Document Redmond_doc_5468d9956c

From: Angel Chang To: Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:19:59 PM Dear Members of the Redmond City Council, The homelessness crisis in Redmond continues to worsen. Bellevue and Lake Washington School Districts are seeing an increase in homelessness among students, serving 249 and 353 students, respectively. There is an innovative opportunity to provide a path out of homelessness for women with children through the BelRed Family Resource Center, and I’m writing to ask for your support. I support the BelRed Family Resource Center because... [Insert your personal comments, encounter with homelessness on the Eastside, or sample talking points below.] ...it will meet the urgent need for a year-round, overnight shelter and day center for homeless women with children on the Eastside. ...it will provide a safe place for women and children to stay overnight, and access a variety of day time services including meals, showers, laundry, case management, assistance in housing, employment searches, children’s activities, homework support, and life skills classes. ...the professional staff and trained volunteers will work alongside guests to identify a plan-based program to overcome barriers, set goals, and move forward into more stable housing. ...it will be privately funded, saving taxpayer funds and combining the resources of several local churches and Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. As a member of the community, I support the BelRed Family Resource Center and I ask for your support today. Sincerely, Angel Chang Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.a ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Angel Chang To: Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:19:59 PM Dear Members of the Redmond City Council, The homelessness crisis in Redmond continues to worsen. Bellevue and Lake Washington School Districts are seeing an increase in homelessness among students, serving 249 and 353 students, respectively. There is an innovative opportunity to provide a path out of homelessness for women with children through the BelRed Family Resource Center, and I’m writing to ask for your support. I support the BelRed Family Resource Center because... [Insert your personal comments, encounter with homelessness on the Eastside, or sample talking points below.] ...it will meet the urgent need for a year-round, overnight shelter and day center for homeless women with children on the Eastside. ...it will provide a safe place for women and children to stay overnight, and access a variety of day time services including meals, showers, laundry, case management, assistance in housing, employment searches, children’s activities, homework support, and life skills classes. ...the professional staff and trained volunteers will work alongside guests to identify a plan-based program to overcome barriers, set goals, and move forward into more stable housing. ...it will be privately funded, saving taxpayer funds and combining the resources of several local churches and Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. As a member of the community, I support the BelRed Family Resource Center and I ask for your support today. Sincerely, Angel Chang Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.b ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Ayelet Winer To: Gloria Meerscheidt; Sarah Pyle Cc: Sagiv Winer Subject: LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter -Neighborhood feedback Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:40:56 AM To the City of Redmond Development Department - We are writing to be added as a “party of record” and to share our feedback on the Proposed “LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter”. I would ask that you confirm your receipt of this email and our status as a party of record. Thank you. We want to express our strong objection to the proposed Woman and Children's Shelter planned in our neighborhood. Our house is located on 17317 NE 23rd Ct, 2 houses away from the church. We bought it 5 years ago, seeking for a quite and safe neighborhood for our kids, and we love it here. We have 3 kids, ages 7.5, 6 and 2, who often play outside in our front yard, just a few steps away from the church. Currently, we feel very safe in our cul de sac, and the kids are free to play outside as they want. This will not be the case once a homeless shelter will be operating just outside of our front door. As much as we appreciate the effort to help those who are in need, we do not feel that a small family resident neighborhood like ours is the right place for such activity. My husband and myself already agreed that if this proposed plan will be approved, we will immediately leave the neighborhood as we do not want to take any chances with the safety of our kids being so close to a homeless shelter that might change the entire dynamic in the neighborhood. My daughter is part of a girl scout troop, and we did many volunteering activities in such shelters in the past. We strongly support such initiatives and we do want to help wherever we can, but we also know that the population in such centers can be a bit problematic, and probably due to that all the centers we've visited so far were always outside on residence areas like ours. I do not know the rules that allow the church to change their zoning, all I know is that I would not want to live just outside of a center like that. This is not what I paid for when I bought my house and it is not fair to change it now without getting the neighbors approval to that, as we would be the one affected by this change. We urge the City of Redmond Technical Committee and Examiner to reject the proposal and encourage the applicant to find a different location for their proposed plan, one that will not affect the local residents in the area. Sincerely, Ayelet & Sagiv Winer 17317 NE 23rd Ct Redmond, WA, 98052 Attachment 2.c ---PAGE BREAK--- Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.c ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Corey Miller To: Sarah Pyle Subject: RE: LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter– Neighborhood Feedback Date: Friday, August 18, 2017 5:00:33 PM Hi Sarah, We submitted feedback to you in July regarding Proposed “LAND-2016-01036”. Since then, we received notice that the applicant has revised their application modifying the number of individuals in the single-family home from 25 to 40 and a request change to “Conditional Use – Change of Use.” In our original email below, we noted the stress on our family of continually fighting these efforts at neighborhood transformation and asked the City to make it clear to the applicant to stop trying to develop their property and limit their options to operating a church or returning the property to single family residences in line with the zoning regulations and intent of the neighborhood. With this refiling, it seems like the applicant is at it again and so we will again make the same request to the City. In addition, we would like to modify our original feedback to include the following additional points based on the amended application. We would ask that you please confirm you have received these additional points as part of our feedback. Thank you. Additional feedback: 7. The Hearing Examiner Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Modify the 1968 CUP. Sherwood Forest Baptist Church filed Conditional Use Petition No. 10 on October 22, 1968. See Redmond Resolution No. 207. In it, that church requested permission to use a single 3.41-acre parcel “for a church complex.” The City of Redmond subsequently issued the Conditional Use Permit (“the CUP”). In Section 3 of Resolution 207, the Council provided that it “may revoke or modify the conditional use herein granted The City did not subsequently delegate its authority to modify the CUP to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner, therefore, does not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s modified request to modify the 1968 CUP. 8. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because It Terminated by Abandonment. The CUP expired long ago. Section 41.3.1 of City Ordinance 310, passed in 1963, provided as follows: Abandonment of Use. When a conditional use of property is abandoned for a continuous period of one year, all permits or rights granted on the basis of such conditional use permission shall be void. The owners of the 0.50-acre subject property located at 2321 173rd Avenue NE (Tax Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]) abandoned the conditional use permit long ago. This property has never been used as a church complex. Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 2.2 of Resolution 207 referred to the house on the subject property already in 1968. That house has been used solely as a residence since that time. The evidence that the subject property was never used for a church complex is overwhelming. Since its construction in 1941, the structure thereon has always been used as a single-family residence. A letter from then applicant Redmond Christian School dated June 26, 1985 described the usage at that time as follows: “2321 173rd N.E. is used as a single family dwelling.” The City issued a Building Permit on April 29, 1976 for the construction of a garage at 2321 173rd Avenue NE. A City Technical Committee Report dated July 17, 1985 identified the structure on the 2321 property as a “single-family residence” and made absolutely no mention of an existing CUP. With respect to an application from Redmond Christian School for a Special Development Permit (“the First SDP”), the City Hearing Examiner in a Memorandum dated August 7, 1985 indicated (on page 3, point 4) that the applicant also sought “to use a single- family residence, located on the property, as an additional classroom or office space.” He indicated (on page 10) that the request was to locate a school on both 2315 and 2321 173rd Avenue NE. More recently, the City’s Building Permit issued April 2, 2007 for 2321 173rd Avenue NE described the work and use authorized as follows: ADDITION OF A 1,507 SF HEATED SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO EVANGELICAL CHINESE CHURCH ACTIVITIES WILL BE CONDUCTED IN RESIDENCE. RESIDENCE TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PASTOR AND OCCASIONAL GUEST. (Emphasis added.) This mirrored the limiting language contained in the applicant’s Residential Permit Application dated January 11, 2007. Because the subject property was never used for a church complex, the owners thereof abandoned the CUP when they segregated it from the 2.91-acre property located at 2315 173rd Avenue NE (Tax Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]). At the very latest, this segregation occurred by 1985 when the City Technical Committee Report dated July 17, 1985 indicated that the parcel size was “2.91 and .50 = 3.41 acres” and had the addresses of “2315 and 2321 173rd Avenue NE.” Attached to that Report, moreover, were separate legal descriptions for 2315 173rd Avenue NE and 2321 173rd Avenue NE. The applicant’s reliance upon the CUP, therefore, is misplaced. He is not entitled to bootstrap in a CUP that expired long ago as to the subject property. 9. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because It Only Authorized the Operation of a Church. When Sherwood Forest Baptist Church filed its Conditional Use Petition No. 10 on October 22, 1968, it never requested that the 3.41-acre parcel be used as a homeless shelter. The use requested was “CHURCH BUILDING.” It requested therein permission to maintain a “[c]hurch facility to house the Sherwood Forest Baptist Church of Redmond, Washington.” Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- The City issued a Notice of Public Hearing dated November 6, 1968 on Conditional Use Petition No. 10. It notified the public that that applicant’s request was “[p]ermission to construct a church building.” The CUP only authorized the use of the property “for a church complex.”. A letter dated November 25, 1968 to Sherwood Forest Baptist Church enclosing a copy of Resolution 207 stated that the CUP was “for a church building complex.” 10. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the 1985 SPD Superseded It. The City issued the First SDP for the subject property via a Final Approval Order that Mayor Doreen Marchione signed on September 3, 1985. The City issued a second SDP for the subject property via a Final Approval Order that Mayor Doreen Marchione signed on April 15, 1986. Because a property cannot simultaneously have a CUP and an SDP, the SDPs superseded the CUP even if it had remained in existence at that time. The applicant’s reliance on the superseded CUP, therefore, is misplaced. 11. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the Subject Property Has Never Before Been Used as a Homeless Shelter. The July 17, 1985 Technical Committee Report indicates that the 2321 property was never before intended to be used as a homeless shelter. Under “BACKGROUND” on page 1 thereof, it stated the following (emphasis added): “[T]he applicant is requesting approval to use a single-family residence which it owns next door to the school for additional classroom or office space, if needed in the future. When it was discovered that part of the driveway for the abutting single-family house to the north was actually on the school’s property, the school decided to buy the property for its own use. There are no plans to change the structure, only to change its use. It will continue to be used as a residence but they would like to have the option to use it for offices or classrooms.” The description under “INTRODUCTION” on page 2 thereof was consistent therewith. 12. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the 3.41-Acre Tract Was Subsequently Divided Into Two Parcels and the CUP Remained, If At All, with the 2.91-Acre Church Parcel, Not the Segregated 0.50-Acre House Parcel. The 2321 property has always been used as a single-family residence. It has never legally been used for any other purpose, whether as a homeless shelter, church or otherwise. The 1968 CUP only authorized a church to be maintained on the then 3.41-acre parcel. Because the church building was and remains located and operated on what was subsequently segregated into the southern 2.91-acre parcel and the house was and remains located and used for residential purposes on what was subsequently segregated into the northern 0.50-acre parcel, any CUP which remains after all these years went with the southern parcel, not the subject 2321 property. Based on these factors, we urge the City of Redmond Technical Committee and Examiner to reject the proposal and encourage the applicant to site an area that will meet the goals of their Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- effort while aligning with local zoning codes. Additionally, we again urge the City to make clear to the applicant and any other applicants that all property development beyond single family homes in our neighborhood are not permitted. Sincerely, Corey Miller & Katherine Zinger & Family 17203 NE 22nd Ct Redmond, WA 98052 From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 6:32 AM To: Corey Miller <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter– Neighborhood Feedback Good Morning, This e-mail is to confirm receipt of your e-mail. Staff will be reviewing and responding to all comments received as part of the Notice of Application. Thank you! Sarah From: Corey Miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:41 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter– Neighborhood Feedback July 10, 2017 City of Redmond – Development Services Center 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 Ref: LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter– Neighborhood Feedback Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- We are writing to be added as a “party of record” and to share our feedback on the Proposed “LAND-2016-01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter”. I would ask that you confirm your receipt of this email and our status as a party of record. Thank you. We are Redmond homeowners who bought our house on the street next door, NE 22nd Ct, a little over 5 years ago. We have three girls under the age of 10 and are active in the community. Moving here from a more urban neighborhood in Seattle was a big change, but we wanted our girls to grow up in a low density area with larger lots, open spaces and just a few other families. Our decision to purchase a home in this neighborhood in Redmond was in reliance on the City and zoning regulations maintaining this as an area for single family homes interested in long-term ownership. The church can be a good neighbor, but the one negative activity it undertakes is that it seems to be continually attempting to circumvent zoning and transform the neighborhood - increasing traffic, population density, and building it up like a commercial enterprise would want to. A few years ago the proposal was a day school, and now it is a social services organization. Having to deal with the stress of continually fighting neighborhood transformation, worrying about declining property values, and wondering what these changes will do to the safety of our neighborhood on a continual basis is not something we should have to deal with perpetually. I would ask the City to specifically instruct the applicant to stop trying to develop their property and limit their options to operating a church or returning the property to single family residences in line with the zoning regulations and intent of then neighborhood. I also wanted to make specific mention of the poor way this project has been handled by the applicant. I went to the meeting the applicant invited the neighbors to and they failed to answer basic questions about the project and how it will impact the neighborhood and homeowners in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the applicant has never reached out to us as immediate neighbors to discuss our position on the project. Our other close neighbors will not so much as put up a storage shed without discussing with us first. The applicant is proposing significant construction and to effectively double the population on the immediate vicinity and can’t reach out to discuss. The applicant’s spotty communications with the neighborhood to date lead me to believe they will not be in a position to effectively manage a social services organization or address neighborhood concerns. As a result, I am unaware of a single family in this neighborhood that supports this project at its current proposed location. Additionally, I wanted to provide some additional points on why the shelter at this location is not appropriate and should be denied: 1. The Applicable Individual Zone Summary in the Redmond Zoning Code Prohibits the Proposed Use. The Zoning Code expressly prohibits land uses not listed in the category of authorized uses under its individual zone use charts: “Permitted Uses in Zone Use Charts. Each zone use chart in RZC 21.08.020 through RZC 21.08.140 lists categories of land uses that may be permitted and any kind of conditional review process which may be required. Land uses not listed are prohibited unless otherwise provided by this chapter or some other provision of the Zoning Code.” RZC 21.08.160.A (underlining added). Because the subject property is zoned R-3, the individual zone summary set forth in Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- RZC 21.08.050 applies. Under the heading of “R-3 Single-Family Constrained Residential,” that Code section provides this “zone provides for low-density residential at a base density of three dwellings per acre on lands inappropriate for more intense urban development due to significant environmentally critical areas, extreme cost, or difficulty in extending public facilities or the presence of natural features Redmond is seeking to retain.” RZC 21.08.050.A. The uses allowed in R-3 zoned property are set forth in RZC 21.08.050.D. Because the category of “social assistance, welfare and charitable services” is not listed anywhere under section D, the Redmond Zoning Code prohibits the use of the subject property as a homeless shelter. 2. The Proposed Use is Not as a Religious Institution. While the principal of the applicant may be a religious institution, he does not propose to use the subject property as a religious institution. Pursuant to the Code, such uses consist of “[c]hurches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, and similar institutions operated by religious organizations.” RZC 21.78.R Definitions. Rather, the applicant seeks to use the property as a 25-person homeless shelter. Such use falls in the category of social assistance, welfare and charitable services. The Code definition of this category is the following: “Social Assistance, Welfare and Charitable Services. The provision of social assistance services, including shelters, directly to individuals in need.” RZC 21.78.S Definitions. The proposed homeless shelter, therefore, does not qualify as use as a religious institution. That use is not what applicant has proposed. 3. The Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart in the Redmond Zoning Code Prohibits the Proposed Use. The Zoning Code, in its Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart, does not authorize the use of the subject property as a shelter. “This chart is meant to serve as a compilation of permitted uses within each of the individual zone summaries RZC 21.04.030.A. The Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart for residential zones is specifically set forth in RZC 21.04.030.B. Permitted uses for R-3 zoned properties are designated in the column under R3 with a whereas conditional uses are designated there with a A category for uses involving social assistance, welfare and charitable services exists in the Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart under the subheading of “Education, Public Administration, Health Care and other Institutions.” But the corresponding R3 column is blank, i.e., it contains neither a nor a Because shelters fall within this category but the column is blank, this Chart obviously prohibits the use proposed. Note that, attesting to the extreme nature of the permit sought via the application, shelters are not authorized in any properties in Redmond that are zoned residential. Looking across horizontally on the Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart after the subcategory for social assistance, welfare and charitable services, all of the columns are blank. Shelters for humans, therefore, are not authorized in any residential zones in Redmond. This applies to uses that are Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- both less intense and more intense than R-3 permits. Allowing a shelter in the R-3 zone here would clearly be a direct violation of the City’s Zoning Code. 4. The Proposed Use Contravenes the Very Purpose of Establishing Zones. The proposal seeks authorization of a use that circumvents the very purposes of the Zoning Code. RZC 21.04.010 provides as follows: The purpose of establishing zones is to: a. Provide a pattern of land use that is consistent with and fulfills the vision of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan; b. Maintain stability of land uses and protect the character of the community by encouraging groupings of uses that have compatible characteristics; c. Provide for appropriate, economic, and efficient use of land within the city limits; and d. Provide for coordinates growth and ensure that adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in order to accommodate growth. The use of the subject property for a homeless shelter is inconsistent with and contravenes the vision of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan designates the subject property as Single-Family Constrained, not the dense population that the proposal describes. The proposal contravenes the LU-33 Designation Policies thereof. A homeless shelter, moreover, will destabilize the land uses and endanger the character of the community because its characteristics are incompatible with the general area consisting of residential Single-Family homes. At the Neighborhood Meeting in May 2017 at City Hall, I asked the applicant directly if they had considered *any* alternative sites or options instead of using this site for a 25 person, Multi-Family shelter forcing a request for zoning changes. Indeed, several options had been suggested to the applicant at the local neighborhood meeting held the previous year. Unfortunately, he said “No. No alternatives were considered.” This undermines Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan vision and Zoning Code in that the applicant has neither investigated nor considered any other options other than forcing a zoning exception for the project. For the number of years this shelter has been under consideration, the applicant has failed due diligence and good faith attempts to be in line with Redmond’s Zoning Codes. 