Loading...
Questions and Comments from Planning Commissioners and the PublicFrom:Keith Niven To:"JEANNIE VANVLEET" Cc:Tina Piety Subject:RE: HB 1220 Date:Monday, August 23, 2021 8:39:14 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Good morning, My apologies if I did not answer your question clearly. Let me start here: Permanent supportive housing is housing for homeless. Subsidized/affordable housing is different – it is housing that is below market rate and may fall into categories of 80% AMI and below, 60% AMI and below, 50% AMI and below, and 30% AMI and below. “AMI” stands for area median income. For Permanent supportive housing in a single-family zone, 6 units = 6 rooms in 1 house For subsidized/affordable housing, 6 units = multifamily and is not allowed in a SF zone. Does this help? Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Planning Manager City of Federal Way (253) 835-2643 From: JEANNIE VANVLEET <dvanjvan@msn.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 6:45 PM To: Keith Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com> Cc: Tina Piety <Tina.Piety@cityoffederalway.com> Subject: Re: HB 1220 [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING] This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy.Please use caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests forinformation. If you have any doubts about the validity of this email please contact IT Help Deskat x2555. Thank you for your response, it didn't really clarify my question. Let me ask it this way, please define unit as it pertains to Permanent supportive housing and subsidized/affordable housing; for example under new zoning code RF are those 6 separate living units each containing (bedroom, bathroom, kitchen) under one roof/building? Would the zoning be the same for perm supportive housing and subsidized low-income housing ie 6 units? Wouldn't this allow new multi- family low income buildings in what is currently single family zones‽ I appreciate your response, Jeannie VanVleet From: Keith Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 4:06:58 PM To: 'dvanjvan@msn.com' <dvanjvan@msn.com> Cc: Tina Piety <Tina.Piety@cityoffederalway.com> Subject: RE: HB 1220 Hi Jeannie, Thank you for your email and good question. To answer your question, we must look at the code that is in place as the proposed amendments we are currently discussing with the Planning Commission are specific to Permanent supportive housing and Emergency shelter and your question is about the location of subsidized, or affordable housing. Under the code, as it is written today, there is nothing limiting a developer from building a home and renting the bedrooms out to individuals. The code limits the height of the structure, its placement on the property (yard setbacks), and number of parking spaces. The use of the property is also regulated by code, however, your scenario has the use of the structure as a home which is allowed in a single-family zone. There are no separation requirements in code for affordable housing. Hopefully this is clear. But, if you have any additional questions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Planning Manager City of Federal Way (253) 835-2643 From: Tina Piety Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 2:35 PM To: Keith Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com> Subject: FW: HB 1220 FYI From: JEANNIE VANVLEET <DVANJVAN@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 9:22 PM To: Tina Piety <Tina.Piety@cityoffederalway.com> Subject: HB 1220 [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING] This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy.Please use caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests forinformation. If you have any doubts about the validity of this email please contact IT Help Deskat x2555. I attended the meeting last night for the new zoning for HB 1220. What I found interesting and have a question about is why the focus was solely on homeless yet won't rezoning our city also affect where subsidized housing will be allowed? For example, a developer puts permanent supportive housing (up to 6 units) in the new residential zone (formerly sf) what's to prevent him from building another 6 units of subsidized housing next door? The 1/2 mile rule only applies to permanent supportive housing, from my understanding. This re- zone would decimate single family neighborhoods. If I am incorrect in my understanding please let me know. This is probably the most important issue ever to be handed to our zoning and planning commission. Please be cautious of motivations in opposition to homeowners. Thank you for your consideration, Jeannie VanVleet From:Keith Niven To:Tina Piety Cc:Kent van Alstyne Subject:FW: Questions Date:Friday, August 13, 2021 2:52:04 PM Attachments: Answers in red from: Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Planning Manager, (253) 835-2643 City of Federal Way Hey Anna, See my comments below…in red.  Hopefully you find these responses helpful.  If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.  