9:30 a.m. January 3, Planning Commission meeting on Spanaway Tiny Home Village Zoning Change

Yes, maybe you got a post card about the meeting 1/3/23, at Sprinker at 7p.m., where the County will tell you what they did after the fact. But better yet, get to this Special Meeting of the Pierce County Planning Commission earlier in the same day at the Annex, 2401 S. 35th St. Tacoma, WA 98409. The meeting at 9:30 a.m. is time to get serious with someone who can still do something about it!

Here is the link to the Planning Commissions agenda.

Here is what is to be done from their template:

SUBJECT: Development Regulations Amendment – Shared Housing Village Zoning
Update in PSM Plan Area Residential Resource Zone
The Planning Commission will review and consider proposed amendments
to the Pierce County Code (PCC) to allow for shared housing villages with
a conditional use permit in the Residential Resource (RR) zone of the
Parkland-Spanaway-Midland (PSM) Communities Plan Area of
unincorporated Pierce County.

NOTICE: Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the
News Tribune on December 20, 2022.

SEPA: The Responsible Official conducted an environmental review of the
proposal pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and issued
a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) on December 6, 2022, which is
attached herein. The SEPA 14-day comment period concluded on
December 20, 2022.

The Planning and Public Works Department (PPW) recommends approval.

See that – already recommended for approval, in our sensitive water resource area! A good idea in a very, very wrong place. Where is the EIS that really, really ought to be done for this. The Cross Base Highway needed an EIS for this area. Who is in charge here and why are they still in office?

Lots of people need to show up for this or it will be a done deal. It is a VERY difficult time for public to show up, but you can call or write. Please email Melissa Morris, Clerk to the Board at ppwlongrangeadmin@piercecountywa.gov.


4 Comments Add yours

  1. A tiny village is a good idea. However, proper prior planning to prevent poor performance has NOT been done for this proposed tiny village site.

    Many, including me, are very concerned about the quality of our water near and in Spanaway Lake and Tule Lake. We must include Tule Lake in Parkland with our concerns too, since these lakes are connected by a stream and are fed by the same water source.

    Spanaway Lake is already stressed! The lake is already is full of pollutants and the neighbors are trying really hard to get it clean and safe for the wildlife and themselves and others to enjoy. There are many times when the toxic algae takes over many portions of the lake and at that point, it isn’t safe for people or animals to be in.

    There are no sewers available in this area that they propose to build in. This means all of the human waste and other “who knows what” will go down the drain into the ground-and into the ground water.

    This is ground water that feeds the watershed where we get the water that we drink and use to wash our bodies. Once it’s polluted, it’s difficult to impossible to recover.

    Look at some areas in the Eastern part of our country that are Currently dealing with the cancers, respiratory problems, and birth defects caused by water they thought was safe to drink! Lots of lawsuits-think about that!

    We are the last frontier and we must consider the health of our Mother Earth over the $$$$$profit that some folks will make from this proposal.

    Other issues: basically you’re out in what we used to call “the boonies”, with no resources close by. No grocery store to walk or roll to that is close enough. Nothing.

    One side of the property almost butts up against the military base so that’s a dead end. I would assume that many folks will be without transportation and the bus line is not close, either.

    Let’s rethink this. There are areas where this tiny village makes sense. Perhaps areas that are dry and that Pierce County already owns. (I imagine the purchase price will be pretty good for the property owner that owns these wetlands for a tiny village versus selling with just wetlands value-I wonder what is the purchase price that has been agreed upon?)

    Please, County Planners, let’s use our good sense now and don’t approve this proposal.

    Show us that you care more about people and the future health of our county’s environment than the money that others will make with this transaction.

    We need housing that makes sense and shows respect for the intended users. How would you feel if you were sent out to the boonies to live, in the middle of no where, where you have to share a kitchen and a bathroom and can’t even walk or roll to the corner grocery because there are only trees and ponds? Would you want to stay there?

    It’s a beautiful area and would make a lovely park to visit and then leave.

