before the hearings examiner...14. applicant’s power point presentation, submitted december 19,...

Vancouver Hearing Examiner

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision

Vancouver Day Center HSF3 Relocation, PRJ-15777/LUP-65374 page 1 of 21

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER

FOR CITY OF VANCOUVER

In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. PRJ-157777/LUP-65374

)

Vancouver Day Center Relocation )

)

)

For a ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

Class 3 Human Services Facility ) DECISION

)

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS

The request is for approval of relocation of a Class 3 human service facility from 1600 West 20th

Street to the former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife building located at 2018 Grand

Boulevard. The proposal is to convert approximately 5,000 square feet of the existing 25,000-

square-foot building to a day center for persons who are homeless is GRANTED subject to

conditions.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

Request:

The City of Vancouver requested approval for relocation of a Class 3 human service facility

from 1600 West 20th Street to the former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife building

located at 2018 Grand Boulevard. The proposal is to convert approximately 5,000 square feet of

the existing 25,000-square-foot building to a day center for persons who are homeless.

Hearing Date:

The Vancouver Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on December 19,

2017.

Testimony:

At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:

Jon Wagner, Senior Planner, City of Vancouver

Peggy Sheehan, Applicant Representative, City of Vancouver Long Range Planning

Dave King, Vancouver Police Department, Commander West Precinct

Andy Silver, Executive Director, Council for the Homeless

Amy Reynolds, SHARE

Public Comment:

Bridget Fahnbulleh, NAACP

Jasmine Rucker, Clark County YWCA

Jerry Prioleau

Tim Murphy

Karen Morrison

Roy Johnson




Jamie Spinelli

Dominque Horn

Brandi Williams

Chris Prothero, Harney Heights Neighborhood Association

Judy Hawkins

Tim Dunton

Richard Baranzano

April Edgar

Anna Motina

Lynn Henderson

Becky Potter

Andrea Taber

James Dougherty

Alton Jones

Tere Jones

Stacie Marshall

Carmen McKibben

Will Vinson

Eric Lambert

Bryan Cyrus

Alex Moline

Rachel Weber

Min-Hwa Lee

Bill Steiner

The City was represented by Assistant City Attorney Brent Bogar.

Exhibits:

At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted in the record:

1. Staff Report, dated December 5, 2017

2. Vicinity Map

3. Application, dated October 30, 2017

4. Applicant narrative

5. Proposed Site Plan

6. Owner Authorization Letter, dated September 29, 2017

7. Notification Area Map

8. Affidavit of Mailing and Posting Notice of Application and Public Hearing, dated

November 2, 2017

9. Comments Received During Comment Period – See Appendix A

10. Addendum staff report, dated December 5, 2017

11. Human Service Siting Application Addendum, dated December 4, 2017




12. Memorandum from Rich McConaghy, Environmental Resource Manager relating to

trash/recycling and litter maintenance in vicinity of Grand/Fourth Plain Boulevard

13. Memorandum from Ryan Lopossa, Streets and Transportation Manager relating to

transportation issues in the vicinity of Grand/Fourth Plain Boulevard

14. Applicant’s power point presentation, submitted December 19, 2017

15. Public comment submitted after publican of staff report – See Appendix B

16. Comment letter from Commander Dave King, Vancouver Police Department, dated

December 7, 2017

17. Public comment sign-in sheets at hearing on December 19, 2017

18. Written comment submitted at hearing on December 19, 2017 - See Appendix C

Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner

enters the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS

1. The City of Vancouver (Applicant) has operated a day center as a Class 3 human services

facility providing services to homeless persons at 1600 West 20th Street in Vancouver

since December 2015. Through the Community Development Block Grant division of

the Community and Economic Development Department, the Applicant has applied for

approval to relocate the Class 3 human service facility to the former Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife building located at 2018 Grand Boulevard in

Vancouver.1 The proposal would convert approximately 5,000 square feet

2 of the

existing 25,000-square-foot building to a human services facility use that would function

as a day center for homeless persons. Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 5; Jon Wagner Testimony.

2. Pursuant to Vancouver Municipal Code (VMC) 20.870.010, the purpose of a human

service facility is facilitating the provision of basic shelter, food, job training, and other

health and social services to City residents in need. The VMC mandates that these uses

be regulated in a way that minimizes adverse off-site impacts, particularly in established

neighborhoods where facilities tend to be located, with a particular concern that no area

bear a disproportionate burden in the provision of these services. A Class 3 human

services facility is one that serves an average of 20 to 74 or more clients per day based on

the number of days per week that the facility serves its clients. VMC 20.870.020.C.3

1 The subject property is located at the Southeast quarter of Section 23, Township 2 North, Range 1 East of the WM,

also known as Tax Parcel 29763000. Exhibit 1.

2 At hearing, Applicant representatives indicated that the total area to be used for the day center would be between

4,000 and 5,000 square feet. Exhibit 14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

3 VMC 20.870.020 Types. A) Class 1 facility. A Class 1 facility is a facility defined as Transitional Housing

pursuant to the definition in Section 20.160.020(A)(3) VMC. B) Class 2 facility. A Class 2 facility is (1) a human

services facility other than a Class 1 facility as defined in Subsection A above, which (2) serves an average of 75 or

more clients per day based on the number of days per week that the facility serves its clients. C. Class 3 facility.

Class 3 facility is (1) a human service facility other than a Class 1 or 2 facility as defined in Subsections A and B




3. Since 2015, the City's existing day center Class 3 human services facility, at 1600 W.

20th Street, has occupied 1,000 square feet of a warehouse owned by Friends of the

Carpenter. The goal of the day center is to help homeless individuals and families move

towards self-sufficiency and housing, and to provide a place for them to take care of daily

needs without using public streets, parks, or area businesses. An average of 35 to 40

clients per day access the facility daily by bus, bicycle, walking, and some have cars. At

the day center, they use the restroom, access hygiene products and clothing, charge

phones, use a phone and computer, and get out of the weather between 7:00 am and 5:00

pm. The facility is staff by SHARE (Seattle Housing and Resource Effort, a homeless

advocacy organization). So far in 2017, at the existing day center, SHARE has helped

146 people gain employment, 97 people find permanent housing, and 466 people with

short and long distance transportation, in addition to use of the facilities. Exhibits 4, 11,

and 14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony; Amy Reynolds Testimony.

