Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071322 Comments Regarding Ordinance 05-0613 22________________________________ ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. ________________________________ July 13, 2022 Dear Jefferson County Commissioners Brotherton, Dean and Eisenhour, The Tiny Home Communities Housing Action Team (Tiny HAT) of the Housing Solutions Network in consultation with Bayside Housing and Community Build submitted four rounds of written comments during the development of the Temporary Housing Facilities Ordinance. In addition, we collectively provided many in person comments, while prior to that, Ms. Barbara Morey, assisted in the crafting of the December 2020 Emergency Ordinance 10-1221 20. Our objective in this work was and is to advocate for a regulatory framework for emergency and transitional housing services that: ● Centers the health, safety and dignity of persons experiencing homelessness within the ordinance, both in its language and objectives; ● Removes regulatory barriers to cost efficiency and service delivery effectiveness; ● Facilitates the tiny shelter (transitional housing) model with its focus on creating community as essential to the healing of persons experiencing homelessness; and ● Builds relationships among housing advocates and with Department of Community Development (DCD) planners and county electeds for the purpose of developing a shared understanding around what needs to be done and what is possible within the parameters of existing regulations and the public change process. While we are only one viewpoint within the broader community, it was a considerable surprise and shock to us that Tiny HAT objectives previously incorporated into the ordinance, vetted and passed by the Planning Commission, and overwhelmingly supported in public comment were discarded without discussion as to why during the final public hearing. Whether it is legal or not to do so, was intended or not, incorporating previously unvetted provisions into the ordinance at the last minute seems to contradict the purpose of the public hearing process. We appreciate the opportunity to address our concerns about Ordinance 05-0613 22 with respect to the regulations for siting, establishment, and operation of temporary housing facilities. We acknowledge the challenge of trying to address a complex social and economic problem with the land use code, especially as the historical record for exclusionary land use regulations is fraught, leading to segregated communities. For this reason, the Tiny HAT feels that the most useful and productive approach to enacting emergency and transitional housing facilities regulations is to take the time to get the framework right by fully engaging service providers and the community, including people with lived experience and potential facility occupants, in crafting a fully vetted temporary housing facilities ordinance. To this end, we have documented the changes between the May 23, 2022 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) workshop draft and the final Ordinance 05-0613 22, passed by the County Commissioners on June 13, 2022, in the attached report. The report also provides our analysis of the impact of these changes on the scope and intent of the ordinance. Thank you for your considered and complete reading of our report. Sincerely, The Tiny Home Communities Housing Action Team of the Housing Solutions Network Monica Aebly Peter Bonyun Liz Burman Julia Cochrane Gary Keister Carol McCreary Mike Moore Barbara Morey Libby Palmer Liz Revord Viki Sonntag (contact) Contact Info: vikis@ecopraxis.org <mailto:vikis@ecopraxis.org> ; 360 531 4676 Report attached as PDF and copied below. Report: Analysis of Temporary Housing Facilities Ordinance Changes To: Commissioners Greg Brotherton, Kate Dean, and Heidi Eisenhour, Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County, WA Prepared by: Tiny Home Communities Housing Action Team of Housing Solutions Network in Consultation with Bayside Housing and Community Build Date: July 13, 2022 This report documents the changes in the Temporary Housing Facilities Ordinance between the May 23, 2022 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) workshop draft and Ordinance 05-0613 22, passed by the County Commissioners following the June 13, 2022 public hearing on the ordinance. The report also provides an analysis of the impact of these changes on the scope and intent of the ordinance with respect to cost-efficient and effective emergency and transitional housing services. The report is organized as follows: Part 1. Definitional Changes Part 2. Deletions, Substitutions and Rewordings of Provisions Part 3. New Provisions Part 4. Reorganization Bolded text indicates Ordinance 05-0613 22’s actual language. Underlined text indicates changes between the May 23rd workshop draft and the final ordinance wording. Note that not all changes are identified, only those under discussion. Each ordinance provision discussed below is categorized according to the type of textual change, e.g., rewordings, deletions, and/or new provisions, indicated in italics following the cited provision. Part 1: Definitional Changes Summary of Changes: The June 13th ordinance introduces two new terms: “operating entity” and “temporary structures” and redefines the terms “transitional housing facility” and “tent facility”. Ordinance 05-0613. Appendix A. Sections 1. “Managing agency" means an individual or organization applying to permit a temporary housing facility under JCC 18. 20.385( 2)( a). Managing agencies are limited to religious organizations and non-profit agencies. A "managing agency" may be the same entity as the sponsor. (This paragraph is reworded.) Ordinance 05-0613. Appendix A. Sections 2. “Operating entity" for purposes of the temporary housing facility regulations in JCC18.20.385 means the sponsor, managing agency, and individuals or organizations qualified by the UDC administrator under JCC18.20.385(2)(a) to operate a temporary housing facility. (This paragraph introduces a new term.