Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2021 REV Hearing Examiner Meeting Packet CYtyaf AGENDA a"--" s� "Vco HEARING EXAMINER MEETING City Hall—525 North Third Avenue Council Chambers WEDNESDAY,APRIL 14,2021 6:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Special Permit Matias "Sober Home" - Community Service Facility Level II (MF# SP 2021-004) B. Special Permit Elsahili/Fortify Holdings - Rodeway Inn Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion (MF# SP 2021-005) III. NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT To best comply with Governor's Inslee's Emergency Proclamation and Extension regarding Open Public Meetings Act,the City asks all members of the public that would like to comment regarding items on the agenda to fill out a form via the City's website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment) to obtain access information to comment. Requests must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired;contact staff for assistance. Of REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER co PUBLIC HEARING City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers WEDNESDAY,April 14,2021 6:00 PM MASTER FILE#: SP 2021-004 APPLICANT: Ines Matias/Carlos Villa 74104 N SR 225 Benton City WA 99320 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Community Service Facility Level II at 711 Octave Street, Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 5 &6, Block 6, Sylvester's 2nd Addition (Parcel #112 153 107). General Location: 711 West Octave Street. Property Size: Approximately 0.13 acres (5,749.76 Square Feet). 2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Octave Street. 3. UTILITIES:Water service is available from West Octave Street; sewer service is located in the alley behind. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low-density Residential), and is occupied with a single-family dwelling unit (SFDU) and a garage with carport. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 SFDUs EAST: R-1 SFDUs SOUTH: R-1/"O" SFDUs/Vacant WEST: R-1 SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-density residential. a. Goal LU-2: maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable places to live; b. Goal H-1: encourage housing for all economic segments of the city's population; i. Policy H-1-C: Support dispersal of special needs housing throughout the community. c. Goal H-2: strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market; i. Policy H-5-C: The city shall work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income housing is developed on scattered sites and in such a manner that it blends in with surrounding neighborhoods. 1 d. Goal H-5: support efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households in the community. i. Policy H-5-C: The city shall work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income housing is developed on scattered sites and in such a manner that it blends in with surrounding neighborhoods. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued for this project on March 29, 2021, under WAC 197-11-158.The required mitigation is as follows: a. A Special Permit approved and issued by the City of Pasco for a "Community Service Facility, Level II" shall be required. b. Property owner must provide a State certification as an "Alcohol and Drug Center" c. Property will be classified as a "Group I". i. Group I structures must be installed with an approved Fire Sprinkler System. ii. Group I structures must be installed with an approved monitored Fire Alarm System. ANALYSIS Proposal Applicants Ines Matias/Carlos Villa wish to locate a "Sober Home" Community Service Facility Level 11 at the property located at 711 West Octave Street. According to a Department of Corrections (DOC) application shared with Staff, the facility would do the following: 1) Provide transitional housing to the general public at this location. 2) Enforce clean and sober rules and shelter agreement. 3)Accept male clients with Community Supervision requirements with the WA State Department of Corrections, 4) Participate in the Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program, receiving rental payments from the Department of Corrections on behalf of some clients. The proposal would be a male-only house. The residence features 4 bathrooms, kitchen, dining area, a common living area, and utility room.The proposed total occupancy would be 8 men. According to PMC 25.15.080 "Family" means one or more persons (but not more than six unrelated persons)living together as a single housekeeping unit. For purposes of this definition and notwithstanding any other provision of this code, children with familial status within the meaning of 42 USC§ 3602(k) and persons with handicaps within the meaning of 42 USC§3602(h)will not be counted as unrelated persons." The proposed location is intended for men who may have alcohol and drug disabilities and mental health issues in need of supportive housing. However the Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program does not limit its clients to persons who have alcohol and drug disabilities and mental health issues. As 2 such,the facility would not qualify as a"Group Care Facility" under the Earned Release Date(ERD) Housing Voucher Program. The Department of Corrections (DOC) believes this location may be appropriate for some individuals releasing from prison to the community based on their individual risk and need. The housing vendor has indicated that applicants will be screened to determine who is believed to benefit from participation in the housing program. The house rules will include but are not limited to 1) no drug or alcohol use/possession, and 2)following all DOC requirements of supervision. The local DOC office will also review each proposed release to determine suitability for placement. All residents in in this housing on the ERD Housing Voucher Program will be supervised by the Department of Corrections. The following are some of the similar services in the community: Tri-Cities Union Gospel Mission.This facility is located at 112 N.2nd Avenue. It offers an emergency shelter and addiction transitional housing, Salvation Army Social Services Department. This facility is located at 310 N. 4th Avenue. It offers an emergency shelter, housing assistance, a food pantry, meal programs, drug addiction rehabilitation services, etc. Lourdes Desert Hope.This facility is located at 1020 S.7th Avenue. It offers a temporary shelter for people seeking treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. These resources also include: St. Vincent De Paul Food Bank. This facility is located at 115 W. Lewis Street. It offers food distribution services to struggling local families. Golden Age Food Share Program.This facility is located at 504 S.Oregon Avenue. It offers food distribution services for needy senior citizens. Community Action Connections. This facility is located at 720 West Court Street. It offers many services, including rapid re-housing and helps find permanent housing for the chronically homeless. The facility itself is not used to house the homeless. At least two schools are also close to the proposed facility: Captain Gray STEM Elementary School. This facility is located about one block west of the proposed facility, at 1102 N. 10th Ave.This facility is an elementary school with enrollment of about 640 students. Pasco High School. This facility is located about one block west of the proposed facility, at 1108 N. 10th Ave.This facility is a high school with enrollment of about 2,373 students. Site The proposed facility is a single-family dwelling unit(SFDU) located on approximately 0.13 acres(5,749.76 Square Feet) on the north side of the 600 block of West octave Street (Parcel #112 153 107). The residence contains 4 bathrooms, kitchen, dining area, a common living area, and utility room. History The site was annexed into the City in 1890 as a part of Sylvester's Second Addition and assigned R-1, 3 Residential District zoning in 1938. The zoning designation remains R-1 (Low-density Residential) to this day. Applicant has been cited several times over the last 17 years by City of Pasco Code Enforcement for civil violations including failure to obtain business licenses, illegal rentals, and illegally dividing the structure into a duplex. Eight complaints were brought between 2011 and present, with 10 civil infractions confirmed in 2017 alone. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. Additional findings may be added to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Public notice of this hearing was posted in the Tri-City Herald,and sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property on March 9, 2021. 2. Applicants wish to locate a Community Service Facility Level II at the property located at 711 West Octave Street. 3. The facility would participate in the Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program, 4. The facility would receive rental payments from the Department of Corrections on behalf of some clients. 5. The proposal would be a male-only house. 6. The single-family residence contains 4 bathrooms, kitchen, dining area, a common living area, and utility room. 7. According to PMC 25.15.080 "Family' means one or more persons (but not more than six unrelated persons) living together as a single housekeeping unit. For purposes of this definition and notwithstanding any other provision of this code, children with familial status within the meaning of 42 USC § 3602(k) and persons with handicaps within the meaning of 42 USC § 3602(h) will not be counted as unrelated persons." 