6200 12TH DR SE 2020-10-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

87. Comments in support of approval referred to the required criteria that must be satisfied. Sufficient evidence was submitted to support that the criteria were satisfied. Specifically comments relating to the proximity to transit and services and the consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan designation of 2.8, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities, were submitted. Sufficient evidence was presented to support that the measures taken by CHS to ensure safety for those living at the facility, as well as in the general area, were satisfied. (exhibit 17, comments from public and staff response;public witnesses at the hearing) 88. Opposition comments were received that included comments regarding the necessity of the proposed facility and whether alternative locations were considered for safety and social reasons. Comments also were received questioning excessive traffic and general impacts to the nearby neighborhoods. (exhibit 17, comments from public and staff response; public witnesses at the hearing) 89. In response to the public comments, the City of Everett submitted that similar facilities have proven to be successful in projects operated by CHS in Seattle, Bellingham and in Pierce County. The City submitted that it conducted an extensive property search for the most suitable location for the proposed facility, and it was determined that the subject property most satisfied the necessary elements for successful development of the project. The City submitted that there are local and state laws that provide enforcement mechanisms for nuisance related activities, including drug related activity, harassment and loitering. (exhibit 11, Everett Safe Streets Supportive Housing Site Alternatives Analysis, page 18; exhibit 17, comments from public and staff response; public witnesses at the hearing; testimony of Ms. Weldon; testimony of Ms. McCrary) 90. CHS submitted its intent to cooperate with the City and define standards for residents within the facility, including behavior expectations as identified in Finding 63. (exhibit 17, comments from public and staff response, pagel; testimony of Mr. Tippy; testimony of Mr. Rice; exhibit 11, Everett Safe Streets Supportive Housing Site Alternatives Analysis; exhibit 9, draft management plan, pages 2, 4 through 10) 91. Opposition was submitted stating that traffic issues, including pedestrian crosswalks and traffic congestion, exist on Evergreen Way and nearby intersections and that the proposed facility would add to the problems. In response, the City staff submitted that because pedestrian improvements are required to be constructed and maintained from the site to Evergreen Way, pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood would be improved. There will be no . significant increase in traffic generated by the proposed project. (exhibit 17, comments from public and staff response, pagel; testimony of M. Brick; testimony of Ms: McCrary)