4. The existing day center cannot be expanded in place; there isn't room on-site for the

needed bathrooms, showers, laundry, storage, food service, or additional service

providers. Further, the public transit stop that used to be located near the facility was

moved by C-Tran and location no longer enjoys easy access by bus. Exhibits 4, 11, and

14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

5. The Applicant desires to expand the day center's capacity to address the increased needs

of the increased homeless population. The Homeless Management Information System

maintained by the Council for the Homeless (CFTH) indicates that the number of

homeless in Clark County increased 20% last year.4 The homeless are becoming

increasingly visible living on the streets and in parks; they can frequently be seen on

Fourth Plain. CFTH data show that of the 1,482 homeless single adults who requested

assistance in 2016, only 45% were able to be helped, and of the 496 households with

children who sought assistance, only 30% were able to be served. During the 2017 "point

in time" count, there were 269 people found living outside or in a car, including 44

families with children. Exhibits 11 and 14; Andy Silver Testimony; Peggy Sheehan

Testimony.

6. The Applicant undertook a search for an appropriate site for the relocation of the day

center. Search criteria included: commercial zoning; access/proximity to social services;

transit service; capacity to accommodate day center and severe weather shelter with

possible expansion; space for individual services; the ability to implement measures to

above; which (2) serves an average of 20-74 clients per day based on the number of days per week that the facility

serves its clients.

4 CFTH is a nonprofit organization that provides community leadership, compelling advocacy, and practical

solutions to prevent and end homelessness in Clark County, Washington. They: identify and monitor needs;

perform data collection and analysis; move solutions forward through planning, policy, and advocacy; engage in

community outreach, education, and understanding; collaborate to bring solutions into being; and involve service

providers, government, faith, business, education, and other sectors of the community in addressing the

homelessness problem. Andy Silver Testimony; Exhibit 14.




mitigate impacts on neighboring uses; existing building with land for possible expansion

or vacant land; immediate occupancy desired; adequate parking; and a willing property

owner. The proposed site was the best fit considering all search criteria. The existing

building requires no exterior remodel or landscaping and only minor interior remodel

before it would be ready for occupancy. At 2.5 acres in size, it would be possible to

mitigate and minimize impacts to adjacent uses. Exhibits 4, 11, and 14; Peggy Sheehan

Testimony. The current owner of the subject property submitted written consent for the

City to move forward with the instant proposal. Exhibit 6.

7. The subject property abuts Grand Boulevard to the east and SE 20th Street to the south.

South of SE 20th Street are R-18 zoned single-family residential and office uses.

Adjacent to the north is a small retail center with a gas station and other small businesses.

Fourth Plain Boulevard is north of the retail center. To the west is R-18 zoned property

developed with single-family residential and duplex uses. A Walmart Neighborhood

Market is located directly across Grand Boulevard from the site, with several other

commercial uses north of the market. Exhibits 1 and 2; Site Visit.

8. The subject property has a Community Commercial (CC) zoning designation. Exhibit 1.

The purpose of the CC zone is to provide for retail goods and services purchased

regularly by residents of several nearby neighborhoods. The zone also accommodates

offices, institutions, and housing. Housing located at ground floor is allowed on

properties fronting Broadway Street only. In all other cases, housing is located above the

ground floor. Because of the limited trade area, there are significant opportunities for

walking, bicycle, and transit trips that should be encouraged and accommodated through

building/site design, landscaping, and access. VMC 20.430.020.B. Human service

facilities are permitted in the CC zone as limited uses subject to compliance with use-

specific criteria. VMC 20.430, Table 1.

9. The proposal would convert approximately 5,000 square feet of the existing 25,000

commercial space to provide a day center which would provide access to laundry,

showers, restrooms, the ability to receive mail, and limited food service to between 20

and 74 homeless clients per day. The facility would provide a place to warm up, use the

internet, charge cell phones, and connect with mental health, case management, and job

search service providers. The Talk n' Trash job training program would serve the site and

provide opportunities for clients. As of the public hearing, there are no plans for the use

of the remaining 20,000 square feet.5 Exhibits 3, 4, 11, and 14; Peggy Sheehan

Testimony. Any additional future uses for the facility would be required to follow the

City of Vancouver land use permit processes. Jon Wagner Testimony; Peggy Sheehan

Testimony.

10. Proposed hours of operation are 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, seven days per week. Based on

attendance at the existing location and the numbers of homeless believed to be in the

5 Future conversions may include the potential for the operation of an overnight shelter and offices; however, these

uses are not proposed as part of this application. Exhibit 1.




vicinity, the new location is anticipated to serve an average of 50 clients per day and

staffed according to client demand, with SHARE outreach on-site. Because it is an open

drop-in facility, attendance numbers would need to be monitored. Exhibits 3, 4, 11, and

14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

11. No exterior construction or alteration of the existing building is proposed. The existing

building conforms with bulk dimensional standards of the CC district. (See Exhibit 1,

page 6.) The site, parking lot, and exterior of the building would be cleaned up and

maintained to City standards. The entire site would be fenced to allow the Applicant to

control client access to the property. All services would be provided inside of the

building and the fenced area under the overhand outside the main entrance. It is possible

storage would be made available to clients in lockers in the covered entrance area, which

is sheltered from the elements and partially screened from views off-site by a roof and

walls. The Applicant stated there would be daily perimeter inspections to remove any

litter and ensure there is no inappropriate activity on and around the site. Exhibits 1, 3, 4,