From: Anna Patrick <thepatrickfour@gmail.com>  Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 1:09 PM To: Keith Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com> Subject: Questions [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy. Please use cautionwhen clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests for information. If you have any doubtsabout the validity of this email please contact IT Help Desk at x2555. Hi Keith, As promised, I am sending you a lot of questions regarding HB 1220!  Please see below.... I am hoping to get this information out to the public as soon as possible and will be encouraging a large attendance.  This is so important.  Thank you.  Anna The law requires permanent supportive housing “in zones where short-term rentals are allowed”.  If the city ofFederal Way chooses not to allow short term rentals, does this nullify the requirement to allow permanentsupportive housing in those zones?  Can this be decided zone by zone or would it be across the board for allzones as an either-or decision?  I see that Steilacoom banned all short-term rentals and Airbnbs recently.  https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article253261113.html I did not see the reference to short-term rentals in the HB (if you have a citation you could share I would be glad to re-look at this response). The requirement for allowing permanent supportive housing is tied to “residential dwelling units or hotels,” not short-term rentals.  We are interpreting “residential dwelling units” (see clip below) to be both single-family and multi-family.  As it relates to Emergency housing & shelters, we would not be legally required to allow Emergency housing & shelters if we removed hotels as an allowed use in Federal Way as we are only legally required to locate those 2 types of housing where hotels are allowed. I looked up short-term rentals online for Federal Way and see that we do have several in the waterfront areas of Federal Way.  I also see that many apartments are renting month by month now.  Can you please define shortterm rental as it is applied in this bill and clarify other scenarios that are temporary that do not fall into thedefinition of short-term rental? As I responded above, I do not believe there is a direct correlation with short-term rentals other than a short-term rental could be purchased and used as permanent supportive housing as it is a “dwelling unit”. After the presentation to Planning Commission and presentation to the City Council on Short-Term Rentals, there did not seem to be much enthusiasm to bring forward code revisions to address Short Term Rentals – we might consider it for 2022.  In the absence of something specific in city code, we would look to the state definition.  Short Term Rentals are defined in RCW 64.37.010 as: (9)(a) "Short-term rental" means a lodging use, that is not a hotel or motel or bed and breakfast, in which a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, that is offered or provided to a guest by a short-term rental operator for a fee for fewer than thirty consecutive nights. (b) "Short-term rental" does not include any of the following: (i) A dwelling unit that is occupied by the owner for at least six months during the calendar year and in which fewer than three rooms are rented at any time; (ii) A dwelling unit, or portion thereof, that is used by the same person for thirty or more consecutive nights; or (iii) A dwelling unit, or portion thereof, that is operated by an organization or government entity that is registered as a charitable organization with the secretary of state, state of Washington, or is classified by the federal internal revenue service as a public charity or a private foundation, and provides temporary housing to individuals who are being treated for trauma, injury, or disease, or their family members. (10) "Short-term rental advertisement" means any method of soliciting use of a dwelling unit for short-term rental purposes. (11) "Short-term rental platform" or "platform" means a person that provides a means through which an operator may offer a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for short-term rental use, and from which the person or entity financially benefits. Merely publishing a short-term rental advertisement for accommodations does not make the publisher a short-term rental platform. There are also some additional regulations on short-term rentals contained in that same chapter of the RCW. I see that there are rules regarding the distance from one permanent supportive housing structure to another within a zone.  Do these rules also apply from zone to zone and what are the rules? If we continue to allowshort term rentals and also in home care facilities and half way homes etc, will the city want to look atlimitations of these types of models per zone? Will voucher housing that is not permanent supportive housingbe a factor in location?  I think it’s very important that we continue to advocate for housing stock that allows for home ownership, especially in the smaller more affordable entry level homes so this is the reason that I ask.  The HB allows cities to influence a few things.  Specifically, reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity are identified in the Bill.  As we wrestled with the spacing piece of this, we had to also achieve the expectation that our requirements do not preclude us from accommodating our projected need (see HB excerpt below from the end of new Section 3).  …safety. Any such requirements on occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each code city's projected need for such housing and shelter under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii) The proposed code amendment suggests 1000 feet for Emergency housing and shelter.  This would be measured from parcel boundary to parcel boundary, irrespective of the zone the facility is located in – i.e. it applies zone to zone.  This number was the separation requirement for Social Service transitional housing in the code currently.  There did not seem to be a reason to propose a different spacing requirement for this use.  However, the separation requirement was expanded to include public schools.  For permanent supportive housing, this is a new land use category for the city.  The proposed code is ½ mile (2,640 feet).  To help inform this conversation, I have included a map in the presentation for the Commission to see what the proposed spacing distance might yield.  This is the “projected need” part of the Bill.   At some point (likely mid-to-late 2023), the city will receive a number from King County identifying how many units we need to plan for.  The recommendation from staff is that we adopt the code now due to the timing contained in the House Bill; and, revisit the spacing piece in 2023/2024 after we receive additional information regarding our projected “need”. Regarding vouchers – I had experience w/ Section 8 housing in my last job.  For some affordable housing builders, they create a certain number of units that are for vouchers.  Without having more information, I would guess that it will be up to the operator or the owner.  There is nothing in the House Bill specifically relating to vouchers.  If the Commission would like to discuss vouchers, Sarah might be able to help facilitate that conversation. Has the city consulted with the school district regarding these updates? What is their feedback? I have not had a conversation with the school district.  If the Commission would like staff to engage in a conversation with the District, it would be helpful to have a list of questions from the Commission or clarity on what type of feedback the Commission might be wanting to consider. Since the permanent supportive homes will be taken off the tax role while adding greater need for fire andpolice to our city, is there a surcharge that can be added to cover these expenses? When a new project (new construction) is proposed for the City, it will (unless exempt) require SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review.  As part of that review, either South King Fire or FWPD could identify an impact that requires mitigation.  The required mitigation is then applied as a condition of permit.  Should mitigation be deemed necessary, it would likely vary from project to project.  The reason the Extended Stay did not require SEPA is because they bought an existing building. A new (Section 4) of the bill states that reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed by ordinance on permanent supportive hosing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelters to protect public health and safety as long as this ordinance does not prevent the siting of a sufficient number necessary to accommodate each city’s projected need for such housing.  There may be more support for this type of housing if safety concerns such as crime and public disorder can be addressed in advance. Can the city decide via an ordinance to not allow those with active substance use disorder or those withuntreated severe mental illness or criminal history of sex offense in permanent supportive housing modelswithin the city of Federal Way?  There would likely be more support if we knew that those being housed are elderly or disabled for example. Can the city create specific guidelines/rules of conduct and expectations for those who operate permanentsupportive housing?  Who decides on these guidelines?  HB 1220 states that operators of permanent supportive housing must work with communities to address concerns.  What will we do if they do not follow theexpectations and crime /public nuisance increases significantly in the surrounding community? At what pointcan the housing be shut down or removed? What decides? How is it funded? Is it private or public? I believe the answer to be a qualified “yes”.  Any regulations the city places on these facilities would need to be “reasonable,” must be to “protect public health and safety,” and “must not prevent the siting of a sufficient number” etc.  Any proposed regulation would also need to be consistent with other laws such as the Fair Housing Act.  For example, a landlord cannot exclude a person with a disability, though expectations of behavior and safety may still be required.  