Resolution 4168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Secondly, the need for such a facility is not only based on the needs of the juveniles who will be housed at the proposed facility, but is also based on the needs of society in general. As testified at the hearing, if the facility is not built or available, juveniles would be released directly to the streets. This type of facility provides the reasonable transition from the incarcerated penal state that these juveniles have been in, to freedom and rights of a citizen living in society. Being placed on the street without educational or occupational support, can only lead to a continuation of a life of crime. However, with a general transition from the incarcerated situation to freedom, an individual housed at this facility can take advantage of many opportunities in order to become a productive citizen. This type of citizen is needed by the community of Everett, as well as the State of Washington. Even more so, a juvenile committing crimes is not needed by the community. It is a need that could help reduce the senseless criminal activity that exists not only in this city but in cities throughout the State. Clearly, there is a need for this type of facility, and it is a much better option than the alternative. The opponents in arguing against the need for the facility have cited examples of other facilities in Snohomish County, the City of Everett, and the State. However, none of the facilities is directly similar to the proposed facility. They are either work-release adult felon facilities (e.g. Reynolds house, Seattle) or detention centers housing individuals who are in the court process (e.g. Denny Youth Center, Everett). The proposed facility is neither type of facility. It is a facility that provides constructive direction for its occupants. Other issues raised at the hearing and in the materials presented in opposition include arguments that the proposed facility is not compatible with the surrounding properties. The facility is located in a commercial area and is a significant distance from a residential neighborhood. Further, there is no solid evidence or testimony that the individuals at this facility will wreak havoc or create safety issues for the residents of any neighborhood. The juveniles will be monitored and supervised by professional caregivers who will strictly apply the rules of the facility. Without the proposed facility, it is arguable that the residents of Lowell and the City may be in more danger than they are with the facility. Other issues raised at the hearing included the argument of whether the proposed facility is a "group home". This issue has been decided in prior hearings. (Reference is made to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the Everett City Council of October 21, 1993. That document remains as stated.) The final significant issue is whether the proposal creates an environmental impact. As noted in the findings, the SEPA review was exhaustive. In fact, it appears that the SEPA review was as exhaustive as any SEPA review ever conducted by the City of Everett. The City made its decision with regard to SEPA, and the decision remains as stated and will not be overturned in this Special Property Use Permit process. 32