Full Text
I I 2 3 4 5 6 AND BEFORE THE REMOND HEARING EXAMINER 7 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8 APPLICATION OF EVANGELICAL CHINESE CHURCH. 9 10 ) NO. LAND 2016-01036 ) ) APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE ) HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ) TO THE CUP APPLICATION ) 11 I have been assisting the following APPLICANTS ("the Religious Institutions"): 12 EVANGELICAL CHINESE CHURCH who has a church in l3 Redmond, a church in Seattle and owns the at-issue property that is located at 2321 173rd 14 Ave. NE, Redmond, WA 98052. 15 CREEKSIDE COVENANT CHURCH owns the property located at 16 2315 173rd Ave., NE, Redmond, WA 98052. The Creekside Covenant Church property 17 abuts the at-issue property. 18 WESTMINSTER CHAPEL owns the property located at 13646 NE, 19 24th Street, Bellevue, WA 98005. 20 SEATTLE'S UNION GOSPEL MISSION ("SUGM"), has its administrative 21 headquarters at 3800 South Othello Street, Seattle, WA 98118. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARJNG BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION -Page I PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box 124 8 MERCE R IS LA N D , W A 98040 206 .49 8 3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- BACKGROUND FACTS 2 A number of years ago the City of Redmond came to the leaders of ECC and asked 3 for their assistance with the homeless issues they were facing in the City of Redmond. 4 ECC indicated that they were willing to help and happy to allow their house to be used for 5 a women's and children's shelter. Later on, CCC and WC joined ECC in their efforts to 6 set up a women's and children's shelter in the City of Redmond. The three churches 7 decided that the best organization to run the women's and children's shelter was SUGM 8 and that they would call this shelter the BelRed Family Resource Center 9 Each of these churches and SUGM are passionate about the proposed shelter and 10 helping homeless women and children. This women's and children's shelter is important 11 and central to these Religious Institutions' mission to help homeless women and children. 12 Attached as Exhibit A, please find a Declaration from ECC and CCC. The Bible is very 13 clear as to the importance of helping the homeless. 14 The actions of the Applicants show a real resolve and commitment to the 15 ECC has committed a house worth about one million dollars for the and have 16 paid out of pocket about sixty ( 60) thousand dollars to hire professionals to assist in 17 navigating the City of Redmond Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") process. CCC, WC and 18 SUGM have spent countless hours over the last two years assisting me in the CUP process. 19 If I charged for my time, a conservative estimate of my fees would be approximately one 20 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 2 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box 1248 MERCER ISLA N D , WA 98040 206.498 .3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- hundred thousand (1 00,000) dollars. To state that there is a lack of commitment by ECC, 2 CCC, WC and SUGM is without merit and is not based on facts. 3 COMPREHENSIVE ALLOWED USES CHART 4 The Redmond Zoning Code ("RZC") Section 21.04.030 sets forth the 5 Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart for the City of Redmond. Attached as Exhibit B, 6 please find a copy ofRZC 21.04.030. Under this RZC, Religious Institutions are either 7 permitted or may be allowed under a conditional use permit in R-3 zoned properties. RZC s 21.78 states that Religious Institutions are c ]hurches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, 9 and similar establishments operated by religious organizations." Attached as Exhibit C, 10 please find a copy of the relevant part ofRZC 21.78. There is no question that ECC, CCC, 11 WC and SUGM are all churches and would be Religious Institutions per the City of 12 Redmond Zoning Code. Even the Resident Opponents Hearing Brief refers to ECC and 13 CCC as religious organizations. 14 Nothing in the City of Redmond's definition of Religious Institutions sets forth 15 what a Religious Institution can do or not do and still qualify as a Religious Institution. 16 There is no requirement in City of Redmond's definition of a Religious Institution that 17 requires a Religious Institution to own property, rent property or even have an ownership 18 interest in personal or real property to be a Religious Institution. If the City of Redmond 19 wanted to narrowly define what a Religious Institution is, they could have drafted a 20 definition that was narrow in scope. The fact that the City of Redmond has drafted the 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICA TJON- Page 3 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box 1248 MERCER IS LAN D , WA 98040 206 .498 .3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- definition of Religious Institutions in such a broad manner, shows that they intended a 2 broad definition of who could be a Religious Institution. It should be noted that nothing in 3 the definition for Religious Institutions indicates that three or four churches working 4 together, in line with their church mission to better obey the written words of the Bible, 5 would somehow cause them to cease being Religious Institutions. The is exactly 6 that, a joint effort between multiple churches to help the homeless women and children in 7 the community. 