As an example, here is some language adopted by the City of Bellingham: All functions associated with the facility, including adequate waiting space, must take place within a building or on the site proposed to house the facility. Occupancy policies, including resident responsibilities and a code of conduct 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. Should the sponsor and/or managing agency become aware of a current or prospective resident who has an active felony warrant, it shall follow set protocol (as approved by the BPD) for contacting the BPD and addressing these warrants. The sponsor and/or managing agency shall provide notice to prospective residents that it will report any current or prospective resident known to have an active felony warrant to the BPD. If the Commission would like to incorporate similar language, staff would review this in further detail and propose language for incorporation into the proposed code at the 2nd Hearing date. Will the city be doing background checks on those in the permanent supportive housing? No -- the City is not resourced for this work and the City is not the owner or the operator of these facilities. Can you tell me what cities in East King County are doing in response to this bill?  I have learned that East King County allows tax breaks for a land grab while reserving construction to residents at the 120% AMI bracket.  This appears to shift lower income individuals to South King County and increases the divide.  I understand the purpose of the bill is to prevent displacement and provide opportunity.  I see the exact opposite occurring with every step of legislation that attempts to address this issue. Will HB 1220 nullify the land grab in East King County? Having worked for an East King County city for over 20 years, I am not sure what you mean by “land grab” or tax breaks.  What I can share is that I am aware of a development agreement, now expired, that required the developer to provide 10% of their housing units at no more than 120% AMI.  Since the “market” on the Eastside is above this, it was seen as a concession by the developer.  That development agreement also required 10% of the units at 80% AMI and 10% at 100% AMI.  That Agreement dated back to 1995.  The Eastside cities have gotten more aggressive on lower income housing (less than 50% AMI) since the mid ‘90s. Since Federal Way is a lower income community, we need to be on the defensive of any policy that takes our homes and businesses off the tax roll and adds many people who need more services.  We should be striving to prevent demographically and economically segregated communities.  While this bill aims to disrupt a shift that is occurring via gentrification, I think we need to take further bold measures in our city.  We do not have the big lawyers and bit money to find the loopholes and work with them, but we should be paying attention to those cities that do!  It is in the best interest in all residents living here that we strive for a thriving city that can attract opportunities and a tax base for services here. I’m guessing that eastside communities may not want to ban airbnbs and this bill could level the playing field if we decide to ban airbnbs if it nullifies permanent supportive housing.  But we will likely experience pushback in the waterfront communities where these homes might serve more vacationers rather than workers.  There are also many landlords that have shifted to airbnbs due to having less rights when it comes to removal of problem tenants.  Are you able to share any info on location of current airbnbs and any 911 calls or code enforcementcomplaints to those properties? Again, the Bill does not regulate these uses based on the existence or non-existence of short-term rentals.  In looking at the recommended changes in zones, does this involve upzoning from single family is some cases?  I just want to clarify this since the bill mentions consideration of duplexes triplexes and townhomes within an urban growth area boundary.  It is my understanding that duplexes are already allowed in zone RS 7.2 forexample, but would this allow triplexes and townhomes in this zone?  I just want to clarify since the bill also mentions that the goal remains to preserve single family housing stock. That is not the intent.  The House Bill does allow us to put “intensity” limits in our code.  The suggestion for 6 units in a single-family zone in a single structure assumed those would be bedrooms in a house and the house would then, be similar in appearance to other homes in the neighborhood.    If 6 seems like too many, we can talk about reducing that number to something more appropriate.  If you think the proposed code needs additional text to improve clarity – we can talk about that as well. Is there a way to provide a map of available buildable property that could be utilized for permanent supportivehousing? There are a few illustrations in the presentation materials from the 4th intended to do that.  There is a map that shows the zones that allow Emergency housing and shelter.  There is a second map that shows the zones that do not allow permanent supportive housing.  And, there is a map with a bunch of circles that is intended to show how the spacing might play out – as a maximum build out scenario.  Hopefully it will make more sense when I present it at the Hearing on the 18th? Since South King County is getting a lot of apartment homes funded by LIHTC with zero property tax supporting our city while other communities are getting high end condos and luxury apartments for “lease” it appears that there is a huge growing disparity, and we need to find a way to compile this data.  