5. The Proposed Use is Not for a Single-Family. The property is appropriately zoned Single-Family, not Multi-Family. The Code defines “family” as “[a]n individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage; eight or fewer nonrelated persons living together in a single dwelling unit, unless a grant of reasonable accommodation as identified in RZC 21.76, Review Procedures, allows an additional number of persons.” RZC 21.78.F Definitions. An occupancy of 25 residents far exceeds the eight-person limit that applies to Single- Family residences. And the Review Procedures do not allow such a high occupancy in the Single-Family Constrained Residential zone. 6. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit. Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- Specifically, it fails to meet the requirements detailed in Redmond’s zoning code, RZC 21.76.070K4: K4.B The conditional use is designed in a manner which is compatible with and responds to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the subject property and immediate vicinity; K4.D The type of use, hours of operation, and appropriateness of the use in relation to adjacent uses minimize unusual hazards or characteristics of the use that would have adverse impacts; There are two main reasons for the failure to meet these requirements: First, as detailed above, this area in Redmond is zoned as Single-Family residences and the subject property is zoned R-3. There are a number of important quality of life and community environments fostered by setting aside such an area. Th applicant intends this center to be a 25-person, Multi-Family residence. The length-of-stay is intended to be short- term, so a continual turnover of resident is expected. This is contrary to the goals of Single- Family residential neighborhoods and fails to meet and be compatible with the existing and intended character and quality of development of the immediate vicinity. The center will have clients with no long-term ties to the community. Indeed, the applicant states that its clients may come from areas outside this immediate vicinity. There will be multiple families in a single residence. Clearly, this proposal does not meet the K4.B compatibility restriction of Redmond's Zoning Code. Secondly, security around the immediate vicinity is questionable, and neighborhood security is not promoted by this application. The center’s intended population is stated to have various unfortunate, negative associated issues including domestic violence, substance abuse and/or mental illness (by the applicants own admission). There are large green belt areas, grade schools, and parks around the proposed center location that can have both center’s clients as well as associates of the clients deciding to have unsupervised (from the center’s intentions to screen and monitor clients) activities. The applicant states that they will screen and monitor clients, but this does not address off-center property and associates from off- center associates who may seek shelter and/or interaction with their children, wives, or friends within the center. The center fails to meet the K4.D zone regulation. It brings risks and adverse impacts to the neighborhood. We acknowledge the intentions of the applicants but the location currently under review is not appropriate by being a direct violation of the Redmond Zoning Code and fails to meet the requirements specified in the Redmond Zoning Code. We urge the City of Redmond Technical Committee and Examiner to reject the proposal and encourage the applicant to site an area that will meet the goals of their effort while aligning with local zoning codes. Sincerely, Corey Miller & Katherine Zinger & Family 17203 NE 22nd Ct Redmond, WA 98052 Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Attachment 2.d ---PAGE BREAK--- From: CHRIS STEELE To: Sarah Pyle Subject: ECC Woman and Children"s House--LAND 2016-01036 Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 7:30:20 PM Contact Info: Chris Steele [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 17310 NE 23rd Ct Redmond, WA 98052 Comments: Have not seen the following issues addressed by info submitted by others: 1 Safety: · While there may not be any safety issues regarding the use of the property, such an incident may arise. Since the property is virtually on the dividing line between Redmond and Bellevue, what provisions will/have been made regarding police jurisdiction if an issue were to arise? · With the new policies regarding police responses to alarm systems (alarm must be verified in some fashion before police are dispatched), could an exception be made for immediate response if an alarm sounds from a residence within 500 feet of the site? · There is a ‘wilderness’ park across the street from this site. What provisions have been made to assure the safety of park users if males concerned about their wives/children start to occupy the park? · Has the house been retrofitted to meet current earthquake safety standards? 2 Conditional Use Permit: · All provisions of the proposal must be completed prior to the occupation of the building. In the past, there was an agreement that the church parking lot would be paved. That condition was never met. · The permit should be issued for a period of one year and then reviewed to insure the provisions /agreements have been met and then renewed every 3-5 years. · Per discussion during meeting at City Hall, the Conditional Use Permit would be transferred to the new owner if the property is ever sold. Since approval of this proposal will substantially alter the neighborhood and any buyer may intend the future use of the property to be altered significantly, it would be appropriate for a new Conditional Use Permit process to be initiated if the property is ever sold or repurposed. 3 Transportation/Parking: · Are there plans to increase the frequency of buses? Attachment 2.e ---PAGE BREAK--- · Should a bus shelter be installed at 24th NE & 173rd? · Is the parking available at the site sufficient for all guests? Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.e ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Fan Bao To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Concern regarding ECC Woman and Children"s House Date: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:02:25 PM 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 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 2.f ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Heidi Allen To: Sarah Pyle Subject: ECC women and Children shelter Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:23:04 PM Ms Pyle I have received 2 mailings re the shelter planned for NE 24th and 173rd. I live across the street. Responded to both letters and have not received any acknowledgement that the fist was received. Just sent the second on Monday 8/14/17. I have looked at the web site and seen all the responses to possible concerns for having the location at this site. I find it inappropriate that letters were sent to only those within 100ft. That can't be more than a doze homes. Ne 24th is a busy street and no one is going to stop and pick up a flyer as they pass by. It would be too dangerous to stop. Consequently only a few people who walk by might pick up the notice. As a result, information is not getting to the majority of people who might be affected by this plan. I find this inappropriate. Has anyone from your office been out to view the neighborhood and site? This is a very residential area with families, kids, and schools. 24th is extremely busy and dangerous for young children. Am also concerned having up to age 18 for age of children. Teenagers can be very mischievous and we have already had our share of home invasions. This age group can also get into problems with drugs/alcohol. I realize there will be rules and supervision and it all sounds good on paper. The follow through concerns me. I am a senior citizen trying to stay in my home and pay very high taxes. Just received my assessment for the coming year and has gone up again. Taxes will go up but what happens to my property value with this facility across the street. The taxes will definitely not go down. Unfortunately I have another commitment on the 24th and so can not come to the meeting. Hopefully there will be a good turnout to discuss Attachment 2.g ---PAGE BREAK--- all the concerns and consequences. Respectfully Hedi Allen [EMAIL REDACTED] Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.g ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Hu Li To: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Resource center should NOT be built in residential area Date: Monday, August 21, 2017 11:01:13 PM Dear Sir or Madam, Helping homeless women/children is good, but we already have Hopelink and it's building a big facility to help homeless already.. Why do we need another one in Redmond's residential area? A beautiful city like Redmond doesn't need more homeless people coming here. Kirkland has a women/children help center already..Why do we want to build one more and in residential area? How do you minimize the criminal impact to the residents? Hu Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.h ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Jay Ongg2001 To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Opposition to the ECC Women and Children"s House Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:29:01 PM Hello Sarah, I hope this email finds you well. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. I own the house at 17318 NE 2nd Court, and I oppose the proposal for a shelter at the proposed site at the intersection of 173rd Ave NE and NE 24th Street. Tim Alexander recently sent you a letter with the reasons, which I agree with. The letter brings up a number of good objections with reasons, that I agree with. Thanks, Jay Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.i ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Josh Sutton To: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Cc: Josh Sutton Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:16:15 PM Since our inception as the Eastside YMCA over 50 years ago, the Bellevue Y has focused on serving all people, especially the young and those most in need. We work alongside our members and with partners across Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland to strengthen the foundations of community, even in the face of changing and growing needs. Today, our Eastside communities are trying to balance the pressures of rapid community and economic growth with the challenge of affordability for all. While the majority of children in our area experience stability in housing, food and education, a growing number face homelessness and the lack of emotional and family security that comes with it. The Y supports the efforts of the BelRed Family Resource Center to help these most vulnerable children and their mothers by establishing a local shelter and connections to local services that might set them on a path to future stability. We will join local government, other agencies and supporting neighbors of BelRed Family Resource Center to welcome the children and mothers into our community. In addition, the Bellevue Y will reach out to work with to determine any active role we can play in providing access and support to our programs and services for these children and families. JOSH SUTTON Branch Executive & Capital Projects Management Bellevue Family YMCA [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Attachment 2.j ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Joyce Woodard To: [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Resource Center Date: Monday, May 01, 2017 6:22:44 AM The homelessness crisis in Redmond continues to worsen. Bellevue and Lake Washington School Districts are seeing an increase in homelessness among students, serving 249 and 353 students, respectively. There is an innovative opportunity to provide a path out of homelessness for women with children through the BelRed Family Resource Center, and I’m writing to ask for your support. Sincerely, Joyce Woodard Sent from my iPhone Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.k ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Kevin Damour To: Tim Alexander; Ted Mobley; Hank Myers; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer; Angela Birney; David Carson; Tanika Padhye; JOHN STILIN Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:01:43 PM Hello Mr. Myers, I have been in the Redmond area for the last 19 years and a homeowner (at our currently location) in Redmond for the last 10 years. Our family has two young children and are concerned with the proposed shelter location in a residential neighborhood. We have serious concerns with a number of areas of this project as well as if this location actually is an appropriate location for the services that the shelter residents would require. We are looking forward to the meeting on Monday to hear about the status and what changes have been made to the shelter proposal and have our concerns considered in this process. In the previous neighbor meeting, I asked a question about current zoning for the wider area around where this shelter is being considered. The response was that all of the homes around the area are zoned as single family. If a shelter is planned for this location, what impact does this have on the zoning for this general area in Redmond (I see the comment from Sarah Vanags below, but would need more info on how zoning would not be impacted by multiple families living there and not just going to Church/School)? If approved, it seems that this would set a precedent for allowing multi-family buildings, which would certainly change the overall area and not be in the interest of the community. Thank you, Kevin Damour From: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 3:10 PM To: Ted Mobley; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Not sure if he hit the wrong button or purposefully left you all off, but he sent me this response… This is an issue that may come before the Council, I will leave that decision to Development Services and our very competent Hearing Examiner. Hank Myers Hank, I didn’t ask for your “decision”…I wouldn’t do that knowing that the process is already taking place. I asked for your personal opinion as to whether you believe that a residential area (next to a family with 4 children) is an appropriate location for a homeless shelter? This is too simple a question to dodge and not answering it is an answer in itself. I’m happy to start a “gofundme” project in your name to help put one of these in your backyard since I can only speculate that Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- you believe it is the natural setting for such a thing. I will happily contribute to it as well. If it is good enough for me, it should be good enough for you. That’s really all I ask. Tim From: Ted Mobley [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Thank you for asking the question, I know what I think and am interested in this response. April -----Original Message----- From: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> To: Hank Myers <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; BelRed Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; belredfrc <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Angela Birney <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Carson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Tanika Padhye <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; JOHN STILIN <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: mleiberton leiberton <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; tsquareb29 <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; c_a_steele <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; jayongg_2001 <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; jennifer.hansberry <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; tom <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Amber Ushka <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; sujathas <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; mahsa.eshraghi <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Katherine Zinger <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Aditya Dube <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; TED MOBLEY <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ayelet Winer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; manjiri.virginkar <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Todd Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kevin Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Mita Patel <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; dbarnes123 <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; jjanyoumao <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; michaelmckinlay <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; susan <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; jill-a <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 2:44 pm Subject: RE: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Hank, I will simplify this. In your personal opinion, do you believe that a residential area (next to a family with 4 children) is an appropriate location for a homeless shelter? Tim From: Tim Alexander Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:56 PM To: 'Hank Myers' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; BelRed Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Angela Birney <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Carson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Tanika Padhye <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; JOHN STILIN <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: mleiberton leiberton <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; Aditya Dube <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; TED MOBLEY <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ayelet Winer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kevin Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Mita Patel <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Hank, I respectfully disagree with the statement that “The application is not about where the City wishes to site a shelter, but whether this specific shelter proposal shall be allowed.”. This is exactly what it is about. You do not need to review this application in order to agree with us that this should not be going into a residential area next door to families. You can share your opinion on this in your next response to this thread and I hope you do. The same principles that have lead the city of Bellevue to listen to their citizens and look for a non-residential area apply here. Do you agree with their principles or do you disagree? Tim From: Hank Myers [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:46 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; BelRed Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Angela Birney <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Carson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Tanika Padhye <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; JOHN STILIN <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: mleiberton leiberton <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; Aditya Dube <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; TED MOBLEY <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ayelet Winer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kevin Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Mita Patel <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; jill- [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Mr. Alexander, Unlike the proposed Bellevue shelter, which is a public facility supported at least in part by public funds, the Family Resource Center is a private proposal. Once an application is made for a project that complies with City regulations, we are compelled to hear it. The application is not about where the City wishes to site a shelter, but whether this specific shelter proposal shall be allowed. Again I encourage you to participate in the process and address your concerns about the project as it is proposed. Best wishes- Hank Myers Council Ombud [PHONE REDACTED] (voice/text) From: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:32:59 PM To: Hank Myers; Suntosh Sreenivasan; BelRed Family Resource Center; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer; Angela Birney; David Carson; Tanika Padhye; JOHN STILIN Cc: mleiberton leiberton; Ziv Kasperski; Michelle Robertson; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger; Steve Salzman; Aditya Dube; TED MOBLEY; Ayelet Winer; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson; Michelle Damour; Kevin Damour; Mita Patel; Steve Salzman; Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Yes, Hank, we did speak and I plan to provide input in writing. But, in light of the fact that the City of Bellevue is listening to their residents prior to the application process even proceeding for the Men’s Homeless Shelter and now looking for a non-residential area for which to place this shelter. Why don’t you stop the process now and do the same? Do you not care about the concerns we have about this application even being reviewed for placement in a residential area? It seems to me that by moving forward with this process, you are supporting the effort and ignoring us. Tim From: Hank Myers [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:25 PM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; BelRed Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Fischer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Angela Birney <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; David Carson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Tanika Padhye <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; JOHN STILIN <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: mleiberton leiberton <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; Aditya Dube <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; TED MOBLEY <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ayelet Winer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kevin Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Mita Patel <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; jill- [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Good Afternoon, Mr. Alexander, You phoned me in my role as Council Ombud for April, and I am acknowledging your call as part of my report. Consideration of projects such as this are multi-step and public. I encourage you to participate in the two public events, as well as submit comments in writing. Thank you for your phone call- Hank Myers Council Ombud [PHONE REDACTED] (voice/text) From: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:01 PM To: Suntosh Sreenivasan; BelRed Family Resource Center; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer; Hank Myers; Angela Birney; David Carson; Tanika Padhye; JOHN STILIN Cc: mleiberton leiberton; Ziv Kasperski; Michelle Robertson; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger; Steve Salzman; Aditya Dube; TED MOBLEY; Ayelet Winer; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson; Michelle Damour; Kevin Damour; Mita Patel; Steve Salzman; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Thanks Suntosh, we may as well add the entire city council here. Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- It sounds like the City Council of Bellevue is listening to their citizens who are in opposition of placing a homeless shelter in a residential area. I am very hopeful that the Redmond City Council would do the same for us. The Creekside Covenant Church and Chinese Christian Church have been good neighbors. But they do NOT speak for our neighborhood. Neither does the Union Gospel Mission. We do. It is interesting that the Creekside Church could not get participation into their Day Center, yet they believe the next best step is to create an overnight shelter. This is called “creating a solution in search of a problem”. There is a homeless problem, but not in our neighborhood. Therefore, this shelter does not need to go into our neighborhood. It is a proven fact (acknowledged by Union Gospel Mission executives) that the more homeless services you provide in a specific area, the more homeless people your area will attract. This is not what I want for my neighborhood and certainly not what I want going in next door to my wife and our four children. The homeless problem needs to be addressed specifically where it exists. There are plenty of non-residential areas in Redmond where this can be more appropriately placed. And, if the City Council of Redmond believes that it is appropriate to place a homeless shelter in our “back yard”, each of them can literally do the same in theirs – Link. Otherwise, they would be hypocritical to support such an effort. I’m looking forward to meeting more of you who share the same concerns that Suntosh and I have and ensuring that the city of Redmond hears our voices. Tim From: Suntosh Sreenivasan [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:30 AM To: BelRed Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: mleiberton leiberton <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Aditya Dube <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; TED MOBLEY <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ayelet Winer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kevin Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Mita Patel <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Steve Salzman ; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Hey Jen, just checking back on this. We never heard back from Sarah about any updates, or other city representatives, so I've included Steve Fischer and Hank Myers back on this thread since they were the original contacts that I had on this thread. OK so last week it looks like there was some last minute/sudden announcement that went out informing some folks about the plan to "submit the application to provide safe overnight shelter in the house adjacent to the CreekSide Covenant Church" which was worded in a very ambiguous way, devoid of details, and prone to multiple ways of misinterpretation. Also, the document contained mostly broken links, especially the "download toolkit", "send email to redmond city council", and "see event and details", all of which generates an error, and does not give any kind of insight about the current state of affairs for this initiative, and also leaves people guessing about what really is the proper message. Here is the web page error for your reference: Site Temporarily Unavailable: We were unable to process your request to reach this page at this time. Please try to access the organization that you are trying to reach at an alternate URL if possible. We apologize for the inconvenience. This is not only concerning about the fact that the notification seems impromptu, and inconsiderate about the neighborhood's time/schedule, but the date for the city council meeting has been set without ever consulting the neighborhood's availability, and convenience of the timings. I personally felt that this was intentional/deliberate and has caught several folks off-guard, and does not give the neighborhood enough time to react/respond in a meaningful way. I'll let other folks chime in too, but this sudden and unexpected rush of events has made me lose trust in what I'd initially expected would be a more inclusive conversation with the neighborhood. As requested earlier by the neighborhood, keeping us all in sync with timely updates, and not spring last minute surprises would have been much appreciated, and I personally feel that the 5/1/2017 date is extremely rushed, and pushing the neighborhood into making a rushed/hasty decision. That said, a couple more points of discussion: The proposed "Bellevue Homeless Shelter for Men" which hasn't been finalized yet, and still looking for alternate locations, away from residential areas, and wondering if this initiative is something that could be partnered with the Eastgate initiative to centralized this effort at Eastgate rather than here. Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- With the onset of summer, more parents and kids are going to be out and around, and I wonder how they're going to perceive this effort since most of those folks wouldn't have heard about it, and will come as a surprise, that a shelter has sprung up without their notice, and will cause more unrest in the neighborhood, and will probably lead to extreme dissent in the community since the city hasn't been very transparent or forthcoming about the plan for a shelter in their midst. This surrounding area has multiple schools in this vicinity, and also considered to be one of the top school districts, even at a national level, so I wonder what the reaction from parents/families of those school going children will be when they learn unexpectedly about a shelter in the path that the traverse on a daily basis. Finally, on a side note, I've also sought out legal support/representation, which I will follow up separately in a more formal/legal process, after I've heard back from the ARAG legal center about how to proceed further. Thanks, Suntosh From: Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:23 PM To: mleiberton leiberton; Ziv Kasperski; Michelle Robertson; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka; Sujatha Sagiraju; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger; Steve Salzman; Aditya Dube; TED MOBLEY; Ayelet Winer; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson; Michelle Damour; Kevin Damour; Mita Patel Subject: FW: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Folks, I'm still awaiting response from Sarah, the city rep, but she is out of office until 2/5, and in the meantime Jen from has responded. I'll let you know if/when I hear back from Sarah. Thanks! From: Bel-Red Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 12:11 PM To: Suntosh Sreenivasan; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Suntosh, Thank you for your email and checking in on the status of the BelRed Resource Center. We haven't had much to report out to the neighbors since last summer as we continue to go through the city application process. For the time being, we have pulled back operating the day center at Creekside Covenant. We will be sending out another update soon as we continue to move forward with the application. Thank you, Jen Browning Seattle's Union Gospel Mission Emergency Shelter Administrator On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]> wrote: OK great, we'll look forward to the current status. BTW, in the meantime, one of the residents in the neighborhood has pointed out the following article, so could you confirm that the day-center project has indeed been closed, please? Redmond’s Bel-Red Family Resource Center Closed Until resourcetalk.crisisclinic.org Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- The Bel-Red Family Resource Center in Redmond is closed until further notice. Operated by Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, the resource center provided drop-in day From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:50 AM To: Suntosh Sreenivasan Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Good morning, I am currently out of the office this week. At this time, the PREP application is still under review. The City will send out a notice to the neighborhood for a meeting at City Hall to hear and discuss feedback from the community prior to any decisions being made on the application. Additionally, per the below e-mail you will have the opportunity for formal comment should the application proceed forward and the opportunity to testify at the hearing. I will be sure to keep you apprised as the projects continues through the review process. From: Suntosh Sreenivasan [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:36 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Hi Sarah, just checking back on this, since we haven't heard any more follow up or updates about this issue. Could you get us up to date, please? Thanks! From: Sarah Vanags <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Sarah Vanags; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Good Morning, First I would like to say thank you for your e-mail and taking the time to reach out and learn more about projects within the community. I have provided responses to your questions at end of this e-mail. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. To provide some clarification for the below process outlined context to the responses to your questions below, I have summarized the two separate uses that pertain to the site location and questions submitted: 1. The Day Center · Just opened this week · Located in main church buildings · A non-24 hour center serving those affected by homelessness · Does not require additional Land Use approvals so long as services remain in main buildings and are not 24 hours. Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Homeless shelter for women and children: · Has not yet opened · Will be a 24 facility serving women and children affected by homelessness · Submitted a PREP application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on May 31, 2016 · Proposing to operate within the house located at the edge of the church property · Approvals of a CUP and interior Tenant Improvement on the building must first be received by the applicant before any activity of the proposed use can begin. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) seeking approval to locate a homeless shelter for women and children in the house structure on the edge of the ECC property. · The project is currently in the PREP process where the applicant works on building a complete application. · The PREP process takes 121 business days on average to complete 3 rounds of reviews. · The PREP process will include a Neighborhood Meeting. A notice will be mailed to residents within 500’ of the proposed site. · Following the PREP review process the applicant will enter our Formal Application process for the CUP. · The Formal Process for a CUP is approx. 3-5 months on average and includes the Notice of Application/official comment period (21days long), SEPA notice/comment period (14 days long), a Public Hearing Notice/ comment period (21 days long) and an Open Hearing before the Hearing Examiner prior to a decision being made by City Council on the application. Going forward now that an application has been taken in for the Conditional Use Permit of the homeless shelter comments will be responded to in at intervals throughout the review process. · Staff will confirm they have received any comments sent in. · Every two to three weeks, staff will compile any comments received and e-mail responses out. · This will ensure duplicate comments are addressed, as well as, making certain each question or comment receives a quality and researched response. · Staff will keep a worksheet with all comments received going forward. Helpful Links: · PREP Process · Conditional Use Permit Information · Public Records Request · Track the project’s status online here · Code Enforcement Questions and Responses: Is this a seasonal thing? Earlier in the thread, a reference to "cold winter months" was mentioned. Does that technically mean winter time, or anytime it's cold, which is most times? At this time the City does not have any information on the proposed annual duration of the shelter being proposed. RESPONSE: The Application for Conditional Use Permit was submitted 05/31/2016 and has not yet been reviewed. For any inquiries regarding the temporary day shelter the church would need to be contacted directly. One of the items in the fact-sheet on their website seems to indicate that the permits for the shelter haven't been approved yet, so not sure if the doc is current or not. RESPONSE: The church is not required to get use permits for the day center activities within their main buildings which are aligned with their religious ministries. They will be required to have an approved Conditional Use Permit to create the shelter within the small house structure on the edge of the property. The application for the Conditional Use Permit was submitted on 05/31/2016 and will take a few months to review through the City’s PREP process. The initial traffic of shelter-seeking members seems to be mentioned as 8-10 families, so not sure how that fits in with their current capacity? How will overflow be managed? RESPONSE: The City does not have a decision at this time. Until the application and studies are Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- reviewed by City staff, a determination on what transportation mitigation may be required cannot be made. A notice will go out to all neighbors for a neighborhood meeting once the application has completed its first round of reviews. Has the change in zoning part been confirmed? It looks like we don't seem to have much information if zoning change is involved, so how should we confirm? RESPONSE: A change in zoning is not required to allow a shelter on the property and within the proposed structure. A Conditional Use Permit must be approved however per the regulations of the current zone. The fact-sheet also includes an item about security, and how it'll improve the overall security for the neighbor, but is there need to also request city for additional patrols? RESPONSE: The City cannot speak directly to some of the items on the fact sheet as they may not have studies or a statistical basis to draw from or respond to. Increased City patrols would not be a mitigation requirement put on the approvals and security could be provided voluntarily, but an analysis showing statistics for the area that warrants security would need to be submitted and reviewed before the City could considered such a requirement as a condition of approval. There is also some mention about rules/tolerance for shelter-seeking members - alcohol, drugs, violence, intimidation, retaliation, etc., Did we get a copy of that rule sheet? RESPONSE: Again, this would be a private facility/business practice put in place by the shelter/ facility and not imposed by the City. The facility would need to provide that to you directly if they chose to share the information. How should we communicate any emergencies or complaints, including any kind of intolerant behavior that violates the shelter rules? Call police every time, or another channel? RESPONSE: This is a great question. Depending on the issue we would ask you call the police or our code enforcement personnel and in some cases both. For mild issues that do not need an emergency call and responses we would ask you to contact the Code Enforcement personnel via e-mail. If you have safety or immediate concerns that you do not feel can wait, please contact the police. If an issue falls in the middle or is a repeat issue needing documentation after hours, we ask you please report to police at the time of the issue and also to e-mail the information to Code Enforcement. Who is our direct point of contact for this initiative in the ECC for the neighborhood? What kind of regular/ongoing communication do we need from them, and who do they communicate to? It's been a bad experience for us that we've had to hear about this from somebody else in the neighborhood rather than directly. RESPONSE: At this time, I will be the City’s planner on the project and facilitating the application. My name is Sarah K Vanags and I can be reached at [EMAIL REDACTED] or [PHONE REDACTED]. For all application contact information, you may complete a public records request and come in at your convenience to review the application submitted in its entirety at any time during office hours. The applicant will be holding a neighborhood meeting during the review of the application in the next few months and you will be invited to join and ask any additional question directly to the applicant. Is there some agreed upon meetings between church/shelter/neighborhood on a regular basis to discuss any issues/concerns? Who is driving that? Who are on the invitees list? RESPONSE: The City is unaware of any scheduled meetings between the church and neighborhood. There will be the City required neighborhood meeting as previously discussed. Are the folks on this email the only ones concerned about this issue, or are there others? Is there a single distribution list/group that we have for these conversations? RESPONSE: There has not been a Party of Records list at this time and the City has not received additional comments as of yet from concerned individuals. Now that an application has been submitted a Party of Records list will be created for those that comment or wish to be placed on it without comment. To be a Party of Record, an individual must provide their name and a mailing address; additionally, staff would like an e-mail for each person, but it is not required. My understanding is that there are several supporters for the homeless initiative, but to re-iterate what I've mentioned above, I'm guessing those folks are mostly from the church community, who don't really live in the neighborhood, and I'm wondering if those families can take in the homeless folks, and support them in the realm of their own home and their neighborhood. RESPONSE: This would not be an initiative the City would coordinate; you are welcome to work with the church and their congregation however on any ideas you may have. Thank you for your time and questions, Sarah K Pyle Senior Planner Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] From: Steve Fischer Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 8:18 AM To: Sarah Vanags Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Please respond Steven From: Suntosh Sreenivasan [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:22 PM To:; Steve Fischer; Hank Myers Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Folks, we recently purchased the property and have moved into the location at [17302 NE 23rd CT, Redmond WA] across the street from the ECC home. I got your contacts from a couple of other residents in the neighborhood, and would like to reach out to you for clarification about the proposed homeless shelter in the ECC facility. BTW, before I say anything, please understand that we greatly sympathize with the homeless, especially women/children, along with the hardship it comes with, and would like to be accommodative, but we're obviously concerned about our own families too, including and not limited to, the possibility of personal & economic dissonance in the community, and also possible financial loss caused by receding home values due to a homeless shelter operating in the neighborhood. Please note, we're new to the neighborhood, and we don't have much background/context of all the conversations that've happened on this topic, but being so close to ground-zero, I guess it automatically instills a higher sense of concern for us, and hopefully we don't wake up one morning to find a tent-city in the neighborhood to support the spouses of women housed in the ECC shelter! Anyway, jokes apart, and just to be fair, in the last several months that we've moved into the neighborhood, our experience with the church traffic/events/noise etc., hasn't been all that boisterous, and the church crowd hasn't encroached any streets or driveways, as far as we know. They seem to be respectful about the surrounding neighborhood, and just go about doing whatever it is they do, and personally we've not felt much of an impact. However, the homeless shelter could be a whole different scenario than an average church-goer's session, and everybody from the church community who support this initiative, are not the folks that are living in the neighborhood, so now we've been thinking about what we should be concerned about, and understand why this initiative by the church/city is being proposed right in the middle of an extremely residential neighborhood, and especially being supported by folks who're not actually residing in the neighborhood. All that said, I tried to compile a list of questions, and potential concerns that we might need to be aware of, or discuss further. Quick FYI: there is also a FAQ list included in the fact-sheet on the web site, which I've looked up, but would still like to list my issues. Once again, since we're new to the conversation, maybe you've thought about, and discussed some/all of them, but just to get up to speed with y'all, here is my list: Is this a seasonal thing? Earlier in the thread, a reference to "cold winter months" was mentioned. Does that technically mean winter time, or anytime it's cold, which is most times? One of the items in the fact-sheet on their website seems to indicate that the permits for the shelter haven't been approved yet, so not sure if the doc is current or not. Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- The initial traffic of shelter-seeking members seems to be mentioned as 8-10 families, so not sure how that fits in with their current capacity? How will overflow be managed? Has the change in zoning part been confirmed? It looks like we don't seem to have much information if zoning change is involved, so how should we confirm? The fact-sheet also includes an item about security, and how it'll improve the overall security for the neighbor, but is there need to also request city for additional patrols? There is also some mention about rules/tolerance for shelter-seeking members - alcohol, drugs, violence, intimidation, retaliation, etc., Did we get a copy of that rule sheet? How should we communicate any emergencies or complaints, including any kind of intolerant behavior that violates the shelter rules? Call police every time, or another channel? Who is our direct point of contact for this initiative in the ECC for the neighborhood? What kind of regular/ongoing communication do we need from them, and who do they communicate to? It's been a bad experience for us that we've had to hear about this from somebody else in the neighborhood rather than directly. Is there some agreed upon meetings between church/shelter/neighborhood on a regular basis to discuss any issues/concerns? Who is driving that? Who are on the invitees list? Are the folks on this email the only ones concerned about this issue, or are there others? Is there a single distribution list/group that we have for these conversations? My understanding is that there are several supporters for the homeless initiative, but to re-iterate what I've mentioned above, I'm guessing those folks are mostly from the church community, who don't really live in the neighborhood, and I'm wondering if those families can take in the homeless folks, and support them in the realm of their own home and their neighborhood. Finally, could you ensure that you can communicate the recent developments to the neighborhood as a community, rather than just a few individuals, so that we're inclusive on the decisions being made about how we're progressing, considering that all the folks that I've spoken with in the neighborhood have denied any kind of support for this initiative, and also most of them have expressed a concern that the ECC has not communicated their recent developments about this initiative in time. We appreciate your clear/open communication with all the folks of the neighborhood. Thanks, Suntosh Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Attachment 2.l ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Linda Nguyen To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Bel red development Date: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:01:02 PM Hi Sarah Please add my husband and myself (Mark Marron and Linda Nguyen) to the party of record for this development. my address 2113 182nd Ave NE, Redmond WA 98052. A facility of this nature is not in line with the neighborhood's single family home and zoning. This is a wonderful idea; however its location in a single family area with minimal bus access will not benefit the shelter or the city to help women and children in need. It would be considered high density in an area that is clearly not high density. It will be more helpful for the shelter to be located near the new Overlake Town Center or Redmond town center where there is easier access to transportation and services. It's great to have these support system but they have to make sense in the overall development of the city. Thanks, Linda Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.m ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2.n ---PAGE BREAK--- SUPPLEMENTAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS OPPOSING APPLICATION FOR MODIFIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOMELESS SHELTER IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Re: Redmond File No. LAND-2016-01036 Neighborhood Project Opponents Margaret Leiberton & Ramarathnam Venkatesan, 17208 NE 22nd Court, Redmond Neighborhood opponents submit these additional comments to respond to the applicant’s application recently modified to “Conditional Use – Change of Use.” Reasons for Opposition to Issuance and/or Modification of Conditional Use Permit 6. The Hearing Examiner Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Modify the 1968 CUP. Sherwood Forest Baptist Church filed Conditional Use Petition No. 10 on October 22, 1968. See Redmond Resolution No. 207. In it, that church requested permission to use a single 3.41-acre parcel “for a church complex.” The City of Redmond subsequently issued the Conditional Use Permit (“the CUP”). In Section 3 of Resolution 207, the Council provided that it “may revoke or modify the conditional use herein granted The City did not subsequently delegate its authority to modify the CUP to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner, therefore, does not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s modified request to modify the 1968 CUP. 7. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because It Terminated by Abandonment. The CUP expired long ago. Section 41.3.1 of City Ordinance 310, passed in 1963, provided as follows: Abandonment of Use. When a conditional use of property is abandoned for a continuous period of one year, all permits or rights granted on the basis of such conditional use permission shall be void. Attachment 2.o ---PAGE BREAK--- The owners of the 0.50-acre subject property located at 2321 173rd Avenue NE (Tax Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]) abandoned the conditional use permit long ago. This property has never been used as a church complex. Section 2.2 of Resolution 207 referred to the house on the subject property already in 1968. That house has been used solely as a residence since that time. The evidence that the subject property was never used for a church complex is overwhelming. Since its construction in 1941, the structure thereon has always been used as a single-family residence. A letter from then applicant Redmond Christian School dated June 26, 1985 described the usage at that time as follows: “2321 173rd N.E. is used as a single family dwelling.” The City issued a Building Permit on April 29, 1976 for the construction of a garage at 2321 173rd Avenue NE. A City Technical Committee Report dated July 17, 1985 identified the structure on the 2321 property as a “single-family residence” and made absolutely no mention of an existing CUP. With respect to an application from Redmond Christian School for a Special Development Permit (“the First SDP”), the City Hearing Examiner in a Memorandum dated August 7, 1985 indicated (on page 3, point 4) that the applicant also sought “to use a single-family residence, located on the property, as an additional classroom or office space.” He indicated (on page 10) that the request was to locate a school on both 2315 and 2321 173rd Avenue NE. More recently, the City’s Building Permit issued April 2, 2007 for 2321 173rd Avenue NE described the work and use authorized as follows: ADDITION OF A 1,507 SF HEATED SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO EVANGELICAL CHINESE CHURCH ACTIVITIES WILL BE CONDUCTED IN RESIDENCE. RESIDENCE TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PASTOR AND OCCASIONAL GUEST. (Emphasis added.) This mirrored the limiting language contained in the applicant’s Residential Permit Application dated January 11, 2007. Because the subject property was never used for a church complex, the owners thereof abandoned the CUP when they segregated it from the 2.91-acre property located at 2315 173rd Avenue NE (Tax Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]). At the very latest, this segregation occurred by 1985 when the City Technical Committee Report dated July 17, 1985 indicated that the parcel size was “2.91 and .50 = 3.41 acres” and had the addresses of “2315 and 2321 173rd Avenue NE.” Attached to that Report, moreover, were separate legal descriptions for 2315 173rd Avenue NE and 2321 173rd Avenue NE. The applicant’s reliance upon the CUP, therefore, is misplaced. He is not entitled to bootstrap in a CUP that expired long ago as to the subject property. Attachment 2.o ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because It Only Authorized the Operation of a Church. When Sherwood Forest Baptist Church filed its Conditional Use Petition No. 10 on October 22, 1968, it never requested that the 3.41-acre parcel be used as a homeless shelter. The use requested was “CHURCH BUILDING.” It requested therein permission to maintain a “[c]hurch facility to house the Sherwood Forest Baptist Church of Redmond, Washington.” The City issued a Notice of Public Hearing dated November 6, 1968 on Conditional Use Petition No. 10. It notified the public that that applicant’s request was “[p]ermission to construct a church building.” The CUP only authorized the use of the property “for a church complex.” A letter dated November 25, 1968 to Sherwood Forest Baptist Church enclosing a copy of Resolution 207 stated that the CUP was “for a church building complex.” 9. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the 1985 SPD Superseded It. The City issued the First SDP for the subject property via a Final Approval Order that Mayor Doreen Marchione signed on September 3, 1985. The City issued a second SDP for the subject property via a Final Approval Order that Mayor Doreen Marchione signed on April 15, 1986. Because a property cannot simultaneously have a CUP and an SDP, the SDPs superseded the CUP even if it had remained in existence at that time. The applicant’s reliance on the superseded CUP, therefore, is misplaced. 10. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the Subject Property Has Never Before Been Used as a Homeless Shelter. The July 17, 1985 Technical Committee Report indicates that the 2321 property was never before intended to be used as a homeless shelter. Under “BACKGROUND” on page 1 thereof, it stated the following (emphasis added): “[T]he applicant is requesting approval to use a single-family residence which it owns next door to the school for additional classroom or office space, if needed in the future. When it was discovered that part of the driveway for the abutting single-family house to the north was actually on the school’s property, the school decided to buy the property for its own use. There are no plans to change the structure, only to change its use. It will continue to be used as a residence but they would like to have the option to use it for offices or classrooms.” The description under “INTRODUCTION” on page 2 thereof was consistent therewith. Attachment 2.o ---PAGE BREAK--- 11. The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the 3.41-Acre Tract Was Subsequently Divided Into Two Parcels and the CUP Remained, If At All, with the 2.91-Acre Church Parcel, Not the Segregated 0.50-Acre House Parcel. The 2321 property has always been used as a single-family residence. It has never legally been used for any other purpose, whether as a homeless shelter, church or otherwise. The 1968 CUP only authorized a church to be maintained on the then 3.41-acre parcel. Because the church building was and remains located and operated on what was subsequently segregated into the southern 2.91-acre parcel and the house was and remains located and used for residential purposes on what was subsequently segregated into the northern 0.50-acre parcel, any CUP which remains after all these years went with the southern parcel, not the subject 2321 property. Attachment 2.o ---PAGE BREAK--- LAND -2016-01036 – COMMENT SUBMISSION NO. 3 by M. Leiberton, 17208 NE 22nd Ct., Redmond The Redmond Zoning Code declares one of its purposes: “Maintain stability of land uses and protect the character of the community by encouraging groupings of uses that have compatible characteristics” (RZC, 21.040.010.A.b.). Since a basic principle of zoning is to order and designate specific and similar land uses within specific zones, permitting a homeless shelter within a single-family residential zone will destabilize land uses. A homeless shelter is incompatible and inappropriate in this zone. Both perceived and actual security, order, and reason for single-family residential zones are undermined by a multi- family, single-parent, high-density shelter occupied by individuals with higher than average rates of social deviancy http://home.uchicago.edu/~kczerniak/Econo mics%20of%20Homelessness.pdf; http://eric.ed .gov/?id=ED269713; guide.pdf;). The proposed land use puts safe residential neighborhoods and communities with high social cohesion at risk. It does not comply with Redmond’s Zoning Code. (Leiberton & Venkatesan Comment, June 2017). Disregard for code and rule is disregard for our democratic constitutional system of government. It is the duty of City government to regulate its own power and liberty. It is the responsibility of the City to promulgate and to enforce its own rules and codes so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare of all its residents. City residents expect its governing principles to be honored and not ignored (http://sdapa.org/download/Principles.pdf). Indeed, proposed shelter residents may not ‘be homeless’ within the City but may be so elsewhere. (See H) Who is Served?) This narrative describes the locale and character of the neighborhood. Characteristics of the homeless, adversities, and facts relative to this Application are interspersed. Decision Criteria and Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 are rarely cited, but they are implicitly addressed, as the reader will discover. LOCALE: A) Zones, Buffers, and Parks in Near Proximity: The subject property lies within Redmond’s Idylwood neighborhood and within the R-3 Single-Family Constrained Residential zone. The R-3 zone continues in all directions south, west, and east from the subject property to Lake Sammamish and to City limits. The immediate northern border of the subject property is minor arterial NE 24th St. Farther north across NE 24th St., is also zoned R-5 or R-6, Urban, Single-Family Residential. Immediately west, sharing a property line with the subject property, a nuclear family—with four dependent children—occupies a dwelling of a single-family residence. A long and grand rope-and-wood swing hangs upon a large branch of a gloriously old tree, 60 feet tall or more, about halfway between the two single-family dwellings—one the subject property and the other the family with four children. Both dwellings lie within the R-3 Single-Family Constrained Residential zone. There is no transition or buffer zone of different land use dividing the properties. There is grass, two trees, one swing. In 1985, by SDP-85-2, Redmond granted to Bellevue single-family resident property owners a 75-foot buffer of natural vegetation (to be supplemented by landscaping to achieve full leaf coverage) between the Creekside parking lot (in Redmond) and Bellevue property lines (SDP-85-2 Recommendation, I. General Requirements C.1 and C.2). In the current Action, Redmond property owners whose property lines border the proposed shelter and its parking areas deserve at least the same. The applicant offers instead a “privacy fence.” Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- Also north, directly across NE 24th and less than a block west of the subject property, is Bellevue’s Ardmore Trail and Park. The trail is enveloped by dense woods and is described by Bellevue as a “forest primeval.” It extends from NE 24th to NE 28th where it transitions to a playground then terminates at NE 30th. The park extends west about three blocks from 172nd Ave. In some places, the contour of the land off the trail appears steep, damp, rocky, and unstable. trails/nature-trails/ardmore-trails/) According to Redmond’s Plan, parks: “Provide opportunities to improve health by encouraging use of parks….” which “…contribute to a high quality of life….” 10-3 and p. 154). Contrary to these visions, the proximity of the subject property to a ‘forest primeval’ presents a ‘perfect storm’ of risk to neighborhood security. These grounds, belonging to Bellevue, provide secrecy and sanctuary together with opportunity for two police jurisdictions to be confused about their boundaries of responsibility and authority. (FN1) Health and quality of life are not enhanced if residents fear to enter a park or trail. Assembling 20+ homeless women – whose homelessness may stem from domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault—in a shelter directly across the street from ‘forest primeval’ seems to invite trouble. (See “The Experience of Violence in the Lives of Homeless Women: A Research Report” at Indeed, one Redmond City Council member confirms that the “[H]omeless prefer to be out of sight. Every time I have surveyed the park/green across NE 24th from [the subject shelter property] I have found single men camped.” [Emphasis added.] (E-mail communication, May 2017). Increasing services and shelter at one location increases the number of persons seeking those (http://home.uchicago.edu/~kczerniak/Economics%20of%20Homelessness.pdf). B) Historic, Apparent Permitted Uses of Parcels in Proximity: In the estimated half-mile radius of the proposed shelter, within the R-3 zone, there are only four structures with apparent conditionally permitted land use other than single-family residences: 1) Brae Burn and Tam O’Shanter golf courses (neither in near proximity); 2) Creekside Covenant Church; and 3) a building of classrooms/offices owned by Creekside. The Creekside structures comprise the near south border of the subject property. Throughout the past 20 years in which I have resided in the neighborhood, I have observed the building currently owned by Creekside which lies between the proposed shelter and the church (2315 173rd Ave. NE, King County Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]) to be used only as classrooms and/or offices (in addition to its use as the Day Center—for the homeless—for a few short months in 2016). The Creekside Covenant Church (again 2315 173rd Ave. NE, King County Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]) has been observed to contain offices and a sanctuary or worship space. Sunday morning and evening groups congregate there. Finally, throughout the past 20 years, I have never observed the subject property (2321 173rd Ave. NE, King County Parcel [PHONE REDACTED]) to function in any capacity other than a single-family residence. For the past several years, the dwelling on the subject property has appeared to be vacant. Over the most recent few months, people have occasionally been seen to carry boxes in or out of the house. Others have been seen outdoors, touring or inspecting the grounds. (http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/) FN1: Time constrains additional narrative, but three personal experiences have led to the conclusion that a shelter will adversely impact safety in this specific location. Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- C) Shelter Principals and Partners – Beyond the Neighborhood: Applicant document (“Neighborhood Meeting May 2017) represents that a number of organizations or institutions will own, operate, and/or partner in the proposed shelter. Except for Creekside, no partner resides, worships, or works in the near neighborhood. Indeed, the pastor of Creekside commutes from Tacoma (Personal communication, 2016). Westminster Chapel (WC) is in Bellevue, and the main Mission and offices of Seattle Union Gospel Mission (SUGM) are in Seattle (FN2). Representative owner of the subject property, elder of the Evangelical Chinese Church, Elton Lee, reports his residence as Mercer Island (Personal communication, May 2017). The Chinese Evangelical Church worship space is in two locations. One is in Seattle. The second is in a warehouse-style building in the southeastern section of Redmond, a Manufacturing Park zone. D) Adverse Impacts: Parking/Traffic/Public Transportation and Location of Shelter Near Buffers, Different Jurisdictions, and Parks: 1. Parking: Anecdotal observation suggests that Creekside Church draws few if any congregants from neighborhoods within walking distance since few to none have ever been seen to walk to Sunday service. A typical Sunday morning reveals some 25-35 vehicles filling about a third to a half of the gravel parking lot adjacent to the church. Another 5-9 cars are seen parked on the lot of the subject shelter property. Approximately 12-17 other cars are parked parallel to the street which fronts the church. This street, 173rd Ave. NE, is a local public road from which one must access the neighborhood culs-de-sac and other residential streets. While entering or exiting cars parked parallel to the street, Creekside congregants together with their open car doors inside the road lines do obstruct or interfere with moving vehicles on the street. This on-street parking area presents hazards to persons entering or exiting their cars, to parked cars, and to drivers in moving cars on the street. On-street parking of Creekside congregants is not limited to Sunday mornings. Throughout the week are meetings or gatherings in the early evening, with the highest number of cars observed on Thursdays, sometimes on a Tuesday or Wednesday. Occasional large-scale family events—Easter Egg Hunt, Carnival, etc.—are scattered throughout the year, typically on the weekend. More frequent but smaller gatherings of youth Young Life) tend to occur on weekday evenings, with street-side parking always preferred. This past summer an almost daily occurrence has been a small group of grounds or building maintenance crews, in 2-5 vehicles, usually parking in the lot but sometimes on the street. Also this past summer a white Toyota sedan has been parked either on the street or in variable spots on both Creekside and the ECC lot for extended periods and at every hour of day and night. For at least the last two years, the lot has been permanent home to a trailer and a van, both repositioned a few but not many times. FN2: The website of the subject shelter (http://www.ugm.org/site/PageServer?pagename=BelRed), declares the mission of Seattle Union Gospel Mission: “We provide emergency care and long-term recovery services to hurting and homeless people in Seattle.” [Emphasis added.] The same site describes WC: “Westminster Chapel has consistently responded to the challenges of Bellevue's growth as a dynamic urban center of the Pacific Northwest.” [Emphasis added.] This is not to suggest that the homeless or those who serve them are confined to one city; it does suggest that two partners in the subject proposal have a mission focus in cities other than Redmond. See also: H) Who is Served? Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- Observation proves an overwhelming preference for street parking. The street is most proximal to the proposed shelter. It is paved. Gravel in sandals is not comfortable. A moderate rain creates puddles. After splashing one’s Sunday shoes, a good wipe, a polish, and perhaps new shoes may be needed. In addition, the Creekside lot has a single 1-1.5-car-width in-/egress point, so this too may factor against lot use. The subject principals have communicated their intent to use the Creekside lot for shelter occupants, volunteers, staff, partners, and visitors. As of this date, with the shelter occupancy set at 40 persons, it would not seem unreasonable to expect 20+ more cars needing a place to park. The Application document TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ASSUMPTIONS notes: “Additional onstreet [sic] parking is available on 173rd Avenue NE….” Yes, parking on the street is available and is preferred. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ASSUMPTIONS also states: “Creekside Covenant Church has given FRC permission to use their parking lot on an as needed basis.” What if Creekside withdraws from the partnership, retracts its offer, or sells its property? What are the expected consequences? None are mentioned. 2. Buffers, Jurisdiction, and Safety: Even if Creekside never rescinds use of its lot, opening it to parking by who knows whom and presumably for many hours of day and night (There currently exists a ‘No Trespassing’ sign and a padlocked metal rope barrier.) presents probable adverse effects for (eight) neighbors whose properties adjoin the lot (as well as for the many other residents who live east, across 173rd or north of the shelter on 24th where there is Bellevue’s Ardmore Trail). Extending east from the far western border of the Creekside lot is a 75-foot buffer of natural vegetation. Most if not all residents enjoy and are grateful for this nature-packed greenbelt (except when its neglect has led to growth of large tree branches over a neighbor’s roof, annual blackberry bramble invasion over fences onto neighboring lawns , and suckers from tree roots breaking the surface and sidewalk of one neighbor’s lawn). The green buffer is currently not a security concern, but as shelter and services for the homeless increase, the number of persons who migrate to access them will increase. (One study suggests 40%. http://home.uchicago.edu/~kczerniak/Economics%20of%20Homelessness.pdf). This wonderful buffer does not provide visibility for residents. It will, however, provide sanctuary for shelter occupants, other seekers, and stalkers. Shelter occupants or their dependent teenage sons may not meet shelter curfews. Where will they spend the night, particularly if there is no bus to catch or no car in which to sleep? We expect them to seek sanctuary within deep leafy hiding spots. Although local residents may not see aberrant behavior, it will be heard, and a deep buffer won’t allow residents or police much visual within it. The buffer abuts Bellevue resident property owners. When they phone 911, Bellevue police will respond. Will Bellevue police enter a jurisdiction other than their own?? (See FN1 for police response confusion because of the proximal Redmond/Bellevue border.) Although SDP-85-2 required a 75-foot buffer on Creekside’s western border, it required none on its southern border. At the time of SDP-85-2, the southern border consisted of natural vegetation adjoining an undeveloped plat which also consisted of natural vegetation. Ten years later, when the plat was subdivided and developed for three single-family residences, a 10-40 foot buffer remained between the resident properties and the Creekside lot, but the buffer was thinned, cleared, lessened or removed this past summer, perhaps anticipating the need for additional parking spots. As a result of the clearing, the buffer on the southern border of the lot is now less for two residents, and mostly gone for another. Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- Between my living room window and the property line I share with Creekside, a mere 15 feet of open space remains. (See FN1 for the experience of a car-camper on the parking lot—then owned by ECC— 25 feet from my living room window.) So a deep leafy buffer offers opportunity for adverse effects. Yet the residents love the buffer and would not want it gone. It is indeed an amenity in the neighborhood. It absorbs sound and cleans the air. Its leaves rustle in the breeze. It offers rare glimpses of wildlife (two deer this summer, bullfrog mating croaks each spring, a wonderful variety of songbirds, butterflies and bees, even the rare owl or hawk sighting.) It is peaceful, now. 3. Additional Adversities to Security: The ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ notes that male dependents up to and including 18 years of age will be allowed shelter if enrolled in school. This, with no plan to ferret out knowledge of sexual offenders in this juvenile group, despite the fact that King County reports that sixteen percent (16%) of sexual assaults are committed by minors (http://www.kcsarc.org/sites/default/files/CourtWatch- Report%20April%202011.pdf; http://www.kcsarc.org/courtwatchreports). ‘Questions’ states that no visitors will be allowed on shelter premises or property. Where will these young men meet their friends and peers? “Visitors aren’t allowed in the building….” On the other hand, “…guests must pass a criminal background check before entering the facility.” How does define a “guest”? How does a “guest” differ from a “visitor?” The ‘Questions’ continues: Men will not be allowed to loiter or camp on shelter property. Even if related to shelter occupants, even if biological or custodial parents of children occupying the shelter, even if a close family member, no men will be allowed on shelter property. Where, then, will these men meet their spouse or sister or nephew? Where will children meet their father? Will fathers be allowed to camp or loiter on local public sidewalks or in Creekside’s parking lot? ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ claims that car camping will not be allowed, but who will stop them? If the men have keys and/or ownership, will they be denied access to their own or a vehicle of their female relative if it happens to be parked in Creekside’s lot or on the local public street? Will these men be forbidden from secreting themselves within Creekside’s buffers or within the woods of the Ardmore Trail? The document claims that “Drug and alcohol abuse is not tolerated inside…” the shelter. And, “The Center must be, and have the reputation of being, a safe place.” All fine. All good. All safe. But where, then, will drinking of alcohol or smoking of cigarettes and marijuana occur? Where, then, will teenage occupants congregate? Where, then, will women occupants meet their partners, lovers, spouses? Where will shelter occupants seek privacy? In public? Where else? All the neighbors whose properties adjoin the buffer of the parking lot, the trail or park, the sidewalk, will be told by the police that the parking lot, the buffer, the park, the sidewalk is not their property, so what happens there is not their concern (unless it is blatantly and violently, dangerously illegal). Neighbors will be powerless to influence anything other than their security alarms, double- deadbolts, windows terminally closed and locked, and draperies perpetually drawn. Protection/Atlas/p/book/9781439880210). Fear may lead to installation of outdoor cameras, screaming alarms, security fencing, and motion-detecting lights. Many police calls may be made; many may be Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- ignored. Lack of response may be attributed to “Bellevue.” Or there may be increased police patrols, when residents may become inured to their presence as potential danger signs. Social disorganization sets in. Neighborhood cohesion breaks down. Residents move on by moving out. Instability of a neighborhood has occurred. 4. Traffic: Applicant statements regarding traffic, from their TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ASSUMPTIONS are inaccurate, incomplete, or unclear. The ‘bottom line’ of the document shows: “TOTALS 0 DEP 0 ARR 2 DEP How do two arrivals and four plus zero departures equal zero? The numbers do not add up. Volunteers (2-3 persons/shift and 3 shifts/day) are assumed to generate zero trips with zero parking needs since the volunteers will “typically [be] from the local area.” The lack of locality of principal and operating partners has been noted (See above c) Shelter Principals and Partners – Beyond the Neighborhood). Noted also was the number of Creekside congregants observed to walk to service—few to none—. The assumption that volunteers will generate no traffic or need for parking is flawed. Also, trip generation assumptions, based solely on three SUGM sites in Renton, Kent, and Seattle do not apply to Redmond. Are there any apparent differences? What are the similarities besides being shelters? The applicant claims, “Adjustments to the historic data are made to allow for differences in client capacity, services provided, and the availability of public transit.” What are those differences and adjustments? None are mentioned. 5. Public Transit: The applicant addresses public transit, reporting in detail on the Metro Transit system which is accessed by two bus stops within 200 feet of the proposed shelter. The applicant fails to mention that said two stops are served by ONLY ONE ROUTE—249. The next closest bus stop for a different route is eleven blocks away. Further, the weekend frequency of Rt. 249 is barely more than once/hour (15 buses once in each West and Eastbound directions) between 7:30 AM and 6:30 PM. The first and last stops for the weekday frequency of 18 buses/24-hour period occur at 6:30 AM and 7:30 PM. E) Street Styles in Near Proximity: The neighborhood in near proximity to the subject property consists only of single-family residences on cul-de-sacs or other streets of limited access. Such styles correlate with increased safety due to: 1) natural surveillance and sense of ownership; 2) reduced noise and pollution due to decreased traffic; 3)networks of communal intimacy, sociability, and spontaneous outdoor activity by children; and 4) lowered rates of actual as well as perceived incidence of crime. Parents value the increased privacy and tranquility of this type of neighborhood as they seek a safe and secure community in which to raise children. A premium is often paid for a house on such an enclosed style of street. Also, until very recently, Redmond was seen as a suburb where residents could escape city problems in a search for security, control of one’s physical setting, and “the pleasure of a garden in nature.” ( http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2006/jun/culdesac/book.pdf; rg/wiki/Cul-de-sac) F) More Adverse Impacts to Neighborhood Stability: Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 describes (www.codepublishing.com/WA/Redmond/CompPlan/PDF/index.html, Section 13-49) the Idylwood neighborhood: “A strong sense of community helps create a neighborhood where residents invest in the place they live. Idylwood’s sense of community stems from the value residents place on having a neighborhood that is well maintained and friendly, with…places to walk. Amenities…help to build a sense of pride.” The local neighborhood is indeed well maintained and friendly, with places to walk and nature to contemplate. Respectfully I submit the doubt that many local residents will view a homeless shelter in the neighborhood as an amenity. Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- If strangers or loiterers become sidewalk fixtures prone to displays of antisocial behavior—littering, begging, other forms of solicitation, public intoxication, prowling, fighting, public urination/defecation, using or possessing drugs, trespassing, theft, vandalism, loud disorderly conduct, use of offensive, vulgar, or lewd language—these and other threats or nuisances will lead to resentment, unease, and disgust among single-family resident homeowners. The continual presence of a police cruiser may reassure some, but others will respond with stress. The sad fact is that the behaviors listed above are common among the population of those considered homeless. http://www.stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~berkr/cops%20copy.pdf). The effect of such stress is social disorganization. Even discounting the above, the short-term transience of a shelter occupant cannot, by that very nature, lead to investment in an established residential community. The disparate interests of the short-term, juxtaposed with those of established resident groups, are glaring and vast. The innate human dignity of all persons is declared and honored. However, the stigma attaching to persons experiencing homelessness is not unjustified. The single-parent make-up of the family of homeless women and children (sans male spouse, sans father, sans provider, sans protector), the greater incidence of domestic violence, the greater incidence of drug and/or alcohol abuse, the greater incidence of mental illness, the greater incidence of chronic medical illness, the searing poverty, the increased likelihood of aberrant and criminal behavior—stand in stark contrast to the characteristics and life experiences of current neighborhood residents It is also worth noting that the rates of chronic medical, often contagious diseases (TB, hepatitis, HIV, AIDS) are higher in the population of persons with homelessness. (“Chronic Medical Illness and the Homeless,” The “Questions” state the extent of their screening: Phone call, background check, and guest agreement signature. In addition to transience, shelter occupants will deal with stressors such as: Social density— number of individuals living in a sleeping area; spatial density—space per person; and unit population—population in total living unit….[which lead to] increased social disorganization…increased stress ….an increase in negative and physiological] reactions….” Congregating some 40 persons in a shelter (described in 2012 by the King County Assessor as containing 4,520 square feet), described in this Application as containing 5,420 SF, described in the most recent 2007 Redmond Building Permit (none are reported after 2007) for an addition of 1,507 square feet to an existing 2,054 square feet to total 3,821 SF (the 3,821 SF total included a 260 SF garage) which—without any apparent permit—was subsequently modified and attached to the dwelling to become something other than a garage averages about 100 SF/occupant (using King County’s 4,520 SQ number which may or may not include the converted garage). G) Characteristics of An Existing Near Neighborhood: On my particular cul-de-sac (R-3 Single-Family Residential-Constrained zone) adjacent to the Creekside Covenant parking lot, there are no renters. All families take communal pride and enjoyment in the care and maintenance of our lawns and homes. Every household contains at least one full-time wage-earner, and about half are two-income families. All households consist of intact nuclear families with children. The neighborhood is well established. One family has lived here for over 30 years, two for 20, one for one, and the rest for 5-15 years. Every household contains at least one person (the average is, actually 2.5) considered vulnerable due to Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- special needs, old or dependent age. There is diversity in culture, race, ethnicity, and religion among the households, and this has increased markedly in the recent past. The majority of households contain at least one first-generation American citizen-immigrant. Yet, with time and effort by most all of us, our neighborhood has come to embody a high degree of social cohesion and collective efficacy. We give keys to our homes to other neighbors. We alert one another when vacationing. We open our homes, our yards, and our hearts to oversee each other’s children and pets. We share garden tools and handyman referrals. We’ve held Fourth of July street fests, conglomerate yard sales, and Christmas, Super Bowl, or poker parties. We’ve outdone one another with tacky displays of holiday lights, once earning honorable mention in some contest which no one confessed to have entered. We know each other’s schedules, habits, and comings and goings, and we look out for one other in an informal community-watch type atmosphere. Social scientists would describe our neighborhood as socially efficacious (confident responsibility in caring for ourselves and others), socially cohesive (trust in one’s social group), and collectively efficacious (working together to create a safe, enjoyable environment). Nor do we limit our care for others to our families, cul-de-sac, or neighborhood. Most will simply say, “I am active in my church and in my community.” Few will tout their expenditure of time, effort, and money on behalf of the larger community or humanity at large, but I shall not hesitate. Like the principals and partners of the shelter, we are members of religious congregations. We are all motivated by the passionate desire to share our faith and charity with the less fortunate. Like the principals and partners of the proposed shelter, we in the neighborhood have sought to serve the homeless by direct financial contributions to Seattle Union Gospel Mission, to Catholic Community Services, and to our churches who choose the charity. Two of us, through church-sponsored service days, have prepared baked goods and served meals at Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (where staff called dibs over clients for my homemade oatmeal-raisin cookies). One has purchased a house with plans to operate an adult family home in Bellevue. Another has worked for Catholic Community Services. One has donated hours and funds to Harrington House, now defunct transitional housing for single women with children in Bellevue. One resident has donated and delivered furniture to Housing at the Crossroads. Two have volunteered every blessed week for 10-20 hours/week, one for four and the other for ten years, at a local nursing home. Another three have served as PTSA board members at our children’s local public elementary school, and one of has volunteered countless hours in countless capacities at the same. For five years, one resident has directed a local ESL program while also teaching it. One resident has taught ‘Sunday School’ for five years. Yet we local residents oppose and are deeply concerned by the prospect of a shelter for the homeless in our neighborhood. The principals and partners will own, volunteer or staff the shelter. Then they will go home. We will remain as neighbors, albeit unwilling, with probable resentment and fear. We do not envision vacation Bible school. Some of us shall uproot and move (three locals have actually done so since learning of the idea of a shelter), effectively becoming emigrants. The neighborhood promises to become one of greater transition, uncertainty, and instability if a shelter should move in, contravening our City’s Zoning Code. H) Who Is Served? Although there is no ambiguity about the dysfunctions which the homeless present with their cardboard signs and bags and shopping carts, there is ambiguity in defining who the homeless are. Indeed, the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, in its Nov. 2016 Annual Homeless Report to Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- Congress, claimed that a full sixty-eight (68%) of the “homeless” resided in transitional housing, emergency shelters, or other safe havens. The other 32 percent were in unsheltered locations. 8, Despite the City claim that the principals of this Application are not required to demonstrate need, each Neighborhood Meeting, each written communication from the operating partners begins with a statement of overwhelming local need. Why, then, has our particular neighborhood (with one exception—FN1) observed no homeless person in this neighborhood until the Day Center opened in 2016? Curiously, this Day Center was reported by the operating partner to close because it had so few clients. Why create a shelter solution to a non-existent neighborhood problem? Perhaps the homeless will be brought here from other areas. Elder Lee, writing on behalf of ECC, with Browning at SUGM, Rowland at SUGM, and Coster of Creekside: “The serves families already living in the area…” (E-mail, June 2016). The partners offer these words: “Will the resource center become a magnet for homeless individuals from other areas?” Answer: “No, and yes. Most of the homeless populations are dependent upon their current location. Generally, they are not willing to leave the services on which they are vitally dependent.” undated). [Emphasis added.] Bellevue’s Westminster Chapel volunteer Ms. Erisman describes her work with “But given that our church is situated in the middle of a diverse neighborhood, we wanted to also look after our own community.” belred-family-resource-center/). Does the definition of Westminster’s “own community” include Redmond? A May 2016 letter from states: “The women and children we serve will be referred from a local school, one of the partner churches, or Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission.” Where the homeless migrate, the need of services to meet their overwhelming social dysfunctions will also be great. Why would a City and some churches want migration of the homeless to a single-family residential area which has no apparent current problem with homelessness and few local resources to help meet their multi-varied needs? What services are available here? A bus line? A park? A greenbelt buffer? Another jurisdiction? On and off-street parking? A stable residential neighborhood? One crowded single-family shelter which will advance social disorganization? Why here, in disregard of our Zoning Code? Attachment 2.p ---PAGE BREAK--- July 11, 2017 Attn: Sarah Pyle City of Redmond – Development Services Center 15670 NE 85 th St, Redmond, WA 98052 Ref: LAND-2016- 01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter– Neighborhood Feedback We have been homeowners on NE 22 nd Ct in Redmond for the past 5 years. We are parents of a 3-year- old boy and we love being here in Redmond and always look for ways to continually improve our community and support our neighbors. This letter contains feedback on the Proposed “LAND-2016- 01036: ECC Women and Children Shelter.” This proposed center has been in discussion for the past couple of years but has failed to address the concerns of the neighborhood and homeowners in the immediate vicinity. The information provided by the applicants about developments for the center has been spotty and communication with the neighborhood has been limited at best. The shelter at this location is not appropriate and should be denied for the following reasons: 1. THE APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL ZONE SUMMARY IN THE REDMOND ZONING CODE PROHIBITS THE PROPOSED USE. The Zoning Code expressly prohibits land uses not listed in the category of authorized uses under its individual zone use charts: “Permitted Uses in Zone Use Charts. Each zone use chart in RZC 21.08.020 through RZC 21.08.140 lists categories of land uses that may be permitted and any kind of conditional review process which may be required. Land uses not listed are prohibited unless otherwise provided by this chapter or some other provision of the Zoning Code.” RZC 21.08.160.A (underlining added). Because the subject property is zoned R-3, the individual zone summary set forth in RZC 21.08.050 applies. Under the heading of “R-3 Single-Family Constrained Residential,” that Code section provides this “zone provides for low-density residential at a base density of three dwellings per acre on lands inappropriate for more intense urban development due to significant environmentally critical areas, extreme cost, or difficulty in extending public facilities or the presence of natural features Redmond is seeking to retain.” RZC 21.08.050.A. The uses allowed in R-3 zoned property are set forth in RZC 21.08.050.D. Because the category of “social assistance, welfare and charitable services” is not listed anywhere under section D, the Redmond Zoning Code prohibits the use of the subject property as a homeless shelter. 2. THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT AS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. While the principal of the applicant may be a religious institution, he does not propose to use the subject property as a religious institution. Pursuant to the Code, such uses consist of “[c]hurches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, and similar institutions operated by religious organizations.” RZC 21.78.R Definitions. Attachment 2.q ---PAGE BREAK--- Rather, the applicant seeks to use the property as a 25-person homeless shelter. Such use falls in the category of social assistance, welfare and charitable services. The Code definition of this category is the following: “Social Assistance, Welfare and Charitable Services. The provision of social assistance services, including shelters, directly to individuals in need.” RZC 21.78.S Definitions. The proposed homeless shelter, therefore, does not qualify as use as a religious institution. That use is not what applicant has proposed. 3. THE COMPREHENSIVE ALLOWED USES CHART IN THE REDMOND ZONING CODE PROHIBITS THE PROPOSED USE. The Zoning Code, in its Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart, does not authorize the use of the subject property as a shelter. “This chart is meant to serve as a compilation of permitted uses within each of the individual zone summaries RZC 21.04.030.A. The Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart for residential zones is specifically set forth in RZC 21.04.030.B. Permitted uses for R-3 zoned properties are designated in the column under R3 with a whereas conditional uses are designated there with a A category for uses involving social assistance, welfare and charitable services exists in the Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart under the subheading of “Education, Public Administration, Health Care and other Institutions.” But the corresponding R3 column is blank, i.e., it contains neither a nor a Because shelters fall within this category but the column is blank, this Chart obviously prohibits the use proposed. Note that, attesting to the extreme nature of the permit sought via the application, shelters are not authorized in any properties in Redmond that are zoned residential. Looking across horizontally on the Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart after the subcategory for social assistance, welfare and charitable services, all of the columns are blank. Shelters for humans, therefore, are not authorized in any residential zones in Redmond. This applies to uses that are both less intense and more intense than R-3 permits. Allowing a shelter in the R-3 zone here would clearly be a direct violation of the City’s Zoning Code. 4. THE PROPOSED USE CONTRAVENES THE VERY PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING ZONES. The proposal seeks authorization of a use that circumvents the very purposes of the Zoning Code. RZC 21.04.010 provides as follows: The purpose of establishing zones is to: a. Provide a pattern of land use that is consistent with and fulfills the vision of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan; b. Maintain stability of land uses and protect the character of the community by encouraging groupings of uses that have compatible characteristics; c. Provide for appropriate, economic, and efficient use of land within the city limits; and d. Provide for coordinates growth and ensure that adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in order to accommodate growth. Attachment 2.q ---PAGE BREAK--- The use of the subject property for a homeless shelter is inconsistent with and contravenes the vision of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan designates the subject property as Single-Family Constrained, not the dense population that the proposal describes. The proposal contravenes the LU-33 Designation Policies thereof. A homeless shelter, moreover, will destabilize the land uses and endanger the character of the community because its characteristics are incompatible with the general area consisting of residential Single-Family homes. At the Neighborhood Meeting in May 2017 at City Hall, I asked the applicant directly if they had considered *any* alternative sites or options instead of using this site for a 25 person, Multi-Family shelter forcing a request for zoning changes. Indeed, several options had been suggested to the applicant at the local neighborhood meeting held the previous year. Unfortunately, he said “No. No alternatives were considered.” This undermines Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan vision and Zoning Code in that the applicant has neither investigated nor considered any other options other than forcing a zoning exception for the project. For the number of years this shelter has been under consideration, the applicant has failed due diligence and good faith attempts to be in line with Redmond’s Zoning Codes. 5. THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY. The property is appropriately zoned Single-Family, not Multi-Family. The Code defines “family” as “[a]n individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage; eight or fewer nonrelated persons living together in a single dwelling unit, unless a grant of reasonable accommodation as identified in RZC 21.76, Review Procedures, allows an additional number of persons.” RZC 21.78.F Definitions. An occupancy of 25 residents far exceeds the eight-person limit that applies to Single-Family residences. And the Review Procedures do not allow such a high occupancy in the Single-Family Constrained Residential zone. 6. THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Specifically, it fails to meet the requirements detailed in Redmond’s zoning code, RZC 21.76.070K4: K4.B The conditional use is designed in a manner which is compatible with and responds to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the subject property and immediate vicinity; K4.D The type of use, hours of operation, and appropriateness of the use in relation to adjacent uses minimize unusual hazards or characteristics of the use that would have adverse impacts; There are two main reasons for the failure to meet these requirements: First, as detailed above, this area in Redmond is zoned as Single-Family residences and the subject property is zoned R-3. There are a number of important quality of life and community environments fostered by setting aside such an area. The applicant intends this center to be a 25-person, Multi-Family residence. The length-of- stay is intended to be short-term, so a continual turnover of resident is expected. This is contrary to the goals of Single-Family residential neighborhoods and fails to meet and be compatible with the existing and intended character and quality of development of the immediate vicinity. The center will have clients with no long-term ties to the community. Indeed, the applicant states that its clients may come from areas outside this immediate vicinity. There will be multiple Attachment 2.q ---PAGE BREAK--- families in a single residence. Clearly, this proposal does not meet the K4.B compatibility restriction of Redmond’s Zoning Code. Secondly, security around the immediate vicinity is questionable, and neighborhood security is not promoted by this application. The center’s intended population is stated to have various unfortunate, negative associated issues including domestic violence, substance abuse and/or mental illness (by the applicants own admission). There are large green belt areas, grade schools, and parks around the proposed center location that can have both center’s clients as well as associates of the clients deciding to have unsupervised (from the center’s intentions to screen and monitor clients) activities. The applicant states that they will screen and monitor clients, but this does not address off-center property and associates from off-center associates who may seek shelter and/or interaction with their children, wives, or friends within the center. The center fails to meet the K4.D zone regulation. It brings risks and adverse impacts to the neighborhood. We acknowledge the intentions of the applicants but the location currently under review is not appropriate by being a direct violation of the Redmond Zoning Code and fails to meet the requirements specified in the Redmond Zoning Code. We urge the City of Redmond Technical Committee and Examiner to reject the proposal and encourage the applicant to site an area that will meet the goals of their effort while aligning with local zoning codes. Sincerely, Luke, Mahsa, and Ryan Olsen 17219 NE 22nd Ct Redmond, WA 98052 Attachment 2.q ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Patricia Carlos To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Re: ECC Woman and Children"s House Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 8:13:17 AM Sarah, Here is my commentary. To whom it may concern: We would like to express our concern about the ECC Woman and Children's House project which is being proposed and would be located in front of our street (NE 24th). In our household, we are 3 people: my husband, my 19-month-old son, and myself. First, we live in a residential area with limited transportation options for those who do not own a car (which I assume would be the case for most inhabitants of the house). There are plenty of other areas that are more walkable and would provide better access to services that these people need. Second, we do not know what type of other third parties their presence will draw to the area. Our area is quiet and crime free. We are concerned that we would be put in danger. Third, this will affect the value of our property which we have worked hard to acquire and to protect. Fourth, we lived in front of a homeless rest stop in downtown Seattle (Between Virginia and 8th Street) for over a year and a half and we avoided walking by during the hours of operation due to increased foot traffic and that we were frequently verbally harassed. We do not want this to be the case near our home as we are raising our son here. We understand the need that these people have. However, for the reasons above, we would like to oppose to the approval of the project. Thanks, Patricia and Gustavo Rubio From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 12:37 AM To: Patricia Carlos Subject: Re: ECC Woman and Children's House Attachment 2.r ---PAGE BREAK--- A hearing has not yet been scheduled. Please feel free though to send your comments still and questions. Sarah Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse brevity and any typos. On Jul 19, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Patricia Carlos <[EMAIL REDACTED]> wrote: Sarah, I wasn't able to provide commentary for the ECC Woman and Children's home project as we were on vacation. From the flowchart in the documentation submitted, it seems there are other opportunities to provide commentary upcoming like the Public Hearing. Do you know when this will happen? Thanks, Paty Carlos Padilla Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Attachment 2.r ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Barry Bonnell To: Kent Hay; All Home Redmond; Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle; Angela Birney; David Carson; Hank Margeson; Hank Myers; Tanika Padhye; Byron Shutz; JOHN STILIN Subject: Dissent - Bel Red Family Resource Center Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:43:53 AM Dear Redmond City Councilmembers and Specialist Hay, Everyone wants to help resolve homeless issues, of course we do. Many of us have done our part for decades. I currently support a family of four in my own home who would be on the streets otherwise, and I do it at my own expense and at minimum impact to my neighbors. Most of my neighbors don’t even know we have a family living with us, and that is a good thing, because those people purchased their homes in this neighborhood in order to be away from the issues that follow homelessness everywhere. We all live away from the big city and its troubles, that’s why we purchased here, and that’s why we don’t care to invite the homeless to be housed in our neighborhood in the fashion that the Bel Red Family Resource Center (hereafter chooses to do. I wish to inform the council of my own experience with homelessness in order to mitigate the usual cries of “insensitivity” and even “hate” that are levied against those who would dissent regarding a homeless warehouse. There is a congregation less than a mile from the that cares for needy families and individuals of all kinds through a membership home foster program that places no burden at all on the neighboring community. They do this without fanfare and without help from the state or any other public vehicle. As a member of the congregation mentioned above, in my own home, I have in cared for two separate families of four, in the first instance for a period of three months, 30 years ago. As mentioned, I am currently caring for a family of four for an indefinite period, and have already surpassed a year. In the past, my family has taken care of a woman from Japan for six weeks who spoke only a few words of English. We also supported a man who was recovering from prescription drug abuse. He was here for three months and left clean and sober, and is still clean and sober, for more than 20 years to date. My wife and I concurrently raised five of our own children and they were taught the meaning of compassionate service through our own example. We helped when it was needed, with our own resources, demanding nothing of the neighborhood, or anybody else. Sharing my story is to demonstrate that the truly concerned, civic-minded person can, and should be willing to accept the burden of the needy without foisting part of the burden on neighbors who do not wish to participate. And the very fact that intends to warehouse the needy will place some burden on the neighborhood. Perhaps much more than we can foresee. The perception of a crisis is being used as the impetus for this action, and my opinion is that homelessness increases somewhat proportionally to the ease of access to services. Perhaps the crisis in Seattle and the surrounding areas is being nurtured by a willingness to accommodate it? I think that is the wrong way to go about ending homelessness. Continued nurturing and ease of Attachment 2.s ---PAGE BREAK--- access has caused an influx of homelessness, and now the pressing need is being pushed into my neighborhood against my wishes. feels the need to do something, and that is laudable, but it is not a good thing to push their desire to help on the entire community. If they want to help, let them do as their compatriots do, and foster the needy in their own homes. Perhaps they will say something like, “I couldn’t accept a needy person into my own home! I don’t know these people, I don’t know what they might do to my home and my family!” (Which is exactly what the people who live right across the street are concerned about.) And my response is, why not take them into your own home? What are you afraid of, and how truly committed are you to helping the needy? It’s a different thing to consider using one’s own home. It’s much easier to warehouse the needy where you go to church, blocks or even miles from where you live. Since I am on their email list, I am also aware that the associated congregation is engaged in an organized and directed shill letter writing campaign to support their cause, and that the concerns of at least one of your neighbors has been deemed “irrelevant” by a city councilmember in the not too distant past. I find that to be the height of arrogance and insulting in the extreme. The concerns of any neighbors should be paramount in relevance. Minimizing and failing to consider is simply a tactic intended to bury dissent. And since there is little or no organized opposition, even one dissent should be given a clear voice in your deliberations. Programs like ‘s tend to create professional needy people. That is my considered opinion and no amount of debate will change it, so excuse me in advance for not responding to pleas and anecdotes in support of the effort. Please allow my dissent to be entered into the record. Thank you for your time and service to our city. Best Regards, Barry Robert Barry Bonnell 2102 179th Ct NE Redmond, WA 98052 [PHONE REDACTED] Attachment 2.s ---PAGE BREAK--- Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.s ---PAGE BREAK--- From: serg chub To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Public comment form on "ECC Woman and Children"s House" proposal Date: Monday, June 26, 2017 10:19:47 PM Hi Sarah, Please let me know if this form of public comment form is suitable to be considered during the review meeting or you need to have a fax or a hard copy sent to you via a regular mail. Sergey PUBLIC COMMENT FORM Project name: ECC Woman and Children House FILE Number: LAND-2016-01036 Name: Sergey Chub phone: [PHONE REDACTED] email: [EMAIL REDACTED] Address: 2224 173rd Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052 I am strongly opposing the proposal as I have a number of concerns related to it. Since the proposed use is for women with children, it means they all used to have boyfriends or husbands who were violent and/or abusive (these were cited as the main reasons for the women to separate and need shelter when the church had a neighborhood meeting about the shelter plans). There is a pretty high chance they would attempt to get their women back, and when refused, would get stressed and angry. This would create very unsafe and loud environment with a lot of drama going on on a regular basis. My son was walking to/from school every day in the early morning and afternoon. Having the busy shelter right on his way to/from school would make me very uncomfortable with all the extra traffic, stressed drivers being less careful and a lot more unfamiliar people all contributing to unsafe environment. Right now it’s a pretty quiet area and its easy to spot unfamiliar faces. With that many more people living and visiting the area it would be a lot easier for the criminals to blend in and commit crimes. Considering many people leave for work for the entire day the crime rate would likely increase significantly. Another concern is that with the shelter being located so close to my primary residence, it would negatively affect the value of my home. Talking to multiple neighbors many of them expressed desire to relocated elsewhere if the shelter gets established. With less people willing to purchase properties in the immediate vicinity of the shelter location the re-sell value of my house would suffer. I am working hard to earn the money to live in this kind of safe and quiet neighborhood with good schools, and don’t quite understand why I have to lose a portion of the equity and relocate elsewhere I would feel safe and comfortable living again. Attachment 2.t ---PAGE BREAK--- When we were purchasing the house we were specifically looking for a single family zoned residential neighborhood with no multi-family properties allowed. This proposal violates the zoning constraints. The neighborhood is relatively sparsely populated and is designed/intended for single families with at least one car to get to the places like parks, playgrounds, shops, cafes, restaurants, libraries, movie theaters, etc. it just doesn’t have enough infrastructure to support the proposed use. There is only a single small park with a playground within a walking distance from the proposed location, and a portion of the path to it doesn’t have a developed side walk. These women aren’t going to spend 24hrs in the property, they'd need places to go to with their kids, inexpensive shops to purchase things for themselves and their children, and there are no libraries, shops or cafes within 30-40 minutes of walking distance from the property and even the public transportation isn’t going to be of help since there is no easy way to get the closest place with the infrastructure that could actually be suitable for the planned use (the crossroads mall area). Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.t ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Steve Salzman To: Sarah Pyle; Ziv Kasperski Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; tddrob; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Tim Alexander Subject: RE: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children"s House Date: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:29:58 AM Hi Sarah, My family and I go on record in agreement with all of the statements of opposition you have received from the neighborhood. Please confirm you are in receipt of this message. Respectfully Steve Salzman 2218 173rd ave n.e. Redmond, Wa. 98052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain Motion Industries, Inc confidential information that is proprietary, privileged, and protected by applicable laws. If you have received this message in error and are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy this e- mail, any attachments or copies therein forthwith. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail in error. From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 11:27 AM To: Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; tddrob <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Steve Salzman <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children's House Thank you for your comment, staff will be reviewing all comments over the next few weeks and drafting responses. From: Ziv Kasperski [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:02 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; tddrob <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Attachment 2.u ---PAGE BREAK--- Subject: RE: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children's House Hi Sarah, Please find attached a letter from me as well. Thanks! Ziv. From: Tim Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:23 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; tddrob <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children's House I missed it but see it now. Thank you! From: Sarah Pyle [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:51 AM To: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children's House Hi Tim, I sent a confirmation at 7:58 AM this morning. The comment letter has been included in the file and will be reviewed and responded to over the next couple weeks. Thank you, Sarah Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse brevity and any typos. On Jul 12, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> wrote: Sarah, Can you confirm that you received my word document containing feedback and Attachment 2.u ---PAGE BREAK--- comments relative to the ECC Women and Children’s House? Thanks, Tim From: Tim Alexander Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:02 PM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children's House Importance: High Sarah, Please confirm that you have received this. Please find the attached comments and opposition from my family and many of my neighbors to the ECC Women and Children’s House proposal. I hope that you particularly consider revoking the current CUP of the property as a church since it has never operated as such in a stand-alone manner and has not been operated in conjunction with the property next door for years since they were split to different owners. Thanks, Tim Alexander Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Attachment 2.u ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sue Andres To: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Sunday, April 30, 2017 11:25:19 PM I started volunteering at Mary's Place in Seattle when it was just a day center for single homeless women. That was 6 or 7 years ago and at that time there were few homeless families in the area. I watched as families started showing up at the shelter. At first there were just a few but now Mary's Place has 6 night time shelters for families and there are over 200 children in those shelters. Three years ago I went to work for Mary's Place and worked there until last fall when I had to quit for medical reasons. During that time I did all of the intakes of families coming into the shelter, took the calls of families looking for shelter and enrolled and set up transportation for the children in K-12. Because there were no shelters on the Eastside, the families had to come to Seattle to find shelter. Their jobs, schools, churches and friends were on the Eastside. Thanks to McKinney-Vento, the children were still able to attend the schools of origin on the Eastside but getting transportation set up when the school is in a different school district than the district that is the child's night time shelter can sometimes take a week or even more if the child has an IEP that includes transportation. When the night time residence and school are in the same school district, transportation is usually set up within a day or two. Under McKinney-Vento, the school districts pay for transportation so that the children can continue to stay in their original school. It is more expensive for the school districts when a child's night time shelter is in a different district than their school. Families need to be able to stay in shelters in the same communities that they've been living in. The Eastside Winter Shelter does provide night time shelter for families on the Eastside but it doesn't provide a place for families to go during the day and doesn't provide assistance in getting out of homelessness. The homelessness crisis in Redmond continues to worsen. Bellevue and Lake Washington School Districts are seeing an increase in homelessness among students, serving 249 and 353 students, respectively. There is an innovative opportunity to provide a path out of homelessness for women with children through the BelRed Family Resource Center, and I’m writing to ask for your support. I support the BelRed Family Resource Center. It will meet the urgent need for a year-round, overnight shelter and day center for homeless women with children on the Eastside. It will provide a safe place for women and children to stay overnight, and access a variety of day time services including meals, showers, laundry, case management, assistance in housing, employment searches, children’s activities, homework support, and life skills classes. The professional staff and trained volunteers will work alongside guests to identify a plan-based program to overcome barriers, set goals, and move forward into more stable housing. It will be privately funded, saving taxpayer funds and combining the resources of several local churches and Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. As a member of the community, I support the BelRed Family Resource Center and I ask for your support today. Attachment 2.v ---PAGE BREAK--- Sincerely, Sue Andres Attachment 2.v ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Suntosh Sreenivasan To: Tim Alexander; Sarah Pyle Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Ziv Kasperski; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children"s House Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:58:51 PM Hey Tim, first of all, thanks much for taking the time/effort to compile the document; appreciate it. BTW, I just wanted to re-iterate that my family and I are still very much in opposition of "the ECC women/children" initiative. Sarah, could you update the document to read "Suntosh Sreenivasan and family", just like everybody else, so that there is no confusion that my family is in any way in a split decision about this, please? Thanks, Suntosh From: Tim Alexander <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:02:19 PM To: Sarah Pyle Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Ziv Kasperski; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: We OPPOSE the ECC Women and Children's House Sarah, Please confirm that you have received this. Please find the attached comments and opposition from my family and many of my neighbors to the ECC Women and Children’s House proposal. I hope that you particularly consider revoking the current CUP of the property as a church since it has never operated as such in a stand-alone manner and has not been operated in conjunction with the property next door for years since they were split to different owners. Thanks, Tim Alexander Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.w ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Thomas To: Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer Cc: "Susan Nowers" Subject: RE: Bel Red Family Resource Center (comment for LAND-2016-01036) Date: Friday, August 18, 2017 10:36:00 PM Hello Redmond City Council Members We submitted feedback to you in July for the Proposed “LAND-2016-01036”. Since then, we received notice that the applicant has revised their application. I want to make sure our previous feedback is applied to this latest revision. In addition, we would like to add the following additional points on the revised application to the original feedback: · The applicant cannot use the 1968 CUP Because it terminated. The existing CUP expired long ago, and the property has never been used as a church complex. The house has been used solely as a residence since 1968. The City’s own Building Permit issued April 2, 2007 for 2321 173rd Avenue NE described the work and use authorized as follows: addition of a 1,507 sf heated space for residential purposes only. No evangelical chinese church activities will be conducted in residence. Residence to provide housing for pastor and occasional guest. · When Sherwood Forest Baptist Church filed its conditional use petition No. 10 on October 22, 1968, it never requested that the 3.41-acre parcel be used as a homeless shelter. The use requested was “CHURCH BUILDING.” The CUP only authorized the use of the property “for a church complex.” · The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the 1985 SPD Superseded It. The City issued the First SDP for the subject property via a Final Approval Order that Mayor Doreen Marchione signed on September 3, 1985. The City issued a second SDP for the subject property via a Final Approval Order that Mayor Doreen Marchione signed on April 15, 1986. Because a property cannot simultaneously have a CUP and an SDP, the SDPs superseded the CUP even if it had remained in existence at that time. · The Applicant Cannot Rely On and Use the 1968 CUP Because the 3.41-Acre tract was subsequently divided Into two parcels and the CUP Remained, if at all, with the 2.91- Acre Church parcel, not the Segregated 0.50-Acre House Parcel. The 2321 property has always been used as a single-family residence. It has never legally been used for any other purpose, whether as a homeless shelter, church or otherwise. Based on this, we are urging you to reject the proposal and encourage the applicant to locate a site that will meet the goals of their effort that aligns with local zoning codes. Please confirm with us that you have received and acknowledged this