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 4. Paragraph (d) Analysis: The definition for “managing agency” was changed to add “individual” from the May 23rd workshop draft which read: “managing agency” means an organization ...” However, the second sentence of the definition limits agencies to organizations, that is, the definition is contradictory. Although the term “operating entity” is introduced to designate both sponsors and managing agencies, it is effectively redundant to the term “managing agency” as defined in Section 1 since that definition includes sponsors. Two terms with the same meaning is confusing. Current practice is to use the term “managing agency” such as in RCW 36.01.290. The term “operating entity” is also applied inconsistently in the document (see comment for Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d) below). Ordinance. Appendix A. Section 4. “Temporary housing facility" means a facility providing temporary housing accommodations pursuant to JCC 18.20.385. Temporary housing facilities include temporary structures as defined in JCC18.10.200 and may also include a safe parking area and common use structures. (This paragraph is reworded.) “Temporary tent facility" means a temporary housing facility for unhoused people that is composed of tents or other temporary structures, as approved pursuant to JCC18.20.385. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraphs May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 1. Paragraphs (a) and (b) Analysis: The rewording of the definitions for “temporary housing facility” and “temporary tent facility” erases the distinction between the two terms. In the May 23rd workshop draft, the term “temporary tent facilities” designates “short-term living facilities”. This definition signifies the distinction between emergency shelters and transitional housing, whereas Ordinance 05-0613 deletes the differences between the two service models, (i.e., emergency shelters and transitional housing), which, in turn, affects service outcomes. As such, the effect of this change is to alter the intent of the May 23rd draft. Transitional services differ from emergency services in several respects, not only having to do with differences in the shelter types (e.g. tent, RV, tiny shelter), length of permitted stay for residents, safety of residents, and operations, but also for their potential to move people out of homelessness into permanent housing. The lack of clear definitions for emergency and transitional facilities means that the provisions of the ordinance relating to facility management are a barrier to effective service delivery. “Temporary structures" includes tents, RVs, tiny shelters, and any other structure designed to provide personal and private shelter to an individual or family. (This paragraph introduces a new term.) Analysis: This definition is new and as remarked in the staff presentation at the June 13th hearing is intended to simplify references by introducing an umbrella term. However, the substitution of “temporary structure” for “tiny shelter” in the previous draft impacts the scope of the ordinance, resulting in numerous, seemingly unintended expansions of construction and life safety requirements as enumerated below. Part 2. Deletions, Substitutions and Rewordings. Summary of Changes: This section of the report discusses changes in scope or intent of provisions related to substitution of new terms, deletion of terms, or rewording of ordinance provisions from the May 23rd workshop draft to the June 13th ordinance as passed (Ordinance 05-0613 22). Many of these changes altered recommendations by the Building Committee that were adopted into the 4/20/22 draft of the ordinance. Please note that it does not list all rewordings in Ordinance 05-0613, only those impacting the scope or intent of the May 23rd workshop ordinance. Ordinance. Section 4. Paragraph (2). Any temporary structure containing a sleeping area must contain one operable window that allows for user controlled ventilation. ... Alternatively, an outswing door allowing egress from the tiny shelter may be substituted for the operable egress window. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 6. Paragraph (b) Analysis: The May 23rd workshop draft provision referred solely to tiny structures by inference. The final sentence of paragraph 2 above, which was not reworded, indicates that the provision was intended for tiny shelters. In addition, the May 25th draft included specific references to tents for some of the “Construction and Life Safety Requirements” provisions and reference to “tiny structures” in others. The Building Committee prepared a list of building and safety requirements which were incorporated into the April 20th draft presented to the Planning Commission. It appears that the final draft of the ordinance expanded the scope of application of these requirements beyond what was intended by the committee. In introducing the newly defined term “temporary structure” into the rewritten provision, the requirement for an egress window now applies to tents and RVs. This seems unintended. For example, would RVs not be given access to a facility without demonstrating an operable window in the sleeping area? Ordinance. Section 4. Paragraph (5) Each temporary structure and any common use building must contain a combination smoke/carbon monoxide detector with10-year lithium batteries. The operating entity shall ensure that all such detectors are properly placed and maintained. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 6. Paragraph (e) Analysis: The replacement of “tiny shelter” with “temporary structure” means that detectors must now be placed in tents and RVs. The differences between emergency service shelters (tents, personally owned RVs) and transitional housing shelters (tiny shelters) is critical to cost. If services are too costly relative to their effectiveness, then the community, with either public or private dollars, will not be able to afford sufficient services. Ordinance. Section 4. Paragraph (6) Each temporary structure and any common use building must contain a fire extinguisher with a minimum rating of 1-A:10-B:C. The operating entity shall ensure that all such detectors are properly placed and maintained. Fire extinguishers shall be inspected annually as required by the International Fire Code. (This paragraph is reworded. It also contains a deletion from the previous draft.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 6. Paragraph (f) “...If the fire extinguisher cannot be located inside the tiny shelter, it may be placed outside the egress door and be accessible.” (Deleted) Analysis: The replacement of “tiny shelter” with “temporary structure” means that fire extinguishers must be placed and maintained in tents, cars and RVs. It is not clear how this would be done. Also, fire extinguishers are not detectors (see second sentence in paragraph). The inadvisability of placing fire extinguishers in tents and other emergency service shelters was addressed in a May 4th written comment by OlyCap director Cherish Cronmiller that was not included in either the Planning Commission hearing packet or the BOCC hearing packet. The May 23rd workshop draft allowed for fire extinguishers to be placed outside of tiny shelters (see reference paragraph above) as recommended by Ms. Cronmiller. This change was noted by Joel Peterson in the May 23rd workshop but not discussed. However, in the staff presentation at the June 13th hearing, the deletion of the allowance was not noted in the presentation. Ordinance. Section 4. Paragraph (10) No smoking or vaping is permitted within any temporary structure as defined in JCC18.10.20, including tents, RVs, tiny shelters, and any other structure designed to provide personal and private shelter to an individual or family. The operating entity must provide a separate dedicated smoking area which is strictly enforced at all times to reduce, minimize or eliminate impacts to adjacent property owners and occupants of the tiny structures. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 6. Paragraph (j) Analysis: In this case the term “tiny structure” in the last sentence should have been “temporary structure”. It is unclear how this requirement could be imposed on residents living in their personal property such as an RV. Ordinance. Section 4. Paragraph (17) All structures shall be provided with a landing, with steps and a handrail when necessary as specified in the International Building Code. (This paragraph was reworded from the April 20th draft presented to the Planning Commission.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 6. Paragraph (p) Analysis: Although the wording of Section 6, paragraphs (15) and (17) are identical in both the workshop draft and the final ordinance, in light of the change in definitions for “temporary structures”, it is unclear to which structures these provisions apply. The IBC requirement for steps and a handrail, which was not contained in the original comments from the Building Committee, imposes commercial building standards for landings, steps and handrails on all facility structures. IBC Standards for building entries are more stringent and expensive than IRC standards. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(b)(ii) A permit for the same site may not be granted more than once in any calendar year, and a permit for the same site may not be granted sooner than 180 days from the date the site is vacated, unless otherwise provided in JCC 18.20.385(2)(b)(iii). (This paragraph is reworded.) Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(b)(iii) Temporary tent and tiny shelter village facilities may be approved for a period not to exceed 180 days. The administrator may grant two or more extension( s) not to exceed two additional years, provided all conditions have been complied with and circumstances associated with the use have not changed. Extensions are subject to a Type II review process and may be appealed to the hearing examiner as provided in JCC 18. 40.270. The permit shall specify a date by which the use shall be terminated and the site vacated and restored to its pre-facility condition. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraphs May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 7. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). Analysis: Owing to the prohibitive cost of moving tiny shelter villages, the recommendation to lengthen the permit period from the original two year allowance in the interim ordinance was the community’s highest priority dating back to the TIny HATs September 13th 2021 comments. We recommended that the county grant annual extensions as was done in other Washington jurisdictions. This recommendation to lengthen the permit period was supported numerous times in public comment by Bayside Housing and Community Build. In response, the permit duration was lengthened to 3 years (a one year allowance with two one year extensions) with a provision to re-permit. Later, the provision to re-permit was deleted and the Tiny HAT subsequently requested its reinsertion. It is also noted that in our September 13th 2021 comments we remarked that a two year permit period seemed inconsistent with the public investment in the Caswell-Brown development. Notwithstanding this input, the final draft submitted to the BOCC for deliberation shortened the permit period for tiny shelter villages by half to the one and a half year permit period of tent facilities. Director Butler remarked this this change was made with the intent to facilitate the permitting process for facilities containing both tents, RVs and tiny shelters. While this may be true for Caswell-Brown, the