8 If a church opens a church school, is it not still part of the church? If a church 9 opens a food bank to feed the poor, is it not still part of the church? If a church opens a 10 day care center, is it not still part of the church? If a church opens a women's and 11 children's shelter, is it not still part of the church? The facts of this situation support the 12 contention that we have four Religious Institutions doing the type of work that Religious 13 Institutions usually do. 14 The definition of Religious Institutions also states that Religious Institutions may 15 also be "similar establishments operated by religious organizations". While the Applicant 16 contends that the is simply three churches doing what churches usually do, in the 17 altemative we contend that the is a similar establishment operated by four 18 religious organizations. 19 20 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 4 PETERSON LAW, PLLC Po Box 1248 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 206 498 .3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Resident Opponents ignore the most important and relevant facts that relate to 2 this situation and focus on other facts to make their argument. The facts are the facts and 3 any effort to misconstrue the facts do not change the facts. 4 The important and relevant facts for this situation can't be set aside for other facts 5 to make an argument that allows one to go through the back door, when they would not be 6 allowed to go through the front door. All of the facts have to be viewed together to 7 determine the correct result in this situation. The fact of the matter is that we have four 8 Religious Institutions working together to open a women's and children's shelter, which is 9 important and central to their exercise of their religious beliefs. 1 o If the facts were such that these four Religious Institutions wanted to start a 11 business to sell used cars that would be a very different fact pattern and a fact pattern that 12 would lead to a very different result. While this fact pattern would be favorable to the 13 Resident Opponents, this is not the fact pattern in our situation. 14 In this situation, the Applicants contend that they clearly fall under the category of 15 Religious Institutions and the fact that this may fall under another category found in the 16 City of Redmond Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart, doesn't change the fact that the 17 Applicants are Religious Institutions and fall under that category. Showing or proving that 18 this use may fall under another category, doesn't prove or negate the fact that the 19 Applicants fall under the Religious Institutions category. 20 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 5 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box !248 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- RZC 21.08.050 states that a Religious Institution is a permitted use in an R -3 2 Single-Family Constrained Residential zone, so long as the permitted use is for less than 3 two hundred and fifty (250) seats and a traffic mitigation plan is accepted by the City of 4 Redmond. A copy ofRZC 21.08.050 is attached as Exhibit D. 5 This facility is limited to forty ( 40) people (shelter guests, staff & volunteers), so it 6 is well below the two hundred and fifty (250) seat limit. In addition, we have submitted a 7 traffic study and a traffic mitigation plan has been accepted by the City of Redmond. 8 Based on the fact that the Applicants are Religious Institutions and a traffic mitigation plan 9 has been accepted by the City of Redmond, we would request that the Hearing Examiner I o rule that this use is a permitted use under the City of Redmond Zoning Codes and allow us 1 I to proceed with the 8RFRC with no conditions attached, except for the traffic mitigation I2 plan. I3 The Hearing 8rieffor the Resident Opponents states on page 10, starting on line I4 10, that "[s]urely the RZC must stand for something. 'All land uses, activities shall I5 comply with the RZC ' RZC 21.76.100.8.1. 'All permits and approval shall comply I6 with the RZC. No permit or approval shall be issued for any parcel of land developed in I7 violation ofthe RZC.' RZC 21.76.100.8.2." The Applicants could not agree more with 18 the Resident Opponents on this point. We have a situation in which four Religious 19 Institutions are working together to exercise their religious freedom to do what Religious 20 Institutions usually do in helping the poor and oppressed, so the RZC should stand for 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 6 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.OBox 1248 MERCER ISLAND , WA 98040 206 .498.3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- something and allow the Religious Institutions to engage in this activity without having to 2 go through the CUP process. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4 I. The Past CUP's On This At-Issue Property Have Been Abandoned. s The Applicants agree with the Resident Opponents that there has not been a CUP in 6 place for a few years now and that any past CUP has been abandoned. According to the 7 Resident Opponents, the first CUP was granted in 1968 for the property to be used as a 8 church. According to the Resident Opponents brief, the at-issue property had no church 9 activities taking place on it for approximately four ( 4) years, so according to the City of 10 Redmond Ordinance 310, this CUP has been abandoned. 11 According to the Resident Opponents, the last CUP granted for this at-issue 12 property was back in July 17, 1985 for use as additional classroom and office space for the 13 Redmond Christian School. No evidence has been presented that the Redmond Christian 14 School ever used this at-issue property for additional classroom and office space. ECC 15 purchased this property in 2004 and it has never used this house as a Christian school for 16 additional classroom or office space. Therefore, this CUP has been abandoned under the 17 City ofRedmond Ordinance 310. 18 The City makes the argument that CCC continues to operate under a CUP and that 19 is why a CUP is required for this proposed homeless shelter, even though the proposed 20 homeless shelter is owned by ECC and the proposed homeless shelter is a permitted use 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 7 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P. O Box 1248 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 206.498.33 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- under the Redmond City Code. It should be noted that the attorney for the City fails to cite 2 a City of Redmond code, ordinance or regulation that supports this claim. Applicants' 3 contend that there is no legal support for this claim and even logic would dictate that this is 4 not correct. If the new proposed use is allowed as a permitted use under the Redmond City 5 Code, why would the fact that there is a CUP in place on another legal parcel for another 6 use dictate otherwise? 7 II. The Proposed Shelter Is Not An "Accessory Use". 8 The term "accessory use" was a term used by the City of Redmond in the Technical 9 Committee Report to the Hearing Examiner and was never a term used by the Applicants. 10 The has always been an important and central part of the Applicants exercise of 11 their religious faith and beliefs. The Applicants do not agree with the City of Redmond's 12 Technical Committee that this is an "accessory use" by the Applicants. 13 III. The Proposed Shelter Is Consistent With The City's Comprehensive Plan. 14 The Resident Opponents make a number of arguments that this propose shelter 15 violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. It should be pointed out that the Resident 16 Opponents do not present any facts, data or even analysis to show how this proposed 17 shelter violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. Simply stating that something is true, does 18 not make it true. 19 The Applicants agree with the City's arguments that the proposed shelter is 20 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Applicant agrees with all 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 8 PETERSON LA PLLC P 0 Box 1248 MERCER ISLAND, \VA 98040 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- of the data that the proposed shelter is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan that 2 was submitted in the City's TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE HEARING 3 EXAMINER. 4 IV. The Proposed Shelter Does Not Change The Character Of The s Neighborhood. 6 It is important to note that CCC literally abuts this property and one only has to 7 walk about 50' feet south from this proposed shelter to find the Holy Trinity Anglican 8 Church, which is located at 17371 NE 24th Street. The character of this neighborhood is a 9 neighborhood that contains two churches. 10 The Applicant would argue that the character and use for this at-issue house in not 11 changing by the proposed shelter. It should be noted that the at-issue house is not going to 12 be altered on the outside (other than a fence), so the character of the neighborhood will not 13 change from that point of view. The use for the at-issue house will remain the same due 14 to the fact that churches will continue to use this at-issue house for church use. 15 v. The Proposed Shelter Does Not Create A Traffic Issue Or Public Safety 16 Issue For The Neighborhood. 17 As to the Resident Opponents arguments regarding vehicle traffic, please see the 18 traffic study submitted by the Applicants and the traffic mitigation plan submitted by the 19 City. 20 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 9 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box 1248 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- It should be noted that back in 1985 the City of Redmond granted a CUP that 2 allowed the Redmond Christian School to use the at-issue property and adjacent property 3 for classroom or office space for up to two hundred and twenty-five (225) people, even 4 though the Redmond Christian School was not associated with the adjacent church. While 5 the use is different, the impact on traffic was much greater in that CUP than this CUP with 6 a maximum number of forty ( 40) people. 