8. The proposed total occupancy would be 8-12 men (depending on the source of information). 9. Department of Corrections (DOC) representative states that the proposed location is intended for men who may have alcohol and drug disabilities and mental health issues in need of supportive housing. 10. The Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program does not limit its clients to persons who have alcohol and drug disabilities and mental health issues. 11. The facility would not qualify as a "Group Care Facility" under the Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program alone. 12. Applicants will be screened by the Department of Corrections (DOC)to determine who is believed to benefit from participation in the housing program. 13. The house rules will include but are not limited to 1) no drug or alcohol use/possession, and 2) following all DOC requirements of supervision. 14. The local DOC office will also review each proposed release to determine suitability for placement. 15. All residents in in this housing on the ERD Housing Voucher Program will be supervised by the Department of Corrections. 4 16. At least two schools are also close to the proposed facility: a. Captain Gray STEM Elementary School. This facility is located about one block west of the proposed facility, at 1102 N. 10th Ave.This facility is an elementary school with enrollment of about 640 students. b. Pasco High School. This facility is located about one block west of the proposed facility, at 1108 N. 10th Ave.This facility is a high school with enrollment of about 2,373 students. 17. The proposed facility is located on approximately 0.13 acres (5,749.76 Square Feet) 18. The proposed facility is on the north side of the 600 block of West octave Street 19. The site was annexed into the City in 1890 as a part of Sylvester's Second Addition 20. The site was assigned R-1, Residential District zoning in 1938. 21. The zoning designation is R-1 (Low-density Residential). 22. Applicant has been cited several times over the last 17 years by City of Pasco Code Enforcement for civil violations 23. Applicant has been previously cited for illegal construction activities, including an illegal SFDU-to- duplex conversion. 24. There is no marked on-site parking, however at least two vehicles could be accommodated on-site. 25. Any client vehicles above and beyond available parking would be located in the street or alley. 26. The general vicinity is primarily single-family residential in nature 27. The proposed facility is classified as a Community Service Facility, Level Two, 28. Special Permit review is required for all Level II Community Service Facilities. 29. No Mitigation Plan for possible adverse effects has been submitted by Applicant. 30. Applicant noted a plan to "add a room where the porch [is]." On the original SEPA Checklist. 31. All construction would need to comply with current City building and zoning regulations. 32. The application received from the Department of Corrections (DOC) was for an Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program serving ex-felons. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Review Criteria Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed plat findings of fact must be developed from which to draw conclusion (PMC 26.24.070)therefrom as to whether or not: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? a. Policy H-5-C: states that"the city shall work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income housing is developed on scattered sites and in such a manner that it blends in with surrounding neighborhoods." b. The facility would perform as a de facto Group Home, of sorts. c. The Plan stresses the importance of siting necessary facilities in appropriate locations and the protection of life and property. d. The site is located within an older developed portion of the community developed with smaller homes e. Unit has walking access to the surrounding community, but no direct transit access. 5 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? a. Traffic generation of the proposal may increase due to the proposed number of clients (8 per the Department of Corrections(DOC)application; 10-12 per the initial SEPA Checklist). b. There are no marked parking stalls, however at least two vehicles could be accommodated on site at present. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? a. The general vicinity is primarily single-family residential in nature;single family residential to the north, east, and west with a vacant lot to the south. b. The facility would be a de facto Group Home. c. There are no marked parking stalls, however at least two vehicles could be accommodated on site at present. d. The proposed facility is classified as a Community Service Facility, Level Two, as defined in PMC 25.15.050. Level Two Community Service Facilities include "drug abuse and alcoholic treatment centers, halfway houses, charitable organizations, nonprofit service groups,juvenile care and treatment centers, crisis residential centers, correctional work release facilities, correctional institutions,juvenile delinquency homes and facilities, any and all facilities for incarceration or detainment,temporary shelters, emergency housing facilities, community service housing, missions, community kitchens, food banks, and other similar uses which provide social, health and welfare service for citizens." As such, the Special Permit review process is required in order to offer mitigation for any possible impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. e. No Mitigation Plan for possible adverse effects has been submitted by Applicant. 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? a. One vacant site remains to the south of the property. b. The facility would be a de facto Group Home. c. On the original SEPA Checklist Applicant noted a plan to "add a room where the porch [is]."All construction would need to comply with current City building and zoning regulations. d. Applicant has been previously cited for illegal construction activities, including an illegal SFDU-to-duplex conversion. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? a. The application received from the Department of Corrections (DOC) was for an Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program, serving ex-felons. b. Client relapse/recidivism and subsequent law enforcement activity on the premise and/or in the neighborhood is possible. c. The proposed increase in occupancy would increase the activity and noise levels at the 6 site. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? a. The application received from the Department of Corrections (DOC) was for an Earned Release Date (ERD) Housing Voucher Program, serving ex-felons. b. Client relapse/recidivism and subsequent law enforcement activity on the premise and/or in the neighborhood is possible. c. No Mitigation plan has been submitted to the City as part of the application. RECOMMENDATION It is the opinion of staff that the findings of fact and conclusions therein do not support approval of the application for a Level II Community Service Facility at this location. 7 Zoning District N Overview Item: Level 2 Community Service Facility in R-I Applicant: Ines Matias W+E �n 2021-004 - � '�^' � ! r� 1 r i L --- � - ;4'•a—i -`—` .. -_ _ .. � vlr�r. MOP - ■■ 1. AM wvr P1 -pip 1k 1jd6 uNIA 77 r 'U� � Pot � r �� ;,J I � � � •i C �. '" �:: . --, NEW. -• I a �'er*li��-•�- — .i -a■ � i —^�� � ate. .• ... � TSP � o • ° .a�L �s-.8 0 720 96 • f 120 240 -----Feet imp Y.1 _Ji ,�.. ' err �{ .:...�.. ,.- � •� , Zoning Vicin Item: Level 2 Community Service Facility in R-I District N 'tY Applicant: Ines Matias W+E 2021-004 MUNN f All -1 rl '! r _ U - ■ e I �+ * - J{`I � IF Ill ----�''� M V - _ - -_� --- I LLi ; -- - C1�il n■ �.� �r '°" ��1 sem= u � lit _ 35 70 140 210 28# �iI I , Land Use Item: Level 2 Community Service Facility in R-1 Zoning District N Applicant: Ines Matias w E Map File #: SP 2021-004 s Rec. Services - Professional Public assembly In ustrial Activities isc MARIE MARIE S S -4 U LJ SITE DUs s Ln El= L�I Governmental OCTAVE S: Es SFDUs Governmental 2-4 Units I I 0 35 70 140 210 280 Feet 3FDUs Governmental Zoning Level 2 Community Service Facility in R-1 Zoning District N g Applicant: Ines Matias w E Map File #: SP 2021-004 S R-1 0 C-1 MARIE MARIE El El SITE C-i Ln E- R-1 OCTAVE R1 0 35 70 140 210 28 Feet CompPlan Item: Level 2 Community Service Facility in R-1 Zoning District N Applicant: Ines Matias W E Map File #: SP 2021-004 s GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC —MARIE MARIE SITE = COMMERCIAL F- Ln = LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OCTAVE 35 70 140 210 280 Feet GOVERNMENT PUBLIC �J' a dtif - - s.• i North Looking11 F- = Nil r. s i - - -_- rbmM ♦♦♦ �♦�� .. ? '����'� � lid # i ,� � �� � �f� �. ' � � < r Via: � � i'rl,>�• ,�,�}; '- �`, .r;: ;-� ��� - - .� `�_�� ^-;cJ ----�` r w rw.F• *� 'ya��6 /A(T/✓•J� �. r •� r.'R.-J�. 'ar'+�. :Jf� _ t;p;. - 1 r - _ -- �'� ��. -fix L�.�'s�.�'�1, ._ .,_ _ � T��.��=` Y� �:� � -'�� �_�. iy�� ^�•` � _s � ?'� �. - t:• •-..yt� t o' �L.r, _ - - '�a;= ._ _ - .�., ar�—r�4"''�a. -' �-k`�'___"—�`_.rw� "^' � -.xxF-. ,b:14ia.''�':.'�-s�'_�� -;_%-:�•�t'�r-t-,ci�fir�z� � �`� 1._ � - - _� - Ste+ _. + - - - -• - - -R r y.'