Loading...
CUP-2021-0002 Decision FinalPage 1 of 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Re: Conditional Use Permit to operate a medical detoxification facility serving up to 40 patients at 204 N. Evergreen Road in the Corridor Mixed Use zone. ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION FILE NO. CUP-2021-0002 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal: The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate an 18,350 square-foot (sf) medical detoxification facility serving up to 40 patients at 204 N. Evergreen Road, Spokane Valley, WA. The property is zoned Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Decision: Approved, with revised conditions. FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Land Use Solutions and Entitlement c/o Dwight Hume 9101 N. Mt. View Lane Spokane, WA 99218 Owner: ARGOS, LLC c/o Greg and Gene Arger 300 N. Mullan Rd, Suite 204 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Property Location: The site is addressed as 204 N. Evergreen Road in Spokane Valley, Washington, and is situated along the east side of Evergreen Road approximately 700 feet (ft.) north of Sprague Avenue. The site consists of two parcels (45143.9214 and 45143.9269) that will be combined through a boundary line elimination to create a single parcel of approximately one acre in size (0.98 acre). The subject site is situated in the SW ¼ of Section 14, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Zoning: The property is zoned Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (“CP”) Map Designation: The property is designated as Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). Site Description: The subject site is 0.98 acres in size. The site is relatively flat, vacant, and scattered with the foundational remains of a previous residential use. Some excavation material has been stockpiled within the northern portion of the lot. There is chain-link fencing along the southern, northern, and eastern boundaries of the site. Page 2 of 21 Surrounding Zoning and Uses: The land along Evergreen Road, on both sides between Broadway and Sprague, is zoned CMU. This corridor includes the subject site, among many properties adjacent to this arterial. The depth of the CMU zone on each side of Evergreen varies, but typically extends about 250 to 300 ft. on each side of the road, judging from the City’s zoning map. The site is surrounded on all sides by property that is zoned CMU. To the east and west of the site, outside the CMU corridor, the land is zoned Single-Family Residential Urban (R-4). The uses north of the site are a mix of commercial and residential uses that include single-family, duplexes, multi-family, professional offices, and a convenience gas station. There is a single-family residence adjacent to the site to the south. There are also various commercial uses farther to the south and along the Evergreen Road corridor. There is a developed neighborhood of single-family residences to the immediate east of the site. There is also a developed neighborhood of single-family residences to the west of the site, on the other side of Evergreen Road. Project Description: The Applicant is requesting a CUP to operate an 18,350 sf medical detoxification facility at 204 N. Evergreen Road, Spokane Valley, WA. The facility will be capable of accommodating a maximum of 40 patients in 20 rooms with two patients per room. The facility will include common dining, living, recreation, and multi-purpose rooms. The facility will also include centrally located staff office and meeting rooms. A secure outdoor area will be provided along the south side of the building and extend north around the east side of the building approximately 60 ft. The outdoor area will be enclosed by a 6-foot, sight-obscuring fence with access to and from the area through an alarmed door that will require a key card to open. The fence will be installed around the north, east, and south perimeter of the site. The patients will arrive at the Evergreen Detox Facility to undergo a medically monitored detoxification, managed by a licensed team 24 hours per day, seven days a week. The private detox center would provide withdrawal management services for patients that are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. The average length of stay for each patient would be 3 to 7 days. The patients will be admitted to the facility on the site with admissions and discharges occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. A pre-admission protocol and verification process informs the staff of all incoming patients. Patients are transported to and from the facility. Walk-in patients are not allowed. Following treatment, the patients are discharged from the facility and transported to receive follow-up care according to their treatment plan. Patients will not be released on their own to walk out of the facility. Visitors are not permitted. The facility will be secured through a variety of measures including security cameras, doors, and alarms; controlling all entrances and exits to the facility; secure fencing; prohibition of visitors; health screenings; limiting admission; and transfer, discharge, and referral processes to residents for whom safe care can be provided. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Authorizing Ordinances: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19 (Zoning Regulations), SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), and SVMC Title 22 (Design & Development Standards). Page 3 of 21 Notice of Application: Mailed: November 19, 2021 Published: November 19, 2021 Notice of Public Hearing: Mailed: March 8, 2022 Posted: March 8, 2022 Published: March 4 & 11, 2022 Public Hearing Date: March 24, 2022 Site Visit: March 24, 2022 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on February 11, 2022. Any appeal of the DNS was due on February 25, 2022. The MDNS was not appealed. Testimony: Martin Palaniuk, Associate Planner City of Spokane Valley Building and Planning Division 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99206 Dwight Hume Land Use Solutions and Entitlement 9101 N. Mt. View Lane Spokane, WA 99218 Chaz Bates, Planning Manager City of Spokane Valley Building and Planning Division 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley WA 99206 Gene Arger ARGOS, LLC 300 N. Mullan Road, Suite 204 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Barbara Howard o4petesake@comcast.net Jonell Block 203 N. Evergreen Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 jonellblock@gmail.com Danielle McGuffin 302 N. McCabe Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Dmcguffin20@protonmail.com Catherine Fraser 203 N. Blake Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Ckfraser59@gmail.com Calvin Jager 13920 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 spokanecal@gmail.com Dennis Davaz 105 N. Blake Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 dennisdavaz@gmail.com Ron Brennecke 13802 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 James Beseau 13823 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Leslie59899766@gmail.com Page 4 of 21 Tiah Barbero 209 N. Mamer Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 barberofam@outlook.com Michael Barbero 209 N. Mamer Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 mbarbero@cvsd.org William Moore 13719 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Billandmichellemoore@yaoo.com Jeffrey Block 203 N. Evergreen Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Robert Barbero 13614 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 rbarbero@comcast.net Timothy Kelley 13607 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Timefirstlookre.com James Golabenko 13917 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 jgolubenko@gmail.com Zach Leija 13923 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Zach.leija7@gmail.com Lisa