Dear All CD Neighbors,
The Jackson Place Alliance for Equity (JPAE) would like to provide an important
update on the status of the legal petition filed in King County Superior Court
on April 25, 2011 seeking an impartial, unbiased review of the siting of DESC’s
crisis diversion facility at 1600-1618 South Lane St.
JPAE’s attorney, through many hours of research, investigating and most
recently, the deposition of one of DPD’s Land Use Code experts, has filed an
opening brief dated August 22, 2011. A final review hearing between JPAE v City
of Seattle, DESC, C.J. & J Pacific LLC, William Hobson and King County is
scheduled for Friday September 30th at 9am. For more details, please visit
http://www.jpae.org/upcoming-events.
A copy of the brief in its entirety can be found on JPAE’s website
http://www.jpae.org/latest-developments.
The brief is lengthy and we hope you
will take the time to read it thoroughly, as it provides details and information
of how the crisis diversion facility came to be sited at 1600-1618 South Lane
St.
Sincerely,
Jackson Place Alliance for Equity
Below is a summary of the brief:
On April 2, 2010, King County P.A. Chief of Staff Manion provided updates to the
MIDD co-chairs, City Councilmembers and their aides, County representatives, and
both County and City attorneys regarding efforts to site the Crisis Diversion
Facility and indicated that the County would like to add an addendum to the RFP
“to let potential bidders know that they can consider sites in Seattle. . . .
What he’d like to have to include in the addendum is either a copy of the City’s
letter to the MIDD oversight committee or permission to drop a Seattle
Councilmember’s name (or two) that helps explain this new piece of info.”
City Attorney Holmes responded the same day, “I am glad to see so much progress,
and anxious to help sustain the momentum.” His Chief of Staff, Ms. DuComb, also
e-mailed that “Pete is happy to sign the letter and supports locating the
facility in Seattle. Just let me or Kim know, and we can get his ink on paper.”
On Saturday, April 3, 2010, DPD Director Diane Sugimura e-mailed Deputy Director
Justad, DPD Director of Planning Foster and other DPD staff, including Bryan
Stevens, Customer Service Manager and Industrial Permit Liaison in DPD’s
Community Engagement regarding her meeting with Mayor McGinn the day before,
Friday afternoon, April 2, 2010. Director Sugimura explained that she had
discussed several items with Mayor McGinn, including in particular finding a
site for the Crisis Diversion Facility: “They are very interested in helping to
find an appropriate site…” “…please contact Kathy Nyland to see if their office
is willing to approach whomever is in charge at KC and ask that we sit down with
them and discuss options, so we could try to get some control over siting rather
than having everyone running around trying to tie up property.”
The following day, Sunday April 4, 2010, Councilmember Bagshaw e-mailed Law
Department Chief of Staff DuComb regarding siting of the Crisis Diversion
Facility: “The only caution I’ve received from anyone is to avoid Pioneer Square
because the Council promised not to put more social services in that area right
away.”
Councilmember Bagshaw sent a similar e-mail to King County P.A. Chief of Staff
Manion, making sure that the City’s letter of support was received, observing
“This is the kind of intergovernmental cooperation that we need!” and
cautioning: “The only limitation I’ve heard from my colleagues is to avoid
Pioneer Square because there’s an agreement (personal, not legal I understand)
not to put more social services in Pioneer Square. 5th Avenue, 9th Avenue, or
anywhere close to the jail/admin will probably work without too many
complaints.”
Ms. Manion responded, “I hear you loud and clear on the Pioneer Square issue – –
no worries. I think we can direct our FMD real estate team to focus on sites
that are a little closer to the jail and Harborview.”
On April 6, 2010, Derek Farmer, a Policy Analyst in Mayor McGinn’s office,
contacted Deputy Director Justad by e-mail about Councilmember Bagshaw’s
suggestion about siting the crisis diversion center in a Martin Selig building
located at 5th and Yesler. Mr. Justad followed up, noting that Ms. Sugimura “was
planning to talk to Selig or one of his staff.” Deputy Director Justad also sent
Mr. Farmer the “zoning overview we sent to Sally B last week at her request.”
Between April 9, 2010 and April 12, 2010, Director Sugimura exchanged several
emails with Councilmember Bagshaw concerning the siting of the facility and Ms.
Sugimura’s meeting with Martin Selig. Director Sugimura explained, “I got the
impression you wanted to be proactive in terms of finding a site, rather than
waiting to see what happens.” Councilmember Bagshaw then invited Director
Sugimura to talk with her and King County’s Facilities Director Brown “about
where we can site this Crisis Diversion Facility!”
By July 7, 2010, King County had selected DESC as the provider for the Crisis
Diversion Facility. On that date, DESC Director Bill Hobson e mailed DESC
architect John Woodworth that DESC was “just . . . selected to do all of the
County’s new crisis diversion program. (We will be using the Lane Street site. .
.). The DESC Director celebrated landing the CDF contract to DESC`s architect in
something other than social service terms, enthusing that it was, “A new $6M
annual book of business.” (July 9, 2010 e-mail from DESC’s Jessica Cohen to DESC
architect Woodworth: “I think Bill shared with you that we got the CDF portion
of the County’s RFP so the Lane St site is a go for both CDF and CDIS.”).