7 The Resident Opponents through their opinion and emotionally laden statements 8 have expressed a belief that this proposed shelter will create a public safety issue for them, 9 but have failed to present any substantive facts or data to support their opinions. 10 VI. The Proposed Shelter Is A Solution To A Real Problem. 11 The Resident Opponents argue in their Hearing Brief, that homelessness has never 12 been a problem or evident in the community. Once again, to simply say something is true, 13 does not make it true. 14 The Applicants have already submitted substantial evidence and facts to the 15 contrary. In addition, the City of Redmond recognizes and asserts that homelessness is a 16 significant problem in the area. Through the City of Redmond's Human Services program 17 funding, it provides financial support to agencies that provide housing for homeless 18 people, support and training for the homeless, economic counseling for the homeless and 19 physical and mental health programs serving the homeless, but yet the need persists. 20 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 10 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box 1248 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- In addition to direct monetary funding of programs benefitting the homeless, the 2 City of Redmond is a contributing member to A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH). 3 ARCH recognizes that homelessness is an eastside community issue, and develops low 4 cost housing in fifteen (15) eastside cities and unincorporated King County, but yet the 5 need persists. 6 The City of Redmond has and does permit permanent and temporary homeless 7 shelters, and most are at religious facilities. These shelters include the Landing at the 8 Together Center, St. Jude Catholic Church, Redwood Family Church, Overlake Christian 9 Church and Redmond United Methodist Church, but yet the need persists. 10 In the last four years, the City of Redmond has leased unoccupied city land at token 11 payments for the headquarters and service center ofHopelink, the area's largest nonprofit 12 serving the homeless, and for the Jolm Gabriel low income Senior Housing project 13 operated by the Sisters of Providence, a religious organization. Even before opening, all 14 units in the John Gabriel House were spoken for and there is a waiting list, but yet the need 15 persists. 16 VII. The Proposed Shelter Is Not Simply A Six Bedroom House. 17 It should be noted that the at-issue house contains a half-court basketball gym 18 inside of this house that can easily sleep forty ( 40) people per night. This area is actually 19 larger than the area used by SUGM, in which they used to sleep more than forty ( 40) 20 people per night. To state that this house has only six bedrooms is simply not correct. 21 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION -Page 11 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.OBox 1248 MERCER lSI-AND , WA 98040 206 498 .3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 If the Hearing Examiner determines that the may be allowed, but under a CUP, the Applicant concurs with the City of Redmond's recommendation that this CUP should be granted with the conditions as set forth by the City of Redmond. FREEDOM OF RELIGION In the United States, religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, [ c ]ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It should be noted that the Washington State Constitution extends broader protection for the freedom of religious sentiment, belief and worship. " [N]umerous cases in this court have already decided that the article I, section 11 freedom of religious sentiment, belief and worship 'absolutely protects the free exercise of religion, [and] extends broader protection than the first amendment to the federal constitution City of Woodinville v. United Church of Christ, 166 Wash.2d 633,642 (2009). It is well documented that our founding fathers felt that the freedom of religion was of utmost importance and that is duly noted by the fact that it is the First Amendment set fmih in the United States Constitution. This is the highest law of the land and no city code, ordinance, regulation or law can in any way contradict the rights given to every United States citizen under the United State Constitution. APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 12 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box l248 ME RCER ISLAND, WA 98040 206 .498 3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- The is an exercise of religion by ECC, CCC and WC. All three of these 2 churches are Christian churches that strongly believe that the Bible instructs them to help 3 the homeless women and children as part of their religious belief. If the Hearing Examiner 4 determines that the City of Redmond code, ordinance, regulation or laws prohibit these 5 churches from opening the the Applicants content that the City of Redmond code, 6 ordinance, regulation or laws are in violation of the First Amendment of the United States 7 Constitution. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The Applicants contend that the proposed shelter is a permitted use under RZC 10 21.08.050, so long as a traffic mitigation plan has been accepted by the City of Redmond. 11 The City of Redmond has accepted the Applicants' traffic mitigation plan, so this proposed 12 shelter should be allowed as a permitted use under RZC 21.08.050. 13 In the alternative, if the Hearing Examiner determines that the proposed shelter 14 must be subjected to the City of Redmond CUP process, the Applicants agrees with the 15 City of Redmond's TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE HEARING 16 EXAMINER, and contend that this proposed shelter should be allowed. 1 7 If the Hearing Examiner determines that this proposed shelter should not be 18 allowed due to the City of Redmond codes, ordinances, regulations or laws, the Applicants 19 20 2 1 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATJON- Page 13 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P.O Box 1248 MERCER ISLAN D, WA 9804 0 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 contend that the City of Redmond codes, ordinances, regulations or laws are in violation of the United States and the Washin on States Constitutions. tf I I ' • ( 1 . · ~ . ( Aaron Peterson, Esq. v WSBA. Bar No. ·30261 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRlEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CUP APPLICATION- Page 14 PETERSON LAW, PLLC P 0 Box 1248 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 206.498 .3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 4 5 6 AND BEFORE THE RFMOND HEARING EXAMINER 7 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDITIONAl. USE PEIUvUT J NO. LAND 2016-0l0J6 ) 8 APPLICATION OF EVANGELiCAL CHINESE CHliRCH. } DECLARATION BY: ) 9 10 ] l 12 13 14 1. 5 16 t 7 18 Fl :w 21 ) Creekside Covenant Church ) I declare that the follm-ving facts arc within my personal kno\Yiedge, unless otherwise stated, and that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability. Creekside Covenant Church strongly believes that helping the down, the downtrodden and the homeless is important, central and critical to our exercise of our religious beliefs as clearly set forth in the Bible. l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the fbregoing is true and correct. Signed a-1 Sammamish, Washington, March 2, 2018. . H dS7-e,;c_ ~ L, T: / / 0 Printed Name 1, ignature . a / / DECLARATION-····· Page l , , 11 / f/ 1 · / ·1 I' . II./' - r ' · , · . , . . PETERSON LI.W, I'LI.C P.O Box l l ~S R. LA.Nf>, 9~0-H/ 2 .498 . 3>5~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3 4 5 6 AND BEFORE THE REMOND HEARING EXAMINER 7 IN THE MATTER OF THE CO:t--rDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) NO. LAND 2016-0!036 ) 8 APPLICATION OF EVANGELICAL CHINESE CHURCH. ) DECLARATION BY: ) 9 ) Evangelical Chinese Church of Seattle 10 I declare that the following facts are within my personal knowledge, unless 11 ofhe1wise stated, and that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability. 12 The Evangehcal Chinese Church of Seattle (ECC) strongly believes that helping 13 the down, the downtrodden and the homeless is important, central and critical to our 14 exercise of our religious beliefs as clearly set fmth in the Bible. 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that 16 the foregoing is tme and correct 17 Signed at - - -"'S-"'e=at=t1""e (City) Washington (State) 18 3 _ (Date). 19 20 Willv Chen ECC Church Board Chair) Printed Name 21 APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE HEARING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CUP APPLICATION - Page 1 PETERSON LAW, .PLLC P.O Box 1248 MERC'ER fSL!\ND, 98040 206.498 .3354 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBITB ---PAGE BREAK--- ARTICLE I ZONE BASED REGULATIONS RZC 21.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS 21.04.030 Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart A Generally. This chart is meant to serve as a compilation of permitted uses within each of the individual zone summaries. It does not include all the specific use limitations or requirements that may apply. Please refer to the individual zone summaries for special use requirements or limitations. B. Residential Zones. City of Redmond- Redmond Zoning Code (RMC Title 21) Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond - Redmond Zoning Code (RMC Title 21) Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- ti 0 ' - . . . . . 0 . : _ - ; _ ' • 0 • ' ~ • 0 ' !lo- · 'Redmond Zoning Code -t · · • • • • > · - ~ . t " Table 21.04.030A " Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart: Residential Zones Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Arts, entertainment and recreation Performing arts or supporting establishment Sports team or club venue Museums and other special purpose recreational institutions Zoos, Botanical Gardens, Arboreta, Etc. Amusement, sports, or recreation establishment Golf course c c c c c c c c c Natural and other recreational par1