11, and 14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

12. The first consideration in the Code’s criteria for approval of a Class 3 human services

facility is compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.6 Serving approximately 50

(and not more than 74 people per day for the number of days per week the facility is

open) during standard business hours, the use is expected to experience lower attendance

than other commercial or office uses that could occupy the space. Clients visiting the day

center typically don’t own cars; no significant increase in traffic is expected. Activities

would not be visible to surrounding properties. According to the Applicant, the use

would help homeless people not to be on the streets, not to access restrooms in

surrounding businesses, and to access services that can help them become employed and

housed. Based on the City’s experience with the existing day center, the proposal is

expected to decrease the existing impacts of homeless populations in the neighborhood

by providing needed services. As an access point for connection to services and housing,

the day center needs to be located in a neighborhood with a high rate of homelessness to

be effective. According to CFTH's Homeless Management Information System, the

98661 zip code has the second highest rate of homelessness in Clark County; 98660 has

the highest rate. Their data show that 20% of people who accessed homeless services

reported living in 98661 before they became homeless. Exhibits 1, 4, 11, and 14; Peggy

Sheehan Testimony; Andy Silver Testimony.

13. CFTH argued that the way to decrease homelessness – and the impacts of homeless

populations on neighborhoods – is by providing assistance. Of homeless persons able to

access housing assistance, 86% hadn’t returned to homelessness in two years. Based on

their research, CTFH asserted that the day center, acting in concert with the rest of the

6 Pursuant to 20.870.040.A, the test for Human Services Facilities compatibility is that the establishment, maintenance

or operation of the facility will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be significantly detrimental to the

health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be

significantly detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of

the city.




homeless crisis response system, would lessen the impact of homelessness on the

neighborhood surrounding the proposed location. Addressing the belief of those opposed

that "if you build it, they will come," CFTH contended that services such as those offered

at the day center help people become and stay stably housed and noted that 84% of

people who access homeless services in Clark County lived in Clark County before they

became homeless. Andy Silver Testimony; Exhibit 14.

14. According to City records, there are no permitted Class 3 human service facilities within

2,000 feet of the subject property (up to four are permitted). The nearest Class 3 facilities

are: Clark County Public Health at 2,500 feet; Vancouver Free Clinic at 4,000 feet; and

Meals on Wheels (Luepke senior center) at 4,800 feet. Exhibit 11.

15. As noted above, all functions would take place inside the existing building or under the

35- by 100-foot overhang outside the main entrance, which in its existing condition is

screened from off-site views from the west and south by a roof, partial walls, and

vegetation (and is screened from views from the east and north by the building itself).

The main entrance is oriented away from the neighboring residences. An enhanced six-

foot sight obscuring fence would enclose the site, screening views from off-site. The 2.5-

acre site is large enough to encompass all activities associated with the day center.

Exhibits 4, 11, and 14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

16. There would be six restrooms in the building. Showers and laundry are proposed.


17. With the day center opening at 7:00 am, the Applicant would work with the service

provider to open early enough to avoid people waiting on the sidewalk. There is

sheltered waiting space under the overhand outside the main entrance that is screened

from public view. Exhibits 4 and 11.

18. The proposed maintenance plan includes: daily site monitoring; solid waste containers

and garbage service; a standardized building maintenance plan in place for all City

facilities; and monthly maintenance inspections. The facility and all fixtures and

appurtenances would be maintained according to the City of Vancouver Facilities Repair/

Replacement, Maintenance, and Life Cycle standards in the record at Exhibit 11, page 11.


19. Addressing the requirement for litter control, the proposal includes an additional solid

waste dumpster service to accommodate additional solid waste volume. As future building

owner, the City would monitor the site and the Grand Boulevard street frontage as follows:

Before opening and closing the Day Center, and periodically throughout the day,

staff would walk the perimeter of the building to check adverse impacts on the

adjoining neighborhood;

Staff would periodically clean throughout the day, picking up trash inside and

outside;

The entire main room of the Day Center would be swept daily;




All trash cans would be emptied daily;

Before closing, the would secure windows and doors;

Once a week the entire Day Center would be mopped and sanitized; and

Building owner maintenance staff would help maintain and deal with any facility

issues.

Exhibits 4, 11, and 14.

20. It is anticipated that the day center would be staffed by two to three people, and the

majority of clients do not have cars. The subject property has 95 parking spaces. The

existing day center has 13 spaces. Planning Staff noted that if the entire 25,000 square-

foot building functioned as an office use, the minimum number of parking space required

would be one space per 400 square feet, or 63 spaces. The available parking exceeds

demand and code requirements. Exhibits 4, 5, 11, and 14. Planning Staff noted,

however, that at the time of building permit, a crosswalk between accessible parking

and the building entrance would be required to be installed. Exhibit 1.

21. The application was reviewed by the City's Transportation Services Staff, who

determined that based on credits for trips associated with the former WDFW use of the

building, no additional street improvements and no concurrency review are required.

Exhibit 1.

22. The building on-site is connected to municipal sewer and water service. No additional

connections are proposed or required. If the Applicant determines a larger meter is

required to provide adequate service to the site, due to laundry and shower use, a larger

water service and additional System Development Charges may be required. If the size

of the existing two-inch water meter is increased to handle these additional uses, the

Applicant would be required to pay additional sewer system development charges.

Exhibit 1.

23. Because no ground disturbing activity or new impervious surfaces are proposed, no

review for stormwater or erosion control requirements is triggered. Exhibit 1.

24. The existing building is equipped with fire sprinklers. Exhibit 4. The fire department

reviewed the proposed conversion of the existing building and determined that the project

can meet the requirements of VMC Title 16 and the International Fire Code. Fire hydrant

locations are specified by the Fire Marshal. If new hydrants are required, they would be

required to be served by water mains at least eight inches in diameter. Exhibit 1.

