hearings examiner recommendation SSBH CUP · Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Lacey Hearings Examiner South Sound Behavioral Health CUP 16-321 Page 6 of 28 4.07-acre

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

City of Lacey Hearings Examiner

South Sound Behavioral Health CUP 16-321

Page 1 of 28

BEFORE THE HEARINGS EXAMINER

FOR THE CITY OF LACEY

In the Matter of the Application of ) No. 16-321

)

Martina Sze, on behalf of ) South Sound Behavioral

Vest Thurston Realty, LLC ) Health Hospital

)

) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,

For a Conditional Use Permit ) AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

The Hearings Examiner recommends that the request for a conditional use permit to convert a

vacant office building, on a 4.07-acre site at 605 Woodland Square Loop, to a 115-bed secure

behavioral health hospital be APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to mitigate project

impacts.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

Hearing Date:

The City of Lacey Hearings Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on May 17,

2017. At the hearing, the Applicant requested the record be left open until May 24, 2017, to

allow time to respond to additional written public comments received at the hearing. The

Hearings Examiner granted the request and, accordingly, the record closed on May 24, 2017.

Testimony:

The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:

Sarah Schelling, City Planner

Tom Stiles, City Development Review Engineer

Richard Kresch, Applicant Representative

David Sutherland

Alfie Alvarado-Ramos

Art Tolentino

Lu Carlson

David Schaffert

John Grantham

Rick Nelson

Michael Brouillette

Mike McClure

Carl Halsan

Timothy Stokes

Jollie Darnelle

Michael Cade




Page 2 of 28

Carolyn Graden

Attorney Heather Burgess represented the Applicant at the open record hearing.

Exhibits:

The following exhibits were admitted into the record:

1. List of Exhibits

2. Staff Report, dated May 9, 2017

3. General Land Use Application, received December 23, 2016

4. Conditional Use Permit Application, received December 23, 2016

5. Project Narrative, dated December 23, 2016, with attachments:

a. Aerial Photo, undated

b. Letter from Michael McClure, DM Ventures – Woodland, undated

c. Surrounding Area Plan, dated December 20, 2016

d. Letter from Matthew Bogusz, Mayor of Des Plaines, Illinois, dated September 19,

2016

e. Letter from William Kushner, Chief of Police, Des Plaines, Illinois, dated

September 6, 2016

f. Letter from Alan Wax, Fire Chief, Des Plaines, Illinois, dated September 19, 2016

g. Letter from Scott LaVielle, Fire Chief, City of Tumwater, dated December

20, 2016

h. Letter from Tammie Jensen-Tabor, Special Services Director, Tumwater School

District, dated December 21, 2016

i. Letter from Lynessa Tinglum, Community Relations Director, Advanced Health

Care, dated December 21, 2016

j. Letter from Jim Geist, CEO, Capital Medical Center, dated December 16, 2016

k. Letter from Ken Lee, MD, dated December 20, 2016

l. Letter from Heather Johnson, MA, Aspire, Inc., dated December 20, 2016

m. Letter from Denise Goin, DMHP, dated December 17, 2016

n. Letter from Aurora Rodriguez, The Marston Center, dated December 16, 2016

o. Letter from Randy Marston, The Marston Center, dated December 16, 2016

6. Commercial Traffic Generation Worksheet, dated June 15, 2016

7. SEPA Environmental Checklist, dated December 23, 2016

8. Site Plans, dated December 22, 2016:

a. Cover Sheet, C1.0 (Sheet 1 of 6)

b. TESC Plan, C1.1 (Sheet 2 of 6)

c. Site Plan, C1.2 (Sheet 3 of 6)

d. Drainage Plan, C1.3 (Sheet 4 of 6)

e. Drainage Notes & Details, C1.4 (Sheet 5 of 6)

f. Utility Plan C1.5, (Sheet 6 of 6)

g. Concept Landscape Plan, L1.0 (Sheet 1 of 1)

9. City Transmittal Memorandum, dated February 16, 2017

10. Notice of Application, dated February 17, 2017




Page 3 of 28

11. Notice of Application ad copy, The Olympian, published February 17, 2017, with email

from Vincent Sampson to Sarah Schelling, with email string

12. Presubmission and Site Plan Review Comments, notes by Terry McDaniel, Fire Code

Reviewer, dated February 23, 2017

13. Comments from Wade Duffy, Building Official/Fire Marshal, dated February 27, 2017

14. Comments from Rick Walk, Community and Economic Development Director, dated

February 27, 2017

15. Comments from Pat McGuin, City Transportation Engineer, received February 16, 2017

16. Comments from Tom Stiles, City Development Review Manager, dated March 20, 2017

17. Letter from Department of Ecology, Southwest Regional Office, to Sarah Schelling,

dated March 2, 2017

18. Letter from Sarah Schelling, City of Lacey, to Mark Steepy, dated March 14, 2017

19. Letter from Martina Sze, US Healthvest, to Sarah Schelling, dated March 20, 2017

20. List of Police Department Needs – from Chief Dusty Pierpoint, received April 20, 2017

21. Letter from Sarah Schelling to Martina Sze, dated April 20, 2 017

22. Email from Martina Sze to Sarah Schelling, dated May 2, 2017

23. Certificate of Need Approval, Department of Health, dated July 5, 2016

24. Letter from Michael Cade, Thurston County Economic Development Council, to

Hearings Examiner, dated May 3, 2017.

