Loading...
2021-09-01 Planning Commission Agenda PacketCommissioners City Staff Lawson Bronson, Chair Tim O’Neil, Vice-Chair Keith Niven, Planning Manager Wayne Carlson Hope Elder E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant Diana Noble-Gulliford Tom Medhurst 253-835-2601 Dale Couture Eric Olsen, Alternate www.cityoffederalway.com Jae So, Alternate Anna Patrick, Alternate K:\PLN Long Range Planning\Planning Commission\Agendas, Packets, Minutes, and Misc Documents\2021\Agenda\Agenda 09-01-21.docx City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION September 1, 2021, 6:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers & Zoom Meeting AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, 2021 4. PUBLIC COMMENT 5. COMMISSION BUSINESS a. Public Hearing Continued – Permanent Supportive Housing & Emergency Shelter Code Revisions 6. STAFF BUSINESS a. Manager’s Report 7. NEXT MEETING a. September 15, 2021, 6:30 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT Notice: This meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom (AUDIO ONLY). • Call in and listen to the live meeting (888) 788-0099 or 253-215-8782 • Zoom meeting code 920 3994 8345 and passcode 431768 • Public Comment may be submitted via email here, or sign up to provide live comments here Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 August 18, 2021 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION August 18, 2021 City Hall 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers & Zoom MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Tim O’Neil, Wayne Carlson, Diana Noble-Gulliford, Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder, Dale Couture, Anna Patrick, Jae So, and Eric Olsen. Commissioners absent: Lawson Bronson (excused). City Staff present: Planning Manager Keith Niven, Assistant City Attorney Kent van Alstyne, and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair O’Neil called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. MINUTES The July 21, 2021, minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearing, Permanent Supportive Housing & Emergency Shelter Code Revisions – Manager Niven delivered the staff report. The proposed amendments are in response to house bill, ESHB 1220. Why do we need to do anything with the code? Because of newly-adopted state legislation that has a deadline of July and September to become effective. The city is better served by having standards in place than being out of compliance with state law. If we don’t adopt our regulations, we won’t have them in our toolbox and will have to follow state law. ESHB 1220 has six sections (a proposed seventh was rejected by the governor). According to the bill, cities have to accommodate housing affordable at all levels. This means we will have to comply with this mandate when we update our housing chapter in the comprehensive plan. Policies must be consistent between our code (FWRC) and the comprehensive plan. Section three is the biggest concern for the city. It states “A code city shall not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. And, effective September 30, 2021, a code city shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, except in such cities that have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one- mile proximity to transit.” Permanent supportive housing combines affordable housing assistance with voluntary support services to address the needs of chronically homeless people. Permanent supportive housing has helped decrease the number of chronically homeless individuals. Investments in permanent supportive housing have helped decrease the number of chronically homeless individuals by 8% since 2007. Research has shown it can increase housing stability and improve health. Emergency housing is often the first place people turn to during or after experiencing an economic or domestic crisis and provides a temporary residence. Emergency housing and shelters provide support services and short-term stabilization for individuals and families before finding appropriate long-term housing. Manager Niven noted that while the state has banned jurisdictions from adopting a moratorium on the siting of permanent supportive housing, the City of Puyallup has done so. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 18, 2021 Zones that currently allow hotels and motels are Community Business (BC), Commercial Enterprise (CE), City Center Frame (CC-F), and City Center Core (CC-C). Currently, Office Park (OP) and Professional Office (PO) zones don’t allow dwellings. Most of the city consists of single-family and multifamily zones. The city must use our “projected need” as a basis for any proposed code amendments. The projected need is an “…inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, as provided by the department of commerce, including: (i) Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely lowincome households; and (ii) Emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing….” Our projected need number will be developed for us by King County, using a number from the state’s Department of Commerce (DOC). However, DOC will not have a projected need number for King County until December 2021. King County will likely take most, if not all of 2022, to determine the projected need number for the jurisdictions in the county. Therefore Federal Way likely will not have an “official” projected need number until 2023. In the meantime, DOC still expects cities to determine and use their projected need number starting this year. Manager Niven used the following methodology to determine a tentative projected need number for Federal Way: 1. Utilize the 2020 Seattle/ King County Point In Time Count of the homeless done in January. 2. Since the count is not segregated by city, he utilized data for SW King County. (SW King County includes Renton, Tukwila, Burien, SeaTac, Des Moines, Vashon, Federal Way, a portion of Milton, a portion of Auburn, and Kent.) 3. He used the population of the region to determine the city’s portion (329). 