25. A building permit would be required for the proposed interior alterations at which time

the entire site plan would be reviewed for compliance with Building Code and

accessibility issues pertaining to the site. Exhibit 1.




26. In its existing condition, the subject property contains at least 15% landscaped areas,

satisfying the zoning standards as noted above. No additional landscaping or tree

preservation/retention are required. Exhibit 1.

27. Due to the lack of ground disturbance, the proposal was determined to be categorically

exempt from review for compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act pursuant to

WAC 197-11-800(1)(b). Exhibit 1.

28. In developing the proposal, the Applicant conducted two community meetings (attended

by over 100 people), attended three neighborhood meetings and a Fourth Plain Business

leaders meeting, advertised through email to surrounding neighborhood associations,

posted information on the City’s website, and developed and maintained a project-

specific web site: www.cityofvancouver.us/DayCenter. Exhibits 11 and 14.

29. Pursuant to VMC 20.210.060, any new or expanded Human Service Facility shall be

reviewed as a Type III application pursuant to. Type III projects require a 30-day public

comment period and a public hearing before the hearing examiner, whose decision is

appealable to City Council within 14 days of issuance. Exhibit 1.

30. The Class 3 human service facility application was submitted October 30, 2017 and

deemed fully complete on October 31, 2017. Exhibit 1. Notice of application and public

hearing was mailed to owners of properties within 500 feet of the subject property

boundaries on November 2, 2017, identifying a 30-day comment period. The notice area

is depicted in Exhibit 7, and the mailing list is in Exhibit 8. Notice was also posted on

the City’s website and published in the Columbian Newspaper on Friday, November 2,

2017. Exhibits 1, 7, 8, and 14.

31. The Solid Waste Services division of the Public Works Department submitted a comment

in response to the notice, dated December 4, 2017, addressing the public concern of litter.

They noted there was adequate space for garbage and recycling containers with the

ability for storage in the building to mitigate unauthorized use. They stated maintenance

of the right-of-way could be accomplished in partnership with the crew maintaining the

right-of-way at the SHARE location. Exhibit 12.

32. The Streets and Transportation division of the Public Works Department submitted

comment on December 1, 2017 in response to public concerns regarding transportation

issues including street lighting, potholes, and pavement damages. The City agreed to

upgrade street lighting along East 20th

Street west of Grand Boulevard and Y and Z

Streets within 30 days and to conduct analysis for upgrades in the neighborhood of the

facility and along Fourth Plain Boulevard between Fort Vancouver Way and Grand

Boulevard. Repairs to potholes would occur during favorable weather conditions. The

City noted failing streets in many areas of the City with funding available in 2017 to

commence the repair work. Exhibit 13.

33. The City received numerous written public comments during the public comment period

following notice, between the public comment period and the hearing, and at the hearing.

http://www.cityofvancouver.us/DayCenter




Approximately thirty members of the public testified at the hearing. In these findings,

comments are organized into those in opposition and those in favor of the project.

Exhibits 9 and 15. The following (paraphrased) concerns were submitted in opposition to

the proposal:

Public health and safety concerns:

Many raised concerns of increased criminal activity, increased homeless

camping/tents, sanitation problems, and increased litter/debris, including needles

associated with drug use, in the neighborhood and surrounding area as a result of

there being no overnight component to the proposal. Many stated these issues

already exist in the neighborhood and would be exacerbated by relocating the

facility here. People presented testimony disputing the rate of crime reported,

contending that police are slow or do not appropriately respond to complaints when

they call regarding street people, which causes underreporting of the actual number

of incidences. Several who opposed the project argued that approval of a 5,000

square foot day center in a 25,000 square foot building is an obvious indication that

additional services for homeless and low income persons would be added to the

building in the future, calling the instant application a "Trojan horse." These

foreseeable additional services would further draw homeless people to the

neighborhood, likely causing those living in tents in other areas of the City to move

their tents closer to the proposed services. Many expressed the concern that the

project would result in a homeless encampment in the neighborhood similar to the

one currently existing around the SHARE House, a shelter for men outside of which

many homeless camp perpetually. Exhibits 9, 15, and 18; Testimony of Judy

Hawkins, Richard Baranzano, Anna Motina, Andrea Taber, James Dougherty,

Alton Jones, Tere Jones, Stacie Marshall, Carmen McKibbon, Will Vinson, Eric

Lambert, Alex Moline, Rachel Weber, Min-Hwa Lee, and Bill Steiner.

Economic impacts:

Several neighborhood residents stated they believe their home values will be

decreased. Owners of rental housing stated are concerned for the safety and welfare

of their tenants and also that tenants have stated they will leave if this proposal is

approved. Business owners expressed concern that there would be negative impacts

to their revenues, citing past and current problems with homeless individuals.

Several people questioned the cost of the proposal as it relates to the percentage of

the building that would be in use and also as it compares to the number of

individuals served, and questioning whether the expenditure of these funds

shouldn't be spent to address needs of the whole community. Some stated the area

is already economically disadvantaged and argued that the proposal would further

hinder or discourage redevelopment. Exhibits 9, 15, and 18. Testimony of Tim

Dunton, Richard Baranzano, April Edgar, Anna Motina, Lynn Henderson, Andrea

Taber, Alton Jones, Tere Jones, Stacie Marshall, Bryan Cyrus, Min-Hwa Lee, and

Bill Steiner.