25. Email from Steve Brooks to Sarah Schelling, dated April 20, 2017, with email string

26. Information on Fire and Law Enforcement Service Calls in 2016

27. Memo from David Schaffert and Doug Mah, Thurston County Chamber, to Rick Walk,

dated April 24, 2017

28. Determination of Nonsignificance, dated April 28, 2017

29. Memo from George Smith, Economic Development Coordinator, to Sarah Schelling,

dated May 5, 2017

30. Notice of Public Hearing, undated

31. Notice of Public Hearing, The Olympian, for publication May 5, 2017, with email from

Vincent Sampson to Sarah Schelling, with email string

32. Certification of Public Notice, dated May 9, 2017

33. Letter from Randy Marston, The Marston Center, to Mayor Andy Ryder, dated February

23, 2017

34. Letter from Aurora Rodriguez, The Marston Center, to Rick Walk, dated December 16,

2016

35. Letter from Randy Marston, The Marston Center, to Rick Walk, dated December 16,

2016

36. Letter from Jim Geist, Capitol Medical Center, to Rick Walk, dated December 16, 2016

37. Letter from Denise Goin, DHMP, to Rick Walk, dated December 17, 2016

38. Letter from Scott, LaVielle, Fire Chief, City of Tumwater, to Rick Walk, dated December

20, 2016

39. Letter from Tammie Jensen-Tabor, Tumwater School District, to Rick Walk, dated

December 21, 2016

40. Letter from Heather Johnson, Aspire Inc., to Rick Walk, dated December 20, 2016

41. Letter from Ken Lee, MD, to Rick Walk, dated December 20, 2016




Page 4 of 28

42. Letter from John Bash, Tumwater School District, to Rick Walk, dated December 21,

2016

43. Letter from Lynessa Tinglum, Advanced Health Care, to Rick Walk, dated December 21,

2016

44. Letter from Lu Carlson to Rick Walk, dated December 21, 2016

45. Letter from Katya V Shkurkin, PhD, LCSW, MSW, to Rick Walk, dated December 22,

2016

46. Letter from Heather Sigby, Nisqually Valley Care Center, to Rick Walk, dated December

22, 2016

47. Letter from Lynn Grotsky, LICSW, to Rick Walk, dated December 22, 2016

48. Letter from Kristy Danforth, RND, Olympia Nursing Services, to Rick Walk, dated

December 23, 2016

49. Letter from Rick Nelson, Ricardo’s Restaurant, to Rick Walk, dated January 28, 2017

50. Letter from Dr. Timothy Stokes, President, South Puget Sound Community College, to

Rick Walk, dated February 22, 2017

51. Recommendation from Thurston County Chamber Business and Economic Development

Committee, dated March 3, 2017

52. Letter from Kathy M. Leonard, MSGS Architects, to Rick Walk, dated March 14, 2017

53. Letter from Lu Carlson to Rick Walk, dated March 21, 2017

54. Letter from Boxin Zhang, Capital Acupuncture Clinic, to Rick Walk, dated March 22,

2017

55. Letter from Paul Knox, Executive Director, United Way of Thurston County, to Rick

Walk, dated March 27, 2017

56. Letter from Dr. Jason Furbush, Yauger Park Family Pharmacy, to Rick Walk, dated March

27, 2017

57. Letter from Martin McElliott, Lacey South Sound Chamber President, to Rick Walk,

dated April 10, 2017

58. Letter from Garrett Gunderson, B&R Flooring President, to Rick Walk, dated April 13,

2017

59. Letter from Pat Kohler, Director, State of Washington Department of Licensing, to Rick

Walk, dated April 27, 2017

60. Letter from Jeff Egbert, Capitol Medical Center, to Rick Walk, dated May 3, 2017

61. Resume, Dr. Richard A. Kresch

62. Biographic Information, Colonel David W. Sutherland, US Army (Retired)

63. Applicant PowerPoint Presentation (21 Slides)

64. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Initial Order, Department of Health

Adjudicative Service Unit, Case No. M2016-876, dated May 8, 2017

65. 6th Avenue Frontage Plan, undated

66. Aerial Photograph, undated

67. Aerial Photograph of Woodland Square, undated

68. Letter from Michael McClure, DM Ventures – Woodland, to the Hearings Examiner,

undated

69. Email from Dennis Bloom, Planning Manager, Intercity Transit, dated May 16, 2017




Page 5 of 28

70. Letter from Providence Health & Services and Fairfax Behavioral Health, dated May 17,

2017

71. Letter from Providence Health & Services, dated May 17, 2017

72. Comments from Colonel David W. Sutherland, dated May 17, 2017

73. Letter from Leslie Van Leishout, Director of Student Support, North Thurston Public

Schools, dated May 17, 2017

74. Comments from Simeon Roth, dated May 17, 2017

75. Letter from Carl Halsan, dated May 17, 2017

76. City Response to Exhibits 70, 71, & 75, dated May 24, 2017

77. Applicant Response to Exhibits 70, 71, & 75, dated May 24, 2017

The Hearings Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony

at the open record hearing and admitted exhibits:

FINDINGS

Background

1. On January 14, 2016, US HealthVest, LLC, the parent company of Vest Thurston Realty,

LLC (Applicant), applied to the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) for a

Certificate of Need (CN), under Chapter 246-310 of the Washington Administrative Code

(WAC), to establish a 75-bed psychiatric hospital in Lacey. Through the CN process, an

applicant must show that: (1) the proposed project is needed; (2) the proposed project

would foster containment of the costs of healthcare within the state; (3) the project is

financially feasible; and (4) the project would meet requirements related to structure and

process of care. Exhibit 23; Exhibit 64.

2. DOH determined that the proposal would satisfy the requirements of Chapter 246-310

WAC and, on July 5, 2016, DOH issued its provisional approval of the CN, with

conditions. The conditions require that: the executed proposal complies with proposed

plans and project descriptions; an Admission Policy be submitted to DOH for review and

approval; an adopted Charity Care Policy be approved by DOH; certain financing

requirements be met; the lease agreement between the Applicant and the property owner

(DM Ventures) be approved by DOH; and a list of key hospital staff be provided for

review and approval. US HealthVest, LLC, agreed to DOH’s conditions and, on July 13,

2016, DOH awarded it the CN.1 Exhibit 23; Exhibit 64.

Application and Notice

3. Having obtained the necessary CN from DOH, the Applicant now requests a conditional

use permit (CUP) from the City of Lacey (City) to convert a vacant office building, on a

1 Providence Health & Services challenged the award of the CN by filing a petition for adjudicative

proceeding with DOH’s Adjudicative Service Unit. On May 8, 2017, Presiding Health Law Judge

Matthew Herington issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Initial Order upholding DoH’s

decision. Exhibit 64.




Page 6 of 28

4.07-acre site, to a 115-bed secure behavioral health hospital, an essential public facility.2

The initial phase of construction would include 75 beds, as approved by the DOH on July

5, 2016. At full build-out, and with additional approval from DOH through the CN

process, the facility would include approximately 55,700 square feet of in-patient space

with 115 beds, 4,500 square feet of out-patient clinical space, and 17,800 square feet of

associated office and administrative space. The facility would provide in-patient, as well

as limited out-patient, care to children, teens, adults, and seniors but would not treat

criminal or forensic patients, violent felons, or sex offenders. No external expansion of

the 78,808 square foot building would occur, and the Applicant would install frontage

improvements and on-site stormwater improvements, and would provide for right-of-way

dedications. The property is located at 605 Woodland Square Loop.3 Exhibit 2, Staff

Report, page 1; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4.

4. The City determined that the application was complete on December 28, 2016. The City

posted notice of the application at the subject property on February 16, 2017, and routed

notice to applicable agencies the same day. On February 17, 2017, the City published

notice of the application in The Olympian. On May 5, 2017, the City published notice of

the open record hearing associated with the application in The Olympian, mailed notice of

the hearing to all owners of property within 300 feet of the property, and posted notice of

the hearing at the property. As discussed in detail below, the City received several

comments from applicable agencies in response to its notice materials as well as dozens

of comments from area businesses, organizations, and residents. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2,

Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 30; Exhibit 31; Exhibit

32.

State Environmental Policy Act Review

5. The City Community Development Department (CDD) acted as lead agency and

analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal, as required by the State

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington

(RCW). The CDD used the Optional Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) process

allowed by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-355 and provided notice

with the notice of application, dated February 17, 2017. The notice materials stated that

the CDD expected to issue a DNS for the proposal and provided a comment period from

2 Prior to applying for a CUP, the Applicant completed the 90-day early notification process and alternative site analysis for a Type II essential public facility as required by Chapter 16.66 Lacey Municipal Code

(LMC). In association with the Thurston County Chamber of Commerce, the Applicant also met with

several organizations and businesses – including the Marston Center, InterCity Transit, Lacey Fire District

#3, South Puget Sound Community College, Timberland Regional Library District, the Evergreen State

College, and Saint Martin’s University – and held three community meetings to discuss the proposed

facility with interested businesses, organizations, and members of the public. Exhibit 27.

3 The subject property is identified by tax parcel numbers 84990002000, 84990002100, and 84990001800.

Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 1. A legal description of the property is included with the General Land Use

Application. Exhibit 3.




Page 7 of 28

February 17, 2017, to March 2, 2017. The Department of Ecology provided the only

comments specifically related to SEPA review, discussing information on toxics cleanup

(if necessary), the potential need for a solid waste handling permit, and required erosion

control measures during construction activities. Following the comment period, the CDD

reviewed the Applicant’s environmental checklist and other available information and

determined that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the

environment and that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and

mitigation measures have been adequately addressed in accord with the City’s applicable

development regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The CDD issued a Determination of

Nonsignificance on April 28, 2017. The DNS was not appealed. Exhibit 2, Staff Report,

page 4; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 17; Exhibit 28.

Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Properties

6. The City and Thurston County have designated the property as within the Woodland

District in the City of Lacey and Thurston County Land Use Plan for the Lacey Urban

Growth Area (Comprehensive Plan). Staff identified a number of Comprehensive Plan

goals and policies relevant to the proposed project.4 These goals and policies include:

enriching the quality of life in Lacey for all citizens by building an attractive, inviting,

and secure community; developing a vibrant and diversified economy; accommodating

carefully planned levels of development that promote efficient use of land, reduce sprawl,

encourage alternative modes of transportation, safeguard the environment, promote

healthy neighborhoods, protect existing neighborhood character, and maintain the city’s

sense of community; supporting efforts for job creation, new livable wage jobs, and the

promotion of the diversification of the community’s business and employment sector;

minimizing the impacts associated with siting essential public facilities and providing

appropriate standards for facilities that will protect neighborhoods and the community;

providing for a vigorous core area as a destination commercial center and central hub for

the city; and implementing the Woodland District Strategic Plan. Exhibit 2, Staff Report,

pages 4 and 5.

