 |
| A screen shot from the March 6 public hearing shows Hearing Examiner Gary McLean asking for more information from DSHS and Shoreline city staff. |
At a public hearing on March 6, 2024 Hearing Examiner Gary McLean told the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to release more details about the behavioral health facility planned for the Fircrest campus.
He told DSHS to engage with the Shoreline School District on the plan and gave DSHS more time to solicit input before he makes a final decision.
McLean said he could issue a ruling on the overall Fircrest Master Development Plan sooner if it were separated from the behavioral health facility plan.
As previously reported, DSHS is seeking permits to move forward with redevelopment plans on the Fircrest campus.
One plan - called the Master Development Plan - outlines redevelopment changes for the overall campus including a new skilled nursing facility to replace the dangerously outdated “Y” buildings.
At the same time, DSHS is seeking a permit to build a new 48 bed behavioral health facility on the campus that would provide mental health treatment in a secure environment for civilly committed individuals.
As previously reported, DSHS is seeking permits to move forward with redevelopment plans on the Fircrest campus.
One plan - called the Master Development Plan - outlines redevelopment changes for the overall campus including a new skilled nursing facility to replace the dangerously outdated “Y” buildings.
At the same time, DSHS is seeking a permit to build a new 48 bed behavioral health facility on the campus that would provide mental health treatment in a secure environment for civilly committed individuals.
.jpeg) |
| A map from the Fircrest Master Development Plan shows the proposed location of a behavioral health facility in the northeast quadrant of the Fircrest campus. |
The facility will have large spaces for activities, exercise, and life skills instruction to help transition patients back into the community. According to the plan, “these facilities would give the state a unique opportunity to improve access to behavioral health services by providing more capacity and reduce the stigma associated with mental illness by creating a more effective treatment model.”
Hearing Examiner McClean heard public comments on both permit applications at the March 6th meeting, but his concerns focused on what he considered insufficient public engagement on the behavioral health facility.
In remarks about the proposed facility, Examiner McLean issued the finding “that I don’t think a lot of people had any idea what the individuals might be…” who could be involuntarily committed at the facility. “And I dare say the school district doesn’t have a clue either,” he said.
 |
| The Shorecrest campus is adjacent to the Fircrest property. Kellogg Middle School is north of Shorecrest. Photo from Google satellite view. |
In an emailed response to questions, a spokesperson for the Shoreline school district said, “DSHS has reached out to the school district, and we are in contact and working with them to learn more about the project and move forward together.”
According to the plan, the project will be licensed as a residential treatment facility, will be secure and locked in compliance with state law, and will comply with nine other codes and guidelines for such facilities.
The 198-page plan includes detailed descriptions of security measures from architectural floor plans that maximize safety for patients and staff to the kinds of locks used on the doors.
Executives from DSHS testified and answered McClean’s questions at the public hearing about the patients who might be treated at the facility and the security measures that will ensure the safety of staff, residents and the community.
In a concession, McClean will allow DSHS to “bifurcate” the two permit applications so that he could rule on the Fircrest plan separately from the behavioral health facility permit. If McClean approves the Fircrest plan, this would allow DSHS to start work on the skilled nursing facility without having to wait for the time consuming public engagement process he is requiring for the behavioral health facility.
Behavioral Health Facilities have faced controversy in King County.
The King County Department of Public Defense argues against the use of involuntary commitment, according to their website. “Our goal is to see resources diverted away from an expensive, court-based system that strips people of their liberty and dignity and to instead put resources into community-based programs that can provide housing, health care, and other supports to people living with chronic mental health disorders.”
As reported by The Seattle Times, one of the region’s largest behavioral health facilities unexpectedly stopped accepting new patients last summer. The move reduced the number of available beds for treatment of people suffering from acute psychiatric symptoms and followed allegations of safety lapses.
The 198-page plan includes detailed descriptions of security measures from architectural floor plans that maximize safety for patients and staff to the kinds of locks used on the doors.
