Resolution 4168 - Laserfiche WebLink

With regard to the materials submitted by the opponents in this matter, much of the material was irrelevant, hearsay, or had no probative value. The opponents have created a "shot gun" approach in fighting this proposal. They have submitted a large number of documents, many of which have no relevancy to the request or the review criteria. The large number of newspaper articles that were submitted were read. Some involve budgetary newspaper reports of the City of Everett extending back to 1986. Their relevancy to the requested Special Property Use Permit is nil. They do not address any of the criteria of EMC 19.41.150. In addition, many of the exhibits of the opponents that were presented during the Special Property Use Permit process were the same exhibits presented at the SEPA review process. As noted, the SEPA review has been exhausted, and the proposal, with adherence to the conditions of the MDNS, will not create an environmental impact. To rehash this issue and to apply all of these exhibits submitted by the opponents is redundant, time consuming, and serves no specific purpose. Cne specific issue that was raised by the opponents and is masked in exhibit #69 was whether or not the proposal was subject to review of EMC 19.41.150.D. Because this is a Review IIB process, this ordinance had to be considered, and the opponents were correct in this argument. The ordinance has been considered and the proposal does not apply to any of the sections of this ordinance. The proposal is an allowed use. Specific attention is given to EMC 19.41.150.D.2(e)(5). This subsection refers to "rehabilitation house", "patients", and "drug rehabilitation". Obviously, Subsection "D" is not applicable to the proposed facility. The juveniles will not be "patients" at this facility. There will not be any type of"medical rehabilitation", "drug rehabilitation", or anything of that nature. The proposal is an allowed use. In summary, it is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner that the proposed Second Chance facility will be a benefit to the community. It will benefit the community by providing the transition for those unfortunate enough to be in the penal system. These are the youth of the community who still may have something to contribute to society. By use of the Second Chance facility, the transition can be made from the harsh confinement of the detention system to the basic freedoms enjoyed by members of society. Hopefully, those housed at the Second Chance facility will benefit from this opportunity and use it to advance their lives. It is a type of project that is allowed with a Special Property Use Permit in the City of Everett. It satisfies the criteria of EMC 19.41.150.C. Finally, in reviewing Special Property Use Permits, the Washington law is clear that decisions cannot be arbitrary or capricious. If the Applicant satisfies the criteria of an ordinance and facts are presented to show that support, the permit is to be granted (Parkridqe vs. Seattle 89 Wn2d. 454 (1978) and Lutheran Day Care vs. Snohomish County 119 Wn2d. 71.) 33