7. The property is zoned Woodland District and is subject to the requirements of the

Woodland District Form Based Code (FBC). The City adopted the Woodland District

FBC to separate permitted uses into a few broad categories (residential, commercial,

institutional, and “other”) while placing focus on building form and site function, as

opposed to specific use restrictions. In addition, the Woodland District FBC was adopted

to: encourage density and a diverse mix of uses in the core area of the city, create a core

area that is strongly pedestrian-oriented and transit friendly, create a strong identity for

the core area that supports the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Woodland

District Strategic Plan, create places that provide for the needs of a diverse population,

4 City staff specifically identified the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as relevant to

the proposal: Chapter III, Community Vision, Section A, Policies A through D; Section I: Essential Public

Facilities, Goal 1 and Policies A and B; Planning Areas: Central Planning Area, Goal 1 and Policy A, Goal

4 and Policy A; and Implementation Strategies, Goal 1. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.




Page 8 of 28

provide a comfortable pedestrian experience and commercial-retail opportunities,

promote the development of an office hub within the Woodland District that supports the

surrounding retail component, and promote high-density residential in mixed-use patterns

throughout the Woodland District. Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 16.24.010. Exhibit 2,

Staff Report, page 2.”

8. The Woodland District is divided into three neighborhood categories, and the project site

is located in Urban Neighborhood 1 – Woodland Square. The goals for the Urban

Neighborhood 1 category include: promoting development that combines commercial

and housing uses on a single site or in close proximity; providing for increased

development on busier streets without fostering a strip commercial appearance;

supporting transit uses and providing new housing opportunities; and emphasizing

commercial uses such as service, medical, educational, office, and locally-serving retail.

LMC 16.24.010.B.1. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 9.

9. The Woodland District Strategic Plan provides additional goals and policies applicable to

the proposal. Specifically, the Strategic Plan calls for identifying opportunities for the

reuse of vacant buildings (Policy DN-4.2) and the desire to recruit medical and

knowledge-based uses for the area (Policy DN-4.2). Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 9.

10. City staff determined that use of the building as a medical facility would be permitted

within the Woodland District as a commercial use but, as is discussed more fully below, a

CUP would be necessary because mental health facilities are classified as essential public

facilities. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 9 and 10.

11. Surrounding properties are also zoned Woodland District. Many nearby buildings were

occupied by state agencies that vacated the Woodland District during the most recent

recession. DM Ventures, which owns the subject site, has purchased several properties

within the area and has actively worked to redevelop the properties for new tenants.

Huntamer Park, a City-owned park, is located southwest of the site. Other nearby uses

include: an apartment building, a motorcycle dealership, the Lacey branch of South

Puget Sound Community College, several restaurants, several medical practices, the

Lacey Transit Center, and a Fred Meyer Shopping Center. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page

2.

Conditional Use Permit

12. The municipal code makes certain uses conditional in specific zoning districts. LMC

16.66.010, .020. A conditional use is one that—because of special requirements, unusual

character, size or shape, infrequent occurrence or possible detrimental effects on

surrounding property, or other, similar reasons—is allowed in certain districts only with a

CUP granted by the City Council. LMC 16.06.240. Essential public facilities, such as

mental health hospitals, are permitted as a conditional use in the Woodland District.

LMC 16.66.020.C.2. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 6.




Page 9 of 28

13. LMC 16.66.050 dictates that the design standards established for the underlying zoning

district serve as the initial base of reference in determining the design standards for

conditional uses in the zoning district. Here, the Woodland District FBC requires that the

Applicant perform frontage improvements on 6th Avenue, including installation of wall

and trellis structures to provide additional screening and street edge definition, dedication

of right-of-way for the future extension of Golf Club Road, and performance of

stormwater design upgrades. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 12; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 8;

Exhibit 65.

14. All conditional uses must satisfy the environmental standards of Chapter 14.57 LMC.

The standards govern maximum noise levels; emissions, including those of air pollutants,

toxic substances, sewage, waste, or radioactive materials; and vibration or concussions.

LMC 14.57.040. City staff reviewed the application and other information submitted by

the Applicant and determined that the project would comply with the provisions of

Chapter 14.57 LMC. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 6.

15. All conditional uses must also ensure that adequate protection is provided for the locality

where the use is to be permitted. LMC 16.66.100. Here, the Applicant would plan and

schedule admission and discharge of patients to ensure that patients are not discharged

directly into the community; would not accept walk-in patients; would not treat criminal

or forensic patients, violent felons, or sex offenders; and would ensure that security

measures, including installed equipment and devices, as well as trained staff, would

prevent patients from leaving the facility or having negative impacts on the community.

Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page 16.

16. The Applicant provided a project narrative with its application materials addressing the

proposal’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, and CUP criteria.

Specifically, the Applicant states:

The proposal supports the efficient use of land and reduces sprawl through

redevelopment of a currently vacant office building with a new medical use.

The site is well served by existing transit, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian walkways,

which will encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by employees,

patients, and visitors.

The application of City form-based codes for the Woodland District, the CUP

process, and the essential public facility process would ensure the project protects

existing neighborhood character and maintains a sense of community.

The project would create over 200 new jobs across a range of professional,

skilled, and semi-skilled positions.

The Applicant would invest approximately $22 million to convert the existing

building, including significant improvements to the building interior and major

upgrades to utility connections.

The proposal would comply with the Woodland District FBC requirements related

to the building façade, parking lot, landscaping, and frontage improvements.




Page 10 of 28

The Applicant would dedicate property to the City for development of a future

pedestrian connection from Golf Club Road to Woodland Square Loop on the

south side of the building, and from 6th Avenue to Woodland Square Loop on the

east side of the building.

The proposed medical use is consistent with the emphasis on commercial uses for

the Woodland Square area, which includes medical uses.

The use would not generate substantial traffic, dust, glare, heat or vibrations,

noise, or odors. The proposal would generate less traffic than the previous office

building.

The facility would be secure, all patients would be discharged through a discharge

planning process, and the facility would not accept or treat criminal or forensic

psychiatric patients, violent felons, or sex offenders.

Project landscaping would include required wall and trellis structures to provide

additional screening and street edge definition as required by the Woodland

District FBC.

The proposal would address the critical shortage of psychiatric beds in Thurston,

Lewis, Mason, and Grays Harbor counties.

Exhibit 5.

Public Comments

17. The City received several written comments from applicable agencies in response to its

notice materials. Specifically:

Fire Code Reviewer Terry McDaniel noted that the proposal should be reviewed

for either Group I-2 or Group I-3 Occupancy for purposes of the International

Building Code. Mr. McDaniel also provided information on requirements for fire

apparatus access roadways; automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm system

modifications; fire flow, hydrant, sprinkler, and alarm system requirements;

address number requirements; automatic fire-extinguisher requirements; and

required fire inspections. Exhibit 12.

Building Official/Fire Marshal Wade Duffy provided comments similar to Mr.

McDaniel’s, and also noted that a grease interceptor or grease trap would be

required for the proposed kitchen facility; a code-compliant commercial kitchen

cooking hood would be required; and that the project must meet all accessibility

requirements. Exhibit 13.

Rick Walk, Community and Economic Development Director, commented that

additional information should be provided on economic development related to

the proposal. Specifically, Mr. Walk noted that the Applicant should provide

information on the average/median wage of the Applicant’s employees as well as

the Applicant’s operating budget. Exhibit 14.

Pat McGuin, City Transportation Engineer, noted that no traffic mitigation would

be required for the proposal. Exhibit 15.