only mixed facility in the county, it is not the case for Peter’s Place. It was only after comment by Ms. Sonntag on the harmful impact of this change on Pat’s Place during the June 13th hearing that the period was extended to 2.5 years for both tent and tiny shelter villages during deliberation (in effect, an additional half year from the interim ordinance). Further, we now understand that the county is considering making Caswell-Brown, a permanent facility. Based on their operational differences, having an equivalent permit duration for both tent facilities and tiny shelter villages seems unwarranted. The tiny shelter village operational model is focused on creating a community to enhance the safety of its residents and to build skills that will enable residents to move onto permanent housing. This is only possible in transitional housing that provides a balance between privacy, social engagement and self-governance for up to two years or until permanent housing is located. Emergency shelters are not designed to provide this and are managed differently. The 180 day limit on the initial permit in paragraph (2)(b)(ii) is not consistent with RCW 36.01.290 which specifies a renewable one-year permit duration for tiny shelter villages. The 180 day restriction on same site re-permitting in paragraph (2)(b)(iii) violates RCW 36.01.290 which requires a separation of time of no more than 3 months. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d) The sponsor and the managing agency (collectively "the applicant") shall both sign an application for a conditional use permit approval of a temporary housing facility. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft Section 9. “Application for a Type II administrative permit shall be made on forms provided by the county, and shall be accompanied by the following information; provided, that the director may waive any of these items upon request by the applicant and finding that the item is not necessary to analyze the application. ...” Analysis: The term “operating entity” was introduced in the definitions to replace agency and managing agency and is not applied here as it is throughout the rest of this section. The substitution of a conditional use discretionary permit for a conditional use administrative permit is discussed below in relation to Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (1). Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(a)(i) Any individual or organization that applies to permit a temporary housing facility shall include information in its application materials that demonstrates one or more of the following: A) Experience providing similar services to unhoused individuals; ... D) Experience with similar services. (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 6. Paragraph (j) Analysis: The intent of sub-paragraph D) in this provision was changed by deleting the word “lived” in “Lived experience with similar experiences” from the May 25th draft. Sub-paragraphs A and D now say the same thing. “Lived experience” has a specific meaning referring to the experience of being homeless in contrast to formal credentials. As commented in our April 20, 2022 comments to the Planning Commission, “lived experience” qualifies individuals to provide site management, site maintenance, and human and social services. Also, by definition of managing agency in Section 1, an individual cannot apply for a permit. The intent of this paragraph seems to be to specify the qualifications of some individuals working for the managing organization, that is, the applicant, although not all individuals within the applicant organization will have the necessary qualifications. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(x) [A] list of any development standards under Chapter 18.30 JCC the applicant is seeking to modify; Reference paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 9. Paragraph (k): “A list of any requirements under this ordinance for which the applicant is asking to modify.” Analysis: The substitution of Chapter 18.30 Development Standards for “requirements under this ordinance” removes flexibility for the permit to be adapted to the circumstances of the particular facility. This flexibility is particularly important as the ordinance does not distinguish between emergency and transitional housing facilities for the main part. What if the codification were to reference both 18.20 and 18.30 standards? Part 3. New Provisions Summary of Changes: This section of the report discusses new requirements that were added to the ordinance between the May 23rd workshop draft and the final ordinance, including new safety and security measures and good neighbor policy and code of conduct requirements. In large part, these new provisions were never discussed in the hearing process which means their impacts on cost and service delivery effectiveness have not been considered. Ordinance. Section 4. Paragraph (20) Any tiny structure, or structure with more than one sleeping area, must be built to International Residential Code Appendix Q – Tiny Homes or be affixed with a label from WA State Labor and Industries. (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Analysis: This new provision, which was not identified during the June 13th staff presentation, means that all tiny “structures” in Peter’s Place no longer comply with Jefferson County Code as established through the ordinance. In fact, tiny shelters by definition, cannot meet this requirement. IRC Appendix Q (now Appendix AQ) standards require permanent provisions for eating or sanitation, that is, a kitchen and bathroom, as well as a permanent foundation. In addition, to our knowledge, WA State Labor and Industries (LNI) does not inspect or permit tiny structures. The requirement for tiny structures built to IRC standards or with a label from LNI also contradicts the definition set forth in the ordinance definition for “temporary