Document Redmond_doc_5114db34ca

Public Comments Submitted for ECC Shelter LAND-2016-01036 Public Comments in Black Responses to Comments in Blue 1. The City already has services such as Hopelink, why does the City need another. a) City Response: The City processes any and all applications submitted and completes a technical review against the adopted zoning codes and policies. Unless an application is being submitted for an Essential Public facility Permit, an easement of need is not required. Tim Alexander: Then how does the city have any control over the master plan or future of any neighborhood in Redmond? This suggests that anyone can submit an application for homeless shelters at any location without any guidance, suggestion, or ruling from the city; other than technical application requirements. b) Applicant Response: Hopelink does offer valuable services to the community, including shelter services and transitional housing for families through the Coordinated Entry for All program in King County. The need for emergency shelter is growing in the Redmond community and BelRed Family Resource Center will be providing overnight shelter for families without stable housing of their own, as well as case management to assist them in transitioning out of homelessness. The Coordinated Entry process takes some time, and BelRed Family Resource Center is able to provide shelter for families while they await placement through Coordinated Entry. Hopelink offers a variety of important services such as a food bank and some financial services and BelRed Family Resource Center will work in partnership with Hopelink and other services providers in the area. Tim Alexander: The site at this location is inadequate to address the entire Redmond community. The other locations owned by the applicant include nearly 60,000 sq. ft. of space which meets the same standard of transportation availability as the current site and is within walking distance to the Redmond town center would be much more accommodating if the goal is to address the homeless issue on the eastside or for the entire community of Redmond. However, the applicant has provided one false answer after another as an excuse to ignore these facilities as more appropriate locations, making it appear as a different “motivation” to utilize the current location. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Concerned there will be increased noise. c) City Response: All adopted municipal and zoning code policies must be adhered to for all applications submitted. If approved, permits would be required to comply with noise regulations RMC 6.36. Tim Alexander: The city has done nothing to enforce previous regulations required by previous permits at the current site. How does it matter if the permits must comply with noise regulations if the city does not do anything to enforce the regulations are met. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 3. Concerned for increase of crime activity or potential. Concerns that the proposed project will attract additional crime. Concerns that adjacent green belt and vegetation buffer will be used for criminal activity. a) City Response: The City is reviewing emergency services calls made by other facilities that the applicant team is associated with and operates. All data gathered and analysis completed will be provided to the Hearing Examiner to review for her decision. Additionally, during the meeting held on August 24, it was discussed that the City can require additional conditions of surveillance for the greenbelt should this be a request of the community. Tim Alexander: The applicant and the city have been clear that they cannot rule out an increase in crime activity. The applicant and the city have also been clear that “policing” will need to be done by “neighbors being vigilant and reporting issues” when they occur. Reviewing calls made by other facilities is not adequate as it is likely not the “facility” that will be making calls when issues arise. It will be the neighbors. How is the city going to review calls made by neighbors of the other facilities to understand expected increase in crime. This facility is in a neighborhood and next door to families with children. Are the other facilities that are being reviewed similar or different? How is the city adjusting the expectations based on these differences? b) Applicant Response: The safety of the community, including residents at BelRed Family Resource Center is a top priority. Women with children, who are experiencing homelessness, are a vulnerable population and often the victims of crime. The shelter will provide a safe place and stability for families as they work to move out of homelessness and into stable housing and employment. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission was chosen to operate BelRed Family Resource Center because they have vast experience and highly trained staff. Similar shelter models (single women with children) operated by Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission show a very low level of incidents associated with the shelter, and almost no community impact from the low number of incidents occurring within the shelter. The Belltown shelter averaged 20 incidents per year involving emergency responders visits related to shelter residents; of these 20 incidents, an average of 15 were medical calls. None of these incidents Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- proposed a risk to the Belltown area, which is a relatively high risk neighborhood. Tim Alexander: The applicant is missing the point of the concern here. The concern is about the neighborhood and families in the neighborhood…not the homeless women and families that will be brought from outside our neighborhood to live here. Based on the statement “almost no impact” implies that we should expect some impact. Has this expected impact been reviewed with the city? Does the impact measured by the Beltown shelter account for calls made in the immediate area by neighbors for incidents contributed to the shelter? Is the applicant suggesting that no incidents (ouside of those initiated by the shelter itself) are attributed to the shelter? 4. Previous 1968 CUP was terminated due to abandonment. a) City Response: Staff has looked into the documents we have on file and are unable to locate the particular information on termination that has been referenced. If staff is provide the language and location of the language the City can and will look into this item further. 5. None of the SDP or previous CUP approvals were for a homeless shelter. a) City Response: The previous SDP and CUP approvals were not for a homeless shelter; however, the site does have approval for a Religious Institution and the homeless shelter is being proposed as an accessory use of the religious facility and their mission to provide charitable services. 6. SDP superseded the CUP because both cannot remain in effect. a) City Response: Staff has looked into the documents we have on file and are unable to locate the particular information on termination that has been referenced. If staff is provide the language and location of the language the City can and will look into this item further. 7. Assessment of need should be required before allowing a CUP in place. a) City Response: An assessment of need per RZC 21.76 is only required as part of an application for an Essential Public Facilities Permit. The City does not have the authority to require a Conditional Use Permit under the Redmond Zoning Code to illustrate an assessment of need. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Once project parcel was segregated the CUP and SDPs only remained with the 2.91 acre parcel with the assembly structure. a) City Response: The CUP and SDP approvals remain with the original scope area and transfer through both subdivisions and ownership unless otherwise noted. This is consistent with all Land Use Entitlements issued by the City of Redmond. Tim Alexander: This is an issue. When two adjacent properties are owned by the same entity and they request a CUP or SDPs based on usage at both locations (one location being a church and the other location being the residence for the pastor), the city needs to reassess the CUP or SDPs when the properties are sold and particularly when they are sold to different entities. This is further proof that once the city approves a CUP or SDP, the city does not come back to ensure enforcement of the regulations that must be met. What good is it to have requirements and regulations if the city does not enforce them? 9. There will be a decrease in property value. a) City Responses: The City does not have authority to evaluate or consider property value as part of a Conditional Use Permit application. Tim Alexander: The city may not have the authority to evaluate or consider property value as part of the Conditional Use Permit. But every city employee and council member has the right to recognize and speak out against the lack of common sense this project is being pursued with and the negative impact to me, my family, my neighbors, and our neighborhood. 10. Concerns overflow parking will monopolize on-street parking or create a safety hazard. a) City Response: If approved, the applicant is only permitted to have a specific number of vehicles parked and associated with the facility. The applicant is required to maintain a parking agreement for off-street parking with the church. Additionally, the applicant would be conditioned to have a parking policy and action plan in place to ensure parking standards were adhered to if approved, a violation of any conditions of approval could be grounds for revocation of the permit. Tim Alexander: The church already uses the street for parking on Sundays during service. I have stated this multiple times. Does the city recognize this and choose to ignore it, or does the city just set the requirement and not enforce it like other requirements? Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 11. Will police responses times be sufficient and which jurisdiction will respond. a) City Response: City of Redmond and City of Bellevue Police attended the August 24th Neighborhood Meeting and confirmed that response times would be just as swift as they are for the neighborhood and surrounding areas now. Both Police Departments confirmed that the City of Redmond would respond first and if for any reason could not was not available, Bellevue would immediately respond to the call(s). 12. The structure in question was only ever used as a single family home legally. a) City Response: The single family home structure was entitled to be used for a school, office space and a pastor residence. It was not required to be used for all only entitled. Tim Alexander: I would like to see the paperwork that illustrates that this specific parcel was granted use as a school. Can you please share a copy of this with me? 13. Hearing Examiner cannot modify previous CUP approvals. a) City Response: The Hearing Examiner will be holding a hearing an issuing a decision on a new Conditional Use Permit Application and will not be modifying the previous CUP approvals. 14. Building Permits applied for regarding the house structure do not mention the CUP and some of the building permits state the structure would be used as a pastor residence only for the purpose of the permit. a) City Response: Building Permits are not required to list entitlement approvals such as CUPs, SDPs or any others. Building permit applications may apply for alternations to a structure relevant to any entitled uses for the site. If at the time of a building permit an applicant only planned to exercise one use allowed on the site they would not be required to state the other uses allowed by entitlement approvals. Any description information regarding uses on a building permit application cannot void an entitlement approvals gained by a site. Staff does evaluate all building permits to ensure they are complaint with the permitted uses allowed for the site and zone. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 15. There will be impacts due to increased traffic and parking. This project will bring a lot of additional traffic. a) City Response: The applicant is required to provide a traffic analysis showing the exact number of new trips during peak hours that would be added by the project. If the analysis shows that the applicant’s proposal exceeds certain defined thresholds or what City infrastructure is currently able to support the application would be required to complete mitigation to reduce or eliminate trips and impacts. Tim Alexander: Can you share the analysis that has been provided by the applicant? The statement below does not account for vehicle use by the administration of the site. Does the analysis provided by the applicant include vehicles and transportation used by administrative staff and volunteers? b) Applicant Response: A traffic study has been provided and we are in the process of amending that traffic study to comply with the City of Redmond’s requirements. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission operates other sites in King County. At KentHOPE Resource Center there are 7-8 guests with personal vehicles out of 35 guests/day and the Emergency Family Shelter in Seattle, there were 3-5 guests with personal vehicles out of 48 guests (approximately 15-18 adult women plus their children). Based on this data, it is expected that BelRed Family Resource Center will have 5-8 guests with personal vehicles and no more than 10 at any one time. Tim Alexander: Can you share the analysis that has been provided by the applicant? The statement below does not account for vehicle use by the administration of the site. Does the analysis provided by the applicant include vehicles and transportation used by administrative staff and volunteers? 16. There is no public transportation nearby that is useful. a) Applicant Response: Public transportation is located on the corner of 173rd Ave NE and NE 24th on the 249, 888, 895 bus lines. 226 bus line is accessible with a half mile of the BelRed Family Resource Center. Tim Alexander: There is also a bus line accessible within a half mile of the 38,000 sq. ft facility at 17360 NE 67th Ct, Redmond, WA 98052 as well as the 20,000 sq. ft. facility at 17460 NE 67th Ct, Redmond, WA 98052 which are both owned by the applicant. The applicant first stated (at the first public hearing) that no other locations were considered as more appropriate locations. Then, at the second public meeting, the applicant stated that these facilities were considered but there was no adequate transportation. With regards to whether or not these facilities were considered; one of the two statements must be false. With regards to adequate transportation; this statement is most definitely false based on the same standard above. When confronted with both of these falsehoods that were presented, the applicant then stated that “light rail” was a consideration. This shows the that the applicant will go to based on the real motivation to utilize this specific site. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 17. Creekside is not a partner in the project. a) City Response: Creekside Covenant Church is a signed applicant for the Conditional Use Permit. b) Applicant Response: The BelRed Family Resource Center is a partnership between Evangelical Chinese Church, Creekside Covenant Church, Westminster Chapel and Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. 18. The house and a homeless shelter are not a church therefore the SDP and CUPs cannot be used. a) City Response: “Church” is not a permitted use within the Redmond Zoning Code. “Religious Institutions” is the use an applicant seeking to construct a church would apply under. Religious Institutions are not limited to “churches” or places for congregation and sermon. Religious Facilities encompasses all aspects and operations that may be associated with the exercising of a particular religion or religious organization. As defined by the RZC, Religious Institutions are Churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, and similar establishments operated by religious organizations. The a SDP/ CUP for a Religious Institution is required for an organization that is seeking to gain a membership of 250 persons or more at the location proposed, per the Redmond Zoning Code (21.08.050), a Religious Institution is a permitted use without a CUP if proposed for less than 250 members at the proposed site. 19. Does not meet permitted uses of the zone. a) City Response: The site has approval for a Religious Institution and the homeless shelter is being proposed as an accessory use of the religious facility and their mission to provide charitable services. Without being affiliated to an operation of a religious institution, the shelter would not be considered a permitted use if it was proposed on its own without affiliation or partnership of a religious institution. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 20. Does not match the character of the neighborhood. a) Applicant Response: The character and external appearance of the house will not be changed and it will continue to blend into the neighborhood. The house will be inhabited by families (mothers with children), which also reflects the character of a family neighborhood. Tim Alexander: You are going to have 40+ people living in a single family dwelling in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It is not possible to “blend into the neighborhood”. There is no house in the neighborhood that has 40+ people coming and going on a daily basis. It does NOT reflect the values and characteristics of our neighborhood which is based on single-families in a single family dwelling. It is NOT possible the suggestion once again illustrates the that the application will go based on the real “motivation” to use this specific property. 21. Is requesting a multi-family structure, only single family is allowed. a) City Response: The Redmond Zoning Code Defines a Multifamily Structure as, a structure that includes multiple primary dwelling units, or a series of five or more dwelling units with common or party walls on one or two sides but with separate front and/or rear access. The application request is to use the 5,000 square foot single family structure as a single dwelling unit for the purpose of a homeless shelter with a maximum building occupancy of 40 persons. Due to this use not being that of a single family home, office space related to the churches daily operations, school or pastor residence as approved previously as part of the CUP and SDPs on file, the applicant must go through a new Conditional Use Permit application review and decision process. While the homeless shelter is proposed as an accessory use to the religious institution approvals for the site, those approvals did not account or cover the proposed impacts and operations of a homeless shelter and; therefore, a new CUP application review process is required to determine if the shelter can be located on the site. Tim Alexander: What is the definition of “single dwelling unit” used above. Is this supposed to be referring to “single family dwelling” or is it different? Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 22. What happens to parking and the shelter if Creekside were to leave or revoke parking agreement? a) City Response: If approved, the applicant is only permitted to have a specific number of vehicles parked and associated with the facility. The applicant is required to maintain a parking agreement for off-street parking at all times. Additionally, the applicant would be conditioned to have a parking policy and action plan in place to ensure parking standards were adhered to if approved, a violation of any conditions of approval could be grounds for revocation of the permit. 23. Allowing males up to 18 years of age that are legal dependents could increase safety risks and sexual assault concerns. a) Applicant Response: Families staying in shelter may have teenage children in their care, as could any single family unit moving into the neighborhood. However, shelters serving single women with children primarily see children age 12 and under. Any dependent (male or female) up to 18 years of age served at the shelter must be enrolled in high school in order to access services. A background check for all guests 18 years and older is a part of the screening process. Adherence to the community guest agreement applies to every member of the family as a condition for staying at BelRed Family Resource Center. Tim Alexander: The concern is that allowing males up to 18 years of age that are legal dependents could increase safety risks and sexual assaults. Based on your response, you didn’t read this. The applicant either purposefully or ignorantly ignores the concern and talks around it. A background check for males 18 years or older does not address twenty 17-year old males living at the site which seems to be a possibility that nothing within the “community guest agreement” prevents. I ask you to either address the concern or remove the comment. Further, the applicant’s representative has provided information that states the following: • Background checks are run on adult guests, but there are no clear guidelines or written list of violations that would prohibit them from becoming a guest. In fact, the applicant wants to help residents with their legal issues which means they will be accepting guests with legal issues. Again, “legal issues” is not defined and unclear. Thanks for bringing this to my neighborhood! • Drug and alcohol abuse is recognized as commonly being associated with some homelessness situations. While drug and alcohol abuse are not allowed, the only “policing” is done by the staff/volunteers if they happen to become aware of such activity. There are no drug tests provided to adult guests. This provides little to no confidence that the applicant can prevent drug/alcohol use at the site and the applicant will not go so far as to state that there will be none. The applicant, in fact, has acknowledged that they cannot guarantee this. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- • The applicant’s representative states that the staff will also help with mental illness issues, but provides no details as to whether the staff is trained or licensed to do so. • The applicant’s representative acknowledges that domestic violence is something that some families will be dealing with. Other than “helping” the guests in the shelter, the applicant provides no guarantees of safety to those in the neighborhood and provides no clear precautions, training, or professional experience that staffers/volunteers will have with this scenario. • The applicant’s representative has acknowledged that male staffers/volunteers may be staying overnight at this shelter. 24. Where will partners, husbands and lovers of the women meet them? a) Applicant Response: Shelter residents will not be allowed to have guests visit them in the shelter neighborhood. In the event of friends or family of shelter residents visiting at the shelter, the visitor will not be admitted to the building and will be instructed to leave the area. The resident will be issued a warning that subsequent visits may result in an exit from the shelter. The ideal scenario for intact families (two parents with children) is that they be sheltered together; for that reason, staff will be working with women who have partners to move quickly to a location where their whole family can stay together. Male partners will NOT be allowed to remain in the shelter area while their families reside in the BelRed Family Resource Center. Tim Alexander: If the guests of the shelter can receiver no visitors at the shelter and the applicant suggests that the majority of guests will have no personal transportation, the obvious meeting location will be in our neighborhood away from the shelter. Our sidewalks, streets, parks, etc. You are not going to be staffing the sidewalk, streets, parks, etc to know when this is happening. This will be up to the residents in the neighborhood to “polide”. Thank you for bringing this to my neighborhood! b) City Response: if approved, the City would make a condition of approval that the Community Agreement in-place by the facility and its clients be strictly enforced. Any violation with a condition of approval could result in the revocation of the permit. Tim Alexander: If the guests of the shelter can receiver no visitors at the shelter and the applicant suggests that the majority of guests will have no personal transportation, the obvious meeting location will be in our neighborhood away from the shelter. Our sidewalks, streets, parks, etc. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 25. The project will contribute to an increase in loitering, begging, drug use and other related activities. a) Applicant Response: Guest agreement will stipulate that guests may not loiter outside of the shelter. Staff will address this with any guest loitering outside of the shelter. Continued incidents will result in an exit from shelter. Families will have resources for basic needs covered as part of their shelter stay. This shelter will only serve women with children, which is a lower risk population than single adults. Possession, use, or selling of drugs or alcohol will be strictly prohibited and will result in an immediate removal from shelter. Tim Alexander: What is the applicant going to do to prevent an estranged husband from loitering in the park up the street, assuming the guest doesn’t tell the staffer/volunteers that this is happening? Can you prevent it from happening? The answer is “no”. Will you or the neighbors be the first to notice if this is happening? b) City Response: If approved, the City would make a condition of approval that the Community Agreement in-place by the facility and its clients be strictly enforced. Any violation with a condition of approval could result in the revocation of the permit. Tim Alexander: If any of the Community Agreement requirements are violated, what is the process from there and what are the consequences? Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement? Can my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement? Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- 26. Concerns from the neighbors regarding the clients of the shelter bringing contagious deses such as TB, Hepatitis and HIV. a) Applicant Response: As with any neighborhood resident, personal health history may not be known. However, the presence of an individual with Hepatitis or HIV in the house does not in itself pose a contagion risk to the community as these are not diseases spread casually. The health of the community, including shelter residents is a top priority. All precautions will be taken to prevent the spread of viruses including food safety, standards for cleaning, regular handwashing, and referrals to medical professionals as needed. Tim Alexander: If I read this correctly, you are saying that “Yes, this is possible.” BTW, comparing 40+ people living in a single-family dwelling, brought here from outside our neighborhood, against the will of the neighborhood – to “any neighborhood resident” is ignorant. Thank you for bringing this to my neighborhood! 27. Day Center for homeless not used. This was because there was not a need and homeless will all be brought in from other cities. a) Applicant Response: The primary goal of the shelter will be to first serve Redmond and other Eastside families. The day center only model was under-utilized because overnight shelter was not offered. Families experiencing homelessness needed to seek safe nighttime shelter for their children, which required seeking services outside of this area. The current day and night shelter model will allow families to receive safe nighttime shelter and daytime services in one location. Tim Alexander: The application is equating “our neighborhood” with “Redmond and the Eastside”. They are not the same. If you wanted to help “Redmond or the Eastside”, you would be utilizing one of the larger facilities that are owned by the same applicant near the Redmond town center. The only good reason to utilize the site that is being proposed is if it was helping our specific neighborhood. However, we do not have a homeless problem within our neighborhood which is proven by the fact that the Day Center was not utilized. If the applicant is suggesting that that homeless women left our specific neighborhood to seek shelter elsewhere, what is the source of the data that led to this conclusion? To substantiate this conclusion, you would have to identify homeless women who are from our neighborhood, but left our neighborhood to seek shelter elsewhere. I highly doubt this has occurred. Please stop talking around this and recognize the lack of common sense you are applying here. My neighbors are not stupid. We have asked for a source of data proving the need in our neighborhood since the first public meeting. It has not been provided because you don’t have any data. You simply go back to talking about Redmond and the Eastside which brings us full circle. I’ve studied debate and understand the tactic. We don’t accept the lack of responsibility you are illustrating. Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- b) City Response: An assessment of need cannot be required by the City for a Conditional Use Permit Application. Tim Alexander: This, to me and my neighbors, is the most important thing that the city should be doing. Isn’t it the city’s responsibility to protect its citizens? It is shocking and disgraceful that this true. 28. Will the structure be upgraded for earthquake safety? a) City Response: If approved, the structure would be required to meet all current structural safety standards for the occupancy including fire sprinklers and earthquake safety. 29. Permit if approved should have to be re-evaluated and renewed every 3-5 years. a) City Response: The Redmond Zoning Code current does not give the City authority to modify approval vesting and expirations in that manner. Any member of the public though may submit a request for a privately initiated code amendment to be added to our annual docket process. If you would like more information on how you can participate in proposing new code or amendments to currently adapted code please let staff assigned to this project know and they will connect you to the right contacts and forms. Other items not addressed: 1. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard? 2. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 3. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see the proposed layout? Attachment 4.a ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Tim Alexander To: Sarah Pyle Cc: Steve Fischer Subject: RE: Call Back? Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 4:20:09 PM Sarah, Thanks for that clarification. I did not understand that you were reading the opinion of the applicant. That is good to know. I want to be clear on this objection, the response from the applicant, and the fact that they are not addressing the objection. The objection is that there is no need for the services in our neighborhood and that this shelter would burden our neighborhood by bringing in homeless women from outside our neighborhood. Our “neighborhood” is defined as “walking distance” to the location. Our “neighborhood” does not equal “Redmond” or “The east side”. To state facts that support this objection, we have called out the fact that the applicant offered day services for homeless women next door to the proposed site of the shelter, but these services were not utilized whatsoever. The applicant has agreed that this is true. Now, the applicant is saying that the reason for there being no participants in their program is due to there being no services for overnight stay included. But, how can they know this? Have they identified homeless women from our neighborhood that have had to leave the area for other overnight shelters? If so, I’m sure they would have presented this data as we have been asking for it since the first meeting. I can’t think of any reasonable scenario where the applicant could make this conclusion as a direct counter to the objection. In order to do so, they must be able to identify homeless women that are in (or are from) our neighborhood. I have yet to see any data to this effect. To conclude that there are homeless women on the eastside or in Redmond that could be relocated to our area is a direct vindication of our objection. It supports the objection…not the contrary. When a good cause collides with bad ideas, the casualty is common sense. Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:48 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Good Afternoon Tim, That portion of the presentation was responses to public concerns, not the City’s opinion. No responses provided for any project is the City’s opinion, it is only information that is factual to the best of our knowledge which is then provided in response to the question or concern expressed. It was never my intent to represent this information in a manner that implied the City’s support for the project in any manner. My intent was to only explain the project as it has been submitted to the City. If you believe that the City has not processed this application in a neutral and fair manner I encourage you to share this belief with the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing or in written testimony to be provided to her during the hearing. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:14 PM To: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? The part about the Examiner and burden on the applicant, I get. But, the city does not seem to be “neutral” here. Going back to #1 in my original list below, I’m confused why Sarah would present the case that although the day services were not used at this location, it will be a different story once overnight services are included. The fact that Sarah presented this and made this assertion (not the applicant) makes it seem less than a “neutral” position. Why wasn’t this left to the applicant to assert? I haven’t heard anyone from the city take a similar position to that of myself or my neighbors…why would you take the position of the applicant? BTW, I have a very hard time with this assertion and the way it is being made. If people did not come to use the services offered (which everyone agrees with), then you can’t ask them why they didn’t come. You would have to go out of the area to find people in need and then ask them what it would take to get them to use the services at this location…which is our point. There are no people in need within our neighborhood and they will have to be brought in. You made the statement that you acknowledge that my neighbors and I are “correct” in our assessment that the homeless services offered by Creekside Church (next door to the proposed shelter site) were not utilized. There were simply no homeless women in the area to utilize these services. But, you went on to say that the reason those services were not utilized was because of the fact that overnight services were not offered. You also stated as a matter of fact that this shelter would be successful because of this and would not have the same outcome as before. a. What is the source of the data that supports your statement that the reason the day services were not utilized is because there were no overnight services included? This couldn’t have come from the women that utilized the services because there were no women utilizing the services. Without them as a source, where did this data come from and who collected it so that you can state this as a matter of fact? From: Steve Fischer [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:03 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Tim Attachment 4.b ---PAGE BREAK--- The City is neutral in the permitting process; for this application and all applications. Further, the outcome of this application will be determined by the Hearing Examiner based on the applicant’s ability to comply with the code requirements and the Conditional Use Permit decision criteria. Yes, the City will prepare an analysis of the permit application and make a recommendation on the permit based on our understanding of the application and how it complies/not complies to the code. However, the Examiner will make the decision not staff. Further, the Examiner will make it clear at the hearing that the burden of proof rests on the applicant….not the City….to convince her that the application meeting the code. I hope this helps answer your question. Steven From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:56 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? I the City a neutral participant in this effort? From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:52 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Hi Tim, The City has made no determination or recommendation has been made on the project. The project is still in technical review and until the review process has concluded a determination or recommendation will not be made. I will be providing a responses to your question of why two different answers regarding alternative locations were provided. In addition, staff will including responses to the following from your email: “my question is more about what is the city's responsibility when the person leading the request is disingenuous with their answers as part of multiple public hearings that are part of the process. This is what has occurred according to me and many of my neighbors. Isn't it the responsibility of the city to ensure this does not happen? And when it does, shouldn't the city have the right to revoke the request based on this conduct?” I will also be including written responses to the questions you have shared in your other e-mails as well. These detailed responses are anticipated to be provided to the community by the end of next week as I shared previously. I look forward to meeting and discussing and additional follow-up questions you have following the staff sending out the responses. I appreciate your feedback, comments and inquires. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:36 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Just to be clear, are you saying that you are going to specifically address why Dr. Lee gave the contradictory and false answers that he provided during the public hearings? Or, are you planning to overlook this and simply provide the next excuse as Dr. Lee was attempting to do? Throughout this process, I have been operating under the assumption that the City of Redmond is a neutral party. But based on the way you (personally) presented #1 below, it feels like you (or the City of Redmond) are in support of this proposal to some extent. Can you explain why that is? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 2:25 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Good Afternoon Tim, Thank you for your follow-up e-mail and clarification. I will ensure that a detailed responses is provided in writing to this questions as well. We anticipate on having all of the responses out to the community by the end of next week. I recognize your frustration and will be sure to provide the most detailed response possible to your concerns. Per my previous e-mail, we can schedule an in-person meeting to discuss additional follow-up questions if you have any once the responses to all of the comments, questions and concerns have been provided. Thank you again Tim for your communication and please feel free to provide any additional questions you may have and I will be sure to include them in the responses staff is drafting. Attachment 4.b ---PAGE BREAK--- Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 1:04 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Call Back? I think my point is not coming across. I'm not asking for clarity. I already heard him go from one excuse to another to justify why they are ignoring their 60K square foot of space in favor of using this house. But the answer will be a contradiction of what has already been said. Understanding all that is in your response below, my question is more about what is the city's responsibility when the person leading the request is disingenuous with their answers as part of multiple public hearings that are part of the process. This is what has occurred according to me and many of my neighbors. Isn't it the responsibility of the city to ensure this does not happen? And when it does, shouldn't the city have the right to revoke the request based on this conduct? Tim From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 11:02 AM Subject: RE: Call Back? To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Good Morning, This question was included within the cards turned in at the meeting. The applicant responded to it during the meeting. Additionally. staff will be providing written responses to questions submitted from the cards that have not been asked through public comments already. This questions is one that will be responded to again in writing as part of the complied responses to all public comment received. Thank you for your e-mail. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:04 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Are you concerned about the discrepancies in the answers to our questions by Dr. Lee? Steve was hosting the first meeting when Dr. Lee told us that he did not investigate other sites. You heard Dr. Lee say that they did investigate the other sites, but there was no transportation. These answers contradict one another and the latter is simply false. Then he said that is was more about the train coming through closer to the current site. It would seem that the city would be highly concerned with this misinformation being provided in a required, public portion of the process. Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 8:47 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Thank you for your e-mail. I will include it with the public comments for review as part of the application and to be submitted as part of the record to both the Technical Committee and Hearing Examiner. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 9:27 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Call Back? Sarah, Following the meeting tonight, I have a few questions and concerns that I would like added to the public record. I also want to thank you for your patience with my questions and apologize for the fact that I did not adhere to the format tonight. I am very self-aware and I apologize for any disruption. It is nothing personal against you or the way you are handling this project which I deeply respect. This is obviously a very impactful proposal to me and my family and I am simply seeking clarity to the statements that were being made. Thank you. You made the statement that you acknowledge that my neighbors and I are “correct” in our assessment that the homeless services offered by Creekside Church (next door to the proposed shelter site) were not utilized. There were simply no homeless women in the area to utilize these services. But, you went on to say that the reason those services were not utilized was because of the fact that overnight services were not offered. You also stated as a matter of fact that this shelter would be successful because of this and would not have the same outcome as before. a. What is the source of the data that supports your statement that the reason the day services were not utilized is because there were no overnight services Attachment 4.b ---PAGE BREAK--- included? This couldn’t have come from the women that utilized the services because there were no women utilizing the services. Without them as a source, where did this data come from and who collected it so that you can state this as a matter of fact? Traffic and parking – you said that you would ensure that there is no burden on our neighborhood streets to accommodate the traffic and parking of the 42 people utilizing the shelter. You said that the use of Creekside’s parking lot would accommodate this. However, we already have Creekside participants parking in our neighborhood on the street instead of utilizing the parking lot every Sunday. Have you assessed this? Will you assess this? It is not about whether there are enough slots in the parking lot, it is a matter of whether the people will use the parking lot. Currently, many do not. You stated that the city would try (to the extent it can) to ensure that the services offered at this facility are “invisible” and that this home fits in just like any other home in the neighborhood. I asked for clarification about how you could possibly expect a single family home with 42 residents to “appear normal”. You clarified that it is “to the extent you can”. What good is it to state such a goal when there is no extent to which you can make this appear as a normal home in our neighborhood with 42 residents coming and going daily??? Dr. Lee who represented the Evangelical Christion Church at both the previous public meeting and tonight misrepresented the truth to me and my neighbors. At the first meeting, Dr. Lee was asked if he considered any other locations as better opportunities than that of the current proposed site. At that time, he said “no, this is the only location we considered”. Tonight, I asked him this and specifically why he did not consider using the 38,000 sq. ft. location near Redmond Town Center or the 20,000 sq. ft. location next door. He told me that“they did investigate these locations but there were no nearby bus stops”. Assuming he meant that they investigated these sites before they put forth the proposal, these statement contradict one another. Then, during the meeting, I used trip planner to find the nearest King County Transit stop. There is a bus stop within 500m of the 38,000 sq. ft. location at17460 Northeast 67th Court and the 20,000 sq. ft. building is even closer. Dr. Lee’s statement was once again proven false. When I raised this in front of the entire room, he said that they also looked at light rail coming close to the proposed location. As I said at the meeting, perhaps they did look at light rail, but it does not explain why he provided two false answers to questions at these public hearings and he seems to go from one excuse to another when these discrepancies are called out. I hope the city takes this seriously as it makes it difficult to believe there is fairness when contradictions like these are provided to the public. The fact is that the other locations are much larger, are closer to major transit centers, walking distance to Redmond Town Center, closer to stores, and much more suitable for a homeless shelter. What is the city doing to understand the ecological impact of turning this location into a shelter and the property improvements required in the plan. Although we don’t have a lot of green in this location, we have deer, coyotes, and may rabbits that move within the open space between my house and the ECC site. There is no fence in the area which allows these animals to move freely throughout the area. Has the city assessed the impact of this? Thanks, Tim From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:08 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Call Back? I think that would be very helpful. I'm planning to publish several public articles about this process. I feel that the city has completely let me (and my neighbors) down in this process giving little to no consideration for our position. I hope that the rest of this process proves otherwise but I have no confidence that it will. It is disgraceful that SUGM and The Chinese Evangelical Church would propose this in the name of helping the homeless on the east side when they could easily utilize their nearly 60,000 square feet of facilities that are only steps away from Redmond Town Center. It is just as disgraceful if the city of Redmond does nothing to stop this from burdening our residential neighborhood. My voice and the voices of my neighbors should matter. It does not feel like that is the case. Tim From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:53:33 PM To: Tim Alexander Cc: Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer Subject: RE: Call Back? Hi Tim, I need to prepare for the meeting, but this question you shared in your comment and I assure you that you will be provided a full written response. Additionally, upon issuing the responses, we would be happy to have a follow-up meeting if you would like to come in and discuss the responses. That way if needed we could look at information together and Attachment 4.b ---PAGE BREAK--- you could ask additional questions you have during the conversation? Let me know if that would be helpful and we can schedule it once the responses go out. Thank you again for your communication. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:50 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Call Back? How are you getting around the fact that this is zoned as a single family dwelling? Tim From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:43:44 PM To: Tim Alexander Cc: Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Call Back? Hi Tim, It is similar to the last one, but also includes walking through the site’s history, an outline of the type II process and additional opportunities for public involvement. Also, tonight’s meeting will present how the facility will be operated, an overview and discussion of the main concerns shared thus far through public comment and next steps in the application review process. Following tonight’s meeting staff will be finalizing a responses to the concerns and questions sent in within a single document. The document will then be e-mailed out and posted on the City’s website. The document should be ready to be sent out within the next 14 days. The public hearing before the hearing examiner will not take place prior to November 6th of this year. Thank you and have a wonderful evening. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:36 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Call Back? What is the purpose of tonight's meeting? Is it the same as the last one? When are you planning to respond to the objections of me and my neighbors? Tim From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:08:45 PM To: Tim Alexander Subject: RE: Call Back? Hi Tim, Sue to the volume of applications and projects currently under review I have not had a chance to return you call again. I apologize for the delay and would be happy to setup a time to speak on Monday. I also could offer you a recap of tonight’s meeting and PowerPoint if you will not be able to attend. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:06 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Call Back? Hi Sarah, We last spoke around the 14th of August. You told me that you were going to call me back to discuss my questions and feedback regarding the homeless shelter proposed next door to my house. I did not get a call back. Tim Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.b ---PAGE BREAK--- This message has been scanned for malware by Websense.www.websense.com Attachment 4.b ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: "Fan Bao" Subject: RE: Concern regarding ECC Woman and Children"s House Date: Monday, August 28, 2017 4:02:00 PM Good Afternoon, I will include these questions with the responses staff will be providing. Sarah Pyle From: Fan Bao [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 3:53 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Concern regarding ECC Woman and Children's House Hi Sarah Pyle, I’m not sure if it’s too late for additional questions / comments. If it’s not too later, could you include my following 2 questions? 