HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-19 Public Comment - P. Culver - HRDC Warming Center SiteFrom:paige culver
To:Sarah Rosenberg; Agenda
Subject:Warming Center in Densely Residential Zone
Date:Thursday, October 24, 2019 8:43:45 AM
Dear Ms. Rosenberg, Mr. Matsen and City Leaders,
It is difficult to know where to begin when trying to outline my opposition to the location of
the proposed warming shelter site. I'd like to preface this email by saying that the majority ofmy volunteer hours, to date, have been in homeless shelters, food lines, and in some of the
poorest pueblos in Mexico bringing resources to people in desperate need. The people whooppose this location do not lack compassion... it is a location issue. To me, any reasonable
person would quickly and easily deem this location unsuitable given its densely residentialnature and proximity to an elementary school and middle school. HRDC paid a premium for a
home intended for this purpose before even applying for the Special Use Permit which makesme think, 1.) Either HRDC, for some unknown reason, was profoundly confident that this
would be a "shoe in" process with the city or 2.) they choose to remain blissfully ignorant ofthe impact they will be be causing to the character of Figgins and surrounding neighborhoods
as well as the risks they are posing to those neighborhoods and the nearby schools that servethe minor children attending them. Possibly some combination of the two. Either way, it does
not look good. There are many residents in my area who view this proposal as unsavory, atbest.
Before digging deep into the specific issues with the site, I would like to say that it is very
unsettling to know the profound lack of accountability HRDC and the city have to theresidents of ANY R1 zoned area in Bozeman. It seems the change in the city ordinance in
February of 2018 made the city of Bozeman a free-for-all for HRDCs agenda... which was aconcern for many at the time. If this location, 3025 Westridge Drive, could even be
considered, given it is 287 FEET from an elementary school playground with ZERO coveredpublic transportation available, then what hope would any other residential neighborhood have
in questioning or fighting such a proposal especially at the speed at which HRDC was aimingfor approval. I am flabbergasted. It seems to me HRDC is running the show here. As spoken
by commissioner Jeff Krauss when the ordinance was amended:
"Commissioner Jeff Krauss said he was worried the city was moving too quick on the
rules without creating enough controls.
“This is a significant change in policy, which opens the door to this type of facility in
almost any neighborhood in the city,” he said."
I venture to say, Mr. Krauss saw the writing on the wall. The controls are loose, to say
the least. As an organization that is supported by the citizens of Bozeman, it makes no sense
that HRDC would so casually disregard the people living in these neighborhoods. Incredibly
poor judgement on their part and even poorer judgement on the city's part if this is approved.
It is our/YOUR responsibility as a community to take in the full scope of possibilities with
each site being considered as an overflow/warming center location:
I implore you to consider the following:
According to: Ordinance 1997, Zone Text Amendments to Add Transitional and EmergencyHousing as an Authorized Use: (pg. 355)
"D. Additional criteria. The review authority may, in its sole discretion, apply additional
criteria the review authority deems necessary to mitigate impact(s) of the proposed use as acondition of approving a special use permit, including but not limited to: 1. The site where
such use is proposed is within ¼ mile of a sheltered public transit stop."
As we know, HRDC cannot keep anyone from leaving the shelter after they check in.Additionally, guests are not allowed to re-enter the home if they leave after checking in.
THERE ARE NO SHELTERED PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS within a 1/4 mile of thishome. Not even close. When someone willingly leaves, it puts not only the neighborhood
at risk but ALSO the person leaving. The densely residential nature of this locationleaves them vulnerable to the elements, precisely the opposite of HRDCs purpose.
Since, as stated in section D (quoted above), the additional criteria includes but is not limited
to the availability of a covered sheltered public transportation stop within a 1/4 mile, I wouldask that you consider the following as additional criteria:
1.) Proximity to school property. The proposed location is NOT .4 miles from the
elementary school property, as had been stated in HRDCs proposal, but a mere 287FEET from the school playground property, where children play and are staged prior to
entering the building every morning. It is beyond me how this was not explicitly stated asadditional criteria for consideration in the ordinance changes.
Montana State Law prohibits high risk sex offenders from residing or working within 300 feet
of a facility that primarily serves people under age 18. Since HRDC is a "low barrier" entryorganization, and requires no background check, LET ALONE ANY KIND OF
IDENTIFICATION, this poses a major risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the childrengoing to school at Morning Star Elementary.
2.) Parking Spaces:
HRDC has had to show proof of adequate parking (.25 parking spots per person at a maximum
capacity of 36 people per night comes to 9 parking spots) The site, per HRDCs proposal, onlyhas 4 spaces in total. Given that the location is public knowledge there is nothing keeping
from people showing up to the location in a vehicle. This could potentially add to the alreadycongested area as it sits at the confluence of heavy foot, bike, and vehicle traffic of families
and children going to and from Sacajawea and Morning Star Elementary. Who is monitoringthis?