�'Yt.�, .i ly 5.�.- 'Krn-i'�✓ '� 7:�r1 Lr, .n. ''tr- -� Y Looking Northeast t-) 4%" r _ � f -- - ;d=rJ"�` }`��� �tet- ����•' `� 1 ell, F - 1 Looking Southeast r .............. L w 17111111111 -RIF 'Jill moll l �+Mti a•+ +� _ .r..- .__.�.__ - _ - — `! "' y MoT ART MAT o . QW ,, COMPAQ wo vw� KIN MAY "YA all t R a5}4 r .1!41401 TAY :7. j7s� A _ -.f .Yr f. f; -je �� Lti.� �.1f G •'.y. � J. - 3 l - 3 .- Looking South ..... 1 '. .... ��� �� �. I� lei'r�V�; �:4�•1�1 �r'� 4j111 TT__ R�pyj - �.� t Ly,<,� rya—� �c•, _ `...}. ,9 � ._ _ let 7 4Y •ill'. Y1Y�•_ _ � _ _- _. _-. s �. x � a _ _ ,x -,.' v,� 'A: 1.,"y Cs�^n �. 'jet fix•`_ z!}�ti_i�g� �r��'"�u�,.�.+.7;=a' �'`'9S •.r -�„} '_i -; t F.�- < *.t t w^: �'•" 1'e ��r� .K '4i r-7s "�':r'i:�a'�,r.5 -•'�"•�.r� 4iA 7 t- r€'ti !✓ ��} s _d, r�fay - f •`�:2vY;`Tw - r i 1 i�`,1 ^T 3 :Yc L L a� sw Y��.- �hw^.. {t •� �,�-A _ .� "' i h.- •vim ,[,_ � •- J - -t?, - - �. .. - - i � c y� � r,` � . 4` •ate .n a Looking Southwest �.� �.� ,{ . E� 1��tq cue.A '� v� �R24' 7��„�c- e �i 1�nt,i�,lt`'t��' -:r � �,�� ��� � r '.;r= �� arr -�•{d'`.q, _ i 6p;.°,,�%" °-lr .p: ', •c, r, -'� -;«.-rs:A--0�:f�-. 'c.+; .,•i ;}•. - r f/'.^' F.4'�. +� ('., �E' +",e S 5 i�R�,•}i t .- �.: s v r!-i 3 }'' ' j��+, ";� - � y, g,i E .. R;, r.}�, "�ee.�.s - :5�.��e'4� :e'�`+d'`��fa<y�,� .,t,�- `i�� r• J,7�,It. �L �',J t ���' w, �T!�", r�, r h. �� r �r ,$i" 1./�� l �{ I f _.♦ 7':�'� � '��p } h= .� a f'`�/+�af 1 ` yV' _r" �t%.. a �."F �Td� a y y �.i yIr Ne , 1� ,;R; �(l /'�Vii. 'F b / , r� �ky7 li r d,,,. �' i��s .Yy 'f7. '• t �� ^T\ 1�-_- I �: � �71I •.� ��{ y��.� '0.8 .r. ,s r„�twYi '� Y ^ ���;� .” r; �„ "ef ! �1 �.i ��',i ���i r'j >t✓�' �� I' � .� ;1. � - __ _ t �.. 1.. �{ t.'�i" "t' ,�'� i3�r'4ie �. ..� •1�4*t q' ` ! .:T ` w moi• r •,w� � J '� T 11 IA IWA h�� � -- --- -- ��— -•-�`"_ -` i.��,.1 may r. �.s*u' � , %� ����Ni+ e� 1" ����� f ,��. •phi. � � �, ONION& s_A 14. �l,ri } 3� t ry h r sf t _�, •,�[.,t' �`�'.a� s ...-. ,.- .. ,.�..�a,mr-s:.t_,..�. ._. .._.. :... ..... ..; _ _ �_ -_...<_, e`�f. .�� +,� �•` �a4!'ii T �a 7 r "a; t R�yr `�,r�•� 1 � ,� r �Y\ .fj� A,L9lkc : '• =, Lo okingWest ��'i,.` •�:'�#r. � 8 v� ��\ f A j_lva� sq,5 -,f�.+ t$�;r iy�, _ _ - [` tr 1 y, •{` c AVN 'S &' 'i'� ,R '� r� Ll ;� ''1 '�•t�-'7'^ ��{ *' a ��stC, r 19 ����y /_•r',�,��e�� fir. 'k� �'.�'� � .1•� � ..._ .;;}i �"} y— �� - . rk t - Mme-` rJ..• *1-fiil i / '.� .>r ,:t-r. �[. Y L _ .Y.�... �,- :Ah. .:'aS=. 'ay.!� '_,. V •.S."`T- - .`",� •�r. ,t._ - .rLf w' - ^r.� - z}_ - -;rte•,,. .r i k'` *. '•.•'-k- r,'4 r. •'•„-'L— - l- -:-c' .•,! Js +•-`'7. .Gn -.i .•. _•,A,-.-�: :.i'•'-r :,s r � .' '+#'. Y- :F::., :ri. -L•:.� �•_�, +r "iS•' a d'4 F ms's 1r ehr•• �i.� :•J '•Y r.'': � .X.- .r 5...�y.• .Y••- :.� K� �M[.>_ .-•FCr !• .e -� r-+r_.�!• ,.�ti.�,{� rj' c i'�a :Je�.,✓:7'":.. .d• =-�` >- - ..;i_rw',i5-�'� •'��:a; t~ rH 1'r•:• 9` +-�• �• '%n n',::' } r,H f 1�. .'i y ,:s;" - �.R•; iYaY.:.• T - o ' - _t•�.L .ti f •s� `�. ,,,"vs�•.Y-�yy y+... ,:F'- Y �S .w. - y-t'-�. �-[. 'w 7 i %� _Y- _ 3\ -� ,� �t;— a'r• r +5. 'f-d,'�7 ro' •:7'i• :,s-. .h*r -L,_" �v' �� iY: ..lt, r. f��.1. / ti' 7._.�t .�': M:, ^��r•.-. _Aid r ._-lr. ,�",u,. ...1, .+-`. 1�.� .-r�...q2;> 'L,, .ti .Y.• _ii. +�}•,.,., .,{yY'4-+� N - ..,��,.:.-ist: � ac,•.k<-L%'i<. u.x: 3 .Z. r-':>4. �+': .FAY••' ��'.- ,e� ^.�,- t,•,- .S' -,is `•:s✓3. �: ,rf.r't•'c. �' Y,, v• $�{d,_+.. V ..�1 ^;�='�3 r., �-ci"c_'-.r5 �•- - -t, —ti.../'', :t•" %- v .�: as :�C� r3+ r.,+i, c. .4, �! �;-.;R.+ r4'_X�-,.4. 'J5•'"^.. ;t.w.°•;.. �Y.'�: - �''3r. � .t- - •7 .J... ".wQ?l' %.:t,,tr:• 'rc•f e � N'. •/,.... :�Y"f ..;.r =r�,-+-.,.•,T.- _ '�{-.: _ ;e. >r 5,-:A + -sum n; k �. .+c^ 'r?s�f' , �.�. ..�} '•:=„ rw f - .!�". ...�11��djr^^ � :i .,''ti.. � �.r'i:+.'.� #n c. •� .-a ,v'' :�,` f;1;` ��'.1.}}{,`� :?�•.-_ ,.a �, i;- �!•y,tr -�•r:'_ ,SJTT:�'dr .!-f rL�._I'�'9�• J +"t"�: S`v.�.f>-. ..F. r'S. t. SI\ l.....,1._ S'—r�+ sTt- -k'.."4-3 'r'x_ -S - r� ',�:..� v < -.v_ -•,. ,.r •'� y,L `';:•r�FS"+ ,t. "fa•..c. .�.-.r.s ,r �!,.} ..X. — �- - j `!^43':t •.>•� -'1 °` -� �1�- �aYi:. .i.7. �F-n �� ? e .sr"' � .{�.y _K.•. .G. r,1 -ter \ r•'.i. < .c.. -_� -� Y.. 't'• r✓�- q o"f ., :s ter•,,'i' �,+r. F.L .� ' dr �[ �.•%:� i r-„J�fr. •;i Y'r'. 1-' f•1' is.. A. rlx. ,r: _':7 •ti..-. - n. - �c�' v '• ',r ...•..., � ,�.w''^..✓•.. .;:....:'..c.-•��.:.;._ _.�+Mu r_ �. ..dt. r, '.Sr +,.i.3 f� '•i'.L. r A_, ti�y r'.. -r:. J""z .��. 1. `-i._,J�,,. 1.M '-•`t. .., st;."•tI� .a..Sc Ty,��,r_s.- ..YS.f ,ar, •�`1: �, "�'':;'.�` ;.� -yi�, :�. - _ 'ti:-. 'r ,r •1. �. z_;M' •� �'Ti-, r a �S ••il-tr.;. .r. �y -ri x=••'.:- '•"s_: r`r•', a. ?% "t• � r1.'f'., yr r. `'t r^3� .c{� Y >,K-. :��--'.•d:.. � ^'i•= ..-.,7�'w-=-f.I�--F'r �t'_e�.^,l .r-` - -.t •5i: �S -�•'-nr' �7�' J ,_S.�y - I:r "(.'^y, t.. _ ry `vr' •.�' ?..y .rte• �. tw .5-,'A-r �' lig � S. i 4'r-, - .c� ♦ _ r. cY•da,. .a: �,y �•`L::+u ,..� .ecr� ,[t..r,. ..r. Fi' �,>. --s 1 1." - �r - .i�'I^• i^ c'.A "l ` -J':a a t� I`f ..11�•.r 4, .�.� _ ..°Jn r�-. c:i• :e-: a r. -�F,".rn� �,I, ...� y..,�=N`Lt, �' :}r c. .-�' ri- c rrF' .rte- � - ... ".'•r�r •^r... .....•� ..r-. ..,y.r.. _. .�.tr „r•�.. .Y.t�:,v�.�,�::5v. .AJ+d•-... ".�f�s .,rr,a4...t,-;r.._Vi�,.:.._<,.�r.6,..r.w� .a �.+a"._�rT^an..�,r?-r..-..»1!-ter.,..._._.+*�_r':..,-.rry'`r. x ?.. _...,.. .1:....,.. _. ._ .. ..-f:_"'.. .- c.. _ -_,. .__ moi ._- - :�. ... : .. ,. Looking 40 ` � Yt- •"L' AAA.► - ter•+ ';T 1.• r f�� � ��r� i _. _ .. _ _.-, ?i•.lam� _- __ , CIrynf Community Development Department co PO Box 293,525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco,WA 99301 P: 509.545.3441/F: 509.545.3499 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita mas informacion, por favor(lame al Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Econ6mico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441. Proposal: Ines Matias has submitted a Special Permit Application (SP 2021-004)for the establishment of a"Sober Home"to be located at 711 West Octave Street(Parcel#112 153 107)in Pasco,WA.The proposal is subject to regulations contained in the Pasco Municipal Code. Open Record Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct an open record hearing at 6:00 p.m. on April 14,2021 in the Council Chambers in Pasco City Hall at 525 N 3rd Avenue in Pasco,Washington.The Hearing Examiner will consider public testimony concerning the above application at this meeting. Public Comment Period: Written comments submitted to the Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2021 will be included in the Hearing Examiner's meeting packet. You may also submit comments at the Hearing Examiner meeting advertised below. If you have questions on the proposal, contact the Planning Division at (509) 545-3441 or via e-mail to: adamsl@pasco-wa.gov. If you wish to participate in the hearing virtually,please register at least 2 hours prior to the meeting at the following registration link: www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment After registering,you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Required Permits:A building permit will be required for any construction or placement of structures. Preliminary Determination of Regulations Used for Project Mitigation: To evaluate the impacts of the proposed project,the following may be used for mitigation,consistency, and the development of findings and conclusions: 13 Title 16 (Buildings and Construction), Title 25 (Zoning), regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code, and the land use policies contained in the Pasco Comprehensive Plan; 13 Regulations of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 13 Other required agency evaluations, approvals, permits, and mitigations as necessary. Estimated Date of the Decision: The Hearing Examiner is estimated to make a decision on the Special Permit within ten (10) business days of the hearing. The City of Fusco welcomes full participation in public meetings by all citizens_No qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded or denied the benefit of participating in such meetings.If you wish to use auxiliary aids or require assistance to comment at this public meeting,please contact the C ommu nity 0 ev Oopment Department at(6 09)545.3441 or TDD(509)5854425 at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting to make arrangements for special needs. Prepared 03/09/21 by:Jeffrey B.Adams,Associate Planner, PO Box 293 Pasco,WA 99301(509)545-3441. Exhibit Item: Level 2 Community Service Facility in R-1 Zoning District N Applicant: Ines Matias w E #1 File #: SP 2021-004 S MARIE MARIE L] El SITE FF LnQ OCTAVE F-1 LF 0 35 70 140 210 280 Feet Of REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER co PUBLIC HEARING City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers WEDNESDAY,April 14,2020 6:00 PM MASTER FILE#: SP 2021-005 APPLICANT: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC 17933 NW Evergreen PI Beaverton, Oregon 97006 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: 104 Long-term Single-Room Occupancy Housing Units BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: All of Block 65 and those portions of Block 60 & 64 together with vacated streets and alleys adjacent of Frey's Addition, described as follows; Beginning at the center corner of section 20,Township 9 North, Range 30 East, which is also the Northwest corner of said Frey's Addition; thence South 89' 03' 31" East along the east- west centerline of said Section 20 and the north line of said Frey's Addition a distance of 362.73'to the point of beginning; Thence continuing South 89° 03' 31" East along said east-west centerline and said north line a distance of 345'; thence leaving said east-west centerline and north line South 66' 43' 49" East a distance of 120.16' to the westerly right-of-way line of Oregon Street and a curve to the right whose long chord bears South 48'41' 26" West a distance of 42.58'; thence around said curve and along said westerly line of Oregon Street a distance of 42.6';thence South 42' 55' 03" West along said westerly line of Oregon Street a distance of 229.11'; thence leaving said westerly line North 66'57'45"West a distance of 118.58';thence North 89'03'31"West a distance of 161.53'; thence North 00' 56' 29" East a distance of 200' to the point of beginning,together with easements. (Parcel#113 481 144). General Location: 1520 North Oregon Avenue. Property Size: Approximately 1.85 acres (80,515 Square Feet). 