    Also, you probably know this, but the county has pretty much put the Cross Base Highway (to no-where) on permanent hold, so that won’t help with transportation or amenities in the area.

    This area is a natural wetlands and was (until the county recently changed it for this purpose) protected by zoning as Rural Resource. There’s a reason it was zoned that way, why would the county change it? It makes no sense to me..

    Let’s rethink this and disapprove the location selected for this tiny village.

    The answer is out there, let’s keep working on it so that we can help our Pierce County citizens in a way that is respectful and actually will make a positive difference in their lives.

  2. terry hurd says:

    It has been the continuing program of Pierce County to disregard any law, including their own, to densify development in the UGA without infrastructure. It is sad to hear the same speeches from Seattle and Puget Sound Regional Council spoken here to develop like this area is an inner city and not call this proposal land, swamp land. We drink water but have no mountain watershed nor reservoir, all water comes from the ground, if it rains. So here again aquifer recharge land is to be developed at slum level density. RR land is one to three houses per net developable acre. The effort of the people thru Land Use Advisory Commissions is disregarded as non-significant. Even the required building site for moderate family has been reduced from 7260 sq. to 4000sq. When will the GMA be seen as the developer’s protection for increasing tax revenue for the County. Good clean water no longer flows from our taps, it is all treated. Our government raises the allowable contaminants like it raises the amount of traffic on a road before addressing the problem. Too few watch and address the issues of our time. Do not complain if you’re not working with those working on the livability of our community. Terry Hurd

  3. Lincoln says:

    David Batker Comments Submitted 12/19/22

    The proposed change to the Residential Use Code should be denied. This is in the headwaters of Spanaway Creek.

    The proposed high density shared housing village is absolutely at odds with the goals of the area plan, and inconsistent ecologically, and with the neighborhood.

    This area is a wetland and very sensitive ecologically with the presence of endangered species including the Western Grey Squirrel, Gary Oak forest and the associated native species.

    The design with tiny houses has already been shown to be extremely costly, because they are easily damaged and demolished. Oakland, CA has already found that these tiny houses are damaged and destroyed within a year or two and very expensive to attempt to maintain. This population is hard on housing. Housing should be built more like college dorms: concrete block and materials that may need paint, but walls and flooring cannot be easily destroyed. This will be a waste of County funding for homelessness.

    Furthermore, this area is far from any services for the homeless. It is a blatant attempt to dump the homeless in a relatively remote part of Pierce County. Other models show that services close by housing are absolutely critical to reducing homelessness and crime.

    It is also very clear that the best way to reduce homelessness is not to create high density concentrations like this, which brings in greater crime and risk to homeless people. But to have more disbursed and resilient construction housing, closer to services.

    This will likely move the Hosmer crime crisis to this area.

    This proposal is completely inconsistent with the current Parkland Spanaway plan that took years to complete and had tremendous public input.

    This plan violates the intent and word of the Plan, that is why this revision is required. This plan should not be amended for this deeply flawed proposal, which violates the intent, goals, and legal requirements of the Parkland Spanaway Plan.

    The population being served, in the headwaters is known for high drug use, garbage and litter, there is no question there will be contamination of Spanaway Creek with this proposal.

    It is outrageous that there was a determination of no significant impact. That must be reconsidered. Significant impacts to wetlands, Spanaway Creek, Spanaway Lake, critical areas such as oak forests, endangered species habitat, and riparian areas cannot be avoided with this high density proposal.

    Squandering the County’s budget to help the homeless on a plan for outcast fragile housing in an ecologically sensitive area must be rejected.

    The Parkland Spanaway Plan was developed exactly to prevent this kind of absolutely neighborhood incompatible and ecological destructive development.

    A real solution for homelessness, requires more planning and would include more disbursed and resilient housing closer to services.

  4. alschmauder says:

    There is a proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go with others”

    In this case, Pierce County is going alone. Neither the input from citizens nor the homeless clients are desired. Pulling off this change to the Rural Residential zoning in the Community Plan near Christmas is disgusting. Give citizens 14 days to comment. This public process is really an embarrassment to me. Voters really need to do their job next election.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s