Leija 13923 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 lisaherkimer682@yahoo.com Nellie Reynolds 13923 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Margaret Chesley 112 N. Bolivar Spokane Valley, WA 99216 philmarqsv@gmail.com Angela Sandy 14005 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Nicholas Hinton 13722 E. Riverside Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Jake McFarlen 13704 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Jrmcfarlen007@msn.com Public commenters/participants: Lisa Aker 210 N. Davis Lane Spokane Valley, WA 99216 lakerone1@hotmail.com The Hoyts 13804 E. Valleyway Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Eric & Lisha Johnson northman5225@yahoo.com Jeff Block 203 N. Evergreen Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 jonellblock@gmail.com Ben Kapek benkapek@gmail.com Jackie McFarlen 13704 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 jrmcfarlen007@msn.com Page 5 of 21 Jennifer Wilcox jcode.wilcox@gmail.com Clint & Julie Bibbak 14010 E. Alki Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Cwb53@centrytel.net Jebiggar1972@gmail.com Cesar Leija 13923 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 lisaherkimer682@yahoo.com Donna Sodenbey 119 N. Bolivar Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Deniece Vincent 211 N. Blake Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Deniece.vincent@yahoo.com Dave & Pam Zack 509 N. Rees Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 zackinspok@gmail.com Kathy Gentili 521 N. Rees Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Dmkg0@yahoo.com Les Nestoss 13910 E. Nixon Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Fezrguy@aol.com Chellie & Jason Slovak 14002 E. Nixon Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 chellieslovak@yahoo.com jasonslovak@rocketmail.com Cheryl Probert 212 N. McCabe Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Kathy Barbero 13614 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 rbarbero@comcast.net kbarbero@comcast.net Janet Karstetter 506 N. Bannen Street Spokane Valley, WA 99216 jankerstetter@gmail.com Robert Albers 14010 E. Valleyway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 albersbd@protonmail.com Rick Ramser 14110 E. Valleyway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 rsrgunner@yahoo.com Chris Nelson 110 N. Blake Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Divermedve911@hotmail.com Judi Tallman 13524 E. Valleyway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Judi.tallman@gmail.com Marcus Fleming 14004 E. Valleyway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 marcus@trends-RE.com Brian Robb 415 N. Bannen Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Bryanrobb440@comcast.net Page 6 of 21 Exhibits: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application Submittal 3. Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Resolution No. 2021-0515 4. Site Plan of Record 5. Determination of Completeness 6. Notice of Application 7. MDNS 8. Notice of Public Hearing 9. Agency Comments 10. Public Comments 11. Parking Letter, dated March 4, 2022 The following exhibits were received at the hearing: 12. Staff PowerPoint Presentation 13. Land Use Solutions & Entitlement Letter dated 3/24/22 14. G. Arger Co. Real Estate Letter dated 3/24/22 15. Barb Howard, 3 pp. 16. Aerial Map submitted by Jonell Block, 1 pp. 17. Unsigned Letter dated 3/23/22, 2 pp. submitted by Jonell Block 18. Email from Danielle Hodgson to Jonell Block dated 03/23/22, 1 p. 19. Email from Paula Hodgson to Jonell Block dated 03/23/22, 1 p. 20. Email from Myron Hodgson to Jonell Block dated 03/23/22, 1 p. 21. Danielle McGuffin statement dated 3/23/22, 1 p. 22. Tiah Barbero Letter 1 p. followed by 13 pp. signed petition 23. Robert Barbero Letter dated 3/24/22, 3 pp. 24. Jeff Broyles Letter dated 3/22/22, 1 p. 25. Shirley Broyles dated 3/22/22, 1 p. 26. Diana Hain dated 3/17/22, 2 pp. Lawrance Vanderveer 13924 E. Nixon Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 vanderveerconstruction@gmail.com Shirley & Jeff Broyles 13616 E. Valleyway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 jsbroyles@gmail.com Carol Claassen 14010 E. Nixon Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Carolclaassen55@icloud.com Greg Arger 300 N. Mullan Road, Suite 204 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Joseph & Cheryl Long 211 N. Bannen Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Nora Svihl, DMD Warren Mitchell, DDS Avenue Dental Care 20 N. Evergreen Road, Suite 101 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Page 7 of 21 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS To be approved, the proposed CUP must comply with the criteria set forth in the SVMC and demonstrate consistency with the CP. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the application and the evidence of record with regard to the application and makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The proposed treatment facility is allowed as an “essential public facility” in the Commercial Mixed Use zone, provided the criteria for a CUP are satisfied. See 19.60 and SVMC Appendix A. The Applicant has proposed to operate a medical detoxification facility serving up to 40 patients within a CMU zone. The Staff has correctly determined that this type of use qualifies as an “essential public facility” (EPF). See Staff Report, p. 5. The term “essential public facility” refers to facilities that are typically difficult to site. See Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.200(1)(a); see also Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-196-200(9); see also WAC 365-196-550(1)(a); see also SVMC, Appendix A, Definitions. Examples of EPFs include airports, state and local correctional facilities, “mental health facilities,” group homes, and “substance abuse facilities,” among others. See WAC 365-196-550(1)(d); see also SVMC, Appendix A, Definitions (defining EPFs as including “substance abuse, mental health, and secure community transition facilities”). The City of Spokane Valley (“City”) has entered into an interlocal agreement relating to the siting of EPFs. See SVMC 19.90.005(B). Pursuant to that agreement, and in accordance with City code, an application for an EPF must first be submitted to Spokane County. See SVMC 19.90.005(B)(1). The BOCC is responsible for determining whether a specific proposal is an EPF and, if so, its level of significance. See SVMC 19.90.005(B)(2). This process was followed with respect to the Applicant’s proposal. Upon completing its review, the BOCC determined that the proposed facility is an EPF of only local significance. See Exhibit 3 (Resolution No. 2021-0515). The regional siting process is not applicable to EPFs of only local significance, such as the proposed facility. The City has not adopted a local siting process1 for EPFs. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. However, all EPFs located within the City require approval of a CUP. See SVMC 19.90.005(C). As a result, the proposed facility should be considered in light of the criteria applicable to CUPs, in the same manner as other CUP applications. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. The uses allowed in each zoning district are set forth in the Permitted Uses Matrix. See SVMC 19.60.010(A). The category of uses entitled “Public/Quasi-Public” includes EPFs. See SVMC 19.60.050. According to the matrix, EPFs are allowed in all zones (designated as “E”) except Parks and Open Space, subject to the standards set forth in Chapter 19.90 SMC, Essential Public Facilities. See id.; see also SVMC 19.60.040. There are specific restrictions, however, when the proposed facility is an EPF of only local significance. EPFs of local significance are not permitted in the R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 zones. See SVMC 1 The municipal code does state that EPFs of local significance are “subject to the siting process” set forth in SVMC 19.90.020. See SVMC 19.90.005(E). However, that provision does not set forth a siting process or criteria for siting or approving an EPF of local significance. As a result, the Hearing Examiner must look to the CUP criteria, as Staff indicated. Page 8 of 21 19.90.020. EPFs of local significant may be permitted in several other zones, including the CMU zone. See id. The Hearing Examiner concludes that an EPF is allowed in the CMU zone, subject to satisfying the requirements for a CUP. Therefore, this criterion is met. 2. The proposal complies with SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls). Development of the site is not apparently limited by its physical characteristics or the presence of environmentally sensitive conditions. For example, the site is generally flat. See Exhibit 7 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(a)-(b)). There is no history of unstable soils. See Exhibit 7 (SEPA Checklist ¶ B(1)(d)). There are no streams, wetlands, or other surface waters on the site. See Exhibit 7 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(3)(a)(1)). There are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals known to be on the site. See Exhibit 7 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(4)(c) & B(5)(b)). The site does not lie within the 100-year floodplain. See Exhibit 7 (SEPA Checklist ¶¶ B(3)(a)(5)). On February 11, 2022, the City, as the lead agency, issued an MDNS for this project. See Exhibit 7. The MDNS was based upon a review of the completed environmental checklist, the application, applicable provisions of the SVMC, the Traffic Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL), a site assessment, and comments from affected agencies. See Staff Report, p. 4. There is nothing in this record that would call the City’s threshold determination into question. There was no testimony or other evidence presented at the hearing suggesting that the project would result in significant environmental harms that could not be addressed through the proposed mitigating measures. In addition, any appeal of the MDNS was due on February 25, 2022. See Staff Report, p. 4. The MDNS was not appealed. See id. Agency comments on the project identified one environmental issue, which was included in the MDNS. See Staff Report, p. 4; see also Exhibit 7. The Spokane Tribe of Indians provided comments on November 30, 2021, stating the project site is in a “high-risk” area for archaeological or cultural resources. Because of the ground disturbance that will occur as part of the project, the Tribe recommended the preparation of a Cultural Resource Survey by a professional archaeologist prior to any ground disturbing activity. See Exhibit 9. Any additional mitigation measures would be based on the recommendations contained in the survey report. See id. Based upon the Tribe’s recommendation, the City included the following mitigation measure in the MDNS: Prior to final subdivision application and the issuance of any Engineered Grading Permit for any land disturbing activities, the applicant shall submit an archeological survey, completed by a qualified professional to the Spokane Valley Community and Public Works Department. In addition to the report, the developer shall submit evidence of the acceptance/ concurrence with the findings in the report from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. In short, the requirement to obtain an archaeological survey has been established as a project condition pursuant to SEPA. The MDNS was not appealed. At this stage, therefore, the condition is now mandatory and cannot be challenged. Page 9 of 21 As the Staff concluded, the procedural requirements of the SVMC and the SEPA have been fulfilled by the Applicant. Moreover, the proposed use, as conditioned, will not have significant impacts on the environment that are not being addressed by project conditions. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is satisfied. 3. The conditional use is consistent with the CP and with the character and appearance of the existing or proposed development in the vicinity of the subject property. See 19.150.030(A)(1). Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the CP includes a description of the regional siting process for EPFs in the City. See CP, Chapter 7, Capital Facilities & Services. The specific steps of the regional siting process are set forth in SVMC 19.90, as summarized above. The Applicant, with the City’s guidance, followed this process and submitted the proposal to the BOCC of Spokane County for review. See Exhibit 3. In doing so, the Applicant and the City acted consistently with the guidance found in Chapter 7 of the CP. In addition, the broader intent of Capital Facilities Goal CF-G1, which calls for coordination with other jurisdictions to effectively provide facilities and services, was fulfilled. See CP, Goal CF-G1, p. 2-28; see also CP, CF-P19, p. 2-29 (similar). The proposal is also consistent with CP Land Use Goal LU-G2, as determined by the Staff. See Staff Report, p. 6. Goal LU-G2 states the City’s objective to provide for land uses that are essential to City residents, employees, and visitors. See CP, LU G2, p. 2-23. A center for treating drug addiction certainly provides an important public service. This country is in the grips of an opioid crisis, and alcohol addiction continues to be a pervasive social ill. Services such as the proposed facility address a pressing public health need, clearly in line with the intent of Goal LU-G2. Moreover, the proposed use has been classified, under both state and local law, as an EPF for a reason. Although these types of uses often give rise to objections from neighbors and others, such facilities perform a critical public service that should be accommodated whenever appropriate. The property is zoned CMU, as are the adjacent properties in all directions. There was public testimony contending that the project site was adjacent to residentially zoned property. This was incorrect, as Staff noted. For example, the CMU zone extends approximately 300 ft. east of the Evergreen right-of-way and encompasses the site and multiple lots to the east. To some degree, the character of the area is defined by the applicable zoning. The Evergreen corridor continues to develop and can be considered an area in transition as well. As the Staff points out, the CMU zone allows for light manufacturing, retail, multi-family, and offices along major transportation corridors. See Staff Report, p. 6. The medical detoxification facility would fit within the range and intensity of uses allowed in the CMU zone. The project site fronts on Evergreen Road, a five-lane, principal arterial. See Staff Report, p. 2. The road consists of two lanes going south, two lanes going north, and a center turn-lane. See id. This is not a local access road intended to only serve low- density residential uses. Several individuals testified at the hearing that Evergreen Road carries approximately 20,000 cars each day. Evergreen Road is a major arterial that is intended to support a range of relatively intense uses along the traveling corridor. There are already a myriad of uses along Evergreen Road. For example, a coffee shop, a Page 10 of 21 jewelry store, a pub, a dental office, and a vision care center are all located between the site and Sprague Avenue. See id., p. 6. There is also a mix of uses along the corridor to the north, including a computer business, single-family homes, duplexes, Vera Water and Power, gas and convenience stores, and medical and professional offices. See id. A mixed use zone allows a variety of uses in the same location, including medical services like the proposed use, provided appropriate restrictions and conditions are in place. The proposed facility is generally compatible with its surroundings. As stated above, the facility is proposed in a mixed use zone that supports a variety of uses. It is located on a busy arterial, and will only be accessed via that arterial. The building is only one story tall, and is an appropriate size for the lot. See Paragraph 4. The design includes an appropriate setback from the residential properties to the east. See id. The location and design of the structure does not interfere with neighboring uses. See id. In addition, the evidence does not support the primary objections to the facility, namely that the project will damage residential property values and increase crime or create safety hazards. See Paragraphs 6 & 10. As a result, the proposal is not incompatible with the residential uses due to such impacts. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposal is consistent with the CP and the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, this criterion for approval is satisfied. 4. The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and visual screening for the conditional use shall not hinder or discourage the permitted development or use of neighboring properties. See 19.150.030(A)(2). The Applicant proposes to construct an 18,350 sf facility on the site. See Staff Report, p. 6. The one-story building will be situated in the southwest portion of the site. See id. A commercial driveway and approach with an emergency access turnaround will be constructed at the north boundary of the site providing access to parking and to the building. See id. Several parking stalls will be situated at the north end of the building, south of the driveway. See id. A screened trash enclosure and parking stalls will be located along the east boundary of the site with the parking facing to the east. See Staff Report, pp. 6-7. A secured outdoor area will be situated along the south side of building and extend north around the east side of the building approximately 60 ft. See id. A sight-obscuring fence will be constructed around the perimeter of the site. See id. This criterion is intended to ensure that the buildings, walls, structures, etc. do not interfere with the development or use of neighboring properties. There was testimony contending that the proposed facility was too large for the site. See e.g. Testimony of M. Chesley & N. Hinton. However, this testimony was a subjective opinion about the design and did not demonstrate that the building exceeded a regulatory coverage standard. The Hearing Examiner’s research did not reveal a specific coverage standard as applicable to this project. In addition, there was no evidence that the building, the fence, or any other improvement transgressed any specific development standards. There is no setback requirement for this site given that it is adjacent to properties that are also zoned CMU. See Staff Report, p. 9; see also SVMC 19.75.020(A)(1)(a) (ground-level setbacks); see also SVMC 19.75.030(A)(2) (upper level setbacks). Even so, the building will be situated so that there is a setback of approximately 90 ft. to the east boundary, 25 ft. to the south boundary, and 100 ft. from the north boundary. See Staff Report, p. 9. Staff Page 11 of 21 concluded, appropriately, that additional setback is not justified for a one-story structure. See id. Judging from the site plan, the facility is properly placed on the site and does not interfere with neighboring properties. See Exhibit 4. In addition, the proposed fencing serves as a security measure as well as a visual screen between the proposed use and the neighboring, residential uses. The fencing protects, rather than interferes with, the use of adjacent properties. There is no evidence in this record suggesting that the proposed use will interfere with neighboring uses. The Staff reviewed the proposal and confirmed that the project design satisfied the applicable code requirements. As a result, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is met. 5. Requested modifications to standards are limited to those that will mitigate impacts in a manner equal to or greater than the standards of SVMC Title 19. See 19.150.030(A)(3). The only modification request made in this case relates to parking. The Building Official has determined that the proposed facility will must supply 24 parking spaces, consistent with Table 22.50-1. The Applicant did not contest that determination. However, the Applicant has requested a modification to reduce the required number of parking stalls from 24 to 20. See Staff Report, p. 7. The municipal code provides that the “city manager or designee may allow a reduction up to 25 percent when the Applicant makes a written request demonstrating site conditions that prohibit compliance with these requirements.” See SVMC 22.50.020(7) (emphasis added). The Applicant requested relief from the parking requirements based upon this provision. See Exhibit 11. The municipal code explicitly delegates the authority to approve/disapprove a reduction in parking to the City Manager or his/her designee, not to the Hearing Examiner. Staff confirmed that the decision regarding the proposed parking reduction is not before the Hearing Examiner. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. The Building Official (as the City Manager’s designee) will make that decision at permitting stage, in accordance with the City’s standard practices. See id. The Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to make this particular call. The Hearing Examiner’s authority is limited to those matters explicitly delegated to him by the City Council. See HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003). The decision concerning a parking reduction is outside the Hearing Examiner’s discretion, and normally occurs at a later stage in the development process, i.e. at the time building permits are issued. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the parking decision is not the kind of “modification” that is covered by SVMC 19.150.030(A)(3). The parking decision is a ministerial decision by the Building Official or another designee of the City Manager, and is not subject to Hearing Examiner review. Because no other modifications to the standards are proposed, this criterion is not germane to this application. Page 12 of 21 6. The conditional use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community. See 19.150.030(A)(4). One of the primary concerns raised in the public testimony concerned safety. Numerous area residents insisted that the proposed facility posed a serious threat to the safety of families, children, and the elderly in the neighborhood. See e.g. Testimony of A. Sandy, N. Hinton, D. McGuffin, & J. McFarlen. Area residents argued that drug addicts bring crime with them. Testimony of C. Fraser. A common worry was that residents would walk out or climb over the fence and bring erratic, dangerous, or criminal behavior into their neighborhood. See e.g. Testimony of C. Jager, Z. Leija, L. Leija, & A. Sandy. There was also an assertion that the facility would attract vagrants or others looking for help, even if not served by the facility. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of J. & J. Block 12/16/2021). Some testified that areas with drug treatment centers have higher crime rates. See Exhibit 18 (E-mail of D. Hodgson 3-23-2022). Consistent with that idea, there were predictions that the presence of the facility would result in an increase in petty theft, loitering, breaking and entering, vandalism, or even loss of life. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of Dr. Svihl & Dr. Mitchell). Because of these problems, it was alleged that the facility would require substantial police involvement. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of L. Aker); Testimony of C. Jager. The police department is stretched thin as it is, and cannot adequately respond to crime in the neighborhood currently, according to the residents. Testimony of B. Howard & W. Moore. The Hearing Examiner acknowledges that the neighbors’ concerns are genuine and should be taken seriously. However, the record in this case is insufficient to justify denying the proposed detox center based upon an allegation that the facility will cause an increase in crime. As stated above, the neighbors predicted that the construction of the facility would cause a whole range of criminal activity or dangerous behaviors. These assertions were not supported by specific evidence or data, however. The testimony was in the form of general worries and fears about the future. Although these fears were sincere and understandable, Washington case law provides that projects cannot be conditioned or denied based upon generalized fears. See Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1985). In addition, the fact that neighbors are vehemently opposed to a proposal, in itself, is not evidence in a land use proceeding. Expressions of community displeasure do not provide a legal basis for the Hearing Examiner to deny a permit. See Maranantha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn.App. 795, 805, 801 P.2d 985 (1990) (stating that decisions must be based upon reasons backed by standards and policies, not community displeasure). The Sunderland case provides a particularly relevant example. In that case, Sunderland Family Treatment Services applied for a CUP2 to use a house in a single-family zone as a group home for abused and neglected youth. See Sunderland, 127 Wn.2d at 785. The residents of the neighborhood objected that the “troubled teens” would threaten the safety of elderly residents and young families with children, commit crimes, undermine the security of the neighborhood, engage in “nuisance activity,” and reduce property values, among other things. See Sunderland, 127 Wn.2d at 794-95. Based upon these concerns, City officials denied the CUP. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court held that the City’s decision to deny the permit was not based upon substantial or competent evidence. 2 The case actually refers to a “special use permit.” However, “special use permit” is synonymous with “conditional use permit.” Page 13 of 21 See Sunderland, 127 Wn.2d at 797. The Court emphasized that the unsubstantiated fears of area residents do not constitute substantial evidence in support of a land use decision. See Sunderland, 127 Wn.2d at 787 & 795. There is no empirical evidence that the construction of detox centers causes an increase in crime. In addition, there is no data in this record showing that the proposed facility would result in higher crime. The assertions in this regard were largely conclusory or speculative. There were attempts to support the claims, at times, but the underlying evidence was lacking. For example, there was a comment that “studies have shown” that crime is higher in areas with drug treatment centers. See Exhibit 18 (E-mail of D. Hodgson 3-23-2022). However, no such studies were submitted or made a part of the record. The Hearing Examiner cannot assess the credibility or relevance of a study without reading it. In addition, the Hearing Examiner would likely need the assistance of an expert to truly understand the conclusions, implications, or limitations of a given study. However, there was no expert testimony analyzing the potential impact of a detox center on crime. The presence of the detox facility will also require significant police involvement and resources, according to some neighbors. One resident testified, for example, that his son is a police officer, and that the majority of his time is expended responding to calls from treatment centers. Testimony of C. Jaeger. The Hearing Examiner does not doubt this testimony. On the other hand, the testimony was not very specific. The Hearing Examiner does not know if this police officer works in Spokane or in another city. The Hearing Examiner does not know what this officer’s assignments or duties are. The Hearing Examiner does not know whether the treatment centers referenced are equivalent to the proposed facility. There is difference between a private, short-term detox facility and a public, walk-in methadone clinic, for example. In any case, the Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD) did not provide any indication that the facility would result in any stress on its resources. The SVPD was given an opportunity to comment and did not do so, suggesting that it had no concerns about the proposal. In addition, SVPD has indicated on previous CUP applications for detox facilities that other facilities of this type exist in the City and that there is no perceptible increase in calls for service to these facilities. See Staff Report, p. 7. Under the circumstances, the Hearing Examiner concludes that there is no reason to believe the proposed facility will result in an increased need for police support. The proposed facility will have limited impacts on the safety or security of the neighborhood, in the Hearing Examiner’s view. The facility is a high-end, private pay treatment center. Testimony of G. Arger. The clientele is typically working professionals. See id. They want to be there and are paying for the treatment. See id. These individuals would prefer to obtain treatment privately, and do not want their identity or condition made public. See id. As Mr. Hume suggested, the clientele of this facility show a level of commitment to the treatment process that may be lacking in other types of facilities. Testimony of D. Hume. The facility will be a multi-million dollar center, intending to provide state-of-the-art treatment in an upscale setting. Testimony of G. Arger. This proposal is quite distinct from, for example, a walk-in clinic providing publicly subsidized services. There is no obvious risk that this facility will become a nuisance or a blight on the neighborhood. Residents of the facility will be screened at intake and must qualify to receive treatment. See Exhibit 2 (Project Narrative). Residents will be limited to those that the staff are Page 14 of 21 trained and qualified to serve. See id. Patients will be escorted to and from the facility, at intake and outtake. Testimony of D. Hume. Patients will not be coming or going during their stay. No residents may drive to/from the facility. See id. No visitors will be allowed. See Exhibit 2 (Project Narrative). All entrances and exits at the facility will be controlled. See id. Access will require a keycard. Testimony of D. Hume. The facility will be equipped with security cameras, security doors, and window alarms. See Exhibit 2 (Project Narrative). The backyard will be fully enclosed with a fence, and this area will be under camera surveillance and monitored by staff at all times when patients are in that area. See id.; Testimony of D. Hume. The staff may also conduct searches of the patients. See id. Neighbors were skeptical that these measures or features would provide much protection. There was testimony that both the security measures and staffing were inadequate to control drug-addicted residents. See e.g. Testimony of Z. Leija, J. McFarlen, & C. Fraser. However, as the foregoing discussion illustrates, the security features of the proposed facility are fairly extensive. The facility will be staffed with trained, medical professionals who will monitor patients, administer medication, and provide care for those going through the detoxification process. See Staff Report, p. 7. There was no expert testimony demonstrating that the proposed staffing was insufficient to support the proposed number of patients. State licensing regulations require adequate staffing and training in order to operate a residential treatment facility. See WAC 246-337-045. If those licensing requirements are not satisfied, the facility is subject to corrective action and, ultimately, revocation of the license if the facility cannot maintain