2. ACCESS: The site has access from North Idaho Avenue via a 40' common access/egress Easement along the north property line. 3. UTILITIES:Water and sewer are available from North Oregon Avenue via North Idaho Avenue. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Business), and is occupied by a motel; Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-3 Vacant EAST: C-3 General Commercial SOUTH: C-3 General Commercial WEST: C-3 Vacant; Cemetery 1 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Commercial. a. Goal LU-2: maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable places to live; b. Goal H-1: encourage housing for all economic segments of the city's population; i. Policy H-1-A: Medium and high density housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas. ii. Policy H-1-13: Encourage the location of medium and high density housing in locations that will avoid the need for access through lower density residential neighborhoods. iii. Policy H-1-C: Support dispersal of special needs housing throughout the community. iv. Policy H-1-D: Avoid large concentrations of high-density housing. c. Goal H-2: strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market; i. Policy H-2-A: Allow for a full range of residential environments including single- family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing; Policy d. Goal H-4: ENCOURAGE HOUSING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THAT ENSURES LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE. i. H-4-A: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed use areas to provide character and variety in the community; e. Goal H H-5: SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE COMMUNITY. i. Policy H-5-A: Residential neighborhoods and mixed-use areas should exhibit a consistent level of quality and appearance; ii. Policy H-5-C: The city shall work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income housing is developed on scattered sites and in such a manner that it blends in with surrounding neighborhoods. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued for this project on April 13, 2021, under WAC 197-11-158. 2 ANALYSIS Proposal Ziad Elsahili, in behalf of Fortify Holdings, LLC, has submitted a Special Permit application (SP 2021-005) for the conversion of a motel into long-term Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units. Applicant wishes to convert 104 units into SROs, beginning in spring of 2021. Site The site of the proposed development is located at 1520 N. Oregon Avenue (Parcel #113 481 144), and is part of the Frey's Addition plat to Pasco platted in 1888;the site contains approximately 1.85 acres(80,515 Square Feet).The site was initially zoned R-1; the east portion was rezoned R-1 to C-3 in 1993 (Ordinance 2924); the west portion was rezoned from R-1 to C-1 in 1970 (Ordinance 1229); and from C-1 to C-3 in 1985 (Ordinance 2551) History The site is occupied by three two-story structures comprising 28,500 square feet of motel space, built in 1979.The site has operated under the name of Budget Inn, Motel 6, and most recently, Rodeway Inn. Applicant characterizes the facility as an "underperforming economy motel," which is supported by various recent online hotel reviews,as follows: 1.5 out of 5 (Travelocity.com,TripAdvisor.com,Yelp.com), 2.2 of 5 (Expedia.com), 2.3 of 5 (hotels.com), 4.9 of 10 (2.45 of 5; bookings.com), to as high as 2.6 of 5 (Choice hotels.com,trip.com). Customer comments include "Bad hotel,""Never again," "Just awful all the way around!"and "Condemn—You need to gut this whole hotel and start over seriously." Pasco Municipal Code In 2019 the Pasco City Council approved Ordinance 4425 regarding the regulation of SROs; this ordinance became Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 25.162. PMC 25.162.020 defines a SRO as "a facility providing downsized dwelling units consisting of one to two rooms with occupancy per dwelling unit dictated by HUD guidelines.SRO facilities provide individuals with housing for a duration of 30 days or more. Kitchens/kitchenettes and/or bathrooms may be located in the units or be located centrally for communal use." According to PMC 25.162.030 SROs may be approved via conditional use permit in the C-1 (Retail Business), C-2 (Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District) zones of the City. PMC 25.162.040 specifies development standards for all SROs, as follows: (1) SRO facilities shall not be subject to density standards; (2) SRO facilities shall follow the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) occupancy guidelines for single-and double-occupancy units; (3) Single-and double-occupancy units shall house no more than two adults over the age of 18; (4) At least one off-street parking space per two units is required; (5) SRO facilities shall include 24-hour on-site management. A dwelling unit shall be designated for the manager; 3 (6) Bathroom and kitchen/kitchenette facilities must be provided either within each dwelling unit or in a central location for common use with one full bathroom per every three units on a floor and one full kitchen per floor; (7) At least one handicapped accessible unit shall be required for every 20 units; (8) One washer and dryer must be provided for every 20 units; (9) Mailboxes shall be provided for each unit; (10) Each SRO facility with 100 units or more shall have a minimum of 400 square feet of common indoor and/or outdoor recreational space; (a) For SRO facilities exceeding 150 units, an additional 10 square feet of recreational space per unit is required; (b) Landscaped areas less than eight feet in width shall not be considered recreational space; (11) All common areas shall comply with all applicable ADA accessibility and adaptability requirements. In zoning districts which allow SRO housing via conditional use permit, the regulations contained herein shall be considered additional to those of the underlying zoning district. The provisions of this chapter shall prevail in the event of conflicting standards presented in the underlying zoning district regulations. SRO housing must meet all building and zoning standards as dictated by the PMC. [Ord.4425 § 1, 2019.] According to both HUD and PMC 25.162.040 each unit"shall house no more than two adults over the age of 18;" as such the 104-unit facility has the potential of housing 208 individuals full-time, as opposed to the fewer periodic transient clients, as originally designed; according to PMC 25.185.170 "Required off- street parking," motels and hotels require only one space for each lodging room and one space for every two employees,while all other residential units require two spaces per unit.This potential increase in full- time occupancy may present a parking issue, as the current on-site parking for the facility contains only 105 spaces,or slightly over%the required parking per unit for any other housing type.The SRO ordinance requires at least one off-street parking space per two units—or '4 that required by other housing types— but it does not specify an upper limit the city may require. Thus if parking becomes a problem the city may elect to revisit the Special Permit within a time period stated in the Special Permit conditions. As per PMC 3.45.040, "[e]ach development activity within the service area, as a condition of approval, shall be subject to the school impact fee established pursuant to this chapter. . . . The school impact fee shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits, unless deferred as provided below.The amount of the school impact fee shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit application." Applicant has requested a waiver of school impact fees;however,as school impact fees are tied to building activity this pertains to building permits and not to special permits; as such,the disposition of the school impact fees will not be considered during this hearing. In addition, at the time of staff report preparation the City and the School District have not conferred on any adjustments to the school impact fee as required by PMC 3.45.060(3), below: "In all cases where the developer requests an adjustment or exemption from fees, the Director of Community and Economic Development shall consult with the District and the District shall advise the Director of Community and Economic Development prior to the Director making the final impact fee determination. The Director of Community and Economic Development shall consider, in addition to the advice of the District, any 4 studies, data, calculations and reports provided by the developer as a part of its request for a fee calculation adjustment prior to making the final impact fee determination." INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. Additional findings may be added to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Public notice of this hearing was posted in the Tri-City Herald, and sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property on March 25, 2021. 