Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crisis Care Residential Treatment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to draft separate land‑use and licensing options for crisis care and residential treatment facilities
Summary
After presentations on proposed uses of a vacant building for crisis care or residential behavioral-health treatment, council members asked staff to return with draft code-language and a licensing option under Title 12. Staff will return with a briefing and recommended approaches in August.
Council members discussed two distinct proposals that had approached the city about using a vacant building (822 S. 330th/near the hill above City Hall) for behavioral-health uses: a county-funded crisis-care model and a licensed residential treatment facility. Staff explained the city's current code defines a "convalescent center" as an inpatient facility (excluding hospitals) and that convalescent centers are allowed in several commercial, office and multifamily zones.
Why it matters: Council members said the city should treat crisis-care centers and residential-treatment facilities as distinct uses and recommended pulling those uses out of the broad "convalescent center" definition so the city can apply targeted location and operational standards. One council member said: "I would like to see a separate requirement for licensing. So that, if we do have a crisis center or if we have some of these facilities, and it does not go as previously planned. There is a way to that a license can at least be used as leverage, in the future."
Staff noted existing Title 12 licensing for permanent supportive housing and emergency shelter and suggested a single new licensing framework could be drafted to cover crisis-care and residential‑treatment models with tailored operational standards (transportation, intake, length of stay, referral practices). Council asked for a map with streets (not just zoning blocks) to better see where such facilities would be allowed under the current rules and directed staff to return with code and licensing options.
Action and next steps: Council asked staff to prepare a briefing and potential code/license drafts and return in August; staff agreed to analyze comparable city approaches and to draft a single licensing approach where practicable, and to show how different zones would be affected if multifamily zones were excluded.
Ending: Staff said it will research other municipalities' approaches, draft options for a distinct land‑use category and a Title 12 operational license, and come back to committee with a street‑level map and draft language in August.
