An Open Letter to Redmond City Council Urging to Amend Ordinance #3059

Dear Council Members,

Ahead of the 10/26 Ordinance #3059 study session, we would like to suggest below amendment to Ordinance #3059.  We respectfully request the council to declare the commitment to amend Ordinance #3059 at the study session. 

We appreciate CM David Carson reaching out to us recently and expressing his willingness to meet and “talk about what is possible both in amending the ordinance and setting the requirements for the operator that King County and the City of Redmond will choose”.  Many of the suggested amendments below have been submitted to CM Carson for consideration. 

As CM Carson sees, Safe Eastside is not “an adversarial relationship to the Redmond City Council.” We are a grassroot group “that is trying to make an impact”. From day one, we have always advocated for maintaining public safety while helping the homeless people and demanded government transparency and public engagement.  

Despite many demonizing attacks on us, the reality is that under our influence, public comments have changed from “Do not place the homeless hotel in Redmond” to “Demand the city to listen to and take in public input and make the neighborhood safe while housing homeless people at the Redmond HTH”. We have demonstrated our willingness to work with the City to make the Redmond HTH successful. Will the City Council show sincerity in listening to the people and represent people’s interests? 

Below are suggested amendments:

1. Spacing – Follow other cities’ examples, and request a spacing of 5 miles between homeless facilities;
2. Density – Follow other cities’ examples, and limit the capacity to no more than 100 residents;
3. Sex Offenders – Follow other cities’ examples, either ban sex offenders from living at homeless facilities or set a safety zone from schools, day care centers, public parks;
4. Drug use – Follow other cities’ examples, ban use and sale of illegal drugs, or illegally use and sale of controlled substances, prescription drugs without a medical prescription, inside and outside the homeless facilities; 
5. Adequate 24×7 onsite staffs for security, operation, and services;
6. Maintain adequate 24×7 service staffing model based on industrial standard: 1 to 6 ratio for mentally ill, 1 to 10 ratio for substance addicts; 
7. Adequate onsite Comprehensive services including but not limited to counseling services, case management, medication monitoring, vocational counseling or training, chemical dependency services, health and behavioral health treatment and services;
8. Intake assessment by onsite Service providers – Service providers are required to evaluate each prospective occupant and provide an individual service plan. Only those that the service providers deem they can support are allowed to move in. The assessment between case manager and prospective occupants will determine if the proposed location is a fit or if another option or location would be better. 
9. Safety and security plan – The Safety and security plan must be developed in consultation with and approved by the Redmond Police and Fire Department and must include measures that the operator and service providers will employ to promote the safety of homeless facility occupants and surrounding residents and businesses. Please refer to Bellevue municipal code 20.20.455 section F.2.g for detailed examples;
10. Good Neighbor Agreement – Please consider adoption of Bellevue municipal codes 20.20.455 G Good Neighbor Agreement Process Required where applicable. 
11. Homeless facility property owners, operators, and service providers are responsible to transition occupants moving out of the facility, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to a different housing or shelter option. Occupants moving out of the facility are not allowed to become a homeless population lingering in the neighborhood.
12. Operators and service providers are responsible for occupants’ behavior in and surrounding the homeless facility 24×7. Regarding the surrounding area, the operator will be responsible for ensuring there are no illegal activities in the surrounding premises by the occupants.
13. Clearly state accountability – The homeless facility owners, operators, and service providers will be held accountable for increased crimes, drug use and sale activities, sex workers, and homeless population.
14. Ensuring that items deemed as weapons are stored in a safe location;
15. Garbage, litters, needles, graffiti – daily cleaning plan;
16. Noises at night – Establish a quiet time between 11pm to 7am;
17. Controlled access, and guess policy – no overnight stay of sex workers;
18. Security cameras overlook public areas and outside surrounding areas;
19. Prioritize local referrals; 
20. Parking Management;
21. COVID 19 vaccination mandate;
22. Other requirements:
    1. Statement of experience operating targeted homeless facility or any other relevant experience.;
    2. Statement of homeless population to be served. And a plan for developing a community service model that is tailored to the homeless population to be served at the location where the homeless facility is located.