2. Applicant wishes to convert a 104 unit motel into SROs 3. Applicant wishes to begin construction in spring of 2021 4. The site of the proposed development is located at 1520 N. Oregon Avenue (Parcel#113 481 144), 5. The site is part of Frey's Addition to Pasco 6. The site was platted in 1888; 7. The site contains approximately 1.85 acres. 8. The site was initially zoned R-1; 9. The east portion was rezoned R-1 to C-3 in 1993 (Ordinance 2924); 10. The west portion was rezoned from R-1 to C-1 in 1970 (Ordinance 1229); 11. The west portion was rezoned again from C-1 to C-3 in 1985 (Ordinance 2551) 12. The site is occupied by three two-story structures 13. The three structures comprise 28,500 square feet of motel space, 14. The motel was built in 1979. 15. The site has operated under the name of Budget Inn, Motel 6, and most recently, Rodeway Inn. 16. In 2019 the Pasco City Council approved Ordinance 4425 regarding the regulation of SROs; 17. Ordinance 4425 became Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 25.162. 18. PMC 25.162.020 defines a SRO as follows: a. "a facility providing downsized dwelling units consisting of one to two rooms with occupancy per dwelling unit dictated by HUD guidelines. b. SRO facilities provide individuals with housing for a duration of 30 days or more. c. Kitchens/kitchenettes and/or bathrooms may be located in the units or be located centrally for communal use." 19. According to PMC 25.162.030 SROs may be approved via conditional use permit in the C-1 (Retail Business), C-2 (Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District) zones. 20. PMC 25.162.040 specifies development standards for all SROs, as follows: a. (1) SRO facilities shall not be subject to density standards; b. (2) SRO facilities shall follow the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) occupancy guidelines for single-and double-occupancy units; c. (3) Single- and double-occupancy units shall house no more than two adults over the age of 18; d. (4) At least one off-street parking space per two units is required; e. (5) SRO facilities shall include 24-hour on-site management. A dwelling unit shall be designated for the manager; f. (6) Bathroom and kitchen/kitchenette facilities must be provided either within each dwelling unit or in a central location for common use with one full bathroom per every three units on a floor and one full kitchen per floor; g. (7) At least one handicapped accessible unit shall be required for every 20 units; 5 h. (8) One washer and dryer must be provided for every 20 units; i. (9) Mailboxes shall be provided for each unit; j. (10) Each SRO facility with 100 units or more shall have a minimum of 400 square feet of common indoor and/or outdoor recreational space; i. (a) For SRO facilities exceeding 150 units,an additional 10 square feet of recreational space per unit is required; ii. (b) Landscaped areas less than eight feet in width shall not be considered recreational space; k. (11) All common areas shall comply with all applicable ADA accessibility and adaptability requirements. I. SRO housing regulations shall be considered additional to those of the underlying zoning district. m. The provisions of this chapter prevail in the event of conflicting standards presented in the underlying zoning district regulations. n. SRO housing must meet all building and zoning standards as dictated by the PMC. 21. According to both HUD and PMC 25.162.040 each unit"shall house no more than two adults over the age of 18;" 22. A 104-unit SRO facility has the potential of housing 208 individuals full-time, as opposed to the fewer periodic transient clients, as originally designed; 23. according to PMC 25.185.170"Required off-street parking," motels and hotels require only one space for each lodging room and one space for every two employees, 24. Virtually all other residential units require two parking spaces per unit. 25. The current on-site parking for the facility contains only 105 spaces, or slightly over % the required parking per unit for any other housing type. 26. The SRO ordinance requires only%the parking that required by other housing types 27. The SRO Ordinance does not specify an upper parking space limit the city may require. 28. If parking becomes a problem the city may elect to revisit the Special Permit within a time period stated in the Special Permit conditions. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed plat the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (PMC 26.24.070)therefrom as to whether or not: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? a. Goal LU-2 suggests Pasco seek to "maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable places to live;" The proposal is located in a heavy commercial neighborhood with no residential units nearby. Thus the SRO will be establishing a new "neighborhood;" it would be up to applicant to ensure this new neighborhood is a safe and enjoyable place to live. b. Goal H-1 requires to seek to encourage housing for all economic segments of the city's population; SROs would target a low-income demographic which might otherwise be on the streets. i. Policy H-1-A notes that"medium and high density housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas." The application is adjacent Oregon Avenue, a major arterial leading 6 directly to northbound Highway 395. However, there are no neighborhood or community shopping facilities nearby; there are several potential employment areas along Oregon Avenue and further north along Highway 395. ii. Policy H-1-13 directs the City to "encourage the location of medium and high density housing in locations that will avoid the need for access through lower density residential neighborhoods."There are no neighborhoods surrounding this high-density housing facility at all. iii. Policy H-1-C suggests the City "support dispersal of special needs housing throughout the community." No other special needs housing is nearby. iv. Policy H-1-D advises the City to "avoid large concentrations of high-density housing. No other high-density housing is nearby. c. Goal H-2 encourages the City to "strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market." Large-scale hotel/SRO conversions are a fairly new variety of housing in the city of Pasco. i. Policy H-2-A requests the City "allow for a full range of residential environments including single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing." SRO's are located along the spectrum range of residential environments listed above. d. Goal H-4 instructs the City to "encourage housing design and construction that ensures long term sustainability and value." Extending the life of an otherwise defunct hotel probably qualifies as ensuring long-term sustainability and value. i. Policy H-4-A directs the City to"encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed use areas to provide character and variety in the community." SRO conversions are locally innovative, and provide a unique character to the area. e. Goal H H-5 advises the City to "support efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households in the community." The present application would help provide affordable housing for small, 1-to 2-person households. i. Policy H-5-A specifies that "residential neighborhoods and mixed-use areas should exhibit a consistent level of quality and appearance." Except for long-term parking of client vehicles, the external appearance of this development should not change substantially. ii. Policy H-5-C declares that "the city shall work with public and private sector developers to ensure that lower income housing is developed on scattered sites and in such a manner that it blends in with surrounding neighborhoods." The current application is not proximal to any similar projects; No other high-density housing is nearby. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? a. Conversion from transient housing to long-term housing will require the addition of kitchen and potentially laundry facilities in each unit, increasing power demand from the original design. Traffic generation may be lower than transient uses, given the target demographic, but would be more consistent than an off-and-on seasonal transient use. 7 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? a. The general vicinity is transient accommodations among commercial/industrial uses;with the possible exception of the City Cemetery to the west, any possible impacts to surrounding neighborhoods would be minimal in comparison to the existing surrounding uses. 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? a. Applicant is proposing to renovate interiors only; there would be no increase in height. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? a. No uses are proposed for the project(either in the building or at outside areas)that would be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted use within the land use designation. People and vehicles visiting the proposed site are anticipated to be similar to or less intense than other uses that would be permitted for this property. The proposed operations for the project are to be conducted primarily within the building with some outdoor open spaces. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? a. No uses are proposed for the project (either in the building or at outside areas)that would endanger the public health or safety more than would be the operation of any permitted use within the land use designation.The proposed use is anticipated to be less intense than other uses that would be permitted for this property. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to tax Parcel #113 481 144 and any subsequent subdivisions thereof; 2. No outdoor storage of equipment or materials shall be allowed; 3. An architectural block wall with an minimum height of 6 feet, shall be installed ten feet back from and parallel to the Oregon Avenue frontage property lines; 4. The Special Permit shall be null and void if all necessary building permits have not been obtained within two years of Special Permit approval; 5. The Special Permit shall be null and void if site is not constructed, maintained and operated in conformance with the above conditions. RECOMMENDATION 8 Staff recommends approval of a Special Permit for the conversion of 104 transient motel rooms into Long- term Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Units to be located at 1520 North Oregon Avenue (Parcel #113 481 144) with conditions as set forth herein. 9 Overview Item: Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion N Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC w E Map File #: SP 2021-005 S ' - 1 82 W cn I' 4 1a2 E . WINQ tiEli . SIT y ei mum _ x Z e 210 430 850 1,300 1,70 Feet r vicinItem: Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion N y Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC w E Map File #: SP 2021-005 S ZVI,JV .. TM E JAM ES ST SITE , 70 140 280 420 560 Feet F Land Use Item: Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion N Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC W E Map File #: SP 2021-005 S N Commercial N Trad Industrial L ommecia Governmental Services Misc Vacant D E JAMES ST Com ial l Vacant SITE Per Services Vacant tL Vacant O�tGGO� o ercial Re it Wh esal Tr de Commercial Retail acant Vacant 2 70 140 280 420 56 Feet F Zoning Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion N g Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC w E Map File #: SP 2021-005 S N W C-3 E JAMES ST y Ll SITE\ R-1 \ J� �P C-3 4- 70 70 140 280 420 56 Feet F CompPlan Item: Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion N Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC w E Map File #: SP 2021-005 S W OPEN SPACE\PARKS COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL o E JAMES ST SITE PJB OPEN SPACE\PARKS CO MER AL COMMERCI 2 0 70 140 280 420 560 Feet F Item: Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion N "Exhibit Exhibit A l l Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC w E File #: SP 2021-005 S N W E JAMES ST SITE PJB 0 2 70 140 280 420 56 Feet F 00 v v s r3 I}2R BUILDING #1 BVII,DINC, #3 n m LOBBY FFW FLOOR S '* 14G �iFi£Ul 901. 1 90i tOL �1 � � r* 9*1 W 1� 14Z a t BU) O _ LDING #z E � r Iz e�z sez r s� vsa i lEz N ��z I � RSG vet Z epi LZi M sa '' Q j +� Obi 06Z 9b2 9Ei `� �[�icll�'��4"1}X13�Skli �6Z� Z est Ln 0 POOL �r S S6f OREGON AVE }` ��° Looking North t k �eC- -,� !�-'�•. >s fit. r r r a ��'�"_..r, r %.! - _ � u' r* � .�i=:` .�-r ',�.�� ti�'`t-�"-" - ,x�4�,� - Kr��-� y. •<t x+ i.--- - �r< r._..Y-`.y gyp„"•' ..ti .r-.- -�.- -y - _ - - :'�lr r a:-k'r�°�`i^.'F-"sir, ,y y�.,,•"�.4L ,�T,•. _ - J �.�tr �r�de` ✓' ai l7Lt �+ a i �V I� Aa � _ � r _tea ; ��� y b � r�.,�+��to�,=. '4+�'r.�:S.�"y"��,`���'t4K.w+`,y.R+ <.� �.- ,�.32 ,`�T ` � .L� •r y,. 3;-,+€ '"-' �. - '-' n '* '.f a j'�' `••`a-�.:..• ,,:'�'4:a�y'�y''�`-',sk>,iC:x'"�x. .=-d�y� A,1r��7y� .:t>ti 1 .,. i'` .c-�.r'�°' - �i� ,f .y� _ _ .i;�, _ S&�y,� �e�,.c.`' � -�.;1- t r r. r. r:n "^,r�`5:ty-i< y .-L t.�..5 .vk.,q,'J.,?.1-:+-��ti. !„_�; :� j, ..�4g�? �»� '-�,. .�'�sy.-r..5 .�. 'T k rS �1�+'•w �..� .,rti' -may+- �� 1r,00king Northeast 11 I� �I _ ► s {{ Sr c� -- _ - ._ �e..-•��:.. ! ate,„� . - a' ... ,. � RODEWAY INN .00king East tom _ AWOL vo klx- _t .3.- 1 - �, t _ - _ a tY. � �t r —7"�`,. '"�.ticC3 `H'i.w •Yr - Sl ,- � 1 __T� � �:,- 572o in 4 • `w�� �' u Je • ]�ry we Looking South _ - RODEWAY1111 ".11111111111..111111111111111111111 �i<I�ltl�lt����lf1�f� r �,:+►;,��• .��^.�� �"����^ 1 '�i,�`. _,��moi-.sem`_-' :4,-.'9�^.R�ir,'�Sr��'=,� .�; .a'�,1�'>�':� --._ ., ,,,, ::y.� - _ - 3 Looking Southwest M E AY III I llll�lllfi ii IIII IIIIIIII I I I1ll PHEI _ kR R 3. I �� r_ s /- r,iyyt•'tom_,.'r�.....��r:��R�l�.,r fir+._c-..-...` r . _ r .�„-^--� ,.y�,L`�•y���'.�►•r^�ly� LoolangWest r f'{ .7� � r �� i- i. 't •+ 1 � � 'F. d- mss. M1.,� _an; r� I •4th , � •�' A- _ f - X77, - . P i 4C�'- 1� 1- `•i IT t.- .Y^. 'lam'�• ,. .a. sr� i `r7;.y1=•. '� vK � ';t:� ;may. l+ �R, - J ''L'--- i i- 1� r. Aft .� �} f.. `• - - ,!r ✓ n - -..... i r:- ,«..� .......'i�. ..v...,....�_�. sf ..".':-. h.M.:,:..4yJ. ._. .. �Y,..''.. +t c .+... v.-a x.fi s .. -'W.vxr.s..a =..... ...�. .. �_.- M..:'.�`.r..✓ ,�r r .r_., .....- .s n.v.. 1 .�rt. lie ,I _ Pool Area � � ! � {i t IIIIR Nr IiUI � fir. � ,r.�. � .•�' MEN r �r � I !I Illi 1 lltl — � � ■ � !. II ill 11 r.. - .. .J�b r..a�. � �........ed•:.�a.. iulillnt!; IT 4P, yy :w`. -.,�"'Y *•S'���,if�-�"Sr �9.^.w" v �yv �. x -ra' .•s -E a �- - '` rte. r< r.,.r _ - � -_ _ _ ..y.--�-a .�. _ \���r -. .n...�•�.. .. _ ,_ .� ..:�..� �s.'srS�- _ .• :ate-=- -�.�� � - Attachment#1 HAL/E R S O N NORTHWEST Raymond G.Alexander Alan D.Campbell++ J.JayCarroll ,—All:- C, tiC F 1 i Paul C.Dempsey" James S.Elliott Robert N.Faber F.Joe Falk,Jr.+ Mark E.Fickes March 25, 2021 Carter L.Fjeld+ James D.Goodman Lawrence E.Martin" Terry C.Schmalz+ Linda A.Sellers Michael F.Shinn Rick White Stephen R.Winfree+ City Hall Also OR Bar Member 525 N. 3rd Avenue Also State Bar of CA Member +Of Counsel Pasco, WA 99301 —Retired RE: Our Client/Applicant: Fortify Holdings, LLC Matter. (SPA2021-005; SEPA2021-014) - Request for Waiver or Mitigation of Impact Fees Dear Rick: As you know, our office is real estate and land use counsel to the Applicant who has applied for a permit under the City's Single Room Occupancy (SRO) ordinance (PMC 25.162 et. seq.). The permit request is currently scheduled to be heard by the Pasco Hearing Examiner on April 14, 2021. On behalf of the Applicant, please consider this letter and the enclosures as part of the official record to be included in the Examiner's hearing packet. Provided an SRO permit is issued with reasonable conditions, our client's project will involve upgrading and improving an underperforming hotel commonly known as the Rodeway Inn at 1520 North Oregon Avenue in Pasco. Fortify's intention is to use the 104 units of the hotel as currently configured for non-transient housing, providing quality living space primarily for single adults that work and live close to the City's downtown core. During a February 24th pre-application meeting, City representatives advised our client of the potential for school and park impact fees to be applied to our client's project on a per-unit basis under PMC 3.45 (School Impact Fees) and PMC 3.50 et. seq. (Park Impact Fees). For the reasons set forth in this letter, and in the attached letter dated March 23, 2021 from our client, Fortify requests that the City's school and park impact fees as applied to its SRO permit and project be waived. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES As the City Attorney Jeff Briggs can attest, a City's ability to impose impact fees, even with impact fee ordinances, are limited and not absolute. While authorized by statute (RCW 82.02.050 - .110, and WAC 365-196-850), impact fees only are allowed for public streets, parks, school facilities and fire protection facilities and must be supported by an impact fee ordinance that complies with the limited authority set forth in the statute. Pasco has adopted impact fee ordinances for parks and schools pursuant to this authority in PMC 3.45 and PMC 3.50 et. seq. However, even with an impact fee ordinance, a City simply cannot require an owner to pay directly through fees, or indirectly through dedications, conditions and ::. versonNW.com HALVERSON i NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C. Yakima Office:405 E.Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 2255o I Yakima,WA 98907 I P)509.248.6030 I f)509.453.688o Sunnyside Office:.9ro Franklin Avenue,Suite i I PO Box 2io I Sunnyside,WA 98944 I P)509.837-5302 I f)509.837.2465 Attachment #1 Rick White March 25, 2021 Page 2 improvements for public infrastructure (even infrastructure that arguably aids the public health, safety and welfare) unless the particular development being approved by the City will use the capital facilities the fees are designed to support, and even then, the fees must be fair and proportional. See e.g. PMC 3.45.040(2). These principles codified in the City's own impact fee ordinances are based on state and federal land use case law including two landmark United States Supreme Court rulings in Nollan v. California Costal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987) and Dolan v. The City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391 (1994). Fortify's simple position is its project should be exempt from school impact fees because based on experience and the type of project, its single room units are not designed to house families or school-aged children. Impact fees which have no nexus to or are not roughly proportional to a project are illegal under state and federal case law, and/or RCW 82.02.020 as an illegal tax. Even where cities have adopted impact fee ordinances under their limited statutory authority, the ordinance must allow the city decision makers (in this case Pasco's Community and Economic Development Director, Rick White and/or the hearing examiner), to adjust, exempt or waive impact fees ". . . to consider unusual circumstances and specific cases to ensure the impact fees are imposed fairly," and " . . . that permits consideration of studies and data submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee." RCW 82.020.060(5) and (6). It is pursuant to this authority and the City's provisions in its impact fee ordinances that Fortify is requesting school and park impact fees to be eliminated or waived. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Pursuant to the legal and statutory authority cited above, Fortify specifically requests that the Director of Community and Economic Development exempt or waive Fortify's SRO project from the City's significant school impact fees. Attached as Exhibit A to this letter is a March 23, 2021 letter signed by Fortify's President, confirming based on experience on another project that school-aged children and families will not occupy the single room units. Because school-aged children will not occupy the units, Fortify's project will not cause the need for school capital facilities and any fee paid would not be proportional. As set forth in the attached letter, applied to Fortify's project, strict application of the City's current school impact fees on a per unit basis would simply amount to an exorbitant, project-killing $470,600.00 illegal tax. Fortify's position is that projects approved under the City's unique single room occupancy housing ordinance (PMC 25.162 et. seq.) is not"development activity" intended to trigger the City's school impact fees. When renovating existing hotels already used as dwelling units, Fortify's project as proposed should be entitled to an exemption under PMC 3.45.050 or PMC 3.45.060. Similar to housing projects for the elderly, small single room units that are not designed to house families or school-aged children will not use any school capital facilities. Alterations of existing units also were not intended to trigger school impact fees. See, PMC 3.45.050(1) and (3). If not completely exempt, the City's Director of Community and Economic Development has the authority to exempt Fortify from the City's school impact fees in PMC 3.45.060, which provision is required by the statute cited above. Fortify submits that smaller units occupied primarily by single residents without school-aged children are "unusual Rick White Attachment #1 March 25, 2021 Page 3 circumstances" justifying an exemption from the City's school impact fee ordinance (to the extent it is applicable). Fortify specifically requests that the Director of Community and Economic Development consult with the Pasco School District and confirm Fortify's eligibility for a school impact fee waiver or exemption prior to submittal of its Staff Report to the Examiner in accordance with his authority set forth in PMC 3.45.060 et. seq. PARK IMPACT FEES Based on similar considerations, Fortify also believes that its project does not trigger the City's park impact fees, or that park impact fees should be mitigated or waived. Fortify's SRO project does not involve "new residential development" triggering park impact fees, but involves the rebuilding or alteration of existing dwelling units already used for transient and non-transient housing. There is little difference between the use of the property as an extended stay hotel and use of the property for non-transient housing other than the look and configuration of the interior. With the present application, Fortify's SRO permit should not be conditioned upon imposition or application of the City's park impact fees set forth in PMC 3.50 et. seq. Even if applicable, Fortify requests that the park impact fees be mitigated or reduced based on the common recreation areas and facilities available to project residents. The existing hotel facility contains open recreation areas and a swimming pool which justify a reduction in any park impact fees which may be applied to the project. CONCLUSION This letter and the enclosure also have been provided to the City's Attorney, Mr. Jeff Briggs, who invited our office and the Applicant to provide additional supporting documentation for its impact fee waiver request. Fortify reserves the right to submit additional material to the Examiner at the time of the hearing. However, for the above-stated reasons, Fortify respectfully requests that the City consider its impact fee exemption and waiver request up front so appropriate conditions can be recommended in the Staff Report. Provided the impact fee issues can be resolved, our client is confident that its SRO project as proposed will have a significant benefit to the City of Pasco by providing flexible housing options for its residents. Very truly yours, Halverson I Northwest Law Group P.C. Mark E. Fickes MEF/jk Enc. cc: Andrew Hattori - via e-mail Jeff Briggs - via e-mail Jeff Adams - via e-mail Attachment#1 F RT I FY • Dorrar Homez SrranyerCommanlries. March 23, 2021 Rick White Jeff Adams City Hall 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Supporting Information for School Impact Fee Exemption Special Permit File #2021-005 To Whom It May Concern: Fortify Holdings (see background below), is in the process of acquiring several older, poorly performing motels and hotels in the Tri-Cities area and intends to convert them to high density dwelling units (DUs). In the City of Pasco, we have a Special Permit Application in process to convert the Rodeway Inn, located at 1520 N Oregon Avenue, from a motel to 104 DUs under Pasco's Single Room Occupancy ordinance (PMC 25.162 et. seg).. On February 24th we had a Pre-App meeting with city planners Jacob Gonzales and Andrew Hattori and they informed us that our project could trigger a rather high school impact fee of$4,525 per unit, or $470,600 for our 104-unit conversion project. We strongly contend that our motel conversion projects will have little-to-no impact on Pasco city schools. This is based on the following facts: 1. These DUs are all just under 200 square feet per unit with on small bedroom and a kitchenette, which is about 50% the size of a traditional studio apartment. Our high-density DUs are more aptly described as micro-units and are just not well suited to house families or school-aged children. 2. Our first fully operational motel conversion project has just 1 of 49 units that house a child, and we do not expect to see a material difference from this trend in other projects that are actively under renovation. This project, called "The Hudson" is located at 500 E 13th Street in Vancouver Washington and is pictured below. The child lives with her mother, who is the sole adult living in the unit. Of the 49 units, only 15 (30%) of the residents have a roommate, and only one has a child. The other 70% live alone. 17933 NW Evergreen Place, Suite 300 1 Beaverton, OR 97006 1503.597.7100 Attachment#1 March 23, 2021 Page 2 3. Applying Fortify's leasing experience to this project, Fortify would expect 98% of the DUs to never house children, and 70% or more of the residents wouldn't have roommates. The possibility of only 2 children in a 104-unit project we believe are "unusual circumstances" that legally and practically justify an exemption from the City's School Impact Fees. The Hudson Motel Conversion Project, 500 E 13th St Vancouver WA We would also like to point out that this proposed $4,525 per unit school impact fee comprises a whopping 12.5% of the purchase price of this 1979 (failing) motel. In contrast, this fee would comprise about 2.2% of the average new apartment unit construction cost of$202,000 per a recent survey. To conclude, we think this project should be exempted from the school impact fee requirement. These fees are clearly meant for new residential construction projects which are many times larger and more costly and which do indeed attract families with predictable school impacts. We would like to meet with City staff to resolve this issue and are hoping to do so before the time of our hearing with the Examiner, which takes place April 14th. Please let us know your availability for such a meeting and what else you might need prior. Thank you. Sincerely, Ziad Elsahili I President Fortify Holdings, LLC O 503-597-7101 1 C 971-222-6146 Ziad -FortifyHoldings.com 17933 NW Evergreen Place, Suite 300 1 Beaverton, OR 97006 1503.597-7100 Attachment #2 Eric W.Ferguson Craig Briggs Principal,Managing Attorney Supervising Attorney eferguson@kerrlawgroup.net ebriggs@kerrlawgroup.net Jeffrey Briggs Daniel B.Heid ICERR I LAW I GROUP Attorney OF Counsel jbriggs@kerrlawgroup.net dheid@kerrlawgroup.net April 13, 2021 Ms. Susan Drummond Law Offices of Susan Elizabeth Drummond, PLLC 5400 Carillon Point, Bldg. 5000, Ste. 476 Kirkland WA 98033 RE: City of Pasco's Response to March 25, 2021 Letter from Fortify Holdings, LLC (SPA 2021-005; SEPA 2021-014)—Request for Waiver from School