shelter land use code amendment: survey results ... · shelter land use code amendment: survey...
TRANSCRIPT
Shelter Land Use Code Amendment: Survey Results & Framework Overview
Bellevue City CouncilApril 23, 2018
Kate Berens, Deputy City ManagerNancy LaCombe, Assistant DirectorCity Manager’s Office
Major Carl KleinknechtDr. Shawna GibsonBellevue Police Department
Carol Helland, Code & Policy DirectorDevelopment Services Department
1Citywide Shelter Land Use Code Amendment
Tonight's Agenda
• Bellevue’s Response to Homelessness
• Bellevue Police Experience with Homelessness and Update on Crime Statistical Analysis (Lincoln Ctr)
• Recent LUCA Outreach: Citywide Survey and Community Workshops
• Introduction of LUCA and next steps
2
In Support of City’s Vision
3
• 2014-15 Council priorities directed city
to work toward an Eastside solution for
a permanent winter shelter
• 2014 Diversity Advantage Plan:
“Supporting the establishment of a
year-round homeless shelter on the
Eastside”
• Comprehensive Plan Policies (2015)
Count Us In ReportKing County January 2017*
4
UNSHELTERED SHELTERED
REGION % n % n
East County 5% 284 6% 347
North County 1% 53 2% 148
Northeast County 2% 119 1% 47
Seattle 70% 3,857 76% 4,665
Southwest County 20% 1,102 15% 915
Southeast County 1% 70 1% 36
TOTAL 100% 5,485 100% 6,158
* 2018 Count Us In Report due May 2018
Human Infrastructure Continuum
5
ENHANCEMENT
Self-directed self-
actualization
activities
INTERVENTION
Dependency upon
established
“systems”
PREVENTION
“At-risk” youth,
individuals,
families
Homeless Examples: Sports
and recreation activities for
all ages, youth mentoring &
teen services, child care,
family support, employment
assistance, English-as-Second
Language (ESL) classes.
Homeless Examples: Emergency
& transitional housing, food
banks, substance abuse
treatment, health & mental
health services, domestic
violence, sexual assault services,
case management of offenders on
probation.
Assist people in
times of need
Promote development
of healthy individuals
and families
2017 Human Services Homeless Services Funding
6
Prevention, Intervention, Outreach $199,075
Shelters $371,118
Day Centers $133,676
Housing $295,243
$999,112
Comprehensive/Coordinated Approach
Outreach/Education Support Services Facilities Enforcement
Outreach Workers(prevention/intervention)
Case Management(prevention/intervention)
Day Center Laws, Policies and Ordinances
Case Management Access to Services (timely)
Shelters Code Compliance
Fire Cares Mental HealthCounseling
Safe Parking Lots Police
Mobile Crises Team Addiction Recovery Rapid Re-Housing Camp Site Cleanup
Emergency Response Opiate Task Force Supportive Housing Residential Parking Zones
Community Partnerships
Fire Affordable Housing
7
Coordinated Agency Approach
BPD Experience andHomelessness ResponseOn-going Challenges
• Increase in calls for service involving homelessness
• Closing of the Winter Shelter will likely impact call volume at night
Resources• Mobile Crisis Team and CARES1 are great partners
• One full-time CFH Homeless Outreach Specialist
• Relationship building Police/Community/Businesses/
Service Providers is a proven method of impact mitigation and response to emerging trends
8
BPD/CFH Partnership
9
BPD Experience and theTemporary Winter Shelter
• Experience built through 11 seasons of the shelter
• Collaborative problem-solving and consistency
• Bellevue is a safe city
10
Crime Statistics Analysis
• Data first presented November 2016
• Site comparison analysis
11
Lincoln Center
12
• 1-mile radius includes Downtown
• Busiest neighborhood
• Higher levels of activity
• City Hall data removed
Crime Statistics AnalysisViolent and Property Crime
13
1.1 1.1 1.2 0.9
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0
2.3 2.4
3.1
2.7 3.0
2.6
2.0
2.5
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Violent per 1,000 Population Citywide and within One Mile of Lincoln Center Since 2010
Citywide Lincoln Center
Shelter Operations Near Downtown
30.9 28.7 27.2 29.7 34.3 32.3 32.7 31.7
61.2 59.0 56.3 62.4
72.7 70.2
61.5 66.8
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Property Crimes per 1,000 Population Citywide and within One Mile of Lincoln Center Since 2010
Citywide Lincoln Center
Shelter Operations Near Downtown
(Incl. Downtown)
(Incl. Downtown)
Crime Statistics AnalysisCalls for Service and Field Interview Reports
14
659.1 540.1
477.7 473.5 436.9 466.5 467.9 463.4
1213.6
813.8 821.7 845.9 881.2 867.4794.5 792.1
-
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1,000.0
1,200.0
1,400.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Calls For Service per 1,000 Population Citywide and within One Mile of Lincoln Center Since 2010
Citywide Lincoln Center
Bellevue Shelter Operation
11.7 9.7
8.4 6.4
5.0
20.8
16.7 16.6
12.4
9.0
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
FIRS per 1,000 Population Citywide and within One Mile of Lincoln Center Since 2013
Citywide Lincoln center
Bellevue Shelter Operation
(Incl. Downtown)
(Incl. Downtown)
Conclusions
• Bellevue is a safe, responsive city
• Shelter does not have significant impact on crime
• Anticipated increased number of calls to the shelter
• Data analysis tools moving forward
• Approach to any shelter needs to be integrated
15
Questions?