4. He extended the Point In Time Count trend from the last four years out to 20 years (449) and applied a multiplier of 2.5% to that. Manager Niven arrived at a 20-year forecast for Federal Way’s projected need number of 1,123 dwelling units. He noted that some people feel the Point In Time Count undercounts the actual amount of homelessness by 2½ to 10 times fewer people. Staff suggests the city revisit the projected need number in 2023 after we receive our “official” number from King County. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if Manager Niven knows the DOCs formula for calculating the projected need number? Manager Niven replied that he does not know and DOC may not know yet. He noted that Federal Way and SeaTac are the most proactive cities concerning this issue. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked in regards to the calculations, is there anything other than an 8% reduction rate in homelessness due to permanent supportive housing? Isn’t there a factor to indicate some people have been helped and are no longer in this number? Manager Niven replied he will have to look into this issue. He doesn’t know if there is an expectation of the amount of homeless that will be helped (and can be moved out of the facilities). Commissioner Patrick asked regarding Puallup’s moratorium, Pierce County has a lot of foreclosure homes; can we look at the forecast of that? Attorney van Alstyne stated that the city can’t legally adopt a moratorium like what Puyallup did. Manager Niven commented that staff is concerned that the model of permanent supportive housing will move away from hotels and into neighborhood homes. This is something we can possibly address in our regulations. The proposed amendment will increase the separation between permanent supportive housing. Manager Niven went over a summary of the proposed amendment (attached). The summary table shows where permanent supportive housing and emergency housing are allowed now and where they will be allowed under new regulations. Since emergency housing is basically the same as the city’s social services transitional housing the proposed amendment changes social services transitional housing to emergency housing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 18, 2021 Vice-Chair O’Neil opened the hearing to public comment. Ken Blenens – He is frustrated with city officials. Do they even live in Federal Way? He is a 49- year resident. You can put a moratorium on this. We only have drug addict homelessness in Federal Way. All the numbers are wrong. Our homeless are drug addicts, not people down on their luck. We would happily help out and agree to this amendment if our homeless were people down on their luck, but they’re not. You don’t care for drug addicts the same way as other homeless. They are a problem for businesses. I often go out on my sidewalk and see a person with a needle in their arm. This amendment is going to put more drug addicts on our streets. Jacquelyn Copley – She lives in Federal Way. Her children are growing up here and her elderly parents live here as well. How safe would it be if the drug-addicted homeless were close to their house? The Police are concerned; there are hot spots of dangerous areas in the city. Crime is rising. What habit are they funding/supporting with this amendment? Who is protecting us? What you are doing has a long-term impact. Some of the people working on this don’t live in Federal Way. Commissioner Carlson commented that the Planning Commission is made up of residents of Federal Way. This is coming from the state, not the city. Please don’t place bad motives on city staff. Staff is following the lead of the city council. He is not comfortable being a trailblazer on this issue. He also disagrees with some of the amendments and the numeric standards but doesn’t blame the staff. Kerry Callison – This will spread the crime out to all the different homes. We pleaded with King County not to purchase Extended Stay, but for naught. Will this get rid of the tents and remove people from the streets? We are looking at you to do this and protect us Having services may help. It is a crazy idea to house senior citizens with drug addicts. With this amendment, property values will go down and people will leave Federal Way. Jack Walsh – He feels sorry for the position staff is in. The state legislature put us here. We should delay this amendment because there will be a different legislature in a few years and some of these laws may be undone. There is a need for emergency shelter and most of that part of the amendment is fine. He has been a volunteer for the Point In Time Count and the homeless numbers from before 2021 were very accurate and don’t need to be inflated. Isn’t this supposed to reduce the need number by 8%, so increasing the projected need number doesn’t make sense. He also noted the number of homeless who need a unit is lower than the count because some are couples and can share a unit; thereby, lowering the number needed. Jim Ross – He has lived in Federal Way for 60 years and owns a restaurant. He sees drug-addicted homeless in his parking lot every day. If it was just homeless he would support the amendment, but they are drug addicts who don’t want help. Such people don’t want to follow the rules (such as no alcohol use) from supportive agencies that want to help. Please don’t put drug addicts in our city center You can limit the size of hotels that can be used or the number of units. If only 25 rooms are available they will have to figure out something else. We need your help to solve this. Erica Norton – She has worked in construction on a lot of the jobs for this kind of housing in Seattle (where they belong) and has noted the developer uses sturdier components because they know they will be destroyed. There will soon have drugs, rats, and roaches in the