The McCleary City Council is treading lightly following the recent decision from the hearing examiner regarding the zoning for hospitals and residential treatment facilities. The council and mayor pro tem Brenda Orffer declined to offer definitive perspectives on the issue during the June 28 council meeting.

The hearing examiner has recommended that the city allow residential treatment facilities (with more than six patients) as a conditional use in residential zones and some commercial zones, and that the city also continue to allow hospitals as conditional uses in residential zones.

Background

Late in 2016, residents and the city expressed their concerns when it was announced that the former Mark Reed Hospital facility would be remodeled to house a residential treatment facility.

A residential treatment facility temporarily treats patients for severe mental health issues on an inpatient basis — those patients usually are checked in involuntarily by law enforcement or other health care providers (like hospital emergency departments). Those patients are stabilized at the residential treatment facility before being transported back to their home communities.

The Great Rivers Behavioral Health Organization (BHO), a five-county agency that deals with mental health funding, will lease the former hospital building from Hospital District 1 (Summit Pacific Medical Center). Grant funding will be used to remodel the building, and the BHO plans to contract with Telecare, a private company with headquarters in California, to provide services at the facility.

Concerns from residents and many city council members were centered on an increased workload for the city’s already-thin police department, decreased property values, and the potential of “dangerous” people loitering in town. Other concerns include increased demand on utilities (specifically wastewater and storm water) and parking concerns within the neighborhood.

Proponents of the facility have noted the need for a residential treatment facility to service the region. They’ve also noted that similar facilities have had few or no incidents requiring local police intervention. Because patients are transported back to the home communities, proponents argue, there is no reason to expect loitering. Additionally, the patients likely are not dangerous to the general public and are more likely to be victims themselves, supporters also noted.

Past action

Initially, the McCleary council discussed the issue as it specifically related to the proposed facility — should the former hospital become a residential treatment facility, and if not, how can it be stopped?

However, in January, the city changed its tone, often deliberately stating they are looking at the issue as a broad issue of residential treatment facilities, not one specific site.

In April, the council approved changes to city code. Those changes were twofold: one change altered the definition of “hospital” within city code, and another change defined “residential treatment facilities.” The definition changes were necessary, the city said, in order to send the matter before the city hearing examiner to determine where a residential treatment facility could be located within city limits.

BHO filed a complaint against the city in Grays Harbor County Superior Court in May alleging constitutional violations. (The state Attorney General’s Office in a letter to the city dated June 1 said the Attorney General was aware of the complaint and “has a strong interest in protecting the right of all Washingtonians to be free from unlawful discrimination…” The letter said the AGO would let the BHO and the city have an opportunity to resolve the conflict before getting involved.)

A public hearing was held on May 16. The hearing examiner aimed to determine if a residential zone would be an appropriate zone for a residential treatment facility, and if not, which zone would be appropriate.

The hearing examiner’s report and recommendation was given to the city last week.

Recommendation

Hearing examiner Neil Aaland’s report recommends three separate amendments for the city’s zoning:

• The city should allow for residential treatment facilities for six or fewer people as a permitted use in single-family homes.

• The city should allow larger residential treatment facilities as a conditional use in residential and some commercial zones, however the hearing examiner notes that “C-3 highway commercial district” wouldn’t be appropriate.

• The city should continue to allow hospitals as conditional uses in residential zones.

During the council meeting on June 28 the hearing examiner report was basically fresh, and the council had few comments about the recommendations.

The city is planning to hold a council workshop with the hearing examiner in order to answer lingering questions and concerns. The date and time will be announced when it’s scheduled.

“What the city council will have to determine is whether or not to adopt and accept this recommendation, and what sort of conditional uses or conditional requirements to put on the zone if it is accepted,” Orffer said. “At this point, there is nothing that’s been decided and nothing we can say one way or the other… I’d be getting way ahead of the process if I were to say anything like that.”

To the public, she advised, “We all need to wait and see, and definitely participate in the conversations that are going to happen. The workshop we schedule will be publicized, so please come and participate and listen, and we will do our best to keep navigating through this, and doing our best as a council to find the best solutions for the city.”

“Know that we do take all of the concerns into consideration and we’re trying to do the best thing for everyone involved,” Orffer added.

City public works director Todd Baun noted that the specific facility still would require an additional public hearing for a conditional use permit.

When a resident voiced his fears of hypothetical fallout from the recommendations, Orffer quashed that line of discussion.

“We don’t want to go down a ‘what if’ or ‘this thing or that thing could be’ because we really don’t know,” Orffer said.

The full hearing examiner report is available on the city’s website, cityofmccleary.com.