Adequacy of notice, time to respond, lack of response, and other concerns:

Some complained that there was not sufficient time to respond to the proposal and

were not notified of the proposal. Many did not believe the City adequately

addressed questions and concerns. Some questioned whether city ordinance and

federal funding requirements will be met. Many expressed concern with the lack of

planning/services for the individuals outside the day center service hours. Some

believe the first issue to be addressed is housing noting day centers do not

adequately address the issue of homelessness. Many stated the proposal does not

adequately address the vast issues of homelessness and will only increase the public

health and safety and economic problems the neighborhood already faces. Many

expressed frustration that their neighborhood is being burdened with a city-wide

issue to their detriment. A couple commenters argued that the human services

facilities regulations are under review for amendment and that the City is rushing to

try to get this facility approved before those changes go into effect. Exhibits 9, 15,

and 18. Testimony of Judy Hawkins, Tim Dunton, Becky Potter, Stacie Marshall,

and Carmen McKibben.

34. Many of those submitting comments expressed support for the proposal, expressing

appreciation for the City's efforts to provide basic services for those without shelter. A

number of those commenting in support work directly with social service agencies; their

testimony corroborated the demand for the types of services the day center would

provide, the need for it in the proposed location, and the City's attempt to begin to

address the demand for homeless services with this first step. Some testified that they

intend to volunteer or collaborate with the relocated day center. Those in favor submitted

that such services benefit the physical and mental health of homeless individuals,

improving access to further services including housing and job placement opportunities

that would eventually help people to find permanent shelter, security, and self

sufficience, especially for families with children. Some who testified stated that they had

personally experienced homelessness and had become housed and employed as a result of

just this type of service. All acknowledged that the demand for permanent shelter and

broader social services greatly exceed the capacity of the proposed relocated human

services facility; however, supporters urged approval of the instant application as a step

in the right direction. Several who spoke in favor of the project took exception to the

characterization of all homeless persons as having drug problems, committing crime, and

interfering with surrounding business and homeowners' rights to quiet enjoyment of their

properties. Exhibits 9, 15, and 18; Testimony of Bridget Fahnbulleh, Jasmine Rucker,

Jerry Prioleau, Tim Murphy, Karen Morrison, Roy Johnson, Jamie Spinelli, Dominque

Horn, Brandi Williams, and Chris Prothero.

35. In support of the application, Applicant representatives testified that the current day

center helped 968 homeless individuals in its first year of operation, 97 of whom were

able to access permanent housing. Exhibit 14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

36. Regarding concerns about crime, Commander Dave King of the Vancouver Police

Department testified that based on his experience with the existing day center and the

City's homeless population, he does not believe that the relocated day center will draw




crime to the neighborhood. In the neighborhood of the existing day center, there were 23

calls to 911 for police service in 2016 and 26 calls in 2017. For the period from October

2016 to October 2017, the following calls for police service came from the following

shelters:

Shelter Address Calls for service

YWCA Safe Choice Undisclosed 9

Oak Bridge 2609 NE 93rd Ave 30

Share Homestead 4921 NE Hazel Dell 16

Share House 1115 W 13th St 370

Day Center (current location) 1600 W 20th St 30

Commander King testified that the majority of these calls were of a non-criminal nature.

Vancouver Police do not anticipate a significant impact to public safety if the day center

relocation is approved. VPD has high visibility in the area because of the major arterials.

There are ordinances in effect in Vancouver the prohibit unlawful camping, blocking of

sidewalks, and unlawful storage of property. Neighbors are encouraged to call 911 to

report problems. The West Precinct is within one mile of the subject property. Because

of the public concern that the day center could increase crime, VPD is considering

stationing a neighborhood officer in the day center. Commander Dave King Testimony;

Exhibit 14.

37. Responding to public comment concerned about project costs, the Applicant

representative noted that the approximately 25,000 square foot building on a 2.5-acre

parcel commercially zoned was intended to be purchased for $4.3 million and that

renovations would cost approximately $500,000. The remaining square footage in the

building is likely to be put to use addressing community needs as funding and

programming become available. The representative noted that statistics indicate that the

public cost per chronically homeless person for medical services, emergency shelter,

mental health, and law enforcement over a three-year period was as follows: for single

adults, $40,156 and for children, $4,073, meaning the investment in services aimed at

assisting the homeless into employment and permanent housing is an investment in future

public cost savings. Exhibit 14; Peggy Sheehan Testimony.

38. Regarding the use of the remaining space in the building, the Applicant plans to work

with community stakeholders to determine best uses. Needs that have been identified

include: overnight shelter with food service (for which no funding, space plan, operator,

or population have been identified), offices for service providers, space for a

neighborhood police officer, and space for neighborhood and community groups. Peggy

Sheehan Testimony; Exhibit 14.

39. Regarding concerns about impacts to the neighborhood, the Applicant representative

indicated that City staff is committed to mitigating neighborhood impacts by: improving

the outside of the current building (cleanup, parking lot, painting); operating a use that




will have less traffic than the previous office or retail use; fencing the site to secure it

when not open to prevent camping and loitering in the area; providing a building that

allows for homeless people to be off the streets and sidewalks, have access to restrooms

and showers, use laundry facilities, and access services intended to move people off the

streets into housing. Peggy Sheehan Testimony; Exhibit 14.

40. There has been no camping around the existing day center. Amy Reynolds Testimony;

Exhibit 14.

41. Upon review of all application materials, written public comment, and hearing testimony,

City Planning Staff concluded that compliance with the criteria for Class 3 human service

facilities have been met and recommended approval with conditions. Exhibit 1; Jon

Wagner Testimony.

CONCLUSIONS

Jurisdiction:

The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct an open record hearing and decide

applications for Class 3 Human Service Facilities pursuant to Vancouver Municipal Code

20.210.060 and 20.870.030.

Human Service Facility Criteria for Review:

Pursuant to VMC 20.870.040, human service facilities may be approved if the application

demonstrates compliance with the following approval criteria:

A. Compatibility. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the facility will not,

under the circumstances of the particular case, be significantly detrimental to the

health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood

of such proposed use or be significantly detrimental or injurious to the property or

improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

B. Compliance with applicable regulations. Demonstration that the applicant has

complied with all standards and regulation contained in this Chapter.