letter as part of the record for LAND- 2016-01036. Attachment 2.x ---PAGE BREAK--- Sincerely, Thomas and Susan Nowers (with their 2 children, James & Wren) 17223 NE 22nd Ct Redmond, WA 98052 From: Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:03 AM To: 'Sarah Pyle' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; '[EMAIL REDACTED]' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: 'Susan Nowers' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Bel Red Family Resource Center (comment for LAND-2016-01036) Dear Members of the Redmond City Council, The homelessness crisis in our region continues to worsen, and there is a need to provide help and support to those suffering through homelessness in our community. However, we do not support the conditional use application to alter the single family home at 2321 173rd Ave NE in Redmond, WA to serve as a 25 person overnight shelter. Our reasons are: · Being a single family home on a residential street this is an unsuitable facility and bad location to attempt to provide the sorts of services necessary to assist a large number of homeless families. · The proposed use is not for a single-family. The property is currently appropriately zoned single-family, not multi-family. We are concerned about the character of growth in the neighborhood by allowing single family homes to transition into multi- unit apartments. · the Redmond Zoning Code prohibits the proposed use - The Zoning Code does not authorize the property to be used as a shelter. · The proposed use does not meet the requirements for a conditional use permit - it fails to meet the requirements detailed in Redmond’s Zoning Code (RZC 21.76.070K4). · The Evangelical Chinese Church, who we understand is a primary driver of this proposal (and representative face for the involved churches at the public hearing), does not operate any church services in our neighborhood. They did for a short while at this location before selling part of the property to a different church. The Home at this Location is not a church - It does not operate as a church today. As far as we know it has never operated as a church or operated church services. · Church designation aside, the proposed use is not as a religious institution - the applicant seeks to use the property as a 25-person homeless shelter. More details on each of these points below. Since the location is not appropriate, the use directly violates the Redmond Zoning Code, and the applicants fail to meet the requirements specified in the Redmond Zoning Code, we are urging you to reject the proposal and Attachment 2.x ---PAGE BREAK--- encourage the applicant to locate a site that will meet the goals of their effort that aligns with local zoning codes. Please confirm with us that you have received and acknowledged this letter as part of the record for LAND-2016-01036. Sincerely, Thomas and Susan Nowers (with their 2 children, James & Wren) 17223 NE 22nd Ct Redmond, WA 98052 The Applicable Individual Zone Summary in the Redmond Zoning Code Prohibits the Proposed Use. The Zoning Code expressly prohibits land uses not listed in the category of authorized uses under its individual zone use charts: “Permitted Uses in Zone Use Charts. Each zone use chart in RZC 21.08.020 through RZC 21.08.140 lists categories of land uses that may be permitted and any kind of conditional review process which may be required. Land uses not listed are prohibited unless otherwise provided by this chapter or some other provision of the Zoning Code.” RZC 21.08.160.A (underlining added). Because the subject property is zoned R-3, the individual zone summary set forth in RZC 21.08.050 applies. Under the heading of “R-3 Single-Family Constrained Residential,” that Code section provides this “zone provides for low-density residential at a base density of three dwellings per acre on lands inappropriate for more intense urban development due to significant environmentally critical areas, extreme cost, or difficulty in extending public facilities or the presence of natural features Redmond is seeking to retain.” RZC 21.08.050.A. The uses allowed in R-3 zoned property are set forth in RZC 21.08.050.D. Because the category of “social assistance, welfare and charitable services” is not listed anywhere under section D, the Redmond Zoning Code prohibits the use of the subject property as a homeless shelter. The Proposed Use is Not as a Religious Institution. While the principal of the applicant may be a religious institution, he does not propose to use the subject property as a religious institution. Pursuant to the Code, such uses consist of “[c]hurches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, and similar institutions operated by religious organizations.” RZC 21.78.R Definitions. Rather, the applicant seeks to use the property as a 25-person homeless shelter. Such use falls in the category of social assistance, welfare and charitable services. The Code definition of this category is the following: “Social Assistance, Welfare and Charitable Services. The provision of social assistance services, including shelters, directly to individuals in need.” RZC 21.78.S Definitions. The proposed homeless shelter, therefore, does not qualify as use as a religious institution. That use is not what applicant has proposed. Attachment 2.x ---PAGE BREAK--- 3The Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart in the Redmond Zoning Code Prohibits the Proposed Use. The Zoning Code, in its Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart, does not authorize the use of the subject property as a shelter. “This chart is meant to serve as a compilation of permitted uses within each of the individual zone summaries RZC 21.04.030.A. The Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart for residential zones is specifically set forth in RZC 21.04.030.B. Permitted uses for R-3 zoned properties are designated in the column under R3 with a whereas conditional uses are designated there with a A category for uses involving social assistance, welfare and charitable services exists in the Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart under the subheading of “Education, Public Administration, Health Care and other Institutions.” But the corresponding R3 column is blank, i.e., it contains neither a nor a Because shelters fall within this category but the column is blank, this Chart obviously prohibits the use proposed. Note that, attesting to the extreme nature of the permit sought via the application, shelters are not authorized in any properties in Redmond that are zoned residential. Looking across horizontally on the Comprehensive Allowed Uses Chart after the subcategory for social assistance, welfare and charitable services, all of the columns are blank. Shelters for humans, therefore, are not authorized in any residential zones in Redmond. This applies to uses that are both less intense and more intense than R-3 permits. Allowing a shelter in the R-3 zone here would clearly be a direct violation of the City’s Zoning Code. The Proposed Use Contravenes the Very Purpose of Establishing Zones. The proposal seeks authorization of a use that circumvents the very purposes of the Zoning Code. RZC 21.04.010 provides as follows: The purpose of establishing zones is to: a. Provide a pattern of land use that is consistent with and fulfills the vision of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan; b. Maintain stability of land uses and protect the character of the community by encouraging groupings of uses that have compatible characteristics; c. Provide for appropriate, economic, and efficient use of land within the city limits; and d. Provide for coordinates growth and ensure that adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in order to accommodate growth. The use of the subject property for a homeless shelter is inconsistent with and contravenes the vision of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan designates the subject property as Single-Family Constrained, not the dense population that the proposal describes. The proposal contravenes the LU-33 Designation Policies thereof. A homeless shelter, moreover, will destabilize the land uses and endanger the character of the community because its characteristics are incompatible with the general area consisting of residential Single-Family homes. At the Neighborhood Meeting in May 2017 at City Hall, I asked the applicant directly if they had considered *any* alternative sites or options instead of using this site for a 25 person, Multi-Family shelter forcing a request for zoning changes. Attachment 2.x ---PAGE BREAK--- Indeed, several options had been suggested to the applicant at the local neighborhood meeting held the previous year. Unfortunately, he said “No. No alternatives were considered.” This undermines Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan vision and Zoning Code in that the applicant has neither investigated nor considered any other options other than forcing a zoning exception for the project. For the number of years this shelter has been under consideration, the applicant has failed due diligence and good faith attempts to be in line with Redmond’s Zoning Codes. The Proposed Use is Not for a Single-Family. The property is appropriately zoned Single-Family, not Multi-Family. The Code defines “family” as “[a]n individual or two or more persons related by blood or marriage; eight or fewer nonrelated persons living together in a single dwelling unit, unless a grant of reasonable accommodation as identified in RZC 21.76, Review Procedures, allows an additional number of persons.” RZC 21.78.F Definitions. An occupancy of 25 residents far exceeds the eight-person limit that applies to Single- Family residences. And the Review Procedures do not allow such a high occupancy in the Single-Family Constrained Residential zone. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit. Specifically, it fails to meet the requirements detailed in Redmond’s zoning code, RZC 21.76.070K4: K4.B The conditional use is designed in a manner which is compatible with and responds to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the subject property and immediate vicinity; K4.D The type of use, hours of operation, and appropriateness of the use in relation to adjacent uses minimize unusual hazards or characteristics of the use that would have adverse impacts; There are two main reasons for the failure to meet these requirements: First, as detailed above, this area in Redmond is zoned as Single-Family residences and the subject property is zoned R-3. There are a number of important quality of life and community environments fostered by setting aside such an area. The applicant intends this center to be a 25-person, Multi-Family residence. The length-of-stay is intended to be short- term, so a continual turnover of resident is expected. This is contrary to the goals of Single- Family residential neighborhoods and fails to meet and be compatible with the existing and intended character and quality of development of the immediate vicinity. The center will have clients with no long-term ties to the community. Indeed, the applicant states that its clients may come from areas outside this immediate vicinity. There will be multiple families in a single residence. Clearly, this proposal does not meet the K4.B compatibility restriction of Redmond's Zoning Code. Secondly, security around the immediate vicinity is questionable, and neighborhood security is not promoted by this application. The center’s intended population is stated to have various unfortunate, negative associated issues including domestic violence, substance abuse and/or mental illness (by the applicants own admission). There are large green belt areas, grade schools, and parks around the proposed center location that can have both center’s Attachment 2.x ---PAGE BREAK--- clients as well as associates of the clients deciding to have unsupervised (from the center’s intentions to screen and monitor clients) activities. The applicant states that they will screen and monitor clients, but this does not address off-center property and associates from off- center associates who may seek shelter and/or interaction with their children, wives, or friends within the center. The center fails to meet the K4.D zone regulation. It brings risks and adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.x ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Tim Alexander To: Suntosh Sreenivasan; BelRed Family Resource Center; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer; Hank Myers; Angela Birney; David Carson; Tanika Padhye; JOHN STILIN Cc: mleiberton leiberton; Ziv Kasperski; Michelle Robertson; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger; Steve Salzman; Aditya Dube; TED MOBLEY; Ayelet Winer; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson; Michelle Damour; Kevin Damour; Mita Patel; Steve Salzman; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:05:15 PM Thanks Suntosh, we may as well add the entire city council here. It sounds like the City Council of Bellevue is listening to their citizens who are in opposition of placing a homeless shelter in a residential area. I am very hopeful that the Redmond City Council would do the same for us. The Creekside Covenant Church and Chinese Christian Church have been good neighbors. But they do NOT speak for our neighborhood. Neither does the Union Gospel Mission. We do. It is interesting that the Creekside Church could not get participation into their Day Center, yet they believe the next best step is to create an overnight shelter. This is called “creating a solution in search of a problem”. There is a homeless problem, but not in our neighborhood. Therefore, this shelter does not need to go into our neighborhood. It is a proven fact (acknowledged by Union Gospel Mission executives) that the more homeless services you provide in a specific area, the more homeless people your area will attract. This is not what I want for my neighborhood and certainly not what I want going in next door to my wife and our four children. The homeless problem needs to be addressed specifically where it exists. There are plenty of non-residential areas in Redmond where this can be more appropriately placed. And, if the City Council of Redmond believes that it is appropriate to place a homeless shelter in our “back yard”, each of them can literally do the same in theirs – Link. Otherwise, they would be hypocritical to support such an effort. I’m looking forward to meeting more of you who share the same concerns that Suntosh and I have and ensuring that the city of Redmond hears our voices. Tim From: Suntosh Sreenivasan [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:30 AM To: BelRed Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: mleiberton leiberton <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ziv Kasperski <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Steve Salzman ; Aditya Dube <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; TED MOBLEY <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Ayelet Winer <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Michelle Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Kevin Damour <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Mita Patel <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Steve Salzman <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Hey Jen, just checking back on this. We never heard back from Sarah about any updates, or other city representatives, so I've included Steve Fischer and Hank Myers back on this thread since they were the original contacts that I had on this thread. OK so last week it looks like there was some last minute/sudden announcement that went out informing some folks about the plan to "submit the application to provide safe overnight shelter in the house adjacent to the CreekSide Covenant Church" which was worded in a very ambiguous way, devoid of details, and prone to multiple ways of misinterpretation. Also, the document contained mostly broken links, especially the "download toolkit", "send email to redmond city council", and "see event and details", all of which generates an error, and does not give any kind of insight about the current state of affairs for this initiative, and also leaves people guessing about what really is the proper message. Here is the web page error for your reference: Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Temporarily Unavailable: We were unable to process your request to reach this page at this time. Please try to access the organization that you are trying to reach at an alternate URL if possible. We apologize for the inconvenience. This is not only concerning about the fact that the notification seems impromptu, and inconsiderate about the neighborhood's time/schedule, but the date for the city council meeting has been set without ever consulting the neighborhood's availability, and convenience of the timings. I personally felt that this was intentional/deliberate and has caught several folks off-guard, and does not give the neighborhood enough time to react/respond in a meaningful way. I'll let other folks chime in too, but this sudden and unexpected rush of events has made me lose trust in what I'd initially expected would be a more inclusive conversation with the neighborhood. As requested earlier by the neighborhood, keeping us all in sync with timely updates, and not spring last minute surprises would have been much appreciated, and I personally feel that the 5/1/2017 date is extremely rushed, and pushing the neighborhood into making a rushed/hasty decision. That said, a couple more points of discussion: The proposed "Bellevue Homeless Shelter for Men" which hasn't been finalized yet, and still looking for alternate locations, away from residential areas, and wondering if this initiative is something that could be partnered with the Eastgate initiative to centralized this effort at Eastgate rather than here. With the onset of summer, more parents and kids are going to be out and around, and I wonder how they're going to perceive this effort since most of those folks wouldn't have heard about it, and will come as a surprise, that a shelter has sprung up without their notice, and will cause more unrest in the neighborhood, and will probably lead to extreme dissent in the community since the city hasn't been very transparent or forthcoming about the plan for a shelter in their midst. This surrounding area has multiple schools in this vicinity, and also considered to be one of the top school districts, even at a national level, so I wonder what the reaction from parents/families of those school going children will be when they learn unexpectedly about a shelter in the path that the traverse on a daily basis. Finally, on a side note, I've also sought out legal support/representation, which I will follow up separately in a more formal/legal process, after I've heard back from the ARAG legal center about how to proceed further. Thanks, Suntosh From: Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:23 PM To: mleiberton leiberton; Ziv Kasperski; Michelle Robertson; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Amber Ushka; Sujatha Sagiraju; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Katherine Zinger; Steve Salzman; Aditya Dube; TED MOBLEY; Ayelet Winer; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Todd Robertson; Michelle Damour; Kevin Damour; Mita Patel Subject: FW: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Folks, I'm still awaiting response from Sarah, the city rep, but she is out of office until 2/5, and in the meantime Jen from has responded. I'll let you know if/when I hear back from Sarah. Thanks! From: Bel-Red Family Resource Center <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 12:11 PM To: Suntosh Sreenivasan; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- Suntosh, Thank you for your email and checking in on the status of the BelRed Resource Center. We haven't had much to report out to the neighbors since last summer as we continue to go through the city application process. For the time being, we have pulled back operating the day center at Creekside Covenant. We will be sending out another update soon as we continue to move forward with the application. Thank you, Jen Browning Seattle's Union Gospel Mission Emergency Shelter Administrator On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Suntosh Sreenivasan <[EMAIL REDACTED]> wrote: OK great, we'll look forward to the current status. BTW, in the meantime, one of the residents in the neighborhood has pointed out the following article, so could you confirm that the day-center project has indeed been closed, please? Redmond’s Bel-Red Family Resource Center Closed Until resourcetalk.crisisclinic.org The Bel-Red Family Resource Center in Redmond is closed until further notice. Operated by Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, the resource center provided drop-in day From: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:50 AM To: Suntosh Sreenivasan Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Good morning, I am currently out of the office this week. At this time, the PREP application is still under review. The City will send out a notice to the neighborhood for a meeting at City Hall to hear and discuss feedback from the community prior to any decisions being made on the application. Additionally, per the below e-mail you will have the opportunity for formal comment should the application proceed Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- forward and the opportunity to testify at the hearing. I will be sure to keep you apprised as the projects continues through the review process. From: Suntosh Sreenivasan [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:36 AM To: Sarah Pyle <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Re: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Hi Sarah, just checking back on this, since we haven't heard any more follow up or updates about this issue. Could you get us up to date, please? Thanks! From: Sarah Vanags <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Sarah Vanags; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: RE: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Good Morning, First I would like to say thank you for your e-mail and taking the time to reach out and learn more about projects within the community. I have provided responses to your questions at end of this e-mail. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. To provide some clarification for the below process outlined context to the responses to your questions below, I have summarized the two separate uses that pertain to the site location and questions submitted: 1. The Day Center · Just opened this week · Located in main church buildings · A non-24 hour center serving those affected by homelessness · Does not require additional Land Use approvals so long as services remain in main buildings and are not 24 hours. Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Homeless shelter for women and children: · Has not yet opened · Will be a 24 facility serving women and children affected by homelessness · Submitted a PREP application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on May 31, 2016 · Proposing to operate within the house located at the edge of the church property · Approvals of a CUP and interior Tenant Improvement on the building must first be received by the applicant before any activity of the proposed use can begin. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) seeking approval to locate a homeless shelter for women and children in the house structure on the edge of the ECC property. · The project is currently in the PREP process where the applicant works on building a complete application. · The PREP process takes 121 business days on average to complete 3 rounds of reviews. · The PREP process will include a Neighborhood Meeting. A notice will be mailed to residents within 500’ of the proposed site. · Following the PREP review process the applicant will enter our Formal Application process for the CUP. · The Formal Process for a CUP is approx. 