The LIHTC housing is built for 60% AMI but they may house mostly voucher holders in Federal Way (enabling a bigger tax break) which indicates that we do house more in the 30% or lower AMI than the data would indicate.  I have tried to find someone who can drill down on this data to compare across cities without any success.  I emailed a person by the name of Janet Lee who works on a housing data dashboard and she referred me to the Washington State Housing Finance Commission.  Do you know how we can get this important data?  It appears that the same economic segregation games are being played but the rules have just changed. Anna – maybe, but this may take some work.  Are you looking for a comparison of Federal Way to adjacent cities?  To S. King County cities?  To eastside cities?  To King County as a whole? Just to clarify, will there be an opportunity for public comment for any construction of permanent supportivehousing that is proposed prior to construction? What about housing in a home that is already constructed that will be converted? The proposed Code identifies all new construction requires a Use Process III.  That requires public notice and there would be an opportunity for the community to provide comments or suggestions on the proposed application prior to a decision.  There is also an opportunity to appeal the decision if anyone in the community believes the permit was issued in error.  As for using an existing structure – it depends.  If it is an existing house…or apartment building…or hotel, and no significant changes need to be made to the building, then it is just a change in ownership.  They would still need to comply with the Special Regulations and Notes.  If they took over a structure and needed to do improvements, it might trigger the Use Process III.  That would depend on the extent of the modifications. A new section added to the bill (section 7) has guidelines regarding accessory dwelling units.  Do these match ourcity guidelines?  One guideline states that the city or county may require the owner not to use the accessorydwelling unit for short-term rentals. Is this if we decide to ban short-term rentals?  I don’t’ understand this part and how it ties in with the bill.  Also, the city or county may not count residents of ADUs against existing limits on number of unrelated residents on the lot, does not require owner to reside in ADU, may not establish a minimum gross floor area for ADU that exceeds the state building code.  Can you tell me what the state building code is forADU?  The bill states that the city or county may not impose public street improvements as a condition of permitting ADUs.  What can the city do to address the lack of parking and sidewalks in older neighborhoodswith larger yards that may be a candidate for an ADU? Section 7 was vetoed by the Governor, so it did not become law.  No need to worry about Section 7. The bill states that the housing will be operated under the authority of a reputable governing board, social service, or government agency or proprietor, to whom staff are responsible and who will be available to the city officials, if necessary, to resolve concerns pertaining to the property or residents.  Who decides they are reputable and isthere a list currently? Good question – not that I am aware.  It is likely if we suspected an operator did not meet this criteria, we would need to prove that (legally). The housing will operate under a written community engagement plan, approved by the governing agency, board, or official, which must address at a minimum 1) How the facility will engage with the community. 2) How the facility will respond to community complaints or concerns and 3) Who is the point of contact for the community. Who is the governing agency, board or official? Can we get a list of approved guidelines to get an idea of whatthis looks like? The governing agency, board or official will vary depending on the owner of the property and the selected operator.  The Note we added: 5. The housing will operate under a written community engagement plan, approved by the governing agency, board, or official, which must address, at a minimum: 1) how the facility will engage with the community; 2) how the facility will respond to community complaints or concerns; and, 3) who is the point of contact for the community. The plan shall be provided to the city prior to occupancy and shall be updated and provided to the city as substantive changes are made to the plan. was intended to put some edges on this.  In other words, it was intended to set up some expectations from the community that each operator must comply with.  This proposal came from staff.  If the Commission would like to embellish this further, we can discuss that at the Hearing. Will there be signs in front of these projects that will indicate use of the home? That will be up to the owner/operator.  The proposed Code is not requiring signs nor is it suggesting we preclude them. Can the city impose fees for those operating permanent supportive housing? What type of fees?  To legally impose fees, a city must demonstrate impact and how those fees would mitigate that impact.  