1. I’m not sure about the definition of “Children”, especially that person under 18 will not go through background check. Does children mean anyone less than 18? Or a much smaller age? My main concern is whether boys between 14~18 will be allowed in that facility. 2. As it’s talked about smoking area, I would like to know if marijuana is allow in that facility as well. As smoking itself may not leads to too many issues except healthy (which probably ok if limited within specific location), marijuana could lead to much more issues. Regards, Fan From: Fan Bao Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:02 PM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Concern regarding ECC Woman and Children's House Hi Sarah Pyle, I'm a property owners of a house in Ardmore and I have concern regarding the planned ECC Woman and Children's House (Land -2016-01036). I would like to try to attend the meeting on August 24. My main concern (comment) is the potential safety issue and troublesome that may introduced by this project to our quite neighborhood. I'm especially worried about not only the ones that living there that may commit crime, but also their related Attachment 4.c ---PAGE BREAK--- persons, which are not limited to women and children, may come here to visit or find them and eventually make our neighborhood unsafe. Regards, Fan Bao 2478 173rd Pl NE, Redmond, WA, 98052 Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.c ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: mleiberton leiberton Cc: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Follow-up to Neighborhood Meeting LAND -2016 - 01036 Date: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 1:32:06 PM Good Afternoon Margaret, Responses to all public comment and questions shared at the meeting that were not already reflected in the public comments mailed in will be posted on the City website by the end of business on Friday of this week. I will ensure you receive an e-mail with a link to where the responses are posted. The questions regarding multi-family has been included in the responses that are going to be posted at the end of this week. I will also be including the Redmond Zoning Code definitions within the response. The question and answer portion of the presentation public concerns, not the City’s opinion. For any project, the City does not take a side or position. When speaking about a project it is only from a position of sharing information that is factual to the best of our knowledge. The PowerPoint was meant to provide all present clarity on the steps of the CUP process, where this project is at in the process, main concerns that have come up thus far and clarity of the project description. It was never my intent to represent any information in a manner that implied the City’s support for the project in any way. My intent was to only explain the project as it has been submitted to the City. If you believe that the City has not processed this application in a neutral and fair manner I encourage you to share this belief with the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing or in written testimony to be provided to her during the hearing. The technical review for the project has not concluded; therefore, staff has yet to receive all of the information to present to the Technical Committee. The review staff is charged with becoming highly knowledgeable and proficient in the code and what the applicant is proposing. It is only by doing so that staff can be sure we are completing a thorough and effective assessment for compliance and impacts which then will go before the Technical Committee. I do apologize if at any time staff’s knowledge for the purpose of a deep and thorough evaluation has in any way gave the impression of the City’s support for the project. The City is not yet at a stage where a recommendation could even be considered or issued as the project is currently still under review. Sarah Pyle From: mleiberton leiberton [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 7:40 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Follow-up to Neighborhood Meeting LAND -2016 - 01036 Attachment 4.d ---PAGE BREAK--- Hello Sarah, At the meeting of August 24, one neighbor asked for a summation of why/how the City attorney seems to have determined the advisability/permittability of this Action. I recall there was mention of a 2-week timeframe for when we could expect this material. Does that time- frame consist of weekends? If not, it is my understanding that the time-frame ends this Friday, Sept. 8. Is that correct? I appreciate your acknowledgement of my understanding. Also at the meeting, I believe you denied the shelter as a 'multi-family' unit. Is that correct? If it is not considered 'multi-family', what category accurately defines the type of activity/occupancy in this Action? It had been my ?mistaken? idea that the City should maintain an attitude of neutrality regarding the permit process. The impression of most residents is that the City supports this Action though it contravenes City Zoning Code. And that is a conundrum. Can you shed any more insight on this? Is it the City's own zoning code which is at core of the City's support of this Action? That contravention in and of itself? Thank you sincerely, Margaret Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.d ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: Tim Alexander Cc: Steve Fischer; "Jill Alexander"; Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 7:30:13 PM Hi Tim, Thank you for your e-mail and the graphic below, it was very helpful. I have made a note and communicated the updated request regarding the screening and the smoking location. · Screening: o The draft condition for the screening will be revised to include the western property line a minimum length of 120’. o I will post all draft conditions and the report on the website once the staff report has been completed, as well as, a site plan graphic of these two proposed conditions for the recommended for approval by staff. · Smoking Area: o The smoking location draft condition will state that the location shown in blue below is the preferred location so long as it meets required distances from doors and windows. It will also be drafted that if that location does not meet the minimum distance from doors and windows that the smoking area is located the furthest point south east from the west property line. · I will post all application materials and attachments on the website prior. If you would like I can send you an e-mail when they are posted? · As a general status update, the hearing did not take place November 6th, The application review was not completed and therefore will need to be rescheduled. · My goal is to have a new tentative date of the hearing to post on the website within the next week or so. · Per your second e-mail, I will ask the Planning Admin post the most recent submittal of the Community Agreement / Code of Conduct one the City website this week for you and the community to view. Thank you and please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Have a great evening, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:50 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Sarah, Actually, I didn’t mean for the trees to be on the street side, please see attached preference or below. Since it’s been more than a month, can I get a copy of the “Community Agreement”? I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Thanks, Tim Attachment 4.e ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:54 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Hi Tim, I have attached a photo below: The orange triangle is the proposed location of the smoking area. Also, in blue is an alternative location that meets the distance requirements. (I have attached photos of both locations sent by the applicant). Please let me know which you prefer. The applicant will make the modification. I also have marked in the fenced moved back with trees on the photo below to make sure I understood the request. Is this what you were requesting? Let me know and I will forward confirmation of clarification to the applicant. The draft community agreement will be made available to all persons who would like a copy shortly. I spoke with the applicant today and have requested a finalized draft of their proposed agreement. I will keep you updated but anticipate being able to provide this within 14 days or less. Thank you Tim and I look forward to your reply. Attachment 4.e ---PAGE BREAK--- Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:51 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Thanks. I will just repeat that I’m interested in seeing the “Community Agreement” and I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:16 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Hi Tim, I will make the request for the smoking location area right away. I will also look into the fence questions and also communicate the request of its placement and the tree screening. Attachment 4.e ---PAGE BREAK--- I will get back to you next week with additional information and follow-up. Thank you so much for your e-mail. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:12 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Sarah, The back corner of the property is also very close to my property. I would like to see the “smoking area” moved to the front corner of the lot adjacent to Creekside Church rather than the back. I understand that if there is cigarette smoke coming into our area, that would be a dispute I take up with the owner of the property, correct? Or, is this going to be added to the community agreement? The fence as shown in the diagram online is planned to run right down our property line and extend to within 9’ of the street. Aren’t there restrictions that prevent a fence from being placed in an area that blocks our view? Can’t they pull the fence back some and put up trees to create more privacy? Can I get a copy of the “community agreement”? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 10:50 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Morning Tim, I have heard back from the applicant on the two follow-up questions I had forwarded to them. Please see below. Where will smoking take place? will clients be allowed to smoke any place but the designated area in the backyard?, will the smoking policy be noted within the community agreement? Smoking will only take place in the designated smoking area in the back corner of the property, along the property line with Creekside Covenant Church. Shelter residents will not be permitted to be out in front of the shelter smoking. We will have this policy in our community agreement. Will drug test be part of the screening for adults? BelRed Family Resource Center will maintain a safe and sober living environment that will be based on shelter resident’s behaviors. A drug test will not be a part of the screening process, however a clear explanation of the community agreement, first over the phone and also in person will include the following: there will be zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol on property or residents coming in under the influence. Please let me know if you have any additional questions at all. Have a good weekend, Sarah Pyle From: Sarah Pyle Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:05 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Attachment 4.e ---PAGE BREAK--- Good Afternoon Tim, I have attached responses to your follow-up questions. I have also requested some responses (noted within the attachment) from the applicant. I will forward those to you as well as soon as I have them. Thank you for your questions and please let me know if you have any additional follow-up questions. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:49 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Please see my responses and questions within the attached doc. You may share with the applicant as well. I would like it added to public record for the hearing. Some of the key asks I have: 1. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 2. Can you share a copy of the paperwork that proves that the property in question was entitled to be used as a school? #12 3. Can you share the traffic study provided in #15? 4. Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? # 21 5. Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement in #25? 