The land-use hearing official taking testimony this week on Pierce County’s controversial homeless village project near Spanaway Lake expressed skepticism over key parts of the proposal.
Early in the hearing, the lawyer who described himself as the “ultimate decision maker” on the future of the Pierce County Village project had some pointed questions about why the project needs hundreds of parking spots, if the residential project is “smuggling in” commercial business and how a farm is being planned without water for the crops.
The Pierce County Village plan , which promises to build a high-density micro village of supportive housing to support hundreds of chronically homeless people, is being reviewed in a Pierce County land-use hearing, with both its compliance with zoning ordinances and the project’s impact on an adjacent wetland called into question.
During the first day of the hearing , which began April 29 and could stretch over more than a week, hearing examiner Alex Sidles asked questions of the county and the proposed operators of the village, Tacoma Rescue Mission, about how the project complies with relevant county land-use and zoning codes.
The village, sited adjacent to a wetland between Spanaway Lake and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, has been pitched to include nearly 300 units of housing for the chronically unhoused and the staff that will manage the project within 87-acres of densely wooded and wetland area.
During the hearing, Tacoma Rescue Mission executive director Duke Paulson testified that the micro village primarily would serve people between the ages of 55 and 58 years old who have been unhoused for around 10 years and have a physical, mental or chemical dependence disability. Unhoused veterans would get priority invitations to live at the village, Paulson said.
The county was told that the demographic of residents of the village who will be required to work, pay rent and agree to community standards in the village would have “ more in common with a senior living facility than the general population. ”
During the hearing, staff from the county reported that they were unaware of any restriction that would prevent younger people from being residents at the facility.
The village, situated in between neighborhoods of single-family zoning, received a conditional higher density zoning. County code requires a specific amount of active recreational space for residents in high-density developments such as the proposed village.
Because of its focus on older people, Tacoma Rescue Mission has proposed a smaller amount of active recreational space than might otherwise be required. Sidles questioned whether the recreational spaces proposed would actually fit the demographics that the village is intended to serve.
The recreational amenities proposed by Tacoma Rescue Mission include nature trails, a recreational field, a civic center, an agricultural building and a few sites intended for community farming.
During the hearing, Sidles asked how the older and mobility-limited residents who are proposed to make up the population of the village would be reasonably able to access the recreational amenities planned across the many acres of the property.
The civic center, open recreation area and agriculture building are planned to be far to the east of the actual village — separated by wetlands and dense forests and connected by a single road.
Paulson told the hearing examiner that there are preliminary plans to include a shuttle service to help transport residents from their homes on one end of the 80-plus acre property to the other.
The Pierce County Village proposal includes plans for over 300 parking spots. The majority of the parking capacity is planned for lots adjacent to the civic building and the agriculture building near Spanaway Loop road.
The high amount of parking far away from the residential village led Sidles to ask questions about how many people outside the community would be commuting in and whether that was consistent with what the zoning codes the proposal would be using.
When asked why the Pierce County Village would need hundreds of parking spots, Pierce County planning supervisor Robert Jenkins testified that Tacoma Rescue Mission “had not provided” that information to county staff, despite numerous requests to do so.
Paulson testified that much of the parking, adjacent to the agriculture building and the civic center, would be for volunteers and staff expected to help run the village campus. Sidles questioned whether that volume of parking would be necessary on a daily basis to accommodate staff and volunteers or whether they were intended to accommodate outside visitors.
The zoning that the village would use allows for non-residential buildings such as the civic center or the agricultural building to be built for “community accessory use,” with the intent to serve members inside the community. Sidles said the buildings’ proximity to the outside roads, large parking lots and distance from the residential village suggest that the buildings may be intended for something outside of “community accessory use.”
Jenkins testified that the county was under the impression that the civic center would be a venue to be rented by the public for events such as weddings to “provide income.”
Paulson said that Tacoma Rescue Mission planned to have micro-enterprises and job opportunities for residents in the village and mentioned ideas such as a dog daycare, a farmers market and a barbershop among others. It is unclear whether those businesses would be used exclusively by village residents or whether folks from outside the community would be allowed to patronize them.
Sidles said he was worried that Tacoma Rescue Mission was “smuggling in commercial uses” into what was a project zoned residential. He said the excess parking and the wide variety of “seemingly commercial uses” might not be consistent with the code, and he did not want a shopping or event center built on the property under the guise of homeless services.
“It starts to look like a strip mall, frankly,” Sidles said.
Paulson testified that a community farming area would provide a therapeutic outlet for residents to grow their own crops and possibly sell them at an on-site farmers market to develop ownership over the community. Plans for the site proposed to the county do not include details about how the farming area would be supplied with water to support the crops.
Todd Sawin is an engineer for AHBL, which helped design the plan for the Pierce County Village. Sawin suggested during the hearing that certain vegetables that needed less water could be grown at the site, or that a 2- or 3-inch water line could be installed underneath a road to get water to the farm area, but further permits would be needed to do so.
Sidles expressed concern over the lack of details surrounding the implementation of the farm area and worried that it was a “fig leaf” offered to appease the recreational space required by land-use code, even suggesting that the plan included a “fake farm.”
“I don’t know what you are planning here,” Sidles said to representatives of the Tacoma Rescue Mission. “I need to make sure this is not a pretend farm to shut me up.”
William Lynn, an attorney representing Tacoma Rescue Mission, acknowledged that the Pierce County Village project was “something of an experiment,” as it is a unique site and plan for an ambitious project. Lynn told the hearing examiner that he and Tacoma Rescue Mission had been working with the county to be consistent with zoning code requirements.
Paulson said that Tacoma Rescue Mission is trying to be “flexible” in how they use the space of the property in order to accommodate the different needs of both the residents and the community.
With their project plan ultimately constrained by the landscape and wetland features, Sidles asked why Tacoma Rescue Mission did not just reduce the amount of residence units to make room for more required recreation that would be closer to the elderly residents, Paulson vehemently answered: “Every unit is a life.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0