Also, we would need authority under the RCWs to impose those fees. Who will hold the governing body accountable that these homes are not simply turned into a cash cow and areactually helping people they way they are supposed to help? Good question – not sure I have an answer for you. What the proposed amount of housing need is met, does this nullify the state requirements to prevent anexcess? Does this bill expire at some point? We are required to plan for our 20-year need.  If at some point in the future we have sited a sufficient number of these uses to meet our projected need, we may be able to alter our regulations on these uses to further limit new applications.  This would be a complicated and potentially risky approach and we would need to carefully review any such future action to determine its legality.  From:Keith Niven To:Tina Piety Cc:Kent van Alstyne Subject: Date: Attachments: FW: Question On SEPA Answer Re: Homeless Housing Friday, August 13, 2021 11:14:49 AM Answers in red from: Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Planning Manager City of Federal Way (253) 835-2643 From: Diana Noble-Gulliford <federalwaydiana@gmail.com>  Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 11:05 AM To: Keith Niven <Keith.Niven@cityoffederalway.com> Subject: Re: Question On SEPA Answer Re: Homeless Housing [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING]This email originated from outside of the City of Federal Way and may not be trustworthy.Please use caution when clicking links, opening attachments, or replying to requests forinformation. If you have any doubts about the validity of this email please contact IT Help Deskat x2555. Good Day Keith: Here are my questions so far: 1.Federal Way already has housing for the homeless such as the FUSION and Wm Woods House for Veterans. Apparently FW did not need code changes for those facilities. Why do we need them now? The primary reason for the proposed code amendments is to ensure that Federal Way’s zoning regulations on homeless housing and shelter uses are legal, and comply with the new state law HB 1220.  Without the proposed code amendments, Federal Way’s code will directly violate state law. While current Federal Way code does allow homeless housing and shelter uses generally in some zones within the city – which has in the past allowed siting of the FUSION and Wm Woods House – HB 1220 requires permitting of such uses in a significantly larger number of zones than currently allowed under Federal Way code. The second primary reason for the code revision is that Federal Way’s code currently groups most types of homeless housing and shelter into a single use, Social service transitional housing.  But HB 1220 splits homeless housing and shelter uses into four distinct categories (Permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, Emergency housing and Emergency shelter), and places distinct requirements on cities with respect to permitting of each category.  In order to comply with HB 1220, and to neatly tailor city code requirements for these uses in order to meet the minimum requirements for each type of use, staff created new defined uses to match the terms in HB 1220.  Lastly, the proposed amendments would create a clear expectation for the community for where these types of housing facilities would be allowed, and what development standards would apply.  Previous treatment of these uses under Federal Way code did not create standards that could be applied consistently to all applications. 2.Has the city received input from SKFR and FWPD regarding the widespread zoning application for such housing? SKFR: I spoke with the Assistant Fire Marshall for South King County Fire.  He indicated there is not enough information currently for him to be sure of the potential service impacts.  However, his comments could be separated into 2 parts: fire & life/safety calls.  As for fire issues, he saw a benefit to pulling people out of the open spaces and parks as SKFR do respond to camp fires that are ill contained and the hope is that housing them in structures will result in less people using camp fires for heat, especially in the winter.  In terms of life/safety, SKFR expects there will be calls for illnesses, drug overdoses, etc. In general, SKFR is experiencing an increased response volume across the district with limited resources. Services are funded by property tax, so the question of funding responses to a growing number of tax-exempt properties is a policy decision that our governance board and community will need to address going forward. FWPD: I spoke with the Deputy Chief.  FWPD expressed concern that these housing facilities will increase the number of previously unhoused people coming in to Federal Way.  With them will come unregistered visitors (additional unhoused people sleeping in their friends’ apartment units), and a corresponding increase in crime in the area.  By clustering these populations there will be “hot spots” of public safety issues that will draw existing law enforcement resources from other parts of the City.  