units. The zoning rules should place families first. She would like drug-free zones and mandatory drug testing. David VanVleet(?) – Staff is using only one source for information. Another study indicates housing first is not the key to solving the homeless problem. There is a requirement they are separated from schools, but private schools are omitted from the law. In earlier years, funding of grants from HUD was higher for transitional (emergency) housing and now it is higher for Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 18, 2021 supportive housing. He noted permanent supportive housing can go into neighborhoods but transitional can not. The government isn’t being accountable to the citizens. There is a disconnect between what the state wants and what citizens want. Dara Mandeville– She is a small business owner. She is not getting patients because once they hear she is in Federal Way they cancel. What exactly is a unit? How many people can be in a unit? Can HOA Covenant and Restrictions forbid permanent supportive housing? Are no children allowed in all these homes? Why don’t we centralize permanent supportive housing? To her, it makes more logistical sense. What is the penalty of saying no? Vice-Chair Chair O'Neil commented the Planning Commission is a voluntary citizen board and part of our job is to take into account public comment. He thanked everyone for their comments. Commissioner Elder asked what if we said no? What would the penalty be? Manager Niven replied if we do nothing and someone comes in and wants 50 units of supportive housing and we don’t accept the application, the developer is likely to sue. Attorney van Alstyne commented the developer will likely have a valid argument. Commissioner Elder asked can we enforce a requirement that people are drug tested? Attorney van Alstyne replied he wants to discuss the issue with our Community Services Manager Sarah Bridgeford. Manager Niven commented the fair housing act says we can’t discriminate against disabilities, and drug addiction is considered a disability by many. Commissioner Patrick asked does 10 rooms/units mean 10 people in a house? Manager Niven replied there could be more than one person in a room/unit, there could be 20 people in the house. Commissioner Patrick asked how much parking would a 10 room/unit house require? Manager Niven replied it would be 10 to 20 spaces. The provider can ask to reduce the amount of parking (which will free up space). Commissioner Patrick would like to see a map of what the spacing of permanent supportive housing will look like. She also commented it is a concern that many of our neighborhoods don’t have sidewalks. She wants to see what the placement of permanent supportive housing in our neighborhoods will look like. Commissioner Patrick stated there are four in-care homes within a few blocks of where she lives and they cause a lot of problems in the neighborhood. She also stated that if we allow 10 people in a house that is being foreclosed, it could be turned into a cash cow; it would be less expensive than apartments. Manager Niven commented that one of the biggest costs is the operating expenses. If the housing is more congregated they likely will save money on the services to residents due to proximity. Commissioner Patrick commented the bill isn’t clear on what the regulations are in regards to services; there are no guidelines in the bill. Manager Niven commented the type of services needed will depend upon the operator and different operators will have different needs; programs will vary. He will research this issue. Commissioner Patrick asked if we can have regulations to deny those who are drug addicts. Attorney van Alstyne commented he needs to research this issue further. Commissioner Carlson has concerns related to the projected need number. He suggested the city use the smallest most conservative number as the base. He is concerned the city is using too large a base number He suggested the ½ mile separation apply only to units of three or greater. Manager Niven commented he doesn’t expect many will locate into small homes because of the need for the proximity of services (transit, doctors, etc.). He expects most will likely be in commercial zones. Commissioner Carlson commented he is uncomfortable being on the leading edge; he wants to know what other communities plan to do. He noted the supporting housing parking standards mirror what is in multifamily zones, but they will have employees and will need to add parking for them. Commissioner Carlson noted the city has several permits for behavioral health facilities; do we get credit in our projected need number for those? Manager Niven replied he doesn’t know and will research the issue. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if current facilities (such as FUSION’s ) count as part of our projected need? The services are similar and the city should get credit for those. She is concerned about these uses in single-family zones and whether they fit within the Housing Action Plan. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 18, 2021 Commissioner Carlson suggested the spacing in single-family zones be closer to a mile and ½ mile in multifamily and commercial zones. He asked if the state regulation can be preempted by covenants. Attorney van Alstyne replied that the bill does not expressly preempt private covenants. Commissioner Carlson asked staff to please examine a zero-tolerance policy. He also suggested the city require two occupants per room. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked what happens to the taxes from Extended Stay & Red Lion (property & head tax). Manager Niven stated it depends on if they are purchased and operated by a public entity or not. If privately owned and operated they will pay taxes. If it is a public entity, they will not. Commissioner Patrick asked if the city can decide what population we will serve. Attorney van Alstyne said he needs to research this question, especially in regards to barriers to entry. Commissioner Olsen commented he has seen Federal Way change a lot; but how can we be sure the number of homeless will grow as expected? Manager Niven replied the Point In Time Count has shown the city grows by approximately 360 every four years. Commissioner Olsen asked in regards to spacing, does it take into account other types of housing (such as adult family homes, ADUs, etc.). Manager Niven will ask the Department of Commerce if what already exists will be taken into account or factored into the calculation. Commissioner Patrick asked what happens if say, an in-home care is in an area reclassified for emergency housing and no longer meets the code requirements. Manager Niven replied they become nonconforming and will not have to change to meet the new requirements. If they want to make changes to the property certain restrictions apply and if they don’t meet them, they will have to make changes to apply any new code regulations. Commissioner Patrick asked if we can get how many units we already have? Vice-Chair O’Neil asked if adult family homes fall under the category of permanent supportive housing. How much of our housing is already permanent supportive housing and how many are already being served? Maybe we already meet our projected need number and don’t have to change the code. Manager Niven replied that we need to allow them in zones they are not currently allowed and that meets our expected need. Vice-Chair O’Neil suggested the city adopt the lowest projected need number possible. He commented that homelessness is a very squishy number and definition. We can arrive at a projected need number that will allow for growth, but we need to know what we currently have. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to continue the hearing to September 1st. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF BUSINESS Manager’s Report – None NEXT MEETING September 1, 2021, 6:30 pm ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. K:\PLN Planning Commission\2016\Meeting Summary 08-18-21.doc Summary of proposed amendments Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 1 of 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor MEMORANDUM DATE: 25 August 2021 TO: Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Brian Davis Director of Community Development Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Planning Manager SUBJECT: Response Memo – Proposed Code Amendments For Permanent Supportive Housing and Emergency Housing And Shelter (File 21-103086-00-UP) The following issues were discussed as part of the Public Hearing on 18 August 2021 relating to the proposed code amendments. Staff’s response follows the issue raised. 1. How will the Department of Commerce determine the Need for Federal Way and will existing units count towards meeting the City’s need? Under HB 1220, cities must inventory and analyze existing and projected housing needs for permanent supportive housing and transitional housing and emergency housing and shelter. As a result, existing units will be analyzed and incorporated into determining future need. Staff also sent a request for additional information to the Department of Commerce on Thursday, 19 August 2021. Staff received the following response from Commerce: “We are engaging a consultant to provide the projections of housing for next year. We do not have a current methodology, and will expect our consultant to work with King County and other jurisdictions to develop the methodology to project housing need – for all income segments, and for the temporary and emergency housing and PSH. Were you looking at the shelters, transitional housing and PSH? We don’t have anything for that right now. I was looking at King County’s subregional estimates for that housing need with another jurisdiction, and then estimating portion, projecting ahead, and using that as the basis of “allowing” those types of housing. We are recommending classic “show your work” cover for your code amendments.” 2. Relook at the methodology for determining need. See Attachment 1 3. The presentation identifies investments in permanent supportive housing have helped decrease the number of chronically homeless individuals by eight percent since 2007. Does King County have an expectation for success from the Housing First approach? Staff called King County Department of Community and Human Services on Friday, 20 August 2021. Staff received the following information from King County: Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 2 of 10 “Our expectation for PSH are as follows: • Permanently Housed: 90% of people referred to PSH are permanently housing • Length of Stay: N/A, because the expectation is that people stay permanently • Return to Homelessness: 5% (adults and families)…meaning that 95% retain their permanent supportive housing • Homeless Entries: 90% are literally homeless at entry to PSH • Utilization Rate: 85% of all PSH units are leased at all times w/in a building (and across the system)” 4. Parking requirements should account for employees. Agreed. Staff looked for similar examples of housing and employees being in the same facility in the code and would suggest the number of spaces for employees be handled similar to the provisions for convalescent centers. Staff would suggest the following revisions: Zone Initial Proposal Updated Proposal SE 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees SF 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees MF 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees NB 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees CB 1-2/units 1-2/unist and 1 for every 2 employees CC-C 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees CC-F 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees CE 1-2/units 1-2/units and 1 for every 2 employees Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 3 of 10 5. Does the