end of next week with additional language clarifying which issues and policies Futurewise wants to discuss with Pierce County.

Todd Campbell, an attorney for Pierce County, agreed to reconvene at a future date. Campbell and Futurewise attorney Tim Trohimovich said they would have a conversation about potential settlement before the next pre-hearing conference as well.

At Thursday’s conference, presiding officer and board member of the Washington Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office, Rick Eichstaedt, said Futurewise as the petitioner “has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the country’s action is clearly erroneous.”

Campbell said there is a possibility Tacoma Rescue Mission, which will operate the village, will be intervening in the case.

Trohimovich said he has also been contacted “by a number of folks who are concerned by this case.”

“Whether they’re going to intervene or not, or even file another petition for review, I don’t know for sure,” he said.

Issues raised about capacity, county planning goals

At the conference, Campbell said he and Pierce County were “perplexed” by the appeal from Futurewise and wanted more clarification about how the ordinance is inconsistent with the planning policies cited in the original appeal.

In the that appeal, Futurewise asks the Growth Management Hearing Board to find that the zoning ordinance “fails to comply with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act” and requests the Board “remand the matter back to Pierce County for action consistent with the Growth Management Act.”

In addition, Futurewise requested the Board to make a determination of invalidity for the ordinance “because the challenged provisions substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of 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. Among the goals are to encourage urban development, economic development and transportation, as well as affordable housing, environmental protection and the processing of permit applications in a timely and fair manner.

Trohimovich said during the conference 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.

Another issue Trohimovich said he would address more thoroughly in a new appeal is related to “internal consistency” with the county’s comprehensive plan, he said Thursday.

Campbell said some of the issues raised by Trohimovich “seem to be maybe more project-level as opposed to growth management issues.”

“Again, you know, how does this change in [land] use create inadequacies? It’s not a capital facilities issue because it’s not a county-owned property, and it’s not a county project,” Campbell said. “It’s a use change within this community plan, so if there’s a project that comes from this, then those types of issues may be addressed at the project level themselves.”