3.) Material Adverse Effects:
HRDC states under "Required Narrative Responses" under section B that, "Management by
the HRDC will ensure no material adverse effects on the abutting properties. Does this applyto the health and welfare of the immediate neighbors who will have to tolerate hourly smoke
breaks until 10 p.m.? Have you seen how close the homes are to one another? How doesHRDC plan to ensure there are no adverse effects to the abutting properties? Will they be held
liable for damaged property caused by one of their guests? Does this include decline inproperty value?
Additionally, I would like to point out some key points/discrepancies in HRDCs
operations/management plan:
General Guest Relations & Facility Operations: (Page 5)
#5. "Guests should be requested to provide a photo identification. If they do not have a photoID, they can still be admitted."
# "All guests checking in must be 17 and older"
How does HRDC intend to enforce the age requirement or even relationship of family
members if no photo IDs are required?
Weapons:
"*When registering for a daytime storage tote, guests will need to sign and date the Day Storage
Contract. Prohibited items on the contract include: Weapons of any kind, alcohol, drugs, or other illicit
substances..."
My question; Is the staff ensuring through some sort of search process of the person and their items that
none of these things are being brought into our neighborhood? Since weapons was the first item listed on
the prohibited list I'll move to the "Weapons" section of the application, page 16:
"Weapons: To protect the safety and security of all who utilize the Warming Center, the Warming Center
is a "weapon free zone". Absolutely no firearms are allowed on the property which includes guest vehicles
parked in the parking lot. Any other weapons including but not limited to knives, mace, bear spray,
swords, razors, throwing stars, nun chucks, metal knuckles, etc. must be stored by a staff member in a
labeled manila envelope in a secured and locked location; weapons MUST BE RETURNED TO GUESTS
UPON GUEST DEPARTURE IN THE MORNING."
And finally, in the schedule outlined on page 18 of the special use permit application:
"5:00 a.m. Front door is unlocked. Coffee is made. Guests may come and go as they please."
As HRDC seems to be a community focused group... they seem to have done next to nothing to show
consideration for the people/families/kids living in Figgins and surrounding neighborhoods. They cannot
control the comings and goings of the warming shelter in ANY WAY. All of what HRDC has said in the
way of ensuring the community of their control and operation of the warming center site proves, after
careful review of the application and questions to HRDC representatives, they can actually control very,
very little.
Police Report:
According to Bozeman PD, calls to the other warming center location included, "criminalmischief". According to the report there was an attempted break-in of church employee's car.
She called the police. The second was a welfare check where a man visited the shelter, stayedfor a while and then left. HRDC called the police because it was really cold out. Sound like a
familiar concern? The 3rd was a warrant arrest of a woman staying at the shelter. He couldn'tsay what the warrant was for.
82 calls to the Industrial Drive location (which this location would be providing over flow for)include:
10 Disorderly Conduct Calls
6 other/civil6 welfare checks - possibly people leaving center on their own.
6 assault5 warrants
1 theft1 missing person
My question to the city and HRDC who stated in the meeting that those cases are
"uncommon", how many times is reasonable for the residents of Figgins and surroundingneighborhoods to deal with these types of calls/disturbances? How many times are we
supposed to be ok with a missing transient person in our neighborhood? If there is a negativeinteraction with police in the morning hours and a search for someone ensues, how many
times should we be ok with our schools going on lockdown? These are the tough, real lifequestions we should be asking when considering Special Use Permit locations.
In closing, I would like to say that given the "indefinite" nature of the Special Use Permit, it
boggles the mind to think that this is approved through an administrative process with oneperson making the final decision. The minimal amount of communication required to the
surrounding residents (if even executed properly) is laughable and undemocratic. No publichearing, no vote, and barely any time for residents to even know what is happening before it's
too late.
I hope you will make the right decision and deny HRDCs Special Use Permit for the proposedlocation at 3025 Westridge Drive. The management plan and assurances that HRDC will
mitigate risk to the area are weak and unenforceable. I hope that HRDC is more thoughtful intheir approach to their community in the future and I hope the city can find a way to "pump
the brakes" as the ordinance change and the Special Use Permit application/approval processis going to quickly reach a momentum that nobody can keep up with. As Bozeman grows, we
want to make sure it remains the city that people want to live in. These issues need to benavigated more carefully... a created sense of urgency should not result in our city leaders
rushing to make decisions that cannot be undone.
Best regards,
Paige Culver
Proud resident of Bozeman