Tom Stiles, City Development Review Manager, provided information on specific

and general requirements related to water, sewer, stormwater, transportation,




Page 11 of 28

surveying, and other requirements from the City’s municipal code, Development

Guidelines & Public Works Standards (DG&PWS), and Stormwater Design

Manual. Specifically, Mr. Stiles noted that a 10-inch main from 6th Avenue to

Woodland Square Loop would be required and that the Applicant must; submit a

final drainage report in accordance with the City of Lacey 2010 Stormwater

Design Manual with required civil drawings; install frontage improvements along

6th Avenue, including installation of curbs and gutters, sidewalks with street trees,

street lighting, and tree wells/grates; dedicate half-street right-of-way for the

future extension of Golf Club Road; and repair existing broken/heaved sidewalk

adjacent to the project site. Exhibit 16.

Police Chief Dusty Pierpoint provided a list of needs from the police department.

Specifically, Mr. Pierpoint stated that the department required assurances that

patients would not be released to the general community, that trained security

personnel would be on-site at all times, that video security would be used where

appropriate, that emergency vehicles would be accommodated, that the facility

would not restrict activities in surrounding areas, that a clear scope of care be

maintained, that the facility remain a secure facility, that procedures for law

enforcement response be developed, that emergency contact information be

provided, and that regular meetings be held with law enforcement and fire

department personnel to address issues. Exhibit 20.

18. In response to agency comments, the City requested that the Applicant provide additional

information about the economic impacts of the proposal. The Applicant provided the

additional information and, upon further review, Economic Development Director

George Smith determined that ongoing revenues to the City would exceed $100,000 per

year in the facility’s second full year of operation and that the proposal would have a

positive economic impact on the City and the region. The Thurston Economic

Development Council also assessed the economic impacts of the proposal and determined

that the proposal would have a net total impact of approximately $30.5 million, provide

employment and wages that exceed current thresholds for livable wages, and act as a

catalyst for new employers and suppliers in the region. Exhibits 18 through 22; Exhibit

24; Exhibit 29.

19. The City also asked the Applicant for additional information addressing the concerns

raised by Mr. Pierpoint. The Applicant responded with detailed information addressing

Mr. Pierpoint’s concerns. Specifically, the Applicant provided additional information

about:

Annual medical and police call-for-service data from its other facilities.

Huntamer Park: the Applicant stated that it understands that permitted activities

and community events occur at Huntamer Park and that it would not object to

such events continuing in the future.

A draft operational plan for emergency services: the Applicant stated that it

would work with Mr. Pierpoint and other emergency service providers to address

all concerns prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.




Page 12 of 28

Outreach efforts: the Applicant provided information on outreach efforts made to

inform neighboring property owners, local businesses, community groups, and

other interested parties about the proposal.

Exhibits 18 through 22.

20. In addition to applicable agency comments, the City received dozens of comments in

response to its notice materials from area businesses and organizations, medical

professionals, and area residents expressing support for the proposal. In general, the

comments stress the need for specialized psychiatric services in the area and the benefit

that the facility would provide to the community. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2, Staff Report, page

6; Exhibits 33 through 60; Exhibit 68; Exhibit 69; Exhibit 72; Exhibit 73; Exhibit 74.

21. At the open record hearing on the application, three additional written comments were

submitted expressing opposition to the proposal. Providence Health Services and Fairfax

Behavioral Health submitted identical letters arguing: (1) an essential public facility, like

a mental health hospital, should not fall under the “commercial” category of the

Woodland District FBC and should not be permitted; (2) the proposal is not compatible

with the goals of the Woodland District; (3) the Applicant has failed to show how the

proposal would comply with the environmental performance standards of Chapter 16.57

LMC; and (4) there is insufficient evidence that the Applicant would be able to comply

with recommended permit conditions because the Applicant does not own the property.

In addition, Carl Halsan, on behalf of 6th Avenue Apartments, LLC, questioned how the

proposal would meet specific building, landscape, and frontage requirements of the

municipal code. Exhibit 70; Exhibit 71; Exhibit 75.

22. Because the Applicant did not have time to address the concerns raised by Providence

Health Services, Fairfax Behavioral Health, and Mr. Halsan prior to the hearing, Attorney

Heather Burgess requested the record be left open to allow the Applicant to respond. As

noted above, this request was granted. On May 24, 2017, the Applicant submitted a letter

addressing the concerns. Specifically, the Applicant argues:

The proposed facility is a permitted commercial use and is consistent with the

goals for the Woodland Square District. The City has adopted a form-based code

as a means to achieve its strategic land use and development objectives for the

Woodland District, an approach that culminates several decades of City planning

for the area. The express intent of adopting a form-based code was to move away

from use restrictions and focus on building form and site function.

The form-based code provides for four broad use categories: Residential,

Commercial, Institutional, and Other. Staff correctly determined that the use

should fall within the Commercial category and that the Standard Industrial

Classification Manual of 1987 supports this interpretation. Moreover, the City

should be afforded deference in the interpretation of its own ordinances.

Both the Lacey Municipal Code and Woodland District Strategic Plan expressly

contemplate inclusion of medical uses within the broad Commercial category.




Page 13 of 28

Ironically, if Providence Health Services is correct, one of Providence’s own

facilities within the Woodland District, the Providence Regional Cancer System,

would currently be a nonconforming use.

Essential public facilities, including hospitals, are permitted as conditional uses in

any land use district, unless expressly prohibited. LMC 16.24.030.D does not

prohibit hospitals in the Woodland District.

Environmental review of the proposal was performed under SEPA. There is no

evidence that the proposal would generate noise, emissions, or ground soil

contamination requiring additional conditions of approval.

DM Ventures (who owns the property) would consent to all applicable conditions

related to the underlying property.

The Hearings Examiner has sufficient evidence to render a decision in light of the

over 70 exhibits admitted at the open record hearing and the voluminous

testimony provided.

The Applicant would comply with all form-based code requirements applicable to

the proposal. If the Applicant had proposed demolition or expansion of the

existing structure, rebuilding or expansion to the “build-to” line would be

required. Landscape features (including use of an urban wall or trellis) are

authorized, however, where the “build-to” line is not occupied by an existing

building. No provision of the municipal code requires the wholesale relocation of

an existing structure when interior-only redevelopment occurs. Moreover, this

would run counter to the City’s express goal of encouraging redevelopment of

vacant office buildings in the Woodland District.

Exhibit 77.5

Testimony

23. Dr. Richard Kresch, Applicant Representative, testified generally about the application.

He explained that the facility would treat patients with behavioral disorders that require

an acute stay to ease the crises they are experiencing. The average length of stay for each

patient is 7 or 8 days, and the goal of treatment is to stabilize the patient so that they can

return to their family and the community for long-term treatment and care. Dr. Kresch

stated that the Applicant’s parent company successfully operates several similar facilities

throughout the country and believes it acts as a good community partner in the

communities it serves. He stressed that the facilities serve all patients regardless of

income and insurance issues. Dr. Kresch noted that the Applicant chose Lacey because it

is clear that there is a severe shortage of in-patient mental health facilities in the region.

Because of this, people often have to seek treatment outside the area, which is difficult on

patient support networks (especially family members). Dr. Kresch also explained the CN

process, Providence’s appeal of the determination, specific construction plans for

renovating the facility, and the net economic benefits from the proposal. He stressed that

the facility would be a permanent and long-term part of the community fabric and that the

5 The City also sent a letter in response to Exhibits 70, 71, and 75, which contained many of the same

arguments put forward by the Applicant’s response letter. Exhibit 76.




Page 14 of 28

Applicant has signed a 30-year lease on the property. Dr. Kresch detailed the security

features that would be used at the facility and the way discharge planning would work,

and he emphasized that the Applicant would not treat adjudicated or forensic patients,

violent criminals, chronic long-term patients, or sex offenders. He also stated that the

facility would not impact Huntamer Park and that the Applicant has received tremendous

support from the community. Testimony of Dr. Kresch.