Executives from DSHS testified and answered McClean’s questions at the public hearing about the patients who might be treated at the facility and the security measures that will ensure the safety of staff, residents and the community.
McLean gave DSHS until March 20 to post additional information about the plan for the facility on the city’s website so that “parties of record” could provide written responses via email. “That’s not everybody. That’s the people that came and the people that spoke…” at the public hearing said McClean. He also named the school district a party of record.
In a concession, McClean will allow DSHS to “bifurcate” the two permit applications so that he could rule on the Fircrest plan separately from the behavioral health facility permit. If McClean approves the Fircrest plan, this would allow DSHS to start work on the skilled nursing facility without having to wait for the time consuming public engagement process he is requiring for the behavioral health facility.
Behavioral Health Facilities have faced controversy in King County.
The King County Department of Public Defense argues against the use of involuntary commitment, according to their website. “Our goal is to see resources diverted away from an expensive, court-based system that strips people of their liberty and dignity and to instead put resources into community-based programs that can provide housing, health care, and other supports to people living with chronic mental health disorders.”
As reported by The Seattle Times, one of the region’s largest behavioral health facilities unexpectedly stopped accepting new patients last summer. The move reduced the number of available beds for treatment of people suffering from acute psychiatric symptoms and followed allegations of safety lapses.
Thank you for publicizing this information and thanks to Hearing Examiner McClean for reaching out for more community and School input.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know who would be running the facility if it's approved and what oversight would be provided by DSHS.
The need for mental health treatment in King County is widely acknowledged.
Examiner McLean was correct when he stated “...I don’t think a lot of people had any idea what the individuals might be…” who could be involuntarily committed at the facility. That's because the Notice of Public Hearing postcard the City of Shoreline mailed out (only to residents living within 500 feet of Fircrest, of course) made no mention of the fact that a 48-bed behavioral health facility is being planned for the campus. I wrote to City project manager Steve Szafran about this oversight but got not response. So much for public notice.
ReplyDeleteThis is so, so needed. We can't address homelessness without addressing the need for mental health facilities.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I want to thank Hearing Examiner Gary McLean for his professionalism in the way he conducted the hearing. I was especially pleased with his concurrence to bifurcate the plan thus allowing the new nursing facility to move forward without further delay. I was one who testified in person that evening and witnessed the proceedings first hand. Secondly, I thank him for exposing the lack of detail in the presentation by DSHS about security measures surrounding the Behavioral Health Facility. I have no expertise with the laws, codes and/or guidelines on how to secure such a facility. The screen shot of the NE corner of the campus shows no physical barriers separating the 3 16-bed BH facility units from the rest of the RHC campus or the adjacent school. There's no reference to a guard shack/gate at the entrance to the facility. When I first saw the MDP site map I was naive enough to believe there was nothing to worry about. When I heard the BHA representative at the hearing describe the potential types of patients receiving care could include someone who is a danger to themselves or others it sent a chill up my spine. I need more information. Why? I'm a parent of a resident of the Fircrest RHC.
ReplyDeleteThere was a striking difference between the description of the Behavioral Health Facility presented to the Community several years ago and what we were told at the Hearing. More general information and descriptors for campus & community safety are needed.
ReplyDeleteThe Hearing Examiner has given DSHS additional time to address the comments heard at the public hearing, coordinate comments and review with the Shoreline School District, Shoreline Fire Department, and the Shoreline Police Department, and to reach back out to the public with a set of conditions specific to the Behavioral Health Facility. Send your comments to hearingex@shorelinewa.gov The Special Use Permit (for the Behavioral Health Facility) conditions will be posted on the land use noticing page: https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/departments/planning-community-development/land-use-action-and-planning-notices
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, the Hearing Examiner directed city staff to work with DSHS to develop a list of conditions that will apply to the campus Master Development Plan. Staff will take comments from the public on the proposed conditions and forward those to the Hearing Examiner who will then decide on the MDP. The comment deadline: March 29, 2024. Send comments to
Project Manager Steven Szafran, 206-801-2512 or sszafran@shorelinewa.gov