compliance with the standards. See WAC 246-337-021. Project opponents raised questions about the effectiveness of the measures or the capacities of staff, but there was no specific evidence demonstrating that the facility could not be operated safely or securely. Several individuals predicted that residents of the facility would climb over or break through the fence, threatening the safety of families and children in their search for drugs. The probability of this kind of problem arising is very low. Patients will access the recreational area on a limited basis and will be monitored at all times. It is far more likely that these patients will spend their time coping with the pain and illness of withdrawal. Given the security measures in place, patients of this facility will not be found wandering the neighborhood. Neighbors tended to question whether the facility would continue to operate as the Applicant described. Area residents frequently suggested that the facility would adopt a lower-end, publicly funded model in the future and, therefore, would become a source of criminal behavior or other nuisances. See e.g. Testimony of C. Fraser, T. Barbero, & D. Davaz. However, the Hearing Examiner must evaluate the proposal that is before him. He cannot consider a hypothetical proposal with less desirable features, and then rely upon that hypothetical proposal as a basis to condition or deny a project. In any event, changing the model of use would require a CUP modification, and potentially a license modification as well. See Condition 1; see also WAC 246-337-010(4). This type of change is not something that the Applicant can do unilaterally. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed use does not conflict with the health and safety of the community. The evidence in this record is not sufficient to demonstrate that the facility would pose a genuine threat to public safety. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner concludes that this criterion is met. Page 15 of 21 7. The proposed location does not result in the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use, unless the proposed use is deemed a public necessity. See 19.150.030(A)(5). The Staff acknowledged that there are “many substance abuse and treatment centers located throughout Spokane Valley.” See Staff Report, p 8. These facilities provide a wide range of treatment options, both outpatient treatment and inpatient care. See id. However, Staff emphasized that only two CUPs have been approved for detox centers in the City. See id. In December 2018, Sequoia Detox Center was granted a CUP for a 6,000 sf facility at 14108 E. 3rd Avenue. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision, File No CUP-2018-0002. This facility was authorized to serve up to 16 patients. See id. In June 2020, Sequoia Detox Center obtained a second CUP for a facility serving up to 12 patients at 14114 E. Montgomery Avenue. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision, CUP-2020-0002. The facility on 3rd Avenue is approximately 0.4 miles southeast of the proposal site. See Staff Report, p 8. The facility on Montgomery is approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the proposed site. See id. Based upon this information, Staff determined that construction of the proposed facility would not result in an overconcentration of this type of use. See id.; Testimony of M. Palaniuk. Project opponents disagreed with the Staff’s analysis. For example, Mr. Davaz testified that there are already too many such facilities in the City. Testimony of D. Davaz. He wondered why the City was bearing the lion’s share of the burden of providing such services. See id. Mr. Barbero contended that there are four current or proposed facilities within approximately 1 mile of the proposed site and his home. Testimony of R. Barbero. He submitted a map which showed the locations of the project site, his nearby home, and the existing or proposed treatment facilities in the area. See Exhibit 23 (Letter of R. Barbero 3-24-2022). His list of facilities included Behavioral Health Systems (BHS), 12715 E. Mission; Spokane Treatment and Recovery Services (STARS), 14819 E. Mission; STARS, 13110 E. Nora; and Sequoia Detox Center, 14108 E. 3rd Avenue. See id.; see also E-mail of J. Block 12-30-2021, 3:41 PM (listing the same facilities, as well as the Sequoia Detox Center at 10305 E. Montgomery Avenue). Based upon the number of treatment facilities and patients served, the project opponents contended that adding the proposed facility would result in an overconcentration of such use in the area and City. The Hearing Examiner concludes that this proposal does not result in a detrimental overconcentration of detox centers in the City or the immediate area. There are several reasons the Hearing Examiner reaches this conclusion. First, the Hearing Examiner is inclined to defer to the Planning Staff’s interpretation of the term “overconcentration.” The municipal code does not define this term. In such cases, common dictionary definitions are utilized to determine the meaning of terms. The term “overconcentration” generally means “having too much of something or too many things…concentrated in one place.”3 Whether there is too much of something in one place is ambiguous in this context. When the terms in the municipal code are ambiguous, the Hearing Examiner should give substantial deference to the interpretations of the City officials who are charged to interpret and apply those codes. See Mall, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 369, 377-78, 739 P.2d 668 (1987) (stating that deference should be given to the construction of an ordinance by the officials charged with its enforcement). In the context to applying the zoning code, that is the Planning Staff. Upon being asked by 3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overconcentration. Page 16 of 21 the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Palaniuk stated that an overconcentration could occur when the same kinds of facilities on adjacent lots, for example. Testimony of M. Palaniuk. His interpretation was that the existing treatment facilities were separated by sufficient distance that there was no apparent overconcentration of comparable uses in the City. See id. The Hearing Examiner believes it is proper to defer to Mr. Palaniuk’s interpretation under the circumstances. Second, the Hearing Examiner agrees with Staff that there are not “too many” similar facilities in close proximity with the proposed site. The closest facility is the Sequoia Detox Center on 3rd Avenue. Although this facility is only 0.4 miles away from the site, it is on the other side of Sprague Avenue and cannot be considered as part of the same neighborhood. In addition, this facility is relatively small, at 6,000 sf, and can only serve 16 patients at a time. The relatively small size and limited capacity undercuts any claim that its presence contributes to an “overconcentration” of this type of use. The Sequoia Detox Center on Montgomery is approximately 2.6 miles away. In addition, this facility is also relatively small, having a capacity for 12 patients. This facility does not seem to be a part of this neighborhood, and is limited in scope. The remaining facilities identified by Mr. Barbero and others are situated adjacent or close to Interstate 90. These locations are a fair distance away from the proposed site and seem more appropriate for more intense use, given their location. BHS, for example, is a large facility with 200 beds for a range of services. The facility includes walk-in services as well having 32 beds dedicated to medical detoxification. The facility is just across the street from Multicare Valley Hospital. The facility is located between Mission Avenue and Interstate 90, and thus the location seems appropriate for a more intense use, especially related to medical services. The proposed STARS facility on Nora is very close to BHS, and is adjacent to I-90. Similarly, the STARS facility on Mission is adjacent to I-90 and vacant Washington State Department of Transportation land. That facility is about 1.5 miles from the proposed site, which seems a sufficient distance to avoid an “overconcentration” of this kind of use. It is also relatively small, having a capacity for 16 residents. Third, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that there is a detrimental overconcentration of detox facilities. It is not enough to point out that there are several treatment facilities in the City. To demonstrate that there is a detrimental overconcentration in the City would require proving that there are specific, negative consequences arising from clustering several of these uses in close proximity to each other. There would also need to be evidence that adding the Evergreen facility to the mix could cause or materially contribute to an overconcentration of such uses, resulting in identifiable consequences for the City or community. This kind of evidence is absent from this record. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposal does not result in the detrimental overconcentration4 of detox facilities in the City or the specific area it is proposed. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 4 Because the project will not result in a “detrimental overconcentration” of a particular use, there is no need to discuss whether the proposed use should nonetheless be allowed as a “public necessity.” That part of the decision criteria is not relevant to this case. Page 17 of 21 8. The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the use will not be hazardous or conflict with existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood. See 19.150.030(A)(6). The Applicant’s traffic engineer prepared a TGDL for this project. See Exhibit 9. The TGDL was reviewed by the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer, who concurred with the analysis. See Staff Report, p. 8. The City’s Senior Traffic Engineer thereafter issued a Certificate of Transportation Concurrency, confirming that the transportation system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed use. See Exhibit 9. He further concluded that no mitigation measures were necessary for this project. See id. There is no evidence that traffic from the proposed facility will create traffic hazards or conflict with existing or anticipated traffic in the neighborhood. There was no testimony provided or evidence submitted that the project would create any traffic hazards or conflicts. As a result, the only question is one of capacity. However, the project only generates 9 PM peak hour trips. As stated above, the Applicant’s traffic engineer and the City’s Senior Traffic Engineer agreed that the transportation system has sufficient capacity to support the development, without the need for any mitigation measures. There was public testimony raising concerns about traffic congestion. For example, Mr. Brennecke and Mr. Moore both pointed out that they have experienced long delays when trying to access Evergreen. Testimony of R. Brennecke & W. Moore. Similarly, Ms. Leija noted that accessing Evergreen has become more and more difficult, requiring her to drive around looking for openings. Testimony of L. Leija. The implication of this testimony was that the proposed use will make the traffic problems on Evergreen worse. While the concerns about traffic congestions are understandable, the evidence does not establish that the project will result in traffic impacts or safety hazards. The issues described in public testimony concerned pre-existing conditions on that arterial. These problems would occur whether this project was constructed or not. The testimony did not demonstrate how the approval of this project would exacerbate the congestion issues described by some residents. The Hearing Examiner doubts that the project would have any material impact on traffic, given the very small number of trips contributed to the system. In addition, the project has driveway access directly to Evergreen. Access to Main is prohibited. See Staff Report, p. 10. The site is not adjacent to any other local access street. In any event, there was no expert testimony challenging the opinions of the Applicant’s or City’s traffic engineers. Those experts concluded that the transportation system was adequate to support the proposal, and that no mitigation measures were necessary. As a result, there is no legal basis to condition or deny this project based upon traffic. The Hearing Examiner finds that this criterion is met. 9. There are adequate public facilities or services to support the use, and the use will not adversely affect public services to the surrounding area or conditions can be established to mitigate adverse impacts on such facilities. See 19.150.030(A)(7). The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed use will not result in a discernable increase in the need for public infrastructure or services. To the extent any burden is Page 18 of 21 placed on the public infrastructure or services, such burdens are adequately addressed by project conditions. The Notice of Application was circulated to numerous departments and agencies for consideration and comment. See Staff Report, p. 8. None of the agencies responded with concerns regarding the need for additional services or facilities. See id. None of the commenting agencies or departments suggested that public facilities were unavailable or insufficient to support the use, although some project conditions were requested. See id. When appropriate conditions were proposed, they were incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Hearing Examiner finds that this criterion is met. 10. The evidence is insufficient to support the claim that the facility will detrimentally impact property values in the neighborhood. One of the primary objections of area residents was that the proposed facility would lower the value of the residential properties in the neighborhood. Residents frequently stated that the mere presence of the facility would result in the devaluation of their homes. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of L. Aker); see also Testimony of D. McGuffin, J. Block, N. Hinton, J. Brennecke, & D. Davaz. The most specific evidence on this point came from Janelle Block, who submitted evidence from a study supporting the proposition that treatment centers cause adjacent residences to drop in value as much as 8%-17%. See Exhibit 10 (Letter of J. & J. Block 12/16/2021). The Applicant contended that the facility would have no effect on the value of adjacent property. Testimony of G. Arger. Mr. Arger, who is a real estate professional, argued that values are largely determined by the zoning. See id. He emphasized the properties along Evergreen Road have strong market valuations. See id. He also pointed out that Spokane has one of the strongest home markets right now, with valuations averaging approximately $426,000. See id. There is also another study5 referenced in this record. See Exhibit 10 (E-mail of J. Block 12-26-2021, 9:04 PM). That study suggests that, when the typical location6 of such facilities is factored in, that the placement of treatment centers has no impact on the value of residential properties nearby. See id. The Hearing Examiner finds the evidence on property values is inconclusive, at best. As stated above, several neighbors testified that their property values were sure to plummet as soon as this facility is constructed. The Applicant’s representatives responded that the project would have no impact on property values. But this testimony, on both sides of the issue, was conclusory and speculative. Some individuals who testified had significant experience in real estate, but no one submitted any specific analysis or data regarding property values. There was no expert testimony by a realtor or an appraiser, for example, analyzing the potential market impacts of the proposed detox facility and drawing conclusions one way or the other on the issue. It would seem that expert assistance would be necessary to establish that the proposal will cause a loss in value. See Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.App. 756, 785-86, 129 P.3d 300 (2006) (noting 5 Ms. Block provided a link to this study (actually, a working paper) in her written comments. 