tiny shelter village” as follows: “Temporary tiny structures for unhoused people are typically less than 200 square feet and easily constructed and moved to various locations. For the purposes of JCC 18.20.385, temporary tiny structures are not dwelling units for purposes of the building code.” In this definition, also in the May 23rd draft, the term “tiny structure” is used in lieu of “tiny shelter” which is more commonly used throughout the ordinance. The term sleeping area is not defined elsewhere in the ordinance. More than one sleeping area as potentially referring to tiny shelters that sleep two people, such as a mother and child. We are unsure what type of structure this paragraph refers to. The IRC is the standard for permanent dwellings. If any structure were to be built to IRC standards then it would be “permanent” and, as such, very expensive to remove (much less build – even tiny houses cost, on average, upwards of $50,000). A requirement of this sort for any “permanent” structure also conflicts with the requirement for the site to be restored to its pre-facility condition as per Appendix A. Section 6. (2)(b)(iii) of the ordinance. During the Planning Commission discussions, it was established by planning staff that Washington State Law provides for housing in tiny shelters through an exemption from IRC requirements (WAC 51-16-030). Further, in comments on the Interim Ordinance dated September 13, 2021, theTiny Home Communities HAT recommended that tiny shelters not be referred to as temporary tiny homes in part to avoid this confusion in requirements. This recommendation was incorporated in the draft ordinance. Section 5. JCC 18. 15. 040 is amended to read:Table 3- 1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses … C(d) in all rural residential zones; prohibited in all other zones Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (1) ... Approvals and extensions for approvals of temporary housing facilities will be processed as a conditional use permit (discretionary) (C(d)) pursuant to pursuant to JCC 18. 15. 040 and JCC 18. 40. 040 in rural residential zones only. In all other zones, approvals and extensions for approvals of temporary housing facilities are prohibited. (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft Section 9. “Application for a Type II administrative permit shall be made on forms provided by the county, and shall be accompanied by the following information; provided, that the director may waive any of these items upon request by the applicant and finding that the item is not necessary to analyze the application. ...” Analysis: The new requirements for a discretionary conditional use permit as opposed to an “administrative permit” as required in the May 23rd draft and the restriction of facilities to rural residential zones raises several questions regarding the impact of the new requirements on existing facilities. For example, Peter’s Place is located in the UGA which is not a rural-residential zone in Table 3-1. It is also unclear whether this requirement violates the rights of religious organizations to host facilities on their properties in RCW 36-01-290. Quilcene and Brinnon are primarily zoned as rural village centers, which are designated as commercial zones in Table 3-1, so the question is whether restricting facilities to rural residential zones conflict with RCW 36.01-290 should a church in Quilcene or Brinnon elect to host a facility. The upgrading of the permit from what was understood to be an “administrative conditional” use in the May 23rd draft to a discretionary conditional use in the final ordinance may incur substantial additional costs. It is noted that the permitting of Pat’s Place in Port Townsend under a Type II permit process cost over $50,000 and that higher level permits require even more time and resources both of the applicant and the county. A Type III process may be prohibitively expensive for managing agencies to assume and introduces a great deal of uncertainty into the permitting process. Further, it is not clear that the director can find conditions “relating to location, design, configuration, and potential impacts to surrounding properties” per JCC 18.40.520 that did not contravene RCW 36.01.290 which limits imposing conditions other than those necessary to protect public health and safety on facilities hosted by religious organizations. It would seem that RCW 36.01.290 would restrict the determination of declaring a Type III process other than for reasons related to a potential health and safety impact on surrounding properties. Although a Type II process for extensions is not a new requirement, we note that after a combined experience of over two years with two different tiny shelter villages, one in the county and one in the city, with virtually no incidents of complaint requiring law enforcement intervention, the need for a Type II review process for extensions seems excessive and costly, both to the managing agency and the county. When enacting the interim ordinance to extend the permit length for temporary “encampments” in Port Townsend, the city sent a notice of the public hearing for the new ordinance to everyone who had previously submitted written comments protesting the siting of Pat’s Place. The interim ordinance removed the requirement of a Type II process for extensions. No comments were received in opposition to this new ordinance. This experience is consistent with the Portland State University research on the pattern of opposition to the siting of tiny shelter villages (https://www.pdx.edu/homelessness/evaluation-best-practic es-village-model). At first, there is significant resistance based on misperceptions of these communities and their residents and then opposition dies after the village goes into operation. It is also noted that there were emails in support of the May 23rd draft ordinance from neighbors to Peter’s Place based on their positive experience of the village and contrary to their expectation. Please note that “pursuant to” repeats in paragraph (1). Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(c)(i) [A temporary housing facility] shall be located in reasonable proximity to public services through use of public transit. If the proposed site is not in reasonable proximity, the applicant may meet this requirement by providing a plan demonstrating how the applicant will provide access to public services to occupants of the proposed facility. (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Analysis: The requirement for facilities to be located in reasonable proximity to public services or have a plan to access public services in combination with the restriction of facilities to rural residential zones seems to severely restrict possible locations for facilities. While we support the addition of criteria for proximity to public services, we are concerned that the two requirements together may eliminate most sites, particularly in the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xv) a safety and security plan which incorporates feedback from local law enforcement services, describing measures that the site manager will employ to promote the safety of facility occupants and surrounding residents and businesses, including, but not limited to: A) criteria for rejection or removal of an individual seeking access to temporary housing facility; B) a plan for deployment (including time, place and manner) of security patrols; C) a plan to address disruptive behavior in the facility and in the perimeter area that infringes on the safety of occupants or employees of the use, and a description of the consequences for engaging in disruptive behavior; D) a plan for managing unpermitted occupation in the perimeter area of the homeless services use; E) identification of site-specific magnet areas (e.g., greenbelts, parks, libraries, transit facilities, etc.) and a plan to address behavior that is inconsistent with the code of conduct and Jefferson County code; F) implementation of registered sex offender background checks and compliance with applicable registration and notification requirements; G) a plan for managing individuals excluded or removed from a temporary housing facility; and (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 5. Paragraph (j): The sponsor or managing agency shall provide and enforce entry, grievance, and denial of service policies, which not only provides for the health, safety and welfare of the temporary facility residents, but also mitigates impacts to neighbors and the community. A copy of the policies shall be submitted to the County at the time of application for the administrative use permit. Said policies should be incorporated into the conditions for approval. The managing agency shall post the County approved policies on site. The sponsor or managing agency shall implement a code of conduct developed by the occupants of the facility to implement said policies. Analysis: The new safety-and-security plan provisions (paragraphs B, C, D, E, and G above) radically expands the scope of the managing agencies’ responsibility for residents’ behavior, imposes new controls impacting the agency-client relationship, and limits the residents’ investment in said policies. The requirement for security patrols in paragraph B supplants practices now in effect in self-managed villages. Security patrols are not defined in the ordinance which may cause unrealistic expectations around what best serves the residents and the community. The provisions contained in paragraphs C, D, E and G - making the managing agencies responsible for the off-site behaviors and actions of residents and people who never were or are no longer clients - were introduced in the June 13th draft. All of these new requirements were added without consultation with the managing agencies OlyCap and Bayside Housing. It is questionable whether it is feasible or possibly legal for the managing agencies to undertake these new measures. This is especially troubling in light of the exemplary management of the facilities Peter’s Place and Pat’s Place with over two years of operation between them and no incidents requiring law enforcement intervention. In his support for Peter’s Place in a letter dated May 4, 2022, Sheriff Nole wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, we have had extremely minimal contact with the residents of Peter’s Place. Less contact than we have with the general public. Peter’s Place is located near the Jefferson County Sheriff’’s Office and they have been nothing but good neighbors.” If left standing, the new provisions will also impact the operating costs of these facilities, making it prohibitively expensive to provide services. It is also uncertain how they would be applied retroactively to existing facilities, how they might disrupt existing practices, and how they might align with existing state and federal regulations for service provision. It is further troubling that these new provisions have been adopted wholesale from the Bellevue Municipal Code (20.20.455). Bellevue is a politically conservative suburban city which not only makes it a strange choice for example zoning code for a moderately progressive rural county but also Bellevue has no experience in establishing transitional housing villages. In fact, the City of Bellevue’s effort to identify a site for a new shelter for single men has taken eight years because of community opposition. As such, the Bellevue code is highly problematic for its language that negatively stereotypes and criminalizes people experiencing homelessness. In sum, these new, unvetted safety and security plan requirements change the management objectives from supporting individuals in their journey to safe housing, to stereotyping and criminalizing their purported behaviors. It is questionable whether such provisions belong in the land use code. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xviii) a plan for addressing reported concerns and documenting resolution, and making this information publicly available; (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Analysis: This requirement is onerous and vague as to what constitutes “concerns”. It is also redundant to the implementation of a comprehensive good neighbor policy which works through connection and public education not reporting on “concerns”. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xvix) identification of performance metrics that will be used to track compliance with the safety and security plan; and (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Analysis: This new requirement for performance metrics for tracking compliance with the safety and security plan is onerous and is not in alignment with objectives of the managing agencies, the primary one of which is to provide a safe and secure environment that allows individuals to find permanent housing. An appropriate tracking measure in this respect is the percentage of residents being placed into permanent housing. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xx) a compendium of policies, which will be incorporated into the conditions of approval, that address the following issues: ... C) a "good neighbor" policy that sets out a plan for continuous engagement with the community and a process for addressing grievances of temporary facility residents, concerned neighbors, and citizens of the broader community, and which will be: I. developed through documented outreach to the adjacent residents; and II. presented to the board of county commissioners in a public session that includes the opportunity for public comment; and D) any other policies necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of temporary facility residents, neighbors, and the broader community; and E) a proposed code of conduct to be further developed and adopted by the occupants of the facility. A “code of conduct” is an agreement on rules of behavior between occupants of a temporary housing facility, and between occupants and the operating entity. The code of conduct is intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the occupants and employees of the temporary housing facility, and surrounding residents and businesses. The code of conduct shall include, but is not limited to provisions committing occupants to the following: I. respecting the rights of the property owner to restrict access to areas of their property that are not open to the public or to facility occupants; II using operator-suggested routes of travel to access the temporary housing facility use; III. maintaining the site aesthetics; IV. respecting state law restrictions on smoking and agreeing to use designated smoking areas where provided; V. respecting any rules required by the operating entity as a condition of entry to the site; VI. complying with terms of any “good neighbor” agreement provisions that apply to occupants of the temporary housing facility. (This paragraph is a new requirement.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 5. Paragraph (j): The sponsor or managing agency shall provide and enforce entry, grievance, and denial of service policies, which not only provides for the health, safety and welfare of the temporary facility residents, but also mitigates impacts to neighbors and the community. A copy of the policies shall be submitted to the County at the time of application for the administrative use permit. Said policies should be incorporated into the conditions for approval. The managing agency shall post the County approved policies on site. The sponsor or managing agency shall implement a code of conduct developed by the occupants of the facility to implement said policies. Reference Paragraph June 13th Draft Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xx)(C) a process for addressing grievances of both temporary facility residents, concerned neighbors, and citizens of the broader community; Analysis: This new requirement for a compendium of policies (which is redundant to the Operating Plan as discussed in the next section of this report) significantly expands the responsibilities of the managing agency and alters the intent of operating policies already in effect in existing facilities. It also deletes the important provision for a resident grievance policy. In modifying the draft ordinance submitted by staff at the June 13th deliberation, the requirement for a grievance policy protecting residents from unfair treatment by the managing agency was deleted. This is an important protection for the safety and welfare of residents without which residents may leave the facility without having secured alternative housing. This negates service effectiveness. Paragraph C and D appear to be a blanket requirement for the managing agency to institute policies in response to neighbors’ opposition to facilities for people experiencing homelessness. It is unclear who determines what other policies may be “necessary” in Paragraph D. With regard to Paragraph C, current practice by managing agencies includes procedures to connect with neighbors and respond to complaints in the appropriate manner. Further, RCW 3601.290 requires religious organizations hosting facilities to hold a meeting open to the public to discuss neighbor’s concerns prior to the facilities opening (not as a condition of approval for building) with concomitant requirements by the county to notify the public. To expand the scope of creating and implementing a good neighbor policy which will be “developed through documented outreach to the adjacent residents and presents this to the board of county commissioners in a public session that includes the opportunity for public comment” through a submittal requirement is to off-load the responsibility for public discussion of the requirements for siting