6. Can I or my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement in #25? 7. What is the process for reporting violations of the Community Agreement? #25 8. What is the process for reviewing reported violations of the Community Agreement? #25 9. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard or affecting my children/family? 10. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 11. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see the proposed layout? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices Attachment 4.e ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.e ---PAGE BREAK--- From: mleiberton leiberton To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Re: Public Comment Responses Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:26:50 PM Attachments: image001.jpg Good Afternoon, Sarah, Thank you for your reply. I think the confusion could have been lessened if some simple statement could have been made about technical vs. common usage. As it was, many of us were left scratching our heads at why you were correcting us for calling the structure such. It struck us as "off." Thanks for the full explanation here. Regards, Margaret From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:22 PM To: mleiberton leiberton Cc: Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon Margaret, If I wish to make corrections to an earlier statement, how may I do that so? Absolutely, you may make corrections to provide updates at any time. Specifically, I and the neighbors with whom I talk do realize that the shelter is one dwelling which the Applicants hope will be occupied by multiple families. According to the definition used by the City's Zoning Code, it is not per se a multi-family structure. Most of us residents are neither city planners nor attorneys, so we used common (and grammatically correct) English to adjectivally describe the shelter and its occupancy as a "multi-family shelter." This usage is akin to describing one dwelling used as a residence by a single-family as a "single-family residence." A linguist would support such common and correct usage. The City and/or Applicant attempted in both the August 24 meeting as well as in the Response to Comments to clarify or correct the common use without explaining how this differed from a definition within the Zoning Code. Perhaps the code definition needs correcting? This would prevent the need for the City to correct and confuse its residents. Else the City arrogates itself as final arbiter in defining reality. Response: Staff can provide any member of the community the process to request a code update. Staff does understand the confusion being communicated. The City operates by aligning review and code against adopted definitions to ensure consistency in application of the code. I do understand how this creates confusion for the common way terms are used in a non-technical context or circumstance. Please feel free to update any comments or questions submitted to include expanded narrative, context, comments or questions. The incidence of serious communicable disease correlates with crowded living conditions. I should like to expand on this. Response: Please feel free to provide an update at any time to your comment. One other apparent conditionally permitted structure (Bellevue's Sherwood Forest) is within a half mile radius and was excluded from my comment. Response: please feel free to update or expand comments to include the associated structures. ETC. Response: Please feel free to update any comments or questions submitted to include expanded narrative, context, comments or questions. You are welcome at any time to update, revise, re-submitted to expand upon comments submitted. Attachment 4.f ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you for your e-mail, Sarah Pyle From: mleiberton leiberton [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 8:44 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Public Comment Responses Thank you, Sarah, for sending this information. Was it sent to all Parties of Record? Couple questions off the top of a quick perusal: If I wish to make corrections to an earlier statement, how may I do that so? Specifically, I and the neighbors with whom I talk do realize that the shelter is one dwelling which the Applicants hope will be occupied by multiple families. According to the definition used by the City's Zoning Code, it is not per se a multi- family structure. Most of us residents are neither city planners nor attorneys, so we used common (and grammatically correct) English to adjectivally describe the shelter and its occupancy as a "multi-family shelter." This usage is akin to describing one dwelling used as a residence by a single-family as a "single-family residence." A linguist would support such common and correct usage. The City and/or Applicant attempted in both the August 24 meeting as well as in the Response to Comments to clarify or correct the common use without explaining how this differed from a definition within the Zoning Code. Perhaps the code definition needs correcting? This would prevent the need for the City to correct and confuse its residents. Else the City arrogates itself as final arbiter in defining reality. 2) The incidence of serious communicable disease correlates with crowded living conditions. I should like to expand on this. 3) One other apparent conditionally permitted structure (Bellevue's Sherwood Forest) is within a half mile radius and was excluded from my comment. 4) ETC. Thank you. Margaret From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: mleiberton leiberton Cc: Steve Fischer Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon Margaret, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices Land Use Action Notices - City of Redmond www.redmond.gov Homelessness is a crisis; Why are people homeless? Many paths in, many paths out; Redmond and its partners; Everybody has a part; FAQs / events / more info Attachment 4.f ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Forcepoint www.websense.com Safeguarding users, data and networks against insider threats and outside attackers, in the cloud, on the road, in the office. Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.f ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Tim Alexander To: Sarah Pyle Cc: Steve Fischer; "Jill Alexander" Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Date: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:49:02 PM Attachments: image001.jpg shelter - TimA.docx Please see my responses and questions within the attached doc. You may share with the applicant as well. I would like it added to public record for the hearing. Some of the key asks I have: 1. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 2. Can you share a copy of the paperwork that proves that the property in question was entitled to be used as a school? #12 3. Can you share the traffic study provided in #15? 4. Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? # 21 5. Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement in #25? 6. Can I or my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement in #25? 7. What is the process for reporting violations of the Community Agreement? #25 8. What is the process for reviewing reported violations of the Community Agreement? #25 9. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard or affecting my children/family? 10. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 11. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see the proposed layout? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices Attachment 4.g ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.g ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: Tim Alexander Cc: Steve Fischer; "Jill Alexander"; Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Date: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:05:30 PM Attachments: image001.jpg Responses to follow-up questions 9.15.17.docx Good Afternoon Tim, I have attached responses to your follow-up questions. I have also requested some responses (noted within the attachment) from the applicant. I will forward those to you as well as soon as I have them. Thank you for your questions and please let me know if you have any additional follow-up questions. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:49 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Please see my responses and questions within the attached doc. You may share with the applicant as well. I would like it added to public record for the hearing. Some of the key asks I have: 1. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 2. Can you share a copy of the paperwork that proves that the property in question was entitled to be used as a school? #12 3. Can you share the traffic study provided in #15? 4. Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? # 21 5. Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement in #25? 6. Can I or my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement in #25? 7. What is the process for reporting violations of the Community Agreement? #25 8. What is the process for reviewing reported violations of the Community Agreement? #25 9. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard or affecting my children/family? 10. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 11. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see the proposed layout? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices Attachment 4.h ---PAGE BREAK--- cid:[EMAIL REDACTED] Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.h ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: "Tim Alexander" Cc: Steve Fischer; "Jill Alexander" Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Date: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:53:00 PM Attachments: image003.jpg image1.jpg image2.jpg image001.jpg Hi Tim, I have attached a photo below: · The orange triangle is the proposed location of the smoking area. Also, in blue is an alternative location that meets the distance requirements. (I have attached photos of both locations sent by the applicant). Please let me know which you prefer. The applicant will make the modification. · I also have marked in the fenced moved back with trees on the photo below to make sure I understood the request. Is this what you were requesting? Let me know and I will forward confirmation of clarification to the applicant. The draft community agreement will be made available to all persons who would like a copy shortly. I spoke with the applicant today and have requested a finalized draft of their proposed agreement. I will keep you updated but anticipate being able to provide this within 14 days or less. Thank you Tim and I look forward to your reply. Sarah Pyle Attachment 4.i ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:51 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Thanks. I will just repeat that I’m interested in seeing the “Community Agreement” and I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:16 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Hi Tim, I will make the request for the smoking location area right away. I will also look into the fence questions and also communicate the request of its placement and the tree screening. I will get back to you next week with additional information and follow-up. Thank you so much for your e-mail. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:12 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Sarah, The back corner of the property is also very close to my property. I would like to see the “smoking area” moved to the front corner of the lot adjacent to Creekside Church rather than the back. I understand that if there is cigarette smoke coming into our area, that would be a dispute I take up with the owner of the property, correct? Or, is this going to be added to the community agreement? The fence as shown in the diagram online is planned to run right down our property line and extend to within 9’ of the street. Aren’t there restrictions that prevent a fence from being placed in an area that blocks our view? Can’t they pull the fence back some and put up trees to create more privacy? Can I get a copy of the “community agreement”? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 10:50 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Morning Tim, Attachment 4.i ---PAGE BREAK--- I have heard back from the applicant on the two follow-up questions I had forwarded to them. Please see below. Where will smoking take place? will clients be allowed to smoke any place but the designated area in the backyard?, will the smoking policy be noted within the community agreement? Smoking will only take place in the designated smoking area in the back corner of the property, along the property line with Creekside Covenant Church. Shelter residents will not be permitted to be out in front of the shelter smoking. We will have this policy in our community agreement. Will drug test be part of the screening for adults? BelRed Family Resource Center will maintain a safe and sober living environment that will be based on shelter resident’s behaviors. A drug test will not be a part of the screening process, however a clear explanation of the community agreement, first over the phone and also in person will include the following: there will be zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol on property or residents coming in under the influence. Please let me know if you have any additional questions at all. Have a good weekend, Sarah Pyle From: Sarah Pyle Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:05 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon Tim, I have attached responses to your follow-up questions. I have also requested some responses (noted within the attachment) from the applicant. I will forward those to you as well as soon as I have them. Thank you for your questions and please let me know if you have any additional follow-up questions. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:49 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Please see my responses and questions within the attached doc. You may share with the applicant as well. I would like it added to public record for the hearing. Some of the key asks I have: 1. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 2. Can you share a copy of the paperwork that proves that the property in question was entitled to be used as a school? #12 3. Can you share the traffic study provided in #15? 4. Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? # 21 5. Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement in #25? 6. Can I or my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement in #25? 7. What is the process for reporting violations of the Community Agreement? #25 8. What is the process for reviewing reported violations of the Community Agreement? #25 9. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard or affecting my children/family? 10. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 11. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see Attachment 4.i ---PAGE BREAK--- the proposed layout? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices cid:[EMAIL REDACTED] Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.i ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Tim Alexander To: Sarah Pyle Cc: Steve Fischer; "Jill Alexander" Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Date: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:50:45 PM Sarah, Actually, I didn’t mean for the trees to be on the street side, please see attached preference or below. Since it’s been more than a month, can I get a copy of the “Community Agreement”? I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:54 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Hi Tim, I have attached a photo below: The orange triangle is the proposed location of the smoking area. Also, in blue is an alternative location that meets the distance requirements. (I have attached photos of both locations sent by the applicant). Please let me know which you prefer. The applicant will make the modification. I also have marked in the fenced moved back with trees on the photo below to make sure I understood the request. Is this what you were requesting? Let me know and I will forward confirmation of clarification to the applicant. The draft community agreement will be made available to all persons who would like a copy shortly. I spoke with the applicant today and have requested a finalized draft of their proposed agreement. I will keep you updated but anticipate being able to provide this within 14 days or less. Attachment 4.j ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you Tim and I look forward to your reply. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:51 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Thanks. I will just repeat that I’m interested in seeing the “Community Agreement” and I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:16 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Attachment 4.j ---PAGE BREAK--- Hi Tim, I will make the request for the smoking location area right away. I will also look into the fence questions and also communicate the request of its placement and the tree screening. I will get back to you next week with additional information and follow-up. Thank you so much for your e-mail. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:12 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Sarah, The back corner of the property is also very close to my property. I would like to see the “smoking area” moved to the front corner of the lot adjacent to Creekside Church rather than the back. I understand that if there is cigarette smoke coming into our area, that would be a dispute I take up with the owner of the property, correct? Or, is this going to be added to the community agreement? The fence as shown in the diagram online is planned to run right down our property line and extend to within 9’ of the street. Aren’t there restrictions that prevent a fence from being placed in an area that blocks our view? Can’t they pull the fence back some and put up trees to create more privacy? Can I get a copy of the “community agreement”? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 10:50 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Morning Tim, I have heard back from the applicant on the two follow-up questions I had forwarded to them. Please see below. 1. Where will smoking take place? will clients be allowed to smoke any place but the designated area in the backyard?, will the smoking policy be noted within the community agreement? Smoking will only take place in the designated smoking area in the back corner of the property, along the property line with Creekside Covenant Church. Shelter residents will not be permitted to be out in front of the shelter smoking. We will have this policy in our community agreement. 2. Will drug test be part of the screening for adults? BelRed Family Resource Center will maintain a safe and sober living environment that will be based on shelter resident’s behaviors. A drug test will not be a part of the screening process, however a clear explanation of the community agreement, first over the phone and also in person will include the following: there will be zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol on property or residents coming in under the influence. Please let me know if you have any additional questions at all. Have a good weekend, Sarah Pyle From: Sarah Pyle Attachment 4.j ---PAGE BREAK--- Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:05 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon Tim, I have attached responses to your follow-up questions. I have also requested some responses (noted within the attachment) from the applicant. I will forward those to you as well as soon as I have them. Thank you for your questions and please let me know if you have any additional follow-up questions. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:49 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Please see my responses and questions within the attached doc. You may share with the applicant as well. I would like it added to public record for the hearing. Some of the key asks I have: 1. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 2. Can you share a copy of the paperwork that proves that the property in question was entitled to be used as a school? #12 3. Can you share the traffic study provided in #15? 4. Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? # 21 5. Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement in #25? 6. Can I or my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement in #25? 7. What is the process for reporting violations of the Community Agreement? #25 8. What is the process for reviewing reported violations of the Community Agreement? #25 9. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard or affecting my children/family? 10. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 11. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see the proposed layout? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices Attachment 4.j ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.j ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: Tim Alexander Cc: Steve Fischer; "Jill Alexander"; Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 7:30:13 PM Hi Tim, Thank you for your e-mail and the graphic below, it was very helpful. I have made a note and communicated the updated request regarding the screening and the smoking location. · Screening: o The draft condition for the screening will be revised to include the western property line a minimum length of 120’. o I will post all draft conditions and the report on the website once the staff report has been completed, as well as, a site plan graphic of these two proposed conditions for the recommended for approval by staff. · Smoking Area: o The smoking location draft condition will state that the location shown in blue below is the preferred location so long as it meets required distances from doors and windows. It will also be drafted that if that location does not meet the minimum distance from doors and windows that the smoking area is located the furthest point south east from the west property line. · I will post all application materials and attachments on the website prior. If you would like I can send you an e-mail when they are posted? · As a general status update, the hearing did not take place November 6th, The application review was not completed and therefore will need to be rescheduled. · My goal is to have a new tentative date of the hearing to post on the website within the next week or so. · Per your second e-mail, I will ask the Planning Admin post the most recent submittal of the Community Agreement / Code of Conduct one the City website this week for you and the community to view. Thank you and please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Have a great evening, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:50 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Sarah, Actually, I didn’t mean for the trees to be on the street side, please see attached preference or below. Since it’s been more than a month, can I get a copy of the “Community Agreement”? I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Thanks, Tim Attachment 4.k ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:54 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Hi Tim, I have attached a photo below: The orange triangle is the proposed location of the smoking area. Also, in blue is an alternative location that meets the distance requirements. (I have attached photos of both locations sent by the applicant). Please let me know which you prefer. The applicant will make the modification. I also have marked in the fenced moved back with trees on the photo below to make sure I understood the request. Is this what you were requesting? Let me know and I will forward confirmation of clarification to the applicant. The draft community agreement will be made available to all persons who would like a copy shortly. I spoke with the applicant today and have requested a finalized draft of their proposed agreement. I will keep you updated but anticipate being able to provide this within 14 days or less. Thank you Tim and I look forward to your reply. Attachment 4.k ---PAGE BREAK--- Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 12:51 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Thanks. I will just repeat that I’m interested in seeing the “Community Agreement” and I would like to understand the process for review of violations to the Community Agreement, should they occur. How do the neighbors (who are accountable for “policing” the neighborhood) raise issues, who are they reviewed by, how are decisions made, what are the consequences? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:16 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Hi Tim, I will make the request for the smoking location area right away. I will also look into the fence questions and also communicate the request of its placement and the tree screening. Attachment 4.k ---PAGE BREAK--- I will get back to you next week with additional information and follow-up. Thank you so much for your e-mail. Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:12 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Sarah, The back corner of the property is also very close to my property. I would like to see the “smoking area” moved to the front corner of the lot adjacent to Creekside Church rather than the back. I understand that if there is cigarette smoke coming into our area, that would be a dispute I take up with the owner of the property, correct? Or, is this going to be added to the community agreement? The fence as shown in the diagram online is planned to run right down our property line and extend to within 9’ of the street. Aren’t there restrictions that prevent a fence from being placed in an area that blocks our view? Can’t they pull the fence back some and put up trees to create more privacy? Can I get a copy of the “community agreement”? Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 10:50 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Good Morning Tim, I have heard back from the applicant on the two follow-up questions I had forwarded to them. Please see below. Where will smoking take place? will clients be allowed to smoke any place but the designated area in the backyard?, will the smoking policy be noted within the community agreement? Smoking will only take place in the designated smoking area in the back corner of the property, along the property line with Creekside Covenant Church. Shelter residents will not be permitted to be out in front of the shelter smoking. We will have this policy in our community agreement. Will drug test be part of the screening for adults? BelRed Family Resource Center will maintain a safe and sober living environment that will be based on shelter resident’s behaviors. A drug test will not be a part of the screening process, however a clear explanation of the community agreement, first over the phone and also in person will include the following: there will be zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol on property or residents coming in under the influence. Please let me know if you have any additional questions at all. Have a good weekend, Sarah Pyle From: Sarah Pyle Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:05 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Attachment 4.k ---PAGE BREAK--- Good Afternoon Tim, I have attached responses to your follow-up questions. I have also requested some responses (noted within the attachment) from the applicant. I will forward those to you as well as soon as I have them. Thank you for your questions and please let me know if you have any additional follow-up questions. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:49 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Jill Alexander' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Public Comment Responses Please see my responses and questions within the attached doc. You may share with the applicant as well. I would like it added to public record for the hearing. Some of the key asks I have: 1. Can you forward me a copy of RMC 6.36 or send me a link? 2. Can you share a copy of the paperwork that proves that the property in question was entitled to be used as a school? #12 3. Can you share the traffic study provided in #15? 4. Are there any restrictions/codes/etc in Redmond for the number of families that can occupy a single-family dwelling and/or single dwelling unit? # 21 5. Can I get a copy of the Community Agreement in #25? 6. Can I or my neighbors ask for items to be added to the Community Agreement in #25? 7. What is the process for reporting violations of the Community Agreement? #25 8. What is the process for reviewing reported violations of the Community Agreement? #25 9. How will you restrict tobacco smoke from coming into my residence or my yard or affecting my children/family? 10. What are you going to do about the ecological impact of the fence that the applicant wants to build. There are deer, rabbits, etc that utilize the rear of the location and the green areas across the street. The proposed fence will inhibit this. What study has been conducted to investigate the ecological impact? 11. Where is the proposed fence line going to be? Are you adhering to site lines and setback for this? When will I be able to see the proposed layout? Thanks, Tim From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:39 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Public Comment Responses Good Afternoon, The responses to public comments and questions from the August 24, 2017 meeting have been posted on the City’s website. http://www.redmond.gov/development/CodesAndRules/LandUseActionNotices Attachment 4.k ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Sarah Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 4.k ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sarah Pyle To: Kevin Damour Cc: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Response to feedback from neighborhood on LAND-2016-01036 Date: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:19:05 AM Good Morning Kevin, I took some time this week to go back and re-review again the CUP No. 10 (Resolution 207) for the church/ religious facility. I wanted to verify once more the conditions within the Resolution. The conditions of the permit regarding the greenbelt are not specific that the screening required includes trees. The conditions noted do not make specific reference to trees for the greenbelt area in any of the documents I read. I also spoke with the Planning Manager and asked if this was consistent with his findings. He echoed the same conclusions were reached from his previous review. Due to the conditions not specifying limitations of tree removal and replacement for the green belt, the current tree ordinance within our zoning code is applicable for the entire site. We have pulled together all of the approval documents, permit applications and related materials we have from the previous decisions. If you have time and would like to stop by next week I would be happy to meet and go through the documents and conditions. I could also answer any additional questions or concerns that come up as well. Please let me know and I can send over some dates and times. Have a great weekend, Sarah Pyle From: Kevin Damour [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 5:54 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Response to feedback from neighborhood on LAND-2016-01036 Hello Sarah, Thank you very much for looking into this and getting all these details. Greatly appreciated - thank you. Does the 10 tree limit also apply to the greenbelt area? Attachment 4.l ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank you, Kevin From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 11:58 AM To: Kevin Damour Subject: RE: Response to feedback from neighborhood on LAND-2016-01036 Good Afternoon Kevin, I went through all of the tree removal permits that were issued this year in May. There was a permit pulled in May for Creekside to remove 9 cottonwood trees. The removal request was prompted by limbs of some of the trees falling into a neighbor’s yard. Additionally, it was shared that they were concerned due to the age and size of the cottonwoods that they were becoming increasingly hollow. I looked up the zoning code and verified that the site is allowed to remove 10 trees in a 365 day period. They will be required to complete replanting for each of the trees removed and were requested to do-so in the greenbelt perimeter area. Additionally, they were instructed to re-plant non-hazardous species. Code enforcement and the counter planner reviewed to ensure there was not a requirement for the trees in the CUP. The church does need to maintain vegetative perimeter, but it may be a combination of groundcover, bushes, shrubs and trees. Staff will be completing a re-planting inspection in November to ensure the trees have been re-planted and are alive. Please let me know if you have any additional questions at all. I apologize that it took a few additional days to get back to you about the trees. I wanted to make sure I did a thorough look into your questions. Thank you, Sarah Pyle From: Kevin Damour [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:46 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: Response to feedback from neighborhood on LAND-2016-01036 Hello Sarah, Thank you for all the additional information. Greatly appreciated. Will look forward to reading over the comment and question responses. Thank you for Attachment 4.l ---PAGE BREAK--- putting that together. ref: I watched the Creekside Church cut down a number of trees in between their property and homes on my road (NE 22nd CT). I thought this was a required natural screen. Did the city authorize the trees to be cut down? I can look into this right away, do you know when this began? If not it is okay, I am still able to look into it. As for the cutting of the trees, they were cut down in early May - around May 9th. I was walking to work and noticed that in the SouthWest corner there was someone cutting the trees down. Some of these were larger trees and may have been part of screening so I wanted to check with you on that. Thank you again for all your help, Kevin From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 3:12 PM To: Kevin Damour Cc: Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: Response to feedback from neighborhood on LAND-2016-01036 Good Afternoon Kevin, Please see my responses to your questions below. Please feel free to e-mail any follow-up questions you may have. 1. Are the slides you presented at the meeting available for download? They will be uploaded onto the website with all of the comment and question responses. We anticipate all items being up end of day tomorrow or Friday. 2. You mentioned to check in with you to check on the status of the planning recommendations to get copies of those documents. Is the city recommendations completed? They are not complete. The City has not finished the technical review of the project. Please feel free to continue checking in and I will be happy to provide you a status of the project at any time. 3. You mentioned that you have prepared responses to the neighborhood feedback - can you send me a copy of your response? (I think you mentioned that it would take 14 days so I am a couple days early in my request). The responses should all be completed by end of day tomorrow or Friday and available to all. The City has requested the applicant also provide responses to some of the questions. I can absolutely e-mail you a copy of all of the responses. Attachment 4.l ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. For the outside reviewer, does neighborhood sentiment factor into their decision process? Does having letters of support/no support impact the decision or is it solely on the various laws/zoning codes? The neighborhood sentiment is a factor in the decision process. The communications, comments and concerns are very important to the City and the Hearing Examiner takes into account all of the feedback as a decision factor. She also is known to ask additional questions and for additional information based upon community input. While decisions on Land Use entitlements are based upon the authority the adopted codes allow, the ability of the impacts of a proposed project to be adequately mitigated are a factor in all projects, but especially a Conditional Use Permit. The concerns and sentiment expressed for a proposed project would be an important factor as they are related to an impact being felt in the community. 5. I watched the Creekside Church cut down a number of trees in between their property and homes on my road (NE 22nd CT). I thought this was a required natural screen. Did the city authorize the trees to be cut down? I can look into this right away, do you know when this began? If not it is okay, I am still able to look into it. Sarah Pyle From: Kevin Damour [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:36 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Response to feedback from neighborhood on LAND-2016-01036 Hello Sarah, I hope all is going well. I wanted to check in with you about a few items related to the city hall meeting: 1. Are the slides you presented at the meeting available for download? 2. You mentioned to check in with you to check on the status of the planning recommendations to get copies of those documents. Is the city recommendations completed? 3. You mentioned that you have prepared responses to the neighborhood feedback - can you send me a copy of your response? (I think you mentioned that it would take 14 days so I am a couple days early in my request). 4. For the outside reviewer, does neighborhood sentiment factor into their decision process? Does having letters of support/no support impact the decision or is it solely on the various laws/zoning codes? 5. I watched the Creekside Church cut down a number of trees in between their property and homes on my road (NE 22nd CT). I thought this was a required natural screen. Did Attachment 4.l ---PAGE BREAK--- the city authorize the trees to be cut down? Thank you again for all your help through this process. Thank you, Kevin Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Attachment 4.l