24. Colonel David Sutherland, Special Advisor to US HealthVest for Military and Veterans’

Programs, testified about his experience assisting veterans and working with US

HealthVest. He explained that the needs of veterans and their families are evolving and

that facilities like the one proposed are especially important. Col. Sutherland explained

that the facility would provide services to veterans that are not available at Joint Base

Lewis-McChord (JBLM) because medical services at JBLM focus on active duty

soldiers. He noted that there are approximately 32,000 veterans living in Lacey and that

the facility would provide valuable in-patient acute services that are currently missing,

and the facility would be located only one block from the Lacey Veteran Services Hub,

helping to facilitate transfer to acute care for veterans when necessary. Testimony of Col.

Sutherland.

25. City Planner Sarah Schelling testified generally about the application and explained how

the proposal would comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances.

She explained the history of the site and the Woodland District, and about the City’s

efforts in adopting the form-based code for the District. Ms. Schelling also testified

about the essential public facility process and the extensive review that occurred prior to

the Applicant submitting its CUP application. She explained that, because Lacey does

not have a mental health hospital, City staff travelled to a similar facility in Oregon to get

a sense of the kinds of issues that such a use would present. Ms. Schelling stated that,

with appropriate conditions, staff determined the use would not have detrimental impacts

on the surrounding community. To the contrary, staff determined that the proposal would

fulfill an important need in the community while simultaneously providing significant

economic benefits. Ms. Schelling noted that there is ample parking to serve the facility,

that the proposal would have fewer environmental impacts because it involves

redevelopment of an existing building, and that the Applicant would install required

frontage and stormwater improvements. Ms. Schelling stressed that the City received

overwhelming support for the proposal in response to its notice materials. Testimony of

Ms. Schelling.

26. Alfie Alvarado-Ramos, Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs Director,

testified that the proposed facility is especially important for veterans and their families

because of the trauma many veterans have experienced during war. She noted that there

are four state veterans homes in Washington but, many times, veterans do not qualify for

treatment at those facilities. Ms. Alvarado-Ramos stressed that many more beds than 75

are needed for acute care in the area and that the Department of Veterans Affairs supports

the proposal. Testimony of Ms. Alvarado-Ramos.




Page 15 of 28

27. Dr. Art Tolentino, Clinical Director of Pathways, testified that it is important to have a

partner in the community for in-patient hospitalization. He explained that, in the past,

Pathways has had to send patients out of state for acute behavioral health care because

there are not enough beds in the area. Dr. Tolentino echoed the support for the proposal

expressed by Col. Sutherland and Ms. Alvarado-Ramos. Testimony of Dr. Tolentino.

28. Lu Carlson testified that he never realized how problematic the shortage of in-patient

mental health facilities was until he worked at the Department of Labor and Industries.

He explained that, often, workers requiring treatment had to seek it in Pierce or King

County, or even out of state. Mr. Carlson stressed that, when a loved one needs help,

they should not have to wait for days to find a bed available locally. He also expressed

support for the economic benefits the proposal would have on the community. Testimony

of Mr. Carlson.

29. David Schaffert, Thurston County Chamber President, testified about the community

outreach the Chamber helped provide for the proposal. He stressed that the proposal

would bring new jobs, revenue, and be a catalyst for economic growth in the region.

Testimony of Mr. Schaffert.

30. John Grantham testified that he is a small-business owner and father and, at first, had

safety concerns about the proposal. He explained, however, that the Applicant provided

satisfactory answers about the secured nature of the facility. Mr. Grantham also noted

that it is better for local business to have occupied buildings, that the Applicant has

already joined the Thurston County Chamber, and that the Applicant has expressed a

willingness to work with local businesses. Testimony of Mr. Grantham.

31. Rick Nelson testified that he owns Ricardo’s restaurant and recently moved to the

Woodland Square area. He looks forward to serving the staff and meeting the needs of

those involved with the proposal. Mr. Nelson also pointed out that Lacey declared May

as “Mental Health Awareness” month so it is appropriate timing for community

engagement with the proposal. Testimony of Mr. Nelson.

32. Michael Brouillette testified that he owns Balance Counseling and Hypnosis, a block

away from the proposed facility, and that he fully supports the proposal. He stressed that

families should not have to drive long distances to visit their loved ones who are

hospitalized. Testimony of Mr. Brouillette.

33. Mike McClure, DM Ventures, testified that he has been working on this project with the

Applicant for over two years and, as a landlord, performed extensive due diligence. He

explained that he interviewed all the surrounding property owners of a similar facility

owned by the Applicant in Des Plaines, Illinois, and discovered that the facility had

overwhelming support from the community. Mr. McClure also noted that DM Ventures

owns several other properties in the vicinity, some of which they plan on developing as

residential properties, and they are confident that the proposed facility would be

compatible with these additional uses. Mr. McClure testified that DM Ventures




Page 16 of 28

understands that some of the proposed conditions related to the Applicant impact the

property owner and affirmed that DM Ventures would agree to all proposed conditions

applicable to the property itself. Testimony of Mr. McClure.

34. Timothy Stokes, South Puget Sound Community College President, testified that colleges

and hospitals make great neighbors because they drive economic security and provide

opportunities for collaboration, such as internships. He also noted that 300 to 400

students each year come to the counseling department with acute mental health needs,

further warranting approval of this type of facility. Testimony of Mr. Stokes.

35. Jollie Darnelle testified that she has served the community in several counseling and

health-related capacities over the last 20 years and believes there is a vital need for the

type of services proposed. Testimony of Ms. Darnelle.

36. Michael Cade, Thurston Economic Development Council Executive Director, testified

about the positive fiscal impacts from the proposal. Testimony of Mr. Cade.

37. Carl Halsan, representing 6th Avenue Apartments, LLC, testified that he believes the

zoning code requires that the Applicant move the entire building closer to the property

line and that, absent that, approval is not warranted. Testimony of Mr. Halsan.

38. Carolyn Graden testified that she owns property on the western boundary of the proposal

and initially had concerns, especially about safety, but that testimony has cleared up those

concerns. Testimony of Ms. Graden.

Staff Recommendation and Applicant Response

39. The City staff recommends approval of the CUP application, subject to 69 conditions.6

Ms. Schelling also recommended that any approval lapse if the project is not completed

within 5 years. Ms. Burgess stated that the Applicant understands and accepts the

conditions of approval proposed by the City. Exhibit 2, Staff Report, pages 7 through 25;

Testimony of Ms. Schelling; Comments of Ms. Burgess.

CONCLUSIONS

Jurisdiction

The Hearings Examiner has authority to hear and make a recommendation on conditional use

permit applications according to the quasi-judicial process and timelines in Section 1C.050 of the

City of Lacey Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards. LMC 2.30.090.B.5; LMC

16.66.030, -.090. The Hearings Examiner may recommend approval, approval with conditions,

or denial of the application. LMC 2.30.140; City Development Guidelines and Public Works

Standards 1C.050.H. A conditional use may be granted by the City Council, after public hearing

and review, for those uses requiring such permits. LMC 16.66.070.

6 One of the City’s conditions was incomplete as proposed. Tom Stiles, City Development Review

Engineer, testified as to what the City intended the condition (now Condition 68) to say. Testimony of Mr.

Stiles.




Page 17 of 28

Criteria for Review

Conditional use permits are reviewed under Chapter 16.66 LMC. In order to recommend

approval of a conditional use permit, the Hearings Examiner must:

Ensure that conditional uses comply with the environmental performance standards

described in Chapter 16.57 LMC, and meet stricter environmental performance standards

upon a finding that stricter standards are necessary and reasonable to protect adjacent

properties, community health, or the general welfare. LMC 16.66.040.A.

Use the design standards for permitted uses in a given district as the initial base of

reference in determining the design standards for conditional uses in the same district

while allowing alternations of design standards, including size and shape of lots, building

coverage, development coverage, parking, and landscaping. LMC 16.66.050.