onto the managing agency. Further, it is unlikely to prevent opposition during the permitting process. Finally, it seems to contravene the intent of good neighbor policies to establish neighborly relations. For example, what is the responsibility of the managing agency if a neighbor does not want a facility located next to them because of prejudice or for unsubstantiated reasons? The expansion of the code of conduct provisions also changes the intent of the workshop draft of the ordinance to allow for self-governed facilities. By specifying what is to be included in the code of conduct, the county is obstructing the ability of the managing agency to create a safe and secure environment for facility residents. We repeatedly noted in our comments to the Planning Commission during the drafting of the ordinance the need for a code of conduct that ensured a right to self-governance. Again, it would be wise to consult the managing agencies as to what is contained in their codes of conduct. Using the land use code to tell managing agencies how to do their business in providing services to residents goes beyond what is allowed by RCW 36.01.290 by “imposing conditions other than those necessary to protect public health and safety” and changes the intent of the previous draft of the ordinance. Finally, the managing agencies are not interested in “skirting the rules”. It is in their best interest to comply with the essential requirements for doing their job. However, if regulations become too difficult or onerous to comply with, they may no longer be able to provide effective service delivery and may consider the permitting process and compliance to undermine their missions. Part 4. Reorganization Summary of Changes: This section of the report discusses the reorganization of the ordinance which was intended to improve its clarity. While we support the intention of this effort, our analysis reveals that the reorganization has unnecessarily complicated the understanding of what the requirements are by introducing contradictions into the ordinance and through the proliferation of plans within plans and policies within submittal requirements. The list below is not exhaustive. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2) The following site requirements shall apply to all temporary housing facilities, unless modified through approval of a Type II conditional use permit pursuant to JCC 18.15.040 and JCC 18.40.040 and consistent with the purposes of this section: (This paragraph is reworded.) Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 5. Analysis: This paragraph begins the reorganization of the document but refers to “site requirements” whereas Section 6 also covers qualifications (paragraph 2(a)), frequency and duration of facility (paragraph 2(b)), etc. in addition to location and site requirements (paragraph 2(c)). Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xvii) provision of a phone number and point of contact at the site of the proposed temporary housing facility for the community to report concerns; (This paragraph was moved.) Analysis: How do you provide a phone number and point of contact in advance of getting an operations (that is, administrative use) permit? This submittal requirement is illustrative of a number of procedural muddles in the ordinance related to requiring operating plans and policies as submittal requirements. The next comment is related to this confusion. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraphs (2)(d)(xii), (2)(d)(xiii), and (2)(d)(xiv). “... The approved plan shall be included as a condition of approval.” Reference Paragraph May 23rd Workshop Draft: Section 8. “[P]ermit required: Establishment of a temporary housing facility shall require approval of an administrative use permit, as described in this ordinance, and compliance with all applicable County regulations. The director shall have the authority to grant, grant with conditions or deny the application for an administrative use permit under this ordinance. Analysis: The above three paragraphs in the final ordinance specify the submittal requirements for the perimeter plan, transportation plan and operations plans respectively. It is not clear how a plan can be approved before its “included as a condition of approval”. The permit process as it now stands is in two phases that roughly break down as: site and building plans to be submitted with the application and the operating plans to be approved through the administrative use permit (i.e., operations permit or the facility opening). This allows for construction to begin before all operational plans have been finalized which are often dependent on outside input such as in the requirement for safety and security plans or good neighbor policies. The ordinance could provide for a better understanding of the permitting process. Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xiv): [A]n operations plan, including standard operating procedures, that shall address site management, site maintenance, and provision of human and social services, including but not limited to the requirements of JCC 18. 20.385(2). The approved plan shall be included as a condition of approval; Appendix A. Section 6. Paragraph (2)(d)(xx): [A] compendium of policies, which will be incorporated into the conditions of approval, that address the following issues: … D) any other policies necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of temporary facility residents, neighbors, and the broader community; and … Analysis: It is unclear how the compendium, which is a new requirement, differs from the operating plan which by definition subsumes other plans and policies related to site management, site maintenance and provision of services. This lack of clarity makes the application process confusing and difficult which, in turn, potentially complicates relationships between the permitting staff and the managing agencies.