6 If the results are not adjusted based on the typical location, then treatment centers were found to negatively impact property values in the range of 3.4% to 4.6%. See NBR Working Paper, Substance Abuse Disorder Treatment Center and Property Valuation, January 2019. Page 19 of 21 that unsubstantiated fears of declining property values are not a proper basis for a land use decision); see also Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 794, 903 P.2d 986 (1985) (claims of lost property values should be based on the opinions of real estate experts, not the fears expressed by neighbors). The two studies identified in this record were not adequate to resolve the differing opinions on valuation. Ms. Block cited to a study that concluded that the value of neighboring property would decrease as much as 17%. However, the record only contains a link to an abstract. See Exhibit 10 (E-mail of J. Block 12-26-2021, 9:04 PM). The study itself is not in the record, only the bare conclusions found in the one-page abstract. There is no way to analyze or weigh the relevance, applicability, or credibility of this study. For example, the study utilized data from central Virginia. The Hearing Examiner cannot determine if the market conditions in central Virginia are comparable or not. The abstract does not reveal whether the study considered a substantially similar facility either. The market impacts of a medium-term rehabilitation center, for example, may be materially different than a short-stay detox facility. In addition, as previously stated, the Hearing Examiner would likely need the assistance of an expert to understand the study and how the results do or do not extrapolate to the present case. The second study, as Ms. Block notes, is a working paper, not a peer-reviewed study. Whether a working paper is sufficient to support a decision is hard to say. The working paper is based upon data collected from Seattle, Washington. This would seem more relevant to Spokane, given that the data is from the same state. However, that is just a guess. Having read the entire paper, the Hearing Examiner has questions that probably require expert guidance to answer. For example, the paper states that there is no effect on property values, once the tendency to locate these facilities in “lower value areas” is considered. However, the Hearing Examiner cannot tell if the Evergreen Corridor qualifies as a “lower value area” within the meaning of the paper. The paper states that it is analyzing the impact of locating “Substance Abuse Disorder Treatment Centers” or “SUDTCs” into residential neighborhoods. However, the paper does not define the term “Substance Abuse Disorder Treatment Centers” or list the essential characteristics of such facilities. The Hearing Examiner cannot determine whether the SUDTCs referenced in this study are substantially similar to the proposed detox facility. In any case, the methodology, models, terminology, and conclusions of this paper all require interpretation by an expert to be fully understood. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the evidence regarding the effect of the facility on property values was insufficient. As a result, the Hearing Examiner does not base his decision on any alleged impact on property values. 11. The Hearing Examiner concludes that additional project conditions are not warranted for this proposal. See 19.150.040. The Hearing Examiner has discretion, pursuant to SVMC 19.150.040, to add various project conditions, depending on the circumstances of each case. The Hearing Examiner concludes that the project conditions proposed by Staff are sufficient to address the concerns about the project. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner declines to add discretionary, additional conditions to this proposal. The Hearing Examiner agrees with the Staff’s analysis of the factors listed in SVMC 19.150, and hereby incorporates the Staff’s analysis on these issues. See Staff Report, pp. 9-11. Page 20 of 21 DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions above, it is the decision of the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed CUP for the Evergreen Detox Facility with the following conditions: COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – BUILDING & PLANNING DIVISION 1. This CUP authorizes the use at this location as generally described above and shown on the site plan, for a maximum of 40 patients. Any increase in the number of patients, change in services provided, or substantive changes to the site plan will require a modification to this CUP. Other non-substantive changes may be administratively approved by the City. 2. All parking, loading, and maneuvering of all vehicles (patient transport vans, staff, deliveries, and emergency services) is to be accommodated for on the site in question so as not to impact neighboring properties or restrict access/maneuvering in the public way. 3. Access to the project will be from Evergreen Road only. No access shall be taken from Main Avenue. 4. A 6-foot vinyl or wood sight-obscuring fence shall be installed along the north, east, and south perimeter of the site. The fence shall remain in place and be maintained for the duration of the conditional use. 5. Use of the outdoor break area along the south and southeast portion of the site and identified as “Secured Outdoor Area” on the site plan shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 6. A Building Permit shall be required for construction of the facility on the site as per the current edition of the International Building Code adopted pursuant to SVMC Title 24. Any changes to the nature of the facility, the types of services being provided, or the ability of all occupants to respond in an emergency with limited or no assistance may require future building permit review for change of occupancy classification. 7. A title notice shall be recorded for the property referencing CUP-2021-0002 decision and the conditions imposed on the use. 8. All permit and recording fees associated with the use are the responsibility of the applicant/owner. Page 21 of 21 SIGNED this 8th day of April, 2022. Brian T. McGinn City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner c/o City of Spokane Office of the Hearing Examiner 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane WA 99201 509-625-6010 hearingexaminer@spokanecity.org NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and Chapter 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a conditional use permit is final and conclusive unless within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C. On April 8, 2022, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail to the Applicant and by verifiable electronic mail to all government agencies and persons entitled to notice under SVMC 17.80.130(4). Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision is three (3) days after it is mailed. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner’s decision will be April 11, 2022. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECISION IS MAY 2, 2022. The complete record in this matter is on file during and after the appeal period City of Spokane Valley Community & Public Works Department-Building and Planning Division, located at 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; by contacting staff at (509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.