Ensure that the proposed use complies with requirements for essential public facilities.

LMC 16.66.060.

Impose all Title 16 LMC requirements for such use and other conditions and safeguards

necessary to secure adequate protection for the locality where the use is to be permitted.

LMC 16.66.100.

Recommend a time limit for beginning or completion of the conditional use. LMC

16.66.100.

The criteria for review adopted by the Lacey City Council are designed to implement the

requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW

36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure consistency

with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level of development,

infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040.

Conclusions Based on Findings

1. With conditions, the proposed project would satisfy the criteria governing uses in

the Woodland zoning district. The City has adopted a form-based code for the

Woodland District zone, separating permitted uses into four broad categories while

placing focus on building form and site function – not specific use restrictions. The

Woodland District FBC was adopted to: encourage density and a diverse mix of uses in

the core area of the city; create a core area that is strongly pedestrian-oriented and transit

friendly; create a strong identity for the core area that supports the policies of the

Comprehensive Plan and the Woodland District Strategic Plan; create places that provide

for the needs of a diverse population; provide a comfortable pedestrian experience and

commercial-retail opportunities; promote the development of an office hub within the

Woodland District that supports the surrounding retail component; and promote high-

density residential in mixed-use patterns throughout the Woodland District. City staff




Page 18 of 28

determined that the proposed facility is a permitted commercial use within the Woodland

District zone, and the Hearings Examiner defers to the City when it interprets its own

code. The use is consistent with the enumerated goals for the Woodland Square

neighborhood designation and the Woodland District Strategic Plan, both of which

expressly contemplate inclusion of medical uses within the broad Commercial category.

Moreover, the Applicant would comply with all requirements of the Woodland District

FBC, including installation of frontage improvements and stormwater improvements.

Conditions are necessary to mitigate project impacts, including conditions designed to

ensure that: conditions of the CUP would remain applicable were ownership of the

underlying property to change or were the service provider to change; the facility would

not treat criminal or forensic patients, violent felons, or sex offenders; the Applicant

prepares a detailed community operation and communication plan in coordination with

local law enforcement and emergency service providers addressing, among other things,

patient discharge protocols, security measures, and entry protocols for law enforcement

and emergency service providers; the Applicant obtain a Certificate of Need (or revised

CN) from DOH prior to expanding bed-occupancy beyond the 75 already approved; the

Applicant obtain an easement from the City to continue to use the area dedicated for

future development of Golf Club Road on the west property line; the Applicant develops

all frontage requirements as required by the Woodland District FBC, including reparation

of existing broken/heaved sidewalks, where necessary; the Applicant submits a final

drainage report prepared to the 2010 Stormwater Design Manual; the Applicant develops

the project according to the materials submitted; complies with the LMC and relevant

City Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards, including its provisions

governing landscaping and zoning; the Applicant obtains all necessary review and

permits, installs necessary fire safety, sewer, water, and stormwater facilities and devices,

and records certain notes on the face of the civil engineering drawings, landscape plans,

and irrigation plans. Findings 1, 2, 6 – 15, 20 – 39.

2. With conditions, the proposed project would satisfy the criteria for CUP approval

found in Chapter 16.66 LMC, including those governing compliance with

environmental and zoning standards. The City reviewed the Applicant’s

environmental checklist and determined that, through compliance with the City’s

development regulations, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse

impact on the environment. The City therefore issued a SEPA Determination of

Nonsignificance. This determination was not appealed. The proposed project would

change the use on the property from a vacant office building to a secured, acute mental

health facility. There would be no significant increase in toxic substances, odors,

radiation, heat, glare, vibration, or concussion from the project. Further, the Applicant

would provide appropriate vegetative buffers to screen the hospital from adjoining

property owners. The project would comply with LMC provisions governing maximum

noise levels and emissions, including those of air pollutants, toxic substances, sewage,

waste or radioactive materials, and vibration or concussive force. Additionally, with

conditions, the project would comply with the design standards governing the Woodland




Page 19 of 28

District and with provisions of the LMC governing frontage improvements and

landscaping. The City determined that the proposed project would not require traffic

impact mitigation fees. Sewer, water, and electrical service are available to the property.

As conditioned, the project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or

general welfare. As detailed above in Conclusion 1, conditions are necessary to ensure

that the proposal meets all criteria required for conditional use approval. Findings 6 – 39.

3. With conditions, adequate safeguards would be provided to protect the locality in

which the proposal would be sited. The Applicant held several public meetings to

address concerns about the proposal prior to submitting its application materials, and the

City provided reasonable notice of the application following submission of the

application. The City received several dozen letters from health care providers, local

businesses, organizations, and area residents supporting the proposal. The facility would

be secure, all patients would be discharged through a discharge planning process, and the

facility would not accept or treat criminal or forensic psychiatric patients, violent felons,

or sex offenders. In addition, the Applicant would work with the City police department

and other emergency service providers to ensure that the proposal does not detrimentally

impact the local community. As detailed above in Conclusion 1, conditions are necessary

to ensure that the proposal meets all criteria required for conditional use approval.

Findings 1 – 39.

4. The Hearings Examiner recommends that the CUP lapse five years after the City

Council’s approval if the project has not been completed. Staff recommends

requiring completion of the project within five years. The Hearings Examiner concludes

that the time period recommended by staff is appropriate. Finding 39.

RECOMMENDATION

The Hearings Examiner recommends that the request for a conditional use permit to convert an

existing office building to a 115-bed secure behavioral health hospital at 605 Woodland Square

Loop be APPROVED, with the following conditions:7

Project-Specific Conditions

The following conditions are unique to the project and are designed to address project-specific

impacts:

1. The owner/service provider and any successor owner/service provider shall be subject to

all conditions of this conditional use permit. In the event of a change in ownership, the

successor owner/service provider shall file acknowledgement of the conditional use

permit and conditions of approval as part of the sale and transfer of ownership and/or

services.

7 This recommendation includes conditions required to reduce project impacts as well as conditions

required to meet City Code standards.




Page 20 of 28

2. As a condition of their operational plan, the hospital shall not treat criminal or forensic

patients whom state mental hospitals are intended to serve, nor will they accept violent

felons or sex offenders.

3. A detailed community operation and communication plan shall be prepared by the

Applicant in coordination with local law enforcement and fire and medical responder

organizations. The plan shall include the following:

Patient discharge protocols

Description of security measures

Agreements with law enforcement and fire and medical responders for entry

protocols into the facility when needed

Assurance from the property owner that they will not object to noise, hours and

operations of civic activities associated with Huntamer Park

A provision that management will have regular meetings with law enforcement and

first responders to discuss any changes to policies or procedures or to discuss any

issues that arise

Provisions that require cooperation with authorities for any change in ownership of

the facility (the plan is applicable to current and future facility owners) and

The plan must include contact information for facility representatives available 24/7

should law enforcement need to contact a representative immediately.

4. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Need, or revised Certificate of Need, from the

Washington State Department of Health prior to the establishment of any beds beyond 75,

up to a maximum of 115. A copy of the approved Certificate of Need shall be submitted

to the City.

5. An easement shall be obtained from the City of Lacey for use of the right-of-way

dedication area for the connection of Golf Club Road on the west property line. The

easement shall extinguish at such time as the Golf Club Road right-of-way is constructed

into a public right-of-way.

6. All lot frontage requirements from the Woodland District Form Based Code shall be

satisfied. This includes the requirements for either a Low Wall and Trellis Landscape

frontage type, as called out in LMC 16.24.070-5, or an Urban Wall or Fence Landscape

Frontage type, per LMC 16.24.070-6, for the entire length of the parcel frontage for 6th

Avenue. Frontage along Golf Club Road may be deferred until the construction of the

roadway.

