Background
In 2022, Pierce County adopted a comprehensive plan to end homelessness, emphasizing expanded permanent housing including shared housing units for people unable to afford living alone. Ordinance 2022-49s amended the Pierce County Code to clarify that “dwelling unit” does not include “sleeping units”—defined as private rooms or suites within shared housing that lack individual provisions for cooking, eating, or sanitation. The ordinance established that, for density calculation purposes, sleeping units count as 0.25 dwelling units each. A companion ordinance in 2023 authorized shared housing villages in the Residential Resource zone of the Parkland-Spanaway-Midland community plan area.
In May 2023, while that authorization was in effect, Tacoma Rescue Mission (TRM) applied for a planned development district and conditional use permit to build a shared housing village on 86.32 acres. The proposed village would serve Pierce County’s chronic homeless population and include 189 park-model recreational vehicles, 96 micro sleeping units, and 4 single-family dwellings, along with communal bathrooms, laundry, and cooking facilities. The Residential Resource zone caps density at 3 dwelling units per acre; with 72.71 developable acres, the parcel’s maximum was approximately 218 dwelling units.
TRM’s application included a statutory warranty deed conveying the entire parcel to TRM, a signed attestation of its legal right to permit the project, and proof of title insurance. Pierce County deemed the application complete in July 2023. Spanaway Concerned Citizens (SCC) challenged the application before the county hearing examiner on two grounds: (1) TRM did not own the entire property because a defunct Drainage District No. 15 retained ownership of a 720-foot-long, 25-foot-wide strip dating to a 1920 court order; and (2) TRM’s proposal exceeded the comprehensive plan’s density limits. The hearing examiner rejected both arguments and approved the permit. SCC appealed to superior court, then to Division II.
The Court’s Holding
Division II affirmed. On the ownership challenge, the court held that SCC failed to show the Drainage District held a “settled, unquestioned” ownership interest in the disputed strip. The 1920 court order conveying a right of way for construction of a drainage ditch was more consistent with an easement than a fee transfer—and TRM had submitted a statutory warranty deed covering the entire parcel together with title insurance. The court also drew a principled boundary on the hearing examiner’s jurisdiction: a land use hearing examiner may determine whether an application complies with applicable land use law, but it cannot litigate title disputes. Adjudicating ownership would require due process protections and remedies—such as deed issuance—that a hearing examiner cannot provide. Any genuine title challenge belongs in a quiet title action in superior court, not in a permit proceeding.
On the density calculation, the court upheld Pierce County’s methodology. Ordinance 2022-49s expressly provides that sleeping units lacking private cooking, eating, or sanitation facilities count as 0.25 dwelling units for density purposes. Applying that formula to the 96 micro sleeping units yields 24 dwelling-unit equivalents. Combined with the 4 single-family dwellings and the park-model RVs (also classified as sleeping units), TRM’s project fell well within the 218-unit maximum. The court rejected SCC’s argument that the comprehensive plan’s density limits should be applied to sleeping units as full dwelling units: the Pierce County Code’s express sleeping-unit definition and density formula controlled, and TRM’s application was consistent with it.
Key Takeaways
- Pierce County’s sleeping-unit density framework—counting each sleeping unit lacking private cooking, eating, or sanitation provisions as 0.25 dwelling units—is valid and controls over arguments that the comprehensive plan’s density limits should be applied to sleeping units as full dwelling units.
- A land use hearing examiner lacks jurisdiction to litigate fee-title ownership disputes; a permit applicant that submits a statutory warranty deed and title insurance satisfies its ownership documentation obligation even if a challenger asserts a competing historical claim to a portion of the property.
- Title disputes must be brought through a quiet title action in superior court, not through the permit appeal process before a county hearing examiner; attempting to litigate ownership in a permit proceeding to block vesting will fail on jurisdictional grounds.
- Application vesting occurs when a complete application is filed under a then-valid ordinance; TRM’s application vested in May 2023 while the authorizing ordinance was in effect, notwithstanding the County’s subsequent repeal of that ordinance in December 2023.
Why It Matters
As Washington counties tackle chronic homelessness, shared housing villages—and the density accounting methodology that makes large-scale facilities economically feasible—face repeated legal challenges from neighboring property owners. Spanaway Concerned Citizens validates the core framework: the 0.25-dwelling-unit-per-sleeping-unit calculation survives scrutiny under the Pierce County Code and the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. Developers of shared housing who structure their proposals under this formula can proceed without fear that opponents will recharacterize sleeping units as full dwelling units to drive project density above permissible limits.
The decision’s treatment of title challenges in permit proceedings is equally significant for permit applicants across all contexts. By holding that hearing examiners cannot adjudicate competing ownership claims, the court closes off a litigation strategy that opponents have used to manufacture vesting obstacles. A party that believes a neighbor lacks true title to its parcel must pursue that claim in court—and a permit that vests before that court action resolves is not undone by the later title dispute. Counties and cities processing permit applications in similar circumstances should take note: the hearing examiner’s function is consistency with land use law, not title adjudication.