city know how many shelter and PSH units exist in the city currently? The city currently does not keep a database of this information. However, Community Services staff identified the following existing units, which represent the city’s best estimate of currently existing units: Permanent Supportive Housing - Multi-Service Center, William J Wood for veterans and their families: 44 units Transitional Housing: - FUSION, scattered site for families: 20± units Shelter - FUSION: family shelter, 29 rooms - CCS, Temporary location for adults: 20± double occupancy rooms beds (Red Lion) 6. How many households in Federal Way are currently at imminent risk of becoming homeless? From the draft Housing Action Plan: Severely Cost Burdened (paying 50%+ of income for housing): Ownership – 5,861 Rental – 4,093 Total – 9,954 households The city does not have access to any other data to help inform this response. 7. Is there a way to prioritize housing for families? Staff is unaware of a way to write code to address this desired outcome. This seems more appropriate to be included as a new policy for the comprehensive plan when the housing element is updated. 8. Can the spacing for single-family be increased? Potentially yes: a. Increase the separation requirement from ½ mile to 1 mile (See Attachment 3). 9. Can the city require the operators to require background checks for residents? See Attachment 2 10. Can the city require treatment for residents with substance addictions? See Attachment 2 Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 4 of 10 11. Delay these proposed amendments until the city can review peer cities ordinances. It is staff’s recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council the adoption of the proposed code amendments as revised. As was stated in the hearing on 18 August 2021, by adopting the new code, the city will have protection measures in place that will not be part of code if these amendments are postponed. After the statutory deadline for compliance on September 25, all cities will be subject to state law which mandates allowance of shelter and PSH uses. This means an unlimited number of shelter or PSH projects could be built in a city that has not adopted standards and limitations such as those being proposed. 12. Can the city provide a map showing spacing for single-family zones? See Attachment 3 RECOMMENDATION a. Revise the proposed parking requirements as contained in this memorandum; and b. Include the operational requirements (Attachment 2); and c. Increase the separation for single-family zones to 1 mile. Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1 – Reevaluating Projected Need 1. Staff reached out to other cities to understand how they forecasted need. 2. Staff reread and re-evaluated the Point-in-Time Count 1. Outreach to other cities, their responses are provided below Kent: “…did not include a forecast number as part of their code revision process, we are proposing to reexamine the standards after the city receives information from Commerce” Auburn: “The legislation specifies to be effective the implementation must funded by the legislature. Even if this should change and the legislature provides funds, the city has been receptive to parts of HB 1220 and did not feel that a more immediate response by the unrealistic deadline in September is required, if we are making progress towards implementation of some of the provisions. Auburn has recently been selected as one of the sites for King County’s Health through Housing project sites for conversion of a hotel and with our Mayor’s support.” Tukwila: “Tukwila is not trying to estimate what commerce may decide is our projected need. Our draft ordinance caps the size of facilities by zone and includes spacing and location requirements. If those constrain the number of facilities below what is later calculated as our need we will reevaluate then.” Des Moines: “We have yet to calculate the need but our initial approach is to do the following: - Calculate the percentage of DM population within the Point-in-Time Count extent - Use the same percentage of DM on the total point-in-time count - N-value provides a general estimate - Review past time counts to determine trend (if any) and consider what the amount would need to be in the next 5 years based on calculation” SeaTac: “As to the Projected Need number, staff has landed on 100-150 people. How we came to this range:  We believe the intent of this portion of legislation is to provide for currently homeless, those at imminent risk of homelessness, and those chronically homeless (for permanent supportive housing).  Based on that we turned to the King County 2020 Point-in-Time Count: 2020 Seattle/King County Point-in-Time Count of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness  Utilizing the Point-in-Time Count, SeaTac’s proportional share of homeless was 99. We went up to 150 due to a statement in the county report that the numbers were found were most likely an undercount.” Renton: “To estimate the projected need for emergency housing and shelters, staff used data from the 2020 Seattle/King County Point-in-Time Count of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness (Count-Us-In-2020-Final.pdf (kcrha.org)). Because Renton accounts for approximately 17.5% of the southwest population, staff posits that the city’s projected need for emergency housing and shelters is approximately 329 beds (17.5% of 1,880).” Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 6 of 10 2. Point-in-Time Count – reevaluation a. Is 17% an accurate representation of Federal Way’s share? Staff’s extrapolation of Federal Way’s share of SW King County (17%) is consistent with the methodology used by Renton, SeaTac, Des Moines and Covington. Staff did not receive a response from staff’s request for more specific data for the city (email sent to Allhome on 19 August 2021). No changes are recommended. b. Is the Point-in-Time Count an under-representation? The Point-in-Time Count is a statistically significant measurement of the number of homeless individuals on one night per year in January. The Point-in-Time Count is generally considered to be an under-representation of the total number of homeless individuals; however, the degree of under-representation is unclear and has not been quantified. Two factors contribute to a potential under-representation are methodology of count, as well as the use of a single count on a single night of the year. c. Should the city apply a multiplier to determine its Projected Need? No. Although the city believes the Point-in-Time Count is generally considered to be under- representative of the total number of homeless individuals as discussed above, staff are recommending no multiplier be applied for the following reasons: i. The statistical accuracy claimed by the authors of the study (95%); ii. The 2020 data included an internal “multiplier” used in previous years to account for individuals in cars or vacant buildings that could not be physically seen and counted by surveyors; iii. Although staff initially suggested using a 2.5 multiplier based on a 2001 study analyzing nationwide Point-in-Time counts, the Commission raised concerns this study was dated and may not reflect the accuracy of the 2020 Seattle/King County Count; and iv. The Point-in-Time Count counts individuals. However, the Projected Need for the city is calculated on a per-unit basis, as opposed to an individual basis. Invariably, some units will be occupied by individuals and some by households of two or more. As provided in the report (see the table below), almost 27% of the 11,751 counted individuals were part of a household. By basing the city’s projected unit need on our proportionate share of the 11,751 individuals – as opposed to our proportionate share of households – the city’s methodology creates a built-in 27% buffer to account for any potential undercount resulting from the Point-in-Time study. Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 7 of 10 3. Conclusion: Revise the Projected Need for Federal Way from 1,123 to 450 (combined PSH and Shelter), consisting of 194 units (43%) of emergency housing and shelter; and, 256 units (57%) of permanent supportive housing and transitional housing. These percentages are derived from the respective proportions of transitional housing, disabled housing, and shelter housing found in the Point-in-Time Count. Taking the existing count as well as what is in the pipeline (King County proposals): Projected Need Existing Proposed Remainder to meet Projected Need Emergency housing and emergency shelter 194 291 90 (Red Lion) 75 Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing 256 64 101 (Extended Stay) 91 1There are an additional 20 units that are currently located at the Red Lion that will be part of the 90 proposed. RATIONALE a. Using the 2020 Seattle King County Point-in-Time Count is the best source of current data available to base the city’s Projected Need. b. Utilizing the best data available, taking the proportionate share of homeless from the Point-in-Time Count for SW King County as a direct percentage of the city’s population as a percentage of those cities and areas comprising the SW King County region (17%) represents a reasonable, non-arbitrary decision and is consistent with other cities’ approaches. c. There are adequate reasons (as stated above) for not applying a multiplier to the final adjusted Point-in- Time Count, and no data or basis upon which to quantify such an additional multiplier is available to the city at this time. Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 8 of 10 ATTACHMENT 2 – Additional Special Regulations and Notes Following review and consideration of comments from the Planning Commission, public comments, and review of the legality of imposing additional regulations, staff recommend including the following as Special Regulations and Notes to each zone use chart as part of this amendment: A. In single-family and multi-family residential zones, residents must be referred by providers of housing and services for people experiencing homelessness. Direct intake of residents at the site is not allowed. B. A description of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access from the subject site to services and schools must be provided to the residents. C. An operations plan must be provided that addresses the following elements: 1. Roles and responsibilities of key staff; 2. Site/facility management, including a security and emergency plan; 3. Site/facility maintenance; 4. Occupancy policies, including resident responsibilities and a code of conduct that includes, at a minimum, a prohibition on threatening and unsafe behavior, and the on-site use and sale of illegal drugs; 5. Access to human and social services, including a staffing plan and expected outcome measures; and 6. Procedures for maintaining accurate and complete records. D. Providers and/or managing agencies shall have either a demonstrated experience providing similar services to people experiencing homelessness, certifications or academic credentials in an applicable human service field, and/or applicable experience in a related program with people experiencing homelessness. E. For health and safety reasons, the sponsor and/or managing agency shall take all reasonable and legal steps to obtain verifiable identification information, including full name and date of birth, from current and prospective residents, and shall keep a log containing this information. F. People who are required to register as a sex offender are prohibited from residing in the facility. G. Should the provider become aware of a current or prospective resident who has an active felony warrant, it shall follow set protocol for contacting the FWPD and addressing these warrants. Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 9 of 10 Proposed Code Amendments - 2021 Page 10 of 10