7. Because the current maximum block length of the parcels on 6th Avenue exceeds 330 feet,

a through block connection is required from 6th

Avenue SE to Woodland Square Loop,

per LMC 16.24.050-1. The through connection shall meet the requirements of Figure

16.24.050-8 LMC unless modified by the Site Plan Review Committee in accordance

with LMC 16.24.040C2.




Page 21 of 28

8. With the change of use, building code requirements for a Group I-2 Occupancy shall

apply (IEBC Section 407.1).

9. Existing fire apparatus access roadways, including adjacent parking areas, may need to be

modified to provide minimum aerial fire apparatus access requirements. The Applicant

shall obtain a review from a licensed Fire Protection Engineer evaluating existing road

and parking conditions around the building and provide a proposal for modifications

necessary for aerial fire apparatus access requirements. Said aerial fire apparatus access

roadway improvements, shall be completed and approved prior to final occupancy

approval (IFC Section D105).

10. The City of Lacey fire code official shall conduct the necessary inspections or witness

required tests to ascertain compliance with applicable fire codes. The Applicant shall

contact the City of Lacey Building Department to schedule the required inspection or to

request witness of required tests. At least 24 hours shall be allowed for scheduling (IFC

Section 106.2).

11. To meet fire flow requirements for the change in use, a 10-inch water main shall be

installed from 6th Avenue to Woodland Square Loop.

12. A Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly device shall be installed for all meters serving

the building.

13. A sewer connection shall be made to the existing 10-inch main in 6th

Avenue. The main

shall be extended to the south property line of the project. The sewer main extension

shall be located 6-feet off the centerline of the street/drive area on the south or west side

(DG&PWS, Sewer 7A.010).

14. A grease interceptor is required for the side sewer where the food service waste exits the

building.

15. Sewer consumption records for a similar facility, with similar square footage, shall be

provided to determine if additional sewer connection fees will be required for the change

in use.

16. A final drainage report, prepared to the 2010 Stormwater Design Manual, shall be

submitted with the required civil drawings. The report shall include calculations with

computer modeling showing treatment and infiltration facilities have capacity for

stormwater generated by this development. Modeling showing there are no downstream

restrictions, and that the piping associated with the project is properly sized, shall be

included in the report.

17. Treatment and infiltration facilities shall be constructed for stormwater associated with

the site, for adjacent properties currently discharging to the site, and for the stormwater




Page 22 of 28

associated with the half-street frontage improvements on 6th Avenue. Facilities shall be

designed to the requirements of the 2010 Stormwater Design Manual.

18. Half-street frontage improvements for 6th Avenue are required and shall include the

following, subject to modification by City staff consistent with City standards: 26.5-feet

of right-of-way which includes one 11-foot travel lane, 7-feet of the center turn lane, and

one 8.5 foot parking lane, .5-feet curb and gutter, 14-20 feet of sidewalk with street trees,

street lighting, tree wells/grates and irrigation.

19. Half-street right-of-way for the future Golf Club Road extension shall be dedicated to the

City of Lacey. The minimum right-of-way width for dedication is 30 feet.

20. All existing broken/heaved sidewalk on Woodland Square Loop SE adjacent to the

project site that impairs safe pedestrian use shall be repaired consistent with City

standards.

21. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Certificate of Need approval

document, dated July 5, 2016 (Exhibit 23).

General Conditions

The conditions below are summaries of ordinances and standards that apply to approval of this

application regardless of any specific impacts of this proposed development. The list is intended

as a courtesy notice and not as an exhaustive list of legal requirements that may apply to an

approval of the application. The list is also a summary of the legal requirement; if there is a

conflict between the summary and the ordinance, the language of the ordinance controls.

22. A detailed landscaping plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, nursery

person, or landscaper and submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.

The plan shall include the type, number, and location of the vegetative improvements as

well as a specific time line for completion of the improvements. A separate irrigation

plan must also be submitted showing the location of all irrigation lines, location of

sprinkler heads, and approximate coverage areas. The plans must include a note stating

that the property owner is responsible for maintaining all plants in a healthy growing

condition for the life of the project. All requirements of Chapter 16.80 of the Zoning

Code shall be satisfied (Chapter 16.80 LMC).

23. A detailed estimate from a landscape installer shall be submitted to the Planning

Department. The estimate should include all costs associated with installing landscaping

and irrigation as called out on the approved plans, including labor (Chapter 16.80 LMC).

24. A letter of credit or assignment of savings must be provided to the Planning Department

in the amount of 150 percent of the above mentioned landscape estimate. The City shall

release this financial security once the landscaping for the project is installed and

approved by the Planning Department and a financial security is in order to ensure that all




Page 23 of 28

plant materials are properly maintained. This security device shall be in the amount of 20

percent of the value of the vegetative improvements and shall be held for a period of one

year (Chapter 16.80 LMC).

25. A note shall be placed on the face of the landscaping and irrigation plans stating that any

irrigation lines placed within tree protection zones established for the project must be

installed in such a manner as to not cause damage to the root protection zone, such as by

cutting roots, digging trenches, operation of machinery, etc. Special care must be taken

(hand digging trenches, designing lines to stay out of these areas where possible, etc.) to

ensure damage to the trees does not occur. In the event damage to these areas does occur,

the City may require, at their discretion, replacement of the comparable landscape value

of the trees damaged or other means to make up that loss (Chapter 16.80 LMC).

26. A sign permit shall be issued by the City of Lacey prior to the installation of any signs on

the subject site (Chapter 16.75 LMC).

27. All applicable requirements of the City Zoning Code shall be satisfied (LMC Title 16).

28. The Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable permits required

for the project, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

(NPDES), Forest Practices Application, and any others. These permits will require

additional review time from the appropriate agencies.

29. Automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm system modifications shall be completed and

approved for the new behavioral hospital building requirements prior to final occupancy

approval (IFC Section 501.4 IFC Section 503.1.1(3)).

30. Approved aerial fire apparatus access shall be provided along one side of the building

when any portion of the building is 30-feet in height from the lowest level of fire

apparatus access to the roofing eaves. Said aerial fire apparatus access shall be in

accordance with IFC Section D105 (IFC Section D103.2).

31. The required fire flow for the building shall be not less than 3,750-gpm at 20 psi in

accordance with IFC Appendix B. Existing water mains in the immediate area should

provide the required fire-flow (IFC Section 507.1; LMC 14.07.015).

32. At least two additional on-site fire hydrants shall be provided around the building and the

hydrant at the northwest corner of the property shall be rotated so it will accommodate

fire-protection for this building and the adjacent building and the adjacent building at

4313 – 6th

Avenue. One hydrant shall be located at the northeast corner of the site and

one shall be provided at the southeast corner of the site to accommodate on-site spacing

requirements. The hydrants shall be installed, tested, and approved prior to final

occupancy approval (IFC Section C-103.1; LMC 14.07.015).




Page 24 of 28

33. When modifications to interior walls, ceilings and floors in a building are made,

automatic fire sprinkler system coverage shall be adjusted in accordance with NFPA 13

Standards (2013 Edition). Design and installation of the fire sprinkler system shall be

performed by a fire sprinkler contractor having a Washington State Level III Certification

in accordance with Chapter 212-80 WAC. Three sets of plans and specifications for fire

sprinkler systems modifications shall be submitted to the City of Lacey Building

Department for review and approval prior to any installation or modification work being

done (IFC Section 903.3.1).

34. An approved addressable fire alarm system with supervised monitoring shall be provided

throughout the building in accordance with NFPA 72 Standards (2013 Edition). Three

sets of plans and specifications for the fire alarm system shall be submitted to the City of

Lacey Building Department for review and approval prior to the installation of any

wiring or equipment (IFC Section 907.2.9).

35. Approved address numbers shall be provided in a highly visible location on the building

facing Woodland Square Loop. The numbers shall be not less than 12-inches in height

and shall contrast with their background (IFC Section 505.1).