Pursuant to VMA 20.870.050.C, Class 3 Human Service Facilities must comply with the

following use-specific development standards:

1. Class 3 facility may be located, relocated or expanded if there are no more than four

existing Class 3 facilities within 2,000’ of the center of the proposed Class 3 site.

2. All functions associated with such a facility must take place within the building

proposed to house the facility, provided, that this regulation shall not apply to facilities

that provide services to persons at different locations.

3. Restrooms must be provided to serve the expected number of clients at peak periods

and these must be kept in working order.




4. Outdoor waiting for clients may be restricted and if allowed shall not be in the public

right-of-way and must be physically separated from the public right-of-way. Any such

outdoor waiting facility must be large enough to accommodate the expected numbers of

clients.

5. A maintenance plan for the exterior of the building and site must be submitted with the

application and must be followed. The plan must provide for the building and site to be

maintained at a level that will not detract from the character of the surrounding area.

6. A litter control plan must be submitted with the application and must be followed. The

plan must provide for effective litter removal at or near the site of the facility.

7. Sufficient off-street parking must be provided for staff and clients.

Conclusions Based on Findings:

1. The purpose of the instant proceedings is to determine whether the application materials

submitted demonstrate compliance with the criteria for Class 3 human services facilities

as adopted in Vancouver Municipal Code Chapter 20.870. Questions of the cost of the

subject property, its funding source, whether the proposal is the best use of public funds,

how and where best to address the City’s homelessness problems, what other uses might

be proposed in the remainder of the building in the future, and other concerns relating to

transparency of the process are outside the scope of the instant proceedings. Despite

public comment raising such questions, the undersigned finds no evidence in the record

showing that the City cut any corners, enjoyed any favored status, or failed to comport

with all requirements of the land use permitting process in the same manner any other

applicant for a human services facilities permit.

2. The record shows that more than the minimum required notice of the proposal was

provided by the Applicant, who engaged in a community outreach program not required

for a Type III permit review nor for human services facilities permits. Notice of

application and public hearing is the standard method of notifying adjacent property

owners and the wider community of land development proposals, as established in VMC

20.210.060.E. In this case, the notice included all information required by Code. In

addition, the Applicant engaged in multiple community meetings, both self-hosted and

meetings of other entities, created a project-specific website, and corresponded by email

with property owners in the neighborhood of the subject property. Neighboring property

and business owners and members of the public had more than 45 days to submit

comments after the notice of application went out. Code requirements for notice were

exceeded. Findings 1, 9, 28, 29, and 30.

3. With respect to compatibility: Human services facilities are allowed in the CC zone. The

minor proposed changes to the building would not impact off-site uses. The proposal

would occupy a portion of a vacant commercial space with more than the minimum off-

street parking required. No unscreened outdoor activities are proposed. Traffic from the

proposed use is expected be less than that from the former Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife occupancy of the site. No increase in demand for utilities, storm sewer,




roads, or other public services is anticipated. There would be no ground disturbance.

The Applicant proposed a plan for the maintenance and upkeep of the site and has a two

year track of successfully doing so at the existing location. Law enforcement endorsed

approval. The concerns expressed by neighboring residential property and business

owners were not about the on-site activities during business hours, and no one offered

evidence or even put forward allegations that the operation of the day center itself as

proposed would cause impacts adverse to surrounding uses.

The concerns forwarded were about the clientele to be served by the facility and

specifically where they would go after hours. Testifying about already crime-troubled

residential streets and businesses in the surrounding community, project opponents

argued that providing day center services in the neighborhood would cause homeless

people from other neighborhoods to relocate to their parks, alleys, yards and business

parking lots. Neighbors were specifically concerned that tent encampments like that at

the existing SHARE House (a single adult men’s shelter) would pop up in this

neighborhood, so that the homeless could remain closer to the location of the proposed

services. They also expressed concern about increases in already troubling crime, some

of which goes unreported, and increased public litter consisting of drug paraphernalia,

and that these impacts combined would have a deleterious effect on property values and

business revenues.

On the other hand, witnesses in support of the project who work in homeless and other

social services, including the current day center, and a representative of the Vancouver

Police Department presented evidence based on professional experience and empirical

data that supports the conclusion that facilities such as the proposed day center reduce the

impacts of homelessness on the surrounding community. This happens because such

services get homeless people off the streets during the day and connect them with

employment assistance, housing counseling, and other services. The record shows that

no tent encampment arose around the existing day center location.

Despite the strong feelings and deep worries expressed in written and verbal comments

from project opponents, the record contains no empirical data that tend to show their

concerns would be realized. Their concerns are best characterized as generalized

community displeasure primarily based on stereotypes rather than on professional

experience. In weighing these opposing opinions, the undersigned finds the opinions of

those who work with and professionally study homeless populations, including law

enforcement, to be more persuasive regarding potential impacts to the neighborhood.

Washington courts have held that the opposition of the community, without evidence

demonstrating that the proposal fails to meet criteria for approval, cannot alone justify a

local land use decision.7 The instant record does not contain evidence that shows failure

of the application to satisfy criteria for approval. With specific regard to property values,

courts have acknowledged that neighbors' fears can reduce property values; however,

7 Sunderland Servs. v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 797 (1995); Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App.

795, 805 (1990); Kenart & Assocs. v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295, 303, review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1021 (1984).

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=59%20Wn.%20App.%20795



https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=101%20Wn.2d%201021




courts have found that there is an important distinction between well-founded fears and

those based on inaccurate stereotypes and popular prejudices.8 Findings 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41.

4. As previously noted, the proposed Class 3 human services facility is an allowed use

in the underlying CC zoning district subject to use-specific criteria. As conditioned,

the application materials demonstrate compliance with applicable human service

facility regulations. There are no Class 3 human service facilities within 2,000 feet.