16
Recent Public Engagement Draft LUCA Development
• Citywide Survey: March 7 – 21
• Community Workshop: April 3• Solicited input on the draft LUCA framework
• Attended by approx. 80-100
• Optional Listening Session attended by approx. 52
• Mini-Community Workshops: April 5• Crossroads Community Center
• South Bellevue Community Center
17
Citywide Survey Results
18
85%
completion rate
09m:55s
to complete
number of
responses
1896
Q2: Neighborhood Area
19
0%
5%
10%
15%
Q3 & Q4: Additional Demographics
20
Client/Operator/Provider
3.23%
96.77%
Yes No
Bellevue Business Owner
12.89%
87.11%
Yes No
Q5: Elements that Define a Permanent Homeless Shelter
21
0
2
4
6
8
Sco
re
1 23
Q6: Shelter Should Be Near
22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Employmentopportunities
Transit services Health services Workforcetraining
Social services Public facilities Faith centers
Sco
re
123
Q7: Shelter Should Not Be Near
23
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Parks andcommunity
centers
Single-familyresidential
Multifamilyresidential
Preschool andchildcarecenters
Primary school(elementary)
Secondaryschool (middle
and high)
Post-secondaryschool
(colleges)
Sco
re
123
Q8. Submittal Requirements
24
Code of Conduct
25%
Exterior Drawings
14%
Site Layout18%
Screening Plans17%
Good Neighbor Plan26%
Q9. Good Neighbor AgreementStakeholder Input
25
Survey Results
0 1 2 3
Residential Neighbors
Subject Matter Experts
Bellevue Residents
Eastside Cities
Faith Communities
Surroundng Businesses
Homeless Individuals
Public Safety
Weighted Average
Open Comment Responses
1
2
3
• Schools/students
• Healthcare providers
• Council members
• Transit customers
• Shelter/service operators
• Area workers
Q10. Additional Comments or Ideas
Additional comments provided input on the following topics:
• Common definitions for key terms
• Council should explore different policy direction
• Input on location of shelter and proximity to other uses
• Input on shelter operations
• Safety concerns
• Input on future public engagement processes
• Input on code requirements and application requirements
26
Additional Input - Workshops
27
Additional Input – Listening Session
28
Questions
29
City’s Shelter Permitting Response
30
2016 – 2018
Policy Framework
Community InputDue Diligence Report
Best PracticesCitywide Survey
2018
Land Use Code Amendments
Use Requirements, Definitions, Development Standards, Design
Guidelines and Facility Operations
Shelter Permitting
City Approval Process
Weare
Here
LUC Amendment to Support Shelter Success Citywide
• Reviewed information compiled to-date
• Individual and Community Group Feedback
• City Due Diligence Report
• Best Practice Research/Peer Cities
• Surveyed Interested Stakeholders Citywide
• Listened to Feedback (Workshops)
• Prepared to engage the City Council
31
Orientation to the Draft LUC Amendment (LUCA)
32
Purpose
Development Standards
Review Required
Design Guidelines
Applicability Definitions
Use Requirements
Submittal Requirements
WHY and WHAT
PERMIT PROCESS
WHERE and HOW
Proposed Policy Discussion Schedule
Schedule Council Meetings
May 7 Policy Topics:• “Why and What”
Purpose, Applicability and Definitions• Permit Process
Approval Process, Submittal Materials, and Good Neighbor Agreement Advisory Process
May 21* Policy Topics:• Any topics remaining from May 7 Study Session• “Where and How”
Use Charts, Development Standards/Use Requirements, and Design Guidelines
33
* Set Public Hearing unless additional policy discussion is necessary
Framework for Consideration of Policy Topics
34
Comments Offered
Community InputDue Diligence Report
Best PracticesCitywide Survey
CommentsIncorporatedSubmittal Requirements
Good Neighbor AgreementStandard Operating
ProceduresDevelopment Standards
Comments Remaining
For City Council LUCA Policy Discussion
orOther Ongoing Work
Program
Next Steps for the City Council
• Consider and Discuss the Policy Topics
• May 7
• May 21
• Schedule the required Public Hearing
• Time reserved on June 11
• Adopt the Final LUCA
• June/July*
35
* Consider extension of IOC if permanent regulations are not adopted by August break
Questions
36