36. Portable fire extinguishers with a minimum UL Rating of 2A-10B:C shall be provided

throughout the building in accordance with IFC Section 906.1. At least one portable

extinguisher shall be provided for each 3,000 square-feet of floor area and any addition

thereof and so located where the travel distance to an extinguisher from any location

within the building shall not exceed 75-feet. Said fire extinguishers shall be hung in a

highly visible location with the tops no higher than 5-feet from floor level (IFC Section

906).

37. A Washington State licensed architect and engineer are required for the project (RCW

18.08 & 18.43).

38. The project shall comply with the applicable accessibility requirements throughout the

site and facility, including the applicable accessible parking, accessible route of travel

from the accessible parking stalls to the accessible entrance, and passenger loading zone

requirements that apply for this issue (ICC A117.1 – 2009).

39. The project shall comply with all the codes and ordinances adopted by the City of Lacey,

including the 2015 International Building Code and the 2015 International Fire Code.

40. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system and addressable

fire alarm (IBC Sec. 903 & 907).

41. A code compliant commercial kitchen cooking hood shall be provided within the kitchen

of the facility (IMC Sec 506).




Page 25 of 28

42. The following shall be stated on the irrigation plans: “The property owner adjacent to the

public right-of-way shall be responsible for maintaining and locating all irrigation lines

located in the public right-of-way.” (DG&PWS, Water, Irrigation 6.210).

43. Water system improvements shall meet the requirements of the City of Lacey, the

Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP), Department of Health (DOH), City of Lacey

Water System Plan, AWWA, Department of Ecology, Thurston County Environmental

Health and the City of Lacey Fire Code Officials standards. Actual main size, loop

closures, and possible offsite improvements including the number and location of fire

hydrants, will depend on the fire flows required and available to the site (DG&PWS,

Water 6.120 F).

44. An irrigation meter with a backflow prevention device is needed for open space,

landscaping and stormwater facilities (DG&PWS, Water 6.120 F).

45. Modeling of the water system shall occur in order to ensure adequate water is available

for your project. Contact Brandon McAllister to coordinate fire flow modeling; the

typical cost for this service is $500.00.

46. If utility extensions are needed for the proposed project for roads that were paved in the

last five years and the roads must be cut, a disruption fee will be charged per LMC

12.16.055.

47. Sanitary sewer improvements associated with this project shall meet the requirements of

the City of Lacey Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, Thurston County Health

Department, Washington State Department of Health (DOH), the LOTT Clean Water

Alliance and the Department of Ecology (DG&PWS, Sewer 7A.010).

48. Storm drainage and erosion control designs shall be to the City of Lacey 2010

Stormwater Design Manual.

49. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to and approved by

the City prior to the start of construction. Each of the 12 required elements as identified

in Chapter 4 must be addressed and included in the construction SWPPP. If site

conditions render any element unnecessary, the exemption for that element shall be

clearly justified in the narrative for the SWPPP. The Department of Ecology provides a

template on their website: www.ecy.wa.gov.

50. A Stormwater Facility Maintenance Plan, per Chapter 9 of the City of Lacey 2010

Stormwater Design Manual, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Lacey.

The maintenance plan shall be included in the submitted drainage report as part of the

stormwater site plan. The maintenance plan shall also be prepared as a stand-alone

document for the post-development facility owner.




Page 26 of 28

51. Clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall be prohibited between October

1 through April 30th unless shown to the satisfaction of the City of Lacey that sediment

laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site (SDM 1.2.2).

52. Existing curb ramps or other improvements that do not meet current Americans with

Disability Act standards shall be brought into conformance during site development

(DG&PWS 4C.030.7).

53. Street lighting levels shall satisfy City of Lacey requirements for roadways and

intersections. If current street lighting does not meet these standards, additional street

lighting shall be required for all streets fronting this project. All street light designs shall

be prepared by an engineering firm capable of performing such work (DG&PWS,

Transportation, and Illumination 4E.010).

54. Fiber optic conduit shall conform to the standards and requirements as set forth in

Chapter 4 from the Development Guidelines & Public Works Standards (DG&PWS,

Transportation 4E.035).

55. Access shall be provided to the property as determined and approved by the City. All

access points shall meet minimum access spacing, minimum corner clearance, sight

distance and minimum or maximum width requirements as outlined in the Development

Guidelines and Public Works Standards (DG&PWS, Transportation 4B.025).

56. All public streets within the City and the City’s UGA boundary shall be planted with

street trees. Contact the City for specific street and accent trees in the core area

(DG&PWS, Transportation 4G.100).

57. Utility easements are required for all water and sewer mains located on private property.

Easements shall include fire hydrants, water meters, sewer improvements and future

extensions of mains to adjacent properties. Easements and stub-outs shall be provided to

serve adjoining properties as determined by the City. All mains shall be called out as

“utility” mains on the civil drawings rather than water or sewer. Specific requirements

will be determined at the time of plan review. All easements shall be prepared by a

licensed land surveyor and submitted prior to release of approved civil drawings

(DG&PWS Chapter 3.110).

58. The City of Lacey Coordinate System shall be the Washington Coordinate System, NAD

83/91 south zone. Units are expressed in feet. Horizontal and vertical control

information can be obtained from the Lacey Public Works Department (DG&PWS

3.025).

59. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for a project that triggers a conditional use permit, the

requirement to dedicate right-of-way shall be determined by the City or Regional

transportation plans, by a traffic impact analysis or as determined by the Public Works




Page 27 of 28

Department. Dedications shall be determined by a professional land surveyor.

Dedications shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to civil drawing

approval (DG&PWS Transportation 4B.060).

60. All improvements shall satisfy the City of Lacey Development Guidelines in place at the

time of complete application, as determined by the City of Lacey Community and

Economic Development Department.

61. If any part of these comments as established by existing plans, guidelines, codes and the

like as established by ordinances shall be found invalid, all other parts shall remain in

effect (DG&PWS 3.035).

62. All Public Works improvements shall be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of

Washington and submitted to the City of Lacey Public Works Department for review and

approval. The Applicant shall be responsible for all connection fees at the time of any

new connection (DG&PWS 3.040).

63. All structures associated with this site shall be connected to the City of Lacey utilities

(DG&PWS 6.010 and 7A.010).

64. Prior to civil drawing approval, two sets of drawings along with a digital electronic file of

the drainage report (PDF Format) and drawings in AutoCAD or other approved software

format shall be submitted for all approved final plans (DG&PWS Chapter 3.040B).

65. Prior to final Public Works Construction approval, “as built” bonded paper drawings

along with a revised digital electronic diskette shall be submitted for all approved final

plans (DG&PWS Chapter 3.040J).

66. A 20 percent maintenance bond or financial guarantee of the engineer’s estimate or

approved bid estimate is required for a period of 24 months upon construction completion

and approval of Public Works improvements. The financial guarantee may be released

after 18 months if all conditions of approval have been satisfied. The financial guarantee

applies to sewer, stormwater, water, frontage, landscaping/irrigation, roadway and street

lighting improvements (LMC 14.20.025).

67. Three sets of civil drawings, two drainage reports and one electronic copy of the civil

drawings shall be submitted directly to the City of Lacey Public Works Department.

Drawings submitted to other departments will not satisfy this requirement (DG&PWS

3.040 B).

68. The property owner adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be responsible for

maintaining the planter strip and street trees (weeding, irrigating, mowing, etc.) in a

healthy and growing manner in perpetuity. If the planter strip and or trees are being

maintained by another group or organization, then a maintenance agreement (or adequate




Page 28 of 28

documentation) that verifies the planter strip and/or trees are being (and will continue to

be) maintained shall be submitted to the City for review (DG&PWS, Transportation,

4G.100D).

69. The Applicant shall complete construction within five years of City Council approval of

the CUP.

Recommended this 8th day of June 2017.

ANDREW M. REEVES

Hearings Examiner

Sound Law Center

Documents

hearings examiner recommendation SSBH CUP · Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation City of Lacey Hearings Examiner South Sound Behavioral Health CUP 16-321 Page 6 of 28 4.07-acre