I would like to continue the conversation regarding the Group Health/Overlake Village project.

I understand the rationale used by staff and Council but I want to be candid here, I feel let down and disenfranchised by the process.

I participated at multiple sessions as staff collected the community’s input in how this area should be developed. We all felt we understood what was being proposed – that this was to be a livable, quality environment, different from our neighborhoods, but that this project would reflect the elements that make Redmond unique and valued both by our community and by the businesses who bring their companies and their families to Redmond for a quality of life they can’t get elsewhere. It’s this lack of recognition to anything that says this planned neighborhood and village is Redmond where we value our neighbors and the environment.

This project tells me it is all about maximizing the economic value of the land — creating the maximum amount of density by arguing that any tree preservation is ultimately impossible either for the health of the trees or the safety of others. What was created then, was a justification for 100 percent tree removal to maximize the economic value of the land.

My frustration continues that after all the time and effort afforded by citizens, neighbors, boards and commission to provide a vision of what this vital urban village should look and feel like, the process has allowed for the total disregard of our core values. So, it raises the question, why ask us?

As noted by Mr. Berg (Sustainable Redmond) and Mr. Hinman (Planning Commission), there is a lack of transparency with the process once an applicant begins their permit. There is no progress report with Council – with the Planning Commission – with the community until it  comes before us ALL as a virtual “fait accompli.” This is something that I believe needs to be reviewed and discussed by this Council. It raises the same question I asked several years ago to another Council – WHO WILL ADVOCATE for the community and our neighborhood values during the permitting process? How can we ensure that the balance of the urban village will be developed in a manner that will preserve those values?

Are we to assume that owner rights will exceed community interest? If property rights are paramount for commercial development why don’t we afford something comparable for our homeowners?

Where can we provide an opportunity with groups like Sustainable Redmond, who have talent and resources, to assist an applicant in achieving the goals of the community? Where can we add a public review of the process so as to shine a light on the steps being considered by an applicant? If you invite the neighbors and the community to offer input but then disregard it, why have a process at all?

The Group Health site is, as I expect, a done deal but I hope we can look to the future and make some policy changes before the balance of the redevelopment begins – so the process can continue to honor Redmond’s commitment to our core values and the environment.

Sue Stewart, Redmond