Impact Fees Dear Ms.Drummond: The school impact fee issue is not ripe for review as the City must hold a meeting with the school district, and impact fees will be assessed when building permit applications are made. The City is not required to analyze the impacts of theoretical school impacts at the SUP phase of development, as suggested by applicant. The City is allowed under SEPA to perform phased review of this project. The applicant may appeal the school impact fees after a final decision has been made by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Therefore,the City asks that the issue of school impact fees not be addressed at this time. In the alternative, the applicant has not met its burden of proving there are "unusual circumstances" under PMC 3.45.060(1)(b). According to the SEPA rules, agencies "shall determine the appropriate scope and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with meaningful points in their planning and decision-making processes." WAC 197-11-060(5)(a). Such determination may entail "phased review," which is appropriate where "an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site selection) [is followed by] a subsequent environmental document at a later stage (such as sensitive design impacts)." WAC 197-11-060(5)(c)(ii). As the Supreme Court of Washington indicates, "[t]he purpose of phasing review is to enable agencies and the public to focus on issues ripe for decision and to exclude from consideration issues that are not yet ready." Organization to Preserve Agr. Lands v. Adams County, 128 Wn.2d 869 (1996) citing Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat County, 122 Wash.2d 619, 633 (1993). Phased review of proposals is appropriate where "the first phase of the project is independent of the second and if the consequences of the ultimate development cannot be initially assessed." Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853, (1981). Phased review is not appropriate where "it may permit adverse consequences to go unidentified until after the project has so progressed that preventing its completion, or mitigating its consequences, becomes either unlikely or impossible." Id 96 Wn.2d at 210 citing Cady v. Morton, 527 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1975). 7025 West Grandridge Boulevard,Suite A,Kennewick,Washington 99336 Telephone: 509.735.1542 R Professional Limaed Liability Company Attachment#2 Ms. Susan Drummond April 13, 2021 Page 2 For example, phased review of a rezone followed by a planned unit development was appropriate where the County was able to sufficiently mitigate the impacts of the planned unit development after the rezone. Cathcart-Maltby, 96 Wn.2d at 210-11. On the other hand,phased review was not appropriate to address the cumulative, interrelated impacts of multiple mining lease applications. Cady v. Morton, 527 F.2d 786, (Cir. 1975). As noted in the City's report,the issue of impact fees is not ripe for review as the City must consult with the school district prior to allowing a deviation from the impact fees. PMC 3.45.060(4). Further, phased review is appropriate as the City will be able to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proposed development at the time applications for building permits are submitted. At that time,the City can review the project for conformity with the International Building Code and make an appropriate recommendation as to the appropriate impact fee, as it will have a clear picture on the number of approved dwelling units. As applicant's own SEPA checklist indicates, the "[p]roposed conversion would supply at least 104 affordable housing units. . ." Given that the number of units is unclear at this time, determination of the appropriate amount of the impact fee is inappropriate. Applicant will have an opportunity to appeal any assessed school impact fee once a final decision on those fees is made at the building permit phase of this project. Even in the event the hearing examiner determines this issue is ripe for review,applicant's proposal for a waiver or exemption from the school impact fee is not supported by substantial evidence, making any approval of the proposal arbitrary and capricious. Unlike SEPA mitigation fees, no individualized determination is necessary for impact fees under RCW 82.02: Notably, in the GMA impact fee statutes, the legislature did not require that the funded facilities be directly or specifically related and beneficial to the development seeking approval. Whereas the starting point in the calculation of SEPA or LTA fees is the individual development and its direct impact, the local government's calculation of a proposed development's GMA impact fee begins, in contrast, with the anticipation of the area-wide improvements needed to serve new growth and development in the aggregate. City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wn.2d 289, 126 P.3d 802, (2006). Since the City has designated the necessary and"anticipated area-wide improvements"through adoption of its school impact fee ordinance, the burden shifts to a developer subject to support a finding that the ordinance should not be covered by the assessment of impact fees, so long as the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the project. Id 156 Wn.2d at 305. Applicant's anecdotal evidence regarding the necessity of the fee in this instance is insufficient to overcome the reasonable relationship the school impact fees have with the anticipated impacts to the local school district. JSincergsGUSON LAW, PLLC JLBIsla cc: City of Pasco Attorney Mark Fickes Attachment #3 City 0j co Community Development Department PO Box 293, 525 N 3"Ave, Pasco,WA 99301 frs� P: 509.545.3441/F: 509.545.3499 PUBLIC NOTICE Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita mas informacion, por favor Ilame al Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Economico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441. Proposal: Ziad Elsahili, in behalf of Fortify Holdings, LLC, has submitted a Special Permit application (SP 2021-005) for the conversion of the Rodeway Inn located at 1520 N. Oregon Avenue (Parcel #113 481 144), in Pasco, WA to 104 Single-Room Occupancy long-term rental units. The proposal is subject to regulations contained in the Pasco Municipal Code. Public Comment Period: Written comments submitted to the Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m. on April 14, 2021 will be included in the Hearing Examiner's meeting packet. You may also submit comments at the Hearing Examiner meeting advertised below. If you have questions on the proposal, contact the Planning Division at (509) 545-3441 or via e-mail to: adamsl@pasco-wa.gov. Open Record Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct an open record hearing at 6:00 p.m. on April 14,2021 in the Council Chambers in Pasco City Hall at 525 N 3rd Avenue in Pasco,Washington.The Hearing Examiner will consider public testimony concerning the above application at this meeting. if you wish to participate in the hearing virtually,please register at least 2 hours prior to the meeting at the following registration link: www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment After registering,you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Estimated Date of the Decision: It is estimated that the Hearing Examiner will make a decision on the Special Permit within ten (10) business days of the public hearing. Prepared 03/24/21 by:Jeffrey B.Adams,Associate Planner, PO Box 293 Pasco,WA 99301 (509) 545-3441 Item: Single-Room Occupancy Housing Conversion Attachment #3 N Overview Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings,s LLC w E Map File #: SP 2021-005 S NZ e f: _ x Z e 210 430 850 1,300 1,70 Feet r Attachment #4 Community Development Department 0"N" PO Box 293, 525 N 3`d Ave, Pasco,WA 99301 w4co P:509.545.3441/F:509.545.3499 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (Optional DNS Process) Issuance Date: April 13, 2021 Project Name: Rodeway Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Conversion Project Number: SEPA 2021-014 Proponent: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC 17933 NW Evergreen PI Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Applicant: Ziad Elsahili/Fortify Holdings, LLC 17933 NW Evergreen PI Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Description of Proposal: Motel conversion into 104 SRO Housing Units Location of Proposal: 1520 North Oregon Avenue (Parcel #113 481 144) in Pasco, WA. Lead Agency: City of Pasco The City of Pasco, acting as lead agency for this proposal, has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment.An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. Appeals must be filed rz ys of this determination. Responsible Official: 2� — — Ric Address: PO Box 293, Pasco, WA 99301-0293 Phone: (509) 545-3441 Appeals: You may appeal this determination of non-significance by submitting an appeal to the address below no later than 10 days from issuance. The appeal must be in written Attachment #4 form, contain a concise statement of the matter being appealed and the basic rationale for the appeal. A fee is required per the City's Fee Resolution. Please note that failure to file a timely and complete appeal shall constitute a waiver of all rightsto an administrative appeal under City code. All comments or appeals are to be directed to the City of Pasco Planning Department, PO Box 293, Pasco, WA, 99301, Attn: Rick White.