Business Community Government

Rush, Pierce County spar over Trailside’s Canterwood Boulevard improvements

Construction of Trailside, Rush Companies’ proposed 120-unit apartment complex just outside the Canterwood gated community, has hit a snag over the question of who will pay for sidewalks, bike lanes, streetlights and other improvements along Canterwood Boulevard.

Pierce County asserts that the east side of the road as it passes Trailside serves pedestrians and bicyclists poorly. It is asking Rush to remedy this with new features along approximately 750 feet of frontage. The features would “ensure safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles adjacent to the site.”

Rush says it’s not their job to provide these items. It points to a 21-year-old Pierce County Hearing Examiner decision obligating a future developer to a smaller batch of roadside improvements. That decision, Rush says, specifically exempts them from installing sidewalks on Canterwood Boulevard.

In an administrative appeal that Rush filed last month, the developer also claims the county has failed to show that Canterwood Boulevard improvements are needed as a direct result of the Trailside project.

The two sides will argue the case before the Pierce County Hearing Examiner on April 15.

City of Gig Harbor traffic engineer Aaron Hulst snapped this photo of the well-worn footpath along Trailside’s Canterwood Boulevard frontage. It accompanied his comments on Trailside’s Traffic Impact Analysis study. Trailside is in unincorporated Pierce County but the boulevard is Gig Harbor’s right-of-way.

City road, county project

Trailside, at the corner of Baker Way and Canterwood Boulevard, lies in unincorporated Pierce County. But it abuts land to the south that is in the city of Gig Harbor.

The properties across the boulevard from the project, and continuing for some distance north, are also in the city. Legally, Canterwood Boulevard is the city’s right-of-way. So the county worked with Gig Harbor in formulating requirements related to Trailside’s traffic impact.

On Jan. 23, Pierce County issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) as part of its State Environmental Policy Act review of Trailside. It conditioned approval on (among other requirements) the developer providing “frontage improvements along the east side of Canterwood Blvd NW … constructed in accordance with the City of Gig Harbor Public Works Standards for a Minor Arterial Roadway.”

“At a minimum, improvements shall include an 11-foot travel lane, 5-foot bike lane, 1.5-foot vertical curb and gutter, a 5-foot planter strip with street lighting, and a 5.5-foot sidewalk,” the MDNS reads.

Pierce County is requiring Trailside to follow city of Gig Harbor standard along Trailside’s Canterwood Boulevard frontage. Source: Pierce County.

More pedestrians

Gig Harbor City Engineer Aaron Hulst collaborated with county officials in reviewing Trailside, a six-building, 120-unit complex. The city strongly favors the upgrades for walking and biking.

“[D]ata shows that on average each [Trailside] unit will contain 2.72 residents” he commented on the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis study, using the county’s software that allows collaborative document review. “Therefore, the Trailside project is introducing 326 pedestrians to the Canterwood corridor.”

“Without filling the sidewalk gap from Baker Way to Trailside’s southern limits with adequate facilities, the new 326 residents will be forced to navigate the unprotected roadway shoulder to access the hospital and commercial area of Gig Harbor North.”

“Ignoring this important pedestrian/cyclist gap is unsafe, not consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, active transportation plan, nor is it consistent with sound engineering judgment and practices.”

Gig Harbor’s public works standards, adopted in 2018, hold that frontage improvements shall be installed when an unbuilt property receives approval of a site plan, planned residential district, planned unit development, plat or short plat.

Hulst noted that adjacent to Trailside’s southern border, permitting is underway for a development of eight single-family homes on 5.84 acres. This development, informally called the Parr Plat, is slated to make the same kind of improvements along Canterwood Boulevard that are being asked of Trailside, Hulst said.

With those features added, sidewalk would run continuously from Trailside’s southern edge to the commercial areas in Gig Harbor North, he noted.

The Trailside apartments are planned near the intersection of Baker Way and Canterwood Boulevard. Photo by Ted Kenney

2005 hearing examiner decision

But is Trailside exempt from these frontage requirements due to mandates in a Pierce County Hearing Examiner decision issued more than 20 years ago?

The 5.85 acre Trailside site is one of the last undeveloped scraps of the Canterwood master-planned community. In 2005, then-owner Lorigon Corporation along with the Canterwood Development Corporation sought to subdivide 23.46 acres into a mix of residential and commercial uses.

The 2005 Hearing Examiner approved the plat, allowing commercial and business uses on the land that would become Trailside. The county changed this designation in 2024 to also allow residential development. Over the years, potential uses for the land included townhouses, professional offices, single-family homes and a warehouse.

The 2005 decision “explicitly addressed frontage improvements” for the site, Rush argues in its appeal of the mitigated determination on nonsignificance.

The Hearing Examiner mandated sidewalks along Baker Way on the property’s north end. But while it discussed the question of sidewalks along the eastern frontage, it stopped short of requiring them. The examiner noted that entry and exit would occur only via Baker Way and that “no other sidewalks exist” along Canterwood Boulevard.

Traffic impact fees

Rush does not object to the determination’s requirement that it install sidewalks and other improvements along Trailside’s Baker Way frontage. St. Anthony Hospital, which opened in 2009 to the south on Canterwood Boulevard, now has such features.

“The City of Gig Harbor was aware of and/or involved in” discussions of Canterwood Boulevard frontage improvements during the 2005 plat approval process. But neither it nor the county appealed the decision, Rush argues in its appeal brief. Rush has “reasonably relied on” the Hearing Examiner’s directives, and that decision should stand, the appeal states.

Rush will argue before the Hearing Examiner that the county failed to show that Trailside’s impact necessitates sidewalks and other improvements along Canterwood Boulevard.

Under state law, “no payment or exaction can be required unless the local government can show it is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat.” The U.S. Constitution contains a similar requirement, according to the appeal brief.

It also notes – and the county confirms – that Rush has paid $454,320 in Traffic Impact Fees in connection with Trailside. These fees are assessed on new residential development based on number of dwelling units. While not tied to arguments in the brief, the fees are mentioned because they are “the proper source of funds for improvements not necessitated by an individual development,” said Bill Lynn, Rush’s attorney.

Pierce County has not released any rebuttal of Rush’s appeal arguments. Through a spokesperson, it commented that mitigation required by the determination of nonsignificance was “determined through review of the traffic impact analysis.”

Larger project

That analysis, prepared by consultants Heath & Associates, concluded that Trailside will generate “approximately 845 average weekday daily [vehicle] trips, including 60 trips during the AM peak hour and 72 trips during the PM peak hour.” It noted that bicycle and foot traffic during its observation “was limited to only one pedestrian or cyclist recorded during the peak hour for each study intersection.” The report did not project future non-motorist activity.

In his comments on Trailside’s traffic impact study, Hulst noted that “[s]ince the 20-year-old Hearing Examiner’s approval, the project scope had changed drastically.”

“The current proposal introduces 120 residential multifamily units. This was not considered by the Hearing Examiner” in 2005.

One conclusion the Hearing Examiner reached in 2005 appears to address future changes to that decision’s requirements. It holds that that “[a]ny substantial changes(s) or deviation(s) in such plans, proposals, or conditions of approval shall be subject to the approval of the hearing examiner and may require further and additional hearings.”