Shelter Land Use Code Amendment: Survey Results ... · Shelter Land Use Code Amendment: Survey...

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