All activities would take place inside the building or inside the screening largely

enclosing the roof overhanging the main entrance. Parking would be adequately

accommodated in the existing parking lot on-site. Outdoor waiting, if any, would be

accommodated under the screened overhang at the front entrance. Building

maintenance and litter control were addressed in the Applicant's materials. Findings

1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, and

41.

DECISION

Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for approval to relocate the

current day center to the former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife building located at

2018 Grand Boulevard is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Prior to Commencing Remodeling/Repair:

1. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit.

During Construction:

2. The Applicant shall meet the water requirements for connection to and/or construction of

public water per the General Requirements and Details for the Design and Construction

of Water, Sanitary Sewer and Surface Water Systems (latest revision).

Prior to Issuing a Certificate of Occupancy:

3. The Applicant shall provide a crosswalk between accessible parking and the building

entrance.

4. The Applicant shall provide specific information on the location of any outdoor waiting

areas for review and approval by staff.

5. The Applicant shall provide a detailed building and site maintenance plan for review and

approval by staff.

6. The Applicant shall provide a detailed litter control plan for review and approval by staff.

8 Sunderland Servs. v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782 “In the past, this court has acknowledged that neighbors' fears may

reduce property values. See Park v. Stolzheise, 24 Wn.2d 781, 793-94, 167 P.2d 412 (1946) (location of a

sanitorium for mental patients). See J.W. v. Tacoma, 720 F.2d 1126, 1132 n.7 (9th Cir 1983). Courts have long held

the latter cannot justify zoning restrictions. E.g., Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 82, 38 S. Ct. 16, 62 L. Ed. 149

(1917) (zoning restrictions based on race).

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=24%20Wn.2d%20781

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=167%20P.2d%20412

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=720%20F.2d%201126

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=245%20U.S.%2060

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=38%20S.Ct.%2016

https://demo.lawriter.net/find_case?cite=62%20L.Ed.%20149




During Operation of the Day Center:

7. Dumpsters shall be stored inside the building or within the existing loading dock area and

made accessible to the collector on service days.

8. The Applicant shall adhere to the approved building and site maintenance plan.

9. The Applicant shall adhere to the approved litter control plan.

Decided January 4, 2018.

By:

Sharon A. Rice

City of Vancouver Hearing Examiner

Note: The hearing examiner’s decision may be appealed to the Vancouver City Council within

fourteen (14) calendar days after the date the hearing examiner’s decision is mailed. Appeals

must be made in writing and be received within this time period. The letter of appeal shall state

the case number designated by the city and the name of the applicant, name and signature of each

petitioner, a statement showing that each petitioner is entitled to file the appeal under VMC

Chapter 20.210.130.B, the specific aspect(s) of the decision and/or SEPA issue being appealed,

the reasons each aspect is in error as a matter of fact or law, and the evidence relied upon to

prove the error (VMC 20.210.130.A). The appropriate fee must accompany the appeal. Submit

the appeal request and fee to Community & Economic Development Department, Permit Center,

415 W 6th Street, or mail to PO Box 1995, Vancouver, WA 98668-1995.Permit center hours are

8 a.m.–12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.–4 p.m., except Wednesday, when permit center hours begin at 9

a.m.

SAR

Placed Image




APPENDIX A - Exhibit 9

Public comment submitted during the pre-hearing comment period from:

