HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeilie 12.14.20From: Chrissie Seilie <cseilie@eworks.org>
To: "council@rentonwa.gov" <council@rentonwa.gov>
Bcc: rperez@rentonwa.gov
Date: 2020-12-14 11:08
Subject: Ordinance 5996 and Long-Term Community Impact
Attachments: Attachment A.JPG Attachment B.JPG
CAUTION:ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofRenton.Donotclicklinks,replyoropenattachmentsunlessyouknowthecontentissafe.
Dear City Council Member,
I come to you as a resident of Renton and urge you to consider significantly revising or rejecting Ordinance 5996 with regard to the Emergency Ordinance Interim
Zoning Controls - Homeless Shelters. The desire to issue an emergency ordinance to react to the placement of the shelter is understandable; however the ordinance
would make significant, lasting impacts to the zoning of the City of Renton for years to come. The ordinance as presented groups the issues the City has with the Red
Lion Hotel with greater regional issues and becomes a barrier for future solutions to the systemic housing crisis we are facing.
I also come to you as an architect who was involved in the design and construction process of Kirkland Place, the new shelter for families and women in Kirkland. I
have firsthand understanding of the process and feel that insurmountable hurdles are unnecessarily being written into the Renton Code, making future construction of
shelters nearly impossible within the City limits. I want to be a proud Renton resident, but the Ordinance as written further reinforces systemic inequities for those less
privileged.
Section V, item 71 stipulates that
Specified use(s) are only allowed south of In405. Diversion facilities shall be limited to serving no more than one hundred (100) individuals at any time.
• Diversion facilities are a critical step to undoing the inequities of our system; the “housing first” initiative cannot work if there is no intermediary between life on the
streets and life in a permanent housing facility, which are already in short supply.
• “South of I-405” would either be Industrial, or Residential with small swaths of Commercial. Realistically, neighbors would be against a residential location for a
diversion facilities and the current Red Lion hotel is in a Commercial Zone, which this ordinance is attempting to make illegal. Few services that are needed to
support/assist our homeless neighbors are available in Industrial zones (i.e. groceries, access to medical care, public transportation) which make these both
unrealistic and impractical. Disallowing facilities from Commercial Zones as well would create even more hurdles to access necessary care and basic necessities to
those who already have it hardest.
•Furthermore, the book A Terrible Thing to Waste by Harriet A. Washington highlights the impact of environmental racism; in short, historic zoning laws and redlining
have had biological and physiological impacts on those victimized by these laws. Limiting diversion facilities to industrial zones potentially exposes residents to
harmful chemicals and toxins that are found in these industrial settings.
• The limitation of “serving no more than one hundred (100) individuals” provides an additional burden to service provider organizations to build and staff smaller
facilities.
• Similar to “buying in bulk at Costco,” building bigger and serving more under one roof would ease the burden significantly on individual service providers.
• Building and construction costs, as well as maintenance, becomes cheaper and easier when serving more. The initial cost of a building system would already
exist; increasing the size and capacity would be a marginal added cost at worst.
Section VI, F. Submittal Requirements [for a Conditional Use Permit] includes items under section 2 that are subjective at best and extend beyond the services that
operators of such facilities provide, making future development of any diversion facilities/homeless shelters extremely difficult. I have listed out a few examples below
that would be unreasonable to expect and perpetuate an attitude of exclusivity in our community.
• Item (g) includes stipulations that the shelter need be self-sufficient in operating as a microcosm of a City in itself, with private security and managing its
surrounding neighbors. Furthermore, there are requirements to manage the expectations of the surrounding neighbors to an extent that is unreasonable for those
who are already attempting to serve and help those who are working to get stability back in their lives.
• General comment on stipulations: It is easy to write these codes to appease those who are against a “theoretical shelter” in which one can imagine the
worst case scenario; unfortunately the code as written provides a much larger barrier to providing support to those who have no means to imagine
worse than they are already experiencing. The individual events occurrences that are given as examples to vote our unhoused neighbors OUT of
housing should not be blanket examples for all.
The proposed addition to 59.18 RCW (I) Development Standards/Use Requirements (pg. 18) includes requirements that are both unrealistic and unreasonable
when considered with the proposed ordinance as a whole. Aside from the limitation of 100 residents (please reference point above with regard to objection of limit), theLR - 000948
prescriptive location described both in the “South of I-405” restriction earlier in the ordinance as well as items outlined below essentially eliminate the possibility of
providing a homeless shelter within the City limits and even if it were achieved, would be both a food desert and island within the City:
3. Occupancy Limits and SizenRelated Development Standards
(ii) Shelters shall locate greater than onenhalf (0.5) mile from any other homeless services use, unless they are co-located as
part of a single development and do not serve more than a combined one hundred (100) residents.
(iii) Shelters with more than fifty (50) beds should locate within one (1) mile of a public transit stop.
• Based on the Zoning Map and the King Co Metro System Map (attachment A and B), there is extremely limited transit service within the specified, allowed zone for
these shelters to operate that is “South of I-405). The two items above (ii and iii) would effectively allow only 100 beds to operate within the City of Renton due to
the feasibility of compliance of the two restrictions.
• Considered in conjunction with one another, along with the cost of land, and availability of land for the service providers, this ordinance and amendment as written
would place a possibly insurmountable hurdle for service providers to acquire a parcel that would comply with these restrictions.
•Few bus lines serve the industrial zone of the City; compounded with the restriction of only (1) facility located greater than one-half (0.5) miles away from any other
service yet within (1) mile of a public transit stop, would be extremely difficult to find more than one parcel that is both available and at a cost that is reasonable for
any service provider. With the limited service options, there are even fewer actual stops in the prescribed area.
I understand the intent of the legislation is to react to the sudden placement of the shelter located at the Red Lion. However, please consider less extreme measures
that would impact future homeless service providers’ ability to provide services to those who need it most. The permanent implications of such an over-reaching
measure would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for future shelters to be developed in the City of Renton.
I believe the potential for the Red Lion to be permanently developed as a homeless shelter would be a wonderful example to greater King County – the capacity of the
building is such (i.e. building systems, utility connections, parking) that it could simply be retrofit to adapt to the needs of a shelter. Though this would be a pipe dream,
it is an example of the potential the City has to offer services for a regional systemic issue, not an individual City’s problem. We, the City of Renton, has an opportunity
to be a leader in addressing this issue, not close our doors to the most vulnerable.
The proclamation signed earlier this year in October acknowledges the community benefit to affordable housing – shelters are the first step in such facilities and are a
part of the overall support umbrella. To implement such revisions to the zoning code would counter the intentions set forth by the signed Affordable Housing
proclamation.
Whereas, everyone benefits from affordable housing, including the people who reside in these properties, their neighbors, businesses,
employers, and the community as a whole;
Whereas, the need for affordable homes across King County prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the number of people experiencing
homelessness had remained at crisis levels; and
Whereas, people, organizations, and communities throughout King County are participating in local Affordable Housing Week to elevate the
critical need to preserve and increase affordable housing in our communities; and
Whereas, the City of Renton endorses the goals, objectives, and purposes of Affordable Housing Week, and recommits itself to ensuring that our
community recovers equitable from the crises at hand, and that all people live with dignity in safe, healthy, and affordable homes;
Please consider voting against the proposed ordinance as-is and re-examine the permanent implications of acting such legislation.
Best,
Chrissie Seilie*
LR - 000949
Chrissie Seilie
Project Architect | 206.787.1389 | She/Her
Our 50th Year Celebration
*Individual position does not reflect the official position of the organization
LR - 000950