We would be happy to meet with council members at your request and discuss the above suggested amendment. 

Regards,

Safe Eastside

Sunday 10/24/2021 1:50 PM Open letter sent to Redmond City Council

Thanks for replying. But this response basically says no to amend Ord. #3059 and shows no sincere desire to protect the city rather a political play along attitude. If this is all Redmond city council is willing to do, then Redmond deserves a responsible and potent city council.

1) State law specifically allows density and spacing requirements in zoning code for permanent support housing. Please amend Ordinance #3059.

2) If illegal drugs are really not allowed, amend Ordinance #3059 and put it in there. Other cities have very detailed regulations in city code, NOT Redmond. Why not? Why are you so reluctant to do the right thing?

3) I recall at the 10/5 meeting, the council requested a comparison of other cities’ code , the Planning dept. failed to present the side by side comparison in the study session material.  Why is the council not demanding to see the comparison? Why is Planning dept. not presenting the comparison? Let me tell you why… City of Redmond lacks regulation on homeless housing, and a comparison will support our demand.

4) If City of Bellevue can list all detailed requirements in its city code, tell me why City of Redmond is so reluctant?

5) We all know now that Mayor Birney and Director Helland can not be trusted. Which city staff you consulted? Asking a liar if her liar is true, you get another lie.

6) City ordinance is city’s law to regulate and protect the city. What county wants and what the city needs do not all align perfectly. Your duty is to protect the city, not to please the county.

Very disappointed with your response. Almost an insult on people’s intelligence. Do you even understand the difference between the law(city ordinance) and various agreements you listed (good neighbor agreement, occupancy agreement, and a code of conduct and etc). You are all elected as law makers, but almost anybody can make agreements between each other. Do we want rule of law or what !

Regards,
Tuesday 10/26/2021 11:17AM 1st Response from Safe Eastside

Since you claimed to be the Council Ombudsperson, I’d assume your response represents the whole council. If any council member does not think CM Vanessa Kritzer’s response represents his or her position, please clarify.

Below is our response to CM Vanessa Kritzer’s email reply.

Having listed the term “operating agreement” or “good neighbor agreement “ without adequate details is useless, it’s just giving a blank check.

For example, Ord. 3059 only asks to describe drug use, the law should prohibit illegal drug use.

This is what’s in current Ord 3059, “iv. Operational rules and/or code of conduct describing occupant expectations and consequences for failing to comply. The code of conduct shall at a minimum address the following topics:

A. The use or sale of alcohol and illegal drugs; B. Threatening or unsafe behavior; and C. Weapon possession.”

Such a piece of city code does nothing to prohibit illegal drug use. Why are you even reluctant to make the law clear to protect public safety ? Whose interest do you represent ?

Look at what other cities are doing, for example, go check Bellevue city code,  Bellevue has detailed code requirements on good neighbor agreement, safety and security plan, sex offenders, occupancy agreement and etc. with many subsections. Have you even bothered to read relevant neighboring cities’ code? If you still think Redmond city code is sufficient after comparing with other cities’ code, then we have to question if you are fit to be a city council member.

By the way, where is the comparison? At the 10/5 public hearing, the council asked for a comparison showing what other cities are doing, director Helland promised then, but she’s not delivering, why ? Why do you think Org 3059 is sufficient enough without even the comparison ?

Please don’t play with the word game with the public, people are able to see you through, your response is insulting public intelligence

This email from Director Helland shows the difference of people who run the city between Bellevue and Redmond, this is why Bellevue has comprehensive and detailed requirements in the city code, while the Redmond city code only has the term, which is nothing. Director Helland is reckless, while she complained about her counterpart in Bellevue being scrupulously . She is unfit for her job.

Do your job and commit to amending Ord 5039 in your study session tonight and people are watching. 

Tuesday 10/26/2021 04:29PM 2nd Response from Safe Eastside