1. Joel Stirling email, dated November 10, 2017

2. Kristi Lusk, email dated November 11, 2017

3. Kristen Moyers, email, dated November 11, 2017

4. Kayla Shagafi email, dated November 11, 2017

5. Devon Thomas email, dated November 13, 2017

6. Thomas Glovka email, dated November 13, 2017

7. Stephanie Gold email, dated November 13, 2017

8. Lee Ogle email, dated November 14, 2017

9. Min-Hwa Lee, letter, dated November 14, 2017

10. Lena Houston email, dated November 14, 2017

11. Bryan Burkhardt email, dated November 15, 2017

12. Carly Twidwell email, dated November 15, 2017

13. Megan Kelly email, dated November 15, 2017

14. Andres Russ letter, submitted November 15, 2017

15. Joseph Smith email, dated November 15, 2017

16. Nina Davenport email, dated November 15, 2017

17. Anna Motina letter, submitted November 15, 2017

18. Al Jones email, dated November 15, 2017

19. Rich Baranzano email, dated November 16, 2017

20. Charity Lawson email, dated November 16, 2017

21. Melissa Baker email, dated November 17, 2017

22. Resident with email alias “janetliu1” email, dated November 19, 2017

23. Tim Dunton email, dated November 19, 2017

24. Chris Prothero emails, dated November 20, 2017

25. Judy Hawkins email, dated November 20, 2017

26. Eden Donnen email, dated November 20, 2017

27. Cheryl Pfaff email, dated November 20, 2017

28. Kimberlee Crones email, dated November 20, 2017

29. Michael Fenske email, dated November 20, 2017

30. Jodi Freydenfeldt email, dated November 21, 2017

31. Jerri Stanley email, dated November 21, 2017

32. Peter Cringhen email, dated November 22, 2017

33. Elaine Armstrong email, dated November 22, 2017

34. Bill Lee email, dated November 23, 2017

35. Cathy Johnson-Stewart email, dated November 23, 2017

36. Pat Waite email, dated November 23, 2017

37. Phil Straub email, dated November 24, 2017

38. Leila Ahmadi email, dated November 24, 2017

39. Paul Presler email, dated November 23, 2017

40. Rich Baranzano email, dated November 27, 2017

41. Letter from “Concerned Resident” dated November 21, 2017

42. Beth Hovee email, dated November 27, 2017

43. Colleen Feltz email, dated November 27, 2017

44. Shaun Tambly email, dated November 27, 2017




45. Roy Johnson email, dated November 28, 2017

46. Tim Foley email, dated November 28, 2017

47. Diane McWithey email, dated November 28, 2017

48. Daniel Valliere email, dated November 28, 2017

49. Alex Engen email, dated November 28, 2017

50. Craig Pridemore email, dated November 29, 2017

51. John Moren email, dated November 29, 2017

52. Anne McQuary email, dated November 29, 2017

53. Dennis Morrow email, dated November 30, 2017

54. Sam Reuben email, dated December 1, 2017

55. Kevin Beam email, dated December 1, 2017

56. Renee Hafner email, dated December 1, 2017

57. Cynthia Powers email, submitted December 1, 2017

58. Laura Lindeman letter, dated December 1, 2017Lo

59. Joel Stirling letter, submitted December 1, 2017

60. Jackie Eveland email, dated December 1, 2017

61. Wayne Clay email, dated December 1, 2017

62. Ceci Smith email, dated December 2, 2017

63. Alison Gootee email, dated December 2, 2017

64. Debi Lee email, dated December 2, 2017

65. David Wegner email, dated December 2, 2017

66. Lon Hunt email, dated December 2, 2017

67. Chris Burley email, dated December 2, 2017

68. Joel Gilpin email, dated December 2, 2017

69. Jennifer Rinehart Wegner email, dated December 2, 2017

70. Lynn Hendersen – Anna Motina letter, dated December 2, 2017

71. Andy Silver email, dated December 3, 2017

72. Kachina Inman email, dated December 3, 2017

73. Ben Grobe-Hintz email, dated December 3, 2017

74. Karen Moline email, dated December 3, 2017

75. Judy Hawkins email, dated December 3, 2017

76. Brenda Gronsdahl letter, submitted December 3, 2017

77. Nicki Ueland email, dated December 3, 2017

78. Andrea and Steve Taber email, dated December 3, 2017

79. Resident with email alias “3DGEM3” email, dated December 3, 2017

80. Melissa Lenz email, dated December 3, 2017

81. Rebecca Potter email, dated December 3, 2017

82. Carol Eggers email, dated December 3, 2017

83. Kate Budd email, dated December 3, 2017

84. James Dougherty email, dated December 3, 2017

85. Richard Baranzano letter with attachments, dated December 3, 2017

86. Emanuel McCray email with attachment, dated December 4, 2017

87. Amado Vasquez email, dated December 3, 2017

88. Neni Jo email, dated December 3, 2017

89. Leslie Daniels email, dated December 1, 2017

90. Alison Gootee and Zachery Scalf email, dated December 2, 2017




91. Charlene Welch email, dated December 4, 2017

92. William Vinson email, dated December 4, 2017

93. Sandy Bennett email, dated December 4, 2017

94. Cara Slentz email, dated December 4, 2017

95. Bridgette Fahnbulleh email, dated December 4, 2017

96. Ben Grobe-Heintz email, dated December 4, 2017

97. Mike Brakefield email, dated December 4, 2017

98. Pam and Joe Schwartz email, dated December 4, 2017

99. Steven Lindeman email, dated December 4, 2017

100. Desi Mendez email, dated December 4, 2017


102. Al Parmantier email, dated December 4, 2017

103. Shannon Brakefield email, dated December 4, 2017

104. Anne Eaton email, dated December 4, 2017

105. Peter Fels letter submitted email, dated December 4, 2017

106. Carolena Zanders email, dated December 4, 2017

107. Michele Wollert email, dated December 4, 2017


109. Ken Pietila and Karen Nickell letter, submitted December 4, 2017

110. Patrick Gallagher letter, dated December 4, 2017

111. Eric Lambert email, dated December 4, 2017

112. Sena Harvey letter, submitted December 4, 2017

113. Kelsey Ryan email, dated December 4, 2017

114. Brian Cyrus email, dated December 4, 2017

115. Sena Harvey email, dated December 4, 2017

116. Nick Shanmac email, dated December 4, 2017

117. Rebecca Cyrus email, dated December 3, 2017

APPENDIX B - Exhibit 15

Written public comment submitted after publication of staff report prior to the hearing from:

1. Kaitlin Smith on behalf of FISH of Vancouver letter, dated December 14, 2017

2. Dave King, Commander of Patrol Division, Vancouver Police Department letter, dated

December 7, 2017

3. Jamie Spinelli letter, dated December 12, 2017

4. Margo Priebe, Clark County YWCA letter, dated December 12, 2017

5. Resident of Central Park neighborhood with email alias “bigger rig” email, dated

December 11, 2017

6. Holly Williams email, dated December 7, 2017

7. Elizabeth Madrigal email, dated December 6, 2017

8. Pam Schwartz email, dated December 5, 2017

9. Craig Lyons email, dated December 4, 2017

10. Esther Short Neighborhood Association email, dated December 4, 2017

11. Resident of Maplewood neighborhood with email alias “Just Robin” email, dated

December 4, 2017

12. Kristy Sanchez on behalf of Regency Management, Inc. email, dated December 4, 2017




13. Philip Sheridan letter, dated December 4, 2017

14. April Edgar email, dated December 4, 2017


16. Ted Gathe email, dated December 4, 2017 with a copy of Peter Fels letter, dated

November 27, 2017

17. Jerri Stanley on behalf of Recovery Café Committee, email, dated November 21, 2017

APPENDIX C - Exhibit 18

Written comments submitted at the December 19, 2017 public hearing from:

1. Judy Hawkins, three pages

2. Richard Baranzano, two pages

3. Anna Motina and Lynn Henderson, two pages

4. Jonathan Glasscock, one page

5. Becky Potter, five pages

6. Will Vinson, one page

7. Eric Lambert, eighteen pages

8. Bryan Cyrus, ten pages

9. Jim Johnson, two pages

10. Stacie Marshall, four pages

11. Carmen McKibben, one page

before the hearings examiner...14. applicant’s power point presentation, submitted december 19,...

Documents