3-5 months on average and includes the Notice of Application/official comment period (21days long), SEPA notice/comment period (14 days long), a Public Hearing Notice/ comment period (21 days long) and an Open Hearing before the Hearing Examiner prior to a decision being made by City Council on the application. Going forward now that an application has been taken in for the Conditional Use Permit of the homeless shelter comments will be responded to in at intervals throughout the review process. · Staff will confirm they have received any comments sent in. · Every two to three weeks, staff will compile any comments received and e-mail responses out. · This will ensure duplicate comments are addressed, as well as, making certain each question or comment receives a quality and researched response. · Staff will keep a worksheet with all comments received going forward. Helpful Links: · PREP Process · Conditional Use Permit Information · Public Records Request · Track the project’s status online here Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- · Code Enforcement Questions and Responses: Is this a seasonal thing? Earlier in the thread, a reference to "cold winter months" was mentioned. Does that technically mean winter time, or anytime it's cold, which is most times? At this time the City does not have any information on the proposed annual duration of the shelter being proposed. RESPONSE: The Application for Conditional Use Permit was submitted 05/31/2016 and has not yet been reviewed. For any inquiries regarding the temporary day shelter the church would need to be contacted directly. One of the items in the fact-sheet on their website seems to indicate that the permits for the shelter haven't been approved yet, so not sure if the doc is current or not. RESPONSE: The church is not required to get use permits for the day center activities within their main buildings which are aligned with their religious ministries. They will be required to have an approved Conditional Use Permit to create the shelter within the small house structure on the edge of the property. The application for the Conditional Use Permit was submitted on 05/31/2016 and will take a few months to review through the City’s PREP process. The initial traffic of shelter-seeking members seems to be mentioned as 8-10 families, so not sure how that fits in with their current capacity? How will overflow be managed? RESPONSE: The City does not have a decision at this time. Until the application and studies are reviewed by City staff, a determination on what transportation mitigation may be required cannot be made. A notice will go out to all neighbors for a neighborhood meeting once the application has completed its first round of reviews. Has the change in zoning part been confirmed? It looks like we don't seem to have much information if zoning change is involved, so how should we confirm? RESPONSE: A change in zoning is not required to allow a shelter on the property and within the proposed structure. A Conditional Use Permit must be approved however per the regulations of the current zone. The fact-sheet also includes an item about security, and how it'll improve the overall security for the neighbor, but is there need to also request city for additional patrols? RESPONSE: The City cannot speak directly to some of the items on the fact sheet as they may not have studies or a statistical basis to draw from or respond to. Increased City patrols would not be a mitigation requirement put on the approvals and security could be provided voluntarily, but an analysis showing statistics for the area that warrants security would need to be submitted and reviewed before the City could considered such a requirement as a condition of approval. There is also some mention about rules/tolerance for shelter-seeking members - alcohol, drugs, violence, intimidation, retaliation, etc., Did we get a copy of that rule sheet? RESPONSE: Again, this would be a private facility/business practice put in place by the shelter/ facility and not imposed by the City. The facility would need to provide that to you directly if they chose to share the information. How should we communicate any emergencies or complaints, including any kind of intolerant behavior that violates the shelter rules? Call police every time, or another channel? RESPONSE: This is a great question. Depending on the issue we would ask you call the police or our code enforcement personnel and in some cases both. For mild issues that do not need an emergency call and responses we would ask you to contact the Code Enforcement personnel via e-mail. If you have safety or immediate concerns that you do not feel can wait, please contact the police. If an issue falls in the middle or is a repeat issue needing documentation after hours, we ask you please report to police at the time of the issue and also to e-mail the information to Code Enforcement. Who is our direct point of contact for this initiative in the ECC for the neighborhood? What kind of regular/ongoing communication do we need from them, and who do they communicate to? It's been a bad Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- experience for us that we've had to hear about this from somebody else in the neighborhood rather than directly. RESPONSE: At this time, I will be the City’s planner on the project and facilitating the application. My name is Sarah K Vanags and I can be reached at [EMAIL REDACTED] or [PHONE REDACTED]. For all application contact information, you may complete a public records request and come in at your convenience to review the application submitted in its entirety at any time during office hours. The applicant will be holding a neighborhood meeting during the review of the application in the next few months and you will be invited to join and ask any additional question directly to the applicant. Is there some agreed upon meetings between church/shelter/neighborhood on a regular basis to discuss any issues/concerns? Who is driving that? Who are on the invitees list? RESPONSE: The City is unaware of any scheduled meetings between the church and neighborhood. There will be the City required neighborhood meeting as previously discussed. Are the folks on this email the only ones concerned about this issue, or are there others? Is there a single distribution list/group that we have for these conversations? RESPONSE: There has not been a Party of Records list at this time and the City has not received additional comments as of yet from concerned individuals. Now that an application has been submitted a Party of Records list will be created for those that comment or wish to be placed on it without comment. To be a Party of Record, an individual must provide their name and a mailing address; additionally, staff would like an e-mail for each person, but it is not required. My understanding is that there are several supporters for the homeless initiative, but to re-iterate what I've mentioned above, I'm guessing those folks are mostly from the church community, who don't really live in the neighborhood, and I'm wondering if those families can take in the homeless folks, and support them in the realm of their own home and their neighborhood. RESPONSE: This would not be an initiative the City would coordinate; you are welcome to work with the church and their congregation however on any ideas you may have. Thank you for your time and questions, Sarah K Pyle Senior Planner City of Redmond – Planning & Community Development 15670 NE 85th St, Redmond, WA 98052 MS:2SPL P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] From: Steve Fischer Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 8:18 AM To: Sarah Vanags Subject: FW: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Please respond Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- Steven From: Suntosh Sreenivasan [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:22 PM To:; Steve Fischer; Hank Myers Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED]; [EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Homeless Shelter on 173rd & 24th Folks, we recently purchased the property and have moved into the location at [17302 NE 23rd CT, Redmond WA] across the street from the ECC home. I got your contacts from a couple of other residents in the neighborhood, and would like to reach out to you for clarification about the proposed homeless shelter in the ECC facility. BTW, before I say anything, please understand that we greatly sympathize with the homeless, especially women/children, along with the hardship it comes with, and would like to be accommodative, but we're obviously concerned about our own families too, including and not limited to, the possibility of personal & economic dissonance in the community, and also possible financial loss caused by receding home values due to a homeless shelter operating in the neighborhood. Please note, we're new to the neighborhood, and we don't have much background/context of all the conversations that've happened on this topic, but being so close to ground-zero, I guess it automatically instills a higher sense of concern for us, and hopefully we don't wake up one morning to find a tent-city in the neighborhood to support the spouses of women housed in the ECC shelter! Anyway, jokes apart, and just to be fair, in the last several months that we've moved into the neighborhood, our experience with the church traffic/events/noise etc., hasn't been all that boisterous, and the church crowd hasn't encroached any streets or driveways, as far as we know. They seem to be respectful about the surrounding neighborhood, and just go about doing whatever it is they do, and personally we've not felt much of an impact. However, the homeless shelter could be a whole different scenario than an average church-goer's session, and everybody from the church community who support this initiative, are not the folks that are living in the neighborhood, so now we've been thinking about what we should be concerned about, and understand why this initiative by the church/city is being proposed right in the middle of an extremely residential neighborhood, and especially being supported by folks who're not actually residing in the neighborhood. All that said, I tried to compile a list of questions, and potential concerns that we might need to be aware of, or discuss further. Quick FYI: there is also a FAQ list included in the fact-sheet on the web site, which I've looked up, but would still like to list my issues. Once again, since we're new to the conversation, maybe you've thought about, and discussed some/all of them, but just to get up to speed with y'all, here is my list: Is this a seasonal thing? Earlier in the thread, a reference to "cold winter months" was mentioned. Does that technically mean winter time, or anytime it's cold, which is most times? One of the items in the fact-sheet on their website seems to indicate that the permits for the shelter haven't been approved yet, so not sure if the doc is current or not. The initial traffic of shelter-seeking members seems to be mentioned as 8-10 families, so not sure how that fits in with their current capacity? How will overflow be managed? Has the change in zoning part been confirmed? It looks like we don't seem to have much information if zoning change is involved, so how should we confirm? The fact-sheet also includes an item about security, and how it'll improve the overall security for the neighbor, but is there need to also request city for additional patrols? Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- There is also some mention about rules/tolerance for shelter-seeking members - alcohol, drugs, violence, intimidation, retaliation, etc., Did we get a copy of that rule sheet? How should we communicate any emergencies or complaints, including any kind of intolerant behavior that violates the shelter rules? Call police every time, or another channel? Who is our direct point of contact for this initiative in the ECC for the neighborhood? What kind of regular/ongoing communication do we need from them, and who do they communicate to? It's been a bad experience for us that we've had to hear about this from somebody else in the neighborhood rather than directly. Is there some agreed upon meetings between church/shelter/neighborhood on a regular basis to discuss any issues/concerns? Who is driving that? Who are on the invitees list? Are the folks on this email the only ones concerned about this issue, or are there others? Is there a single distribution list/group that we have for these conversations? My understanding is that there are several supporters for the homeless initiative, but to re-iterate what I've mentioned above, I'm guessing those folks are mostly from the church community, who don't really live in the neighborhood, and I'm wondering if those families can take in the homeless folks, and support them in the realm of their own home and their neighborhood. Finally, could you ensure that you can communicate the recent developments to the neighborhood as a community, rather than just a few individuals, so that we're inclusive on the decisions being made about how we're progressing, considering that all the folks that I've spoken with in the neighborhood have denied any kind of support for this initiative, and also most of them have expressed a concern that the ECC has not communicated their recent developments about this initiative in time. We appreciate your clear/open communication with all the folks of the neighborhood. Thanks, Suntosh Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com Attachment 2.y ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Vishnu Sadhana To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Re: ECC Woman and Children"s house (Belred family resource center) Date: Sunday, August 13, 2017 12:48:46 PM Hi Sarah, My name is Vishnu Sadhana and i am mailing you regarding the notice we received in mail about the proposed use of 2321 173rd Ave NE, Redmond as a woman and children's house. Our house is within 500' ft of this property and we have following concerns about the impact it may have: 1. This is a residential area with lot young kids (under 10) who play outside. This property is 10 feet across the 24th street and we are extremely concerned of the potential crime rate increase due to this resource center and the visitors it may attract. 2. We are worried about the noise increase 3. We are concerned about the increase in vehicle traffic 4. We are concerned about lack of parking in already limited parking on our street for our friends and visitors if there were a spillover from the resource center parking 5. We are also concerned about the decrease in property values. Given the above concerns, we are not supportive of this initiative. We understand that this is a great initiative, but just worried about its location in a heavy residential area. Thanks for considering our views, Vishnu and Smita. 2501 173rd Pl NE Redmond WA 98052, Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.z ---PAGE BREAK--- From: David Yee To: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:53:16 AM Dear Members of the Redmond City Council, With the continue raises of home prices, have push home rental prices up at the same time. This has put undue stress on families, especially, families headed by single mom. This has lead to homelessness. It is heart breaking to see families having to be left without a roof over their heads, especially women with young children. Giving them a safe and warm home is the least we can do. So I strongly urge your good hearts to support this BelRed Family resource center. Denial of this resource center will denied these families of a safe place to stay. Also, to provide their children opportunities for education and a better future. Once again, we cannot leave these disadvantaged families and their children left to fend for themselves alone if we can help. That is the least we can do. Thanks if advance for your support and kindness. Voon Yee Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.aa ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Wes Meyers To: Sarah Pyle; Steve Fischer Cc: Wes Meyers; Kent Hay; Glenn Olson Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Monday, May 01, 2017 1:01:29 PM Dear Council Members, I'm a longtime resident of Redmond and I also volunteer several days a week at Seattles Union Gospel Mission. I support the Resource Center and ask that you support it as well. There is so much love in the Mission - in the homeless community and with staff and volunteers. I go into homeless encampments at night with Search and Rescue and on different days I serve breakfast to men in the recovery program and to guests from outside. You know firsthand the growing homeless issue in Redmond. I salute the City for hiring Kent Hay as Homeless Outreach Specialist last year. The need for safety, services, and love by women and children without homes can be addressed with the Resource Center and the compassion and resources of the three Churches and UGM. I look forward to this evenings meeting and I ask you to support the Resource Center. With warm regards, Wes Meyers 17038 NE 133rd St Redmond 98052 (425) 829-1986 The homelessness crisis in Redmond continues to worsen. Bellevue and Lake Washington School Districts are seeing an increase in homelessness among students, serving 249 and 353 students, respectively. There is an innovative opportunity to provide a path out of homelessness for women with children through the BelRed Family Resource Center, and I’m writing to ask for your support. As a member of the community, I support the BelRed Family Resource Center. Attachment 2.bb ---PAGE BREAK--- Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.bb ---PAGE BREAK--- This document is intended as a Public Comment. Please refer to: Project Name: ECC Woman and Children’s House File Number: LAND-2016-01036 I request that this comment be entered into the official record of the above-referenced project, and that this comment be provided to the hearing examiner for the project. I would like a specific response to this comment from the hearing examiner. I am Robert A. Shade, owner of a residential property located at 17710 NE 24th Street, Redmond, WA 98052. This property is located approximately 1500 feet from the parcel involved in the above-referenced project. The project as described involves conversion of a residential property to a homeless shelter. The residential property is located at 2321 173rd Avenue NW, Redmond WA, 98052 – King County parcel #[PHONE REDACTED]. It is important to clearly distinguish the property involved in LAND-2016-01036 from the adjacent parcel, which is the site of a church building. The church is located at 2315 173rd Avenue NW, Redmond WA, 98052 – King County parcel #[PHONE REDACTED]. The church parcel is not involved in the request associated with LAND-2016-01036. The project is described as: Upgrade interior house for use as a 25 person women’s homeless shelter. To include addition of fire sprinklers, restrooms and showers, handicap restroom and shower and other upgrades. The property in question has a zoning classification of R-3, a residential classification. Everything in the vicinity of the property is also R-3. Redmond has an extensive chart of zoning codes and permitted uses in 21.045.030 in the Redmond zoning codes. This chart lists the zoning classifications for Redmond properties, and, the allowed uses for each zoning classification. This chart is available online at http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-wa/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-292 . There are many uses listed for the various zoning classifications. Only one of the listed uses would describe a homeless shelter: Social Assistance, Welfare, and Charitable Services. The provision of social assistance services, including shelters, directly to individuals in need. This use is only permitted on properties zoned NC-2, BCDD1, NDD2, NDD3, and MDD4. It is not permitted, even with a conditional use permit, in any residential zone. Attachment 2.cc ---PAGE BREAK--- There are some other uses described in the chart that might fit the shelter: “Adult family home”, “Housing services for the elderly”, “Long-term care facility”, "Residential care facility", "Retirement residence", or etc. However, a close examination of the definitions for each of these uses finds that all have some element that contradicts use as a shelter. Also, most of these uses are not allowed in an R-3 zone, even with a conditional use permit. Some persons in the Redmond planning department have stated that the shelter use can be approved as an extension of the Evangelical Chinese Church conditional use permit for religious activities, as ECC asserts that the shelter is part of their religious mission. However, an examination of the permitting history for this property shows that there has never been a conditional use permit for religious activities on this property. The property has had various minor permits issued in recent years for inspections and minor electrical work. The most recent major permit issued for this property was for an addition. The permit was issued on April 2, 2007 – see Redmond permit number B070020 This permit specifically limits the structure on the property to residential use: Addition of a 1,507 sf heated space for residential purposes only. No Evangelical Chinese Church activities will be conducted in residence. Residence to provide housing for pastor and occasional guest. The adjacent parcel containing the church building apparently does have a conditional use permit for religious activities. As noted above, however, the parcel involved in this project is separate from the church parcel. This is the gist of my comment: There is nothing in the Redmond zoning regulations that would allow approval of operation of a homeless shelter at this location. 1. Operation of a shelter is not permitted in an R-3 zoning code. 2. There has never been a conditional use permit for this property for religious activities that could be “stretched’ to allow a shelter. Attachment 2.cc ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Evangeline Schmitt To: Steve Fischer; Sarah Pyle Subject: BelRed Family Resource Center Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:58:57 PM Dear Mr. Fischer and Mr. Pyle I live on Union Hill in Redmond. The homelessness crisis in Redmond continues to worsen, and this affeects kids. Schools in Bellevue and Lake Washington districts are reporting more homelessness among students. The planned BelRed Family Resource Center aims to provide a path out of homelessness for these children and their moms. I’m writing to ask for your support. I support the BelRed Family Resource Center because I wish a better life for people I see holding signs along intersections or the many homeless people that often occupy the Redmond library. The BelRed Family Resource center can provide tools for deep lifestyle changes. It won't just give hand outs, but the staff will work at making relationships with the kids and women it hopes to help. This project will be privately funded, saving taxpayer funds and creating unity in our community. I support the BelRed Family Resource Center and I ask for your support today. Sincerely and thank you, Evangeline Schmitt Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.dd ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Divya Sujit To: Sarah Pyle Subject: Resident comments for ECC Woman and Children"s House ( Bel-Red Family Resource Center ) Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 7:52:04 AM Hi Sarah, I am writing comments for ECC Woman and Children's House ( Bel-Red Family Resource Center ) My Comments : I live in 173rd PL NE and my home is less than 500ft from planned Woman’s & Children’s Shelter. I have concern of the noise increase, potential crime attracts, security of neighborhoods. My major concerns: When the shelter is not open during the day (I understand it will open for resident from evening to morning, is it ? what will be the shelter people do? Are they going to wander around the neighborhood? I understand the planned shelter building is belongs to a church and I understand they have some church activities during the weekends, so Are the resident of the shelter going to wait outside of the building or wander around the neighborhood until the shelter door opens for them? Then it is major security concern for neighbor like me. I feel like these will impacts on us if we approve the shelter 1. Neighborhood kids cannot play as free as before; and parents could not allow them to do so. Parents won’t have peace to send kids to play outside because of the wandering shelter people. 2. There are lots of people (I am one of them) go for walk through 24th ST and Ardmore Trail; and those will not be any more pleasant because of the wander Attachment 2.ee ---PAGE BREAK--- shelter people. There will be security and safely concern. The Shelter is good idea for helping the community but it should not come in the middle of the quiet, peaceful and pleasant neighborhood. I am requesting the city to Please DO NOT APPROVE THE SHELTER PLAN . We want to live as before without concerns. Thanks, Divya Paul Click here to report this email as spam. Attachment 2.ee