Two weeks later, on August 17, 2010, Seattle City Councilmember Bagshaw e-mailed
DPD Director Sugimura again: “I have been working with the King County
Prosecuting Attorney’s office and the King County’s mental health group for
years to create an alternative for police to putting people with mental illness
in jail or at Harborview Medical Center. I recently learned that DESC was
awarded the RFP for the Crisis Diversion Facility and they have a site in
Seattle they are ready to remodel. Amnon Shoenfeld from King County told me that
the Department of Planning and Development said getting the permits necessary
for a change of use and for the environmental impact process will take 5-7
months instead of the usual 2-3 months due to their being short-staffed. The
money is available and the building is needed. I know you are short staffed and
doing more than any department should have to do in face of all these budget
problems, but can we do anything to move this project forward?”
October 6, 2010, Mr. Hobson requested a meeting with Ms. Sugimura, appealing to
the need to save the County and City “a lot of money:” “Unfortunately, I need to
ask for your help again because we have hit snags that could delay permitting
for this project by months.” His e-mail continues, “I sincerely hope there is
some way we can work together to expedite permitting for this project. It
promises to save both the County and City a lot of money each year in reduced
hospitalizations and incarcerations. Thanks for your assistance.”
DPD planner Swallow responded in an October 11, 2011 e-mail noting that DESC
architect John Woodworth had warned her that pressure would be brought to bear:
“John has told me from the beginning that the County is wanting this project
complete
d ASAP and when I told him originally that the Type II process takes at
least six months to complete he told me people would be calling you.”
DPD Land Use and Zoning Manager Roberta Baker also weighed in on October 11,
2010, explaining that DESC was “appealing to Diane to have us waive the need for
an. However, there is no provision in the Land Use Code for “waiver” of a
required ACU.”
October 18, 2010 e-mail, the Mayor’s Legal Counsel Mr. Marquardt made it clear
to everyone that the public was not to be informed of the project location: “I
understand the location of the proposed site has not been announced, pending
outreach to residents, so we should preserve confidentiality on the specifics.”
October 19, 2010, although DESC had yet to actually submit its application to
DPD, DESC Director Hobson informed every Seattle City Councilmember that DESC
had completed land use reviews with City staff from the Department of Planning
and Development and are assured our use will be approved.
On October 27, 2010, DESC Director Hobson e-mailed Councilmember Burgess,
Councilmember Bagshaw, King County P.A. Deputy Chief of Staff Goodhew, City
Attorney Holmes, Sheriff Rahr, King County Councilmember Larry Gossett, SPD
Deputy Chief of Operations Nick Metz, and King County’s Mr. Shoenfeld and Jackie
MacLean. Hobson’s email invites all of the recipients to attend a public
informational meeting scheduled for November 9, 2010 to (finally) let the
neighborhood know what they had all known for months.
The next day, City Attorney Holmes, Councilmember Bagshaw, and Councilmember
Burgess commented on the informational meeting. Councilmember Bagshaw was
effusive in her praise for DESC and in her disrespect for her constituents (whom
she referred to as “the beast”) who had questioned whether the site was
appropriate: “I too, want to sing your praises. I was very impressed at how you
handled the crowd, and your honest and direct answers calmed the beast. You did
well.” She then reaffirmed, “I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to get
this Crisis Solution Center built.”
Consistent with its assurances in response to pointed inquiries on behalf of
DESC from Councilmembers, City Attorney, County Prosecuting Attorney, and the
Mayor’s office, there was no land use public notice or public hearing and
comment period before (or after) DPD drafted and issued the decisions [regarding
the land use code request for interpretation and subsequently the land use
permit issued to DESC].
The Court’s Order allowed one deposition, a JPAE deposition of DPD’s Andy McKim,
the author of the DPD Land Use Code Interpretation Decisions. Mr. McKim’s
deposition on August 11, 2011, was revealing, perhaps unintentionally so, on the
City’s part. Mr. McKim stated that City Council is not supposed to have any role
in determining how DPD “interpret[s] the land use code,” that “we raise our
eyebrows . . . when somebody from City Council is telling us how to read the
code,” and that the issues presented here are ones on which the City Council has
no role.
Mr. McKim stated flatly that he had kept no notes of any kind concerning DESC’s
project or his Interpretation decisions. Mr. McKim admitted that he did not
check any of the factual premises that he had adopted in his Interpretation from
the letters on the Interpretation submitted by DESC and its attorney. He did not
even know the name or operator of the supposedly “similar facility operating on
the same model in Pierce” relied upon in his Interpretation decision, had never
been to the facility, had never talked to anyone who operates it, did not check
its zoning, and accepted the statistics provided by DESC regarding the Pierce
County facility without any verification.
The [DPD] Interpretation claims that the DESC facility is a “hospital” based on
the “entire record,” including “information about the services offered and the
nature of the staffing and physical components of the facility as described in
the RFP and as reflected in the submitted plans,” as well as on information
provided by DESC regarding the percentage of “clients” that will be referred by
entities other than the police. DPD’s McKim, the Interpretation’s author, was
not familiar with even key elements of the DPD record. He could offer no basis
for the premises in his Interpretation decision because they had come, without
any pretense of verification by DPD, from DESC and its attorney.
The facility is not a hospital. It is not open to the public; people will not be
able to “walk-in” to the facility or even make an appointment to be seen. The
actual record reflects that the DESC facility is first and foremost one for
detention as part of an alternative to jail – a jail diversion program.