The only mitigation for these facilities would be additional law enforcement and behavioral care resources to assist these populations and decrease the strain of limited law enforcement resources serving other parts of the City. 3.What if the Extended Stay was purchased by a private or non-profit for a similar service - would the process and requirements be the same? Yes 4.Does the city have a current inventory of such homeless facilities at the present time in Federal Way? No 5.Urban services does not mention treatment facilities. Why is treatment lacking as a requirement for such housing? Staff did not list “treatment” as a requirement, but it may very well be offered by the operator of the housing facility.  Not every person experiencing homelessness has behavioral health concerns including mental health or substance abuse. Additionally, as was stated by King County representatives at the Council meeting on Monday, mandatory treatment has generally not been shown to be successful. As we consider what is the right code to put forward for consideration by the Council, it is important to think about what is the City’s role.  In other words, if we include something in code, is it the City’s responsibility for evaluating it and enforcing it?    This can be something the Commission can discuss and determine if it should be added to the proposed Code amendments.   6. Will the proposed zoning changes mean that this use can be allowed in all zones of Federal Way, including single family? Why single family? The emergency housing and shelters can go in zones that allow hotels, not single-family.  The Permanent supportive housing can go in zones that allow single family.   These are direct requirements from the House Bill that Federal Way does not have the legal ability to alter.  It is why we are proposing 2 new defined terms (Permanent supportive and transitional housing & Emergency housing and shelter) for these 4 types of housing defined in HB 1220 correlating the distinction to the zones where they are allowed.   7. Illegal drug use will be sanctioned by the city in such facilities if such facilities are allowed to operate in our city. How can this be right? The City is not sanctioning illegal activity in any residential units permitted in the City.  Illegal drug use is illegal drug use whether it happens in a park, in someone’s home, or in a permanent supportive housing unit.   8. What is the difference between temporary lodging and permanent lodging? Permanent supportive housing, because there is no time limit, is restricted to those persons who have some type of disabling condition that makes it difficult or impossible for them to live without additional support or to find other housing options.  Temporary housing is expected to be a stepping stone, providing individuals and families a safe option to living in their cars or on the street until they find permanent housing.    9. The type of user of such facilities is drug addicted. Why is there very little mention of treatment as a requirement to allow such facilities in FW? I am not sure how this is a separate question from # 5 above?   10. Why would such a facility be allowed in residential areas, close to schools, libraries  when halfway houses and sex offenders are monitored differently? While the city is required to allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing (but not emergency shelter or housing uses) in residential zones, the proposed code amendments do place separation requirements on some of the newly defined uses from other sensitive uses such as schools.  For instance, staff have suggested the Emergency shelters have a separation from public schools.  We did not suggest placing a separation for Permanent supportive housing.  Although there could be school-aged children in both types of housing, the Emergency shelters are intended to be short-term housing providing a stepping stone for more permanent housing.   Staff believe libraries are a public service that should not be separated from residents living in these facilities.   11. What is the difference between a safe injection site requirement and a homeless facility as proposed? In a safe injection site, typically, drug users come in with their own drugs and are given clean needles and a clean, safe space to consume them. Staff are on hand with breathing masks and naloxone, the overdose antidote, and to provide safe injection advice and information about drug treatment and other health services.  The goal is harm prevention -- to save lives and eventually curb opioid addiction. The Council has taken action to prevent safe injection sites within the city.   The proposed code amendments are intended to provide either short-term or long-term housing for those experiencing homelessness.  Emergency shelters are often the first place people turn to during or after experiencing an economic or domestic crisis and provides a temporary residence (typically 30 to 90 days) for people experiencing homelessness. Permanent supportive housing combines affordable housing assistance with voluntary support services to address the needs of chronically homeless people. The services are designed to build independent living and tenancy skills and connect people with community-based health care, treatment and employment services.  As mentioned in the response to question 7, the City is not sanctioning illegal activity in any residential units permitted in the City.  Illegal drug use is illegal drug use whether it happens in a park, in someone’s home, or in a permanent supportive housing unit.